Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5699039" data-attributes="member: 82106">But which of these things needs to be 'fixed'? Every character ALREADY has non-combat areas of expertise. Even the lowly fighter gets at least 3 skills right off the bat. Even assuming he takes Athletics, Endurance, and Heal as his 3 skills they have myriad non-combat uses and such a character will have plenty of opportunities to use these skills. He'll also have a pretty decent skill bonus in certain other skills, which he can use effectively as well. I don't see how a niche non-combat role is going to make any difference.I don't understand what the difference between 'magical stealth' and 'non-magical stealth' IS. 4e makes no magic/mundane distinction at all. The two are already balanced, they are the same thing. Again, I don't understand how non-combat roles creates any kind of context any more than combat roles are required to gauge the balance between two characters that both do damage with their attacks. What creates that context is the combat mechanics of the game. Likewise non-combat mechanics create the context in which those kinds of abilities are judged. In neither case would role particularly contribute to that. If a wizard casts a damaging spell it can be balanced against a rogue using a damaging power. The fact that one is a striker and the other is a controller is only incidental.I'm not finding any difficulty in knowing the capabilities of the party as it is though. 4e is already remarkably strong here. At most I might want to know the skill bonuses of the PCs so I can decide what DCs to use or what sort of challenges they will like to take on. Again, I'd like to see IN PRACTICE, not as pure statement gathered out of vague theorycrafting, where non-combat roles really add to the game in a material way. Personally I like the flexibility that exists in the system now in that space. I don't see where there are compelling mappings between tactics and role as there are in combat, where they are very natural. Yes, there are general categorizations that you can make about characters, this guy is the 'face', but what he's going to DO and how he's going to do it are not going to be that consistent across challenges. Many challenges don't even meaningfully relate to a role. ALL combat encounters engage the combat roles, without exception. The two things simply aren't comparable and I would consider it a mistake to try to conform them to the same structure merely because that seems to fill a desire for meaningless consistency.Really, it was a thought that was interesting to contemplate momentarily, but I just haven't found a compelling reason for adding mechanics to the game for this.</blockquote>

Verification