Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 3302064" data-attributes="member: 6777">I don't see that as the case. How does it actively discourage teamwork and problem-solving?The CR system, imperfect as it may be, assumes a default party of four PCs with the basic roles of warrior-guy, arcane-guy, divine-guy, and sneaky-guy all covered. A PC's odds of surviving a solo combat encounter that would provide enough XP to be worthwhile are drastically lower than they'd be with the full party present.I'd revise your question to be: &quot;If D&amp;D encouraged people to work together more, what would that look like?&quot;D&amp;D is all about the team. Take a look at the chapter in PHB2 that talks about compensating for the absence of key class roles, and you'll see how vital it is that adventurers form groups as opposed to going it alone. The entire CR system is based around the assumption that each PC will have access to resources provided by other classes. You cannot run D&amp;D with standard CR/EL with a party of less than four without challenge adjustment or resorting to solutions like gestalt classes.Try being in a party with a cleric being run by an incompetent player sometime; everything gets more difficult without the healing and buffing clerics offer. Try being in a party with no arcane caster; everything gets more difficult without the effective ranged attacks sorcerers and wizards have access to. And so on...I understand that you're not intending your query as a criticism. But D&amp;D is already so team-focused that I honestly think the issue is moot. Loners break D&amp;D... just look at any of the myriad complaints about players who have used incorrect interpretations of Chaotic Neutral to justify anti-party behavior.Anyway, as a more direct answer to your question, I'd maybe take a look at the teamwork benefits rules in, iirc, DMG2.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="buzz, post: 3302064, member: 6777"] I don't see that as the case. How does it actively discourage teamwork and problem-solving? The CR system, imperfect as it may be, assumes a default party of four PCs with the basic roles of warrior-guy, arcane-guy, divine-guy, and sneaky-guy all covered. A PC's odds of surviving a solo combat encounter that would provide enough XP to be worthwhile are drastically lower than they'd be with the full party present. I'd revise your question to be: "If D&D encouraged people to work together [B]more[/B], what would that look like?" D&D is all about the team. Take a look at the chapter in PHB2 that talks about compensating for the absence of key class roles, and you'll see how vital it is that adventurers form groups as opposed to going it alone. The entire CR system is based around the assumption that each PC will have access to resources [I]provided by other classes[/I]. You cannot run D&D with standard CR/EL with a party of less than four without challenge adjustment or resorting to solutions like gestalt classes. Try being in a party with a cleric being run by an incompetent player sometime; everything gets more difficult without the healing and buffing clerics offer. Try being in a party with no arcane caster; everything gets more difficult without the effective ranged attacks sorcerers and wizards have access to. And so on... I understand that you're not intending your query as a criticism. But D&D is already so team-focused that I honestly think the issue is moot. Loners break D&D... just look at any of the myriad complaints about players who have used [B]incorrect[/B] interpretations of Chaotic Neutral to justify anti-party behavior. Anyway, as a more direct answer to your question, I'd maybe take a look at the teamwork benefits rules in, iirc, DMG2. [/QUOTE]

Verification