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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kzach" data-source="post: 5836064" data-attributes="member: 56189">After thinking on this a bit more, I think what my main problem is, is that there is no distinction between combat and non-combat roles. In AD&D, this wasn't a problem because combat abilities weren't a huge focus. But as systems advanced, so too did the focus intensify on combat ability.I think a problem then stems from their being a mental rather than mechanical division in systems. Sure, you can make a 'skill-monkey', but you do so at the sacrifice of combat ability, or vice-versa with a combat-wombat. The notion of a fighter having few non-combat skills because they focus on combat is at the centre of this mental divide as much as the thief is on the opposite side of that.Instead, what we need is a system that divides combat and non-combat abilities EVENLY throughout the classes and have two different systems for both where ALL classes have a 50/50 split between combat and non-combat effectiveness. By separating the systems entirely, you no longer have a situation where someone can focus every available option on getting the maximum combat effectiveness out of a character, or vice-versa. Instead you have feats and skill points (or whatever is used) for non-combat abilities that are entirely separate from the feats and skill points used for combat abilities.This way you could make a sly and sneaky combatant or a heavily armoured cavalier using the same base class and neither would overshadow the other, in terms of gross potential ability, in either combat or non-combat arenas.</blockquote>

Verification