Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5712704" data-attributes="member: 82106">Hmmmmmmm. I obviously agree with the 'short skill list' thing. We've pretty clearly established the superiority of that approach. I also agree that having a 'silo' for the obscure sorts of marginally relevant to adventuring kinds of background elements of the character makes perfect sense, if for no other reason than to make sure people pay attention to that dimension of the game. OTOH I'm kind of skeptical about the whole aspect of 'combat' vs 'non-combat'. I disagree that there is a real distinction. I think OFTEN you can say that a SITUATION may be one or the other. I'm just not entirely sold on the concept that it is a good idea for a game to build a wall between the two. It is rather artificial. 4e has been beat on a whole lot for things like making it impossible to use a ritual in a combat situation. Likewise attack powers aren't really applicable to other situations. I think the distinction needs to be made irrelevant, not enforced even more. Obviously some things will mostly not be relevant in a straight hack-em-up swordfight and other things won't find a lot of utility in a diplomatic negotiation, but the game should consist more of a continuum between those extremes vs trying to break it up into 2 totally different realms that can't meet and where you have almost virtually 2 separate character sheets.</blockquote>