Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Allister" data-source="post: 4525425" data-attributes="member: 1082">I'm curious as to WHY having roles that dictate both combat and non-combat is considered a GOOD thing. I keep seeing people saying this is a good thing but I'm not sure how.Seriously, as a DM I hated this since I had to always keep in mind that the other guy whose class was weak in combat needed non-combat encounters to shine.However, that led to the SR problem where only that character took part (Deckers) and just like Shadowrun, I found it actually discouraged non-combat encounters.If, for example, I wanted to design a social encounter where the PCs had to cajole, convince some nobles, in 4E, I can be reasonably certain that everyone can contribute due to the skill challenge mechanic and the inherent nature of the skill system.In 3E? Looks like only the bard is taking part since the rogue has spent points on "dungeon-exploration" and the fighter has only points in the class skills.So why would a DM actually be encouraged to run non-combat encounters when there's a good chance that the other people in the group are just going to be fiddling their thumbs?re: 4E's design focusI still believe that one of the main reasons why 4E switched its focus was due to 2 things.a) fantasy has changedIt's hard to deny that the LotR movies actually are more "wahoo" than the books and the influence of anime on the target audience can not be underestimated. To many in the target audience, it is no longer LotR the novels, but LotR, the movies.b) less available timeI think this is another factor that gets underestimated. Pre 4E (and mostly pre-3E), the classes were balanced on the fact that over the course of a campaign (a couple years if not more), each class would get a chance to shine.I don't think this is true anymore. WOTC's target audience is no longer one that has the time is my hunch to have the classes be balanced over time. Each class, be it in combat or noncombat is supposed to be able to contribute to that encounter.</blockquote>

Verification