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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Benjamin Olson" data-source="post: 9853214" data-attributes="member: 6988941">I think virtually all of D&D is pigeonholed as only doing combat. Fighters just get the worst of it. They don't get spells (one of the major mechanisms into which mechanical support for non-combat play is lumped). They are always at or near the bottom in terms of getting skill access, with skills being the core of noncombat play these days. The main other way the game supports non-combat play is with the occasional class ability, but the name "Fighter" suggests that suitably flavorful abilities for the class should relate to fighting.In my own attempt at a 5e clone several years back I replaced fighters with Warriors, Sellswords, and Hunters, and the latter two at least lent themself more to having some non-combat abilities.But part of the reason that project fizzled out is that it was still very much a 5e D&D game I was designing, and after stepping away from 5e for a couple years and having to attempt to slightly relearn everything for 2024 5e I just realized that the whole system has become too bogged down with combat abilities. Most of my favorite D&D memories are non-combat experiences, yet 90% of the rules are combat, most of the mental load of planning or running a game relates to having balanced combats and combat stats familiar and at the ready, and then the actual combats are often on the sloggy side. Now I'm not saying combat shouldn't get a lot of rules support or that it shouldn't be the biggest pillar of play, but at this point it has just gobbled up the whole game entirely.</blockquote>

Verification