Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9855153" data-attributes="member: 7026617">Then I can ask why you'd do that with an interim combat that isn't likely to be necessarily any more fun or interesting.  If you wouldn't, you're not the person my argument is really directed at.To some extent, sure.  But that can be handled, depending on the game, by the amount of spendable resource and capping.  There are plenty of games that give you X number points where you can cover the basic ground for combat with a lot less than X, so there's still room for plenty of other things.  This is particularly easy in games with either pretty broad categories (Savage Worlds: Shooting) or narrow ones, because investing in either allows you to cover the weapons you're likely to really need; in some of these, spending more on broader combat options isn't always even useful to combat specialists.  And of course you can have your cost system have diminishing returns (so a tiny bit more combat capability at some point costs as much as buying a number of other non-combat bonuses).D&D doesn't do that because its carrying a legacy where combat and spellcasting capabilities existed as their own thing in the mechanical structure since day one, and by the time even the prototypical skills came in (non-combat proficiencies) it was unlikeyly they were going to back up and change that.</blockquote>