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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tombowings" data-source="post: 4022076" data-attributes="member: 56324">True, combat takes much of the session is most games. However, this isn't true for every campaign. I would agree that I have a very non-standard group, and we have 10-20% of each session devoted to combat. Everything else usually comes under the heading of "Roleplaying." However, "Roleplaying" is a broad heading at ours, and, I would presume, many other's game tables. You have conversations between PC, conversations between NPC (bartering, gathering information, general tavern scenes, ect.), Multi-step traps (yes, traps can be interesting to not only the rogue), surviving environmental extremes, scouting, deciphering runes, puzzles, and moral debates (whether it is OK to slay the orc children because of what their parents have done to the nearby village). There are many more I could lost, but I'll save us all some time.What I'm trying to say is that, not everything is about combat, and it would be nice to have a character that is a "specialist" is a noncombat situation. This doesn't mean they can't have something meaningful or interesting to contribute to battles, but it does mean that they are more gifted in fields other than combat. The ideal system would be that there were combat and noncombat powers and players would be given the choice over what their character could specialize in. Unlike other posts, though, I think this will be an option given to players through feats. As was said by one of the designers (I don't have the exact quote, sorry) that you can build your fighter to be socially adept using feats, but the your fighter will never have the combat prowess that a fighter built only for the battlefield will have.This, I feel, is the right descision.</blockquote>

Verification