Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6240199" data-attributes="member: 5143">While they've added more and more non-combat rules, they've also added more and more combat rules.  The number of combat rules has vastly increased and the non-combat ones have increased slightly.The percentage of combat rules has actually increased with the more recent editions.I know that the amount of time spent on combat has increased over the editions.  We finished combats in 5-20 minutes in 2e.  It takes 60-90 minutes to finish a combat in 3e or 4e.To me, that shows an increase in the focus of combat since now it takes up more of a session to run a combat and you spend more of your time dealing with combat.Also, when people make up characters they spend more time thinking of how their character will perform in combat than they did in ages past.  When I made up a 2e character, my thought was "Ok, I'm a fighter, I'm going to use a longsword in battle."  In 4e, I have to pick the right combat feats, the right powers to have the best synergy with one another and the right weapon to qualify for the powers and feats I want.  If I'm higher level, I have to choose appropriate magic items that synergize with my feat and power selections.Honestly, it depends on how many more non-combat rules we are adding. That's kind of my point, but condensing it to easy and quick rules and taking up half the space, you are losing rules.  By making them simpler, you are likely reducing the focus and detail of combat.  One will have to be sacrificed for the other.But we're already had a year long playtest of rules that I like.  We don't need another year of playtests on another set of rules with more non-combat content.  Nor could WOTC survive another year without putting out a product.Yes, and it prevented new players from buying them.  WOTC has said explicitly that the reason they separated the classes in the Essentials books into 2 books is to keep the page count down and therefore the price.It's the number one reason I have heard given to me when new players come up to me at games days and say "I'd like to play, but I can't afford 40 dollars for a book, is there something cheaper I can buy?"  Those are people who don't even want a MM or DMG they just want to know the rules so they can show up for things like D&D Encounters and Living Forgotten Realms.There's no way to prove this.  You'd have to have the ability to know every game of D&D that was happening everywhere and film it all.  Since that's impossible, I can only guess.However, I do have a vast amount of experience with D&D.  Way more than most people do.  This has a lot to do with the fact that I've traveled extensively and played D&D with people everywhere I've traveled.  I specifically go to conventions and lived for a year in another country and had to make all new D&D friends there.However, it's been my experience that in terms of pure time using the rules, the combat rules are always used the most.  A large number of people run dungeon crawls almost exclusively.  When an adventure consists of "You open the door, there are 12 orcs, roll for initiative." there are very few other rules used ever.Skill Tricks seemed like a good idea at the time.  However, most of the skill tricks were still combat oriented or more useful in combat than they were outside of combat. "Demoralize multiple foes in combat simultaneously" and "Successful feint allows you to avoid attacks of opportunity" certainly aren't non-combat abilities.Same with Utility powers.  The average one gives you temporary hitpoints, lets you shift 10 squares to avoid OAs, or heals an ally.  None of which are non-combat abilities.Non-combat abilities are things like "You can stay at inns for free", "You are always given an invitation to the ball if you are in town", and "You can use the resources of the thieves guild in any city you go to".  There have been nearly none of these abilities in any edition of D&D.  I'm glad D&D Next has a couple of these, but I'd hope not to go too much further in that direction.And I'm glad for that.  D&D went too far in that direction.  I've been playing D&D Next for over a year now.  When you said "more noncombat" I assumed you meant starting with D&D Next as the baseline then going further to the non-combat side.That having been said, the game itself has just as much combat in it, it's just that the focus on it is slightly lifted due to combat taking less time and there being less combat abilities to choose from.</blockquote>

Verification