Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="phloog" data-source="post: 4208292" data-attributes="member: 59219">Wow, not sure where this is coming from.&nbsp; Actually I do, but I'd hate to assume things about you - right now, my assumption would have to be that you assume that D&amp;D is nothing but a combat simulator (which maybe it will be in 4E, don't have the books in front of me).But there is a huge gulf between wanting to 'suck', to use your words, and wanting to excel at things other than striking people in the head with large objects.My problem is simply with what appears to be in 4E a mechanically dictated combat emphasis in the interest of balance, and the fact that I think that characters can be balanced in total, and viable, without being combat equals.Again, I might be wrong, but the design philosophy in 4E seems to be &quot;Your character will be different from other characters in terms of HOW they are awesome at combat&quot; - the names of the roles themselves are combat specific.I'm not saying for one instant that it's an invalid philosophy, or that it won't make a fun game...just that it is perhaps not as friendly to my style of DMing and play as a game system that is willing to have an imbalance in terms of combat, with the assumption that those who are weaker in actual fighting will have their chance to shine.This part of the discussion seems to have devolved a bit into snarkiness and the need to defend WOTC when I'm not attacking them, so it's probably best I just drop the subject unless I have some new point to add, because me clarifying isn't accomplishing anything.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="phloog, post: 4208292, member: 59219"] Wow, not sure where this is coming from. Actually I do, but I'd hate to assume things about you - right now, my assumption would have to be that you assume that D&D is nothing but a combat simulator (which maybe it will be in 4E, don't have the books in front of me). But there is a huge gulf between wanting to 'suck', to use your words, and wanting to excel at things other than striking people in the head with large objects. My problem is simply with what appears to be in 4E a mechanically dictated combat emphasis in the interest of balance, and the fact that I think that characters can be balanced in total, and viable, without being combat equals. Again, I might be wrong, but the design philosophy in 4E seems to be "Your character will be different from other characters in terms of HOW they are awesome at combat" - the names of the roles themselves are combat specific. I'm not saying for one instant that it's an invalid philosophy, or that it won't make a fun game...just that it is perhaps not as friendly to my style of DMing and play as a game system that is willing to have an imbalance in terms of combat, with the assumption that those who are weaker in actual fighting will have their chance to shine. This part of the discussion seems to have devolved a bit into snarkiness and the need to defend WOTC when I'm not attacking them, so it's probably best I just drop the subject unless I have some new point to add, because me clarifying isn't accomplishing anything. [/QUOTE]

Verification