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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4304767" data-attributes="member: 710">I think I agree on the limits. The problem of games can be that you don't know what the "users" are doing with it - are they running all dungeon exploration? Focus on combat, or on trap-finding? Do they run city-intrigue campaigns? Wilderness Exploration? So, the problem is always to find a good balance in the classes to create the possible imbalances of the players focus.3E at least started, and 4E possibly finished creating this balancing by ensuring that everyone has combat abilities that matter, and also ensure that there is something outside of combat. But the focus is still more on combat then anything else. Skill Challenges are an attempt to have an engaging subsystem outside of combat, but it is a very generic framework, unlike the combat rules. I am not sure yet if that is the best approach, or if there are better ones.This in turn means that 4E has no space for a class that just doesn't fight. It must do something in combat. (And they must do something outside of it.) They don't necessarily have to swing swords or shoot fireballs, but whatever the do, they must contribute in combat. And they must do it just as well as any other class of their type. So, the role getting closed to non-combatant might be a Leader (only buffing, no direct damage) or a Controller (only debuffing, no direct damage). That's still a serious limitation on what a class can encompass.But that said, I can't really see it any other way. I wouldn't be interested in a non-combat class anyway. But it might be a problem for other people.</blockquote>

Verification