D&D 4E Social interactions in 4E

[Zaruthustran]

By the way, your Captain of the Guard Charisma Fighter would probably have a level of either Marshal or Noble/Aristocrat. Multiclassing is not a bad thing.

-TRRW

In 3.5, that's true. In my experience the sophisticated player dips here and there to collect the skills and abilities that fit his concept. But I'd rather 4E took the opportunity to rejigger the system in such a way that multiclassing became less necessary. For example, Marshal comes with aura abilities and a cleric's BAB progression. Also delays Fighter progression (access to Weapon Specialization) by one level. Wouldn't it be better if the game allowed players to freely choose their noncombat role, instead of cementing combat role and noncombat role together?

 

[buzz]

Just because you're rolling dice doesn't mean you aren't roleplaying.

 

[GreatLemur]

Just because you're rolling dice doesn't mean you aren't roleplaying.

Hell, all the roleplay-focused indie RPGs coming out these days have very strongly-emphasized social conflict resolution mechanic systems. And the fact that a whole third of the stats in the Storyteller system were for social traits sure never meant that people never roleplayed while playing Vampire.

 

[wgreen]

And let's face it -- social mechanics in 3.x pretty much suck. Bluff/Sense Motive are fine, IMO, but Diplomacy is super-weak.

Player: I'm going to use my Diplomacy skill to convince the guard to let us into the castle. Hoody-hoo! Natural 20! Add that to my bonus of +25, and the guard should be super-friendly now. We're in for sure!

DM: Great roll! Unfortunately, the guard knows it's his ass if he lets you guys in, and he can't afford to lose his job -- he's got mouths to feed, you know. So, he's not budging. Sorry!!1!

-Will

 

[buzz]

DM: Great roll! Unfortunately, the guard knows it's his ass if he lets you guys in, and he can't afford to lose his job -- he's got mouths to feed, you know. So, he's not budging. Sorry!!1!

Yup. Ideally, the new rules will actually answer the question of whether the NPC does what the PC asked of them, instead of just telling you how they feel about what you asked them.

 

[DonTadow]

I'm interested to see what they do with it. right now diplomacy and for that matter intimidation are weak. IN my games I"ve replaced them but its still not perfect. I'd like to see a solid mechanic for both.

I must admit the more i read about 4th edition the more...grrr... i actually start to like it. they have compiled a lot of my house rules into a new edition. Where's my cut.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

So what's the reason to quantify these types of encounters with rules? As was said before, I've been doing it this way since I started playing (with AD&D). It simply doesn't need to be written into the rules. Waste of page space, really.

I realize it offends first edition tyrant DM fiat sensibilities, but perhaps rules need to be written to have a framework? I mean, after all, why have rules for combat? Just describe what you do and hope your DM isnt an !

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

they have compiled a lot of my house rules into a new edition. Where's my cut.

You needed to post your house rules to Gleemax first.

 

[RFisher]

I've been a fan of non-combat combat for a few years now. & as recent discussions have shown, I'm thinking I need to head even more in that direction.

Interesting that 4e seems to be headed that way too.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Well, since I'm already use RPing as RPing, and only use Diplomacy to determine the initial attitude... everything new can only improve it!

Cheers, LT.