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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kannik" data-source="post: 5784846" data-attributes="member: 984">I wonder (and pure speculation here) if the edition in which one began playing -- or the game (if not D&D) in which one began playing -- has an impact on whether one sees 4e as being capable of supporting more "non-combat" story lines or not.  To myself, having cut my teeth on 1e, 4e is a bit of a return to the 1e (and perhaps even moreso 2e) way of doing things.  In 1e who you were and what you made of yourself came from you, the player, in dialogue with the DM, rather than a number on your sheet.  Your class and abilities were almost entirely combat oriented, unless you were a spell wielder and chose to memorize some non-combat spells.  A noble fighter vs a street fighter was just in how you comported yourself, spoke, described yourself, and more.  If you wanted to be a craftsperson you had to ask the DM if you could be, and they would adjudicate what may happen (with some rough guidelines in the DMG).Back then, from a player perspective (at least mine and those I have interacted with over the years) Class = How you handle encounters, everything else was up for grabs.  (2e began to add in NWPs into the mix in the core PHB, which grew even more in 3e)Looking at the 1e PHB today one might well say "wow, this game is all about combat, there's no support for my diplomat in it!"  And, indeed, there is no support for it.  4e has more support for it in the PHB -- the diplomacy skill is a big one for starters, not to mention character classes that support it.  I myself found that 4e in the PHB said a lot about RP and assuming the role of a character (I remember noting it when I first read the PHB), even as the book produced reams and reams of powers.  I don't know if I have more of a point here (so why am I still typing? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />) other than that if one was used to Class being only one part of your whole character persona from earlier editions if the way 4e returns (as I see it) to a similar construct does not imply to them that there is nothing other than combat possible to be elegantly done in the system.  Gods I hope the above is coherent -- I really ought not to post during the workday where I am writing one sentence every half hour in-between saves of the model.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />peace,Kannik-Who has loved playing in every edition of the game he's played.  PS - I myself would not want to return to the full-on 1e ways of doing things (such as the complete removal of crafting and other such skills, which led me to put up my own rules on rpgnow that I feel are a good mix between strict and broad based and which I would happily submit for consideration for a 5e module to be included... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ), nor the entire reliance on the player to be a well-spoken diplomat if they wanted to play a diplomat character.  I like a right/balanced-amount of support for that kind of stuff and other non-encounter stuff.</blockquote>

Verification