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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AIM-54" data-source="post: 2573758" data-attributes="member: 15633">I'm not sure we're as far away on this as it seems.  But, I don't think having a high diplomacy or bluff takes much away from combat power except where:  class choice limits combat power (ie bard), putting a high attribute point in Charisma leaves other attributes significantly lower (and even that can be ameliorated by class and feat choice), or the character focuses spell choice on non-combat related spells.  Heck, Bluff can even be used in combat, IIRC to gain an advantage.  With a +10 diplomacy, one hasn't necessarily sacrificed any combat power.  Even if it's a cross-class skill, all you've sacrificed is skill points that could have been used elsewhere and those are mostly for non-combat situations anyway.I'm not sure where you got the idea that I like less combat in my games, as anyone who's ever played with me can be sure to attest, I like combat and lots of it.  But I also like a good social combat (bluff vs diplomacy etc), though I generally don't play that kind of character,and a good social combat does not exist of simply opposed rolls.  I agree that good RP should not be the sole determination of how a social skill is resolved, but if you are playing a role-playing game and not a miniature wargame, then RP has a role in social situations.  I am not averse to small bonuses being added for clever role-playing (or penalties, for that matter, if the lack of social graces is well portrayed).  The mechanic, for fairness sake, should be the ultimate determiner.  But there is, in my view, nothing worse than players replacing role-playing with a skill check or arguing with a DM when a blatantly ridiculous bluff fails despite having a well endowed bluff check.</blockquote>

Verification