Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Evil DM" data-source="post: 4590344" data-attributes="member: 23108">Hi folks,I am pretty sure that my topic has been discussed in former times, so bevor you response to my post, you might be also give me just a link.To be honest there are two issues on my mind which I think are somehow related so I do not want to start another thread.First I want to call my problem something like Combat is different....As I play DnD I think my following argumentation might be very clear: A fighting challenge is the most complex players might ever face. The players have to think about taking cover, flanking, using their maneuvers, healing, etc. Enery round, ervery turn the tides of combat might change severly and the players have to rethink their actions.On the other hand their is something one might call social interactionPC: "Okay, after the battle I try to convince the arriving guards that we are part of a secret special unit."DM "Okay, roll for a bluff check."Oh yeah, that's it. A single roll. Another example:PC: "I jump across the chasm of death."DM: "Okay, but keep in mind that if you fail your character will die."A single roll. Did I somewhere read that life or death should not depend on a single dice roll?So what is the difference in both examples given the first and the third?In both cases the characters can die? No. That is what have them in common.Ah I see, you have to roll some dice? No. They also have that in common.Okay, it is the number of dice they have to roll? Right....and?Let me think. I'd say during the combat the characters have more options to gain an advantage which does not depend on dice rolling. Exactly.Furthermore while facing a combat challenge you can follow the tides of the challenge. Some rounds can be called successfull (you did much damage) and others can be called a failure (you did not du much damage).With a single roll this is not possible. So I must confess that DnD4 did a great job to think about skill challenges. Their you have also to roll a lot of dice and depending on your luck you get a feeling after each roll if this encounter will end up to your favor or not. Maybe it is some kind of personal feeling and nobody does understand me: But why do I think that combat depends on tactic while all other actions depend on the luck with the dice?I hear some DMs complaining the like:- First I toss a great battle at them and afterwards they have to think their way through the political intrigue.- Ah, this is where all the bluff, sense motive and diplomacy stuff comes in?- Man no! Would you like to see the story becoming a failure because of some unlucky dice rolls?If the characters talk to a principle they have to choose their words carefully. And how do we know how a character behaves himself in front of a noble man? The player rolls diplomacy for his character.Which leads me to my second topic:The social interactions should be covered very much through dice rolling? Why? Have a look at how often a player rolls his dice in the heat of the battle. Should that not be somehow balanced with rolling the same amount with social interactions?But there is some behavior - some opinion - which interfers with my suggestion:Man. Do you realy wanna trade some well placed roleplaying for some rollplaying? If a player plays his character pretty well, why roll a dice to see the outcome?Because if I only take the dice for physical encounters and the cleverness of the players for the social encounters I will have characters with three times 18 and and three times 8 as ability scores. Guess where to find them.So to give my statement a conclusion:1. Why does combat feel so different.2. When the characters interact with the world, they do it with their inherent abilities....reflect by their skills. Any comment?Cheers, Evil DM.</blockquote>

Verification