Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6178463" data-attributes="member: 6681948">I assume your group also doesn't see many summoning spells, animal companions, etc., which seems consistent with their martial focus.  Of course, if they're using buffing spells or magic items, is that really "doing stuff yourself"?That's the half orc racial adjustment, I assume.  I only see half orcs used in warrior roles, and I find the half orc the least versatile race as a consequence.  They don't dominate any game I've played (far from it), but a game that focuses on combat strength and/or doesn't place much stock in social skills/interaction (which would include allowing characters to succeed on the social challenges presented without investing in charisma or interaction skills) would clearly favour the half orc more than one where those INT and CHA penalties render the half orc a poor choice for many roles in the game.Higher movement seems more combat useful to me (when the Rogue is looking for traps all the way, movement speed is limited in benefit; we move as fast as the slowest member anyway; get a horse).  I don't believe I have ever seen PC's in danger of starvation.  Maybe those abilities should be more focused in exploration, but I don't find they are.  That said, one of the most powerful exploration skills in traditional dungeon exploration is likely Darkvision, and the half orc is one of few races who kept that.Once again, as useful as the game wants them to be.  While the DC is extreme, it is possible to shift the attitude of a Hostile person, implying this is possible.  I don't think a hostile person is "amenable to being influenced", so if I set that as a requirement, I reduce the utility of social skills.  If I decide that the social skill will not change whether the NPC is willing to do what the PC wants, that seems very different from moving an "indifferent" person to "helpful" (Will take risks to help you; protect, back up, heal, aid) - seems like that shift indicates what he is willing to do changed a lot from "socially expected interaction"  [NOTE:  that's indifferent, so I must be able to use Diplomacy on someone not even willing to do that, since I can use it on unfriendly or hostile targets.]Even "friendly" is enough for that NPC to advise, advocate and offer limited help.  Having an advisor to the King advocate on my behalf seems pretty powerful.One issue poorly defined is retries - may actually make things worse, etc., makes sense if you make attempt after attempt after attempt in rapid succession.  But it seems like gradually (over days or weeks, perhaps) repeated efforts could gradually move that initially hostile Captain of the Guard to Unfriendly, then Indifferent, and eventually friendly or even helpful.  This seems quite consistent with the source material, especially where it deals with characters with great social skills.But we can also be biased against social skills and dismiss their ability to have significant impact on any important NPC.This is an issue for the Bard, definitely.  It's also why we don't see a lot of multiclass spellcasters any more (3e up).  However, if the abilities gained by Bards are not sufficient to place them on an even footing with other characters, I'd call that a mechanical issue that should be corrected (that's where I place the multiclass rules as well, btw).</blockquote>

Verification