Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4759898" data-attributes="member: 48965">First: No one is advocating making "4E less of a "tactical combat centric" game".  That's the argument that often gets presented but misses the point as it will have no effect on D&D combat.To somewhat answer your question... because it then allows those interested in other aspects of the game to have tactical and meaningful decisions (beyond getting a single bonus as high as possible) in order to facilitate the type of character they wish to play.  Perhaps my character wants to use his muscle to intimidate people as opposed to his charisma, as of now there's no way (according to the rules) for him to do this... (and yes I understand a DM can house rule it...but what if he doesn't want to or no one even thinks to do it.)Yet there is no meaningful decision in using these skills beyond rolling a single die and adding modifiers up.  Why was this unsatisfactory for the fighter in combat in earlier editions but perfectly okay for anything outside of combat for every character.  Why shouldn't I have powers that allow me to do heroic feats and make actual tactical choices with my skills... instead of this only being the case in combat? (and yes I realize a very few utility powers already allow this... I just think there should be more and based on one's actual skills as opposed to class.).  This also allows me to better define, with mechanical support, who my character is.  Example: Aron and Eorn both have Diplomacy trained with the same bonuses... but Eorn has a power that allows him to reroll/get a bonus/etc. when trying to seduce another (or even just dealing with the oposite sex)...now, with this feat/power/whatever Eorn's concept is much more "ladies man" than Aron, and you're more likely to achieve results consistent with this concept when attempting actions in the game due to the mechanical support  as opposed to just claiming it but never being any better at it than Aron.  First "overly" is a subjective term so I'm not going to argue that with you.  However I don't think you can deny that the combat system is much more tactically interesting, detailed, focused and solid than 4e's out of combat systems.  I don't get how making a "Tactics Lite" combat system would in anyway solve the problems you list above... though I would be interested in the system in and of itself.  The simple fact is that the problem with trying to balance feats/powers/whatever in the current system is the same that many cited as a "problem" in 3e/3.5,  an imbalance in combat effectivenes because player A focuses on purely combat powers/feats/etc. while player B focuses on out of combat powers/feats/etc.  IMO, the simpplest solution to this problem is to have a seperate system (though this doesn't mean necessarily different actual mechanics) for the out of combat powers/feats/whatever so that your choices for one have no effect on your choices for the other.  I actually thought, skill challenges would be created along these lines when they were first discussed.And I would say we are perhaps discussing two different aspects of roleplaying.  I can say I am a "ladies man"... I can buy diplomacy up so that I am as good as everyone and anyone else who specializes in it... I can even roleplay the part well and perhaps get a bonus from my DM (of course anyone who isn't a "ladies man" could as well), but when it comes down to the actual roll, I get nothing mechanically that makes me any more a "ladies man" than the next guy who has a high diplomacy score.  Thus even though I can roleplay it out, often times the results in game don't support this concept and thus I'm getting turned down, slapped in the face or dissed just as often as ebveryone else... regardless of my "roleplaying".</blockquote>

Verification