Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Korgoth" data-source="post: 4761565" data-attributes="member: 49613">I find combat in 4E to be a Thundertusk Bore. I don't think combat is its strong point... it takes a million years and is essentially a chore of chipping away at a mass of hitpoints like a sculptor with his chisel.I don't see how 4E could be helped by adding in yet more rules, this time to differentiate a ladies' man from a Henry Kissinger from a Mussolini, etc. I don't even like having a Diplomacy skill in the first place... but if you must, simply make the differentiation a point of role playing. If your character is charismatic and has a high Diplomacy but is uglier than a warthog, don't use your Diplomacy to pick up women. Instead, just say &quot;Kronkulug tries to make a suave gesture, but notices with embarrassment the saliva coursing down his snaggletusk, and leaves the feast early and alone.&quot;Role playing, in other words. You don't need rules to do it.Now I do agree that 4E should have clarification as to what the powers actually do outside of combat, but this raises the whole issue of the nature of the powers themselves. For me, 4E's biggest flaw (after The Grind) is that the semantic content of the powers, monster descriptions, etc. are entirely unrelated to how they behave in the world. A naked Grecian pugilist could have an AC of 32 just because he's supposed to be a level-appropriate foe, and the powers may have this or that &quot;special effect&quot;, but it makes no difference whether a given power involves swinging a sword, summoning a shimmering green fist or causing the red giant Vulpeculae to crash into your opponents face and then go supernova... the power does X damage and assigns Y effect, save ends. Ho hum.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Korgoth, post: 4761565, member: 49613"] I find combat in 4E to be a Thundertusk Bore. I don't think combat is its strong point... it takes a million years and is essentially a chore of chipping away at a mass of hitpoints like a sculptor with his chisel. I don't see how 4E could be helped by adding in yet more rules, this time to differentiate a ladies' man from a Henry Kissinger from a Mussolini, etc. I don't even like having a Diplomacy skill in the first place... but if you must, simply make the differentiation a point of role playing. If your character is charismatic and has a high Diplomacy but is uglier than a warthog, don't use your Diplomacy to pick up women. Instead, just say "Kronkulug tries to make a suave gesture, but notices with embarrassment the saliva coursing down his snaggletusk, and leaves the feast early and alone." Role playing, in other words. You don't need rules to do it. Now I do agree that 4E should have clarification as to what the powers actually do outside of combat, but this raises the whole issue of the nature of the powers themselves. For me, 4E's biggest flaw (after The Grind) is that the semantic content of the powers, monster descriptions, etc. are entirely unrelated to how they behave in the world. A naked Grecian pugilist could have an AC of 32 just because he's supposed to be a level-appropriate foe, and the powers may have this or that "special effect", but it makes no difference whether a given power involves swinging a sword, summoning a shimmering green fist or causing the red giant Vulpeculae to crash into your opponents face and then go supernova... the power does X damage and assigns Y effect, save ends. Ho hum. [/QUOTE]

Verification