Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dm4hire" data-source="post: 4761983" data-attributes="member: 14848">I wouldn't mind seeing a a system added that overlayed what exists and runs seperately as previously mentioned.&nbsp; One could call it talents, merits, whatever, and it's sole aspect would be to add a system that allows the governing of non-combat skills and interactions.&nbsp; While it is true that DMs and players can work out the problems as currently presented the issue comes down to a matter of creating balance for when you cross over from one DM to another.&nbsp; One DM may say that it's acceptable to do something one way while another might counter and rule another way while still being valid in his reasoning.&nbsp; A good non-combat system offers mechanics that everyone has to build on.&nbsp; The current skill challenge system doesn't really do that and it really comes down to just rolling the dice without any concern for role within the party.&nbsp; In past editions you had key situations that relied upon having certain members in the party or at least PCs that could meet that role effectively.&nbsp; You may not need a bard to do social but you should still need a leader type or someone who can fit that spot for the most part.&nbsp; A non-combat system puts that back into proper perspective and adds to the game however much you'd decide to use it, if at all.Outside of their striker role, why should you play a thief?&nbsp; Don't need them cause anyone can steal, pick a lock, etc.&nbsp; Why should you be a cleric?&nbsp; Any leader class can heal.&nbsp; Anyone can be good at heal or religion.&nbsp; Why play a ranger?&nbsp; Anyone can track now.&nbsp; Nature skill isn't that important any more because others can have it.&nbsp; The point is a non-combat system would give a role-playing purpose back to the game beyond what the player might have in mind for the character and might even amplify their reasons for playing a given class.&nbsp; Some people are natural actors or role-players and others need that bit of guidance or inspiration to which 4e is lacking in my opinion.So I'd definitely support a non-combat system for role-playing in 4e and might start enjoying it more instead of being bored with it after the first hour.Also add me to the list of people tired of long combats.&nbsp; And I mean long combats.&nbsp; An hour is too long when they're going up against an appropriate level encounter and that's not even throwing in an elite.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dm4hire, post: 4761983, member: 14848"] I wouldn't mind seeing a a system added that overlayed what exists and runs seperately as previously mentioned. One could call it talents, merits, whatever, and it's sole aspect would be to add a system that allows the governing of non-combat skills and interactions. While it is true that DMs and players can work out the problems as currently presented the issue comes down to a matter of creating balance for when you cross over from one DM to another. One DM may say that it's acceptable to do something one way while another might counter and rule another way while still being valid in his reasoning. A good non-combat system offers mechanics that everyone has to build on. The current skill challenge system doesn't really do that and it really comes down to just rolling the dice without any concern for role within the party. In past editions you had key situations that relied upon having certain members in the party or at least PCs that could meet that role effectively. You may not need a bard to do social but you should still need a leader type or someone who can fit that spot for the most part. A non-combat system puts that back into proper perspective and adds to the game however much you'd decide to use it, if at all. Outside of their striker role, why should you play a thief? Don't need them cause anyone can steal, pick a lock, etc. Why should you be a cleric? Any leader class can heal. Anyone can be good at heal or religion. Why play a ranger? Anyone can track now. Nature skill isn't that important any more because others can have it. The point is a non-combat system would give a role-playing purpose back to the game beyond what the player might have in mind for the character and might even amplify their reasons for playing a given class. Some people are natural actors or role-players and others need that bit of guidance or inspiration to which 4e is lacking in my opinion. So I'd definitely support a non-combat system for role-playing in 4e and might start enjoying it more instead of being bored with it after the first hour. Also add me to the list of people tired of long combats. And I mean long combats. An hour is too long when they're going up against an appropriate level encounter and that's not even throwing in an elite. [/QUOTE]

Verification