Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cyronax" data-source="post: 4873940" data-attributes="member: 822">This is a very bad thing in 4e. Most people would just shrug and take the combat optimized powers even if they wanted a skill-monkey. We had a warlord in one of our campaigns that 'sacrificed' two feats for out of combat/RP situations -- Skill Focus Diplomacy and Linguist. The first was good for a lot of situations, while Linguist was helping out with the fact that none of our PCs knew how to talk to goblins or orcs -- an enemy and an ally -- for us in story. Even the DM's attempt to have a handful of both races speak common didn't help in the eyes of the player, due to in character reasons. It made sense for the story, but then in combat situations the party wasn't operating according to what would be termed the mathematically optimized capability. In the end, it just put a lot of pressure on the other members of the group to work as a team. C.I.D. Anyway, my point was that</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cyronax, post: 4873940, member: 822"] This is a very bad thing in 4e. Most people would just shrug and take the combat optimized powers even if they wanted a skill-monkey. We had a warlord in one of our campaigns that 'sacrificed' two feats for out of combat/RP situations -- Skill Focus Diplomacy and Linguist. The first was good for a lot of situations, while Linguist was helping out with the fact that none of our PCs knew how to talk to goblins or orcs -- an enemy and an ally -- for us in story. Even the DM's attempt to have a handful of both races speak common didn't help in the eyes of the player, due to in character reasons. It made sense for the story, but then in combat situations the party wasn't operating according to what would be termed the mathematically optimized capability. In the end, it just put a lot of pressure on the other members of the group to work as a team. C.I.D. Anyway, my point was that [/QUOTE]

Verification