Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="HalWhitewyrm" data-source="post: 4418524" data-attributes="member: 4046">First of all, I'm so glad that my post was coherent. I typed it up way late last night and I was half asleep. This morning I woke up afraid I may have typed something ridiculous (I've been known to do stream-of-consciousness typing, but let's not go into my crazy quirks).&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Fully awake now, I agree with you. However, what I'm seeing here is the possibility for an entirely new way of playing. For example, one of my freelancers put together a Social Combat option for 3.5 d20 where he basically took a lot of the martial combat options and made social equivalents of them, so you actually have a social version of Cleave that allows you to squelch someone (socially speaking) and then do an immediate follow-up on a secondary target. I could see a similar approach to a 4e version, where you have this other realm where the powers represent social combat prowess. Now, that requires a complete rewriting of a big chunk of the rules, but the idea I think could work and, at least to me, it sounds exciting.I was about to make the same observation. You'd basically have the greater archetypes, and the more specialized applications by combining the two sets of suggested classes.I think Noble would be one I'd change, so that being part of the nobility is not dependant on a class (though I'd find an equivalent way of presenting a Noble and/or Aristrocrat class, as I like what they bring to the party).Dude. Duuude. I'm not gonna be able to get this out of my head now...Should we have forked this thread a couple of posts back?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="HalWhitewyrm, post: 4418524, member: 4046"] First of all, I'm so glad that my post was coherent. I typed it up way late last night and I was half asleep. This morning I woke up afraid I may have typed something ridiculous (I've been known to do stream-of-consciousness typing, but let's not go into my crazy quirks). :) Fully awake now, I agree with you. However, what I'm seeing here is the possibility for an entirely new way of playing. For example, one of my freelancers put together a Social Combat option for 3.5 d20 where he basically took a lot of the martial combat options and made social equivalents of them, so you actually have a social version of Cleave that allows you to squelch someone (socially speaking) and then do an immediate follow-up on a secondary target. I could see a similar approach to a 4e version, where you have this other realm where the powers represent social combat prowess. Now, that requires a complete rewriting of a big chunk of the rules, but the idea I think could work and, at least to me, it sounds exciting. I was about to make the same observation. You'd basically have the greater archetypes, and the more specialized applications by combining the two sets of suggested classes. I think Noble would be one I'd change, so that being part of the nobility is not dependant on a class (though I'd find an equivalent way of presenting a Noble and/or Aristrocrat class, as I like what they bring to the party). Dude. Duuude. I'm not gonna be able to get this out of my head now... [SIZE="1"]Should we have forked this thread a couple of posts back?[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification