D&D 4E Nobles And Diplomats in 4e?

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Now:

Did people never play these character types?
Did people play them, but hate/resent it because they were "needed" but no fun?
Did people play and enjoy them despite their relative inability to aid in a fight? (At10th level, the Hacker gains some combat buffs for other players, but that's a long time to wait...)

I can't speak for Spycraft 2, but in Spycraft 1 I think what you got were groups based around certain adventure concepts with maybe one character thrown in to balance for the other forms of play. Eventually the whole party would be focused on whatever the focus of the campaign was: heists, shootouts, or le schmooze.

For Shadowrun, which is similar game conceptually, I'd basicly have to split the party into two or three groups. One guy would do his hacker thing, another the driving, and a third would be the only person who was really interested in social affairs. Sometimes there would be a magic guy who was non-combat, but that was basicly a hacker by another name.

There were three ways this dynamic would develop:

1. Eventually the party would abandon or marginalize the odd man out characters - ending finally in an NPC doing the job
2. The Side jobs would get focused around the main job - hacking would only matter if there were security systems to ghost for the fight; rigging would only do drones for the fight; the astral walker would ambush for the fight; and the Face would set up the fight
3. we would keep the status quo and the players would find other things to do like video games

As a DM I found this problematic because it seemed to encourage well, to repurpose your term, spotlight hungry drama queens. People would play Hackers or Facers in the hopes of being something different without realizing they were also being non-contributory to the group dynamic. Then if they weren't included they would become unhappy, which is fair complaint except that they're mini-game really excludes the rest of the party.

I think spotlighting is certainly a potentially viable way to build an adventure, but as a party building mechanic...

Iron Heroes, though Feng Shui and Weapons of the Gods do get honorable mention, was the first game I played where you could build characters who could easilly participate in any aspect of the game. You'd have whole parties where everyone could sneak, ride horses, hold the line, and help con the local noble. Everyone would have their own style at it and some were better at some things than others, but no one was left out of any one element and all the characters were flexible enough to help with the others' projects.

And a major component of that was that every character class had its own combat style. Sure the Thief was essentially a social character, but he was also the master of the quickdraw. Arcanists? Puissiant wielders of dark secrets, but also minor league wushu leapers and tricksters.

On the flip side: Sure you're education as a knight of the vale was mostly focused on drawing out your opponents defenses, building unbreakable armor, and hitting an enemy in his joints, but that doesn't mean you don't know how to haggle for a good deal.

Now, there were problems with that rules system, but man it was a superior game.

Man, talking about it I really miss that dynamic in my Saga game.

hmmm, I wonder what would happen if I wrote skill groups into the saga system?

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Oh, as a side note:

I did once play a pure scout character in a DnD game. Really hard to hit, amazing skills, stealthy, and untrappable.

But, I hadn't built the character with the Rogue, Scout, Assassin, or any other 3E strikey-style class. Just a tiny Spryte scholar with an unusual education.

The party I was playing with was deeply tactical. Lots of ambushes, counter-ambushes, and magical artillery strikes. Very impressive and intriguingly in character.

And they loved my character cause now they had a spotter.

God, I hated that character. Cause I'd fly off to do my scouting mini-game and no one would come with the character, so it was 20 minutes of me talking to the DM. Then I'd fly back info dump, the wizards would prep ammo, and there would be two hours of glorious fireworks into which I would plunk tiny-sized flaming arrows to little effect and even less appreciation or deliberation.

I abandonned the character three sessions in and went with a dwarf gish who'd been polymorphed into a Fomorian.

That was a lot more fun.

 

[Baron Opal]

I've never played Spycraft, but I had a Noble 4 / Jedi 2 in SWSE. He was sweet. Started as a Noble and raised him with the wealth and ... persuasion (?) talent trees. If he had a chance to talk to you he had a good chance to sway your mind on a topic and if he barked at you in battle you might hesitate for a round, allowing my Mandorallan wanna-be buddy a chance to run up and slap you around.

Nobles ROCK in Star Wars, and we've been told that SWSE and Bo9S are the two biggest previews of 4e in the last podcast. Chris Perkins even mentioned, I think, that it would be fairly straight forward to run Jedi and other characters in a 4e adventure. (Which would make for an interesting Dragonstar or Barrier Peaks conversion.)

I do know that the bulk of a class's special abilities and class features are intended to support their combat role, and that non-combat abilities are the province of feats. This implies, to me, that it may be difficult or impossible to build a class whose special abilities focus primarily on "social encounters", a character whose role in combat is, at best, moral support or tactics.

A beer at the mutual convention of choice says that this statement is false. If SWSE is any indication, the bard at the very least will have suitable social skills to boost allies or impede foes. If there is as much interconnectivity between SWSE and 4e as Mr. Perkins implied (and I heard correctly) then they will be competent in their chosen field and more than token assistance in combat situations.

Of course, I know only as much as has been released, which is next to nothing. But based on the last podcast I am optimistic about this concern.

 

[Incenjucar]

Hopefully, the new DMGs will introduce a variety of encounter forms... along with the standard combat encounters and the new trap encounters... social encounters and perhaps some other sorts.

Would make the game much more interesting, I think, if they give them all adequate time and attention.

 

[Quickleaf]

I think a Courtier class as a Martial Controller makes sense, though I'd give the class enhanced multi-classing options. A controller is defined by area of effect powers, ability to change terrain, debuffing, and hindering targets.

Area of effect - A courtier could change a particular area (battle field, temple, trade route, city) with edicts/commands to subordinates. As the courtier advances in levels, their sphere of influence increases (perhaps mirroring the heroic/paragon/epic tiers).

Change terrain - Servants could block certain areas off, break down gates, set fire to fields, etc. Likewise, courtiers might change the terrain in a broaders, perhaps fortifying a keep, convincing the king that a splinter sect is heretical, issuing a trade embargo on arms, laying bureaucratic "traps", etc.

Debuffing - Espionage could inform them of enemy's weakness in advance, while an intimidating "noble's rebuke" could strip commoners of buffs, and "blood debt" could allow a courtier to issue a challenge to a rival who, to maintain honor, must arrive at the fight without buffs.

Hinder targets - Perhaps there could be dire consequences for interferring with a courtier, so the mere presence of the courtier demoralizes the common foe. Likewise, courtiers may only be killed as a last resort, instead being ransomed. Other hindrances might include convincing the high priest of a religious order to ban/cut off access to certain spells/rituals, establishing a blockade which causes enemies to experience food shortages, or orchestrating events so that the enemy attacks at the wrong time.

"Courtier" could cover the concepts of Knight/Cavalier (military power), Canonist/Prelate (religious power), Merchant Prince (mercantile power), and Heir Apparent (political power).