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

[Incenjucar]

While I love bards and diplomatic types, if there is a "Face class," it's along the lines of having a "winning battles single-handedly" class. Which really shouldn't happen any more.

Hopefully, the bard will be more like a "leader in diplomacy" as well as combat, and social stuff will be a team effort like anything else.

 

[Imaro]

To start, I'll just say that I do think the 3e fighter *does* have significantly more diverse options than the 1e and 2e fighter. It's just that's not saying much when comparing to the magic wielding classes.



I agree that in any system that allow a significant amount of character customization, this issue of specialization is going to be an issue. From comments made on blogs, I suspect that they are dealing with this in a couple of ways:

1) Character ability segregation. Characters will have class abilities that will grant the central, basic abilities that the designers feel define the classes' role. These abilities will automatically level up in a way that should give the character the ability to compete in that role adequately. The character will then have another pool of abilities that can be used to customize the character (feats or similar) that can be used to enhance their core abilties or expand into other areas.

2) The customization abilities will be made significant, but not terribly strong. Probably less than the "better" feats in 3e. The difference between a character who has taken all customization in their class central concepts will be significantly better than the one that used customization to broaden the character's abilties, but not overwhelmingly so. To avoid problems at higher levels, I suspect that customization will be designed to give more options, but not to stack significantly with previous customization choices.

For a specific, hypothetical example: All Warlocks have an Eldritch Blast. The attack bonus and damage on this blast increase for every Warlock level in a way that allows every Warlock to serve as a ranged striker in combat, regardless of other character choices (within some reasonable limits). Every other level, the Warlock gets a feat. The feats are generally equal to the average or less powerful feats in 3e. They might allow the Warlock to become proficient with another skill, get bonuses on Diplomacy checks, whatever. A Warlock that took all feats in social challenges will be significantly better (perhaps much better) than a Warlock that specialized in options for the Eldritch Blast. The Blast specialized Warlock will have notably more options and a bit more potency as a ranged striker, but both basically still have the same Eldritch Blast at core.

Now, whether they will succeed at this, it's hard to say. I could see how it could work, though. For the central math around the characters, it's mostly just preventing stacking from allowing attack bonuses, damage and status effects to run wild on the basic attack. For additional options that give qualitative changes to the characters, I'm assuming those will come separate from these customization feats. One interesting thing to see is where training in another class' ability comes into play. There's obviously a lot of fun opportunities there, but a tremendous scope for abuse. I think it's pretty sure that will have been taken into account by the designers, we'll see how well when they start rolling things out.

Yeah, I see what you're saying and this will definitely be something that I think will be integral to the claims of how the game plays made by designers. It's one of those things I'm genuinely interested in reading (if it actually succeeds).

I wonder though if done in the way your last paragraph suggests...then will the feats, powers, etc. that are selectable be so weak as to make none to minimal impact on a character...are they even worth selecting or including or are they more like a smokescreen, where they appear as choices but have little effect on the outcome of the game engine? I think this is going to be the fine line developers have to get right with 4e or it's just not going to do what they claim.

On a side note I have reservations about the multiclassing bit, especially since you can select bits and pieces from other classes. It in essence makes D&D even closer to a point based system, and as I said earlier, I've never found a point system where characters are inherently balanced against each other in play. I'd go so far as to say systems like this promote rules mastery even moreso than a game like D&D 3.5

 

[Imaro]

While I love bards and diplomatic types, if there is a "Face class," it's along the lines of having a "winning battles single-handedly" class. Which really shouldn't happen any more.

Hopefully, the bard will be more like a "leader in diplomacy" as well as combat, and social stuff will be a team effort like anything else.

I think the problem with a social system that is team-based...is most social interactions are one on one. If someone is haggling for a sword you don't have a merchant and 3 merchant minions haggling against the party, you have one merchant vs. the guy doing the haggling. Another problem is that in social actions like the above...often times more people hollering, threatening, sweet talking the merchant at the same time is detrimental rather than helpful (unless it's all a cover for the rogue to get that 5 finger discount baby. )

 

[Incenjucar]

Most social interactions that individuals do is mono-a-mono because people don't work in teams very often in real life.

However, people who are trained to work in teams do things like "good cop, bad cop."

Sales teams do this kind of thing all the time, too, as do really canny consumers.

The more people involved in a social interaction, up to a certain point, the easier it usually is to throw the "opponent" off and get them to do what you want, IF you know what you're doing.

--

Consider:

Bard: Hello friend! You look like a man in need of a new horse, and have I got a deal for you!
Target: What? No, I don't need no horse.
Wizard: Oh, he says he doesn't need a horse. Probably can't afford it.
Target: Hey now, I could afford that horse easy, I just don't need one. I've got enough gold for two horses!
Bard: See wizard, he has plenty, why, enough for luxuries, luxuries like a good fine horse to bring home to the missus.
Target: But I'm telling you I don't want your horse!
Barbarian: You not like Thunderhoof? Raised Thunderhoof from birth. Thunderhoof is best horse for miles. You saying Thunderhoof not worth your gold? *glower*
Target: No no! It's a fine horse! Really it is! Finest I've ever seen! Worth double, I'm sure!
Rogue: Why I bet we could sell it for twice double in the next town, they have a finer eye for horses anyways. Like to make sure everyone knows how well off they are. Miserly lot in this here town.
Bard: Oh yes, yes, it's such a pity... they say things about the people from here... sad, terrible, untrue things... but I suppose it's too much of a bother to look one's best...
Target: Now hold on there! I'm no miser! And I tell you I know a good horse when I see it! I won't be thought a fool! I'll give you fifty gold for that horse and I won't let you sell it to anyone else!
Bard: Only fifty?

 

[FourthBear]

I suspect that there's plenty of room between useless and overpowered. I also suspect that there will be plentiful complaining that feats aren't as powerful as the best feats at the end of 3.5e. But if the feats' primary purpose is to customize a character, then they simply can't be as powerful as class abilities, or else why have a class centered game at all? This is the main issue with the D&D class system.

How multiclassing works should be very interesting. If you asked me right now, my guess is that at certain points in a character's path, they can choose either an ability from their own class list *or* an ability from a lower level on another class list. This will be referred to as cross training. Class abilities will be designed such that they tend to stand discretely (e.g., wizards may gain spells not according to a master level list, but accumulate them from available class choices as they go up in level). Thus a 10th level fighter might choose to forgo a significant fighter relevant class ability for an ability that an 8th level wizard could pick. I also suspect that most power systems will use attack bonuses specific for the kind of attack. Thus, a fighter might have an awesome melee attack bonus, but a poor magical attack bonus. It may be that all classes get the same basic attack bonus per level, but add a class specific bonus to certain kinds of attacks. And, as in Book of Nine Swords, you calculate your level-dependent bonus for powers outside your class related attacks by adding half your character level. So a 10th level fighter with a single wizard spell might cast it as a 5th level wizard. Clearly, there's got to be a significant disadvantage to taking a power outside your class (relative to members of the class you're taking it from), but not so much the power is useless.

 

[FourthBear]

I think the problem with a social system that is team-based...is most social interactions are one on one. If someone is haggling for a sword you don't have a merchant and 3 merchant minions haggling against the party, you have one merchant vs. the guy doing the haggling. Another problem is that in social actions like the above...often times more people hollering, threatening, sweet talking the merchant at the same time is detrimental rather than helpful (unless it's all a cover for the rogue to get that 5 finger discount baby. )

I think that when the 4e team talks about the DM creating non-combat encounters, I think they will definitely be looking to avoid one-on-one encounters. Just as a significant combat encounter that involved a one-on-one duel wouldn't be considered good encounter planning for party (with the rare exception), a social encounter recommended in D&D will indeed be closer to combat. A social encounter will require the team to be acting together or failure will be near certain. Just as a fighter couldn't wade into a well designed combat encounter with no help from the rest of the party, a bard won't be able to do the same with a well designed social encounter. Will it be particularly realistic? About as realistic as combat encounters in D&D just so often happening to require the number and level of characters in the party. There will likely be quick one-on-one social interactions of the "Roll a Diplomacy check" variety, but these won't be considered full encounters anymore than the rogue finding and disarming a simple trap would be.

 

[Kaodi]

I am by no means an expert in international diplomacy, but I think you would find that team based social encounters would be somewhat analagous to negotiations by teams of different countries. Someone like the bard will be the lead negotiator, but others will play a role.

Think of it in the context of a royal celebration or something. A fighter, a monk, a wizard, a rogue and a bard walk into a feast with the intent of negotiating for a company of the royal army to be dispatched to their favoured problem area, or perhaps for a highway to an outlying region to be repaired as part of an effort to drive back the darkness and create a " safer " area of the kingdom.

The bard is dispatched to put on a performance for the king, and then to proceed to a direct plea for the highway. Meanwhile, the dashing rogue invites the princess to a dance and gives her a very enjoyable and entertaining evening, while the fighter seeks out the master of arms to chat about fighting techniques and maybe slip in some things about the strategic value of the area, and the potential of new recruits for the army. The wizard takes the head of the treasury, and goes into a detailed calculation of a cost/benefit analysis of the venture. The monk, though perhaps not the most adept speaker, is a member of a very respected monastery, and he mingles a little with the other members of the court, conversing with the curious about what he does, and perhaps giving a few tips in hand to hand combat to the youngest son on the king, who has been being bullied by his older brothers.

After the evening is over, the king dismisses the party for the night and asks them to come back the next afternoon for a reply. So far, he sees some of the benefits, but isn't quite convinced. In the mean time, the treasurer and the master of arms have had their own discussion about the matter, and seem to be favourably inclined. Before bed, the princess tells her father all about the wonderful evening he had, and suitably impressed. The next morning during the business of the kingdom, the treasurer and master of arms note that they are both inclined to agree with the bard. Still, while the king now wants to build the road, he is not quite sure of how much the party can be trusted to know what they are talking. Then he hears about how his youngest son embarrased his older brother in a fight. This matter had been troubling him for quite a while, and he is immensely proud of his youngest. When he hears from the boy that it was the monk that taught him how to stand up for himself, he is finally convinced and tell the party that afternoon that he will order the road to be rebuilt immediately.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Personally, I loved the NPC classes in the 3.5 DMG
I'll be glad to see all the classes be more useful out of combat, BUT, I love the feel of classes who *just aren't as good as the PCs in combat*, but are still damned powerful in their own way.

For exmaple, take "Lord Grim". Lord Grim was born into anoble family, he's never wanted to learn sword or magic, or do more than lip service to the gods. he doesn't skulk or sneak, tha'ts beneath him! Yet, he rules with an iron fist!
Why? because he's smart, hes great at manipulating folk. Ina fight any PC of equal levle should destory him...but he's not a simpel mook than can be killed in 1 hit, or easily charmed etc.

Running such folk as Experts or aristocrats, is great, I love it! I hope 4th ed can provide similar mechanics.

The physicla dangers from such people are their henchmen and armies! Or contacts, thieves guild who protects the guy who makes their thieves tools, or whatever.

It's hard ot play, but such characters should be able to out do or challenge the PCs in terms of swaying NPCs, the law etc. Thus, battles in the court room over verbal skills and knowledge of history etc can be fun "combats".

PCs should never (without great reason) be allowed ot walk in and kill Lord Grim, because you know from history and story that such would get them condemned by the King for treason: killing a lawful lord...or skewered by dozens of bolts from skilled mercenary guards (smart rulers do not emply doofuses as guards), etc.

Thus they need to defeat him in other ways than mere "we charge him!"

 

[FourthBear]

Personally, I loved the NPC classes in the 3.5 DMG
I'll be glad to see all the classes be more useful out of combat, BUT, I love the feel of classes who *just aren't as good as the PCs in combat*, but are still damned powerful in their own way.

I definitely think that 4e will support Lord Grim and similar NPCs, although I suspect that NPC classes won't be present. The team has noted that monsters and NPCs, while having the same final mechanical modifier types, won't be generated in the same way as PCs. What I think will happen is whenever you decide you need an NPC in an encounter, you decide on that NPC's level. Then the DMG will have a guide for what ability scores, combat stats and skill bonuses make for an appropriate challenge for that level. The DM then decides what statistics he needs for the upcoming encounter (if there's no expected combat, no need for combat stats. no expected social interaction, no need for social stats) and writes them down. All done! No need to roll ability scores, select a class and level, select feats, calculate skill points and such. If the encounter surprises the DM and he does need combat or non-combat stats, he uses his judgement and decides what kind of a challenge this character would be outside of the intended encounter. Then he looks up in DMG what a reasonable challenge number would be, if he decides that this character would be appropriately challenging in this new context. Any concerns about characters' combat ability, skill levels, feats or special abilities in relation to each other is up the DM.

 

[Lizard]

Been reading Spycraft 2 (a game I'm starting to really like), and it got me thinking about this problem. They have core classes in that game that are almost transcendtally useless in melee combat, at least relative to combat-built characters (though there's lots of feats, etc, to buff them). The Hacker and the Scientist, to be precise.

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...)

Class based gaming for the past 30-odd years has been based heavily on the "rotating spotlight" theory of balance, that it's OK to suck at one thing if you get to shine at something else. 4e is based on the idea that this is utter bollocks; everyone should be able to contribute meaningfully, if not equally, to every encounter and event in the game. Classes with 'solo specialities' (like Hackers/Netrunners) or pre-combat functions (Riggers, Scientists, Engineers) are not part of the design.

This reminds me a lot of MMORPG design -- and no, this isn't a "4e rips off WoW!" post, at least not directly. Rather, prior to WoW, a leading rule of MMORPG game design was that tedium=balance. Most games were designed so that you had to wait long times for "spawn" or "rare drops", and that people would put up with 8 hour "camps" to get their "loot". WoW said "Screw that!", and, at least prior to high-end raiding, had almost all of the game accessible with minimum camping/hanging around doing nothing. It also did away with sacred cows like heavy death penalties. As we all know, it took off.

So, it is possible 4e may be on to something (at least WRT class based systems, though all systems with strong niche protection tend to go to rotating spotlight) or it might be that Rotating Spotlight is popular for a reason, and that tabletop gamers prefer it to everyone on, all the time. People used to an RS style of play might have trouble adjusting to 4e style play, or they might love it. I guess we'll know in June...