Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 3989487" data-attributes="member: 1054">This isn't intended as a &quot;4e is t3h suxx0r!&quot; thread. I want to better understand the mechanics.3e's class structure supported non-combat, PC-worthy, classes. By &quot;non combat&quot;, I mean that most of the class's special abilities and Cool Stuff wasn't focused on hitting things. By &quot;PC-worthy&quot;, I mean, they had a lot of special abilities and cool stuff&nbsp; -- they got powers and things as they leveled, as compared to the NPC classes.Good examples are the Diplomat from Babylon 5, the Faceman from Spycraft, and the Noble from Star Wars. There were also a LOT of socially-focused PrCs. These may not have been &quot;D&amp;D Core&quot;, but they WERE supported by the design of the 3x class system.I do not know how tightly coded Striker, Controller, etc are into the 4e engine. 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 &quot;social encounters&quot;, a character whose role in combat is, at best, moral support or tactics. (I guess this might make them Leaders -- I suppose that could work, though the Leaders we've seen so far are more mix-em-up types...hmmm..may have answered my own question there...is &quot;Social&quot; a Power Source?[1])Anyone have any thoughts on this? Again, I'm not trying to bash 4e, nor am I interested in &quot;If you don't want to WHACK ORCS, go home, role player! D&amp;D is for REAL MEN who pretend to KILL THINGS, not pretend to TALK to things!&quot; responses.[1]I can definitely see some OOTS style humor coming from this...&quot;Mmmm..do that thing you do with your tongue again...&quot;&quot;Sorry, dear, it's a per-encounter ability, and I've already done it once...&quot;Heh. 4e is growing on me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lizard, post: 3989487, member: 1054"] This isn't intended as a "4e is t3h suxx0r!" thread. I want to better understand the mechanics. 3e's class structure supported non-combat, PC-worthy, classes. By "non combat", I mean that most of the class's special abilities and Cool Stuff wasn't focused on hitting things. By "PC-worthy", I mean, they had a lot of special abilities and cool stuff -- they got powers and things as they leveled, as compared to the NPC classes. Good examples are the Diplomat from Babylon 5, the Faceman from Spycraft, and the Noble from Star Wars. There were also a LOT of socially-focused PrCs. These may not have been "D&D Core", but they WERE supported by the design of the 3x class system. I do not know how tightly coded Striker, Controller, etc are into the 4e engine. 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. (I guess this might make them Leaders -- I suppose that could work, though the Leaders we've seen so far are more mix-em-up types...hmmm..may have answered my own question there...is "Social" a Power Source?[1]) Anyone have any thoughts on this? Again, I'm not trying to bash 4e, nor am I interested in "If you don't want to WHACK ORCS, go home, role player! D&D is for REAL MEN who pretend to KILL THINGS, not pretend to TALK to things!" responses. [1]I can definitely see some OOTS style humor coming from this... "Mmmm..do that thing you do with your tongue again..." "Sorry, dear, it's a per-encounter ability, and I've already done it once..." Heh. 4e is growing on me. [/QUOTE]

Verification