Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FourthBear" data-source="post: 3989662" data-attributes="member: 55846">As to how much of a PCs detailed class abilities need to be non-combat, I think we'll need to consider how much of the rules system itself will be non-combat oriented.&nbsp; Certainly, I think creating a class that primarily has social challenge related abilities will be possible.&nbsp; However, it may be diffiicult to make such characters distinct from each other or to keep them from overwhelming the social challenge system, if the rules for such a system are not as detailed as the combat system.&nbsp; In all versions of D&amp;D (and most RPGs), the combat system is by far the most detailed part of the system.&nbsp; It tends to have multiple, well defined offensive options, defensive options, status states, premade opponents, styles of oppositiion, environmental effects and such.&nbsp; This allows for a levelled PC to have a certain level of detail as to its combat characteristics that allow the PC to feel competent and distinguishable from other PC builds.&nbsp;&nbsp; There are lots of ways for PCs to be &quot;good at combat&quot;.&nbsp; I think 4e will likely have more suggestions for social encounters and challenges that confront the whole party, but I don't think it will have anywhere near the detail of the combat system.&nbsp; Just as none of the previous editions of D&amp;D have had.&nbsp; How many social character builds would be truly distinct from each other in the 3e core system (let alone 1e or 2e)?&nbsp; Penumbra's Dynasties and Demagogues had a nice social challenge system for D&amp;D that might be a good starting point, if 4e doesn't have the level of detail needed for a campaign with a desire for more depth in the social system.Therefore, I think the concern would be that if you use the standard PC classes as starting points, they'll be getting quanitites of options for the combat system.&nbsp; If you try to create a social class with the goal of roughly the same quantity and type of options, you may find that you fill all of the roles in the simpler social challenge system much more quickly.&nbsp; Thus, you end up with a character that can &quot;do it all&quot; in social challenges and leaves the other PCs with nothing to contribute.&nbsp; Simply because the system has less to do in social challenges.&nbsp; I see it as an issue of specialization.&nbsp; As in games such as HERO and GURPS, game masters should be aware of players sticking all of their points into one sub-system and overwhelming the game's detail in that area.So I think you'll be able to create a Noble class in 4e, much as you could in 3e.&nbsp; But just as in 3e, you may have to worry about such a character would be specialized for challenges that may not have the depth of the combat system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FourthBear, post: 3989662, member: 55846"] As to how much of a PCs detailed class abilities need to be non-combat, I think we'll need to consider how much of the rules system itself will be non-combat oriented. Certainly, I think creating a class that primarily has social challenge related abilities will be possible. However, it may be diffiicult to make such characters distinct from each other or to keep them from overwhelming the social challenge system, if the rules for such a system are not as detailed as the combat system. In all versions of D&D (and most RPGs), the combat system is by far the most detailed part of the system. It tends to have multiple, well defined offensive options, defensive options, status states, premade opponents, styles of oppositiion, environmental effects and such. This allows for a levelled PC to have a certain level of detail as to its combat characteristics that allow the PC to feel competent and distinguishable from other PC builds. There are lots of ways for PCs to be "good at combat". I think 4e will likely have more suggestions for social encounters and challenges that confront the whole party, but I don't think it will have anywhere near the detail of the combat system. Just as none of the previous editions of D&D have had. How many social character builds would be truly distinct from each other in the 3e core system (let alone 1e or 2e)? Penumbra's Dynasties and Demagogues had a nice social challenge system for D&D that might be a good starting point, if 4e doesn't have the level of detail needed for a campaign with a desire for more depth in the social system. Therefore, I think the concern would be that if you use the standard PC classes as starting points, they'll be getting quanitites of options for the combat system. If you try to create a social class with the goal of roughly the same quantity and type of options, you may find that you fill all of the roles in the simpler social challenge system much more quickly. Thus, you end up with a character that can "do it all" in social challenges and leaves the other PCs with nothing to contribute. Simply because the system has less to do in social challenges. I see it as an issue of specialization. As in games such as HERO and GURPS, game masters should be aware of players sticking all of their points into one sub-system and overwhelming the game's detail in that area. So I think you'll be able to create a Noble class in 4e, much as you could in 3e. But just as in 3e, you may have to worry about such a character would be specialized for challenges that may not have the depth of the combat system. [/QUOTE]

Verification