Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ferratus" data-source="post: 4921506" data-attributes="member: 55966">I don't think entirely.   I think it is quite reasonable to want your characters do things mechanically differently if that is your cup of tea, and if you want to have a particular class solve particular problems.I don't particularly care about that, I care about the narrative of the story.  I get enough difference between characters simply by the descriptive nature of the powers.  For example, a fighter can break down a door with brute strength, while a wizard can burn it down.  It accomplishes the same thing mechanically, but the wizard still has an ability that the fighter doesn't have.  He burns doors to slag with magic.Take a wizard using magic to try and befriend someone.  A rogue or a bard might use his quick tongue, a cleric might give off an aura of good, and a warlord might give off a reassuring presence of leadership.  The wizard however, might use a prestidigitation to improve his looks, or speak with greater alacrity than he normally would.Narratively, they still accomplish the same goal, but they are all doing things that other players can't do.  A rogue can't snatch a secret of the villain's greatest fear out of his head, but the psion doesn't know how to press a knife to the villains throat in just the right place to make him uneasy.  Both however, make the same intimidate check, using the same charisma score.  (No house ruling!)But I'm beginning to think that I'm one of the few that understood this from the reading of the rules.   If so, I understand the feelings of anger over the lack of out of combat options in 4e.  If you think that diplomacy skill is about "speaking well" rather than what happens which is that you influence someone positively, then there are scores of character archetypes that will never exist in your games.  If you assume that intimidate is only the threat of violence, bluff is only lying, perception is only having keen senses and so forth, it becomes tens of thousands of character archetypes never explored.  Thousands of minor spells that can be done with a standard action will never be used.  I track with a find the path spell (skill check: nature).  I seduce the noblewoman by magically changing my appearance to look like a more handsome version of myself (skill check: diplomacy).  I try to use a minor spell to slow the descent of my fall (skill check: acrobatics).You still need to be a worshipper of primal spirits to cast a find the path spell, or know how to present your magically enhanced appearance, or be nimble enough to use the spell to slow your fall, but it is the result that matters.  Again, it isn't what your character can do, it is what happens.  Narrative is king in 4e.If you have a feat or a utility power that allows you to substitute one skill check for another, it also works in the favour of narrative.  Take Raistlin Majere and the utility power "arcane mutterings."  Raistlin isn't the most intimidating character around, being a scrawny and sickly minor mage.   Raistlin though has an ace up his sleeve, he knows how to make a curse sound like a curse, and knows how to come up with a terrifying name for a fictional creature.   So when he lays a phony curse on his belongings to terrify a bunch of goblins, they believe him.I thought all of this was obvious as skills (and skill challenges) were described in the PHB and DMG.  If nobody else got this, I should immediately write up an article for dungeon.</blockquote>

Verification