Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 9691213" data-attributes="member: 6915329">OK, so I didn't play 4e, but a large part of that is because the first books made it clear (to me) it was very much a combat game. It looked like they removed nearly everything that wasn't combat-oriented. For instance: bards, (many) utility spells, good-aligned monsters. I know bards and at least some good monsters came in a later, and they probably added more social elements in later as well, but that lack turned me off enormously. I may have liked the edition enough to buy it if they had included these things right away. (Or maybe not, because I can't get myself that excited for tactical combat.)Whereas DH includes social elements throughout the book, to the point that the Blade domain--probably one of the most combat-oriented domains used in the most combat-oriented classes--has the Soldier's Bond card. You say nice things to someone or ask them about themselves and you both gain Hope. I know the 4e fighter or warlord or whatever could basically point to someone and give them hp back, but the DH ability is specifically built to encourage roleplaying. And there's a whole Social adversary type, made specifically for non-combat encounters. (I have absolutely no idea how non-combat NPCs were handled in 4e.)So while yeah, DH was definitely took heavily from 4e, it has enough social elements that people like me can really enjoy it.</blockquote>