Whatever happened to social combat?

[Felon]

Well, I can see how skill challenges are sort of like combat, where you have to target a given defense and score a certain number of hits.

But I do remember specifically that there was some way the DM could oppose the players, using the example of an encounter with a king where an NPC advisor attempts to sway the king to his point of view with checks made by the DM.

 

[LostSoul]

But I do remember specifically that there was some way the DM could oppose the players, using the example of an encounter with a king where an NPC advisor attempts to sway the king to his point of view with checks made by the DM.

There's a sidebar on page 74 that deals with NPC checks. It advises against them, but suggests that you use passive skill checks (10 + skill mod).

 

[Regicide]

Well then they did. Because yes, the focus is on not overcomplicating things.

No, they didn't fool me, they just ed up and didn't manage to do what they set out to do. It is clearly not a simpler game.

As for the specific of what you just said, most of that is pure rubbish. One guy thinks the spellbook for example costs money, and everyone else doesn't.

You apparently missed all the other threads, and the fact that the questions I mentioned got put in the FAQ because of it. Do you know what FAQ stands for?

You exaggerating about what is an actual 5% to 10% shift isn't the fault of the rules, it's your own paranoia. You didn't need to do all that. Your character would have been perfectly playable without all that. You made a choice to min/max, and the rules didn't force you to make that choice.

You've apparently missed the threads showing how you're pretty much screwed if you make your character wrong. I'm not talking about min/maxing to cascade of blades to solo Orcus, but about not being able to handle level appropriate challenges. Hitting on an 11+ vs. hitting on a 13+ means you're doing about 25% more damage/shifts/healing/whatever. Same character, but 4 point difference in a prime attribute, dramatically different effect.

I find the index to be a marked improvement over other game books. Your mileage apparently varies.

Your idea of marked improvement is obviously different than mine. 3.5E PHB was the same length as 4E but had an index 3x as long, and when I use it, I actually find what I'm looking for.

 

[Family]

Social Combat has been outsoursed to a 3rd party, ENWorld and is availible as the first online feature.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

Well, I can see how skill challenges are sort of like combat, where you have to target a given defense and score a certain number of hits.

But I do remember specifically that there was some way the DM could oppose the players, using the example of an encounter with a king where an NPC advisor attempts to sway the king to his point of view with checks made by the DM.

Just use the NPC advisers active bluff/diplomacy/etc. as the DC for a skill challenge.

 

[The Grackle]

Social encounters. For those who don't just want to RP such things without some mechanical impact, the game has rules for non-combat encounters. The example given was social interaction. Unlike 3E, where negotiation amounts to a single Diplomacy check, it's treated almost like a combat in 4E. I make a skill check, but I also tell the DM what/how I'm doing. The opponent responds with behavior(and a check) of his own. I counter with a new check, and new words. And so forth.

This is not the "Skill Challenge" that made it into the DMG.

The system must not have worked out in playtesting, or would have required too much work to iron out. I'm glas they focused on stabbing-combat instead of talking-combat anyway.

 

[Kishin]

No, they didn't fool me, they just ed up and didn't manage to do what they set out to do. It is clearly not a simpler game.

Clearly you have not played enough high level 3.5E.

 

[Plane Sailing]

No, they didn't fool me, they just ed up and didn't manage to do what they set out to do. It is clearly not a simpler game.

Hey, go and rant in your own thread!

Or, and here's a notion, how about not ranting at all, eh?

Thanks

 

[GnomeWorks]

The mechanical contents of a system give a general feel for how the system plays and is meant to be used.

4e's heavy emphasis on combat gives a feeling that the game is intended for combat, and little else. Yes, there is content for skill challenges and such, but those mechanics and discussions are quite clearly more limited in material and scope than what is available for purposes of combat.

Not only that, but there are a few threads floating about describing just how screwy 4e's skill challenge system is. It is clearly not as well-thought-out (too many hyphens?) as the combat system, nor are there nearly as many character options supporting it. The majority of the feats and powers support combat, not social interaction.

Some may call that a good thing, that mechanics inhibit RP and such, and perhaps they're right. But the fact remains that 4e is very heavily focused on combat, mechanically, and that will have an impact on how it's played. If more detailed, mechanically-tight rules had been put in place for "social combat," perhaps the game would not feel as combat-centric as it does.

 

[TheWyrd]

I feel that skill challenges as presented 'standard' aren't really going to be the way they play out as supplements come out. Look at the discussion on converting 'Steading the Hill Giant Chieftain'. Over time I think we're going to see some really very complex and innovative challenges come out of the system. I'm personally liking the tree/unlocking option where the use of certain innovative skills opens up other story options.