When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[Intense_Interest]

Craft (poetry) could, arguably, be used. Not cross class at all. And whether or not it's a worthwhile purpose is going to depend a lot more on the individual campaign. I could imagine a campaign in which craft (poetry) might be used more than ride, handle animal, climb, or jump.
There's nothing in the mechanics that discourages spending points on being a good poet. It's all a question of the campaign in which the character will be playing.

How about if a DM said that you had to either use a Knowledge (Literature) or Craft (Poetry) skill to find or make a poem, respectively, but a Perform (Poetry) to actually say it aloud? Again, we're drifting far down the "Roleplaying isn't a Game system decision" stream.

 

[Fifth Element]

Craft (poetry) could, arguably, be used. Not cross class at all.

Looking at the examples given for Craft and Perform, it's very clear which one poetry falls under. All of the Craft skills involve making something for which the physical form matters. A haiku is a series of words. The way it's written matters not.

From PHB p.70: "All crafts require artisan's tools to give the best chance of success." The type of pen you're using doesn't affect the quality of a poem.

So yes, it would be cross-class. Unless you just had a DM who cares about your haiku-fighter.

There's nothing in the mechanics that discourages spending points on being a good poet. It's all a question of the campaign in which the character will be playing.

Well, yes there is really. The fact that fighters get very few skill points, and the fact that poetry would be cross-class (it is not a craft). And since the cross-class skill sucks up so many skill points, you'd have far less skill ranks in other, more useful (mechanically) skills.

The best way to do it would probably be a fighter/bard, but that carries a whole lot of other baggage you might not want.

 

[Shroomy]

Craft (poetry) could, arguably, be used. Not cross class at all. And whether or not it's a worthwhile purpose is going to depend a lot more on the individual campaign. I could imagine a campaign in which craft (poetry) might be used more than ride, handle animal, climb, or jump.
There's nothing in the mechanics that discourages spending points on being a good poet. It's all a question of the campaign in which the character will be playing.

I agree that in some campaigns, the ability to compose and/or perform poetry would be more useful than his physical skills, but that's beside the point (and even then, you're probably talking about a minority of campaigns). I'm not even sure if Craft would be the correct skill in this case (personally, I would lean towards Perform since from my reading, the Craft skills seem to cover actually building an object), but I would argue that low skill points that a fighter receives is more or less a disincentive to choosing these type of RP skills. At least, that seemed to be the designer's intent, even if enterprising players and DMs could adapt the system to serve their specific purposes.

In 4e, if the ability to compose poetry became mechanically relevant to the game (and in most cases, IMO, it won't be), an ability check + half level against the appropriate ability check DCs (which come in easy, medium, and hard and are scaled differently than skill check DCs due to the lack of training and skill focus) seems to me a better form of general mechanical support for these types of situations. Also, the DMG pretty much encourages you to give circumstance bonuses in these types of situations if you have a good reason, and being a haiku spouting fighter seems like a good reason to give a +2 bonus to the roll, at least to me.

 

[Allister]

I'm curious as to WHY having roles that dictate both combat and non-combat is considered a GOOD thing. I keep seeing people saying this is a good thing but I'm not sure how.

Seriously, as a DM I hated this since I had to always keep in mind that the other guy whose class was weak in combat needed non-combat encounters to shine.

However, that led to the SR problem where only that character took part (Deckers) and just like Shadowrun, I found it actually discouraged non-combat encounters.

If, for example, I wanted to design a social encounter where the PCs had to cajole, convince some nobles, in 4E, I can be reasonably certain that everyone can contribute due to the skill challenge mechanic and the inherent nature of the skill system.

In 3E? Looks like only the bard is taking part since the rogue has spent points on "dungeon-exploration" and the fighter has only points in the class skills.

So why would a DM actually be encouraged to run non-combat encounters when there's a good chance that the other people in the group are just going to be fiddling their thumbs?


re: 4E's design focus
I still believe that one of the main reasons why 4E switched its focus was due to 2 things.

a) fantasy has changed
It's hard to deny that the LotR movies actually are more "wahoo" than the books and the influence of anime on the target audience can not be underestimated. To many in the target audience, it is no longer LotR the novels, but LotR, the movies.

b) less available time
I think this is another factor that gets underestimated. Pre 4E (and mostly pre-3E), the classes were balanced on the fact that over the course of a campaign (a couple years if not more), each class would get a chance to shine.

I don't think this is true anymore. WOTC's target audience is no longer one that has the time is my hunch to have the classes be balanced over time. Each class, be it in combat or noncombat is supposed to be able to contribute to that encounter.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd rather find a *DM* who cares about my haiku-fighter.

You know, if it was in the rules (and well done in the rules), I'm sure there'd be more DM's who cared about it. Or at least, those who were even inclined to care about it would be persuaded to bring it out. Don't put the cart before the horse -- the core rules tell you what the game is about, and if they don't care about the haiku-fighter, why should your DM?

IMXP, it is not the rules that dictate whether there will be in-depth, immersive roleplay and diverse, interesting characters; rather, it is the people at the table with you.

I'm not speaking about dictums. There's nothing in Monopoly that tells you you can't have immersive roleplay, either. Still, few people do it because there is no reason to. The rules certainly don't tell you to.

By having less rules for how well my fighter can spin haikus than 3e, 4e gives me less support. That's not to say I can't add it, of course I can. That is to say that 4e doesn't give me that.

I can add haikus to my fighter like I can roleplay in Monopoly, and, in both cases, there isn't enough incentive or payoff for me as a player. I certainly don't create fighters who can compose haikus just to amuse myself. I want an effect on the game, because it is the game that amuses me. 4e doesn't give me that, and while I can certainly force it in, it doesn't make the game better because it excludes it. In fact, for me, it makes the game worse.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Seriously, as a DM I hated this since I had to always keep in mind that the other guy whose class was weak in combat needed non-combat encounters to shine.

I agree with this being a problem in most D&D editions.

But in some hypothetical 4e that took noncombat roles into account, that doesn't need to exclude combat roles. We could still have Strikers and Leaders and Controllers. But now we would have Striker-Negotiators, and Leader-Crafters, and Defender-Naturalists, and Controller-Ritualists. And we would have rules and powers and abilities to use for negotiating and crafting and wandering around in the wild and performing the "swiss army knife" of rituals that equals importance with the rules for marking and healing and opportunity attacks and hit points.

Rather than a complete suite of rules for one half of the game, and nothing for the other.

It's possible, here, to have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

You know, if it was in the rules (and well done in the rules), I'm sure there'd be more DM's who cared about it. Or at least, those who were even inclined to care about it would be persuaded to bring it out. Don't put the cart before the horse -- the core rules tell you what the game is about, and if they don't care about the haiku-fighter, why should your DM?

I can add haikus to my fighter like I can roleplay in Monopoly, and, in both cases, there isn't enough incentive or payoff for me as a player. I certainly don't create fighters who can compose haikus just to amuse myself. I want an effect on the game, because it is the game that amuses me. 4e doesn't give me that, and while I can certainly force it in, it doesn't make the game better because it excludes it. In fact, for me, it makes the game worse.

Two questions:

What game has done rules for performing haikus well?

What effect on the game did Perform (Haiku) have in 3E if you were a Fighter?

 

[Shroomy]

I agree with this being a problem in most D&D editions.

But in some hypothetical 4e that took noncombat roles into account, that doesn't need to exclude combat roles. We could still have Strikers and Leaders and Controllers. But now we would have Striker-Negotiators, and Leader-Crafters, and Defender-Naturalists, and Controller-Ritualists. And we would have rules and powers and abilities to use for negotiating and crafting and wandering around in the wild and performing the "swiss army knife" of rituals that equals importance with the rules for marking and healing and opportunity attacks and hit points.

Rather than a complete suite of rules for one half of the game, and nothing for the other.

It's possible, here, to have your cake and eat it, too.

I'm having delicious cake every Monday (well not tonight, because our DM's wife got really sick). While our fighter is pretty much just a fighter, our warlock is the party face (Striker-Negotiator, he even re-trained a skill to be better at Diplomacy) and my artificer is the craft guy and skill monkey (Leader-Crafters). Our DM makes liberal use out of the non-combat encounter sections of the DMG, while we use our skills and non-combat feats all the time. Hell, our new wizard player took the Linguist feat twice and now speaks all but two of the languages in the game (next level, he'll get the feat again and speaking everything).

 

[Fifth Element]

By having less rules for how well my fighter can spin haikus than 3e, 4e gives me less support. That's not to say I can't add it, of course I can. That is to say that 4e doesn't give me that.

I don't think you can really argue that 3e does support this specific case any better. We can't even agree which skill it falls under. In 4e, it would fall under an ability check.

3e certainly suffers from the perception of "if it's not in the rules, you can't do it". 4e expressly goes with the "say yes" approach.

 

[Psion]

This is another of those "don't speak the same language" things -- I saw the 3E PC/monster/NPC sameness experiment as a spectacular success.

I've related this tale before, but it's what sold me on 3e. Prior to that, I was ambivalent about 3e. I bought the MM, saw how monsters were done... and went on to run campaigns that matched or surpassed any that I ran in the "old days". Because the system supported what I was trying to do.