Nifft
Penguin Herder
Mobility or trickery or magic. (Emphasis added.)
So by your definition, 2/3 don't need mobility.
-- N
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Why are there no sneaky leaders?
- Thread starter mneme
- Start date
So by your definition, 2/3 don't need mobility.
-- N
Not to nitpick, but Dexterity is the Watcher Spirit Shaman secondary. That build gave up no stat points at all.
(re my complaint about Intimidate being based on Cha)
Sure, and this is a good idea, as it gives a better reason for the Str types who get Intimidate as their only social skill to actually take it.
That said... I do think this is a design flaw, and a case of some of the design lagging behind the concepts involved.
One of the big advantages to 4e overall is that it avoids marginalizing characters.
Everyone gets to fight. Unlike 3e, where Str and Dex were the fighting stats, in 4e, they may be the -default- fighting stats, but between classes with melee attacks based on every single one of the 6 attributes and the excellent feat Melee Training, everyone gets to play.
And, of course, skill challenges are conceptualized such that everyone gets to participate if they want.
Even in microcosm, there are some nice bits of pseudo-redundancy here. The mobility/stunt skills are Athletics (Str) and Acrobatics (Dex), so anyone with either stat can have a way to move around in non-obvious ways, even if the particulars are different.
However, in social situations, we're back to single-stat land again, unfortunately. Which is a big shame, given that what this means is that when you're in a social situation, the mechanics are telling you (if you're not playing a high-charisma character) to shut up and let the people with social skills talk--which in those situations is every much as bad as telling the 1e thief that this is a monster, not a trap, so he should sit back and let the fighter handle it, or to have everyone sit on their heels and let the rogue and druid explore the dungeon for a couple of hours. Yes, you can construct skill challenges that allow options other than talking -- and, of course, clever players can work Int-based knowledge skills into a conversation and try to substitute Arcana or History for Diplomacy or Bluff. But when you get down to it, players being left out of the conversation is still a very big deal--moreso when effectiveness in combat often means -not- putting any points into Charisma if it doesn't do anything for your build.
Moreover, having all three different (3, in fact) social skills under Charisma involves huge amount of redundancy. Clearly, the best of the skills for social situations is Diplomacy. It's nearly always applicable, and extremely flexible in approach. Bluff is a good complement -- and of course has some good combat applications. Finally, Intimidate is the social skill you don't want to have to use -- it's got several interesting (if usually to be avoided) combat applications, and has an entire set of fighitng abilities that require it, but both by flavor and typical challenge design, it's the narrowest and worst of the social skills.
So, what we end up with here is that anyone decent at social stuff has a high charisma and Diplomacy and/or Bluff--and nearly all builds with a high charisma have Dip/Bluff as class skills, and Intimidate is hard to get to a high level -and- is the weakest of the bunch.
Now, what if, rather than going with "Cha = social impact, so all direct social skills go under Cha", the three skills had been placed in different stat trees? Drop Intimidate in Str (or Con, as how "tough" you are), Bluff as Int (coming up with good lies as opposed to being generally likable) and keep Diplomacy under Cha. That way, nearly everyone would be able, if they wanted, to have a good score in a social skill -- but your class would constrain -how- you interacted with people rather than telling you to shut up please and let the charasmatic people talk.
An interesting alternative would be to have an even more direct parallel to the class structure (for AC/attack) -- have classes that get off-stat social skills often use alternative skills as basis for those skills. So fighters would get the feature "use Str as a basis for Intidmidate", Shamans would get to use Diplomacy via Wisdom, and so on.
Either way, it's a damned shame--and something that's going to constrain my choices whenever I'm not ok with playing characters that have to shut up and let the good-looking folks talk.
Hmm. I think I have a blog post here.
Sure, and this is a good idea, as it gives a better reason for the Str types who get Intimidate as their only social skill to actually take it.
That said... I do think this is a design flaw, and a case of some of the design lagging behind the concepts involved.
One of the big advantages to 4e overall is that it avoids marginalizing characters.
Everyone gets to fight. Unlike 3e, where Str and Dex were the fighting stats, in 4e, they may be the -default- fighting stats, but between classes with melee attacks based on every single one of the 6 attributes and the excellent feat Melee Training, everyone gets to play.
And, of course, skill challenges are conceptualized such that everyone gets to participate if they want.
Even in microcosm, there are some nice bits of pseudo-redundancy here. The mobility/stunt skills are Athletics (Str) and Acrobatics (Dex), so anyone with either stat can have a way to move around in non-obvious ways, even if the particulars are different.
However, in social situations, we're back to single-stat land again, unfortunately. Which is a big shame, given that what this means is that when you're in a social situation, the mechanics are telling you (if you're not playing a high-charisma character) to shut up and let the people with social skills talk--which in those situations is every much as bad as telling the 1e thief that this is a monster, not a trap, so he should sit back and let the fighter handle it, or to have everyone sit on their heels and let the rogue and druid explore the dungeon for a couple of hours. Yes, you can construct skill challenges that allow options other than talking -- and, of course, clever players can work Int-based knowledge skills into a conversation and try to substitute Arcana or History for Diplomacy or Bluff. But when you get down to it, players being left out of the conversation is still a very big deal--moreso when effectiveness in combat often means -not- putting any points into Charisma if it doesn't do anything for your build.
Moreover, having all three different (3, in fact) social skills under Charisma involves huge amount of redundancy. Clearly, the best of the skills for social situations is Diplomacy. It's nearly always applicable, and extremely flexible in approach. Bluff is a good complement -- and of course has some good combat applications. Finally, Intimidate is the social skill you don't want to have to use -- it's got several interesting (if usually to be avoided) combat applications, and has an entire set of fighitng abilities that require it, but both by flavor and typical challenge design, it's the narrowest and worst of the social skills.
So, what we end up with here is that anyone decent at social stuff has a high charisma and Diplomacy and/or Bluff--and nearly all builds with a high charisma have Dip/Bluff as class skills, and Intimidate is hard to get to a high level -and- is the weakest of the bunch.
Now, what if, rather than going with "Cha = social impact, so all direct social skills go under Cha", the three skills had been placed in different stat trees? Drop Intimidate in Str (or Con, as how "tough" you are), Bluff as Int (coming up with good lies as opposed to being generally likable) and keep Diplomacy under Cha. That way, nearly everyone would be able, if they wanted, to have a good score in a social skill -- but your class would constrain -how- you interacted with people rather than telling you to shut up please and let the charasmatic people talk.
An interesting alternative would be to have an even more direct parallel to the class structure (for AC/attack) -- have classes that get off-stat social skills often use alternative skills as basis for those skills. So fighters would get the feature "use Str as a basis for Intidmidate", Shamans would get to use Diplomacy via Wisdom, and so on.
Either way, it's a damned shame--and something that's going to constrain my choices whenever I'm not ok with playing characters that have to shut up and let the good-looking folks talk.
Hmm. I think I have a blog post here.
Which social skill gets used in what situation,and how often, is largely dependent on DM.
I think in my game there are enough situations where they capture enemies and interrogate them, that Intimidate turns out to be pretty useful. Diplomacy+Intimidate can lead to some interesting good cop/bad cop play. Initimidate + Heal can be used for torture (though it's probably not the most heroic method of gathering information).
Insight is very key in social encounters. It is wisdom based, and you seriously want one person good at it to make sure you're not acting on false information. Knowledge skills serve their place in social encounters as well. You might impress a lord with your knowledge in local history, or influence a peasant with your religious mutterings. Some knowledge of nature may be all you need to turn a group of wild fey from enemies to allies.
Contribution to a social encounter is not so limited by Charisma alone.
I think in my game there are enough situations where they capture enemies and interrogate them, that Intimidate turns out to be pretty useful. Diplomacy+Intimidate can lead to some interesting good cop/bad cop play. Initimidate + Heal can be used for torture (though it's probably not the most heroic method of gathering information).
Insight is very key in social encounters. It is wisdom based, and you seriously want one person good at it to make sure you're not acting on false information. Knowledge skills serve their place in social encounters as well. You might impress a lord with your knowledge in local history, or influence a peasant with your religious mutterings. Some knowledge of nature may be all you need to turn a group of wild fey from enemies to allies.
Contribution to a social encounter is not so limited by Charisma alone.
Indeed not. But talking that's simulated by talking (as opposed to talking that's brushed over with narration) has an annoying tendency to turn into charisma checks (of one variety or another).
That, plus the fact that once you have a good Diplomacy check, Intimidate and Bluff tend to only have a use in specialized circumstances (though there are places where Bluff is better than Diplomacy--when you're tryign to make friends with your enemies, mostly) makes me wonder whether structuring this differently would produce a better result and fewer cases where you -either- need to shut up or to shift over to narration.
Basically, if I have a decent Diplomacy/Bluff number, I can just run off my mouth. If I don't, I have to direct every single conversation so conciously that it takes a lot of the fun out of it, if it's even right for me to talk at all (and if I end up getting into it too much, I might end up causing the GM to call for a Diplomacy check -anyway-! Success=failure!).
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
A thing that the people saying "strikers need mobility!" are missing is this:
Mobility is not "how many squares of move I have".
A class who's schtick was being a heavily armored individual who could plow straight through enemies (ie - he's allowed to move through enemy squares for some reason) would be far more maneuverable in melee than one who gains +1 movement.
Mobility is not "how many squares of move I have".
A class who's schtick was being a heavily armored individual who could plow straight through enemies (ie - he's allowed to move through enemy squares for some reason) would be far more maneuverable in melee than one who gains +1 movement.
Nifft, you've got some splainin' to do.
FireLance
Legend
Have you seen the latest Class Acts for the Warlord? It's got heroic-tier attack powers that use Strength or Dexterity. If WotC expands this further to paragon and epic powers (perhaps in Martial Power 3?) we could have a sneaky leader.
I see an at-will called "Overrun" in your future:
Action: Move
Effect: Move up to your speed before making the following attack:
Attack: Str vs Fort
Target: An adjacent enemy.
Hit: The target is knocked prone.
IIRC, you can move through the square of a prone enemy; this allows the heavy-armor striker to "charge" through a defensive line. (Move action: move to the line; hit on the Overrrun attack; standard action: charge through the gap.)
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Sounds like knock down assault... followed by a move.
