Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4156803" data-attributes="member: 710">For me, the biggest difference so far seems to be that they promise actual guidelines at all. 3E has the Diplomacy "rules", with stink (but I am happy to abuse them with my Warlock and his +25 odd Diplomacy check), and its bluff and intimidate skills. But it hardly gives any real guidelines how to handle these in a satisfying, "interactive" way. Basically, the 3E system seems to boil to "roll against DC, and you're done". Generally, for someone like me, this leads to me enjoying combats a lot more then social encounters. Combats are long-drawn activities, that require tactical maneuvering, smart use of abilities, and you're kept busy for some time. I am engaged because I constantly have to make decisions what I want to do.Social encounters? I roll one die, and I am done. Sure, I can make up a speech, cleverly formulate my wishes, and I might get a small bonus to my Diplomacy check in exchange. Or I could do without, and just roll the check and trust that my insane skill modifier takes care of any shortcomings in my decisions. You could make up your own guidelines, but... well, if they aren't part of the core books, then it's not a strength of the edition. It's your own strength. And if you can't come up with such guidelines, this part of the game will always remain weak.</blockquote>