Community

wrecan wrote:

I agree. But I think one of the things D&D always does wrong is to create mechanics for role-playing as opposed to combat.

and that is where we do not see eye to eye. I think the combat aspect needs to be pulled back a bit more. Sure it is at the forfront but it should not be as much. I understand people want combat, so do I, but I think the mechanics should be in place for MORE flexability, not less.

The 4E developers have said that's out the window.

THAT is why I do not plan on getting 4e. In my opinion that is the biggest mistake in D&D history. They have a chance to expand on non-combat ideas and instead fling it out the window in an attempt to grab a fanbase that in the end may not stick around. Mainly the pure MMORPG crowd. Most people who play those games AND D&D, do both anyways.

That has never been D&D's claim to fame. In fact, one of its broadest (and imo misguided) criticisms is that D&D does not handle non-combat mechanics well at all. 1st edition had secondary skills (with no mechanics and you only got one or two) and no NPC classes. 2nd edition had non-weapon proficiencies which wrere clunky and most of them combat-oriented. Only with third-edition did you have social mechanics and skills and the developers have said those are out in 4th edition. (Although there will be rules for rolling social interaction, as complex as combat, if the DM wants it.)

Again that is something I have had huge issues with. They were progressive up to 3e and now they are taking a MASSIVE step backwards. I understand you do not view it that way, but yes D&D was one of the first, and has grown not just in the realm of combat. now though they are taking that aspect out, and in my eyes that is a shame.

That was CHA in 1st and 2nd, but not in 3rd. And in 1st and 2nd edition, Cha was a dump stat for every character class except paladin.

In 3rd, CHA represents your force of personality. Indecisiveness and weak-willed people are low Charisma.

I am talking about Real life Charistma, not in game terms, Cha in the game is just a broad blanket term for many things that are considered charismatic.

I don't think you can say that at all. Wis is a bonus to the Will save because it represents your inner strenght. CHA is outward because it affects how other people react to you. But WIS is also outward because it affects your ability to perceive the world.

It's a muddle.

again giving the real life defenition, or at least a summation of it. Both skills are both inward and outward yes, they are the two sides of your perceptoin of reality. your sense of the world around you is wisdom, your sense of self is charistma. They both deal with the inverse though, wisdom dealing with an intake of the situation in the world around you and your ability to deal with that information, charistma is your sense of self, and ability to project that outwardly.

Actually, it looks like in 4th, Perception will be a Skill combining Sense Motive, Listen, Spot and Search.

Wisdom deals with perception of the world, that is why those skills should fall under wisdom, it is, ironicly, common sense

I don't think "good looking" should ever have a reflection in Abilities in D&D.

I definatly agree with you there. Looks should not enter into yoru skill set, ever.

wrecan wrote:

I don't think D&D has ever been a game about politicking, though you can have those aspects in yuour game. D&D is not and never intended to be GURPS. It is a game first and foremost about dungeons (exploring them) and dragons (fighting them). Its a RPG about adventurers who go into dangerous places and confront dangerous creatures.

There are plenty of RPGs for people who want mechanics for role-playing Machiavelli. That's not D&D and tryign to cram D&D into that style of play was, to me, a huge mistake, rightly being corrected.

Which isn't to say I want hack-and-slash. What I don't want is to give role-playing mechanics that turns it into a hack-and-slash politics game. 3.x created the notion of the Diplomancer, the character that can optimize stats for monopolizing role-play. I am glad that 4th edition is going to back off from that, so that role-playing is less tied to mechanics.

I don't want to have it 'crammed into D&D' but at the same time I don't want to have it left at the road side in favor of more action packed adventure. I think D&D should move closer to being a more 'generic' set of tools at its core, as befitting one of the first major tabletop games and indeed the one that seems to be name branded into peoples heads. I think the problem I have is that people seem to make it a game about pure adventure, and all the way though 3.5 advances in social and non-combat aspects from the mechanical standpoint have been made along side the combat aspects, while making hte game more like a set of legos where one can pick and choose how to change things around with little trouble. I have never had to write in a major system for something I wanted to include in 3.5 or 3e, they had decent guidelines both for combat and non-combat mechanics. now they move up the base power level, start filtering out some of the core mechanics from the book that are less action packed and it seems like they simply ant to move it more twars hack and slash and high adventure built in. Those are the issues I have though apparently people think I am nuts for having them as has been stated on other threads.

Then boy are you in the wrong forum!

Why? I have issues with 4e, and I post why I do along with what I think they could do. sadly though I don't think that those of us who really want to see 4e made more generic are getting our point across though, and all I really think can be hoped for now is that there will still be boards for 3.5 stuff when its all done.

I thought this thread was about what the D&D abilities should be, not arguing over the real-world definitions of "wisdom", "charisma" and "strength".

But should they not be one and the same? the ability scores are guidelines, you can be as strict to the definition or not with a bit of roleplay. If wisdom and charisma are stats based on the real world defenitoin why not make them that way when roleplaying and make sure that the stats reflect the characters personality? besides I was trying to explain why it is wisdom fits clerics and other spell casters while charisma fits spontaneous spellcasters whos power most likely comes from within and would be regulated by the ego