Newsgroup: it.hobby.giochi.gdr.dnd
Titolo: QUARTA edizione 4th - guerrieri diplomatici o guerrieroni e mezzi  orchi

in questo post Mike Mearls chiarisce come hanno progettato "ruoli" e
"classi" spiegando che assicurando che cmq un personaggio può fare
quello che deve tutto il resto (abilità, talenti ecc.) si possono
spendere a piacimento e la differenza in efficacia combattiva tra un
guerriero che prende tutti talenti di combattimento e uno che prende
tutti talenti diplomatici si può misurare in metri piuttosto che in
kilometri
+++
Yup, that's how the classes came together. The idea is to make sure
everyone can contribute in a meaningful way in a fight.
Hopefully, the end result is that you can build whatever sort of PC
you want to roleplay, making choices with an eye toward character
concept and personality, without losing out on your character's basic
ability to fight. We aimed to remove the "an interesting PC or an
effective PC" choices in the game.
That doesn't mean that your character's non-combat stuff is
diminished. If anything, it means we have more room for idiosyncratic
or personality-driven options, since you can take those without
hurting your character's baseline, expected combat ability.
As an example, you can play a fighter but spend all your feats to take
and improve social skills, but in a fight you are still an effective
defender. You aren't saddled with a lower than expected AC, attack
bonus, or whatever because you built a fighter who was also a
diplomat.
The fighter who goes all out on combat feats and stuff will
(obviously) be more effective in melee than you, but the distance
between you is measured in, say, meters instead of kilometers.
Meanwhile, the wizard, cleric, and rogue are just as happy with Lord
Harran, dashing envoy of the Iron Throne, as they would be with
Killmore Headbuster, swordmaster. Both those guys are effective,
frontline fighters. Harran's player didn't have to sacrifice his
"fightery-ness" to become the best Diplomacy user in the party.
__________________
Mike Mearls
Professional D&D Geek
+++
mezz'orchi su dnd insider
valutano ancora se metterli come sono o dire che in passato un qualche
dio ha creato questa razza ibrida e ogni tanto nasce un mezz'orco
Well, they're not in the Player's Handbook. I'd hope to have them
available on DDi pretty soon after the PH hits, though, since players
out there with half-orc characters are going to want to be able to
convert or re-create their character concept, as the case may be.
Half-orcs are a bit tricky, because they imply a very ugly backstory
that we frankly don't want to dwell on very much. I think it's
possible to posit a better backstory, like "long ago a god of evil
mixed the races of orcs and humans, and to this day atavistic
throwbacks are born to each from time to time." We'll see where we get
to on that score when we get serious about updating the half-orc. So
far we've just had other fish to fry first.
Oh, and regardless of what core D&D does with half-orcs, they've got
to be in the Realms at least as a NPC race (or "playable monster"
race); they've been in Faerun in 3e and earlier editions, and we
wouldn't retcon them out of existence.
_________________
ciao, Fabio

 dio ha creato questa razza ibrida e ogni tanto nasce un mezz'orco
Boh, che i tiefling non fossero dei quarti-di-demone già mi rugava, ma che  
i mezz'orchi nascano così a caso mi puzza molto.
A questo punto non chiamateli mezz'orchi ed eliminate anche i mezz'elfi,  
se no gli orecchi a punta chi sono; i più belli?
-- 
Manny Calavera
Mail To: anforagimailpuntocom²
Uccidete i filosofi, tenetevi riso e bacchette per voi

 se no gli orecchi a punta chi sono; i più belli?
credo che si siano fatti domande di funzionalità ed utilizzabilità per
queste razze più tignose meglio aspettare
cmq per il guerrierone ci sono i DragonBorn....

"fightery-ness" to become the best Diplomacy user in the party.
tra tutte le cose, era quella che speravo di piů. caratterizzazione
senza sacrifici!
-- 
 Domon