In my first post we discussed porting Dual of Wits from Burning Wheel to 4ed.  In this post I will supply some powers, feats, and permutations to flesh out and add depth to the system.

Debate Powers
The following debate powers are available to everyone.  In many cases, a debate power will have an enhanced or additional effect if the character using the power is trained in a specific skill.

Discuss Point – Debate Attack
You calmly state a point for your case.
At-Will – Debate, Diplomacy
Standard Action – Close Burst 10
Target: One creature in burst.
Attack: Diplomacy vs. Diplomacy
Hit: 1d6 + Charisma modifier derision.
Special: If you are trained in Diplomacy, instead of doing 1d6 + Charisma modifier derision you may do 1d6 + the highest of your Charisma, Intelligence, or Wisdom modifiers derision.

Bold-faced Lie – Debate Attack
You tell a lie that conveniently undermines your opponent.
At-Will – Debate, Bluff
Standard Action – Close Burst 10
Target: One creature in burst.
Attack: Bluff vs. Insight
Hit: 1d8 + Charisma modifier derision.
Miss: You opponent catches you lying and you are -2 to all defenses against debate attacks until the end of your next turn.
Special: If you are trained in Bluff and roll a natural 20 on your attack, the target is also Sputtering (save ends.)

Infuriating Insult – Debate Attack
You insult your opponent, hoping to shake their mental balance.
At-Will – Debate, Intimidate
Standard Action – Close Burst 10
Target: One creature in burst.
Attack: Intimidate vs. Insight
Hit: 1d4 + Charisma modifier derision and the target is Sputtering (save ends.)
Special: If you are trained in Intimidate you instead deal 1d6 + Charisma modifier derision.
Miss: The target is Provoked until then end of your next turn.
Effect: You risk turning the debate into a shouting match.  Until the end of your next turn, if the target uses a debate attack power with the Intimidate keyword against you, they gain a +2 power bonus to their attack roll.

Recovering Concession – Debate Utility
You agree to one of your opponent’s minor points, hoping it will afford you some bargaining power.
Encounter – Debate, Insight
Standard Action – Personal
Target: Self
Effect: Regain 3 + Charisma modifier argument points.  Your defenses against debate powers are +2 until the end of your next turn.
Special: If you are trained in Insight you instead regain 6 + Charisma modifier argument points and your defense power bonus is equal to 2 + the highest of your Charisma, Intelligence, or Wisdom modifiers until the end of your next turn.

Finishing Remark – Debate Attack
You make a final, flourishing statement, hoping to shut down your opposition.
Encounter – Debate, Diplomacy
Standard Action – Close Burst 10
Target: One creature in burst.
Attack: Diplomacy vs. Diplomacy
Hit: 2d6 + Charisma modifier derision.  If you fail to defeat your target you are Stymied until the end of your next turn.
Special: If you are trained in Diplomacy you instead deal 2d8 + Charisma modifier derision.

Expert Opinion – Debate Attack
You attempt to use your expertise in a related subject to prove your opponent wrong.
Encounter – Debate
Standard Action – Close Burst 10
Target: One creature in burst.
Attack: One of your trained skills vs. the same skill
Hit: 1d4 derision and the target suffers -2 to all debate attacks (save ends.)

Misleading Logic – Debate Attack
You guide your opponent into a verbal trap.
Encounter – Debate, Bluff
Standard Action – Close Burst 10
Target: One creature in burst.
Attack: Bluff vs. Diplomacy
Hit: 1d6 + Charisma modifier derision.  Until the end of your next turn, if the target includes you as the target of a debate attack power, you may use an at-will debate attack power against them as an immediate interrupt.
Special: If you are trained in Bluff and you hit with the immediate interrupt debate attack, the target is Sputtering (save ends.)

Overbearing Demeanor – Debate Attack
Your presence is so great, your words so threatening, that your opponent hesitates in fear.
Encounter – Debate, Intimidate
Standard Action – Close Burst 10
Target: One creature in burst.
Attack: Intimidate vs. Willpower
Hit: 1d6 derision and target is Stymied until the end of your next turn.
Special: If you are trained in Intimidate, Aftereffect: Target is Sputtering (save ends.)

Debate Feats
The following feats are all Heroic tier.  Obviously, if debating is not a frequent feature of your game, these feats lose some of their mechanical value.  It is my hope that they remain worthy in a player’s eyes based on the flavor they bring to a character.

Expert Debator
Requirement: Trained in Diplomacy.
Benefit: You deal +1 derision with all debate powers that have the Diplomacy keyword.

Sharp and Heavy Words
Requirement: Trained in Intimidate.
Benefit: Opponents suffer a -2 to saves against status effects inflicted by your Intimidate debate powers.

Honeyed Words
Requirement: Trained in Bluff.
Benefit: Gain Honeyed Words as a per-encounter debate power.

Honeyed Words – Debate Feat Power
Your kind words cause your opponent to soften his blow.
Encounter – Debate, Bluff
Immediate Interrupt
Trigger: You are hit by a debate attack power.
Effect: Re-roll the triggering attack.

Slick Tongue
Benefit: Gain Slick Tongue as a per-encounter debate power.

Slick Tongue – Debate Feat Power
You always seem to fit a word in edgewise.
Encounter – Debate, Diplomacy
Minor Action – Close Burst 10
Target: One creature in burst.
Attack: Diplomacy vs. Diplomacy
Hit: 1d4 derision.
Special: If you are trained in Diplomacy, you gain a +2 power bonus to your next debate attack power.  You lose this bonus if it is not used by the end of your next turn.

Running Debates
Debates are very similar to combat in execution.  Unlike combat, they lack any sort of terrain or movement.  An attempt was made here to fabricate powers that provide a bit of a strategic terrain, but it can’t completely make up for the loss.  Instead, I suggest players and GMs to role-play the debate.  When using a debate power, describe what your character is doing and saying.  I realize many people do this already with skill checks and combat powers, but for those that don’t, give it a try!

One thing I realized after writing the first post was that when you allow a debater to attack any character involved in a debate it sets debates up to be exclusive to characters trained in the key “debating skills.”  This is a little anti-4ed-ism in that not everyone can contribute to the conflict.  There are three ways to approach this.  The first is that debates are short (I intentionally left direct level inflation out of the equation when calculating argument pools for this purpose.)  This can allow characters that have trained the appropriate skills to shine for a few moments.  Just as the folks with Dungeoneering and Thievery have their niche moments, so too can the talkers of the party.  The second way to handle this is to rule that the target number of a debate attack is not from the target’s skills, but instead from the highest skill total in the party.  In this way a skilled debater won’t be able to pick on poor Bob Barbarian, and Bob still has his chance to flex the muscles and intimidate some people.  The third way is to make sure that the opposition has a few unskilled characters as well.  If each side has a few weak points in their lineup it can become an interesting struggle as the more skilled characters try to Stymie, Provoke, and Sputter their equals away from attacking the easier targets.

As Burning Wheel says, the Dual of Wits is not mind control.  If you debate and are victorious, it does not necessarily mean your opponents suddenly agree or share your beliefs.  Winning means you have convinced the audience to see things your way and that you have forced your opponent to concede.  This doesn’t mean that the merchant you just haggled will want to do business with you in the future, or that the vizier of the king that you just bested won’t try to poison you the next time your back is turned.

It would be interesting to see a Dual of Wits ran in the middle of a combat or trap.  Maybe the party is wrongfully accused and is being attack by local law enforcement–can the party manage to convince the officers that they are innocent in time, or will the party have to put the officers down and mar their reputation further?  A doppleganger has taken the form of a party member and now the two are locked in mortal combat–which one can convince the onlookers of their true identity?

This entry was posted on Friday, April 24th, 2009 at 6:59 pm and is filed under D&D 4e, Rules Ideas. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.