FASA Games, Inc.

"the adept holds his own in social conversations, using quips, clever timing, and other verbal tricks to make a favorable impression."(3e)
That still the jist of Conversation or has it changed meaning in 4e?

I think what Baravakar and I are wondering is why?
If I am understanding correctly I now have to make every Weaponsmith master talkers. The 'A dour man who doesn't talk much, yet makes every word count when he chooses to utter them' doesn't make sense(to me) with the definition of Conversation.

You are focusing on the wrong part of the description. The actual effect of Conversation is to make people like you and pay attention to what you say, the rest is window dressing which you are free to change as best first your character. Besides, making every word count is very much a case of using quips, clever timing, and verbal tricks to make a favourable impression, as otherwise you're just mumbling incoherently. The point is that a Weaponsmith can make himself understood and can get people to trust him, and this fits the discipline. Nothing requires him to be particularly gregarious about it.

Evidently I am missing the point here.

Gregarious(aka social, friendly, outgoing, convivial) adept isn't required, to hold his own in social conversations, using quips, clever timing, and other verbal tricks to make a favorable impression because a dour (aka sullen, gloomy, morose, obstinate) adept can do that just as easily?

What kind of favorable impression is a dour(aka sullen, gloomy, morose, obstinate) adept going to make?

I have no issues with Conversation being an optional talent, like Haggle is now.

I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how the Weaponsmith has become this adviser to the people. The Forge, a place of manufacturing and business is now also the social forum of helpful advise.

There seems to be alot of different viewpoints on what it is to be a Weaponsmith. Some feel that the talent Conversation is appropriate for them and other do not.

I can see both sides of this discussion and it still seems to me that Conversation should be a optional talent.

If your character chooses to be the sagely advisory smith, then the talent is a good fit.
If your character is the type of smith an adventuring craftsman who does not feel the need to talk to others to complete his masterwork, then the talent makes no sense.

Both of these should be valid Weaponsmith builds. Which brings me back to the original question.

Why is Conversation a requirement and not just optional talent? And maybe Haggle is better left as an option also.

All disciplines have talents which they are required to take, they become the core of the mindset of that discipline. The adept must maintain these core principles as he or she advances.

I still don't see Conversation as a core principle of what it takes to be a Weaponsmith.

At it's core, this discipline takes a person who dedicates their life to perfecting the creation of items. I would ask anyone to deny this statement. A wizard at it's core is the study of magic, an archer the study of perfecting the art of the bow.

Each discipline has a core of talents which define the mindset of what it takes to follow that path. Optional talents are things the adept chooses incorporate into their individual concept of the discipline.

All of these responses are fantastic. But, each of them is presenting a different view point. All are correct for that individual's view of what a Weaponsmith is. For each person the choice to take Conversation, or not to take it, fits their view of the discipline.

With that said, I still see this talent as optional. But to add fuel to this Conversation. Which of the myriad of talents listed in Earthdawn would be a better choice as the core principle for the second circle smith?