D&D 4E Roles in 4E D&D - Combat and Non-Combat Roles

This line of thinking is something I try to emphasize to my players when they create characters for any system.

I try to get them to make sure they cover certain "skills" that are non-combat oriented, so that all the important bases are covered, and then make sure they have some overlap. That way you end up with one person that's really good at something, and then at least one decent back up.

For D&D I generally would divide them as:

Sneak/Thief/Trap Expert
Sage/Scholar
Diplomat/Linguist
Wilderness/Nature expert
Athelete

Something like Star Wars goes more like:
Diplomat
Medic
Pilot
Techie
Survivalist

Herremann the Wise said:

Hello Everyone,

Click to expand...

Hi!

Herremann the Wise said:

4E has clearly stratified the combat roles of Player Characters as well as Monsters.

Click to expand...

Indeed. It's so well done now that I actually find the class names to be misleading more often than not. Although I still refer to them by their class names on EN World and in conversation to avoid confusion, I haven't thought of classes by their names for months now. I instead think of them solely in Combat Role/Build terms (e.g., Rangers aren't "Rangers" to me, they're just Skirmisher-TWF or Archer (and now Beastmaster)).

One of the things I liked about Iron Heroes was that the combat roles were as explicit as in 4E and the names were usually more accurate and informative (e.g., the tank was "Armiger", the nimble striker was "Harrier", etc.).

Herremann the Wise said:

I was wondering though, how would you stratify the non-combat roles of player characters (and even monsters/NPCs)?

Click to expand...

Backgrounds, Skills and Fluff Text.

I like the Backgrounds rules. No, scratch that - love them. I've got a feel for what sort of combos of benefits a Background warrants too and encourage people to make up their own.

Skills. I have decoupled Skills from Combat Roles (aka, classes). The only thing that makes a "Rogue" a "Rogue" these days is access to Bluff and Thievery. Forget that. Everyone gets to pick any 4 Skills (Humans and Eladrin get 5). The only rule is that the player has to present their Background and Skill choice as a "package" which describes a particular Non-Combat role/profession/character. This way any PC (regardless of class) that takes Athletics, Stealth and Thievery is "the thief" in the party. etc.

Unlike combat roles though there's no fixed number of non-combat roles, and no need to take any particular skill. Usually it's good is a couple people know Heal though.

I also allow re-writing of power fluff text if it helps make the character concept. Someone who wants to use the Str-Cleric class to play a non-cleric (maybe they're a monk or druid) would need to reimagine how they came by their powers, and if it helps build the character that's cool with me.

Kamikaze Midget said:

I won't bother to search through the archives to where I first speculated about this idea...

Click to expand...

I'm not going to search the archives either, but for anyone who missed it the first time, I recommend it. Good stuff.

Jack7 said:

Yeah, I think of class as the most obvious professional role in the game. It is the fundamental role. But the roles attached in 4E by class are at times logical given certain situations, but at times very restrictive given other situations.

What I'm saying is that if you de-couple certain role-assumptions directly from class then you can create role functions which are flexible, fluid, personal, and which allow the players to exploit their own natural capabilities.

So I'm not against defining roles at all, as long as those role definitions aren't a form of mummification or calcification of character and player capabilities.

Click to expand...

I think I follow you. And I do agree class roles should allow for flexibility, but character abilities will need to be within a certain spectrum as those abilities (or spectrum of elected abilities) are part of what defines the role within the rules set. I think 4E's designers tried to offer such a spectrum even while defining every (class) role as a subclass of Fighter. Are you looking for something less restraining of their "Role"/combat role or something more defining of (class) role or both or what?

I think 4E's designers tried to offer such a spectrum even while defining every (class) role as a subclass of Fighter. Are you looking for something less restraining of their "Role"/combat role or something more defining of (class) role or both or what?

Click to expand...

No, not quite HW, though I too think I understand what you're driving at. I'm saying they shouldn't have done it the way they did it. For reasons I've already explained. And intend to explain later.

However I think it is good they took up the idea, and it should have been addressed, though both for combat and non-combat or extra-combat functions. But to me what was presented in the book, by tying it exclusively to class function was more like a prototype design. You know, an original idea that should have been considered (because in designing anything you have to start somewhere) but then radically overhauled or redesigned in a far more flexible and capable way. You know Irda made a very interesting and astute point, the combat roles (as currently construed) are so class-regulated that they have practically taken the place of class as a pragmatic matter. That being the point then all you really have is not a role, but a subset of class ability(s). You could have just written it in as a class function because that is all it really is. And then primarily only in the combat sense.

But I'm saying whereas the general idea was one well worth considering, the actual form they developed was far too restrictive and nothing more than a class function, as compared to what could have and should have been. Or can be or will be because redesigns can always follow.

Then again in designing anything certain assumptions are made (and in the case of 4E I think the designers see the entire game not really as "Role-Play" but as power and combat play). Role is therefore defined not as role, as in "role" is the natural purview and job of the player, to role play the potential of the role, but role is redefined as a design element of "class creation" and therefore it is the duty of the game designer to tell you exactly what your role will be regardless of your individual capabilities as character or player. Classes then become not skeletal frameworks for character development, but rather become automatic constructs, like a sort of machine that controls what the character should become. And that is not really a profession or a class, or even a role, it is an assignment. One you are not free to modify for best advantage. Role becomes an order and a forced structure, not a flexible foundation for development.

I'm not being critical in the sense that I'm saying they were a bunch of morons, I'm saying they didn't develop the idea nearly well enough, that the idea they came up with was immature (in the sense of under-developed) and prototypical. It was not an advanced design with multi-capabilities, but an initial design and that's where they stopped, when that wasn't really necessary as a stopping point.

Then again if the whole game is really little more than a tactical combat game, rather than a role playing game, then that changes the nature of what role means, and how it will function. It is first design principles and assumptions structuring the potential of any following design element.

Now, does that have to be the case? No.
As a DM or player one can easily modify this element, or any element.
But the designers should review their initial assumptions and also do some redesigning of their own.

4E has a number of really interesting ideas and potentialities for real advancement. Roles, skill challenges, character class re-design(s), rituals, and so forth and so so.

But in many ways, and in many instances (not all, but many) the game design simply stopped at the initial or prototypical idea instead of fully flushing out the real inherent potential of the design elements. I'm not really sure why, maybe it was rush, maybe it was basic design assumptions, maybe it was a move away from character role play to combat play, maybe it was a lot of things.

But a lot of the deign elements show huge potential.
But not much of the real potential (or the underlying implications) has been tapped yet.
Not really anyways.

In my 4E campaigns I don't require my players to invest feats or skill choices in non-combat options, rather I have them tell me about their PC past and what profession or skills they feel they should have. Within reason I assume they are competent in these areas and if they feel a need to excel we simply role-play it out if they feel the need to be better than average as an artist or whatever. If they happen to have some existing skills that complement then all the better.

Frankly to try and define a list of possible non-combat skills/abilities is a whole system in itself and would take away from the game and/or invariably make one person happy while annoying another. As such if some players want this I role play it out with him rather than try to slap a system together. My rule of thumb is if it works for the story or makes the players happy without taking away from the story or stepping on other players' toes then it's all fine with me.

Mustrum_Ridcully said:

The problem I see at the moment is that these might actually be individual roles, since someone focusing on disguises and sneaking himself into organizations would be very different from someone that just knows a lot of people and knows how to spin things so they help him more. If the differences in play are too big, maybe they are their own roles?

Click to expand...

Or perhaps, just the same as you have different class builds, you could have different non-combat role builds. They take the general aspect of the build but achieve it in slightly different ways. You could even associate "encounter" powers with it, but instead of refreshing after an encounter, they refresh after a particular skill challenge.

I think if anyone was planning a 3rd party book for 4E, this would be an excellent area with lots of developmental space and lots of new ground to cover.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

So here's the core of my idea in a slightly new way:

The big point to grok is that combat is just one way to resolve a conflict. There's nothing inherently "special" about it in that respect -- any skill challenge can, really, be represented with the same mechanics that combat can.

So the combat roles are there to add (and protect) variety in combat. So we need to steal a bit of inspiration from combat (but not too much)

First, we need to find what types of challenges D&D characters face: combat is one that is already covered, but what are the others? Easiest thing to do is to classify the skills into even broader categories: what challenges do the skills help you solve, what goals are they used to accomplish, when not in combat?

There's basically three:
Exploration is getting from one place to another.
Persuasion is resolving a personality conflict.
Discovery is resolving a puzzle or other brain-teaser.

These are "the" three out-of-combat challenges present already in 4e. Interestingly, that means four types of challenges that (probably not coincidentally) map to the classic four-man party:

Fighters are good at Combat Challenges
Rogues are good at Exploration Challenges
Clerics are good at Persuasion Challenges
Wizards are good at Discovery Challenges

But that observation is just an interesting distraction right now. We're going for 4e-ish-ness here, and in 4e, EVERYONE is good at combat challenges (but in different ways), so EVERYONE needs to be good at non-combat challenges (in different ways).

To keep it simple, let's not go with four roles per challenge (though we COULD, if we wanted more complexity, I'm not worried about it now). We can split each kind of challenge, like we can split combat, in two: One type of character is the "attack-oriented role" (the Striker/Controller) who gets you to your goal quickly. The other is the "defense-oriented role" (the Defender/Leader) who makes sure you don't go down before you're finished.

So we have three OTHER kinds of challenges, and these three kinds of challenges have two roles each:
Exploration Challenges

• Trailblazers help you move quickly to your endpoint. They break down doors, leap chams, and swim rivers (strikers) or pick locks and disable traps and find shortcuts (controllers). Classes might be Fighter (kick down the door! Climb the mountain!), Ranger (Know this dungeon like the back of your hand!), Rogue (They call this a lock?), and Wizard (Passwall!)
• Suppliers help make sure you don't die on your way there. They use the stars to orient you, keep a map of where you've been, and make sure you get buy your rope and bedroll (defenders) or find food, hunt animals, and make contact with locals to resupply (leaders). Classes might be Cleric (Pelor's gaze will not be harsh), Paladin (My temple will supply us), Warlock (I step into the Fey to cross this land), or Warlord (FORWARD, MARCH!)

Persuasion Challenges

• Marketers help persuade others to your goal. They challenge your opponent's preconceptions and undermine their confidence (strikers), or give them new ideas and make them say things they don't mean (controllers). Classes might be Paladin (convert or die!), Rogue (clever wordplay), Warlock (traps you into agreements you didn't want to make), and Wizard (stunning logical arguments!)
• Supporters help make sure you don't change your mind so easily. They stop others from making outrageous accusations, talking up your good points (defenders) or remind you that you have good points and that giving in might be a slippery slope (leaders). Classes might be Cleric (do not waver in your faith!), Fighter (We're buddies, right?), Ranger (I trust you with my secrets), and Warlord (You can do it! Go go go!)

Discovery Challenges

• Geniuses figure out the puzzle. They solve the clues and work out the logic (strikers), or twist the idea into the open and do the research (controllers). Classes might be Cleric (that is a reference to the Myth of Kyus), Rogue (They were talking about this down at the pub), Wizard (Aha! N=5!), or Warlord (The strategic option seems to be...).
• Organizers make the information available quickly. They stall for time and access new avenues of information (defenders) or edit your response and make sure you phrase it in the form of a question (leaders). Classes might be Fighter (I'm carrying your library), Paladin (If we torture this heathen some more...), Ranger (pacing helps you think!), or Warlock (need some ancient entity summoned up?)

We can keep the "successes" and "failures" model of skill challenges, since that's basically HP, and now all we need are interesting powers that model sharp wit (or whatever) as much as sharp swords.

[sblock=Each Skill's Analysis]
Acrobatics is balancing and wriggling around -- it helps you get from Point A to Point B (even fighting off some restraints) so it's basically Exploration.
Arcana outside of identifying monsters in combat is used to detect magic -- it's basically Discovery.
Athletics is moving around, so it's pretty obviously Exploration
Bluff is deception, so it's Persuasion.
Diplomacy is pretty obviously Persuasion.
Dungeoneering, when out of combat, helps you find food, so that goes in with Exploration.
Endurance helps you survive weather and without food, so it's Exploration.
Heal helps you treat a disease, which is pretty ambiguous...I'd put it mostly in Exploration, but it might also be Discovery.
History, as a straight Knowledge skill, is pure Discovery.
Intimidate is Persuasion.
Nature is multifaceted...it's Discovery because it's knowledge, and it's also Exploration, because of the foraging, and Persuasion, because of the animal handling.
Perception is used to follow a trail or search an area, so it's mostly Discovery, but it might also help in Exploration.
Religion is pure Discovery.
Stealth is mostly Exploration, helping you get somewhere.
Streetwise is mostly Discovery, used to gather information.
Thievery opens doors and the like, so it's mostly Exploration.
[/sblock]

I think if anyone was planning a 3rd party book for 4E, this would be an excellent area with lots of developmental space and lots of new ground to cover.

Click to expand...

And I am available to write for it. I'm not sure the GSL would permit such a thing, though. Perhaps I should pitch something to Russ for ENPublishing anyway? How do I even do that?

Scholar & Brutalman said:

I've also been wondering how to define non-combat roles in an rpg. At the moment 4e doesn't have non-combat niche protection: non-combat abilities are provided by skills and rituals, which are easily learnable with one feat. I've been thinking that to have proper niche protection outside of combat I'd need a quite different mechanical system there.

You could have a lot of fun naming the social roles though: Bully, Con-man, Gossip and Lump.

Click to expand...

I find the thought of having a seperate divisible noncombat role an interesting proposition. One that would further enhance and customize a character, and give a player bearings on how to direct his character while interacting, no matter what class they may be playing. A paladin could be operating under the bully or the lump. The cleric under the conman.

I'd love for you to elaborate a bit more on this posts though. Its brief but very insightful. I like this. I might try to work with it a bit for my game. I have some players that this might help them to interact.

Oh no. This can of worms again.