Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Wik]

Depends on which version of 3e you're talking about. 3e rangers get 4 skill points per level. 3.5e rangers get 6.

Good point. I assumed you meant 3.5E. 3.0E rangers were a little.... top-heavy.... for my taste.

 

[Spatula]

However, I've seen many of them have either very limited effects (Holy Lantern is only a lamp, after all)

It's more than just a lamp.

or are useful just as much in a combat as outside of it.

Why does that matter? If it's useful, it's useful. Or why does it only matter for you with regards to 4e? You listed Intimidate, Bluff, Heal, and other skills as "cool non-combat stuff" for 3e classes, when all of those skills have combat applications. Heck, you listed the paladin's mount, which is mainly there for combat.

 

[Lanefan]

Lane: yeah, Charm Person can be a combat spell. I never really saw it as such, though, in common play. You cannot, after all, use the charmed foe to attack his allies, and he's still going to protect them.

Unless the caster can convince the target to step aside for a chat, in effect removing both from combat. I've seen that done numerous times.

Its most common uses in my game, however, are to get info from captives or as yet another weapon for party infighting.

Lanefan

 

[Wik]

It's more than just a lamp.

Why does that matter? If it's useful, it's useful. Or why does it only matter for you with regards to 4e? You listed Intimidate, Bluff, Heal, and other skills as "cool non-combat stuff" for 3e classes, when all of those skills have combat applications. Heck, you listed the paladin's mount, which is mainly there for combat.

Intimidate is primarily a non-combat skill - demoralizing enemies was a waste of time, unless you had a feat. Bluff DOES have combat uses, which I forgot about. Haven't played 3e in a while. And Heal? Doesn't really do much in 95% of most D&D fights I've seen.

As for the mount, most paladins I've seen dismount before getting into a fight. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a 3e mount used in a combat. Ever. I guess our experiences differ.

When I listed my non-combat powers per class, I was trying to only show powers that were almost entirely useful outside of a fight. That's why I didn't put in things like Shapechange (since a lot of players used it as a combat thing), or many of the rogue evasion powers. Or the ranger's hiding powers. I was just trying to make a point - that classes tended to have more in the way of non-combat powers available to them.

You can mention that 4e characters have powers that have non-combat uses... and you're right. But they are usually pretty limited (the lantern grants some light, doesn't need to be held, and gives a perception bonus... but it doesn't encourage too much creative play. I can't use it to gonzo things with it... it's "just" a lamp).

Another point, a bit on the side, is that if you and I make the exact same character, but you choose a power that is more "non-combat", and I choose one more for combat, we're goign to be unbalanced in a sense - you'll be slightly better in a fight (which is, in my experience, 75% of the game), while I'll have a neat power outside of a fight. Add those up over time, and you can get the same situation as the 3e bard - someone who is balanced much more towards the outside of combat then the inside.

But that's a side topic, and maybe better left to another thread. Feel free to fork it if you'd like.

 

[Wik]

Unless the caster can convince the target to step aside for a chat, in effect removing both from combat. I've seen that done numerous times.

Its most common uses in my game, however, are to get info from captives or as yet another weapon for party infighting.

Lanefan

Our most common combat use of charm person was sort of a "Operation: Human Shield" thing. Or as a way to get ourselves a hostage, if we didn't really want to enter the fight ourselves.

Y'know, though, Charm was never a major spell used in our games. Silent Image got much more use.

 

[Lanefan]

Why does that matter? If it's useful, it's useful. Or why does it only matter for you with regards to 4e? You listed Intimidate, Bluff, Heal, and other skills as "cool non-combat stuff" for 3e classes, when all of those skills have combat applications. Heck, you listed the paladin's mount, which is mainly there for combat.

Intimidate and Bluff don't have much combat use that I ever saw - they're social-interaction skills.

Heal is, pretty much, a combat skill; if not for combat, you'd rarely if ever need it.

And I always saw the paladin's mount as just really imposing-looking transportation from one adventure to the next; most times the mount wouldn't fit down the dungeon passages (or couldn't handle stairs, shafts, etc.) and so was left behind at the entrance...and thus was not a factor about 97% of the time. 'Bout the only time mounts of any kind got involved in combat is if we were attacked in the open field.

I mean, take the first two iconic adventures from 3e - Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury. I'd like to see anyone get a mount into either of those.

Lanefan

 

[MerricB]

I will be the first person to say I think we should offer more mechanical support for skill challenges.

That would be great, Rodney!

I guess all I'm saying is: I think 4E lets me do non-combat encounters with ease (thanks to the organization of skill challenges) while still offering some opportunities for characters to shine as individuals.

I like the concept of skill challenges greatly; I also like how 4e organises the skills.

Where I do have a problem is in participation in skill challenges: at present, it seems too easy for a group to find an obvious skill (say Diplomacy for a negotiation) and then have their best character (with aid from the others) just make all the rolls. It's something that I think can be fixed, but needs more thought.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Intimidate and Bluff don't have much combat use that I ever saw - they're social-interaction skills.

In 3e, Bluff was used to Feint in combat (by Rogues, mainly).
In 4e, Intimidate may be used to make a bloodied opponent surrender. Interestingly, there are also powers that have additional "fear" effects if you're trained in Intimidate (the Rattling powers of the Rogue in Martial Power).

And I always saw the paladin's mount as just really imposing-looking transportation from one adventure to the next; most times the mount wouldn't fit down the dungeon passages (or couldn't handle stairs, shafts, etc.) and so was left behind at the entrance...and thus was not a factor about 97% of the time. 'Bout the only time mounts of any kind got involved in combat is if we were attacked in the open field.

Pretty much mostly how I saw it as well (which is why I love Phantom Steed and similar spells). Mind you, I have some wonderful memories of one player failing to jump on his horse a small pit...

There have been certain campaigns I've run which have been a lot more wilderness based where the mounts come into it, but for more standard dungeon-crawls; no, not so much!

Cheers!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And combat could be handled with a skill challenge, too. The thing here is that skill challenges aren't good to use for an entire session the lion's share of a campaign. For something I want the game to focus on, I want more detail and strategy.

Yes, it could. But it can also be handled with more detail. Tell me how these details look in your non-combat scenario!

That would really go a long way. Specific noncombat abilities that no one else in the party can get would basically make it more like earlier editions, and cover a lot of open space.

Rogue and Ranger utilty powers seem to be full of this, other classes are more mixed. But I think it would be neat to have a specific "non-combat" power system for characters.

Right, but in the end, I'm rolling 1d20+5 vs. DC 20, just like my friend, even if I'm using Stealth and he's using Religion. That's a lot more homogenous, right in the rules, than swinging a sword vs. launching a fireball. Some different things to do (rather than just different description of what we do) would be greatly appreciated.

Assuming both skills apply to the challenge.
But what I really need now is: More details. How would such a system look like? Would it be "Wizard cast Charm Person" vs "Rogue uses Diplomacy"? Or is it something else? I don't quite understand what you think this could look like. Give me some example scenarios or special abilities! (I am assuming you have some idea, because otherwise whatever you wish might simply not be possible?) Give me an example of another game system, if necessary.

Right, and, honestly, there doesn't need to be a LOT. I'd prefer there to be something more robust than in earlier editions (I mean, that would be an improvement!), but 4e kind of took away what we did have in earlier editions, and what replaced it isn't as good. There's still plenty of room for 4e to give us something better than what we had before.

What did 4E take away?

 

[Dausuul]

Intimidate is primarily a non-combat skill - demoralizing enemies was a waste of time, unless you had a feat. Bluff DOES have combat uses, which I forgot about. Haven't played 3e in a while. And Heal? Doesn't really do much in 95% of most D&D fights I've seen.

As for the mount, most paladins I've seen dismount before getting into a fight. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a 3e mount used in a combat. Ever. I guess our experiences differ.

Heh. You, sir, have clearly never seen a 10th-level paladin with a lance, Power Attack, and Spirited Charge. Scariest smite evil I've ever seen.

(To be fair, that was an NPC paladin against a group of evil PCs. Still, if I'd been making a 10th-level paladin to use as a player, I'd have built along those lines... though I might have made a halfling paladin as a nod to dungeon crawls.)