Does 4th edition hinder roleplaying?

[billd91]

While your opinion is perfectly valid, the separation of resources into combat/non-combat pools makes assumptions about playstyles that not everyone agrees with. As an example the old hold portal spell was effective but hardly auto-win. The party had the option of expending a resource to avoid a situation that might work, or might not. No matter if it was effective or not the resource was expended. The 4E assumption is to deny the expenditure of such resources in this fashion.

I thought that the concept of 4E was to promote more meaningful choices. If the most important resources (powers and abilities) can only be used in combat and the only other options for tactical non-combat resource expenditure are your basic, mundane things like running or skill use, then what are 4E rules saying about the importance of meaningful choices for combat as opposed to non-combat.

I can certainly see what you're getting at. I think some addition to the ritual system to allow fast cast times but with a weaker effect would fit the bill. I thought the introduction of variable casting times for certain spells in 3e (in PH2, I believe) could have been a valuable anchor to develop new rules around. Then, hold portal and arcane lock potentially become facets of the same spell.

The alternative, potentially, is to include utility powers for fast but weaker versions of the rituals. I'm not sure that would be as good as just a fast method of casting out rituals, though.

 

[LostSoul]

I thought that the concept of 4E was to promote more meaningful choices. If the most important resources (powers and abilities) can only be used in combat and the only other options for tactical non-combat resource expenditure are your basic, mundane things like running or skill use, then what are 4E rules saying about the importance of meaningful choices for combat as opposed to non-combat.

I agree with that and I think it's a good argument to lend support to Mark's assertion.

Personally I allow PCs to use powers in non-combat situations, but that's just me. I don't think that most 4E players do that.

(As far as the "Hold Portal" thing goes, we had something come up in a game recently; the Wizard whipped up a Nail of Sealing (would have made more but they were low on resources - had to rely on the Rogue to lock the other door with Theivery, and I think the monster broke through). It forces a check against anyone who wants to get through (DC 25). It's a consumable as well, so the resources are spent even if it doesn't work! )

 

[Toben the Many]

If the role you envisage is one that the blogger is talking about, then it's clear that 4e is limiting in that regard. I don't see how there can really be any debate over that. Certain types of paths of character development are right out.

Does it hinder role playing in general? No, but I don't think the blog is saying so either.

Right. Thank you. That's all I was saying as well.

Interestingly enough, as I look at 4e and think about the blog post - it seems as if this was a very deliberate decision on the part of the designers. If you want to play a sorcerer who becomes a monk in 3e, you can, but that decision will certainly not be optimal, and indeed may hurt your enjoyment of the game.

I suppose one of the 4e design goals was to simply cut out un-optimal design choices for players.

I think that sums up very much why some of my group still don't like 4e. They really enjoyed the optimization ability that you had with 3e, and the fact that optimization could take many forms, whereas in 2e optimization usually followed a cookie-cutter model.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Personally I allow PCs to use powers in non-combat situations, but that's just me. I don't think that most 4E players do that.

I also allow PCs to use Powers in non-combat situations, they do it all the time. Not just in normal situations but Skill Challenges as well. To great effect I might add.

While it isn't that big a thing. I think the fact that in the PHB2 glossary it states that Powers that state attack creatures can also attack objects lead some credence to Powers being used in non-combat as being a norm per RAW. Since I would say it is more likely using a Power on a object would arise in non-combat then combat.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It means your tactics just need to be updated.

Exactly. Your options in the game (as written) are decided by the WOTC definition of FUN (TM).

 

[Thasmodious]

Regardless of individual experience, its easy enough to use the DDI to create a few random characters at levels 5, 15 and 25 and see what options the character sheets have on them. Also, one could create two characters at each of those levels, making choices during creation for one toward combat and the other toward non-combat, keeping mental notes on approximately the number and types of options that are available.

Well, let's just look as objectively as we can at this edition, and leave others aside for the moment, running an experient as I just suggested to see what results we see.

I think it would be a bit strange to leave aside other editions in an attempt to compare options in 4e to options in other editions. As for the experiment, I see everything on the sheet as options for noncombat and RP. Name, alignment, deity, DDI has boxes for background, description, campaign journal, companions, rituals, powers, ability scores, skills. About the only purely combat sections of the sheet are the attack and damage workspaces and I don't include them on the final sheets anyway.

"On the sheet" isn't that valuable a mark anyway. It completely ignores the tools the DM has at his hands to create noncombat situations and what we are talking about is what the system encourages, so you can't ignore the DM's tools.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It means your tactics just need to be updated.

This.

Used appropriately, a situation that would be pass/fail for a single (automatic) spell can become a dynamic and potentially frantic scenario where the barbarian applies his brawn to haul furniture, while the wizard uses his brain to achieve the maximum mechanical advantage possible from the available materials, etc.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Exactly. Your options in the game (as written) are decided by the WOTC definition of FUN (TM).

No, it means your list of possible options is not limited to a spell/power list, so think outside the box.

 

[Mark]

"On the sheet" isn't that valuable a mark anyway.

As someone who plays both RPGs and wargames for over thirty-five years, I have to say that since looking at the options presented on a character sheet I'm inclined to believe that the rules are meant to expect mostly combat as gameplay. The higher percentage of rules in the PH and other books geared more toward combat than otherwise would seem to confirm this assessment. It's not an indictment, as I happen to like that type of game as much as others, it's just my personal observation which I feel is supported by the evidence available to me.

 

[Scribble]

Exactly. Your options in the game (as written) are decided by the WOTC definition of FUN (TM).

WoTC puts out rules, and tries to make them balanced. If you don't find them fun, fair enough that's all you. But I question, is it really a "problem" with the game or could it be that you were just comfortable with your old tactics?

To me it's not really much different then when they lessened the effects of haste, or fireball. You can spend all day arguing that haste no longer being as good somehow hinders roleplaying, or you can just accept that you need to find new tactics.

Up to you.