Forked: GTS - A need for "A robust system that handles things outside of combat"?

[MichaelSomething]

And I would say we are perhaps discussing two different aspects of roleplaying. I can say I am a "ladies man"... I can buy diplomacy up so that I am as good as everyone and anyone else who specializes in it... I can even roleplay the part well and perhaps get a bonus from my DM (of course anyone who isn't a "ladies man" could as well), but when it comes down to the actual roll, I get nothing mechanically that makes me any more a "ladies man" than the next guy who has a high diplomacy score. Thus even though I can roleplay it out, often times the results in game don't support this concept and thus I'm getting turned down, slapped in the face or dissed just as often as ebveryone else... regardless of my "roleplaying".

Ladies' Man

"Can I buy you a fish sandwich?"

Prerequisties: 16 Charisma, Male, trained in Diplomacy

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjN8X7tgpUE&feature=related"]A Ladies Man in Action[/ame]

Ladies' Man Path Features

Classic First Line (11th level): The first Diplomacy check you make when interacting with a lady receives a +5 power bonus.

Smooth Moves (11th level): You can spend an action point to automatically gain two successes in any Skill Challenges that involve "enchaning relationships" with the ladies. You can only use this power once per Skill Challenge.

Just too Fine (16th level): Any lady that makes an attack roll against you become dazed (save ends).

Ladies' Man Powers

Just hit 'em Ladies' Man Attack 11
When it comes to fighting, forget the fancy stuff and just hit them.
Save the fancy stuff for the ladies.
Encounter * Weapon
Immediate Interrupt Melee Weapon
Trigger: An adjacent creature uses a power that is not a basic attack.
Target: The creature making the attack
Attack: Strength +2 vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] plus Strength modifier damage and the target's attack is cancelled.
Increase to +4 bonus at 21st level.

Taking your Calls Ladies' Man Utility 12
Since you are such a Ladies' Man, you offer advice to others about relationships.
Encounter
Immediate Reaction Ranged 30
Trigger: An ally fails a Diplomacy check while interacting with a lady.
Efffect: That ally rerolls that check using your total Diplomacy bonus instead of their own.

Supreme Seduction Ladies' Man Attack 20
No lady can resist the Ladies' Man.
Daily * Charm
Standard Action Ranged 5
Target: A lady
Attack: Charisma + 6 vs. Will
Hit: The target is Dominated for a number of hours equal to your Charisma modifier.
Miss: The target is Dominated until the end of your next turn.

Your welcome Imaro.

 

[alleynbard]

What I enjoyed about that scenario was that it wasn't just loosey-goosey roleplaying. It was taking a character ability and using it in a manner for which it was not intended at all. And using an ability primarily meant for combat outside of combat. Previous editions of D&D were filled with that. 4E unfortunately lacks much of that.

I think the biggest hurdle to doing this in 4e is verbiage. Many of the powers use terms like "enemy", which means using them differently is actually going against the RAW.

I have allowed players to use powers like this in the past (using Twin Strike to break nooses, wizards lighting fires with Scorching Burst) but the rules do not really account for that. So by doing so, I am bending the rules to make them work.

So I agree with you, to a point.

Edit: Completely re-phrased my point based on how the rules actually read, not how I wish they read.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

It's not so much a need for a robust system outside of combat as it is having plenty of character abilities which affect things outside combat.

This is the key to the entire discussion and it is pretty much what it boils down to when I have this discussion with people I know in real life who don't like 4e. They always say, "You can't role play in 4e." But when we really drill down to the root of the problem, it isn't about role playing. It is that people associate "cool noncombat powers" with role playing.

It is that the stories people tell about their games are about the time when they charmed the bartender in order to get information and then made him dance a jig while pretending to be a monkey in order to humiliate him. Or the time they cast a grease spell on the enemy as he was running towards them and he slipped and smashed face first into the ground and then they used sovereign glue to stick him to the ground and left him there.

What I enjoyed about that scenario was that it wasn't just loosey-goosey roleplaying. It was taking a character ability and using it in a manner for which it was not intended at all. And using an ability primarily meant for combat outside of combat. Previous editions of D&D were filled with that. 4E unfortunately lacks much of that.

Unfortunately, this is a double edged sword. For each time that something like this works out great there is another time where it ruins the fun of someone.

For each time you have a "charm the innkeeper to do a jig because it is funny" you have a "charm the king to hand over his entire kingdom to us". For every "We make him slip and glue him to the ground" you get a "We make the archmage we've been hunting for the last 3 years slip and then glue him to the ground so he is unable to fight back."

One is funny and can be an interesting story. The other can possibly be funny and an interesting story as well. But it sucks to be the DM in those cases. Especially when your goal was to have an even more interesting story without the funny.

As soon as you give extensive non-combat abilities to your PCs, you need to deal with the fallout when they use those in a manner other than you expect they will. The same thing happens when you allow combat only abilities to have extensive non-combat powers as well.

 

[Starbuck_II]

3rd Ed was much better for RP. Classes for RP. Prestige classes for RP. SKills for RP. Feats for RP.

Wait, what is this talking of classes for RP? I have never found one...other than Truenamer and Complete Warrior Samurai since they suck for much else...

Could you point out what you mean?

Allynbard

think the biggest hurdle to doing this in 4e is verbiage. Many of the powers use terms like "enemy", which means using them differently is actually going against the RAW.

I have allowed players to use powers like this in the past (using Twin Strike to break nooses, wizards lighting fires with Scorching Burst) but the rules do not really account for that. So by doing so, I am bending the rules to make them work.

You'll be happy to know that they errated that in the 1st errata.

Anything that says enermy can be used on objects unless the DM decides to forbid it. That is RAW now.

 

[alleynbard]

You'll be happy to know that they errated that in the 1st errata.

Anything that says enermy can be used on objects unless the DM decides to forbid it. That is RAW now.

Ahhh....you are right. How did I miss that?

Thank you for pointing that out.

So yes, the wizard solving a puzzle by lighting a distant bowl of oil with scorching burst does work without me fiddling with the system. Which, while very "Zelda-like" was a beautiful thing to see.

 

[Toben the Many]

Unfortunately, this is a double edged sword. For each time that something like this works out great there is another time where it ruins the fun of someone. For each time you have a "charm the innkeeper to do a jig because it is funny" you have a "charm the king to hand over his entire kingdom to us". For every "We make him slip and glue him to the ground" you get a "We make the archmage we've been hunting for the last 3 years slip and then glue him to the ground so he is unable to fight back."

This is true to an extent - however your examples are a bit weak for me. What I see in your examples are things that empower the players. So what? I'm all for empowering the players. You want to make the innkeeper to dance a jig? So what? How does that ruin the game? In fact, it might make it funny or more enjoyable. Offing the archmage in a funny or humorous manner is great, too. Again, for me, that's the creativity and fun of RPGs.

But I get your point. It's not so much fun, for example, if the paladin PC is charmed into dancing a jig while stripping down naked. Or if the noble bard is charmed into betraying his friends.

But I think 4E takes it too far to the other extreme. There are ways of limiting PC power but allowing for non-combat usage. A great example is Mutants and Masterminds. That's a game system that gets rave reviews time and time again. It's a big seller in the third party market.

Mutants and Masterminds limits these sorts of things by giving them small durations, and allows the really important NPCs to have strong defenses against that sort of thing.

And numerous other game systems also allow for character non-combat abilities...without those game systems falling apart at the seams. It can certainly be done.

As soon as you give extensive non-combat abilities to your PCs, you need to deal with the fallout when they use those in a manner other than you expect they will. The same thing happens when you allow combat only abilities to have extensive non-combat powers as well.

See, I don't see this as a detriment at all. I want to deal with the fallout from when the PCs do something off-the-raiis. That's the whole point of sandbox gaming. That's where the "yes, and" rule comes in.

Okay - you make the bartender dance a jig. When the spell wears off, he goes and reports your actions to the guards. Now what do you do? Those are great spring boards for adventures and campaign left-turns.

 

[ExploderWizard]

With regard to the second, I think that a game that is rules-light out of combat tends to be a little better than a game that is rules-heavy out of combat. If players are actually having this trouble, then it might be better to help them get over it than to create a sub-par gaming system to accomodate them.

I agree 100% I hold combat rules to the same standard. Rules light for all

Unfortunately, this is a double edged sword. For each time that something like this works out great there is another time where it ruins the fun of someone.

For each time you have a "charm the innkeeper to do a jig because it is funny" you have a "charm the king to hand over his entire kingdom to us". For every "We make him slip and glue him to the ground" you get a "We make the archmage we've been hunting for the last 3 years slip and then glue him to the ground so he is unable to fight back."

One is funny and can be an interesting story. The other can possibly be funny and an interesting story as well. But it sucks to be the DM in those cases. Especially when your goal was to have an even more interesting story without the funny.

As soon as you give extensive non-combat abilities to your PCs, you need to deal with the fallout when they use those in a manner other than you expect they will. The same thing happens when you allow combat only abilities to have extensive non-combat powers as well.

Unpredictability has led to more raw fun than any situation that I can recall planning. Using abilities in a variety of ways in and out of combat helps keep the action fresh and exciting. The more " combat only" abilities there are then the more they feel like mashing the attack button instead of being an interesting ability.

 

[Cadfan]

This is true to an extent - however your examples are a bit weak for me. What I see in your examples are things that empower the players. So what? I'm all for empowering the players.

Strictly speaking, it empowers the player's characters. Whether the players themselves are empowered depends on a number of other factors, such as the degree to which fancy tricks like using Charm spells socially trade off with the viability of other options, like conversation.

 

[Mallus]

Mutants and Masterminds limits these sorts of things by giving them small durations, and allows the really important NPCs to have strong defenses against that sort of thing.

The GM can also declare an NPC makes any save, at the cost of giving each player a Hero Point.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The DM is a thinking entity and can handle the infinite number of possible actions outside of combat better than any ruleset can. In fact, I'm beginning to believe that combat is improperly named the biggest part of D&D, when out-of-combat is so unbound that they leave the adjudication of it mostly up to the DM. I agree with Firelance that more focus needs to be placed on educating the DM. Hopefully DMG2 will give some more advice for all of us DMs.

As your DM I would say:

I'd like for there to be some sort of clarification on if certain powers and class features can be used in alternate ways. For example:

- What effect does the Warlock's Curse have out of combat? For example, what would happen if a Warlock was sitting in a tavern and used his curse on another bar patron without an intent to attack them? Would the victim have a sudden feeling of intense dread and drop their beer mug?

Sure! Very imaginative and flavorful roleplaying use.

- Is it possible for someone to use an Illusion spell that normally deals Psychic damage on an NPC without it dealing damage? For example, could a Wizard cast Illusory Ambush to create a distraction without hurting someone?

Sure! I'll let you forgo any benefit a spell would normally allow you (like damage). I'd also let you do damage without intent to kill, thus if the target(s) is dropped to zero hit points he is merely "defeated" instead of harmed (which may already be a rule).

- The Primal Avatar Epic Destiny's flavor text states that a Primal Avatar can "hear the thoughts of beasts". Does this have any game effect at all? Would it be reasonable for a player to ask his DM what the horse he's looking at is thinking?

Regardless of what Disney movies tell you, the typical thoughts of a horse are at best "where's my food" and more likely "......" than anything meaningful. It doesn't say it grants you anything more. But, since this is a fanatasy world after all, if there were something more to discover in the area I would probably allow your character to question the horse while the rest of the group questions the townsfolk.

- The Glorious Spirit Epic Destiny has an at-will power that lets a PC fly to a square adjacent to a predetermined target within 30 feet. The flavor text states that a "spirit steed" appears and carries the PC when this power is used. Can this spirit steed be summoned out of combat to carry the PC? If not, why is the PC limited to calling the steed only to approach someone? Why couldn't it be used to fly any direction within 30 feet? Do the Primal Spirits prohibit the spirit steed from being used any other way (similar to how Clerics used to be prohibited from using swords because of a curse)?

This is easy to answer under RAW. Your target can be an object. Designate an object within 30 feet and fly away.

You could easily rule these types of things in your own game, but I'd at least like some sort of official clarification.

The only Official that is important is the DM* running your game. More education for him and the already pimped "say yes" attitude presented in the DMG1 can make out-of-combat just as interesting as combat. Not satisfied with your out-of-combat time? Take up the reins yourself for a while and show the others how creative you are (especially liked the curse ooc use) in using things outside of their in-combat use.

*Chime in with, "but I play RPGA..." Yes, and the RPGA is your DM. That guy at the head of the table is just your DMs helper. You have to understand that when you get into the RPGA.