D&D 4E 4e and teamwork...will it support it or not?

[Imaro]

The impression that I'm getting from 4e is that every PC can do a little bit of everything necessary for their characters survival. Everyone has at least some healing capability, traps are being designed so that all players can interact (and possibly, to a point, disable them), You can take training feats to grab a couple of another classes abilities, etc.

My concern is will this support or discourage actual teamwork when playing? I wonder if every character can, even to a limited degree, do some of everything...is teamwork even required or supported. What's the point of a rogue, if traps are designed for other classes to disable them as well? What's the point of a cleric if everyone has some healing capability? Does this help the problem of divine and arcane casters stepping on the toes of other classes, or just widen it so that everyone can step on each others toes. Just curious, what do others think?

 

[TwinBahamut]

I say 4E will encourage teamwork.

First, I think it should be mentioned that the new skill system and supporting mechanics may make it so you don't need to have a Rogue to do trapfinding and such, but you still need someone who has made the character investment in something like that. It is not as limiting as previous editions, but still requires a dedicated team member. The differences will not be as severe, but there will still characters who are much better at some things then others.

In the old framework of extreme skill specialization, situations that involved skill use tend to result in one character being able to use a skill, and everyone else being so incompetent that there is no use trying. I really would not call this situation so much "teamwork" as I would call it "characters taking turn hogging the spotlight". The only way to fix this in 3E, and let eh whole party participate, is through magic, which leads to the problem you cite of wizards stepping on other character's toes.

The new skill system will fix the old problem of letting one character hog the spotlight, so magic will no longer be required to keep the party together. At the same time, characters will still have distinct advantages in particular fields, so no one character will be able to do everything equally well. I think it is a much better framework for teamwork.

I think the same thing applies to battle. Certainly, each character can do more, but that is a far cry from every character being able to do everything as well as a specialist could. Characters will still have strengths and weaknesses, and not having a clear focus and character concept will probably lead to a gimped character. Characters will not be totally dependent on each other, but they will have more options to help each other.

Besides, there seem to be a lot of specific abilities, such as those built around tactical movement and giving party members additional actions, that will encourage and reward good team tactics and teamwork. The whole system of class roles is entirely built on the idea of teamwork.

I don't think you have much to worry about.

 

[Gundark]

I think that 4e will be very much a teamwork based game still. I think maybe why every character class will have a little bit of other stuff as it's unlikely that every adventuring party will contain all the roles that 4e considers a balanced party.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

Considering how much attention the design team has played on making explicit the party roles of the 4 different class roles, I don't think you have much to worry about.

Plus, Rodney Thompson recently had this to say about his playtest group:

It's also a very cooperative game, which is right up my alley; as I mentioned, finding the nice little interplay between my wizard and the warlord was one of those epiphany moments in last night's game that made me enjoy the session a lot.

 

[NewfieDave]

You're still going to have to work as a team, but you won't be forced into situations where "Bob has to play a cleric because we need a healer." It's my impression that the cleric will be the best class at healing in the game, but that you won't need one to have a strong party.

 

[Zurai]

You're still going to have to work as a team, but you won't be forced into situations where "Bob has to play a cleric because we need a healer." It's my impression that the cleric will be the best class at healing in the game, but that you won't need one to have a strong party.

This. I don't think there's really any question that you'll still need teamwork in 4E. I think it's closer to "you won't need a Fighter, a Rogue, a Cleric, and a Wizard". Four non-Clerics with minor healing talents/abilities can probably cooperate to make something that, while not as effective as a full Cleric, can at least keep the party alive (as an example).

That's not removing teamwork, it's removing reliance on a "perfect group".

 

[BASHMAN]

I think the Warlord class' ability to essentially give team-mates free actions, force enemies not to attack team mates, etc shows that it is going in the teamwork direction. Other classes are getting similar things (Paladin has a 3.5 knight's ability to draw aggro from enemies), people can heal themself by touching the cleric, etc.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Have you read anything about 4E yet? There are skads (is that a real word?) of info that suggest it will be a team game. The Warlord, for example, had an ability that allowed the Wizard to cast a free magic missile. If that doesn't promote teamwork, I don't know what will.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I would worry about the designers' focus on "Your PC should be able to do something cool in every round of every fight." If "fun" is defined by how much your own PC gets to shine, then you might be resentful at times when you should be happy for your team succeeding due to a teammate's daring, cleverness, or luck.

In American football, a wide receiver (WR) is often a star player. But sometimes, one will go an entire game without scoring or making a big play. "Teamwork" doesn't mean "everybody gets the spotlight every game." That said, 3.5 is designed so that there are no offensive linemen (a position that basically never makes the highlight reel) -- everybody does have a real chance of being a star at least some of the time.

In my experience with MarauderX's gaming group in VA, some of my most memorable moments were watching other PCs shine, and some of the other players' most memorable moments were watching my PC shine. It was just as cool and exciting to see them do cool stuff as it was to see my PC do that cool stuff. We root for one another. When everybody was incapacitated except for the bard, who was fighting for all of our lives against two liches and a death knight... that was exciting. When the TWF rogue's Cuisinart of Doom is more effective than anything a Drd20 can do (as it has been sometimes), I happily play healer and keep him on his feet. When the arcane trickster was having fun with Magic Jar infiltration, we all sat around and enjoyed the spectacle. This campaign is like watching a great TV series for which I am both an actor AND a fan. I just love to watch it, even the scenes I'm not in.

By contrast, in other groups I've been in, some players ended a session unhappy if the party did amazingly well but their PCs didn't get to do as much cool stuff, whether because they had bad luck with the dice, they had some idea that didn't work out, or whatever. That kind of player is just concerned with what *their* PC gets to do. And I think that's missing the point of teamwork. It'd be like a WR sulking after a playoff win because his plays didn't get called.

Earlier editions kept this mentality at bay with their resource management mechanic. If you were the fighter with a wizard in the party, you'd know that you would get to shine most of the time, but it would be his turn when he decided to bust out his big spells. If you were playing the wizard, you'd accept that in many combats, you'd do little or nothing, but once in a while you'd get your big moment. There was no expectation that everybody would contribute equally in every combat.

So, I worry that an increased emphasis on what YOUR PC gets to do each round of each combat is going to be detrimental to the game. Players will still have sessions when their PC is incapacitated or less than useful, will still have opponents against whom they are sub-optimal, and they'll be less happy than they would be if they were to look at the game from a team-oriented point of view.

 

[Li Shenron]

Support? Yes.
Encourage? No.

An example of something that on the surface looks like teamwork but at its core it is IMHO the very opposite: abilities that automatically trigger aboost to your allies.

Your cleric score a critical hit, and that triggers a healing effect to all your allies on the battlefield.

Where is the teamwork? The critical hit doesn't require the cleric any choice, it just happens. When it happens, your friends get a benefit but this is not teamwork, because there is no "work". Teamwork is when the cleric purposefully choses not to do something (e.g. attacking) because doing something else (e.g. casting a healing spell) is more important at the moment.

The bulk of teamwork is going to be still there. Fighters will go to the front line, spellcasters will still cast buffs, and generally PCs will try to interact in clever ways to benefit each other.

But auto-heals and auto-buffs actually encourage the opposite: just worry about doing what you want (attacking, blasting) and the rules will take care of doing the team work for you.