D&D 4E 4E Mechanics can reduce the need for combat!

[CinnamonPixie]

This is an important thing to realize.

Intricate combat mechanics encourage combat. Remove them and you remove much of the incentive for combat.

So since they've taken out non-lethal damage capability in the game, reduced skills to almost the foot-note level they were at before, and over-emphasized the "power, power, and more power" of the game, does this mean the game is essentially nothing BUT an encouragement to do little other than combat with fanciful "fun sounding named" powers?!

Stripping that non-lethal and richly developed (in need of some tweaking perhaps (like say "Stealth" for Hide and Move Silent, and "Perception" for Spot and Listen; maybe both of those as class skills, giving Wizards (the "scholars and educated/educators of the world") at least as many skill points as the illiterate Barbarian - that was a horrible call at 4 points with so many classes at 2 points (2 is dreadful anyway)) skill system out of the game would seem to suggest that they don't want to encourage anything but bloodthirsty combat full of feats of immense power (relative to level of course)... Seems less of an RPG and more of a hack-n-slash/combat simulation than anything (and I refuse to make "skills combat" type settings/rules for a game - that's dumb to make knowledge and trained talent act as combat ability some alternate perception of the contest of skill/knowledge/talent).

 

[Stalker0]

So since they've taken out non-lethal damage capability in the game, reduced skills to almost the foot-note level they were at before.

1) We have no idea if subdual damage is still in the game, we've seen only a small bit of the combat section.

2) Just because there are fewer skills doesn't make them less important, as long as they can cover a wide enough base to cover most "meaningful" things a player wants to do. For example, craft basket weaving is not a "meaningful" thing in terms of needing mechanics. If your character makes baskets, then by all means make baskets when your not adventuring. If you want to be a sailor as your background, then say you are a sailor, and make sure to be trained in athletics (for the climbing of ropes and the good swim).

So far, the only skill I feel is lacking in the new list is ride. I don't see another skill that it might have gotten absorbed into, so that has me a bit worried. But I'm not sorry to see use rope go, gather info is likely absorbed into history (which includes a societies customs) and diplomacy, combing the thieving skills into one makes perfect sense, etc.

 

[breschau]

This is an important thing to realize.

Intricate combat mechanics encourage combat. Remove them and you remove much of the incentive for combat.

Many people would claim the exact opposite. Just look at GURPS, Shadworun, and HERO System. The more intricate the combat, the less likely people are to put up with it. Same for character creation, etc. A skill system for handling movement so you could replace the battlemap would be great. Keep the rest the same, because let's face it, there's no way no match the thrill of a scoring a natural 20 when down to your last few hp at the end of an encounter.

 

[Jayouzts]

I'm not saying that every group would prefer combat this way, or that every group should. But I just realized that the rules likely allow for it. If you would rather say, "I want to attack these guys, then this guy with my special power, then try to hide, then attack from behind a tree...." instead of moving your miniature on a grid, then you can!.

And not only that, it's probably easier to do in 4e than in 3.x!

How about that?

Why could you not do that in 3.x?

 

[Wystan]

So since they've taken out non-lethal damage capability in the game,

At the D&D Experience, we were told by our DM that we can choose to decide if the killing blow is just that or non-lethal knock out damage.

 

[kennew142]

So since they've taken out non-lethal damage capability in the game...

According to one of the DDX judges, non-lethal damage is still in the game. You don;t have to track separate hp totals anymore to model it.

Just because they didn't release the entirety of the rules during the playtest doesn't mean that what we have seen are the complete rules. But accepting this simple fact would get in the way of an anti-4e screed wouldn't it?

 

[Green Knight]

At the D&D Experience, we were told by our DM that we can choose to decide if the killing blow is just that or non-lethal knock out damage.

Well, that's good. Quick and clean way to play a character who has a vow against killing or something similar without gimping him mechanically.

 

[Transit]

Just because they didn't release the entirety of the rules during the playtest doesn't mean that what we have seen are the complete rules. But accepting this simple fact would get in the way of an anti-4e screed wouldn't it?

But also because they didn't release the entirety of the rules during the playtest we have no way of knowing if we HAVEN'T seen the complete rules, or if the remainder of the rules continue to focus almost solely on combat and have little or no roleplaying content.

Neither side has all the facts yet, and what you call an "anti-4E screed" may in fact turn out to be accurate. But accepting this simple fact would get in the way of unquestioning 4E fanboy adoration wouldn't it?

 

[fedelas]

my group KILL ME if do something like this for combat, but if the rulesystem allow a similar approach to vast scale warfare, or the possibility to resolve some not key combat encounter (like slaughterfest against goblin by high level PC) with a simple short series of diceroll and a bit of roleplaying, i think this is a vast improvement to any game.

 

[Thyrwyn]

This is an important thing to realize.

Intricate combat mechanics encourage combat. Remove them and you remove much of the incentive for combat.

Would the corrolary apply as well? Intricate rules for social encounters would provide incentive for social encounters?