Does 4th edition hinder roleplaying?

[Henry]

My litmus test:

If you can roleplay in as rules-light as Risus or as rules-heavy as Hero, you can roleplay in 4E, because it definitely falls in between the two. Heck, Warhammer 2 doesn't have rules for crafting a dagger or singing for your supper in its core books, but it doesn't hamper that game from being a roleplaying vehicle any.

As for multiclassing, I'll say that 4E is to me even more "realistic" for multiclassing than 3E was, because you can't pick it up in an instant -- it takes to 11th level before you become a "real" multiclass, meaning a lot of training and experience. In my vision of fantasy, multiclassing isn't like training into a DBA career out of a career of network administration --it's more like training to be a Heart Surgeon out of your Masters of Business Administration, something that requires utter dedication.

 

[Mark]

Does 4th edition hinder roleplaying?

It certainly seems to simplify non-combat aspects to the extreme and channel gameplay toward combat encounters, regardless of player and DM intent. We had an 18th level game last night, urban adventuring, with a DM who very much knows his stuff and loves non-combat encounters as much as anything else, precisely to see how gameplay with the 4E ruleset would engender non-combat gaming. While I think that most would agree that without an ongoing campaign it is difficult to truly judge how much non-combat can be had with 4E, I think most would also have to agree that the ruleset gets further away from prompting non-combat than many other versions of D&D or even other RPGs. It's seems to have been written to try and create a fast-paced miniatures combat game on which a DM might overlay an RPing campaign. However, I have found that at all levels of play combat seems to bog down and require much more time to resolve than it should. My group spans from twenty to fifty in age with the least experienced gamer having half a dozen years at the table and most having over twenty.

 

[LostSoul]

I think most would also have to agree that the ruleset gets further away from prompting non-combat than many other versions of D&D or even other RPGs.

Why would most have to agree to that?

 

[hexgrid]

It's up to player to choose when use a Daily. He doesn't need to wait for an optimal situation for use it.

Right- the player chose it. The character, meanwhile, had to wait for an opening.

 

[Mark]

Why would most have to agree to that?

It seems to be the nature of the ruleset and its focus on combat options and limiting of non-combat options (rituals, skills).

 

[Greg K]

I would say a definite NO, especially when it comes to multi-classing. I absolutely DETESTED! 3.5 multi-classing because I found it extremely rigid once you multi-class. Your not a Fighter who has learnt a couple Wizard tricks, nope your a Fighter who has gone through all the training to be a First Level Wizard. Or You wish to take on only certain aspects of a second class, nope you got to level up in that class with all its baggage till you reach that point, etc, etc.

Heroic tier multiclassing is, imo, one of the few things that I think the designers got right in 4e for the most part. However, it's not that hard to houserule 3e to do something similar. Still, by RAW this is something I think 4e does handle well.

 

[OchreJelly]

But why? I don't understand what's limiting about the rituals or skills. Is it because there are less skills and currently less non-combat spells? I'm not trying to antagonize, I genuinely am curious as to why you would feel that way.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

It seems to be the nature of the ruleset and its focus on combat options and limiting of non-combat options (rituals, skills).

I personally have found the opposite effect in my games. We have found there is more options for our characters (I think it is relevant to point out in both editions we mainly played non-magical characters). We have:

-Smaller but more broad skill list meaning easier to become proficient in something. Plus every class has non-combat skills and thus potential.
-Skill Challenges expand non-combat to be more then single dice rolls and can lead to more involved challenges, such as things like investigations.
-Having Powers (especially relevant with Martial) means that we can use special manoeuvres in non-combat. You wouldn't believe how useful Powers that shift has been in my games. From making quick escapes, to man-handling someone, etc.
-If one did wish to break into more magical means it is quite easy with Alchemy or Ritual Training.
-We are getting various feats, backgrounds, paragon paths, etc. That are focused toward stuff like, getting bonuses with specific tasks be it creating things, sailing ships, etc.

Honestly the only thing I see missing from 4e, is magical characters having a overflowing list of spells that overpower any non-magical means to get around a non-combat challenge.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It seems to be the nature of the ruleset and its focus on combat options and limiting of non-combat options (rituals, skills).

One person's negative is another person's positive.

From my perspective, the ruleset of 4E doesn't limit non-combat options at all. In 3.x, a combat focused character at mid-to-high levels was effectively useless out of combat (due to hyper-scaling DCs). Because all 4E characters add 1/2 their level to checks, there can be a very significant difference between a skill focused character and a combat focused character outside of combat, but not so much that an average challenge is auto-fail for "combat guy" and auto-success for "skills-guy", which was generally my experience of how 3.x played after the first few levels.

The fact that ritual use can be acquired for the paltry price of a feat (which you get 18 of, iirc) seems a big improvement to me as well. Sure, you can't spam teleport without error in 4E, but since that was a big beef my group had with 3.x, we see it as an improvement.

YM, of course, MV.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But why? I don't understand what's limiting about the rituals or skills. Is it because there are less skills and currently less non-combat spells? I'm not trying to antagonize, I genuinely am curious as to why you would feel that way.

The artificial separation of abilities into strict combat/non-combat use is limiting. Being able to teleport/plane shift/knock/hold a door in time sensitive situations is an important part of gameplay for some (me).
Rituals just don't cut it. This of course has nothing to do with roleplaying and is more about flexibility/utility of options for a given situation.