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

I see the same kind of thing in 4e, which is the least easy to modify version of D&D {edit-VB} ever IMO.

I'm not sure what you mean here. What kind of modifications do you find difficult in this version that were easier in past versions? I haven't found that to be the case so far, but I can't really offer a good counter-argument or suggestions on how to make modifications easier unless I understand what you are finding difficult to modify.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This sounds like a great idea.
I believe the problem with the outside combat resolution. Is that people seem to want to use powers. Where powers really are primarily combat stuff.
If I wanted to play a tough guy wizard, you can lean that way with the use of feats. But you really need , as Rechan pointed out , some seperation between classes, and skills.

I think people are still getting used to the new power structure and are seing the powers as restrictive as mentioned above. Upthread were some good ideas for using powers and class abilities outside of combat to achieve desired effects:

Can I do this outside of combat?

And the DMG suggests "say yes."

We're all used to how we would use Charm Person to make a fool out of the snooty bartender. Or use Grease to cause mischief in the marketplace. Now it's time to look for new uses for the powers.

My suggestions to the above questions and what I would do as DM in my own games boil down to some easy answers:

1) When a player suggests a creative use of a class ability such as Warlock's Curse to intimidate the locals, say Yes.
2) Allow any power to be used without the damage component. Even a skilled swordsman needs to practice his cool combat maneuvers and wouldn't get much chance to do so if he's smacking the uh-hum out of his training buddy.
3) Does the action the player wants his character to take break the game? (Like talking to a horse instead of townsfolk?) Or does it just break your version of the story? Let the player be creative!
4) Be open with the rules. Glorius spirit lets his Epic PC fly 30 feet per round at will? Whoop-de-do! He's Epic and that's an equivalent Fly speed of 15. At best he could fly 30, then walk another 30 to keep up with everybody else.
5) Much more than I can even think of right now, so be ready to adapt and wing it.
 

I see the same kind of thing in 4e, which is the least easy to modify version of 4e ever IMO.
How so, if you don't mind me asking.

My group's found that it's been extremely easy to make 4e work for our gaming style/take on fantasy, which is idiosyncratic, to say the least, and not at all like the style implied by any of the 4e published modules.

Or any published modules, for that matter.
 

I think what 4E classes are missing for some are "slots" that you can use for any type of non-combat feature. Or rather, there are not enough examples for them.

Maybe there should be more feats that grant feat powers for free, but don't affect combat. Maybe a feat like

"Seducer". Grants the Feat Power "Seduction
Seduction - Feat Power, Charm
Free Action - Encounter
Trigger: You roll a charisma based ability or skill check against a character of the opposite gender.
Effect: Reroll the check.

Diviner - Feat Power
Free Action - Daily
Trigger: You begin casting a divination ritual
Benefit: You reduce the casting time to 1/5th the normal casting time or reduce the component cost to 1/5th.


Maybe it would be enough if these were utility powers, but getting utility powers from other classes is hard (spend two feats and sacrifice one of your regular utilities), so this power would normally be only available to one class.
 


Maybe there should be more feats that grant feat powers for free, but don't affect combat. Maybe a feat like...
Good idea, but you can do it in a single Feat...

Knack -select one Trained skill when choosing this Feat.
Free Action, Encounter (or Daily, whatever).
Trigger: you roll a Skill Check for that Feat.
Effect: re-roll the check.

It would also be handy to have a big list of target DC's by tier (and applicable modifiers) for out-of-combat skill stunts. Thing's like a 3e druid's Trackless Step could be handled like this.
 

But those abilities were locked into classes. You can track in 4E and you can spend feats to make yourself the best tracker in the party, without having to be the Ranger. You can do the job of the old Thief, or the parts you want to be skilled at, without being forced into being a Rogue. Why could only Thieves/Rogues find traps in previous editions? Ritual casters in 4E can scry, cure diseases, etc. With the proper skill checks you should still be allowed to identify pure water and you can make lore checks on any creature. The only example someone gave recently that doesn't exist is the monk's timeless body. And for all I know, there may be an epic destiny that grants just that or maybe we have to wait for the monk to reappear and the ability will appear in the Timeless Master epic destiny.

Alot of the non-combat stuff is still there, its just not locked into the classes. And some of it has been balanced into rituals. Whether you like rituals or not is another matter, but it is there.

I believe this, is in part, the point, particularly with respect to paragon paths. You get access to paragon paths based on class but what do you get out of it that nobody else gets? Pretty much combat stuff. Combat Combat Combat. Blech!

It took some doing but I finally found one that had something useful that wasn't just for combat: Horizon Walker with Shadowfell Sight. THIS is what I'm talking about - gaining something either class or paragon path-based that actually means something outside of combat.

If a player wants to develop their combat prowess by taking a particular paragon path, more power to them. But I find it vexing to look through them and find so very few that will support the development of non-combat abilities that are still useful in playing a character. I thought that the direction that D&D had been taking with 3e and the addition of interesting, and not always powerful, flavorful non-combat benefits here and there for classes was a real positive movement away from being the miniatures game that D&D started as. So, needless to say, despite some nice changes (and I do think rituals is one of them... or at least the start of a good idea), 4e has been a tremendous disappointment to me.
 

Good idea, but you can do it in a single Feat...

Knack -select one Trained skill when choosing this Feat.
Free Action, Encounter (or Daily, whatever).
Trigger: you roll a Skill Check for that Feat.
Effect: re-roll the check.

It would also be handy to have a big list of target DC's by tier (and applicable modifiers) for out-of-combat skill stunts. Thing's like a 3e druid's Trackless Step could be handled like this.
Of course one can do that in one feat. But if you want to be the charmer and seducter, a feat with this name and its restriction will give you that feeling a lot better. ;)
 

Of course the powers and classes are restrictions. Every game system is defined by its themes and its mechanical boundaries. Both are forms of restrictions.

In the specific case of combat, those restrictions are there add dramatic tension and simulationism to the scenario. On the most basic level, they solve the old cops-and-robbers problem of "Bang, you're dead. / No you're dead." On a slightly more complex level they add randomization to create permutations and lead to the necessity for tactics - an element that's crucial to most war-games. On a much more complex note, they place restrictions on character actions and outcomes so that ideally players are comepled to perform as a functional team.

For the most part, the combat simulation aspects of more RPGs have their role-playing end at selecting your battlefield role and the theme of your equipment (including powers). The mechanics are there for Roll Playing, like any other board game.

Those elements are critical to the table-top battle game and other games like it. They aren't so critical to games involving mysteries, riddles, and social or economic plotting. Generally scenarios where failure doesn't result in crippling or killing a character don't run into the "bang" problem. Circumstances lacking split-second mayhem and involving large amounts of unknown quantities (from the PC perspective) don't need the randomize permutations to spawn tactics. Just sticking to passive stats will generally get you answers to questions about your character's physical and mental capacities if they come up. Furthermore, independent ("solo") tasks such as research, crafting, and building personal relationships don't need the artificial restrictions that attempt to compel and balance team-work.

While the DM can certainly go back to the days of rolling percentile dice to determine whether people you encounter are hostile/indifferent/friendly or whatnot, I find RP works a lot better when there is a rational explanation for why NPCs happen to act the way they do. In those kinds of situations no matter how many tables you invent and how many dice you roll the only way any of it makes any sense or becomes significantly interactive is if the DM can step up and manage the scenario on his or her own wits. Likewise, a character sheet's numbers can't tell you a character's life experiences; only the player can do that.

I think people are still getting used to the new power structure and are seing the powers as restrictive as mentioned above. Upthread were some good ideas for using powers and class abilities outside of combat to achieve desired effects:

Can I do this outside of combat?

And the DMG suggests "say yes."

I can't agree with this sentiment enough. It isn't limited to powers either. Players who get deep into their role-playing are going to want to be able to call upon their character's background material - life skills, personal contacts, etc. to help complete tasks and resolve plots. That is, after all, what makes their character something more than a generic "Level 4 Wizard who likes fire." A DM who refuses to let their players exercise anything about their characters that isn't printed explicitly on their character sheet or a rule book really doesn't serve as an inditement against the RPG itself.

Now, all that said I think I can see another issue cropping up here. As you level up a character they grow explicitly more powerful in how they can interact with the world ... in combat. Going back to the Wizard (because this kind of the discussion is almost inevitably really about the spell-jockey being able to warp reality to his whim) you've got a guy who is suddenly explicitly permitted to vaporize small armies, but has no such explicit permission to, say, transform that uppity bartender into a toad for his insolence. This leaves the door open for a DM to pull out the old "you can't do that," hatchet and put the kabosh on the whole thing ... even though any NPC villain the DM has thrown at the characters of comparable power level can obviously place princesses into enchanted slumbers and turn princes into frogs. :P

- Marty Lund
 
Last edited:

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."

I know what your point here is (as a DM, I've been in that situation a few times), but this "problem" still persists in 4E -- from a purely mechanical PoV, the players could call for a skill challenge to make the king hand them his kingdom. The end result is pretty much the same, except it may actually be easier to achieve in 4E if the players have invested in a wide variety of skills.

Actually, it's no different from many indie RPGs which rely on conflict resolution.
 

Remove ads

Top