L&L: These are not the rules you're looking for

[howandwhy99]

Single class parties can throw into high relief how each class is different, but not excluded from engaging in any of the designer's situational categories (or any others).

Fighters seek out combat, but when they come upon magical stuff in the dungeon they are at a disadvantage. They can still engage in trial and error study, but they aren't as equipped to deal with it as a magic-user.

Thieves should avoid overt combat whenever possible and ambush, trick, and basically engage in covert combat when deemed necessary. What they are really here for is stealing stuff and getting away with it. Magics and direct combat are still not their forte, but neither are these fully excluded either.

Magic-Users should basically avoid combat at all costs. If it's unavoidable, which is rare considering the variety of options M-Us have, then they have spells that can end it quickly or enable easier evasion or retreat. Again, they are good at what they do, they are not so good at what they are not trained to do.

Clerics are another kettle of fish altogether. I had a long post around here a few weeks ago explaining all about how clerics engage with the game from their class perspective, but I don't have search capabilities. Basically, they engage with intelligent, language-based creatures and gain followers as they go down the dungeon levels until they reach the stuff they cannot convert and instead must Turn (like demons and devils). They focus on alignment, morale, loyalty, and similar game elements. They are good casters, good fighters, and average thieves (like everyone else who's not a thief), but everything they have is focused on performing the class of cleric.

 

[Gryph]

makes perfect sense to me. Any expedition is going to have non combat specialists (people who are good at navigation, wilderness survival, interating with locals, etc). We see this in books and films all the time. It all comes down to the specifics of the party and the chafacter's motovations. let the players and Gm decide this for themselves. If it is as essential as you say, then people will only play combat focused characters.

There are a lot of very valid and usefull plot and literary techniques that work well in books and film that fail miserably in a cooperative game.

Even if a player is comfortable being a detriment to the team when the knives come out, doesn't mean that the other players are going to want to deal with carrying them and protecting them in every combat.

Hirelings and NPCs are a good place to model your non-combat specialists.

Even with that said, I'm not opposed to PCs having little to no combat capability but if they are in the core rules (or introduced later) players and DMs need strong advice laying out the pitfalls in such a choice. With care given to point out the possible impact on the other players enjoyment of the game and advice given on how they might work with different campaign styles. Such a PC is likely to be a great fit in a heavily intrigue/political/kingdom building sort of campaign.

 

[Mattachine]

Thieves should avoid overt combat whenever possible and ambush, trick, and basically engage in covert combat when deemed necessary. What they are really here for is stealing stuff and getting away with it. Magics and direct combat are still not their forte, but neither are these fully excluded either.

Clerics are another kettle of fish altogether. I had a long post around here a few weeks ago explaining all about how clerics engage with the game from their class perspective, but I don't have search capabilities. Basically, they engage with intelligent, language-based creatures and gain followers as they go down the dungeon levels until they reach the stuff they cannot convert and instead must Turn (like demons and devils). They focus on alignment, morale, loyalty, and similar game elements. They are good casters, good fighters, and average thieves (like everyone else who's not a thief), but everything they have is focused on performing the class of cleric.

Of course, not all "thieves" are actually thieves. Likewise, not all clerics seek to convert--many seek to punish, or to exclude.

The big four classes need to accommodate several archetypes each.

Just sayin'.

 

[Bedrockgames]

There are a lot of very valid and usefull plot and literary techniques that work well in books and film that fail miserably in a cooperative game.

Even if a player is comfortable being a detriment to the team when the knives come out, doesn't mean that the other players are going to want to deal with carrying them and protecting them in every combat.

Hirelings and NPCs are a good place to model your non-combat specialists.

Even with that said, I'm not opposed to PCs having little to no combat capability but if they are in the core rules (or introduced later) players and DMs need strong advice laying out the pitfalls in such a choice. With care given to point out the possible impact on the other players enjoyment of the game and advice given on how they might work with different campaign styles. Such a PC is likely to be a great fit in a heavily intrigue/political/kingdom building sort of campaign.

I agree books and film dont often work in games. I disagree that aving an exploration specialist who isnt that good at combat presents a huge issue (at least it hasnt in games i run or play). The 2E thief was not terribly effective in combat and was geared more for out of combat situations. To me this worked and felt better than running a party like a modern football or strike team. When stuff got tricky the thief would hang back and do what he could to help, but combat was not his time to shine.

I do realie this boils down to preference. But i dont think WOTC should repeat the same mistake it made with 4E: gamist design centered mostly around combat.

 

[Gryph]

I agree books and film dont often work in games. I disagree that aving an exploration specialist who isnt that good at combat presents a huge issue (at least it hasnt in games i run or play). The 2E thief was not terribly effective in combat and was geared more for out of combat situations. To me this worked and felt better than running a party like a modern football or strike team. When stuff got tricky the thief would hang back and do what he could to help, but combat was not his time to shine.

I do realie this boils down to preference. But i dont think WOTC should repeat the same mistake it made with 4E: gamist design centered mostly around combat.

I think there is a pretty big gap between the 2e Thieves combat effectiveness and a non-combat specialist. I like that they are moving away from classes strictly balanced on combat effectiveness.

What I was trying to get to in my last post, at some tables the campaign style is going to make a pc with no effective combat abilities very difficult to play because they may effectively have no opportunity to do anything. In other campaigns, of course, they may shine regularly. This holds true for pure combat classes too.

If there is room in the rules for a character with no capabilities at all in one or more of the "pillars" than there needs to be some very explicit advice that warns players/dms of class/style problems. Even some experienced players and dms need to see things work in game before they can make a good evaluation on suitability to a campaign.

So, forex, saying "The Sage will have few opportunities to use its class features in a Hack & Slash style campaign," makes it clear to everyone (including the other players) that the sage class has certain limitations.

In consulting we call it managing expectations.

 

[Lanefan]

In my view, then, the 4e roles aren't spun from whole cloth and imposed willy-nilly on unsuspecting gamers the world over. They reflect pressures that are inherent to the post-AD&D dynamics of the game (ie incombat movement, and incombat healing). Unless we get rid of those dynamics, we will need the mechanics, whether or not we call them roles.

Maybe those dynamics need a sober second look.

In-combat movement is great - as long as it is fluid and not strictly turn-based.

In-combat healing is not so great. Healing is what you do after the battle, not during it.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

In-combat healing is not so great. Healing is what you do after the battle, not during it.

But if by "healing" we really mean "hit point recovery", and by "hit points" we really mean "that combination of meat, morale and luck that lets you stay on your feet and win fights even when you've taken a beating", then in-combat healing makes a lot of sense. It's a staple of the fight genre from fantasy through Die Hard to boxing stories.

 

[pemerton]

Controllers and Leaders (Wizards and Bards, for example) sometimes aren't particularly "good at" combat in the sense that, if caught alone by some toughs they will struggle. But, when the entire party is engaged in a fight, they have support functions that they can perform. A low level Wizard with only ranged control powers is going to be in a tough place if ambushed by a bunch of thugs in an alley, but when protected by his buddies in a melee he can make a full contribution to the team.

Likewise, I see 'roles' for non-combat as being things to contribute, not solo puissance. A burly but uneducated sort of character, for example, may be able to charm the ladies with animal magnetism, and this could help in a general, mixed social encounter in a multitude of ways - but corner him and ask for an academic debate and he'll be a total fish out of water.

Excellent examples of how "equally able to contribute", in the context of a game oriented towards party play, and with certain expectations about how encounters will be designed in line with that orientation, doesn't at all equate to "equally capable".

 

[Garthanos]

A step further in to the not - particularly good at fighting but quite able to contribute is the noncombatant action adventurer... the princess build warlord.

Its actually rather fun... interestingly totally dependent on allies in a fight, can be kidnapped easily but the instant the team shows for the rescue the group is now far more awesomely inspired and going the nine yards in her name. Also has no need of implement or weapon, allows that resource to spent various ways, from rituals to gifts for her allies... almost like Galadriel.

Anyway let me not really participate during huge chunks of story doesnt make sense to me... no matter what the arena and that means better team roles out of combat ...