D&D 4E lack of non-combat crunch is my biggest gripe with 4e atm

[duke_Qa]

I was going to make a big thread about how i would have liked to fix that, but I found that hard to write properly in a short amount of time. I am instead going to write quickly about this bug thats scratching at my neck.

Basically, I love 4e's more strict rules and exception based design on powers and items. It's still a bit unusual for me, but overall I'm very optimistic of it growing on me as more books come out.
Right now on the other hand, I feel that 4e's designers have sacrificed non-combat mechanics in the wish of perfecting the combat-mechanics. Nothing wrong about that, the combat system is one of the better I've seen in any game designed to be played by humans and not through machines.

I just really hope that they are aware of this gap in 4e's mechanics, and have not gone down the path of "it's a feature, not a bug". They have said that they have tried to avoid non-combat mechanics because it inhibits roleplaying. And I can agree that badly made non-combat mechanics encourage that.
But roleplaying games is not all about having rules for combat. It's about having rules for other situations like mind-control, arcane powers beyond burning things, strange magical items and special quirks and perks. Think of disiplines/powers in WoD that were not directly connected to combat as a good example.


As far as I'm concerned, 4e's rules are wide open for patching in such rules. It would be a perfect addition to phbII if they find the room for it. If I could explain how I would have liked to see it as short as possible, it would probably sound like this: "Non-combat powers . Every player gains x NC-powers at 1st lvl and more later on. These give NC-bonuses and abilities that cannot be used directly in combat."
It is basically its own power 'silo' module added to the game. It looks like the combat powers, it probably would work on the same time-schedules as the combat powers(dailies, encounters and at-wills, although the at-wills probably would be passive powers(always on) instead), and it would probably use alot of the same formatting.

But this is the part that I'm trying to avoid writing about. It's the part that interests me, but it quickly makes for a muddy OP. What this thread is mostly about is that I miss the good kind of RP-mechanics that I know exists in other roleplaying games. And I hope that we will either see a third-party book on the topic or some official supplement adding a module that supplies this.

And at the beginning of the end, if you feel that I've missed something in the core rules*, or have examples of good ways to implement non-combat/roleplaying mechanics into the game, please speak up. I'm happy to hear if people have opinions that cross into this area that is bugging me these days .
Also, if something is completely gibberish please tell me, I'm not a primary English-speaker and I have a tendency to leave out vital parts of my train-of-thought when I write quickly(or as of now, in the middle of the night), so it might get confusing.



*=(I don't really count skills, feats or rituals as non-combat mechanics in this context because:
-[rituals] They are somewhat restricted to who can use them off the bat and what they do.
-[feats] They are somewhat mixed in with combat mechanics which makes for a balance game between combat and non-combat, where combat usually wins.[although adding a silo of non-combat feats might be an easy way to fix this problem I'm talking about]
-[skills] They are the basic way 4e works in non-combat/roleplaying, but they are rarely influenced beyond choosing race, taking training in them at first level or non-combat feats to pump them up a bit more, which I think is a bit too basic)

 

[Craw Hammerfist]

I feel ya. I haven't done much with 4e yet (waiting for the game table) but reading through the core books, I don't get the same adventuring sense I got with 2e and 3e. It's not as if the core books are against non-combat, it just seems like there is a gaping hole waiting to be filled with some non-combat feats/powers/skills that can do for non-combat what the 4e mechanic has done for combat.

The skill challenge is an interesting framework and definitely a step in the right direction. What we need are some powers that work within that framework. Why not a "daily" power that lets you use a "wink and a nod" and get a possible bonus to a diplomacy check at the risk of offending the target and taking a penalty instead? You have to make a check of some sort and a failure has consequences. Wouldn't such powers enourage role playing encounters?

 

[Tale]

Why not a "daily" power that lets you use a "wink and a nod" and get a possible bonus to a diplomacy check at the risk of offending the target and taking a penalty instead? You have to make a check of some sort and a failure has consequences. Wouldn't such powers enourage role playing encounters?

What about your power encourages role playing over already existing powers like Beguiling Tongue that have no failure consequence?

Heck, how does a failure consequence encourage anything? Penalties discourage, nearly by definition.

 

[burntgerbil]

I think beguiling tongue and things of that nature are a good example of what can be done - by adding more selectable utility powers ( the most numerous a character has) they can choose to have utility outside of combat. I think with a deep enough understanding of the flexibility of the skill system, much of what you are looking for (non-magic-effect wise) can be handled with utility encounter powers - or even at wills that bump or otherwise modify (great leap & nimble climb) a skill check.

 

[teach]

I have to say that I'd rather have less rules for non-combat encounters than more because it gives me as the DM or player a lot more flexibility ("you want to be a chef turned adventurer, you're a chef!") it would be great if they came out with a book with all that non-combat fluff (and crunch) that is present in earlier books. Things that pop to my mind right away are things like keeps, midevel professions, sample npcs, random treasure and encounters. Things that would help me as a player or DM flesh out my character or world. I know that a lot of these things have been published already and can be modified from previous rule sets, but I would prefer that they are tied in with the current rule set.

And i like the idea of having a seperate power "silo" at certain levels that give you more non-combat options. Every time I have to choose between a non-combat power and a combat power as a player, I'm going to pick the combat power, because at least in the games I play in, you'll use the combat powers a lot more.

 

[Stalker0]

What in particular do you feel was noncombat about 3rd edition that has been lost in 4th.

For example, let's take the rogue. In 3e, he got sneak attack, uncanny dodge, and trap sense. All of those are combative abilities. His main noncombat powers were his large number of skills.

In 4e, the rogue also has a large number of skills. He can gain more with feats, and skills tend to be more useful across the game. You also have magic items that can add to skills.

As far as I'm concerned, the 3e rogue and 4e rogue are just as noncombative as each other. Heck in some ways the 4e rogue is less combative, simply because I have powers that work with my skills.


Now I could see the point throw at the spellcasters. Spellcasters in general are definately forced into a more combatitive aspects. While rituals can help, most powers are definately geared towards combat.

 

[Jhulae]

Really, how much non-combat stuff did any edition of D&D really have before 3e? sure, AD&D had 'non weapon proficencies', and RC may have had something similar, but really... not much in the way of non-combat stuff, yet, somehow, people still managed to RP.

I really don't mind that non-combat stuff is more freeform now. in a way, it lets you use your imagination more rather than having to rely on a lot of rules.

ymmv

 

[burntgerbil]

I think the nerfing of the spell issue is a response to inconsistent DM handling of creative use of spells in 3.5. I feel that 4e tries to standardize everything to make it easier to DM - at least with the core books. Unfortunately, this comes at the cost of some really cool spells - ( I loved transmute rock to mud and wonder if I will ever see it again in combat )

I think over time, we will slowly see these options return in other books, but the true range of the 3.5 magic system will likely always be absent - and with it a large part of the creativity of the game many players were used to (until they learn to adapt).

EDIT : on the plus side, this does eliminate to some extent the Scry, teleport, nuke routine that many high level parties use.

 

[Zsig]

*=(I don't really count skills, feats or rituals as non-combat mechanics in this context because:
-[rituals] They are somewhat restricted to who can use them off the bat and what they do.
-[feats] They are somewhat mixed in with combat mechanics which makes for a balance game between combat and non-combat, where combat usually wins.[although adding a silo of non-combat feats might be an easy way to fix this problem I'm talking about]
-[skills] They are the basic way 4e works in non-combat/roleplaying, but they are rarely influenced beyond choosing race, taking training in them at first level or non-combat feats to pump them up a bit more, which I think is a bit too basic)

I think you got your answer right there.

Don't get me wrong, I had the same feeling when I first read the books, now, I come to think about it you have as much to do outside combat as you had before (if not more).

Stalker already gave the example of the Rogue.

Now think about the Fighter. (I won't do that for you...)

Anyways, there are two ways I could possibly think for you to do what you want:

1) You got some basic list of "non-combat" powers that every class could dip in.
2) You got one list per class/power source.

If you go with (1) you'll risk turning the game too silly, or, really you won't change a damn thing because we already got Feats & Skills, and they work pretty good. Most of the "non-combat" abilities from 3.X that we don't see anymore are either part of some skill or made into a feat.

If you go with (2) you'll have the problem of getting things unbalanced, some classes would get some obvious powerful (and more useful) stuff while some others would get some trivial stuff (Think Wizards vs. Fighters).

And that's where Rituals come in. With a simple feat or two you have access to them, no matter how dumb you might be. Even though Wizards gets them for free, it's not something out of reach for anyone.

My advice, play the game for a few more sessions, you'll realize there's nothing wrong the way it is

 

[Craw Hammerfist]

What about your power encourages role playing over already existing powers like Beguiling Tongue that have no failure consequence?

Heck, how does a failure consequence encourage anything? Penalties discourage, nearly by definition.

A failure chance raises the drama level. But beguiling tongue is a great example. Mine was off the cuff. There needs to be more general utility powers that any class can take.