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

[qstor]

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.

A lot of what the rogue could do in 3.x is limited by the number of skills which were lost.
Sure However in 3.x you could get more skills by multiclassing and PrC's like exemplar made your skills even better. And magic items and alchemical items added to your skills.

The thing about noncombat in 4e that gets me is that profession and craft are gone. Those 2 skills as well as non weapon proficiencies in 2e are something that I really liked. It gave a rules mechanic as a way to add flavor to your character background. The designers of 4e I'm told have said something to the effect...Your PC wants to make a basket...Sure if the DM says its ok, you've made a basket. Want to be a carpenter? Sure you're a carpenter. One of the funniest things I've seen on ENworld was a thread on the LotR as a DM game and Sam had Skill Focus profession cook or something like that. Now Sam can't have that. But if the DM says he can have it sure.

I'd like to see how the Bard is done in 4e. Will Perform be a "power" or a skill? Probably Bardic music will be a power. It should be a skill but that do I know??

Mike

 

[Goumindong]

The thing about noncombat in 4e that gets me is that profession and craft are gone. Those 2 skills as well as non weapon proficiencies in 2e are something that I really liked. It gave a rules mechanic as a way to add flavor to your character background.

No one actually used these skills. By codifying those profession and craft skills as "background" anyone whose background wasn't explicitly "i have pursued my classes career my entire life" was gimped compared to anyone else.

Such, craft and such skills were removed, they were and are detrimental to the game, they're not coming back. Good riddance. Rules "mechanics" to add flavor to your character background are dumb. Flavor is just that, flavor, not substance.

 

[Bodhiwolff]

The idea of non-combat, story-telling/roleplaying mechanics and rules is highly lmiting. You start off thinking that you're trying to help the PC's by giving them guidance and structure, so you can give certain classes a bonus or benefit with certain non-combat rules mechanics, but in the end all you wind up doing is creating a baroque and convoluted system of hoops which effectively limit all non-specialist PC's from ever truly being effective at their non-combat task in question.

Calling it "crunch" is just a ploy to distract us from the downside.

What it really is, is "miasma".

All that 4E has done is return to the AD&D days of roleplaying and storytelling, where everything non-combat related is done via the social contract between the DM and the players. It is a communal effort, not a competetive effort.

So instead of a player pointing to a rules entry and stating categorically that they should be getting an extra follower because they get a +1 bonus at their level, they now have to talk to the DM and convince everybody at the table that there is a good reason for that special treatment.

Personally, I find it extremely liberating.

Now, everybody can try everything. Everybody can branch out wherever they wish. Eventually you'll settle on roles and stories which make sense, and you'll start to impose limits based on those roles and stories (the entire table will start to feel when the decisions make the most sense, and when they're right for the character) but for now it is much more effective to just leave the non-combat/storytelling/roleplaying rules as loose as possible.

Because anything else startsr really just eventually winds up telling me what I can't do far more than it tells me what I can do -- and that just isn't nearly as fun.

 

[Zerovoid]

I agree with the OP. I feel that the lack of non-combat utility spells (or similar powers for other classes), has taken away one of my favorite parts of DnD.

Examples like:

Using Tensor's Floating Disk to cross over a field of lava.
4e version: Skill challenge with Athletics and Acrobatics to jump between rocks. I suppose you could use the Tensor's ritual, but its slow and expensive now.

The party accidentally killing a noble's daughter, animating her as a zombie, covering her with an illusion, and trying to pretend she was alive, ala Weekend at Bernies.
4e version: Skill challenge with Diplomacy, Bluff and Insight? "No, she's really alive, we promise..."

Retrieving a thousand pound cauldron from deep underground by casting bull's strength on the fighter to boost the amount he could carry as part of his max load, having the fighter pick up the cauldron, and then using dimension door to teleport him out of there. After that, the druid changed into a giant pterodactyl, the rogue made a Use Rope check to secure the cauldron with a harness, and the party flew away inside of it.
4e version: ?

A lot of this stuff simply can't be done with skill checks. Some of it can be done with rituals, as long as you have enough money and time. Probably this will get better as more rituals are introduced.

I understand the arguments against the 3e way of doing things. The rogue and fighter are just twiddling their thumbs while the cleric and wizard pour over their gigantic spell lists trying to find the right combination of spells. That was a real problem. But it sure was fun for the cleric and the wizard and now that element of the game seems completely gone.

 

[Gort]

Retrieving a thousand pound cauldron from deep underground by casting bull's strength on the fighter to boost the amount he could carry as part of his max load, having the fighter pick up the cauldron, and then using dimension door to teleport him out of there. After that, the druid changed into a giant pterodactyl, the rogue made a Use Rope check to secure the cauldron with a harness, and the party flew away inside of it.
4e version: ?

A combination of things here. It's a bit unfair to include the druid, as he hasn't been released yet. Nothing I've heard, so far at least, says that the 4e druid won't be able to be a giant pterodactyl or equivalent, so that's out. Bull's strength is gone, and good riddance to it and all of those stat-boosting items and buffs. I hated them with a fiery passion once I got to high level.

Still, there are plenty of ways to teleport - I don't really get why people say that all these spells are "missing" or "gone", when all they've had put on them is a 10-minute casting time. Didn't anyone else think it was a bit silly that spellcasters could teleport the entire party accurately for thousands of miles with six seconds preparation time? You didn't even have to be particularly bright to accomplish this, either.

There was a whole (bad) movie about the problem of catching someone who can teleport at will in that fashion, which just goes to show how problematic it is for the game.

 

[Herald of I]

I think we're all being a little reactionary. The OP has a good point. It's hardly going to break the game if he adds on a system that's separate from already existing ones and makes it open to all characters.

Further, I have to agree that I also miss the feel he's talking about. I'll just say now that I played a druid, so yes I'm used to having a lot of options, but that I approved of 4E's spellcaster nerf.

Given how the OP suggests doing things, something along the lines of Exalted background points, leaving all these abilities open to all characters, I think they'd be fine.

 

[Vermonter]

I think we're all being a little reactionary. The OP has a good point. It's hardly going to break the game if he adds on a system that's separate from already existing ones and makes it open to all characters.

Further, I have to agree that I also miss the feel he's talking about. I'll just say now that I played a druid, so yes I'm used to having a lot of options, but that I approved of 4E's spellcaster nerf.

Given how the OP suggests doing things, something along the lines of Exalted background points, leaving all these abilities open to all characters, I think they'd be fine.

I agree with the OP that the game has a definite feel of being more combat oriented by reading the rules. However, I completely disagree with the notion of adding anything to characters to make up for this.

Based on my (still limited) experience DMing 4E, the players have plenty to think about and balance. And the reality is all you have to do is give a player a specialty and they'll start figuring out how to use it to advantage in combat.

Instead, I think that there is room for a lot more rules about handling encounters that are not combat centered. To say that I was disappointed with the skill challenge system is an understatement. I'd like to see a whole system, with as many options and clever combinations possible for out of combat situations as for in-combat.

My take is that this should build on the 'exceptions-based' design already in place in 4E, and could be crunch added to books like campaign guides, future DMs guides, or other references (a 4E Wilderness Survival Guide, Dungeon Survival Guide, Urban Survival Guide triology?) I'd like to see expanded rules for skill challenges, survival scenes, doing urban information gathering, scouting out an opponent's camp, etc.

Right now if I decide there is an encounter with four kobold minions, a kobold trapmaster and a human warlock I have clear-cut rules to help. If I decide that next task is to scout out a small camp in the forest set near a cliff that is lightly guarded by inattentive guards, well, I need to design a whole skill challenge from scratch. Why couldn't I just pull out some standard templates and start going?

At the same time, exception based design lets you say: Here is how travel across the Frostglaciers of Ivermere works, and it could end up wearing down healing surges, leaving persistent effects that last into the next combat, requiring endurance and balance checks, have effects reduced by having resistance cold, etc. And, it leaves open the possibility that any other cold icy wasteland works completely differently, just like monsters work.

That's what I'm looking for.

 

[duke_Qa]

Sorry for the inactivity, busy weekend with two game sessions and a 9 hour trip back to school.

I think we're all being a little reactionary. The OP has a good point. It's hardly going to break the game if he adds on a system that's separate from already existing ones and makes it open to all characters.

Further, I have to agree that I also miss the feel he's talking about. I'll just say now that I played a druid, so yes I'm used to having a lot of options, but that I approved of 4E's spellcaster nerf.

Given how the OP suggests doing things, something along the lines of Exalted background points, leaving all these abilities open to all characters, I think they'd be fine.

Pretty much spot on. Although I can't say I know of the exalted background points, but it sounds like good stuff.

I don't see how a modular system that does not inhibit the core game and is open for all, is supposed to make the game completely imbalanced. There will naturally be a certain skewering of DC's and pre-combat situations will probably give pcs advantages. But this is not supposed to be a combat supplement and the rules should reflect that.

Based on my (still limited) experience DMing 4E, the players have plenty to think about and balance. And the reality is all you have to do is give a player a specialty and they'll start figuring out how to use it to advantage in combat.

Which would most likely happen with anything you add to a 4e game. Compared to combat-oriented magic items, feats and paragon paths, these non-combat additions is like powdered sugar sprinkled on a triple-leveled wedding-cake. It might make it better, but its not where the main calories are hidden.


anyway, i'm think i know where people are standing on this topic now. i'll go ahead and try making some basic rules here now.

 

[Cwheeler]

My take is that this should build on the 'exceptions-based' design already in place in 4E, and could be crunch added to books like campaign guides, future DMs guides, or other references (a 4E Wilderness Survival Guide, Dungeon Survival Guide, Urban Survival Guide triology?) I'd like to see expanded rules for skill challenges, survival scenes, doing urban information gathering, scouting out an opponent's camp, etc.

Right now if I decide there is an encounter with four kobold minions, a kobold trapmaster and a human warlock I have clear-cut rules to help. If I decide that next task is to scout out a small camp in the forest set near a cliff that is lightly guarded by inattentive guards, well, I need to design a whole skill challenge from scratch. Why couldn't I just pull out some standard templates and start going?

At the same time, exception based design lets you say: Here is how travel across the Frostglaciers of Ivermere works, and it could end up wearing down healing surges, leaving persistent effects that last into the next combat, requiring endurance and balance checks, have effects reduced by having resistance cold, etc. And, it leaves open the possibility that any other cold icy wasteland works completely differently, just like monsters work.

That's what I'm looking for.

While I haven't tried to tackle the wilderness idea, a little while ago I was designing a social encounter system that would allow for more structured and interesting social encounters than 'roll for a skill challenge', and would also allow social situations to flow into and out of combat ones.

Situations where split into 'Beats' (the equivalent of rounds) with each beat representing a variable amount of time depending on the tension and pacing of the moment.

Each player acted in initiative order, with enough time to manoeuvre around the space and make one skill check or engage in a minor skill challenge.

Skill challenges where split into two categories:

Minor skill challenges, which represented minor interactions with NPC's, such as befriending a group of drunkards, or extracting some information for a local merchant (success in minor skill challenges could effect the outcome of major skill challenges). [If you spend a full beat engaged in a minor skill challenge you can make two checks towards that challenge].

and

Major Skill Challenges, which represent (oh look, my use of tense has changed!) the primary goals of the PC's or purposes of the scene.

NPC's are divided into three levels - General, Minor and Major.

General NPC's represent basic groups of people - The aforementioned drunkards, kobold troops, townsfolk, and so forth. General NPC's usually act and react in groups.

Minor NPC's provide a bit more texture to the encounter. These may include the barkeep, the merchant or a low-ranking commander.

Major NPC's are the big players in an encounter, and are usually pivotal to the action. Their exact identities will vary greatly depending on your story, but they may include: the unknowing target of an assassination, a king or major noble, a general, a brutal murderer... basically any primary protagonist or antagonist in your story.

Because this system is being structured around beats, which use variable timing, it can transition very easily into and out of combat. (When transitioning into combat, time is still malleable in the opening round, giving players enough time to get close enough to participate).

If you use a system like this, you can, relatively quickly, throw together a detailed, textured encounter that can feel less like a linear conversation or series of dice rolls, which is my main problem with skill challenges.

The Social Encounter system is still in design, as I am awaiting a group to be able to playtest it with. (the next few weeks should prove fortuitous).



I was also trying to figure out a series of social powers (as opposed to combat powers) that could be used both within this system and in the game in general. These where going to be based of vocations and/or personality, and would provide a variety of potential effects.

These powers where divided into three categories: encounter, daily and weekly (I chose to exclude at-wills because I feel that the skill check should be the basic unit of action in a social encounter).

I have come to the conclusion that until I playtest some social encounters and observe the types of actions that my pc's are attempting and what gaps should be filled, I won't be able to properly say exactly how these powers should function, or even if they should be included at all.


It is nice to see that there are some other people who have had similar problems with the system. I can’t wait to see what everyone comes up with .



P.S. I would like to make it clear that I am first and foremost a Roleplayer, and rather than limit RP-ing with dice, I simply want a way to facilitate RP-ing with solid rules. (just a pre-emptive clause to prevent any misunderstandings as to my views on the matter )