Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
lack of non-combat crunch is my biggest gripe with 4e atm
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="duke_Qa" data-source="post: 4491897" data-attributes="member: 63087"><p>thanks for the replies everyone, think I'll start from the end and go back. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I can agree that the rogue and fighter have not really been any more non-combat oriented in 3e. But I might not have made this point; I can't stand 3e(well I'm no big fan, I'll play it if my friends want to play it since its more about the social situation than the game). Find a generic thread on the flaws of 3e and i can probably agree on 90% of them. What I'm looking for is most likely something that has not been focused on alot in D&D before. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe it can be done with skills. I'm not saying "add more skills". what I'm looking for would work together with the core 4e skill rules, but it would give you bonuses in more specific cases(like "sharp ears" would give you bonus to listen-based perceptions).</p><p></p><p>Maybe utility powers are the way to go. I agree that great leap and beguiling tongue are powers that are spot-on what I imagine you could see in such non-combat powers. Although we would then enter the problem-area of non-combat powers being used/abused in combat. And of course the problem with utility powers being in the combat-silo, making it tricky to choose between aggressive/non-aggressive powers. </p><p></p><p>More feats might be very close to what I want. It is seemingly the easiest way to add these rules to the game.<em> "you gain 3 non-combat feats at 1st lvl, and one every 3rd lvl after that. Certain non-combat feats costs more than one feat, and can be pumped up with more feats later on"</em>. It would work pretty damn well. And if you take inspiration from the 'channel divinity' feats that gives divine people access to deity specific powers, you pretty much have access to everything. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>(1) definitely. the restrictions to getting a background would probably be things like ability scores, x powersource/'ability to use x powersource', trained in certain skills, stuff that you can get around with training.</p><p></p><p>Problem with rituals is that they are still pretty much external. a ritual does not a character make imo. but I think that the devs talked about the possibility of non-arcane/divine rituals, which would probably make it more useful. </p><p></p><p>yeah, I'm going to keep playing the game. As of yet this is just a thought in my head of what I would like to see more of. if i once get to Play the game aswell i might change my opinion completely(the ones that i play 4e with are either too fresh to DM or "haters" that won't DM)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>yeah, the vancian system allowed for everything, but it was alot of work. i believe that 4e can be just as "open", but we need to see more rules for it first. (hehe, I can see the paradox of "having more rules to enhance roleplaying" that people probably are thinking of when reading this. I can agree with that to an extent, but I feel these are potential rules to be used as 'guidelines'/inspiration <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite6" alt=":cool:" title="Cool :cool:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":cool:" />)</p><p></p><p>hopefully we will either learn to adapt or get a modular add on of rules that can be used. Whats great about such modules is that they can be removed without hassle if someone doesn't like them. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Naturally, most games that have the core needs covered can encourage roleplaying. It's just that at certain times rules that encourage rping adds an extra oomph to the game. </p><p></p><p>Freeform is great, but certain non-combat situations can get messy if you don't have certain limitations on what you can do. And sometimes its great to know that a special ability you got saved the day beyond you personally thinking of a way(maybe a way that your character normally wouldnt follow either) to get out of an situation. </p><p></p><p>for example, having a non-combat feat that gave you sharper hearing skills, don't you think such a feat would be pointed at during roleplay? such small bonuses are hooks for players to build their character upon. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>3e was not my favorite game. but you could if you wanted the scolding, take non-combat feats. 4e is better on evening out combat, but I still feel that non-combat is left out in the cold. The background bonuses in the forgotten realms players handbook is a development in the right direction though. Everyone can get a background bonus and it doesn't really hurt your combat optimization. </p><p></p><p>(post getting big, trying to keep things short <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I once had a wizard which was a baker, great times. Those sort of backgrounds is not what I'm primarily thinking about. Special backgrounds like "mind-reader" and generic ones like "sharp ears" is probably what I'm looking for. Small quirks that isn't a character-in-a-nutshell but gives bonuses or special powers depending on how much you've spent on getting it. </p><p>Oh what I would give for a monster manual with no monsters but humanoids. the evil guy behind the throne, the local assassins guild, the knight templars of the paranoid paladins. people with motives and style <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> </p><p></p><p>Non-combat silo not connected to combat is a must for these rules to work well with 4e. It might cause power-creep, but I feel that it would most likely be so little that you as a DM shouldnt have to worry that much about it beyond raising the DC's on skills with a few points.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>had some more text here but it got eaten, so to craw hammerfist: </p><p></p><p>Thanks for feeling <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />. get a game up and running and try it out. I agree that 4e has done great things for combat but is still too blank in the area of non-combat. skill challenges is interesting but i've yet managed to run it flawlessly, but the theory itself is great for inspiration. </p><p></p><p>if we got non-combat rules in the future, i don't see any reason why we shouldn't use them the same way that we've been using skill-challenges: modified and with houserules. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sorry for the long reply, I'll have to sacrifice replies later on to be shorter. And now I see Plane Sailing replied as well: And yes, its pretty true. 3e is not a good example of non-combat mechanics and other rpgs should be looked at for inspiration here.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="duke_Qa, post: 4491897, member: 63087"] thanks for the replies everyone, think I'll start from the end and go back. I can agree that the rogue and fighter have not really been any more non-combat oriented in 3e. But I might not have made this point; I can't stand 3e(well I'm no big fan, I'll play it if my friends want to play it since its more about the social situation than the game). Find a generic thread on the flaws of 3e and i can probably agree on 90% of them. What I'm looking for is most likely something that has not been focused on alot in D&D before. Maybe it can be done with skills. I'm not saying "add more skills". what I'm looking for would work together with the core 4e skill rules, but it would give you bonuses in more specific cases(like "sharp ears" would give you bonus to listen-based perceptions). Maybe utility powers are the way to go. I agree that great leap and beguiling tongue are powers that are spot-on what I imagine you could see in such non-combat powers. Although we would then enter the problem-area of non-combat powers being used/abused in combat. And of course the problem with utility powers being in the combat-silo, making it tricky to choose between aggressive/non-aggressive powers. More feats might be very close to what I want. It is seemingly the easiest way to add these rules to the game.[I] "you gain 3 non-combat feats at 1st lvl, and one every 3rd lvl after that. Certain non-combat feats costs more than one feat, and can be pumped up with more feats later on"[/I]. It would work pretty damn well. And if you take inspiration from the 'channel divinity' feats that gives divine people access to deity specific powers, you pretty much have access to everything. (1) definitely. the restrictions to getting a background would probably be things like ability scores, x powersource/'ability to use x powersource', trained in certain skills, stuff that you can get around with training. Problem with rituals is that they are still pretty much external. a ritual does not a character make imo. but I think that the devs talked about the possibility of non-arcane/divine rituals, which would probably make it more useful. yeah, I'm going to keep playing the game. As of yet this is just a thought in my head of what I would like to see more of. if i once get to Play the game aswell i might change my opinion completely(the ones that i play 4e with are either too fresh to DM or "haters" that won't DM) yeah, the vancian system allowed for everything, but it was alot of work. i believe that 4e can be just as "open", but we need to see more rules for it first. (hehe, I can see the paradox of "having more rules to enhance roleplaying" that people probably are thinking of when reading this. I can agree with that to an extent, but I feel these are potential rules to be used as 'guidelines'/inspiration :cool:) hopefully we will either learn to adapt or get a modular add on of rules that can be used. Whats great about such modules is that they can be removed without hassle if someone doesn't like them. Naturally, most games that have the core needs covered can encourage roleplaying. It's just that at certain times rules that encourage rping adds an extra oomph to the game. Freeform is great, but certain non-combat situations can get messy if you don't have certain limitations on what you can do. And sometimes its great to know that a special ability you got saved the day beyond you personally thinking of a way(maybe a way that your character normally wouldnt follow either) to get out of an situation. for example, having a non-combat feat that gave you sharper hearing skills, don't you think such a feat would be pointed at during roleplay? such small bonuses are hooks for players to build their character upon. 3e was not my favorite game. but you could if you wanted the scolding, take non-combat feats. 4e is better on evening out combat, but I still feel that non-combat is left out in the cold. The background bonuses in the forgotten realms players handbook is a development in the right direction though. Everyone can get a background bonus and it doesn't really hurt your combat optimization. (post getting big, trying to keep things short :erm:) I once had a wizard which was a baker, great times. Those sort of backgrounds is not what I'm primarily thinking about. Special backgrounds like "mind-reader" and generic ones like "sharp ears" is probably what I'm looking for. Small quirks that isn't a character-in-a-nutshell but gives bonuses or special powers depending on how much you've spent on getting it. Oh what I would give for a monster manual with no monsters but humanoids. the evil guy behind the throne, the local assassins guild, the knight templars of the paranoid paladins. people with motives and style :p Non-combat silo not connected to combat is a must for these rules to work well with 4e. It might cause power-creep, but I feel that it would most likely be so little that you as a DM shouldnt have to worry that much about it beyond raising the DC's on skills with a few points. had some more text here but it got eaten, so to craw hammerfist: Thanks for feeling :p. get a game up and running and try it out. I agree that 4e has done great things for combat but is still too blank in the area of non-combat. skill challenges is interesting but i've yet managed to run it flawlessly, but the theory itself is great for inspiration. if we got non-combat rules in the future, i don't see any reason why we shouldn't use them the same way that we've been using skill-challenges: modified and with houserules. Sorry for the long reply, I'll have to sacrifice replies later on to be shorter. And now I see Plane Sailing replied as well: And yes, its pretty true. 3e is not a good example of non-combat mechanics and other rpgs should be looked at for inspiration here. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
lack of non-combat crunch is my biggest gripe with 4e atm
Top