Mike Mearls on Combat vs Non-Combat roles

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Mike Mearls has written this post on rpgnet where he talks about 4e combat and non-combat roles:

Originally Posted by Professor Phobos View Post
Apparently 4e is being designed with a "combat role" and a "non combat role" for every class in mind. Or at least that's what EnWorld told me when I asked about it in a thread.

Yup, that's how the classes came together. The idea is to make sure everyone can contribute in a meaningful way in a fight.

Hopefully, the end result is that you can build whatever sort of PC you want to roleplay, making choices with an eye toward character concept and personality, without losing out on your character's basic ability to fight. We aimed to remove the "an interesting PC or an effective PC" choices in the game.

That doesn't mean that your character's non-combat stuff is diminished. If anything, it means we have more room for idiosyncratic or personality-driven options, since you can take those without hurting your character's baseline, expected combat ability.

As an example, you can play a fighter but spend all your feats to take and improve social skills, but in a fight you are still an effective defender. You aren't saddled with a lower than expected AC, attack bonus, or whatever because you built a fighter who was also a diplomat.

The fighter who goes all out on combat feats and stuff will (obviously) be more effective in melee than you, but the distance between you is measured in, say, meters instead of kilometers.

Meanwhile, the wizard, cleric, and rogue are just as happy with Lord Harran, dashing envoy of the Iron Throne, as they would be with Killmore Headbuster, swordmaster. Both those guys are effective, frontline fighters. Harran's player didn't have to sacrifice his "fightery-ness" to become the best Diplomacy user in the party.
__________________
Mike Mearls
Professional D&D Geek

 

[Aloïsius]

Nice, but I wonder if this good intention can resist to the min-max spirit that is now pervasive to D&D...

 

[Corinth]

Nice, but I wonder if this good intention can resist to the min-max spirit that is now pervasive to D&D...

No, it won't. Every other game that leaves optimization open soon develops a culture that requires it.

 

[The Little Raven]

As an example, you can play a fighter but spend all your feats to take and improve social skills, but in a fight you are still an effective defender. You aren't saddled with a lower than expected AC, attack bonus, or whatever because you built a fighter who was also a diplomat.

This makes me warm inside.

 

[frankthedm]

Nice, but I wonder if this good intention can resist to the min-max spirit that is now pervasive to D&D...

I't has ALWAYS been there, Early editions fought it off because there were few character build choices beyond spell selection.

 

[JohnSnow]

Nice, but I wonder if this good intention can resist to the min-max spirit that is now pervasive to D&D...

It all depends on how effective the team is at making sure that "the distance between (the combat effectiveness of the diplomat and the focused fighter) is measured in, say, meters instead of kilometers."

That's a tall promise. But if the maxed-out fighter type is only "a few points better" than the diplomat guy, the min-maxers may be mostly screwed.

 

[Rechan]

From what this sounds to me, feats aren't the precious commodity they used to be.

Before, if your fighter spent all his feats on Skill-enhancing, then he was pretty much a Warrior (NPC class). Even though he couldn't spend his fighter bonus feats on that stuff anyhow.

Now, it sounds like your fighter powers/abilities will do the weight lifting, and feats allow you to expand your options, rather than go higher. "A Better Fighter" becomes "More more options or a little bump here and there".

This seems to go along with what I saw from the example feats we've been given. Alertness is a great example. "Your enemy doesn't get combat advantage against you on a surprise round, and you get a +2 to perception." If all feats are kinda weak in that regard, than a fighter with all fightin' feats may not be a monster.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Nice, but I wonder if this good intention can resist to the min-max spirit that is now pervasive to D&D...

It'll always be there for a small group of people who like that sort of thing. As long as the average Joe gamer in his average Joe group can't really tell the difference between Killmore Slaughterslash and Sir Roleplay Bleedingheart, then it's not all that big of a deal IMO.

 

[Gundark]

I love the idea in theory, as always we'll have to wait and see when we get the rules. But the theory is right up my alley.

 

[Oligopsony]

Nice, but I wonder if this good intention can resist to the min-max spirit that is now pervasive to D&D...

His point is that min-max and thespianism shouldn't be at odds. So there's no need to overcome it.