Mike Mearls on Combat vs Non-Combat roles

[Deekin]

Wow, if they can pull that off, I will be a happy little gamer.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yeah, I too hope this works well. It seems they are really trying to keep us from being stuck in certain class-builds, etc. If they can get the combat-role and non-combat role and the "any multiclass can work" idea in the final product I will be very happy.

Also with this spotlight now also on non-combat, maybe this means better social/skill rolls/rules.

 

[Abstraction]

Social rules can be the antithesis of roleplaying, though. "I Diplomacize him. I get a 20."

 

[Cadfan]

Hmm. By definition, putting your feats into combat will make you SOMEWHAT of a less effective fighter.

You only have so many feats. If you can spend a feat to improve your combat ability, OR to improve your diplomacy, and you choose to improve diplomacy and I choose to improve combat, by definition my character is the better fighter if our characters are otherwise the same.

So here's how I read this- feats don't boost numbers as much as before. They add abilities, or augment things. "Quickdraw" would go into the feat category, while "weapon specialization" would be a class ability. That way, if I chose quickdraw and you chose Practiced Diplomat or whatever, while my character would have a combat power your character did not, our AC, Attack Bonus, etc, would be the same.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Social rules can be the antithesis of roleplaying, though. "I Diplomacize him. I get a 20."

Yeah, but sometimes when it comes to things like say threatening and bartering, etc. You need rules to back the RPing. Generally I roll when I DM for social things, but I give bonuses and minuses to their rolls depending on how well they RP it.

I think social rolls are important to have in the game, as something that backs/helps hold up the RP.

 

[Voss]

Unless the feats are complete garbage, I don't see the game living up to that statement.

And sadly, the way he puts it at the beginning- 'The idea is to make sure everyone can contribute in a meaningful way in a fight.' doesn't give me a lot of hope. The complete lack of the counterpart statement- 'The idea is to make sure everyone can contribute in a meaningful way outside a fight', makes me a sad panda.

So you can blow a lot of feats to do something the class isn't built to do. But gods forbid they include some non-combat options built into the class. No matter what it is. I'm sure rogues can do non-combat things innately, and rangers will probably
do woodsy things.

But to be a fighter and a do non-combat things, you do have to give up some effectiveness. Even if its not a lot, you're still losing out. And... there isn't any reason the fighter (or anyone else) has to be an idiot-savant by default.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

That seems an odd conclusion to draw from the feats we've seen thus far--particularly alertness. The new alertness seems to combine the old alertness (+2 to spot/listen) with one of the more significant aspects of uncanny dodge. That is a pretty significant upgrade.

Now, maybe all characters will have more feats. And maybe all of the feats that affect social skills will have combat aspects. And if Mike Mearls hadn'd said that the fighter could spend his feats on social skills, one might think it a possibility that there are no social skill feats at all. But it's also a possibility that the designers are blowing smoke about how 4th edition cuts all of the gordian knots of gaming and solves all of the perceived problems people have.

For my part, I'll judge when I see the actual rules, but I don't have much faith it will really work out that way. (Unless Mearl's comment was specific to fighter who now will apparently have lots of class abilities rather than 11 bonus feats and was either ignoring the restriction that they come from the fighter feat list or assuming that the thespian also managed to avoid solid choices with his fighter bonus feats).

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.

 

[Xethreau]

Social rules can be the antithesis of roleplaying, though. "I Diplomacize him. I get a 20."

Not nessessarily. As a DM, you could simply say "RP the situation." If the character says something completely bonkers, metagamey, or totally against what the NPC would want, then toss in a couple of -2 penalties. That should teach the Diplomancer.

Anyway, I like this idea in concept, and caustiosly hope that it works.

 

[Rechan]

Now, maybe all characters will have more feats. And maybe all of the feats that affect social skills will have combat aspects. .

I think we'll be seeing a feat every other level. They said we'll be getting more feats in general.

 

[Rechan]

Social rules can be the antithesis of roleplaying, though. "I Diplomacize him. I get a 20."

Emphasis mine.

Also, in a game where I the player am not a good fighter, the fact my character is, it makes sense for there to be rules so that even though I the player am not a charismatic or speech-writing person, my character can be.

It also helps resolve situations much easier and faster. And many systems have social rules - there are other systems that would be much easier to, say, play a game of lords and courtiers, full of intrigue and social stuff.