Mike Mearls on Combat vs Non-Combat roles

[Fallen Seraph]

I hope that we do get more feats, not for power-gaming or anything like that. But so that we don't need to worry so much about how many feats we get when trying to establish what our character is/how they act.

I know personally for me. To simply pick a single feat I have to go through:
1. Would my character have such a feat.
2. Why would they have this specific feat over that one.
3. How often would I use it.
4. Does it benefit me later on in the game.

By the time I am done, I only have left a couple feats and left behind so many good flavour-feats that my character feels incomplete. More feats will hopefully solve that.

 

[Incenjucar]

Meh.

This is how it was in past editions with Feats and Cross Class skills. It might be easier to not suck now, but it's still sub-optimal.

What they NEED is to design more varieties of challenge so that every class can have at least one useful non-combat function.... encounter types that only certain types of character are best at... challenges of strength and precision or something...

Everyone needs at least one mini-game.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

If this works I swear I take back every bad thing I've said about 4e....


I hope this works I pray this works.

 

[Incenjucar]

Honestly, it wouldn't even make sense if it worked, because it doesn't work like that in real life either.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Maybe I'm just in an odd mood, but I wonder if 4E is trying to get out of a hole by digging.

Do we really have to be balanced against each other in all possible situations? That's not even possible, AFAIK. The best the designers can do is be relatively balanced in earth-normal dungeon crawls, because that's the "combat space" that most groups play in. Just change one variable (Uh oh! All the floors on this level are floating logs on acid! That guy without Balance as a class skill is SOL!) and suddenly, someone's the star and someone's the loser.

And that's a small change. What about a Diplo-heavy campaign, or a campaign that pits the Nighthawks against the Mockers over the rooftops of Krondor? What role does the Paladin play in that? Is anyone half as effective as the Druid or Ranger in the Sherwood Forrest campaign?

Maybe we'd all be better off is WotC just provided a bunch of rules on "Here's how you can make some characters. Some are better than others in certain situations. Some are not suited to certain situations at all, but excel in others. It's pretty easy to tell which is which, so you'll be fine as long as you talk to your DM and your co-Players about what to expect. And if you deliberately play against type for the challenge, more power to you." Then the DMG would provide the following advice:

• DM's: Know Your Players! Don't run campaigns they aren't right for.
• Players: Even if you get a few good scenes, you're just not going to be the center of attention in every one. You aren't bad-ass in all possible ways, so instead of being a glory-hound, learn a little humility, sit back, and learn to appreciate your teammate's contribution to the team. Congratulate them in victory, and console them in defeat. They will return the favor.

Sometimes I wonder if a lot of individuals play D&D in the same room, but not many groups do.

 

[Kraydak]

Note that if this works as promised, you also have to have Sir Hacks-a-lot (Fighter 10, all combat feats and skills) being *almost* as good at diplomacy as Lord Suave (also Fighter 10, but all social feats and skills). Why bother with feats if they aren't going to do anything meaningful?

 

[mach1.9pants]

I see what you are saying, Irda Ranger, and you are right. However what Mike Mearls was agreeing to was: "Apparently 4e is being designed with a "combat role" and a "non combat role" for every class". That doesn't say that everyone is effective in every situation just that every class can have a role inside combat and outside combat (whatever that may be).
So I think that what they are trying to acheive, and hopefully do, is exactly that. A 3.5E Ftr just cannot really be effective at anything outside combat (well apart from swimming and climbing etc) but in 4E he can be useful for something outside combat whilst still being an effective tank, sorry, defender

 

[ruleslawyer]

Maybe I'm just in an odd mood, but I wonder if 4E is trying to get out of a hole by digging.

Do we really have to be balanced against each other in all possible situations? That's not even possible, AFAIK.

Well, note that Mearls isn't implying combat and non-combat parity in all situations for all classes; rather, he's trying to give everyone, as Incenjucar put it, "at least one mini-game." SWSE and Iron Heroes already have this, for example; the Scout may be king in the Outer Rim and in wilderness settings, just as the Thief is the lead character in social situations, but that doesn't mean that all the Soldier can do is "shoot blaster really well," or that the Armiger has no utility beyond blocking attacks. One example, in a game more tightly focused around class abilities than, say, IH (which compensates for class roles by giving everyone a boatload of skill points and eliminating cross-class skills), would be to give the fighter some martial leadership, nobility-oriented, and possibly even crafting-related skills. After all, a fighter is probably relying on a knight or hard-bitten sellsword archetype at the least; either of those certainly would have a non-combat role (the knight being good at etiquette, heraldry, and horsemanship, the sellsword having good "survival" skills whether they be sleight of hand, deception, or the like).

Having played as much IH as I have thus far, I think it's a good idea. If anything, even the restrictions that IH places on its hardcore warrior classes are a bit difficult if you don't have multiclassing to open up more skill points.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Note that if this works as promised, you also have to have Sir Hacks-a-lot (Fighter 10, all combat feats and skills) being *almost* as good at diplomacy as Lord Suave (also Fighter 10, but all social feats and skills). Why bother with feats if they aren't going to do anything meaningful?

Hopefully, as Cadfan said above, putting your feats in combat will give your more options in combat but not much more out and out power- maybe quick draw and combat reflexes versus weapon focus and specialisation (those may well be a talent tree for fighter)

 

[Voss]

I see what you are saying, Irda Ranger, and you are right. However what Mike Mearls was agreeing to was: "Apparently 4e is being designed with a "combat role" and a "non combat role" for every class". That doesn't say that everyone is effective in every situation just that every class can have a role inside combat and outside combat (whatever that may be).
So I think that what they are trying to acheive, and hopefully do, is exactly that. A 3.5E Ftr just cannot really be effective at anything outside combat (well apart from swimming and climbing etc) but in 4E he can be useful for something outside combat whilst still being an effective tank, sorry, defender

If he blows his feats to pick up a non-combat role. Because his class apparently doesn't give him one. He doesn't quite come out and say that classes don't have non-combat roles, but the example he gives shows explicitly that the fighter has to give up the extra edge that combat feats would give in order to be effective in a non-combat situation.

The major implication, actually, is that combat feats are rather low-powered, so you can afford to blow them on something else.