Mike Mearls on Combat vs Non-Combat roles

[jasin]

But more to the point, in pre-4E there was no "Defender" role so there was no "Someone has to play a Paladin or Fighter" assumption built in to the rules. There was one less psychological block to saying "Let's all make Rangers and Thieves and play a Sherwood Forrest campaign." It's like the 3E "Someone has to play the Cleric" problem, only x4.

Can you just ignore all that baggage and still play a Striker-only campaign? Sure! But perhaps 4E is actively discouraging this kind of creative campaign design by building in the Roles assumptions.

I'm not even 100% sure this is correct. I was thinking out loud and trying to engage in discussion, but I'm not sure I'm communicating my point well.

I get what you mean, I think.

You're worried that the same way that now you just don't play D&D without a cleric, in 4E you just won't play D&D without a defender, a striker, a controller and a leader. Just like a clericless game, it could be done, but a real issues (such as the monster designers' assumptions about party capabilities), familiarity, and Zeitgeist just seem to combine so that you simply don't.

My counterpoint is that 3E is already there. Having played Age of Worms to 17th level, I wouldn't have liked it without: a cleric, an arcanist (preferably a wizard, perhaps a sorcerer, most others need not apply), a front line guy (a druid or a cleric would work just as well as a warrior type, but that's a balance problem between druids and cleric and warrior types, not an indication of flexibility in party makeup), and a search/traps guy (this one is the most flexible, since the right party might just tough out the traps, but you still need someone to find the treasure).

Defender, controller and leader seem to me to be just labels for roles that are already considered necessary by the game as a whole. Striker and search/traps guy aren't quite the same role, even if they're traditionally filled by the same type of character, but I don't think the change of emphasis is a bad one, as trapsfinding is hardly very glamorous (I would've used a three-letter word starting with F and ending with N, but WotC used up the whole stock).

Having the roles stated explicitly also diminishes the potential for confusion among newbies. "We don't have a wizard? Great, I'll play another arcanist, a warlock!" seems to me a recipe for disaster in something like Age of Worms.

I think that you are right to an extent, and that having the explicit roles will surely constrain the perceived campaign options a bit, but I don't think it will be really significant, so it's not something I worry about.

What I do worry about WRT roles is that the designers will become too comfortable in the framework and only ever look at things from within the grid. I'm worried that rather than coming up with a class and then labeling it according to the most appropriate power source and role, the designers will see an empty place in the grid at the intersection of (say) "martial" and "controller" and try to make a class that fills it, resulting in classes that feel like game pieces rather than models of people.

But I hope that it doesn't come to that, either (to the point where it's annoying for me; some of it is inevitable and I have no real problem with that).

So in fact, I roll dice all the time, the only Courtesans are on my arm, and you can try harder to actually post something substantive and thoughtful next time. Thanks!

I don't think he was referring to you specifically, but to the Platonic ideal of the person that answers any comments along the lines of "D&D is a game of killing monster and taking their stuff" with "but my game is all about the love life..."

 

[Plane Sailing]

Build 1 has more out-of combat options, but still he has a trick in combat.
Build 2 has more in-combat options, and will be good at them, but he also learned a bit that's useful outside of combat.
Either way, Build 1 won't "hurt" his group in combats, since he still is good at attacking and dealing damage, he just isn't as "flashy" as build 2.

The key thing is that both Build1 and Build2 will have a range of Martial Defender powers (at will, per encounter, per day) which they use to fulfil their defender role.

Feats can then be the icing on the cake - Build1 has icing on his out-of-combat options, Build2 has icing on his in-combat options.

A telling remark is that the rest of the party will be equally happy whether they have Sir Talkalot or Sir Killalot joining their party since both will be able to fulfil that 'martial defender' role.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think that you are right to an extent, and that having the explicit roles will surely constrain the perceived campaign options a bit, but I don't think it will be really significant, so it's not something I worry about.

What I do worry about WRT roles is that the designers will become too comfortable in the framework and only ever look at things from within the grid. I'm worried that rather than coming up with a class and then labeling it according to the most appropriate power source and role, the designers will see an empty place in the grid at the intersection of (say) "martial" and "controller" and try to make a class that fills it, resulting in classes that feel like game pieces rather than models of people.

But I hope that it doesn't come to that, either (to the point where it's annoying for me; some of it is inevitable and I have no real problem with that).

FWIW I've seen the designers say that they don't plan for the grid to be a 'must fill every position' kind of thing, just a useful guide. After all, it seems as if the PHB is going to appear with two martial strikers and only one (arcane) controller.

Cheers

 

[Lord Zardoz]

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

Or they can be a catalyst by providing the player with the knowledge that he can try to do something with a non trivial chance of success.

I once created a changling rogue in an Eberron game with maxed disguise, bluff, and forgery skills. This character ended up doing the following in that game:

- Impersonated a preist in a theocratic dictatorship
- attempted to talk his way past an inquisitor by insisting he was a half orc fighter, and not some changling impersonater.
- Was locked up briefly for attempted mail fraud
- started and spread rumors of an ancient cult with an intent to destroy the world

The one thing you cannot overlook about D&D is that it is first and foremost a game, and that in any game where the players take it at all seriously, and there are consequences for failure, no one will undertake actions which they think have no real chance of success.

Lets consider the first Starwars movie from an RPG perspective instead of as a movie. Luke and Han are at the point where they need to infiltrate the deathstar and rescue the princess.

If there are no hard and fast rules for non combat interaction, than there is no way Luke and Han would have tried to bluff their way past the guards face to face (in most games). They would have most likely tried to compromise the security systems, crawl through ductwork, and avoid detection while extracting Leia. Trying to bluff their way past the guards would depend entirely on whether or not the DM intended to have the players bluff their way in, or would have required a DM open minded enough to allow it, and able to work out a way to determine success or failure fairly. And even then, without any stats to back it up, it would be hard for Han or Luke to argue successfully that they are skilled enough at lying to warrant a bonus.

But with a system in place to handle it, several things change. First among them is that the DM will probably notice that the rules exist, and work out at the least a bare bones contingency in the event the players try to use that approach. A second consequence is that the players will have a chance to optimize their character towards using those skills. If Han has maxed out the Bluff skill, than the DM has a harder time justifying a negative result by DM Fiat.

The end result is that a player can be reasonably confident that a given approach to a problem will at least have a reasonable chance to succeed, and the DM is less likely to be caught off guard and allow the course of action.

People who do not like these kinds of rules are quick to point out that with a good DM, these kinds of problems wont crop up. I will in turn contend that most DM's are average, and that all DM's tend to create gaming situations based on what they expect to happen. A good DM is willing to let the campaign go off the rails, but it is exceedingly rare to see a DM is able to let the players doing something that has catastrophic effect on their planning.

In any event, I would rather have a DM that is forced to consider an unexpected solution to an in game problem than a DM who can trivially say 'that wont work'.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Wyrmshadows]

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


I hope this works I pray this works.

QFT



Wyrmshadows

 

[Alratan]

I became all hopefull then that they had split combat and non combat role into independent claases, so that one picked two classes at character creation, one combat and one out of combat, so you could play, for example, a fighter-crafter or a wizard-diplomat.

Alas, not to be.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I am a little skeptical at this. I think the majority of players will go w/ combat focused feats vs social ones. The appeal of D&D is the combat imho, not the social aspects. There are a ton of "storyteller-driven" RPGs out there for those who aren't interested in a lot of combat.

 

[Hussar]

Totally agree! I was referring to the Roles (in-combat and out-of-combat). I was wondering if the suggestion that there are only four Combat Roles, and all groups must have all four Roles, was the hindrance. The idea that non-combat Roles are handled with Feats is much more promising, since it's a lot more open-ended.

I think it's been mentioned more than once that not covering the four roles won't screw your party. Lacking a Controller, for example, doesn't really mean a whole lot since an extra Defender (picking examples at random) can pick up the slack easily.

If, and this is a big if, the classes truly are balanced in combat, then it really shouldn't make a whole lot of difference which classes are present. Having 2 Defenders and no Controller might mean your tactics change, but, it won't mean that you are any less effective.

 

[grimslade]

I am a little skeptical at this. I think the majority of players will go w/ combat focused feats vs social ones. The appeal of D&D is the combat imho, not the social aspects. There are a ton of "storyteller-driven" RPGs out there for those who aren't interested in a lot of combat.

And thankfully that option is still covered in 4E. The oddball in the group who wants the nature priest tracker/hunter can take all his skill goodies and still be a competent healer/leader.

Win/Win. The Min-max crowd can combat optomize to their hearts content and non-cookie cutter concepts can still pull their weight in battle while flourishing elsewhere.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I am a little skeptical at this. I think the majority of players will go w/ combat focused feats vs social ones. The appeal of D&D is the combat imho, not the social aspects. There are a ton of "storyteller-driven" RPGs out there for those who aren't interested in a lot of combat.

I am sure the majority will do exactly what you say.

The biggest difference is that the minority of players will not automatically be severely punished for exploring the beyond the well-worn track of minmax character design.

From my POV, I want enough options that I can easily build effective PCs that feel very different in combat from other similar PCs with the same general theme. Big feat trees and immense stacks are one means to achieve that goal, hardly the only means.