Mike Mearls on Combat vs Non-Combat roles

[Fifth Element]

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

That is now pervasive? It's no more pervasive now than it's ever been. It may be expressed a bit differently, but it's always been there.

 

[ruleslawyer]

...the 4E design team & marketing seem (to me) to have a very limited scope of campaign possibilities, and they're "Not doing what everyone else is doing." They made halflings taller and tieflings core to recognize standard conventions and popular choices. But they're narrowing the scope of the play-space. It feels to me that before Roles were defined as being four in number we had more flexibility in imagining new character concepts. They're nice as training wheels, but a hindrance to the advanced player (which most people become pretty quickly) who wants to push the system (not everyone, admittedly).

At least, that's how I feel at the moment.

I might suggest that this is a bit of the fallacy of the excluded middle here. Making it easier for classes to cross over archetypes *does* make it easier to fit the ruleset to the needs of the campaign; the fact that they can't perfectly match the core assumptions to fit every single campaign doesn't mean that there *shouldn't be* core assumptions.

I really can't agree about the "narrowing the scope of the play-space" thing either. As it stands in 3e, it is *impossible* for a fighter to be particularly useful in campaigns that aren't about hacking at things. More to the point, a fighter is even screwed in individual encounters within the dungeon-crawl scenario (the realm in which he should be at his best), since he lacks suitable skills of any kind.

Now, if you're suggesting that Mearls's post sounds overoptimistic to you because it suggests that any class can be adapted for any scenario, I'd understand that... except that he's not saying that. Rather, he's saying that there's no longer such a thing as a combat-useless, non-combat dominant class, or a combat-dominant, non-combat useless class.

The fact is that a fighter who can kick ass *and* talk his way into a secret meeting is going to be useful in 90% of campaign scenarios... and I don't think any RPG should be designed for the outlier 10% beyond suggesting that "this is what you can do if...", which D&D will probably cover in PHB2-X and DMG2-X.

Here's the thing. If WotC can succeed in making a wizard that's useful in pretty much any kind of game (and the wizard is, to my mind, such a class in 3e), I don't think it's impossible to do the same with the fighter.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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)

Exactly.

In principle, this goal is achievable.

The designers must restrict feats such that in 80% of the time they have no significant measurable effect on average damage output. So if I am Sir TalksALot, I can make a very similar contribution to Sir HitsALot by knowing how to use appropriate tactics and good teamwork.

In an occasional combat, Sir TalkALot will be screwed while Sir HitsALot takes names. As it should be.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It feels to me that before Roles were defined as being four in number we had more flexibility in imagining new character concepts. They're nice as training wheels, but a hindrance to the advanced player (which most people become pretty quickly) who wants to push the system (not everyone, admittedly).

Follow this thought to its logical conclusion and all the rules are a hindrance to the 'advanced player'.

D&D is what it is. A simple dungeon bashing game*. That's its great strength. Classes are a restriction. Levels are a restriction. D&D has always had roles to some extent. A fighter can't take any role he wants. He can't be, for example, a skill guy, or a healer or an all-powerful wizard. Because he's a fighter.


*Yes, I know your games deal with the love life of 16th-century Venetian courtesans and you never roll any dice. I'm talking about the game text.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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

They do not have to be low-powered. Just not stack trivially.

Are Quick Draw, Combat Reflexes, Mobility, or Spring Attack alone really powerful? Not really. They just open up some tactical options.

Combat Reflexes only becomes very powerful when stacked up with Reach boosts and boosts to special tactics like Trip.

 

[IceFractal]

From what I've seen of the feats, they're not so much weak as non-cumulative. There seem to be no feat chains, so while you've got plenty of decent first-tier feats, second-tier feats don't even exist.

Additionally, if combat feats give you mostly additional options rather than bonuses to existing ones, then having a bunch won't put you in a whole different class. So for instance, let's say we have two Fighters:

Bob Killington has spent all his feats on combat, so he's good at melee fighting, archery, and grappling.
Rob Factotum has spent his feats on skill abilities, so he's good at melee fighting, diplomacy, and wilderness tracking/survival.

So in combat, Bob has three times as many options, but Rob's melee fighting is as good as Bob's. Rob has less options in combat, but more options outside it, and will be able to fight viably alongside Bob.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I really can't agree about the "narrowing the scope of the play-space" thing either. As it stands in 3e, it is *impossible* for a fighter to be particularly useful in campaigns that aren't about hacking at things. More to the point, a fighter is even screwed in individual encounters within the dungeon-crawl scenario (the realm in which he should be at his best), since he lacks suitable skills of any kind.

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.

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 don't think any RPG should be designed for the outlier 10% beyond suggesting that "this is what you can do if...", which D&D will probably cover in PHB2-X and DMG2-X.

Now this is the best argument to allay my concerns - IF it really gets you to the 90% mark. That's probably all I can reasonably ask for. My concern is that limiting groups to everyone picking one of the four Roles caps you at 50% or less of possible D&D scenarios that D&D is actually the best game for (as opposed to playing some other game, like Cthulu or Dragonstar).

*Yes, I know your games deal with the love life of 16th-century Venetian courtesans and you never roll any dice. I'm talking about the game text.

Thank you for your kind and helpful contribution to this thread. It heightens the intellectual level of the discussion to a truly rarefied level. Just so we're clear though I currently play 8th level Armiger/Man-at-Arms in an Iron Heroes campaign, a noble Knight of Waterdeep who in certain circumstances (such as when out-numbered 5:1 or more) he is more effective in melee than all of the other members of his group combined. In other circumstances he is only rivaled by one of his companions and has actually considered putting Skill Points in "Saving the Elf's Butt Again."

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!

 

[Spatula]

What? Why? What if you want to be 5% better at Fighting even if it makes you 25% worse at Diplomacy? What if the game never involves Diplomacy? What if your character's idea of "Diplomacy" is "We can do this the easy way, or the hard way, because I got all the Whirlwind Attack Feats and you don't."

I think the point was you move the problem from combat optimization (you have to blow all your feats on certain ones to not be sub-optimal in a fight) to skill optimization (ditto, but outside of a fight), if the combat feats are made weak but the skill feats are still strong. When there's one set of options that are mechanically far, far better than any other choice you can make (regardless of whether it related to combat or non-combat situations), you make people feel like they are making their character less effective for picking something else for roleplaying reasons.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I think the point was you move the problem from combat optimization (you have to blow all your feats on certain ones to not be sub-optimal in a fight) to skill optimization (ditto, but outside of a fight), if the combat feats are made weak but the skill feats are still strong. When there's one set of options that are mechanically far, far better than any other choice you can make (regardless of whether it related to combat or non-combat situations), you make people feel like they are making their character less effective for picking something else for roleplaying reasons.

But only if the Skill comes up in the game. That's the point I've been trying to make all along. If you blow your Feats on +125 bonuses to Diplomacy, and all your opponents are Iron Golems, guess what? The guy with Weapon Focus is better off than you!

That may be an extreme example, but I did ask my current DM to let me retool my current PC a couple times because the Feat choices I had made in anticipation of adventures that never happened were non-ideal in the campaign as it actually evolved.

Also, the Skill will only come up if that's what you want to play. If the player in question is a Robin Laws Buttkicker or combat-centric Powergamer, those Social Mastery Feats are useless, no matter how cool they are.

The Intimidate Feats should be numerically similar to the Diplo Feats, but they absolutely do not need to be numerically similar to the combat feats. Totally different mini-games, to use the parlance of the thread.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

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'd suggest that his isn't quite the way to think of roles; in many ways, this strikes me as being rather a similar fear to that involving the use of CR/EL when 3e came out. Roles are just a way of making explicit what has *always* been true in (A)D&D: The suitability of most adventures for use with a "balanced" party. (You'll note that this "balanced party" language is all over classic adventures from OD&D onward.)

The Role descriptions are really just there to suggest which classes are roughly fungible, and to suggest that for a balanced party, you want one from Menu N, one from X, one from Y, and one from Z, rather than four from Y, et cetera. And really, it has been true from OD&D onward that a party with a warrior, spellcaster, and support character, skill monkey, etc. would be more effective at dealing with most mixes of challenges than an all-warrior, all-skill monkey, all-spellcaster, etc. party (although I'm not sure that's true in the case of spellcasters once you hit a certain level, but whatever).

f anything, it will probably be *easier* to run a four-rogue, four-fighter, or four-cleric party in 4e what with being able to combine buffing and combat actions, all classes having combat and non-combat roles, a more flexible and equal-opportunity skill system, higher hit points, and lower magic item dependence. The "Roles" thing is really just acknowledging something that's always been there: Namely, the fact that a balance of roles makes for a stronger PC party.