Mike Mearls on Combat vs Non-Combat roles

[ruleslawyer]

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 don't quite agree with you here. *Most* groups with which I've played D&D prefer an emphasis on RP and story elements to the combat side.

This actually brings up something I've been meaning to post about in general. While it's easy to look at the mechanics for D&D and say "Oh, yeah, this is basically a minis combat game with some extra role-playing fluff," the fact is that D&D has had quite a strong emphasis throughout its history on non-combat elements; the vast wealth of settings, story-based adventures, and the like that have evolved around the game (including stuff like Planescape and Ravenloft, in which combat was something that was usually more a dead end than a solution) has created a large section of the playing population that runs the game in more of a storyteller mode.

Indeed, the mechanics for social interaction in 3e may be dwarfed by the combat mechanics, but they're enough of a structure on which to build RPing adventures. More to the point, people played this way even when there *weren't* rules for social interaction or non-combat activities at all.

IMO, this is because of the strength of D&D's brand. Different RPGers have played D&D in widely divergent playstyles simply because D&D has always been the biggest brand on the block, and so it's easier to get a bunch of people together for a game of courtly intrigue using D&D than to, say, get everyone to learn Amber Diceless or Burning Wheel.

The mix-and-match element is something I appreciate about the experience of playing D&D, but unfortunately also something that has come to set up certain design expectations: Namely, the expectation that D&D can be shaped into all things for all people. The designers took a load off their backs when they created the OGL, allowing for the creation of rules-light, low-magic, gritty, pseudo-historical, etc. "D&D-like" games, but my guess is that they're trying to enable as many playstyles as possible within the context of the new edition.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

A little more from Mearls:

http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=8294361&postcount=75

 

[Irda Ranger]

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.

They're not balanced against each other. They are effective at what they do and complimentary actors in a typical published encounter (and within the DMG encounter design guidelines). There's a subtle difference. A Defender to hold off the baddies; a Striker to take out the big target; a Controller to clear out the trash; a Leader to keep it all organized. No one is supposed to be more important than the others, but it's a little apples-to-oranges unless you can convert everyone's contributions to the group into a single currency (usually HP). What is the Leader's +2 to Att, Morale bonus worth in average HP/round? WotC can't know what without knowing who's making the attack and for how much damage, etc., which cannot be well predicted.

But in theory, D+L+S+C > (D,L,S,C)*4

A well balanced group (PC's or monsters) should (in theory, on average) beat a group of any four persons chosen at random.

 

[Counterspin]

They're not balanced against each other.

Could you give a source for this suggestion? This flies in the face of many things thus far revealed about 4e, particularly the radical limitations being applied to wizards, the big bad class of 3e.

 

[Mistwell]

A little more from Mearls:

http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=8294361&postcount=75

For those too lazy to click:

"Umm, notice mearls said Feats, not Class Features. You get selections of both. If the vast majority of fighting power is in the selectable class features and not feats, then someone with noncombat focus for their feats should still be able to do their basic function just fine."

Mearls Response: Bingo.

 

[A'koss]

For those too lazy to click:

"Umm, notice mearls said Feats, not Class Features. You get selections of both. If the vast majority of fighting power is in the selectable class features and not feats, then someone with noncombat focus for their feats should still be able to do their basic function just fine."

Mearls Response: Bingo.

Yeah, I didn't really think that was really in contention as we've been told repeatedly that every class has it's own power source and that feats are open to all classes (so they have to be fairly general).

 

[Storminator]

But in theory, D+L+S+C > (D,L,S,C)*4

A well balanced group (PC's or monsters) should (in theory, on average) beat a group of any four persons chosen at random.

I don't think that's quite right. You want a balance of PCs because you're going to see a variety of encounters. It's quite possible that the four of 1 team will tear apart a balanced group in certain circumstances. Frex, in rough terrain it's possible 4 strikers will maul a balanced party (round 1, all 4 strikers hit the defender).

Balanced parties have better survivability over the long haul of adventuring, but might not be the best in a particular situation.

PS

 

[ruleslawyer]

Perhaps a better way of saying it is that a balanced party's adventuring track record will be better than that of an unbalanced party. But still...

 

[Dausuul]

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).

Absolutely. 3E is there, 2E was there, and 1E was there as well. If I had a nickel for every time one of my fellow gamers said, "So, we really need a tank in this party," I'd have a whole lotta nickels.

That said, I do hope 4E works on making the system less role-dependent. I want to be able to play at low levels without a fighter in the party, and I want to be able to play at high levels without a caster. The "all one class" party ought to be a viable option.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I keep seeing this, and I keep disbelieving that this is going to be a problem.

The people who will do this... do you think they were going to role-play anyway? Not in my experience. And the players who roleplay everything won't stop doing that just because they are suddenly given a rule like this to use.

I remember Dave Noonan making the point, while discussing the social encounter rules, that there will be room in the system for "roll, then roleplay", "roleplay, then roll", "just roll", and "just roleplay" as each group prefers.