Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[sheadunne]

Let's assume the Fighter takes Skill Focus: Diplomacy and Negotiator, augmenting his diplomacy score by +5, and invests in cross class ranks. The wizard is equally able to devote cross-class ranks, but doesn't make the feat investment. What's the Wizard's great answer to the Fighter's superior diplomatic skills? He certainly has some spells, but magic is also subject to detection and dispelling. If the wizard is all loaded up with negotiation magic and happens to have an unexpected combat encounter, what does he do? The Fighter still has all his combat skills. He can also influence any number of people with that Diplomacy - he doesn't run out of skill checks per day, nor does he need to rest for a day to move from being a diplomat to a warrior.

There's the disconnect. There's nothing unique about taking diplomacy. If both players take it, the advantage is still in the hands of the wizard. Even if the wizard doesn't take it, he'll eventually have spells that override diplomacy. There is no possible way for the fighter to keep up based on the mechanics of the game. The fighter has no class option to be diplomatic, no resources available that are unique to the class. The question though, is that an issue? Not particularly. Diplomacy is just one way to control the narrative and not one that I think is paramount for the fighter to have. Personally, I really like the option to take the narrative to the fighter, instead of the fighter to the narrative. Allow the fighter to reframe the scene to where the fighter shines. I think we've probably all done it running games. Perhaps through duels or arena fights. You'll win an audience with the king if you can defeat my toughest guy, no amount of talking will change his mind. If the wizard can force the narrative to change via charm person (oh, you're really not indifferent after all) or dominate person (I own you as long as I don't push you), then why not the fighter with displays of combat (Let me show you how capable I am). Didn't the Knight class have something like that built in? A challenge ability of some sort? I never played the class so I can't entirely remember.

Does this add complexity to the fighter? Maybe. I don't know. Is it appealing for those who like to play fighters? Maybe. I've known a few players who would relish the chance to change the narrative to a duel and not look like the aggressor or a problem player.

When it comes to the possible exploration tier, the fighter again would be able to bring the exploration to combat. Locked/Trapped door give you trouble, break it without drawing unnecessary attention using your class ability.

I don't know, it seems like it has possibility. The last thing I want to do is nerf the casters to bring martials in line. I'd rather give tools to the martials. And I'm fine with these tools being built in to existing abilities (in the case of fighters, that would be feats). Give the feats an ability that only the fighter can unlock. Anyone can take Feat A, but when the fighter takes it as a bonus feat, he can now do B with it.

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion.

 

[Starfox]

2) Make it so that convoluted sequences of "mundane" action can be specified and adjudicated in just one step, just as spellcasting (in D&D) can be..

Trying to avoid focusing all of this into a single die roll, I suggest something like this:

i) Select a task difficulty. Something like 10 + the highest relevant skill among the opposition makes sense. If the task is particularly audacious, the DM may set a minimum skill based on the stunts involved.

ii) Select a number of skills that are applicable to the task; generally the more complex and difficult the task, the more skills would be relevant. The GM and player works this out together, so the player can influence which skills are relevant by picking appropriate tactics.

iii) Test all these skills. As long as ANY skill is a success, the overall task succeeds. Each failed check indicates some complication - ranging from a delay, to a loss of equipment, gp (bribes), hp, or other resource. Perhaps a favor owned, unwanted romantic interest, or other plot complication.

iv) The DM hands out minor rewards for successful rolls beyond the first one - and make them depend on what skill skill check you passed. Perception gleans important information, Diplomacy gives you contacts, Sleight of hand could give loot, and any skill could negate a failure from step iii above.

This way, you are almost guaranteed to succeed with complex plans involving many skills, but you also suffer complications that can serve as later adventure hooks. The player gets a temporary spotlight, while the whole task takes but a few minutes to play out.

 

[Starfox]

This is not directed to sheadunne but to you thread posters in general. Something has not been right in this thread and I've tried to identify it. Perhaps this is it:

There's the disconnect. There's nothing unique about taking diplomacy. If both players take it, the advantage is still in the hands of the wizard. Even if the wizard doesn't take it, he'll eventually have spells that override diplomacy.

There has been a lot of posts along these line, and there seems to be an agenda pursued by some posters here to campaign for the reduction of spellcaster power, and perhaps an agenda to convince people to play 4E instead, because there is less perceived spellcaster imbalance there. Well, please take that agenda someplace else. This is a thread that attempts to find positive options for increasing the options of non-spellcasters. It is not about spell ability in any shape or form, and talking about spellcasters except as possible inspirations (charm person can do this, thus rogues could do this without disrupting game balance) is hereby declared off-topic.

Edit: The rest of the quoted post deals with matters that are very much on-topic, so it was not a good post to quote really. I just got too much of all the calls for spellcaster nerfing in a thread devoted to non-spellcasters.

 

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION]

I think the problem people are struggling with is granting narrative authority traditionally in D&D has resided with spellcasting so it is a natural response to compare that to authority via spell use and bring that up in discussion and ask "how can we do that at my table without it feeling wrong?

A natural place is "is magic too strong" but mostly as a reaction to "if I let other narrative styles do that then its too strong, so magic needs to be tamed down"

I don't agree with that premise, but I think it's a valid approach to attempting to answer the question you posed.

 

[sheadunne]

This is not directed to sheadunne but to you thread posters in general. Something has not been right in this thread and I've tried to identify it. Perhaps this is it:

There has been a lot of posts along these line, and there seems to be an agenda pursued by some posters here to campaign for the reduction of spellcaster power, and perhaps an agenda to convince people to play 4E instead, because there is less perceived spellcaster imbalance there. Well, please take that agenda someplace else. This is a thread that attempts to find positive options for increasing the options of non-spellcasters. It is not about spell ability in any shape or form, and talking about spellcasters except as possible inspirations (charm person can do this, thus rogues could do this without disrupting game balance) is hereby declared off-topic.

Edit: The rest of the quoted post deals with matters that are very much on-topic, so it was not a good post to quote really. I just got too much of all the calls for spellcaster nerfing in a thread devoted to non-spellcasters.

I think you read that quote backwards. It's not about spellcaster nerf, far from it, it's about fighter strengthening. I'm not sure how you read anything else about it. (FYI, I don't play 4e, although there are some nice narrative options in it).

 

[Alzrius]

Okay, let's leave the issue of spellcasting out of it for a moment.

If we presume that universal mechanics to increase narrative options (presumably in non-combat narratives) are insufficient because they're not specific to non-spellcasters, all that seems to be left is to try and increase class-specific non-combat narrative options among the non-spellcasting classes.

What ideas do people have in that regard? Or is there another presumption for non-universal methods for increasing non-combat narrative options that I'm not thinking of?

 

[N'raac]

The figher's 11 combat feats indeed means he has much greater freedom to select non-combat abilities for his remaining 10 feats. So in this way he should have access to some nice non-combat tricks too. The problem is that there are few non-combat feats of notice, and that combat is generally regarded as so important that to "waste" a fighter's feat on noncombat abilities draws snide remarks. Just like the fighter is supposed to dump his mental attributes to be a better combatant. The fault here is manifold - it is a cultural expectations issue, but also a problem with how the fighter class is built (MAD) and how much of his attribute points he is expected to devote to be competitive.

MAD? As I see it, the fighter, qua Fighter, focuses on STR (DEX if he indends to be a light armored finesse fighter) primarily, CON (which is a benefit to every character who ever takes a hp penalty?, and fighters already have good FORT saves) and a 12 DEX (for non-finesse, heavy armor will cap your DEX bonus anyway). The Wizard, among the least MAD classes, focuses on INT primarily, but still needs CON (hp and saves) and DEX (ranged touch attacks, AC and saves) at least as much as the fighter does.

I agree it's very much cultural expectations. How much do the existing non-combat feats get used? Is there demand for more? Books of combat feats sell. How many characters of any class invest in those non-combat feats?

How many GM's minimize or reject interaction skills in favour of "role playing it", making any investment in diplomacy of dubious, if any, value (but no one has to role play a Charm spell!).

Very much this. A character that was mistreated while charmed is likely to realize this and magical coersion should be illegal in most fantasy societies. A party that has access to mundane Diplomacy can avoid using the first case, and even if they do use it can treat the carmed character in a way that does not make him hostile afterwards - when he thinks back on his own responses, they make sense because he was treated well.

Even treated well, he was coerced by magic. In my view, this starts off on the wrong foot, so he'd best be treated VERY well indeed. Bringing him around shouldn't be much easier than bringing around a fellow kidnapped against his will, but "for his own good" - say, to get him away from the evil assassins he doesn't yet know about. "There wasn't any time to explain".

There's the disconnect. There's nothing unique about taking diplomacy. If both players take it, the advantage is still in the hands of the wizard. Even if the wizard doesn't take it, he'll eventually have spells that override diplomacy.

I keep hearing that without the spells being specified. Charm and Dominate are exertions of force, not diplomatic tools. Treated as such, the wizard finds use for diplomacy.

There is no possible way for the fighter to keep up based on the mechanics of the game. The fighter has no class option to be diplomatic, no resources available that are unique to the class.

And Bards lack both the wizard's spell repertoire and the fighter's combat skills. Each class has strengths and weaknesses. That does not mean a class which is geared to other areas primarily cannot be somewhat effective in a secondary area, but they need to devote resources to it.

The question though, is that an issue? Not particularly. Diplomacy is just one way to control the narrative and not one that I think is paramount for the fighter to have. Personally, I really like the option to take the narrative to the fighter, instead of the fighter to the narrative. Allow the fighter to reframe the scene to where the fighter shines. I think we've probably all done it running games. Perhaps through duels or arena fights. You'll win an audience with the king if you can defeat my toughest guy, no amount of talking will change his mind. If the wizard can force the narrative to change via charm person (oh, you're really not indifferent after all) or dominate person (I own you as long as I don't push you), then why not the fighter with displays of combat (Let me show you how capable I am). Didn't the Knight class have something like that built in? A challenge ability of some sort? I never played the class so I can't entirely remember.

I'll be no help on the knight class - sorry. I don't think everything should be about combat, though. If the Fighter can make everything work out through a fight, why can't the rogue turn everything into a lock he must pick, or a trap he must disarm? Give the Fighter the abiity to make every challenge about brute strength and combat prowess, and soon we will have a dozen threads complaining about the futility of playing anything but a fighter. Or, alternatively, the charge often levied (rightly or wrongly I'm not familiar enough with 4e to make that call, and it's not germane to the thread anyway) that all the characters have more or less the same abilities, with different names, so pick any class and it will be more or less the same.

Does this add complexity to the fighter? Maybe. I don't know. Is it appealing for those who like to play fighters? Maybe. I've known a few players who would relish the chance to change the narrative to a duel and not look like the aggressor or a problem player.

To the latter, I have no comment. To the former, what other word would you use to define someone who solves every problem with a fistfight?

I don't know, it seems like it has possibility. The last thing I want to do is nerf the casters to bring martials in line. I'd rather give tools to the martials. And I'm fine with these tools being built in to existing abilities (in the case of fighters, that would be feats). Give the feats an ability that only the fighter can unlock. Anyone can take Feat A, but when the fighter takes it as a bonus feat, he can now do B with it.

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion.

Agreed on both counts - build up the disadvantaged classes, and an interesting discussion. I don't know that "only fighters can unlock" is the answer, but feats could certainly have abilities unlocked only by, say, having some minimum BAB, base save bonus, ranks in one or more specific skills, or what have you, gearing them to specific classes. If their resolution mechanic also favors a character strong in that area (sure, the L12 Wizard has +6 BAB now, but a +6 BAB aghainst CR 12 opponents still makes successful use of the feat unlikely - or mabe the result is something the figher wants and the wizard doesn't, like "the target of the feat will focus all his attacks on the feat user"), then the feat will favour that class/role/what have you.

But I think Starfox' issue has to be resolved first - providing resources to enhance non-combat options is only beneficial if players want those non-combat options enough to use their resources to buy them instead of combat enhancers. Alternatively, I suppose a completely new set of resources (like bonus non-combat feats, or a separate track for non-combat feats) could be added so you have no choice - you either take these, or you get nothing at all. Unless a +2 bonus to Diplomacy and Sense Motive is viewed as being as useful as +2 damage, the Fighter will keep taking Weapon Specialization and complaining that he can't be a Leader of Men and Ruler of the Kingdom because "the mechanics don't allow it". The problem is that the mechanics don't allow it without giving something else up in exchange.

 

[sheadunne]

But I think Starfox' issue has to be resolved first - providing resources to enhance non-combat options is only beneficial if players want those non-combat options enough to use their resources to buy them instead of combat enhancers. Alternatively, I suppose a completely new set of resources (like bonus non-combat feats, or a separate track for non-combat feats) could be added so you have no choice - you either take these, or you get nothing at all. Unless a +2 bonus to Diplomacy and Sense Motive is viewed as being as useful as +2 damage, the Fighter will keep taking Weapon Specialization and complaining that he can't be a Leader of Men and Ruler of the Kingdom because "the mechanics don't allow it". The problem is that the mechanics don't allow it without giving something else up in exchange.

I agree, I just find the cost a little skewed across the classes.

I always wondered why, if the game was focused on three tiers, that classes weren't necessarily built to support it. It bugged me when when I was looking at the 5e playtest documents. Why not give each class a class ability choice at each third level on one tier. That way, a class isn't making choices between combat feats and non-combat feats, but between various options in each tier. (Not that I'm convinced of the tier system, but it just seemed odd).

Fighter
Level 1 - Choice of Combat Feats
Level 2 - Choice of Exploration Feats
Level 3 - Choice of Social Feats

Rinse and repeat

Wizard
Level 1 - Choice of Exploration Spells
Level 2 - Choice of Combat Spells
Level 3 - Choice of Social Spells

Rinse and repeat

Bard
Level 1 - Choice of Social Abilities
Level 2 - Choice of Exploration Abilities
Level 3 - Choice of Combat Abilities

Rinse and repeat

I just thought it was odd that they put some much emphasis on the three tiers and then didn't bake them into the classes. Oh well.

 

[Mike Eagling]

Trying to avoid focusing all of this into a single die roll, I suggest something like this:

</snip>

This way, you are almost guaranteed to succeed with complex plans involving many skills, but you also suffer complications that can serve as later adventure hooks. The player gets a temporary spotlight, while the whole task takes but a few minutes to play out.

Nice. This resolves an issue I had with infiltration, which is disguise, bluff, some stealth and possibly even a version of survival (but applicable to a hostile urban environment rather than the wilderness).

Prior to this idea it seemed Infiltration (Cha) would have to be the way to go as bluff and disguise are the main components, despite stealth and other skills being involved.

 

[sheadunne]

Trying to avoid focusing all of this into a single die roll, I suggest something like this:

i) Select a task difficulty. Something like 10 + the highest relevant skill among the opposition makes sense. If the task is particularly audacious, the DM may set a minimum skill based on the stunts involved.

ii) Select a number of skills that are applicable to the task; generally the more complex and difficult the task, the more skills would be relevant. The GM and player works this out together, so the player can influence which skills are relevant by picking appropriate tactics.

iii) Test all these skills. As long as ANY skill is a success, the overall task succeeds. Each failed check indicates some complication - ranging from a delay, to a loss of equipment, gp (bribes), hp, or other resource. Perhaps a favor owned, unwanted romantic interest, or other plot complication.

iv) The DM hands out minor rewards for successful rolls beyond the first one - and make them depend on what skill skill check you passed. Perception gleans important information, Diplomacy gives you contacts, Sleight of hand could give loot, and any skill could negate a failure from step iii above.

This way, you are almost guaranteed to succeed with complex plans involving many skills, but you also suffer complications that can serve as later adventure hooks. The player gets a temporary spotlight, while the whole task takes but a few minutes to play out.

One and done usually isn't very rewarding, especially in this case where it's an exchange for roleplaying.

D&D currently doesn't have a complications system, but I think it could use one, especially with skills. Would a success system (roll a handful of dice and any number over x is a success) be a good way to resolve this, rather than doing math with each roll for each skill? Perhaps each failure places your character further away from the end goal. No successes would mean a really bad complication.

If you needed 5 successes (because there's say 5 parts to the plan) to infiltrate the palace and end up behind the king, each success puts your closer to that goal. If the goal looked like this . . .

0) Outside the caste ----> 1) disguise yourself as a serving man -----> 2) sneak into the kitchen -----> 3) Hide from anyone who knows you -----> 4) maneuver around the guards surrounding the king ----- > 5) appear behind the king

If you only rolled 2 successes you got discovered in the kitchen and weren't able to make it. If you rolled three success, maybe someone recognized you, etc. All failures might result in getting caught and put in jail or some other big upset.

Anyway, I don't think D&D has ever had a success system in the game so it probably wouldn't be a good fit. I just think that introducing mechanical complications requires a different system than the standard used in D&D.