Non-combat roles in 4E (Was Forked Thread: When did I stop being WotC's target...)

Interesting, but I think it does highlight a problem. Non-combat encounters are so varied that you'll end up really having to stretch to find ways some of the roles make sense in some situations.

Compared to the variety of non-combat encounters, combat encounters are quite homogeneous. So defining roles therein is easier.

And I don't think having different roles for each different type of non-combat encounter is practical either. That is, we don't want groups of roles for social encounters, traps, survival, etc.


Ok, let me pose this challenge to you, give me an example where you think this won't work and let me take a swipe at it.

EDIT: You see I think the biggest mistake in trying to do this is focusing on specific non-combat actions (ie skills) as opposed to the general effects one can accomplish universally in using a skill a certain way. For example, a "striker" isn't defined as the role who swings a weapon the hardest, but as one who does the most damage (because the Warlock doesn't even use a weapon per say). Again, not sure if I'm being 100% clear here.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Strangely enough, I think you could actually model WoW and other MMOs here. You could design a set of "professions" that the players can improve at, integrate with the magic item creation system (in some cases) and have both work as non combat roles with some usefulness in combat. Smithing, leatherworking, engineering, use residiuum as the basis for an enchanter (one who gives temporary bonuses to items). We already have the alchemy system to provide a framework for this. A largely non combat secondary game of improving craft skills, collecting recipes and new techniques, and perhaps even engaging in the marketing of those skills could play a role in the game.

If that's the sort of thing you're looking for. Myself, I'm with Cadfan.

I would say the simplest way to do this if you really feel such things need some rules weight would be to have each character, at creation, pick a background skill or two. Make a short list, allow the PCs to make up some of their own. About anything can be a skill here. Assign it a primary ability, give the player a trained bonus, as long as its applicable, and add it to the character sheet. So they all have and improve in the adventuring skills through adventuring, but these secondary skills can improve through use, which encourages their use in the game. You could combine this with the idea of crafting professions above.

I'd avoid some of the gamist ways these craft professions actually play out in WoW. I'd make it more about learning new techniques, learning how a particular powerful item is crafted, setting up shop and collecting materials, RPing commission work.

Before 4e came out, there was a big thread in which people were hating on the excerpt that had been released on magic items and the D&D economy, with its 1/5th sell price. I defended the idea pretty strongly, as I think it works very well if the assumption is not magic stores on every corner. During the course of the discussion, I had the idea for a game in which the PCs play a group of adventuring magic item brokers. They would do commission work, travel the dangerous wilds to get to clients, make ample use of magical communication tools, maintain an extensive network of contacts across the realm, research legends of powerful lost items to find their likely resting places, and plumb ancient ruins in search of these items to, usually, sell. There would be a lot of resource management, as profit would be needed to maintain contacts, offices, gear, transportation and the like. I think this kind of game would work well with 4e and would work well with something like the craft professions above. Have each member pick a specialty in both crafting and magical knowledge. One guy is the leather worker and expert on ancient civilizations (history with a circumstance bonus for things relating to ancient cultures), another is the blacksmith with expertise in military history, another is the dungeoneernig expert and social face, etc. Think that would be a lot of fun actually, might work as an OLG.
 

Ok, let me pose this challenge to you, give me an example where you think this won't work and let me take a swipe at it.
I think what I'm saying is not that you can't make the roles fit in any situation. I'm thinking about the mechanics. We want interesting mechanics to go along with our roles; after all, combat roles all get nifty powers.

I think we might have trouble coming up with role-based mechanics that are broad enough to encompass many different situations, but narrow enough to not fall into "make a DC 20 blah check to give someone else +4 to blah", because that's just as bad as "make a DC 20 blah check to overcome this challenge."
 

If that's the sort of thing you're looking for. Myself, I'm with Cadfan.
No, we're not talking about skill subsystems. We're talking about how different character types can interact with different types of non-combat encounters. It's much broader that just having some background skills available.
 

Alright, I'll let Fifth Element pursue his argument to the logical conclusion... I can see where its leading him...

But I'll put the outcome in spoilers in case anyone wants to read it now. :-)

You can't create non combat roles that work similarly in all kinds of different non combat encounters. Imaro's idea of a "defender" who mitigates negative effects falls apart when you realize that there's no common theme between a character who can protect others from traps, protect others from failed skill checks, and protect others from negative NPC attitudes. The other ideas fail similarly. Even if you came up with a mechanical reason for how these things would work, it doesn't make sense in terms of the logic behind the in-game characters.

You can, however, have different roles within a particular type of encounter. In a social encounter situation, for example, one character might be the convincing one, one might be the liar, one might be the intuitive one, and one might be the intimidating thug. Or in an encounter involving physical challenges, one character might be the agile climber and acrobatic athlete, while another might be strong and able to destroy obstacles, while another might have useful spells for telepathy or teleportation.

The only way to accomplish this is to vary class skill lists and utility powers.

The game already varies class skill lists and utility powers.

So, if you define "non combat roles" in this manner, they already exist in 4e.
 

I think you're pretty close to the mark, Cadfan, though I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion about "the only way to accomplish this", or that 4E defines these roles. Certainly not nearly to the same extent that it defines combat roles."the
 

I think what I'm saying is not that you can't make the roles fit in any situation. I'm thinking about the mechanics. We want interesting mechanics to go along with our roles; after all, combat roles all get nifty powers.

I think we might have trouble coming up with role-based mechanics that are broad enough to encompass many different situations, but narrow enough to not fall into "make a DC 20 blah check to give someone else +4 to blah", because that's just as bad as "make a DC 20 blah check to overcome this challenge."

Oh, ok...I think I get what you're saying now...well here's a few power effects I think could be worked into the type of system I suggested above that are general enough to work for all skills, and could probably combine or be used in interesting ways during a skill challenge. Note however these are off the top of my head and I am not a game designer.

Reroll take second result
Substitute a roll by a different player
allow two rolls choose best
negation of a failure(s)
reduction of number of necessary succeses
increase necessary failures
Allow player to roll twice, must take both results

What I was thinking was that each style (deflector, assaulter,supporter, manipulator) has a small number of powers associated with it, and that as you advance in level you can select one or more of these styles for the various skills you have and thus build a repertoire where the challenges of skills can be approached tactically in different ways by you as an individual as well as in tactical combinations with the other players in a group. This IMO, allows skills to at least start to head in the direction of interesting options that are provided by combat in 4e.
 

The way I look at things is this:

I want the game to tell me how to run combat. I don't want the game to tell me how to roleplay. The less the game tells me how to roleplay(as opposed to giving examples as well as tools that can be either used or ignored), the more I like this game.
 

The way I look at things is this:

I want the game to tell me how to run combat. I don't want the game to tell me how to roleplay. The less the game tells me how to roleplay(as opposed to giving examples as well as tools that can be either used or ignored), the more I like this game.


I don't understand this...what does skill resolution (and making it a more detailed or interesting part of the game) have to do with telling someone how to roleplay?
 

The way I look at things is this:

I want the game to tell me how to run combat. I don't want the game to tell me how to roleplay. The less the game tells me how to roleplay(as opposed to giving examples as well as tools that can be either used or ignored), the more I like this game.

Why does a game have to lead you around by a leash with regard to combat resolution and let you have the run of an unfenced yard for everything else? I prefer a reasonable degree of freedom for everything.
 

Remove ads

Top