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

[Cryptos]

The old Star Wars class names (from d20 pre-SAGA) actually provide a pretty good summary of what people are mentioning here as non-combat roles. Which is pretty odd when you consider that Star Wars is a setting based on cinematic sci-fi adventure. But here they are:

Scoundrel: Your sneaks, tricksters, gamblers, thieves, smugglers, the "knows a guy" person, etc.

Noble: Your social types, diplomats, performers, merchants, etc.

Tech Specialist: Your crafters and knowledge specialists.

Scout / Fringer: Your wilderness survival, tracker, hunter, beast and local knowledge types.

The thing is that even though 4th edition admittedly does focus primarily on encounters, all but one of the non-combat roles above would have some overlap with what already exists in 4th edition. Not just in skills, but in utility powers that affect them. We have stealth, streetwise, thievery, bluff, and insight. The scoundrel section is pretty well covered. What isn't explicit in the rules can be simulated pretty well with this foundation. We also have Nature, which covers lore and wilderness survival. We have diplomacy, the aforementioned bluff and insight, and social encounters / skill challenges. Some types of performers might even get by with an Acrobatic stunt or two.

There is some element of knowledge skills that is missing, admittedly, but although I have created many characters with Knowledge (Engineering) or Knowledge (Nobility) and so forth, I can count on one hand the number of times checks for those things actually impacted the outcome of the game. They are missed mainly not because they did something for the game, but because they said something about the character, and it seems that you could just as easily tell your DM that your character is an expert astronomer or designed catapults and bridges for the local duke as buy a skill for it, for all the difference it makes in day-to-day gaming.

When you get right down to it, when we talk about "missing" non-combat roles all we're really talking about are two things: crafting and making money (profession) doing any of the above.

Making money through professions in some ways detracts from the combat and encounter portion of the game. 4e seems designed so that adventures can be paced in such a way that you're supposed to have less downtime, and you have the potential for adventures where you're racing the clock rather than planning adventures with ample rest areas and opportunities for an arcane, divine, or psionic class to recharge. Players can still nova early if it's their choice, but theoretically they could keep going with standard encounters. So there's less downtime. But also, 4e tries to carefully manage income so that encounters and adventures can be planned according to the level of the characters rather than their wealth and possessions. Your DM could reserve parcels for income, but other party members might not be so thrilled that 1/10th or even 1/5th of their earnings are coming from Bob the Blacksmith's day job than from his adventures with the rest of the group as Bob the Bard.

So there's a strong argument that could be made against the various Profession skills.

Which really only leaves crafting. When you get right down to it, that seems to me to be the key issue in terms of non-combat roles. There are minor, peripheral non-combat options for which there are no rules, but the only one that can't be at least loosely simulated in some shape or form because there are absolutely no rules for it is crafting.

I made crafting characters quite a bit. My longest played character was a dwarf from a clan that made enchanted weapons, and studied to become a wizard to follow in those footsteps. I planned very hard for this character to be able to do the job well of providing magical arms and armor for his party, and he did. But having actually done it, the effort that went into making sure he could do it was greater than the handful of checks and handwaving that went into the completion.

I could say likewise for my Atom / Barry Allen Flash / Hank Pym - inspired scientist character in an M&M campaign, or my Tech Specialist in a Star Wars campaign. The tech specialist was probably the most effective in terms of his crafting, but only because having already ruled that I had certain schematics and knowledge through character creation, had rescued a large student group at a technical training outpost in adventure 2, and had scrounge sufficient spare parts to do so during adventures 1-3, there wasn't a whole lot stopping the GM from letting me put together several hundred very simple hovering drones with blasters and setting them loose on an Imperial installation in adventure 4. It would have been one hell of an adventure if we had actually fought it. (Such are the consequences of telling someone with a Force Sensitive Droid Engineer they are going to go on recruiting and rescue missions to get talent for the Rebellion. By a certain point I was just steamrolling every challenge that came up. The effects aren't as dramatic for a D&D crafter, but there are certain to be encounter-based consequences.)

I like crafters. But although they are absent from 4e, I'm not entirely sure they're actually missing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A good write-up.

Yes it was worth it.

I'm really glad someone read through that. I've been thinking on this path for a little while. Combat is essentially just a very complex task resolution system. It's great that it has that complexity, because that's part of the fun of D&D combat (I think). But I also think that complexity can be useful for ANYTHING you want to have fun resolving. That detail, that style of "I use this awesome special ability my awesomeness gives me to do something awesome! Now react to it!" is the heart of D&D action. That action is most obviously in swinging a sword, but it can be applied to virtually anything.

If you want to have roles in non-combat situations, you start looking at non-combat situations through the lens of combat. This attention to detail is part of where the strategy and fun come from, and it can be applied to non-combat equally.

In any "first one to 0 looses" kind of task resolution, there are these four roles (really 2, but variety is generally a good thing ). They might have different names, do different buffs and debuffs, attacks and defenses, be present to differing degrees in differing archetypes, but the purpose of the four roles doesn't change, because it's about the points and how you manipulate them in your favor, rather than about archetypes.

I want to add one thought about how I believe "class" and "role" interact - basically a class defines your role in different encounter types. (Combat, Social, Mystery, Exploration), and provides a certain "theme" and "flavor" to it. You are not just a Athletic Defender Hassling Intimidator (or whatever), you're a Fighter (hmm, doesn't really sound better, but you get my point? )

That's it exactly. Your class is really your archetype, and being a "Fighter" might mean different things in different scenarios. Every Fighter could be given not only Defender powers, but also powers related to their roles in other situations.

Of course,this isn't neccessarily the "best" way to do things. But it would be consistent with the 4E design goals and I think it's a logical conclusion of them.

I agree. It kind of depends on what you want to achieve, here. The biggest criticism I can see against that kind of system is that it "Makes non-combat feel just like combat." It's true, because that's what it sets out to do, but I can see why that might not be what everyone wants, just like not everyone wants vancian fighters and an over-arching three-tiered Powers system. But 4e, I wouldn't think, would have much of a problem with turning non-combat into combat.

I think even crafting could fit into this as long as you can turn it into a challenge, it just takes a little more morphing than more straightforward challenges. But I am not sure that you would get a lot of drama from a crafting conflict like the others that you mentioned so I am not sure it would be worth it so much.

Yeah, that's the same conclusion I came to. I suppose if your game was very focused on the adventures of sitting at a workstation whilst tinkering with volatile components, it might be worth it, but that's a pretty limited field, unlike "social encounters" or "mysteries" or "dungeon exploration" which is pretty broad and which most D&D games take at least a passing interest in.

In D&D, crafting usually is more about resource management, a particular archetype, and cool custom items. That lends itself more to a "select one option from each of the following menus" style rules rather than "first one to 0 looses" style rules. Victory and defeat aren't really on the line, there (though they could be, it's usually not quite as fun).

The interesting thing about this for me is that it is pretty genre-independent. So you could even mimic, say, a medical drama situation like an episode of House with this kind of system, or even design an adventure with this kind of thing in mind (one adventure is just a very drawn-out task to resolve, after all).

That is kind of the essence of many indie games where conflict is conflict though not necessarily combat.

D&D loves it some combat, and quite rightly, but it wouldn't kill it to give some love to other action-packed events, either, I think. Sticking swords into things shouldn't be the best way to resolve most things. A diversity of challenges would make for a much richer game. This would involve D&D breaking down the wall between RP and mechanics more, though. I would embrace such a move, as I embraced it when we had RP skills in 3e and nonweapon proficiencies in 2e. Skill Challenges in 4e are good in theory, and have some good aspects, but are badly in need of fixing, and also badly in need of being less of a "tacked-on" system and more of an integrated system (like sneak attacks and marks are).

 

[Scribe Ineti]

That's fine if that's how you like it. But the point here is that perhaps non-combat encounters can be as detailed mechanically as combat encounter have traditionally been.

I think skill challenges can help get at this, though more detail would need to be given than what's in the DMG and PHB, maybe some articles in Dragon or something. Skill challenges are great ideas if implemented right, and could be really handy for non-combat roles or characters that aren't hugely focused on combat.

On that note, I'd be curious to see if the powers that be ever implement some specifically non-combat focused classes. I think back to Decipher's Lord of the Rings RPG, which had minstrels, magicians, barbarians, warriors, and rogues, but also had craftsmen, loremasters, mariners, and nobles.

The first five were focused on combat and less on non-combat skills, but could still be useful outside of battle. The latter four were not specifically focused toward combat, but they were still potentially effective in a fight, but shone in non-combat situations.

 

[LostSoul]

That was good stuff, KM.

Combat is essentially just a very complex task resolution system.

Let me quibble for a bit - combat in D&D is conflict resolution. An attack roll is task resolution; attack + damage is conflict resolution.

Skill Challenges in 4e are good in theory, and have some good aspects, but are badly in need of fixing, and also badly in need of being less of a "tacked-on" system and more of an integrated system (like sneak attacks and marks are).

I find Skill Challenges to work well, but I think it's because I'm using them differently. The base mechanics are sound (more or less!) but how the DM executes the fictional situation that the mechanics feed into needs work.

 

[Hussar]

This is a LOOOOOOOOONG post, but I think the payoff is worth it.
/snip for awesomeness

Very much worth the read.

One question though, how do you switch roles? In your two examples, you have 8 separate roles, each of which operates differently.

For example, "Spin Doctor" and "Survivalist" are both Role 3 types. But, it wouldn't make much sense for both of those to be carried under the same umbrella of role. Mechanically, yes, they accomplish their goal in very similar ways, but, in game, it wouldn't make much sense for the same character to be able to do both things.

I guess my problem is, how do you make the roles general enough to cover "Survivalist" and "Spin Doctor"?

 

[I'm A Banana]

One question though, how do you switch roles? In your two examples, you have 8 separate roles, each of which operates differently.

For example, "Spin Doctor" and "Survivalist" are both Role 3 types. But, it wouldn't make much sense for both of those to be carried under the same umbrella of role. Mechanically, yes, they accomplish their goal in very similar ways, but, in game, it wouldn't make much sense for the same character to be able to do both things.

I guess my problem is, how do you make the roles general enough to cover "Survivalist" and "Spin Doctor"?

You don't, really. Not everything that is "Role #3" needs to be attributed to the same over-arching archetype. Not everyone who was a "Survialist" would also be a "Spin Doctor." "Role #3" isn't an archetype, it's a mechanical description. Whether or not your character is "Role #3" in a given situation would depend more on the archetype.

For instance, you might just made every role based off of class. Let's take Rangers. In combat, Rangers are strikers (most similar to a Role 1). In the dungeon, they might be Survivalists (Role #3!). In a social encounter, they might be more of a Wingman (that's Role #4!). In solving a mystery, they might be more of a Analyst (a Role 2 duty!). In this way, a Ranger in four different scenarios covers four different purposes. They don't solve every problem by being a Striker, and not everyone who is a "Survivalist" would also be a "Spin Doctor." And maybe a Ranger-Analyst has different powers than a Rogue-Analyst, who is different than a Wizard-analyst, even.

You might link it to a different cap system, too. But the basic idea is that a character wouldn't be "ROLE 3" and then use that for everything. They might be Role 3 in a certain scenario, and Role 1 in another, and Role 2 in two or three others (or whatever). This helps in a few ways. #1 is that you don't shoehorn it. #2 is that it helps these different scenarios feel different, and require different strategies. In combat, the Bard might champion the party (sort of a Role 3 or 4), but in a social setting, the Bard is going to be on the attack, directly overcoming the problem in front of them (more of a Role 1). He's still effective at both combat and social interaction, but he contributes differently in different environments. #3 is that it helps create variety. You don't just have four over-reaching themes, you actually have a high number of different combination of things, and each one can feel very distinctive as you go from gathering information to going into the dungeon to fighting the monsters to grilling the nobles based on the evidence you found there, to solving the mystery of how your prime suspect was dead three days before the crime was committed. It doesn't get stale, because you're changing the way you're addressing each problem.

 

[Hussar]

That sounds cool KM, but, the question still remains. How do you mechanically switch between roles in a class based system?

Do you simply decide, as the situation warrents, "I'll be role 1" "I'll be role 3"? You have your class, Ranger, that defines what that character is all the time. How do you have a sort of floating RP class for each player?

 

[Fifth Element]

It seems to me that in a class-based system, we can't be switching roles for each different type of encounter. To mesh with the combat roles, you'd have a list of non-combat roles and choose one. But in order to accomplish this, we need to take a step back.

That's why I proposed using personality types upthread. Characters of similar personalities will react to non-combat encounters in similar ways. But they don't necessarily react to different types of non-combat encounters in the same way. I think I'm explaining this poorly.

What I mean is, when facing a social encounter, all "Trickster" characters will approach it in the same basic way. When facing a trap, they react in a different way, but again all characters of the same type will react in similar ways.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Do you simply decide, as the situation warrents, "I'll be role 1" "I'll be role 3"? You have your class, Ranger, that defines what that character is all the time. How do you have a sort of floating RP class for each player?

I think the easiest way would be to have it hard-wired into whatever cap system you choose. In the little box, when listing the Role of a class, it also lists the roles that the class occupies in the noncombat zone. Something like:

Roles: Striker (Combat)/Infiltrator (Exploration)/Mudslinger (Social)/Investigator (Mystery).

You could have more flexibility with it by choosing a different "cap." Maybe instead of skills, you select your noncombat roles at character creation. Perhaps your profession dictates it.

These roles ideally, after all, are supported by class-specific powers. You probably wouldn't need many powers for a game like D&D -- maybe 3 per tier, and that's pretty generous, will give you enough to work with. You could always add more or use feats to get more or whatever.

The central conceit is that something assigns you these roles at character creation, like your class assigns you your combat role.

It seems to me that in a class-based system, we can't be switching roles for each different type of encounter

Sure we can. Why not? This plays to the old-school feel of "dungeon exploration roles," while making everyone still effective in every kind of encounter, and manages to adapt well to these different types because of it.

A class can specify *all* of your roles, and, indeed, would probably be best at it. This would only enhance the archetypal nature of the class. Every ranger solves even social and exploration and puzzle problems in a uniquely "ranger-y" way.

Now, I'll grant that a simplification system would be appealing on a certain level (reducing some of the sheer quantity of roles that you would get), but the idea behind noncomabt roles means, fundamentally, you want to complicate noncombat, because you're interested in the little details and variations, just like combat complicates what can be reduced to a single attack roll, because you're interested in the details and variations.

Heck, it would even be OK to say that you get to pick your role each time. You want to take point on this discussion, you can be the Diplomat, next time you want take more of a support role, you can be the Wingman.

The class-based nature of the system doesn't really affect it -- this is still very class-based, no matter when you get to select your roles. D&D would still be a very class-based game if my Fighter got to choose in every combat if he wanted to be a Striker or a Leader or a Defender or a Controller (and had fighter-y options for doing all of that).

But I wouldn't expect that. I would expect the class to define all of your roles, just as it does your combat role.

What I mean is, when facing a social encounter, all "Trickster" characters will approach it in the same basic way. When facing a trap, they react in a different way, but again all characters of the same type will react in similar ways.

Fundamentally, the four roles in any combat-like system are disconnected from personality. They're mechanical, not archetypal. An archetype can and should use different mechanics for different things (at least if you want to keep the diversity of it). Not every situation a "trickster" is in would cause him to erode enemy defenses and enhance ally attacks (Role #2). If he was trying to resolve a riddle, for instance, I'd expect the trickster to take point and be the main one reaching a solution (Role #1), while perhaps a more scholarly character took the reigns of puzzling out ways around it (Role #2).

You could link it to personality types, but all "personality type" is is another name for an archetype, which is what a class is already. You could be all "dual archetype," and there's a lot to be gained from it, but I think just assigning them to a class would be a simpler method.

That said, this is mostly quibbling over details, I think. The point isn't so much how you get your non-combat roles, it's that you get them at character creation, and they don't change at your whim (though, like combat roles, you can have mild overlap in certain places). That, like the class system, reinforces the archetype of the character.

 

[Fifth Element]

That said, this is mostly quibbling over details, I think. The point isn't so much how you get your non-combat roles, it's that you get them at character creation, and they don't change at your whim (though, like combat roles, you can have mild overlap in certain places). That, like the class system, reinforces the archetype of the character.

Yes, I agree.