D&D 4E Roles in 4E D&D - Combat and Non-Combat Roles

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

There's basically three:
Exploration is getting from one place to another.
Persuasion is resolving a personality conflict.
Discovery is resolving a puzzle or other brain-teaser.

These are "the" three out-of-combat challenges present already in 4e. Interestingly, that means four types of challenges that (probably not coincidentally) map to the classic four-man party:

Fighters are good at Combat Challenges
Rogues are good at Exploration Challenges
Clerics are good at Persuasion Challenges
Wizards are good at Discovery Challenges

Now we're talking, that's some good and useful stuff.

 

[Jack7]

Frankly to try and define a list of possible non-combat skills/abilities is a whole system in itself and would take away from the game and/or invariably make one person happy while annoying another. As such if some players want this I role play it out with him rather than try to slap a system together. My rule of thumb is if it works for the story or makes the players happy without taking away from the story or stepping on other players' toes then it's all fine with me.

I personally agree with this approach OS. The game would do much better to provide a list of possible Combat and Non-Combat "Roles" and then let the players decide what their "roles" in any given situation will be.

Then if the players and DM want to construct rules-heavy milieu particular formats for exactly how and for whom those roles can be played let them do so, and if not leave things loose enough for the players to determine how their own roles will be executed and fulfilled.

I think the looser things are the more likely the players are to develop constructive, valuable, flexible roles and the same for the DM who runs his NPCs. Plus roles then don't become so tightly "programmed" that outsiders can automatically figure out who has what "roles." And the players can't automatically figure out what roles NPCs have or what exactly they are capable of doing in their own roles. Too many modern games have lost much of their sense of "surprise," "wonder," and "flexibility." They are as much if not more tightly programmed than a video or computer game. Modern RPGs don't need more heavy "scripting," to spur the imagination of the DM and players, they need far less.

Although I would do it differently I like KM's break down on "role possibilities and potentials." I like the fact that they are basically loose ideas and that they allow different variations of capabilities, not just limited to "direct and restrictive class function."

I think though generally speaking the looser the better, and the more the players have control over the issue, and not the designers (except the offer basic suggestions as to possibilities and potentials) the better the "role idea" will function, both in combat and in non-combat situations.

I'm not for over-complexity in design approach though individual games could make the system as complex or as simple as they want. I think a lot of times game designers (I am not speaking about anyone in particular, just the modern design approach and imperative) make things far too complex, caught up in their own idea of how brilliant they are and so regiment a lot of things that epically in a role play game, should just be role-played and left up to the DM and the players.

That is to say many modern games would do much better to tightly regulate and "rulerize" a smaller number of things, and to simply trust the players and DM to do their own development for their own game. The game provides a working skeleton and some of the internal organs, the DM and players provide the actual flesh and the nervous system.

 

[Irda Ranger]

The game would do much better to provide a list of possible Combat and Non-Combat "Roles" and then let the players decide what their "roles" in any given situation will be.

I disagree with the idea of a "list" or non-combat roles. I don't think there ever could be a definitive list that allowed for maximal degree of freedom in the roleplaying aspect of the game.

Further, there are many roles which might be specific to particular kinds of campaigns (e.g., "Navigator" would be essential in a pirates campaign and useless in Dark Sun). I think any kind of list would restrict the sorts of campaigns you run.

Combat roles (on the other hand) are not like that as much because there are fewer things you can do in combat than you can do in RP. Once you've got attack, defend, help & hinder covered you're pretty much done with combat. RP isn't like that. I think the core idea of Skill Challenges (particularly as expanded by Stalker0) is just right.

 

[Jack7]

I disagree with the idea of a "list" or non-combat roles. I don't think there ever could be a definitive list that allowed for maximal degree of freedom in the roleplaying aspect of the game.

I think we probably agree here IR, and I probably could have phrased that better.

By list I mean a starting point list of possibilities, not a restrictive list of "you can only do these things and nothing else."

You know, the game designers say here is a list of possible roles, and what they might involve. Maybe even give structural and fully designed examples of what a role might entail or look like as a structured element. But then say, you are not restricted to these forms or roles and you are not restricted to doing it in this exact way. These examples are to give you ideas for how you might handle combat and non-combat role sin your game, but it is your game and the game of your players.

In other word instead of the designers "pre-programming" every aspect of a role playing game, they instead provide rules and structures for explaining the gamer how to program their own game.

This is a different idea about game design structure, and how it interfaces with the end-user.

Many games nowadays are like a Microsoft OS. The game desires to retain "design control" of how the product operates in order to create a constant base of cycled ancillary products which can be added-on to the OS, but which also seek to prevent the end user from using the OS to program their own applications without strict design oversight.

What I'm talking about is designing RPG OSs that allow the end user ultimate control not of the original product, but of how that original product can be remodified to suit the demands of the end user.

Of course some already do this, but I think it should be the normative process in game design.

Or in other words, as with most highly efficient information based technologies (and an RPG is an information based system and structure) the designer should create simplicity of design, and it is the user who creates the appropriate level of complexity of application according to their individual needs. Not the other way around.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I disagree with the idea of a "list" or non-combat roles. I don't think there ever could be a definitive list that allowed for maximal degree of freedom in the roleplaying aspect of the game.

Freeform noncombat is all well and good, but you could make the argument that there can never be a definitive list that allowed for maximal degree of freedom in the COMBAT aspect of the game, too.

Because combat and roleplaying are the same thing: elements of the game used to resolve a conflict.

Freeform has its problems (why would you resist doing freeform combat? Those are the same reasons to resist doing freeform noncombat). A series of noncombat roles is not going to be extremely flexible but, like the class system, it's going to give you an archetype that you can play your character to.

And that's the point, really. That these characters should be able to solve problems that don't involve stabbing people in interesting and diverse ways based on the type of character they are. And, like combat, it shouldn't depend so much on the player's ability to do those things as it should on the CHARACTER's ability to do those things.

It's okay to want to do stuff differently, more like old-school D&D, but IMO, that method is unsatisfying, so I'm looking for a different method: one that can add the interesting tactical choices that are present in combat to other kinds of resolutions.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I disagree with the idea of a "list" or non-combat roles. I don't think there ever could be a definitive list that allowed for maximal degree of freedom in the roleplaying aspect of the game.

Further, there are many roles which might be specific to particular kinds of campaigns (e.g., "Navigator" would be essential in a pirates campaign and useless in Dark Sun). I think any kind of list would restrict the sorts of campaigns you run.

Combat roles (on the other hand) are not like that as much because there are fewer things you can do in combat than you can do in RP. Once you've got attack, defend, help & hinder covered you're pretty much done with combat. RP isn't like that. I think the core idea of Skill Challenges (particularly as expanded by Stalker0) is just right.

I'll agree with this.

Basically, there is a huge difference between potential combat roles and non-combat roles. The 4E combat roles work well because they are all-inclusive and describe easily-understood archetypes. The idea of the Defender is general enough that it can include a vast array of concepts quite easily, but it is specific enough and has enough solid precedent that it is easily recognizable. Between all four roles, every possible combat archetype can be easily slotted into any role. This is possible simply because combat has such a limited number of basic concepts that need to be covered (basically, offense vs. defense and direct vs. indirect). With two axes of real difference, there are only four main regions that lead to definable "roles".

The problem with non-combat roles is that there are simply too many possibilities to be easily expressed. Almost any different non-combat situation calls for totally different roles, so the basic purpose of roles, to ensure that you always have a balanced team and to make sure that you always have a protected niche, is almost impossible to achieve.

To show off something of my point...

Look at Kamikaze's "Trailblazer" exploration role. It basically lumps together every possible skill in the game, so that anyone who has such a skill may be a "trailblazer" depending on context. Stuck in a dungeon? Athletics, Acrobatics, Dungeoneering, and Thievery all apply. Need to chart a new land route in order to carry out a trade expedition? You would need the Nature and Endurance skills, and the skills needed for dungeon exploration are useless. In other words, a class that can "trailblaze" in a dungeon would not be interchangeable with a class that can "trailblaze" in the wilderness, so it isn't really a role.

Ultimately, non-combat roles don't really work simply because, unlike combat, non-combat challenges require very specific skillsets. It is not like there are dozens of different ways to successfully run a business in a D&D campaign. If you want to run a business, you pretty much need to be a merchant, with all of the skills of a merchant. If you want to explore the ocean, you pretty much have to be a sailor, with all of the skills of a sailor. It simply doesn't have the interchangeability that combat does, unless you literally create roles for each individual profession, so that there are multiple sailor roles and thus many sailor classes for an entire sailing sub-system.

 

[Frostmarrow]

This is my suggestion, loosely based on the works of Joseph Campbell and Christopher Vogler.

I recognize eight skills as group skills. These skills are often rolled for the benefit of the party. Each role gets access to two of these skills.

Roles and associated skills:

HERO: Leadership, Diplomacy
MENTOR: Knowledge, Heal
HELPER: Open Portal, Search
HERALD: Perception, Investigate

Basically the hero player rolls initiative and reaction checks. The mentor rolls to identify and stabilize. The helper provides access, and loots the fallen. The herald stays vigilant and provides vital clues.

Furthermore there is the JOKER, a jack-of-al-trades with access to all skills but to a lesser degree.

Also, and some of you are going to hate this, the skills associated with a role which you do not have is not available to you (as long as the party is assembled at least). This means only the herald can succeed in noticing the goblins waiting in ambush, only the mentor will recognize the strange runes on the mystical ring, only the helper will pick the lock. -And the hero will always be the one to act and speak first.

A party could look like this:

Half-elf Rogue Hero
Eladrin Wizard Mentor
Human Ranger Helper
Dragonborn Warlord Herald
Dwarven Fighter Joker

Feel free to add the SHAPESHIFTER if you fancy the idea of a player sometimes opposing the group.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Basically, there is a huge difference between potential combat roles and non-combat roles.

I'll disagree with that.

This is possible simply because combat has such a limited number of basic concepts that need to be covered (basically, offense vs. defense and direct vs. indirect). With two axes of real difference, there are only four main regions that lead to definable "roles".

Noncombat has the same axes. Any challenge, of any kind, has those axises. On the one side is GOAL on the other side is FAIL. Chutes and Ladders has those axises. Monopoly has those axises. Poker has those axises. Football has those axises.

Look at Kamikaze's "Trailblazer" exploration role. It basically lumps together every possible skill in the game, so that anyone who has such a skill may be a "trailblazer" depending on context. Stuck in a dungeon? Athletics, Acrobatics, Dungeoneering, and Thievery all apply. Need to chart a new land route in order to carry out a trade expedition? You would need the Nature and Endurance skills, and the skills needed for dungeon exploration are useless. In other words, a class that can "trailblaze" in a dungeon would not be interchangeable with a class that can "trailblaze" in the wilderness, so it isn't really a role.

That's like saying you can't be a striker against minions.

A different environment doesn't change the role: "This is the guy who can get us where we're going" is a Trailblazer. It doesn't matter if it's in the dungeon or on the ocean or in the planes, the archetype -- the role -- is "guy who gets us from point A to point B," just like the striker role is "guy who deals direct damage." Direct Damage is just a combat-specific way to get from point A (you get in a fight) to point B (you win the fight).

Why would there be a change in skills? The ideas I had *replaced* the skills with something broader and more efficient. Maybe a given Trailblazer would have an "open locks" ability that works better in a vault, and another trailblazer would have a "shortcut" ability that works better in the wilderness, just like one striker has Sneak Attack and another striker has Eldritch Blast.

Ultimately, non-combat roles don't really work simply because, unlike combat, non-combat challenges require very specific skillsets.

No more than combat does. I don't think it's too big of a stretch for a game that assumes dragons can be stabbed in the kidneys to also assume that the guy with an "innate sense of direction" wouldn't get lost in a hedge maze OR a stone maze, and that the guy who can cook anything can make a rat edible OR a deer edible in the same way. They already assume that the guy who deals the damage can deal damage to oozes OR normal mortals, which, realistically, would involve two very specific skillsets.

I'll say it again:

Combat and noncombat challenges are the same thing.

I could use a 4e skill challenge to do a combat.

Heck, I could use a 4e skill CHECK to do a combat. One roll, add your level, compare with the monsters, done.

It's about the level of abstraction you want.

If you want to run a business, you pretty much need to be a merchant, with all of the skills of a merchant. If you want to explore the ocean, you pretty much have to be a sailor, with all of the skills of a sailor.

Why don't you need a dragonslayer to slay a dragon?

Why don't you need a different kind of healer for your animal companion than for yourself?

How does it work that a fighter who never fights a vampire is equally as good at killing them as he is at killing goblins that he's fought hundreds of?

D&D takes a more abstract view of skill in general than you are demanding. I think the same level of abstraction can be applied to non-combat scenarios.

 

[tomBitonti]

I'll disagree with that.
Why don't you need a dragonslayer to slay a dragon?

Why don't you need a different kind of healer for your animal companion than for yourself?

How does it work that a fighter who never fights a vampire is equally as good at killing them as he is at killing goblins that he's fought hundreds of?

D&D takes a more abstract view of skill in general than you are demanding. I think the same level of abstraction can be applied to non-combat scenarios.

I think that may make the game boring.

That's one of the criticism of 4E, that a part of the richness of the game world has been lost. 3.5E allowed you to create real dragonslayers and real vampire slayers. (On the other hand, the picture is not all roses. For example: Rogues are useless against undead. As well, a lot of the options for specialists seemed to be poorly implemented, and often went unused. YMMV)

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think that may make the game boring.

That's one of the criticism of 4E, that a part of the richness of the game world has been lost. 3.5E allowed you to create real dragonslayers and real vampire slayers. (On the other hand, the picture is not all roses. For example: Rogues are useless against undead. As well, a lot of the options for specialists seemed to be poorly implemented, and often went unused. YMMV)

Well, the set-up wasn't to "fix" 4e, it was to have a non-combat role system for 4e. If you're not comfortable with the idea of Rogues being able to sneak-attack undead, you're probably also not comfortable with the level of abstraction that would ask you to be comfortable with your ranger finding their way out of a wizard-tower's teleport maze, but 4e is more than comfortable with that level of abstraction, so it should be OK with this.

That said, ideally, it's sort of a scaling scenario, where you CAN get more complex if you want, but if you don't want, you don't have to. If you want to vary the roles based on environments (wilderness trailblazer vs. dungeon trailblazer), you can add a level of granularity (while yes, having the attached problem that sometimes they will be more useless), just like if you want to vary combat roles based on enemies you face (vampire slayer vs. dragon slayer), you can add a level of granularity (while, again, having the problem that sometimes they will be more useless). Specificity means complexity, so if you want it, why not add it?

I do take issue with the idea that it's necessary. Clearly, as D&D combat in all editions shows us, you don't need to get that specific to have a good ruleset. If you want to get more specific, there's always other rulesets -- Rolemaster for combat, Traveller for character generation, and more complex noncombat resolution mechanics, too.

If you want to get lighter, you can go freeform.

The rules I sketched out hit a middle ground, adding more detail than 4e currently has, but less than you would apparently want. I think it would be easier to add subdivisions to a role system like that than it would to create a new skill for every circumstance ("Ah, I see you have Swim, but is that ocean, lake, or river?", "Oh, great, you have Craft (stoneworking)! Is that igneus, metamorphic, or sedimentary? Dwarven, gnomish, or drow? Rock gnome or svirfineblin?"), since the over-arching group works the same way. You know any "trailblazer" subdivision is going to earn you successes toward a goal, even if you further narrow it to being only (or most) effective in certain limited circumstances.