|
1 year ago ::
Jan 14, 2012 - 12:43PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 14, 2012
|
It would be good if 5E actually took into consideration the idea that for many of us combat isn't everything. This isn't exactly a new issue for D&D, but 4E pushed the focus so far into combat that it has been described as a combat simulator rather than a roleplaying game. Now, there's nothing wrong with liking the combat side of things, and combat mechanics are important, but I think it's about time that D&D actually looks seriously at content relating to what's going on when there isn't a fight.
Back in the day it was fine to be mostly combat oriented, but now other systems have arisen that handle non-combat elements much better. If I want to play a political intrigue game in my own fantasy setting I'm more likely to use Exalted's mechanics instead of D&D right now because Exalted actually provides the tools to play a game where blackmail is more relevent than backstab. You can build an entire party focused around non-combat abilities and related powers. There's stuff that deals with every aspect of social interaction, from seduction to fast-talking, penmanship to preaching.
Don't make all of our options relate to how we fight, and don't make non-combat options a mere token effort. Think seriously about how best one could make a Tyrion Lannister or a Steerpike.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 14, 2012 - 1:22PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2004
|
Why are you guys abusing of strawmen and logical fallacies? This is not true that 4th edi. is all combat, it is highly rping.  You do not need load of rules for rping, ya know.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 14, 2012 - 1:36PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2009
|
Dungeons and Dragons, in my opinion, has always been a trifecta of Combat, Role-Playing, and Exploration. The reason people think 4E is "all about Combat" is because that's the only concept they really cover. But isn't that all it needs to cover? Do you really want a Player's Handbook that dictates to you how you should and shouldn't Role-Play? The Alignment system in previous editions were a bit like that ("Here's a list of 9 Alignments that we'll allow you to choose from".), and it did nothing but frustrate gamers. I don't need a book to tell me how to pretend, you know? Same sort of thing goes for exploration: do you really want a core handbook that tells you how they intend to allow you to explore the game world that you probably drew up yourselves? Of course not.
But still, people mistakenly believe that 4E is "all about Combat", when that's really the only thing you need a core handbook to help you with: Yes, we need to know how many squares we can move each turn; Yes, we need to know how to calculate our defenses; Yes, we need a comprehensive list of class powers to select from; Yes, we need to know how much damage each weapon does; etc.
We do NOT need the book to tell us how to act, or what to say, or anything else that relates to Role-Playing or Exploration, really. What we get are a few suggestions, and really, isn't that all we need in the first place?
I posit that if your 4E game is all Combat, and no Role-Playing or Exploration, then you haven't done an adequate job of implementing it on your own. Trust me: 4E is an extremely robust system, and you can really easily have as much or as little Role-Playing as you want.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 14, 2012 - 1:38PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Dec 30, 2011
|
Dude, [Edited] D&D without combat is just an improv theater troupe sitting at the table. I am a heavy role-player myself. I ran the largest, most active World of Warcraft RP guild on Sentinels for 5 years; I do voices when I DM, spend hours on social interaction encounters, and don't enjoy the game unless I can see my character developing beyond his or her stats (yep, I play both genders), but everything has to wind up heading towards a brutal, magical, sword-slashing brawl. You're not an adventurer if you don't deal damage once a game session. If I didn't spend half my time planning out epic battles for my game sessions, [Edited] Long live the savage man battles!!!
Moderated by
ORC_Tomorrow
on Jan 14, 2012 - 01:52PM
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 14, 2012 - 1:57PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2002
|
There are things outside of combat that require rules. Like "can I convince this ogre that he and his buddies should let us pass" or "Can I climb that wall." Now social interaction includes roleplaying, but it does need rules to adjucate. There's not really any reason that combat should require that many more rules than out of combat, or at least not all of combat things. Furthermore, 4e classes have long list of combat powers, but very little abilities they can use out of combat.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 14, 2012 - 3:35PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2012
|
And, just because you can roleplay social interactions just fine, doesn't mean that PLayer two seats down from you has the Player intellect and social capacity to RP a Bard, or Politician. But that's why we have rules in place, so that the characters can do things the players may not be able to do themselves.
Alignments are Fluid, meaning that they are based off of your actions, not your actions being based of the alignment.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 15, 2012 - 7:11AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2011
|
I think what the original poster is getting at is that 4E's powers and options revolve almost completely around the combat encounter portion of the game. I like that all classes have an important combat role in 4E, but long for the days when elves could suss out hidden doors, dwarves could orient in a dungeon and paladins could detect evil.
When leveling, if you gave me the option to choose between an extra damage die for my paladin's smite power or the ability to detect if someone's lying, I'd opt for the lie detection. Skills and skill challenges are great, but spells and powers should also have utility in social or exploration encounters.
I think Daemon69 really hit the mark in suggesting that 4th edition misses out on this almost completely.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 15, 2012 - 7:48AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
The death of charm spells (one of which briefly returned with the red box) is probably the clearest aspect of this. It was seen as ok to persuase someone of something, but to use magic to do that was "bad".
It was ok to kill them in ten thousand ways, however.
Magic became an alternative problem solver, but it always seemed clumsy and made one wonder why it had been invented in the first place if everyone could easily handly their problems in a mundance way without spending a kings ransom in reagents, or taking a whole day in time.
Killing someone, however, used no reagents and was instant and thus the message was that adventurers were made for war, pure and simple. Other things simply were deemed non heroic or pointless and thus got either clumsy rules or no rules.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 15, 2012 - 8:01AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2008
|
I think what the original poster is getting at is that 4E's powers and options revolve almost completely around the combat encounter portion of the game. I like that all classes have an important combat role in 4E, but long for the days when elves could suss out hidden doors, dwarves could orient in a dungeon and paladins could detect evil. When leveling, if you gave me the option to choose between an extra damage die for my paladin's smite power or the ability to detect if someone's lying, I'd opt for the lie detection. Skills and skill challenges are great, but spells and powers should also have utility in social or exploration encounters. I think Daemon69 really hit the mark in suggesting that 4th edition misses out on this almost completely.
The problem with that though is if you thought you were getting into a social, or just RP general situation ahead of time. One would prepare mostly spells and ablilites that one would think would be benefical in the upcoming scenarios. Then if you got into a combat, you were a determent to the team. What 4e does is make them rituals which requires a feat to obtain, or to make them utility powers which everyone gets. Furthermore there is nothing in the rules saying you can't try a hypnotism, or a turn undead on NPCs. The DM might need to think a bit fast on his feet since one typically doesn't wish the typcial combat effect that said powers might imply.
In response to Lord_Zack, the non-combat powers are brought out in skill powers, or just the skills themselves. Do they have there own problems, yes. But powers and rules are all described in the Skill section. Im not sure what the problem is there. Is it just to many rules?
In regards to the OP. He mentions seduction, fast-talking, penmenship, and preaching. All are covered by the skills Bluff, Diplomacy (or Bluff), Thievery (forged documents etc), and religion. A skill is not needed for every scenario that one comes across. In 4e they are broken down into very broad, general terms. If a group strictly wants an RP adventure, that option is available to them. It just means that combat powers are ignored. If a groups wants combat, it means that combat powers aren't ignored. I have played both ways in 3.x and 4e and I have fun either way.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 15, 2012 - 8:03AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2010
|
When leveling, if you gave me the option to choose between an extra damage die for my paladin's smite power or the ability to detect if someone's lying, I'd opt for the lie detection. Skills and skill challenges are great, but spells and powers should also have utility in social or exploration encounters. I think Daemon69 really hit the mark in suggesting that 4th edition misses out on this almost completely.
So you took Skill Focus - Insight instead of Weapon Focus as a Level 1 feat right? And you boosted Perception and Dungeoneering with your Elf and Dwarf PCs right?
I've said it before, I'll say it again: People that complain about not being able to roleplay in fourth edition probably aren't good at it anyway. Or they just can't comprehend the fact that a skill like Arcana can encompass lots of 'magic' type skills.
Wizards of the Coast can suck it.
|
|
|
