|
1 year ago ::
Jan 22, 2012 - 12:48PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
But every character needs to be mechanically effective in combat.
Only in certain campaigns.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 22, 2012 - 12:56PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Heroic non-combatant characters in action movies participate as a form of support role often very effective ones. There doesnt seem to require characters to have a "hide uselessly and blatantly incompetant in the corner" role ... twiddling there thumbs because this is the climax of the story and they literally cant participate.
Heroic non-combatant characters in fiction (movie or otherwise) benefit from author fiat -- either there is something important to do at the same time as the fight happens, there is some way they can leverage their non-combat abilities in a fight, or they just have ridiculous luck -- but without game system support, this puts a lot of work on the DMs shoulders, and game system support usually winds up as 'this character actually is effective in combat, just in a non-standard way'.
Correct... though without any DM wrangling (author fiat) or system shifting ... the existing elements can be leveraged it can be an aspect of how you describe maneuvers (one of the other authors fiat)...sure you might have explicit luck rules but is that a trip or oops I dropped something and the enemy stumbles over me when I bend reaching for it.
If you arent constantly using the same descriptives for things like that float a bitter better  which is also more plausible if you arent forced by the system in to taking everything down one style of move ie a variety of effects.
Did I just kick an enemies shin and make him stumble in to my allies blade or did I throw one of the handy books at him and get that same result, an extra attack for an adjacent allie. Did I preplan that like batman... or have it just happen... like Joxer.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 22, 2012 - 1:06PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2008
|
4E had the goal of "Everyone is on equal footing when it comes to combat" and I'm wondering if that's really necessary. Combat can be a secondary or tertiary focus for a class, can't it? Do you think there can be room in the design space for characters who focus on out of combat abilities instead of just fighting?
I'd have made this a poll but I don't know how.
You're wrong, here's why.
4E didn't have that goal. It didn't put everyone on an equal footing when it comes to combat. It gave people a basic framework and set-up which meant it was hard to be completely useless should you need to fight. If you wanted to focus on non-combat stuff, you were absolutely free to.
There's no requirements, there's no auto-good at combat in 4e. There's less being absoluetely useless because your build doesn't compare against others. There's less obsoletion, there's less demand for a heavy building towards combat just to suceed at combat.
The problem 4e addressed was that you could be a total failure through no fault of your own and there would be no way to claw your way back. You couldn't be good at combat unless you strived to be good at it or picked certain options which just lead to victories. This is true for everything else prior to 4e. You couldn't just be good at things, you had to try and be good and back up your word that you were good.
To answer the actual question you should be asking, "Does everyone really need to be good at combat?", no they don't.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 22, 2012 - 1:08PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2001
|
While I tend to differ on the previous statement, I respectfully disagree completly with this one. Do you think every character should be able to roll diplomacy? or ride? or pick locks? or climb a tree?
I agree, at least in part. At the very least characters are limited by the rolls they make for their stats. Low strength and or dexterity = tiny chance at tree climbing. No charisma = tiny chance at diplomacy, low strength and dexterity =poor ride, low intelligence or dexterity = little chance of picking a lock. In every case I think there should be some chance, however small. There are also other variables too; you're a creature hated by the townspeople, do they let you in the gate? Is a character wearing plate mail and carrying a pack really able to get up a tree? Even the smartest person in the world can't get past a lock without the right tools. It isn't as simple as "I am heroic so I can do it." Some of the most heroic characters in literature and films remained heroic despite their inability to do things. I remember in ICEs arms law there was a chart for performing actions that went from very easy to absurd and you had to roll 96-00 on d% a couple of times in a row to perform an absurd action. To answer the OP question, I think every class should be able to achieve something spectacular in combat; for fighting types this should be achieved with fighting, for caster types casting, and for stealth types this should be achieved with surprise and movement. I don't want to generalize too much though. My hopes are that if you want to make Deadeye Dan the crossbow slinging wizard and are prepared to make some sacrifices it should be possible that you edge out the fighter with crossbow use. A caster should never be able to be able to beat a fighter with his weapon of choice though.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 22, 2012 - 2:05PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Oct 29, 2003
|
I think the default should be everyone is ok at both combat and non-combat stuff, because that makes the game accessible to the widest range of players.
Back in 1e days I saw people who wanted to play ninjas become disillusioned because of the weakness of the thief class, and this was very difficult to fix within the rules.
For those who want weaker combat skills, talk to your DM and work out a deal, or just downplay the combat stats on your sheet. Anything else risks making popular PC concepts, balanced PCs, impossible to give permission in the rules for outlier concepts like no-combat PCs.
The next D&D edition is showing clear signs of being lower in mechanics than either 3e or 4e, and will be more dependent on DM judgement. I hope there are good articles on hints for such judgement, clear communication, and compromise in the next edition, as few player will agree on all points even when they get on well with each other.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 22, 2012 - 2:11PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
The next D&D edition is showing clear signs of being lower in mechanics than either 3e or 4e, and will be more dependent on DM judgement. I hope there are good articles on hints for such judgement, clear communication, and compromise in the next edition, as few player will agree on all points even when they get on well with each other.
Poor and adversarial DMing really messed over my 1e experience... but so did mixed expectations I wanted vivid moment by moment action and the game was giving me 1 minute melee rounds, among other things.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 22, 2012 - 2:17PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2009
|
But every character needs to be mechanically effective in combat.
Only in certain campaigns.
1 - I disagree. The book should support all campaigns, not just those that happen to have very low levels of combat.
2 - I should have included my previous post. Add the caveat 'as long as combat as the primary vehicle of PC growth'.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 22, 2012 - 2:21PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2009
|
Poor and adversarial DMing really messed over my 1e experience... but so did mixed expectations I wanted vivid moment by moment action and the game was giving me 1 minute melee rounds, among other things.
That sucks you got a poor DM. A poor DM will mess up an experience in any version. Vivid descriptions and emotional involvement are things a good DM can bring into any edition also. One minute rounds can have vivid moment by moment action if done right.
The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.
Attributed to Gary Gygax by Allan Varney in a sidebar to a review of the Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 22, 2012 - 2:31PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
The book should support all campaigns, not just those that happen to have very low levels of combat.
I totally agree.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 22, 2012 - 2:48PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2007
|
I want to ask where people are getting their inspiration for their "non-combat" characters. I have said it in another thread but I cant think of any character in popular media that doesnt participate when the chips are down and weapons are drawn.
 Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.
|
|
|
