I vote grumbling. In my Tuesday game, we’ve only had one session of combat, and I’m already seeing folks shine. My rogue can still backstab and deal more damage than she has hitpoints, and her positioning abilities, new in 4ed, made her stand out as well. Everyone at the table gasped when we were reminded that the wizard had an at-will ranged AoE. The ranger still made twice as many to-hit rolls as anyone else.

In 4th Edition, a GM can put in environmental hazards to highlight a rogue’s abilities, or put in some lower-level minions to help the wizard shine. And clerics still own undead.

You are probably right

Grumbling. It all depends on how your group and GM feel and play.

If you run under the assumption that everything is combat oriented, you’ll run into combat, use your powers strategically, take a short or extended rest based solely on how many powers, surges, action points, and second winds used.

My wizard prevented one encounter entirely with a cantrip, sleeped an entire (small) tavern to avoid a barfight (rogue planted a stolen coinpurse on him), foraged up breakfast during his watch while on the road (Nature ftw), and fooled a bunch of goblins into abandoning their post (Linguist+Ghost Sound ftw). And he doesn’t “shine” any more than the rest of the group.

I haven’t counted, but it seems like proportion of combat to non-combat feats are about the same as they used to be.

That is not how the game has broken down at the table when I’ve played. There was still plenty of shining, just a different hue of shine.

I havn’t played a 4e game yet, but based on what I have read in the core books your probably right, at least to a degree. It will definately much harder for the GM

I vote too for grumbling

If your GM only puts you only in battles, then it’s his own doing. I DM’d a whole session of roleplaying, exploring the town and talking to people. I do agree that the first interest of my group (2 teens) was mostly for combat, but they did like talking to the lord, the inn manager, the blacksmith, the local sage, the old man and the wildflower merchant in town. My son was itching for battle at the end of the session, but his friend reminded him that “intel” is necessary to find out where the kobolds lair, the dragon’s tomb and the old ruined fort was in the region.

So, the only part of DnD that changed in 4e for me, is the combat mechanics. All the roleplaying is still there, even with a mechanic for deciding the outcome, but imho that’s not needed if the players roleplay the encounter. I do rely on some skills to determine on the fly what a PC’s might know or interpret. Insight, history, arcana, religion and nature are great skills in 4e because i find them concise and just rolling against a DC (i use the 15 easy, 20 hard for first levels) is easy for the me as DM.

So yes, combat is changed in 4e, but roleplay was not sacrificed. It is still there for DM’s and players who do want a story. For DM’s who want a tactical combat game, well 4e can provide that too.

So that’s my take on it. I do hope you find a good roleplaying DM who can make all the PC’s shine in non-combat and combat situations.

All you said, Francois, is true.
However, what I meant was that PCs classes are now more similar, therefore it is more difficult to prepare a moment strictly for one single PC to shine.

Also, I think that 4e is even more combat-oriented than the 3.x editions used to be, but this wasn’t the main topic of the post.

I ran a session the other night with three skill challenges - I’m really happy with the way they worked out. Everyone got to participate, and everyone got to contribute to the success in turn. It’s better, really, if everyone gets to shine at some point during combat, and everyone gets to shine at some point outside of combat. Having, say, a bard whose main job is to act as “face man” while everyone else waits for the fighting to start, then sits out while everyone else kills stuff just increases the boredom.

I also like the way skill challenges offer rewards and penalties - too often in 3.x if the players missed a skill check the whole party would “lose the thread” of the plot and you’d have to scramble as a DM to offer a way to get them back on track (which makes the check meaningless) or else abandon the whole rest of the adventure, which is unfortunate if that’s not what the players want to do.

Overall, i’ve been surprised at how different the classes feel different in practice despite having the same mechanics and rules framework.

Grumbles!
In the last 12 odd sessions of 4E I’ve run between two groups, I’ve noticed that in 4E it’s more like “everyone gets to shine at some point during a good encounter,” rather than only one person standing out. Likewise, an absence can be felt…just toss a mess of undead against a party missing a cleric, for example. Or a mob of minions at a group without a wizard.

The thing I like best about 4E is not how everyone has a chance to shine now, but the fact that no one is sitting on the sidelines back in the inn, recharing their spells and health while the other half of the party runs around having fun without them. Downtime for characters is now a more measured and consistent affair, and half the game’s classes are not functionally impaired after using their “big guns” in one encounter (barring the dailies issue, of course).