D&D 5E Pacifist Class Concept

[ro]

You should read up on the concept of " a conscientious objector who was willing to serve". For example, medics in the American army in Vietnam who didn't carry rifles.

Yeah, this is the sort of direction I was thinking.

 

[ro]

Are you saying he can cast any spell in the game without preparation and the only stipulation is that the spell does no damage?

No, spells would still be prepared or known. I mean only that his class's spell list would include all spells.

 

[Immoralkickass]

No. Anything that reduces hit points to disallowed.

Well technically, PW:K doesn't reduce hit points or do damage, it just puts the 'dead' debuff on you.

 

[Imaculata]

You could also think in the direction of retributive powers, so that any hostile actions by enemies are discouraged by them directly hurting themselves. The class could redirect damage from your allies back to your enemies. Or protective spells that force enemies to make Willpower saves to attack allies protected by you.

 

[ro]

You could also think in the direction of retributive powers, so that any hostile actions by enemies are discouraged by them directly hurting themselves. The class could redirect damage from your allies back to your enemies. Or protective spells that force enemies to make Willpower saves to attack allies protected by you.

This is an interesting idea. The Sanctuary spell does this. What others are there?

 

[Horwath]

I had an idea idea about similar character.

He would use skills and searched for diplomatic solutions for all encounters if possible. Attacking would be the very last option.

You should focus on skills. Gather by class/multiclass/archetypes/feats as many as you can and try to get as many expertise for those skills as possible.

Needed skills: Insight, Persuasion, Deception, History. Desirable skills: Intimidation, Investigation, Nature, Religion, Arcana.

8th level character:

Rogue3(UA scout archetype), Cleric(knowledge)1, Bard(lore)4.

Half-elf

Feat: from UA; everybody's friend.

skills:
2 half-elf
2 background(charlatan)
4 rogue +1 th.tools +Survival and Nature(scout)
1 multiclass bard +3 music ins. + 3skills(lore)
0 cleric +2 knowledge skills(knowledge domain)

total: 16

Tools: thief tools, Disguise kit, Forgery kit.
Expertise:

2 rogue + Nature and Survival
2 bard
2 cleric(knowledge picked at 1st level cleric)
2 feat(Deception and Persuasion)

total: 8

Get the guidance cantrip for an extra +1d4

 

[Fleetwood C. DeVille]

Mechanics aside, how would this character justify traveling with companions that kill others and takes their stuff?

 

[Celebrim]

Pacifist is too broad and too general to be a class concept. Pacifist is a feat that regulates the behavior of presumably many classes in exchange for some sort of benefit. In general, in my opinion, the feat would largely be an 'NPC Feat', in that it explains certain aspects of the in game universe and offers obvious benefit to some persons within that universe - who have a different role in the universe than the one presumed or default for PCs. You could have pacifist clerics, pacifist paladins, pacifist bards and so on and so forth. Most of these concepts are of questionable viability as PCs, and I would generally discourage all but the most experienced players from pursuing them.

A base class represents an entire role within the in game universe which is both distinctive and important. A class is an aspect of society manifested by its culture. It's possible to write up a base class in too narrow of a fashion, but in 5e you will helpfully discover that your base class concept is too narrow when it has or you can imagine only one archetype. Classes have much more going on than simply being 'pacifists'. A class should only exist in the campaign world if members of that class are frequently manifested within the culture. For example, only cultures where war is known will manifest 'fighters', and only cultures with religion will manifest 'clerics'. Of course, this is practically every culture we can imagine.

A reasonable starting point of a base class would be to imagine a culture where persons make a pledge of pacifism for some heroic purpose and are commonly observed in every day life and where these persons are expected to thwart tangible (rather than abstract) manifestations of evil. Let's call this call 'Protector'. 'Protectors' forgo violence (to some degree) in exchange for power that results from the forgoing of violence. In D&D, for this to be viable you've got several different approaches that you can use in combination:

a) Protectors are Bricks. A protector by forgoing violence becomes highly resistant to violence. They gain traits like resistance to damage, immovability, and so forth.
b) Protectors are Healers. By forgoing violence, the Protector is better able to access healing life energy.
c) Protectors are Righteous. By forgoing violence, the Protector gains an aura of holiness which passively thwarts evil and drives it away.
d) Protectors are masters of nonlethal violence. Protectors that haven't fully given up violence, are masters of grappling and controlling foes without resorting to lethal force.

'Pacifism' is a very broad term, and includes various different degrees to which you forgo violence. Some Protectors forgo only deadly violence, or forgo only violence against other free willed sentient beings (and not say unintelligent undead or constructs). Obviously, the more violence they forgo - and/or the more restrictive their vows - the more power that they are able to access that pertains to forgoing violence. You'd have to work really hard to balance this well, because players will tend to try to subvert the rules. For example, nonlethal damage is just as lethal as lethal damage when used alongside someone else engaging in lethal damage. And a vow of pacifism that allows the Protector to engage in violence against (unintelligent) animals, (unintelligent) beasts, oozes, (unintelligent) plants, aberrations, constructs, undead, and evil outsiders might in practice rarely come into play in some campaigns because that list might well encompass most of the foes that the party would expect to face.

I wish you luck in your endeavor, but I feel your initial design is too simple and rather uninspired. You need to right up something with more details, and not simply handwave away the spell list by saying it contains 'all spells'.

 

[Eltab]

There was a thread on the old WotC website, which helped inform the 4e Pacifist Cleric paragon path in Divine Power. I don't remember the thread's title (it might have been 'Pacifist Cleric' or 'Why play a Pacifist') but you can try to search the Wayback Machine website for it. The thread tackled many of the challenges you will face.

The most disruptive factor in play may well be the player who picks such a class. In effect he is claiming "I'm a better more moral person than you hack-and-slash'ers, I'm going to interrupt your 'fun' and hog the decision-making before I allow you to do your thing," to the other players. As a prospective DM, you should be asking why the player wants to play a game with D&D's known style and tropes and background assumptions. As a player, why aren't you finding a Diplomacy-centric game to play?

A potential version of a Pacifist would be an Abjurer Wizard with access to some Cleric (and maybe Druid?) spells.
DO be sure to review all the spells available and make up a list that your new class / specialty school can use.