D&D 5E Pacifist Class Concept

[ro]

I am working on a homebrew pacifist class having the following features:

- You are a full caster with access to all spells in the game.
- You cannot willingly/intentionally damage anyone nor direct someone else to damage someone.
- If you cast a spell that would directly deal damage, no damage is dealt.
- You can create obstacles and effects that can deal damage to creatures that interact with them.

How powerful would this class be as a concept?

 

[nswanson27]

I am working on a homebrew pacifist class having the following features:

- You are a full caster with access to all spells in the game.
- You cannot willingly damage anyone nor direct someone else to damage someone.
- If you cast a spell that would directly deal damage, no damage is dealt.
- You can create obstacles and effects that can deal damage to creatures that interact with them.

How powerful would this class be as a concept?

So...
Banishment?
Summoning monster that you don't directly control?

I can see certain things that would be a bit OP at early levels.

 

[ro]

So...
Banishment?
Summoning monster that you don't directly control?

I can see certain things that would be a bit OP at early levels.

Spells would still be limited by level, as normal. Summoning a monster that you don't directly control would still constitute willing damage. My wording needs improvement. The idea is, you cannot take any action that would intentionally/knowingly/willingly cause damage to an enemy. Obstacles that do not attack and that an enemy could reasonably avoid are allowed, but summoning something that is likely to do damage, knowing that it would do so, is not allowed. If you banish a creature, you do not know that it will be damaged by the banishment.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

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.

Personally, I'm not sure how much fun this would be to play. During combats (where a lot of table time is spent), your options would be very limited.

The default world for D&D is a violent one. I imagine few pacifists would actually survive to adulthood.

 

[GreenTengu]

Well, you can put such restrictions on a character, but I don't know how far they would get.

The thing is though, the game absolutely doesn't enable one to successfully elude an aggressor with any sort of reliability short of reducing their hit points to 0. Charm person or sleep could work against humanoids attempting to harm you, but it is balanced at about a 50/50 success rate while the damage-dealing spells at any given level have a generally better chance of reducing the target to 0 hit points-- and will work against creatures sleep and charm would not.


Of course-- you could go with a character who generally contributes t combat using exclusively bless spells and cure spells. So the given character isn't technically doing harm, the character is merely empowering and assisting others in doing the harm for them.

 

[Ganymede81]

We call this class a Wizard whose DM lets him use his spells to knock out instead of kill.

 

[Fimbria]

I have played a semi-peaceful paladin, mostly by accident. I was aiming for a lighthearted feel to the character, and part of that was the resolution to roll diplomacy at every opportunity. As it happened, that campaign featured many undead, automata, plants, and other non-sentient opponents, so he fought his fair share of combat anyway. It also helped that the DM had experience with troublesome playstyles; when the party wanted to fight and the paladin wanted to talk, another group of enemies would pop up off to one side and he basically ran two parallel encounters. If he hadn't done that, then, well, I gave it my best effort. I suppose there were options for non-lethal damage and prisoners, although those can be situational and heavily dependent on the cooperation of everyone else at the table.

Treantmonk has written a guide for wizards which strongly encourages battlefield control rather than direct damage. He calls it god-style, because the wizard controls the universe while lesser mortals fight their wars. According to him, it is very possible to be MVP for a campaign without ever dealing a single point of damage.

 

[FrogReaver]

I am working on a homebrew pacifist class having the following features:

- You are a full caster with access to all spells in the game.
- You cannot willingly/intentionally damage anyone nor direct someone else to damage someone.
- If you cast a spell that would directly deal damage, no damage is dealt.
- You can create obstacles and effects that can deal damage to creatures that interact with them.

How powerful would this class be as a concept?

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

 

[Immoralkickass]

I am working on a homebrew pacifist class having the following features:

- You are a full caster with access to all spells in the game.
- You cannot willingly/intentionally damage anyone nor direct someone else to damage someone.
- If you cast a spell that would directly deal damage, no damage is dealt.
- You can create obstacles and effects that can deal damage to creatures that interact with them.

How powerful would this class be as a concept?

So by these rules, Power Word: Kill is fine, right? RIGHT?!

 

[ro]

So by these rules, Power Word: Kill is fine, right? RIGHT?!

No. Anything that reduces hit points to disallowed.