Roles in RPGs

[Razz]

It seems to me like much of the dissatisfaction with the current class and skill system comes from classes marrying a specific combat role with a specific noncombat role.

For example, in core 3.5 it's impossible (without resorting to multiclassing) to have a wizard who can disarm a trap. Or a fighter who can sweet talk a princess.

So why not break the bond, and allow the player to choose their character's roles for both aspects of the game?

Combat roles: melee, archer, buffer, blaster.
Noncombat roles: social, sneaky, lore, locks/traps, wilderness, healer, crafter.

If you want to play a warrior who is knowledgeable (a Doc Holiday or Aragorn type), then you can. If you want to play mage who happens to enjoy tinkering with locks, you can.

No multiclassing, but choices can be further broadened via talent trees.

I don't like that at all. The class system is fine the way it is. You have to keep the class system because it provides balance.

A fighter that has the diplomatic skills of a courtier and can disarm traps? It's not really a fighter anymore. It's something else. That something else is where multiclassing comes into play.

Also, it'd be really hard to playtest things without the standard Warrior, Rogue, Priest/Healer, Wizard types staying within their roles. If every class can do what every other class does without any sort of penalty, what's the point of anything then really?

At least it's balanced with the way it is now. If you're a Fighter and want to dabble in social skills, take a level of Aristocrat or Rogue or two. In effect, you're giving up some abilities of a Fighter in order to gain the abilities of that. Sounds reasonable, streamlined and balanced to me.

What you suggest is just making things complicated and less streamlined.

As for that whole talent tree thing, etc. I don't understand how that system is streamlined and better? Trees tend to, well, get bigger. And branch all over the place...and create tangles of vines and weeds and interconnect with other trees...rather complex. And things will get ridiculous when stuff begins to say,"To qualify for this you'll need access to these skills taken from this talent tree up to this point in the tree, and then branch off from this other talent tree to qualify for this ability in order to finally qualify for the ability to actually take in order to qualify for---".

No...feats, throw some points into your skills, and alternate class features are wayyyy more simpler and streamlined. You need feat A, B, C, Str 13, BAB +4, done.

 

[EP]

There is something to be said for an "open class" system, where you're not limited at all to anything except what you want to spend your skill slots/feats on. If you want to create a brute with high Diplomacy and take away from any training in bashing in skulls, your loss or you'd better find a way to make up for it through talk. And if a spellcaster wants to practise picking locks instead of casting knock all the time, he'll just have to memorize that other spell later. Just because a person has a broad range of skills doesn't make them more powerful - they can do more, just not as well as a more focused person.

And there's no way something like would become official D&D stuff. Classes are traditional and some things will be kept the way they are no matter what version they come out with, the same reason why you have to memorize spells every time after casting. Tradition.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I don't like that at all. The class system is fine the way it is. You have to keep the class system because it provides balance.

A fighter that has the diplomatic skills of a courtier and can disarm traps? It's not really a fighter anymore. It's something else. That something else is where multiclassing comes into play.

Right. People complained that 3E kept classes, and the argument was "well, classes help players learn their roles and know what to expect from other players. A fighter is a fighter." Then everyone just multiclassed anyway, cherry picking abilities by dipping into a class for a level or two.

Also, it'd be really hard to playtest things without the standard Warrior, Rogue, Priest/Healer, Wizard types staying within their roles. If every class can do what every other class does without any sort of penalty, what's the point of anything then really?

Not so. From a playtest/combat balance standpoint, there are still four clear roles. Melee, archer, and two caster classes (support or blaster).

And not every character can do what every other character does. You have to choose.

If anything, separating skills from combat ability makes things easier to balance. Saying rogues are balanced against fighters because rogues have more skills is comparing apples to oranges. The classes are *un*balanced. The fighter is much more powerful in a fight, and the rogue is much more powerful out of a fight. Total and complete imbalance. It's like saying a tank is balanced against a kitten, because while the tank can destroy the kitten in a fight, the kitten is more fun to pet. WTF? Two imbalances don't create balance/two wrongs don't make a right.

Better to balance a set of classes across combat, then balance another set of classes within noncombat, and let players make two choices from these separate groupings of classes.

At least it's balanced with the way it is now. If you're a Fighter and want to dabble in social skills, take a level of Aristocrat or Rogue or two. In effect, you're giving up some abilities of a Fighter in order to gain the abilities of that. Sounds reasonable, streamlined and balanced to me.

Sounds cumbersome and unrealistic to me. Why can't my fighter be sociable? Why does learning how to string a sentence together force the fighter to fall behind the combat curve (loses a +1 BAB). Dipping into rogue for just the social skills brings along a host of other abilities, including sneak attack (good, I guess) and a crummy hit die and BAB (bad).

Also, with the way DCs scale, you can't get by with a single dip. You have to keep going back for more levels, or waste skill points on cross-class skills (which, again, prevent you from keeping up with escalating DCs).

What you suggest is just making things complicated and less streamlined.

I think it's more streamlined. Instead of having to look over every class, and dip one level here, one level there, "oops I have to *start* as a rogue, to get the big skill boost, then switch to fighter for the BAB, armor, and feat, then to Ranger for free Track and the ability to use wands of Cure Light Wounds"... that's complicated.

Much better make it as simple as building a value meal:

Choose a combat role: "I want to play a guy in armor with a sword, so... melee."
Choose a noncombat role: "I want my guy to have a silver tongue, so... social."

Done.

The decision to be a guy who swings a sword doesn't railroad you into being an uncouth social reject, and the decision to be a smooth talker doesn't force you to be an unarmored d6-HD guy who can't go toe-to-toe in a fight.

-z

 

[Flynn]

If you look at Grim Tales, you have the six character classes based on the stats, and then the player chooses three background skills, selects an occupation that grants three to five background skills, and then chooses a knowledge skill, a craft skill and a profession skill. All of these class skills are independent of class. The author has since suggested that the player could alternately choose six skills instead of taking three and an occupation, and then add knowledge, craft and profession. I've been playing GT for a year and a half, and it works quite well.

Just something to consider when discussing such an approach,
Flynn

 

[Zaruthustran]

That sounds pretty cool. And it's from Badaxe Games? As in, has something to do with Wulf Ratbane?

I'll check it out.

-z

 

[FireLance]

One other possibility could be to make each role into a separate class, and have the option of starting characters at higher than 1st level if the players want to start with more rounded characters.

For example, a party starting at 3rd level could consist of a melee 2/social 1, an archer 1/stealth 1/traps 1, a blaster 1/lore 2, and a buff 1/wilderness 1/healer 1.

 

[bulletmeat]

At that point why don't you just do a skill based system, put combat as a skill (light melee off Dex, heavy melee off Str, ranged off Dex) and have just skill prereqs for feats? Certain backgrounds would give you a starting point of 4-6 trained skills and 1-3 starting feats.

 

[Arkhandus]

Eh, that wouldn't really work any better.

Aragorn was not just melee + lore, for instance. He was melee + ranged, lore + wilderness + sneaky + healing (though limited to understanding of healing herbs and such; or maybe it was just Arwen who had healing skills with herbalism in the books?).

And it just wouldn't really fit so well into D&D. You want extreme granularity, you play a classless, levelless, point-based system like HERO or GURPS. You want something with reasonably well-defined archetypes that have recognizeably different abilities, you play D&D or some facsimile thereof.


And just where is Joe Fighter or Tim Wizard or Bob Barbarian going to learn trap-handling, for instance? Chances are they won't learn it unless they're actually devoting some significant time to learning the fine arts of burglary or tomb-robbing. Which would make them a likely candidate for some multiclassing into Rogue, if they're going to have any reason and means of learning trap-disarmament. Where is Bob Barbarian going to learn social skills if his tribe is a bunch of screaming orcish and half-orcish lunatics who love nothing but violence? He's going to be hard-pressed to develop social skills unless he spends some significant time and effort with actual social situations elsewhere, which likely means taking a level of Rogue, Bard, Expert, or similar. Where is Jim Rogue going to learn wilderness skills if he grows up in the city and only leaves it after many years of surviving by wit, sneakyness, and ruthlessness alone? He's going to need some adjusting to the wilderness once he finally gets out of the slums and on the road. Definite candidate for multiclassing 1 level into Ranger once he gets used to the wilderness and the different kinds of dangers it poses.


Meh. I'd much rather just see a bit in the way of options for adding a few extra class skills when suitable. Most Fighters aren't knights; a knight would be a multiclassed Aristocrat/Fighter, or a Paladin, or Aristocrat/Paladin, or a Knight from the Player's Handbook II. But it would be nice if Sir Joe the knightly Fighter could take a few or two for just a few more class skills appropriate to his knightly status, even though it isn't a significant part of his training; by focusing on the Fighter class, he's showing an emphasis (and preference) for raw combat skill over other, more utilitarian, skills.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly, the idea of Alternate Class Features is exactly what fills this gap. You simply swap out the features of a given class at level X with features that change the role without radically departing from its baseline.

You want a diplomatic fighter? Swap out 4th level abilities (feat+specs), gain Diplomacy and Sense Motive as Class Skills, +4 on Diplomacy checks. Done.

Simple, sweet and you can pretty much alter the base classes endlessly. Best of both worlds.

 

[Nifft]

You want a diplomatic fighter? Swap out 4th level abilities (feat+specs), gain Diplomacy and Sense Motive as Class Skills, +4 on Diplomacy checks. Done.

Simple, sweet and you can pretty much alter the base classes endlessly. Best of both worlds.

Certainly better for my PC who only ever wants two levels of Fighter!

-- N