D&D 5E If an option is presented, it needs to be good enough to take.

[JamesonCourage]

Awhile ago I did a post whereby I broke down each pillar (Combat, Exploration, Social) into its sub-pillar elements.

I remember skimming the OP, and following the thread.

I think if I were to take that exact schematic and throw together this "Sage" character that JC is describing it would likely turn out to be an A + in Exploration and also a high grade on the Social pillar

Good grades in exploration and social, probably.

I'm curious. I'm going to devise two scenarios here. Do you think you could comment on how you see the table/game dynamics of each of these playing out (with respect to each character's contribution/relevance and what kind of dynamic that would engender for a gaming group)?

I can only give concrete views for my group, but I should make a couple notes: I don't prep plots, so it'll be foreign; the dynamic would change based on which player was playing each character; my group will throw me a curveball once in a blue moon, but I have them pegged most of the time.

Let's say you play once a week for both of these for 5 hours at a time. That is 20 hours in a month. Each of these campaign arcs span 4 sessions/20 hours.

Short sessions for me! But, twice a week, which is on our high end.

Characters (all 7th level):

Okay. I like the Fighter, I'm meh on the Rogue (but he is 'standard' in the D&D background sense), I'm unsure on the Wizard, but I really like the Sage.

Arc 1: Generic murder mystery in a large city replete with devil worship among the nobility, a paid off city watch, co-conspirators within the government, human sacrifice, missing virgins, secret signs marking doors, infiltration of a masquerade ball, culminating in a great ritual at the end whereby a powerful devil summoned.

This... seems awfully... well, it's quite a bit more than I'm used to having pre-planned. For instance, I'm not sure what "infiltration of a masquerade ball" means.

Okay, let's say the PCs are looking into the murder mystery. They'd ask the Sage where they should check in*. The Sage would likely check with the nobility* with the Fighter as an escort (after briefing him on etiquette and some personal quirks), while the Rogue went around with the Wizard and probed the populace* while trying to avoid attention. Afterwards, the Sage and Fighter would question the guards*, while the Rogue and Wizard asked family members / friends / co-workers*.

After asking around, if they'd found who was responsible for the murder*, they'd likely try to bring this to the guard*, or if they were aware of their corruption*, they'd likely skip to nobility*, hopefully after determining who they could safely speak to*. Once they'd reported the murder, they'd either be done, or they'd get involved in the demon-summoning plot (if they knew of it*).

If they knew of it, they'd go one of two ways: convince the nobles to hire them some help* (pay off the paid-off guards, buy mercenaries, etc.) and try to stop it by force* (while the city's nobles and city watch fought itself), or they'd go for help. If they had enough time, they'd leave to a nearby city which would be their best bet* (less corrupted, more contacts, etc.), and then convince people there to come help the city*.

• Overall, I'm guessing the Rogue would help with gathering information, underground contacts, stealth, and somewhat in combat. Depending on his ties underground, he might use it as leverage, even against nobility.
• The Fighter would help in any fight they got into (especially if there's a city fighting against itself), potentially making people more likely to talk to the Sage, and definitely discouraging people from attacking him. Depending on his ties in the military, he might use that as leverage, either casually or by threat.
• The Wizard would probably be rolling his own Lore checks (determining who to talk to, intrigue, magic used, etc.), and aiding with his spells if there's a combat. The Wizard might have social ties to a Wizard's guild that he could leverage.
• The Sage likely determined who to talk to often (who's safe, intrigue, etc.), helped convince people to aid them (nobles, etc.), and gave them ties to the nobility, which he'd likely use as leverage (along with his church) often enough.
• Again, though, see my caveats, above.

*(roll determines success or failure; might branch off depending on result).

Arc 2: Nobleman turned adventurer (the modern variety...not the D&D variety...basically Richard Branson) hires the PCs to escort him on a journey to climb the highest mountain in all the world. Naturally, (because hey, this is D&D) the harrowing journey is treacherous beyond words, fraught with all manner of environmental, conditioning and terrain difficulties, horrific creatures (maybe a flight of wyverns, a tribe of frost giants/orcs, ice trolls, goblins, etc) and the remote peak of the mountain contains the haunted ruins of an elven civilization lost to the world some 10,000 years...that venerates the wicked Fey Prince of the Winter Court.

This one is also going to vary wildly. First, they'd research* the path, geography, the equipment they'll need, and area. They'd buy maps, equipment for the journey, and the like. They'd might even look into the guy hiring them, but it'd most likely be a casual check* to see if they know something about him.

From there, they'd set off. The Sage would likely try* to help them avoid threats (environmental conditions, wyverns, giants, orcs, trolls, etc.), while the Rogue would scout ahead* (but still close by), just to avoid patrols*, spot ambushes*, look for trouble*, etc. The Wizard might use some illusions if they felt it necessary if combat came close to happening, to throw off monsters that might find them*.

If monsters couldn't be avoided, the Sage would likely try to negotiate with them* (if they were intelligent), while giving queues* to the Rogue to lie for him*. If combat did happen, the Sage would likely lead the noble away to somewhere within minutes where they could hide*, while the Fighter, Wizard, and Rogue engaged in combat* (with the Wizard aiding their escape* if necessary).

They'd likely not want to venture into the ruins at the peak, but would follow the noble in if he insisted and paid them more (since they went on this adventure, they're obviously interested in money or exploration). The Wizard would likely try to identify any markings*, while the Sage or Wizard might know some of what's going on with some checks*. I'm not sure what's going on with the Winter Court; inside, the Rogue would scout* or lie for the Sage*, the Fighter would protect the party* or look imposing to prevent a fight*, the Sage would try to determine what he could or negotiate / detect lies*, and the Wizard would likely examine runes*, attack enemies*, and perhaps try to charm someone important out of desperation*.

• Overall, the Rogue would scout ahead, looking for trouble before it happened. If things looked easy, the party might ambush the enemies from an advantageous position (since killing them might be safer than leaving them behind), lying for the Sage, and looking for traps.
• The Fighter seems more likely to engage in combat in this scenario, so he might fight the wyverns / orcs / trolls / giants along the way, plus any dangers in the Winter Court. He'd also try to block the path while the Sage/Noble retreated, and look imposing while the Sage tried to negotiate and Rogue lied.
• The Wizard would be trying to identify magic or runes, protecting the party from the environment, using illusions to mislead enemies, aiding in combat against the wyverns / orcs / trolls / giants / Winter Court, make obstacles so the party can retreat, and then trying to charm dangerous enemies if desperate.
• The Sage would be responsible for the majority of the research prior to going, probably the person who questioned the noble (considering the Sage's own status), would lead the noble if the party encountered combat, would try to negotiate with enemies to avoid combat, would try to identify weaknesses / cultural aspects / potential social weaknesses (wants, fears, etc.) of enemies, and the like.

*(roll determines success or failure; might branch off depending on result).

These are two extremely dispirate scenarios (with accordingly dispirate challenges). With regards to niches and meaningful contribution towards a successful outcome, how do you see each of these characters fitting into these two campaign arcs? I have an opinion on this but hearing yours would be much more illuminating toward the the angle that the thread has taken. Think you could give it a shot? Maybe put a grade by each character for each arc (and expound on the reasoning for that grade)?

Hopefully that's at least something. I don't want to put letter grades, since there's too many ways it can branch. But hopefully it's a start. It was fun to write up, though; thanks for that! As always, play what you like

 

[Manbearcat]

@JamesonCourage

That was quite helpful and quite thorough, thanks. I may respond after some thought but mostly I just wanted to put something concrete together whereby pemerton, Hussar, Greyice, Bluenose and Tony Vargas (I think thats everyone?) could understand your thoughts on in what ways and to what degree your "Sage" character would be contributing in 2 very different adventure types/plot arcs and hopefully they can then further extrapolate the dynamics of how that contribution might play out in their own games and in D&D in general. I had a friend who liked to do this long ago (play these types of characters) so I have DMed this situation so I do have an opinion on it but there are enough opinions at this point so one more won't help anything.

By the by, what I meant by "infiltration of masquerade ball" was that the game would involve the PCs infiltrating a masquerade ball amongst the nobility (masks/costumes hiding identities of course) where they were not invited as a means of investigating the players and plots in the devil-worship cult (and the associated kidnappings/murders).

See here for a good excerpt on The Court of the Winter Fey.

 

[pemerton]

Not wearing the armor when you can is one thing, since your character might not for some reason. However, pretending you can't cast spells when you can, or not using attack bonus when you have some, etc., are all examples of the Oberoni Fallacy

Happily I didn't canvass either such thing. I simply canvassed the wizard not adding every spell to his/her spellbook that s/he is entitled to upon levelling up.

As I said, this is analagous to being proficient in some armour but nevertheless not wearing it.

If a character doesn't wear armor, it's usually because he either can't to any real effect (no proficiency), the trade-offs aren't worth it (check penalty, etc.), or his Dexterity is very high.

My priest build is proficient in medium armour and has no DEX bonus. The reason for not wearing armour is because I am going for the archetype of non-combat sage.

D&D doesn't have a class of a non-magic-using sage. I've seen and used plenty of very knowledgeable sages in my time of playing. And I've seen plenty of it in fiction.

You can have knowledgeable sages who don't use magic, just as you can have skilled swordsmen who don't wear armour. My point is that those sages are not better sages than the most knowledgeable wizards, just as those swordsmen are not more skilled than plate-armoured fighters.

Then make the dedicated non-magic sages better? Higher bonuses, advantage, rerolls, more Lore skills, etc. (and that's not even touching probably contentious mechanics, like being able to make up your answers, etc.).

<snip>

You can just buff the sage.

I explained, in my earlier post, why I don't agree with this. For a wizard, being knowledgeable shouldn't require trade-offs. In a gameworld in which magical ability is the acme of knowledge, it shouldn't require sacrificing scholarly ability in order to build a spell-using character. Spell-using PCs (or, at least, a certain subset of them - clerics, wizards and warlocks) are the most knowledgeable around.

If you want to build your non-spell-using sage so that s/he is functionally equivalent to a diviner, but his/her divination magic is flavoured in some other fashion (a PC who bears roughly the same relationship to a wizard as a warlord does to a cleric), that is fine - it won't crowd out other essential archetypes, though is at the margins of the fiction in my view (because of the link between learning and magic) - but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for such a build in D&Dnext!

How does the option hurt you? That's what I said I was waiting to hear, and "you'd need to water down the other classes to make room for it" is not something I think it close to being true.

The option hurts me by changing the underlying fiction, and potentially the tightness of the scene-framing and action resolution mechanics.

In the fiction of D&D, magical knowledge is the pinnacle of knowledge. If the game makes room for your sage, it loses that fiction.

D&D is a party game. Given that it won't have the sorts of mechanics that support disparate PCs in games like HW/Q, BW etc, if it permits builds of the sort that you describe it is likely to have watered down or ineffective scene-framing mechanics, and possibly also the same in respect of action resolution mechanics, in order to make Shadowrun-style parties (as per [MENTION=6694877]slobo777[/MENTION]) work within more-or-less simulationinst scene framing and action resolution conventions.

No, you could just leave the dial set at it's 3/3/3 default and not be affected. Problem solved?

<snip>

Ignore the option, play 3/3/3, and problem solved.

<snip>

I addressed this, too: some people are okay with disparity. If you aren't, ignore the option, and play 3/3/3. Problem solved.

Problem not solved. I'm still stuck with crappy action resolution and scene-framing.

4e is, in my own view, far and away the best version of D&D to date in part because of its tightness and focus in these two respects. And that tightness and focus is predicated on the PC build rules that produce a wide variety of PCs (in terms of colour, capability, etc) who nevertheless are able to engage in party play across the spectrum of fiction from social intrigue to exploration to vicious combat.

I already have a game like the one you're describing - it's called Rolemaster, and there is currently an open playtest on for the new edition - and it is sloppy at precisely the points I'm talking about: wonderful PC build, but pedestrian action resolution (except for its melee combat and some aspects of spell casting) and no support at all for scene framing. And these things are not unconnected, for the reasons I've given above.

I just wanted to put something concrete together whereby pemerton, Hussar, Greyice, Bluenose and Tony Vargas (I think thats everyone?) could understand your thoughts on in what ways and to what degree your "Sage" character would be contributing in 2 very different adventure types/plot arcs and hopefully they can then further extrapolate the dynamics of how that contribution might play out in their own games and in D&D in general.

I don't object to the sage per se - I set out 3 builds for it above!

But the sage needs hit points, and probably some combat-useful social skill (charm person, diplomacy, or something similar). And the sage can't be better at lore than wizards, clerics etc as that is stomping on the well-established D&D trope that spellcasters are the best scholars.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't object to the sage per se - I set out 3 builds for it above!

But the sage needs hit points, and probably some combat-useful social skill (charm person, diplomacy, or something similar). And the sage can't be better at lore than wizards, clerics etc as that is stomping on the well-established D&D trope that spellcasters are the best scholars.

Yeah. I was trying to set up 2 scenario (which is why I included the generalist wizard) that would let JC express to you guys (in actual gaming context) how this might work at his table. And then you guys could look at the expression of his table through that context and have a bit of a better platform at communicating to each other.

I don't have time to give my opinion fully (and to be honest I don't think it will illuminate anything further so it will be pretty gratuitous). Suffice to say that I do not think that specialization (to the exclusion of the ability to apply yourself, and your character, to a broad swath of challenges) is particularly healthy for most tables. If the players and the DM are very, very much on board, understand the implications and are capable/willing to deal with them then it can work. However, these sorts of tables are extraordinary anomalies...and the DM load under such circumstances will be objectively greater than it would be if all characters were broadly proficient and possessed parity in power. Nonetheless, it can be done. But no, I do not think D&D should be reconstituted around this design aim. I do think that a module * for tables like JC's would be a way to address this (what I perceive as an outlier) playstyle preference.

I did DM a character much like this. It was a bard who was extraordinarily well traveled, knew a little bit about everything, and followed the PCs chronicling their adventures for a book he was writing (inspired by Bilbo's "There and Back Again" and Volo's "Travel Guides"). He was an utter coward but he was very functional as a lore-man and face-man. The dynamic at the table was at times "fun" and at times "contentious" (when he refused to attack when a TPK was at risk) and at times "maddening" (on my end) as he was generally objectively better at "cavorting and influencing" than everyone (so he felt that he should always be the one handling social situations and felt that due to his lack of combat influence that others should oblige him here) and whipping up "soft-divinations". I basically pretended like he didn't exist in combat challenges and worked the party numbers around that premise. At that point I had a group of 2 fantastic, agreeable, great chemistry gamers...2 "kinda just there" guys...1 "my boyfriend drug me here" girl...and the guy outlined above. It was a mish-mashed porridge to be sure. I wouldn't dream of doing it again with a group that incoherent in chemistry and functionality. The load on me was extreme.

If I did this in 4e I would likely make the person play a lazy warlord/bard hybrid or multi-class build (Int and Cha) with Vile Scholar, Seer or Oghma's Faithful Theme. Ritual Caster + Feats and skill powers to support Lore Mastery and Leader components of combat support by proxy of "lazy-buffing." This likely would not be to JC's liking but if someone wanted to play this sort of "colour character" then it might work within the confines of that sort of build. Sort of a Corporal Upham from Saving Private Ryan.

As far as 5e goes, I would suggest exactly the three builds that you put forth and if the PC is bound and determined to be "combat irrelevant" then the table would have to demonstrate that they can handle that scenario (and not get bent if the person doesn't contribute if things go awry), that they understand the implications (cross-pillar) on the game, and then I would handle combat encounter balancing as if the PCs are "minus 1" in total numbers. However, if the "Sage" is going to be built to dominate the other pillars, invade niche-space in those pillars and the player has the expectation that the other players will oblige them due to their combat impotency...then I can say unequivocally...I just wouldn't "work" (and I mean "work") under the auspices of that "social contract."

Some groups may be able to pull this off swimmingly and do it long term. I have yet to see one do either so my guess is that they are extreme outliers. * A module might be able to address these sorts of "colour characters". A fate point (which affects combat) for playing to archetype (cringing, cowing in fear, being the runner like Corporal Upham, etc) and then using that fate point for some type of fictional advantage (like a "lazy buff") for your group within the domain of combat might work. However, I suspect that by now people understand my antipathy for unconstrained Divination and its accompanying plot circumvention so the design of these types of characters need to be well tested and QCed.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Happily I didn't canvass either such thing. I simply canvassed the wizard not adding every spell to his/her spellbook that s/he is entitled to upon levelling up.

As I said, this is analagous to being proficient in some armour but nevertheless not wearing it.

The character may object to wearing armor for a number of reasons; he's against fighting, he values freedom of movement over protection, or the like. A wizard not adding spells is peculiar, unless the extra spells do start to explore a realm he objects to (like combat). It can be analogous, but seems like it begs to be explored more than the person not wearing armor. The Wizard, after all, is defined by spellcasting, and the same is not true of armor.

My priest build is proficient in medium armour and has no DEX bonus. The reason for not wearing armour is because I am going for the archetype of non-combat sage.

In-character reason? There can definitely be some, obviously (you don't believe in combat). But this is what I'm speaking of.

You can have knowledgeable sages who don't use magic, just as you can have skilled swordsmen who don't wear armour. My point is that those sages are not better sages than the most knowledgeable wizards, just as those swordsmen are not more skilled than plate-armoured fighters.

My point is that you can make them more knowledgeable than those who use magic, or better than those who wear armor. And you don't need to water down those other archetypes to do it.

I explained, in my earlier post, why I don't agree with this. For a wizard, being knowledgeable shouldn't require trade-offs. In a gameworld in which magical ability is the acme of knowledge, it shouldn't require sacrificing scholarly ability in order to build a spell-using character. Spell-using PCs (or, at least, a certain subset of them - clerics, wizards and warlocks) are the most knowledgeable around.

It seems, to me, that you don't think feats like Linguist should exist, then. It's knowledge over a feat that would increase spell-casting, after all. Again, I do think that trade-offs should optionally exist for those who want them. If you don't want them, awesome; stick to your 3/3/3 default.

In the fiction of D&D, magical knowledge is the pinnacle of knowledge. If the game makes room for your sage, it loses that fiction.

Two things, here. One, that sage won't exist if you stick to 3/3/3 (again, problem solved). Two, the game can still make magical knowledge the pinnacle of knowledge; it simply has to outpace Lore skills. It's not my preference, but it could still easily be designed that way.

Again, how does the sage upset your game, even fictionally, if you stick to 3/3/3 builds? How does the option upset it?

Problem not solved. I'm still stuck with crappy action resolution and scene-framing.

This is something that doesn't relate to the 3/3/3 default and the opt-out. It could all be 3/3/3 and have the same scene-framing and action resolution you don't like.

4e is, in my own view, far and away the best version of D&D to date in part because of its tightness and focus in these two respects. And that tightness and focus is predicated on the PC build rules that produce a wide variety of PCs (in terms of colour, capability, etc) who nevertheless are able to engage in party play across the spectrum of fiction from social intrigue to exploration to vicious combat.

They can support this, still, even with the opt-out. Just explain in the opt-out how it will change the game. You stick to 3/3/3 and a wide variety of PCs, and get the game you like. Done. As always, play what you like

 

[Cadence]

D&D doesn't have an archetype of a non-magic-using sage. Its sage archetype comes from classic D&D, and is a spell-user. On the PC side it's traditionally been covered by the wizard.

A game which makes scholarly wizards viable as PCs has no design room for a mundane sage - because there is no room to push the scholarly side harder than the wizard builds in question. They are already maximally scholastic!

Rolemaster has this very problem for its non-spell-using scholar class (found in RMC2, and also in the current playtest version of Character Law). The scholar is no better at scholarship than spell users - the only advantage a scholar has is less punitive PC build costs for non-scholarly pursuits (and in practice it is an NPC class - players build casters!).

The only way to create room for a "balanced" non-spell using scholar option is to reduce the scholarly dimensions of wizards, warlocks and clerics - which would be to go against all the traditions of D&D! !

I agree that it would be hard to create a non-spellcasting sage that was "balanced" with the spellcasters in terms of stereotypical adventuring. I'm great with magical knowledge being the pinnacle of things to be knowledgable about... and the Wizards are at the top of that heap. But I don't buy that the "sage" shouldn't have the ability to be better at the non-mystic areas of knowledge than the Wizard or Cleric could be, and actually had never considered (until this thread) that the Wizard and Cleric were viewed as the pinnacle of knowledge because they know more about everything. Is it bad that rogue knows more about brands of locks, the bard about epic songs, the ranger about a particular area of the countryside, the dwarf about styles of stone work?

The 1st edition DMG establishes that some NPCs who focus on knowledge are much more scholarly in their respective fields than the PCs who focus on spells first (although it also says that all Sages will have some random spells as a byproduct). The 3.5 Cloistered Cleric in UA is a demonstration that the standard cleric isn't a paragon of scholasticism (and all editions of the game have had the clerics expertise divided between spell casting and combat). At the least, the Cleric and Mage have at least one area they are less knowledgable than another class in... each others. Finally, if the argument is that the Mage and Cleric need to be the most scholastic, should the other classes be banned from having feats and skills that would give them at least as strong of knowlege backgrounds (or likely stronger for some versions of the bard)?

I can't vouch for how well they play, but "The Black Company" d20 book by Green Ronin has Academician, Jack-of-all-Trades, and Noble PC classes, each with a list of characters in the novels with those classes (or multi-classes). The Academician has hp, weapons, armor, and attacks as the Wizard, but skill points as the Rogue. The primary abilities of the Academician include an extra Skill Focus feat at first level and every even level that have limited stacking (+2 the second time in a given skill, and +1 after that... ), extra intelligence boost that can be used a limited number of times per day, ability to add extra skills to their class skill list as they advance, and a special bonus when using books and libraries.

The list in the first post at: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241689 has a lot of other "Skillmonkey" classes - is it too optimisitc to think something usable could be cobbled together as a real PC class from among them?

 

[JamesonCourage]

But no, I do not think D&D should be reconstituted around this design aim. I do think that a module * for tables like JC's would be a way to address this (what I perceive as an outlier) playstyle preference.

Oh, almost certainly an outlier. But, I want to make this clear: I'm not trying to reconstitute D&D around this. I'd like to see "talents" (non-combat feats) and feat (combat-only) be gained at the same rate. You could make them interchangeable, get all "talents" and no feats, or the like. It'd be a simple, intuitive switch, and it wouldn't be "reconstituting D&D" or the like.

(Also, I hope you don't mind me jumping in. I was looking forward to this reply, and once again, thanks for approaching this civilly and productively. I appreciate it.)

If I did this in 4e I would likely make the person play a lazy warlord/bard hybrid or multi-class build (Int and Cha) with Vile Scholar, Seer or Oghma's Faithful Theme. Ritual Caster + Feats and skill powers to support Lore Mastery and Leader components of combat support by proxy of "lazy-buffing." This likely would not be to JC's liking but if someone wanted to play this sort of "colour character" then it might work within the confines of that sort of build. Sort of a Corporal Upham from Saving Private Ryan.

First, the bard you described sounds very similar to a bard one of my players has played in my system (though he was an oral storyteller and not a writer). The group had a lot of fun with him.

Secondly, no, that doesn't sound too appealing. Maybe if it was some sort of "to make up for your absence" and it didn't have to come from my character, I could go for it. I'd probably want to control those actions on an initiative that wasn't mine, though, so it'd be easier to re-immerse when my turn to act came around. The tactical nature of what you described would probably interest me, I just wouldn't want it tied to my character (since it shows combat proficiency to at least some degree).

However, if the "Sage" is going to be built to dominate the other pillars, invade niche-space in those pillars and the player has the expectation that the other players will oblige them due to their combat impotency...then I can say unequivocally...I just wouldn't "work" (and I mean "work") under the auspices of that "social contract."

I want to reiterate, once again, that I get this viewpoint. I do. And, once again, I support 3/3/3 as a default. Design to it, even. I'm okay with that. I support it, even. And, again, I get your personal reservations.

I just haven't seen a convincing argument to stop the campaign optional opt-out if it has clear guidelines and mechanical support. That's what I'm not hearing, yet. I get all the arguments for not using it at the table. Manbearcat, can you try to tell me why there shouldn't be an optional opt-out? As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Ok, going to take one last kick at this dead horse, just because I want to.

I made the claim that D&D is about combat. Here's my evidence:

Scenario - 6 PC's need to get through a fairly well defended gate with a gate captain and 18 guards.

1. The PC's try to talk their way through. In pre-3e D&D this is going to be almost entirely free-form. Perhaps a Reaction check to set the initial scene, but, that's about it. As such, the players aren't actually playing any set system anymore. Because it's freeform, you could be playing AD&D, or GURPS or FATAL and there's no way to tell because you're not actually engaging any rules. In 3e or 4e, there might be two or three die rolls occur - a bluff check or two, maybe a diplomacy check - and that's about it. The players make their pitch, the dice are rolled and we're done. It's a little less free-form than AD&D, but not hugely different.

2. The players decide to storm the gate. Now we have dozens of dice rolls, no action can ever be narrated completely before the dice are rolled, and there is virtually no free-form play. Every single action is goverened by the rules of the system. Doesn't matter what edition we're playing. From order of action, to resolving movement, attacking, damage, you name it, the rules govern everything in a fine grained system. Depending on the edition, the rules might even govern when the combat ends by dictating a morale check at certain points. IOW, every single aspect of this scenario is governed by the mechanics.

Now, tell me again how D&D isn't a game about combat. When doing out of combat activities, D&D has almost always relied on a very large dose of free-form and has very few mechanics to resolve anything. In combat, virtually every single part of the game is used - almost every single system and certainly every single major system in the game is utilized.

So, in what way is D&D not about combat?

 

[Hussar]

I just haven't seen a convincing argument to stop the campaign optional opt-out if it has clear guidelines and mechanical support. That's what I'm not hearing, yet. I get all the arguments for not using it at the table. Manbearcat, can you try to tell me why there shouldn't be an optional opt-out? As always, play what you like

If it is clearly highlighted as such, you're right, there's no problem with a class that is very one sided. However, earlier in this thread, there was significant resistance to the idea that this sort of thing should have any advice or any attention called to it.

And, honestly, I have to ask, why bother? Why not have classes that are competent in all pillars? Not expert, not the best, but, capable. This was the biggest complaint about the Fighter in 3e - that fighting is all he can do. He cannot really contribute to anything outside of combat. A non-combat character suffers the same problem. He's riding the pines for significant amounts of time during the game.

Which, if the player KNOWS that this is going to happen and is okay with it is fine. I agree that having crystal clear guidelines and advice up front is the best way to go. But, I think as far as baselines go, having classes that lean too far in any direction is probably a bad idea.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If it is clearly highlighted as such, you're right, there's no problem with a class that is very one sided. However, earlier in this thread, there was significant resistance to the idea that this sort of thing should have any advice or any attention called to it.

I don't recall that particular resistance, but regardless, I'm in support of clearly labeling what shifting away from 3/3/3 will do to your character / campaign.

And, honestly, I have to ask, why bother? Why not have classes that are competent in all pillars?

I've gone into that a lot in this thread and the feats thread. It's a play style thing. People that complained about Fighters being too focused, like you, can play 3/3/3 (or even 4/2/2 or 4/3/1). People that don't mind being nearly useless mechanically in one area (and are playing with a group which is okay with it) can play that character. You know, play what you like and all that.

Which, if the player KNOWS that this is going to happen and is okay with it is fine. I agree that having crystal clear guidelines and advice up front is the best way to go. But, I think as far as baselines go, having classes that lean too far in any direction is probably a bad idea.

Yep, I agree. It's why I support 3/3/3 being the default and designed towards. As always, play what you like