D&D 5E Dose D&D have room for a diplomat class?

[77IM]

Should all classes have a combat role no matter what?

If your game sessions frequently feature combat, then yes, yes they should.

PC abilities should reflect what the PCs are actually going to do during game-play. A "diplomat" may make sense in-genre, but unless your game is intrigue-heavy and combat-light, a diplomat class will probably be boring in play.

 

[Jester David]

NPC classes make sense if your game is built around the assumption that NPCs really must be built up like PCs. In a game without that assumption, while you can have them, you really don't *need* them, unless you can't think of a way to figure the XP budget for such characters otherwise.

I said "NPC classes" as a reference to 3e, to differentiate from the more adventurous "PC classes", but I always meant classes for player characters and just didn't have a good name. Later in my post I tried "adventurer class" and "commoner class" but that doesn't seem to fit either, as sages and diplomats are not commoners per se.

But, going back to the OP for a moment, I think it asks the wrong question.

It isn't whether the *game* has room for it - you can, with some thought, create what you like. The question is whether the *genre* has room for it. Or, perhaps more clearly, is such a thing useful in the typical genre for which the rules are used?

That's really what most of the answers seem to be getting at - in an action-adventure game, such a class isn't just isn't terribly useful. You may want some of those diplomatic abilities in play, but they need to be paired with other action-focused abilities or the character will sit in the background contributing little to the game for much of the time. You can have a scholar, or a diplomat, but they probably need to have at least a passing resemblance to how Indiana Jones is a scholar.

Other games do it well. It's easy in classless games to not pick the combat skills or proficiencies and entirely be a support character. Which works fine so long as the campaign gives a range of activity.

It'd be interesting to flip the base classes and have a class that's 90% exploration and roleplaying and 10% combat.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Are classes only for PCs?

Classes are for adventurers. All PCs are adventurers, but NPC adventurers are uncommon. Adventurers are only a small part of the world, but how they work is incredibly relevant to the topic that the game covers, which is why the rules of the game are written from that perspective.

It is, more or less, a coincidence that a PC adventurer happens to improve in fighting at the same time as practicing innate magical ability and learning more about History (or whatever). It's just, since adventurers do all of that stuff at the same time, it's convenient for the level mechanics to reflect that. Once you stop talking about adventurers, that simplifying assumption no longer holds, which is why you might get skilled artisans who can't fight and don't have many HP, or a powerful tiefling noble who can do the Darkness thing in spite of being the combat equivalent of level 2.

 

[cmad1977]

It's called a bard or paladin.

 

[Ashrym]

It could be just as easily done with a sorcerer or warlock as a paladin. Warlocks have bonus skills from an invocation and a rogue can invest in CHA plus expertise for a solid diplomat. Insight is important and WIS based as another consideration so CHA isn't everything.

Personally, I believe a CHA rogue assassin makes the best spy / diplomat or a lore bard with a subtle spell selection.

I think there is room for a low combat skill class in the game using an appropriate campaign style.

 

[pemerton]

Do you know of any adventure games where some of the players can't really fight? How was it handled there?

I have played FRPGs in which it is possible to build a PC who can't really fight - Burning Wheel, Rolemaster and RuneQuest. I imagine GURPS, HERO and FATE all allow for this as well.

The way those systems handle it is to (i) have mechanics that the players can leverage outside of the combat system, so that combat isn't the only way of achieving definitive outcomes in play, (ii) encourage adventure/scenario design which is not focused primarily on combat, and (iii) tend towards a narrower effectiveness gap between weak and strong characters than is common in D&D.

I think it tends to generate a very different play experience from typical D&D.

 

[Li Shenron]

I didn't think to think of this before, but is it reasonable to have a class with few or zero combat abilities. Like could we make a diplomat class, or maybe a blacksmith class?

Yes.

I have been planning to do that as part of my 5e conversion of d20 Rokugan, where there is a Courtier class, although that doesn't always mean zero combat abilities since nothing prevents a Courtier to fight, it's just going to be worse than the others because fighting is not typically its job.

And some of the Courtier's special abilities include options that can be used very effectively in combat, the problem is that some of these could be so effective as winning the combat before it starts. In one sense it means to be sometimes the most powerful combatant ever, but since you're skipping the whole combat phase, a lot of people don't perceive this as such.

 

[Umbran]

Other games do it well. It's easy in classless games to not pick the combat skills or proficiencies and entirely be a support character. Which works fine so long as the campaign gives a range of activity.

Other games allow it, yes. But it is not enough for a campaign to give a range of activity - the campaign must allow those without combat skills to survive, which is quite different.

It'd be interesting to flip the base classes and have a class that's 90% exploration and roleplaying and 10% combat.

It would be interesting, insofar as the GM must come up with reasons why, when stuff really matters, someone doesn't resort to violence. In the real world, we resort to violence a *lot* when there are major/valuable resources at stake.

 

[Aribar]

Does the game actually have enough rules and mechanics to support a class based around diplomacy? What would a diplomat class accomplish that a rogue or especially a bard couldn't?

 

[nomotog]

Does the game actually have enough rules and mechanics to support a class based around diplomacy? What would a diplomat class accomplish that a rogue or especially a bard couldn't?

Thaaat is a good question. I'm not really sure. There are about a billion ways you can make a diplomatic class. (In fact I think you had about a half dozen in d20 Modern alone.) I would try it through two kinds of abilities. Some that gives you an extra bonus when you complete a check. (You have the ability to talk a wizard out of their spell slots.) Then others that give you advantages under different circumstances. (Something like getting an advantage when talking with wood sprites.)