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

[nomotog]

You don't need a fighter class to fight, but we got that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

On a more serious note, I would actually be interested to see how a diplomacy-based, non-combative character played in D&D. As long as your fellow players don't mind that you won't contribute to fights, I see no problems with giving it a try.

It's been done in the past. The issue is less that one character has to (voluntarily) sit out of combat, and more that anytime the Diplomancer does anything, nobody else gets to contribute to the fight. When you can talk your way out of most encounters, anyone who isn't talking is just dead weight.

 

[nomotog]

It's been done in the past. The issue is less that one character has to (voluntarily) sit out of combat, and more that anytime the Diplomancer does anything, nobody else gets to contribute to the fight. When you can talk your way out of most encounters, anyone who isn't talking is just dead weight.

I think that was one of the problems with the diplomacy builds in 3ed, or the skill challenges in 4ed. It was too easy for the diplomancer to push the standard too high for anyone to even bother. I am thinking that is why you want to avoid things like bonuses to the ability check and try to formulate abilities that don't brake when people help you.

You could have an ability called entourage that lets the rest of your party also make a cha check along with you and then you just pick the highest. Or maybe an ability that requires a set up. Like an ability that needs your fighter to intimate your target first, an ability that only works when you have blackmail material, or maybe a power that only works when your magically buffed.

 

[jayoungr]

My first thought in response to this question was that Princess Leia is a diplomat, so yes, narratively at least, a diplomat can be part of an adventuring party. I'm pretty sure that the Star Wars and Traveller game both had diplomats as adventurers so these would be good spots to look for inspiration.

Star Wars Saga Edition has the Noble class, which is very effective in combat. I'm running the game right now, for a party with one of each class, and I can attest that the Noble holds her own with the others. A lot of what she does is CHA-based debuffing, so I'd look to the Bard for a start on a 5E equivalent.

 

[Fralex]

It's been done in the past. The issue is less that one character has to (voluntarily) sit out of combat, and more that anytime the Diplomancer does anything, nobody else gets to contribute to the fight. When you can talk your way out of most encounters, anyone who isn't talking is just dead weight.

Pffft, diplomancers. Everybody knows the real diplomacy build is the Jumplomancer. Or, um, that other one.

I was thinking more about diplomacy in a situation where it's expected, not diplomacy to avoid all fights.

I've always wanted to try creating some sort of system that handles tricky negotiations the same way combat rules handle fights. Like, still keep it pretty free-form, but give it a little structure and complexity so that players have real strategic options to consider. This idea from 3.5e could probably be applied to 5e with a little work. And Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws are useful in these situations.

 

[Dausuul]

Is there room for such a class? Well, that's a question for each DM. Would such a class fit in your campaign? If so, feel free to homebrew one up and put it in.

Should it be added as part of the published rules? No. D&D is designed for heroic adventure; it should not try to be all things to all people. Every published class should be able to hold its own during a dungeon crawl.

 

[Paraxis]

Before you introduce a social based class, the system should have a social combat mechanic.

Social scene, everyone rolls initiative.

There is social damage, and social hit points.

The side that drops to 0 social HP first looses the scene.

There are a few rpgs that do stuff like that, but I don't play them. But if you want a social focused class the whole social pillar of the game needs more mechanics to build stuff off of. Look at how much space combat gets in the books, when social scenes get that much support we can expect classes to back it up.

But do we want that in D&D?

 

[nomotog]

Pffft, diplomancers. Everybody knows the real diplomacy build is the Jumplomancer. Or, um, that other one.

I was thinking more about diplomacy in a situation where it's expected, not diplomacy to avoid all fights.

I've always wanted to try creating some sort of system that handles tricky negotiations the same way combat rules handle fights. Like, still keep it pretty free-form, but give it a little structure and complexity so that players have real strategic options to consider. This idea from 3.5e could probably be applied to 5e with a little work. And Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws are useful in these situations.

Before they released them, I assumed that ideals bonds and flaws were going to be a part of some advanced diplomacy system and I was kind of excited for that because if you had this set rule, you could stick them into the monster manual two or three lines each monster and now you have the same verity of diplomatic encounters that you have for combat encounters.

For basic rules. I think 5ed could stand a fixed DC better then 3ed could. Another one of my thoughts would be to make the check a cooperative action between the parties. Like they both make a cha roll then you pick the highest and compare it to a DC. It injects some verity into the system as your no longer just thinking about your roll, but their roll too. It also flips the script compared to combat where high level diplomats are a boon rather then a threat. (It's just an idea so far I haven't fully baked it yet)

 

[Ellsworth]

It may have already been mentioned, but a diplomat sounds more like a background than a class to me. A diplomat turned adventurer sounds pretty cool, and useful.

 

[aramis erak]

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? Should all classes have a combat role no matter what?

I figure the answer hovers somewhere around whatever the DM/players want's so I want to hear what people think about this.

Diplomat's a bad example - in that it's essentially a combat-less bard, and many real world diplomats have been military men, anyway...

Several older editions had a proliferation of NPC classes with sucky combat capabilities: OE, AD&D 1E, 3E...
The 3E versions weren't even as good non-combat as a PC class, so getting someone to play an NPC class instead of a rogue was always a fight, in my experience.

That said, yes, I think there is room - but given the 5e mechanics, it's pretty much going to be as combat capable as a wizard without spells. Which means, not a lot of damage, not proficient, and having no combat capabilities in features.

And, yes, I've seen wizard players go to melee in 5E.