D&D General The "Jack Of All Trades" is a cursed archetype in tabletop RPGs

[Thomas Shey]

I can't comment on what you've seen or haven't seen.

Personally, if building a squad to regularly engage in conflict, there are circumstances in which I'd choose the squad member who is okay at most things over the squad member who is great at one thing but a liability when I need them to do other things.

I agree that does fall short in games which are built around the idea of needing to stack more numbers to keep up with some idea of being level-appropriate.

I think its more a case of people always wanting the most capable character to do most tasks that are actually at all important, unless the system makes the task easy enough to do that a so-so skilled individual can do it reliably, and then its usually not that important.

And of course there are some skills almost no one stints on a game where its possible not to--perception skills come to mind, or where they come up often enough and are individual enough where you have to question stinting on them--Riding in a lot of fantasy games for example.

 

[Ashrym]

A jack of all trades character class has never been good design in a team RPG, and this is due to the fact that you can only do one thing at once so the definition of the concept is that you are always doing something you aren't the best at.

It works in a solo/team cRPG because the PCs in most CRPGs are Special and surrounded by NPCs who are, ultimately, not as good at things as they are. If you take, for example, a reasonably skilled player playing as Commander Shepherd your guns are probably doing more damage than those of your squadmates no matter which class you pick assuming you care enough about shooting to use them at all. Because, being a PC surrounded by NPCs you are awesome - your choice is how to be awesome and "I'm awesome because I'm as good as anyone at anything" works.

But in a team based RPG your team mates are masters of things. A Jack Of All Trades Master of None can only do one thing at once so they are never ever doing anything they are a master at. They are always second rate compared to other party members. And they can't even do everything at once, stacking synergies, due to the action economy and due to that being something they would be a master at.

In D&D 5e it is worse than that because there are a number of hybrid characters with secondary areas. A paladin, for example, is a primary brawler and secondary healer and secondary face. By contrast a melee cleric is a primary healer and secondary brawler. A "jack of all trades" brawls like a cleric and heals like a paladin. And stealths at best like a non-Shadow monk, but not like a rogue, ranger, or shadow monk.

So given that most characters are flexible and should be able to contribute in all three pillars (meaning they should have at least three areas of reasonable expertise of which a non-JOAT class should be a master of at least one) you're down to at least the fourth and probably the fifth or sixth area a class contributes in before a Jack of All Trades nature means that its area of all trades is better than the mediocrity of another class unless they are actually a master of something, exploiting synergies.

On the flip side, the JOAT is better at many things than a specialized class. Paladins and clerics are generally not stealthy and barbarians tend to be terrible healers. When comparing 2 classes what each cannot do is still important even in a "balanced" party.

The traditional D&D party is still the fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue. Throw the bard in there and the fighter fights better than the bard, but the bard CC's better and heals better and applies ability checks better. The bard applies skill better than the cleric or wizard while being good enough in either's typical role. The bard is almost as good at skills as the rogue but gets back to better healing and CC.

You have a party of 5 that covers 4 traditional roles twice over instead of needing 8 characters. It doesn't matter if the cleric can heal better because the cleric only has so many actions in a round. The cleric and bard both healing covers more healing faster. It doesn't matter if the wizard can apply status effects better because the wizard only has so many actions in a round and the bard also applying status effects covers more control faster. It doesn't matter if the rogue has a reliable talent when both are trying to be stealthy because that's 2 characters increasing the likelihood of success in a group check or sending back up with the scout.

What matters is the JOAT/MON needs to be proficient enough in enough variety to be useful regardless of not being the best. Your assessment missed the JOAT helping exceed the limitations of the specialists by applying more party actions when it matters because of the limits imposed by action economy.

The playability of a JOAT is great because they almost always have something more useful to contribute to a situation than the specialist who aren't as applicable to as many situations. 5e did a great job with the bard because all bards will have healing via song of rest and can add more, all bards have strong skill benefits, all bards have some combat ability and can add more, and all bards have decent spellcasting ability. Add in the degree of customization on the class and an iconic ability in inspiration and it's a good JOAT.

 

[TerraDave]

I think @Ashrym has it right. The versatile, or "5th adventurer" type character will often not be the best at a particular situation, but they won't be the worst, and they will be able to contribute more often than any other character. They covers gaps in small parties and add depth to big ones.

They will rarely be a true "jack of all trades". And they are not for everyone. Its pretty clear that a lot of players like more focused roles.

 

[Aldarc]

Depending on your chosen version of the game, that gets solved nicely.

I would not say that Blizzard really "solved" anything in regards to the hybrid tax. Blizzard stopped operating with the design philosophy of the hybrid tax after Vanilla, and they subsequently made specializations more specialized and competitive within roles.

 

[pemerton]

This post is in the D&D forum, but the thread title refers to RPGs in general.

In my Prince Valiant game one of the PCs is definitely less focused than the other two, both of whom are strongest in combat (either personal or military command). The less-focused PC is (obviously) less likely to succeed in a fight, but has a wider variety of action declarations that have a good chance of success.

I agree with @Argyle King that this sort of PC build is less viable in a level-oriented "numbers get bigger" game like D&D, or in a game in which (as @Thomas Shey describes) the PCs are a team who are facing discrete challenges and so their players will always want to throw their best bonus at a problem.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

For a real Jack you just need to let them do their thing -and- something else at the same time. Maybe their secondary effect is weaker (Like making that Healing Song provide low actual healing, or use your reaction to apply it in response to someone getting hit) but by doing both at once you show the character is doing a whole bunch of stuff in the fight, rather than one or two things.

This is why I say that the 3.5 Bard is a competent Jack, and the 4e Bard at least can be, depending on how you build them.

3.5 Bards can start a song, and it keeps going for several rounds after they stop. From then on, they can do whatever else you built them to do, whether that is being a healer, a warrior, a controller, etc.

4e Bards had daily powers that lasted the entire encounter, buffing allies or debuffing enemies, and most of them also had an effect when used. Then, their healing minor action had a movement buff, and their class features added buffs to powers, and those powers tended to do two things at once, usually a thing that was bad for enemies and a thing that was good for allies.

The 5e Bard has solid bonus action usage to buff allies, and then can use their action to use powerful control spells, or smack an enemy, or heal, or whatever.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I do wish that the 5e Bard had been given song-like things that they start with a bonus action, though.

 

[Argyle King]

I do wish that the 5e Bard had been given song-like things that they start with a bonus action, though.

I think the bard could have been built using something like a warlock (with powers related to pact and implement instrument) with something akin to channel divinity as song effects. Perhaps they could burn spell slots like the artillerist artificer does to create cannons, but the result would be an ongoing (requires concentration) song effect.

The old 3.5 Seeker of the Song prestige class offers an example of how that might look.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think the bard could have been built using something like a warlock (with powers related to pact and implement instrument) with something akin to channel divinity as song effects. Perhaps they could burn spell slots like the artillerist artificer does to create cannons, but the result would be an ongoing (requires concentration) song effect.

The old 3.5 Seeker of the Song prestige class offers an example of how that might look.

Honestly most of my issues with the Bard could be fixed with new spells, adding extra spells to each subclass, and maybe 1-3 variant features.

like, give the Bard the ability to speak any language, not the Monk.

 

[MGibster]

I'm a bit surprised, @Neonchameleon, that you didn't mention the failure of "the hybrid tax" in World of Warcraft.

When I first started playing WoW many years ago I created a Paladin and as I leveled I selected talents (or whatever they were called back then) that were good for both healing and tanking. By my reasoning, being able to heal myself would make me a more effective tank because I could keep myself alive longer. Nope. People laughed at me and refused to group with me until I fixed my talents.