Level Up (A5E) Class per pillar of play?

[Blue]

Reading the "how much damage" thread, one point is that some classes primarily have mechanical support for combat, with other pillars of play either minimally supported or only supported by skills.

Something I was thinking about. What if the DM lays out expected pillars of play, and characters have a class in each pillar.

So if a DM picks Combat and Intrigue, a character will have two classes, one that focuses on each, both of which advance. This prevents needing to stretch the same resources over multiple pillars of play.

The combat class will have things like HPs, weapon profs, a few tool/skills, and primarily combat focused mechanics. The Intrigue would have social and investigative skills, contacts, rules for social standing. Maybe you're a rogue/noble, who would play very different in intrigue than a rogue/information broker. There are casting ones, of course, and separate spell slots for each, so that you aren't "saving" those intrigue slots for combat. So you could have a rogue/enchanter, who plays very differently than the wizard/charmer.

BUT - maybe exploration&discovery is a big pillar. And have a set of classes for those.

The wonder of this is seen when it unlocks new modes of play. A pirate campaign (or a spaceship one) might have a pillar for shipboard, to make sure that during navel maneuvers everything has unique things to try.

 

[Morrus]

That wouldn’t really be compatible with 5E though.

 

[aco175]

I think the DM can/should tell the players what to expect in his games. I tend to have a lot of combat and exploration rather than roleplay in my games. Players that show up to my game looking for one thing over the other may want to know before they make a PC.

 

[Gradine]

I don't think there should be "combat" classes versus "exploration" or "social" classes.

I think every class should have access to abilities and character features for all three pillars. Not that there needs to be perfect class balance, Bards and Rangers should probably excel in their respective pillars (such as, say, the Fighter should with combat).

 

[Morrus]

I think every class should have access to abilities and character features for all three pillars. Not that there needs to be perfect class balance, Bards and Rangers should probably excel in their respective pillars (such as, say, the Fighter should with combat).

That’s the focus of our current design work.

 

[maceochaid]

I think a major issue with incorporating the other pillars of play is that resources are almost solely combat focused. The major resources in D&D have always been Hitpoints and Spell Slots, and the later could be used for interaction/exploration, it is frequently commented on that it is hard to make meaningful choices with i/e pillars and much easier to make meaningful choices with combat spells. Later editions have layered on rest dependant abilities, action economy, and then some class-specific resources (ki, metamagic, and channel divinities for example). But meaningful balance comes down to managing these resources, and these resources are almost ALWAYS combat focused.

I have played with the idea that i/e pillars are connected to your background rather than class, but fundamentally I think they need to specifically be tied to a resource system that has not been invented yet. Otherwise, it is just collaborative storytelling and up to the DM to decide who or what is good at navigating an environment or a social situation (which might BE the best system, but one that it is a fool's errand to try and balance against combat damage).

This may or may not be beyond the scope around the playtest. But I think it is important when thinking about damage vs i/e play to see what this looks like. I've been theory crafting something that would not be 5e compatible, but I moved inspiration to an interaction resource and exhaustion to an exploration resource. Bards and Clerics have more inspiration resources, while Rangers and Druids have high exhaustion resources. However it's a tricky issue, I don't think i/e should look exactly like combat. It would flatten the game for the Ranger the Dm to hit the Rangers "Explore" score with a "hard to find the path" and deal "2d6 damage" to their Exhaustion Points. So the question is how do you create a new system of resource expenditure.

All of this is to say we either silo off resource management (and balance) into combat, or we need a resource management system for the other 2 pillars.

 

[Horwath]

I don't think there should be "combat" classes versus "exploration" or "social" classes.

I think every class should have access to abilities and character features for all three pillars. Not that there needs to be perfect class balance, Bards and Rangers should probably excel in their respective pillars (such as, say, the Fighter should with combat).

I don't Know how to work it in with current 5E design.

It would be good if character progression outside "class features" would be:

1st level: one social, one exploration, one combat feat(trait)
then you get one social feat at levels: 2,6,10,14,18
one exploration feat at levels: 3,7,11,15,19
and one combat feat at levels: 4,8,12,18,20
at levels 5,9,13,17 you would get +1 ASI

you can then take any feat instead of +1 ASI
you can exchange combat feat for +1 ASI, exploration or social feat.
you can exchange exploration for social feat and vice versa.

you could use each of this 3 options only once.


Then various classes can get various bonus feats in combat/exploration/social categories.


But, I say again, that is more 5.5E than addon to 5E.

 

[CapnZapp]

No.

Ever since 3rd edition, the design intent has been that every class needs to be competent in combat, since that is the cornerstone of D&D gameplay.

Have some classes do okay in social or exploratory, while others don't.

But not at the expense at combat power.

Remember the 3E Bard. The assumption that being 50% as good at many roles equals being 100% good in just one role did not hold up.

Instead make every class 100% good at combat*. If you have a class with zero abilities outside of combat that might just MAYBE justify it getting to be 105% or 110% good in combat TOPS, even though other classes might reach 50%, 90% or even 100% proficiency in social or exploratory.
*) somehow. Obviously it's fine - expected even - that some are tanks, some are damage dealers, and some are healers and buffers. As long as everyone has a role to play in combat and none come across as the fifth wheel in combat.

Playing a "simple" fighter is a choice. Your reward and compensation for not getting any ability in exploration or social is... having a class that is simple to play.

Don't expect any compensation for your lack of social or exploratory abilities. The simpleness of your choice of class is more than enough reward.

 

[Minigiant]

Technically, it could be done AND be compatible with 5e.

The issue is It isn't worth the time and effort.

Essentially you'd have the give 5e a baseline of being a 3 pillar base and have anyone playing with 5e rules use 3 pillar classes.

Then you'd need to scrub all exploration and social from the 13 classes and tone them down in combat. Then split backgrounds into social and exploration.
Then expand them with more proficiencies and spells. This way all 3 pillar choices from the new system are 1/3 of each in power andmatch up with the 50/50 and !00% one pillar classes of 5e.

It can be done and be compatible with 5e. But it's not the point of A5E and it's not worth the trouble.