Classes: Combat versus Noncombat Abilities

[Dagredhel]

My ideal would be a system that completely divorces combat and noncombat abilities.

Classes would offer unique, flavorful, and mechanically-balanced options to allow players equal opportunity in combat.

A seperate level-base 'proficiencies' subsystem would provide options for noncombat abilities. This would encompass trained skills, natural talents, extraordinary abilities, and even supernatural effects (spells, rituals, etc.) that don't directly affect combat mechanics.

Every character would have equal access to the noncombat abilities, without any niche protection.

Personally, I'd prefer a unified mechanic for noncombat abilities, something akin to feat selection. 'Skills' could be handled similar to the approach in Star Wars Saga Edition, with each selection upgrading level of ability, rather than on an X points per level basis.

Opinions?

 

[ferratus]

I think the divorce from skills and combat style is long overdue. In Skyrim I can play a sword and board fighter who is good at speech and persuasion. Why can I roleplay more with a fighter in a CRPG than in D&D?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think the divorce from skills and combat style is long overdue. In Skyrim I can play a sword and board fighter who is good at speech and persuasion. Why can I roleplay more with a fighter in a CRPG than in D&D?

That's a good point, but it doesn't really suggest that combat and noncombat mechanics should be more separate, just that they should be more flexible.

I think drawing a line between "combat" and "noncombat" is an artificial, metagame distinction. If you're fighting on the proverbial dramatic ledge, Balance sudenly becomes a combat skill. Bluff is or is not a combat skill depending on whether you're feinting. If you're trying to shoot a flaming arrow to light an emergency beacon on fire, your ranged attack bonus is a noncombat ability. If you're stuck out in the cold, your fort save is a noncombat statistic. The distinctions are equally fuzzy with spells.

If anything, I'd like to see more similarity in how combat and noncombat mechanics are constructed, and more connections between them (especially for roguish types). It makes the game easier to learn and fairer, and allows for more diverse characters.

 

[keterys]

Divorce 'em completely. Let people RP however they want. Let everyone have usefulness outside of combat.

P.S. Good luck selling that to more than a thin slice of D&Ders

 

[Lord Zack]

I think the problem with this idea is that you'd pretty much have rewrite all the classes. Because pretty much all classes have some kind of noncombat element suggested by they're concept. For instance, rangers are master woodsmen, wizards are knowledgeable and have magical abilities that are useful out of combat, etc.

 

[ferratus]

Don't get me started on rangers. Why are woodsmen dual wielders instead of a sword and board melee class? Archers make sense I suppose, but there is no reason a ranger can't be a guy with a horse and lance? That's how you hunted deer back in the day.

Medieval hunting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nivenus]

I personally thought the breakdown of D&D's realms of play into combat, exploration, and social interactions / roleplay in the "Legends & Lore" column by Mike Mearls and Monte Cook was a rather insightful one. I wouldn't mind seeing each class, in addition to a combat role, receiving exploration and social roles.

Or, alternatively, since I'm a fan of the idea of bringing back super-classes with archetypal sub-classes, I wouldn't mind seeing both combat and non-combat roles played down for base classes but played up for their subdivisions. You could have a rogue, for example, who focuses on exploration (disarming traps and stealth, for instance) and another who focuses on social interactions (bluff, disguise, streetwise, etc.).

Don't get me started on rangers. Why are woodsmen dual wielders instead of a sword and board melee class? Archers make sense I suppose, but there is no reason a ranger can't be a guy with a horse and lance? That's how you hunted deer back in the day.

Medieval hunting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, that's easy. Because of a certain drow ranger who happens to be pretty popular.

 

[Dagredhel]

I think drawing a line between "combat" and "noncombat" is an artificial, metagame distinction.

The 'metagaming' I'd prefer to avoid involves character building.

If you allow selections made in a subsystem largely geared to noncombat activities (AD&D nonweapon proficiencies, 3e/3.5e skills) to impact combat mechanics, then these options will frequently be chosen strictly to optimize combat advantage.

If you offer both combat and noncombat abilities as options in the same subsystem (3e/3.5e feats,) then the noncombat options will go largely ignored as suboptimal choices.

 

[ferratus]

Well, that's easy. Because of a certain drow ranger who happens to be pretty popular.

Oh, I can see why dual wielding rangers can be popular because of him, I just don't see why they must bed dual-wielding or better at dual-wielding than anyone else.

Besides, most Drizzt lovers care more about the drow part than the ranger part. Just make dual wielding a standard drow racial ability and leave the rangers alone.

Besides, everyone knows that rangers are just fighters+elf lore anyway.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The 'metagaming' I'd prefer to avoid involves character building.

If you allow selections made in a subsystem largely geared to noncombat activities (AD&D nonweapon proficiencies, 3e/3.5e skills) to impact combat mechanics, then these options will frequently be chosen strictly to optimize combat advantage.

If you offer both combat and noncombat abilities as options in the same subsystem (3e/3.5e feats,) then the noncombat options will go largely ignored as suboptimal choices.

To be fair, "background skills" and such were common house; there was definitely a need to encourage people to take the noncombat options.

That being said, I think you have to know what type of game you're playing. If you're playing a combat-focused game, this isn't a problem. If you're playing a diverse to low-combat game, this won't be the case.