Classes: Combat versus Noncombat Abilities

[Nivenus]

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.

I largely agree, but that's not how WotC interpreted it. They interpreted it as: if people want to play Drizzt they'll want to play a ranger. Which, if you think about it, is actually a bit strange because as you say, I think people think drow first, ranger second. But then drow aren't a core player race.

 

[Greg K]

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.

That depends on the DM, the player, an sometimes the group as a whole. You come to my table and some others that I know ignoring the noncombat abilities, you will be in for a world of hurt. Actually, these days, if you are optimized for combat or, even around a specific skill, you will find yourself told to build a new character, because you
a. did not read the campaign hand out
b. went against the discussion we had about your concept before you even got to start designing it mechanically.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't think you have to divorce them completely and, moreover, I think it would be a bad idea unless classes are very broad and generic.

I think every class should be able to be competent at both combat and noncombat.

However, I think you can achieve that without divorcing noncombat abilities completely from class. As I see it, everyone would have access to noncombat abilities in the form of skills (or whatever), but individual classes would also have unique options. For example, rather than choosing from the general pool of noncombat abilities a monk might select Leap of the Clouds, while a druid could select Speak with Animals.

While you could divorce those abilities from the classes themselves, making them part of the general pool, I think doing so would weaken the iconic nature of certain classes. If a fighter can easily Speak with Animals, it lessens the druid's niche as "nature guy". Therefore, I think that the fighter should at least have to multi-class to some extent in order to do so.

 

[hanez]

Disagree.

I like playing the charismatic illusionist sorceror whose not always good in combat, but comes through in clutch moments. I think D&D needs a range of choices on the combat and non combat scale. I think it is perfectly fine to play the "Taku like SMASH character" barbarian, who is great at combat and less so at other things. I think the designers have to put effort into making a range of character choices that fit archetypes that a range of players want to play.

I think Combat and NonCombat should be linked, players should have to make choices, I want to be better at this, and worse at that. That might include picking someone who does less damage but gets more skills. Theres nothing wrong with that.

 

[Frostmarrow]

In favor.

I like how three fighters can also be a charmer, a priest and an avenger and team up with yet another upstart fighter and together form a well rounded party. I like to be the detective wizard or the noble ranger. I see no reason outgoing people just have to be holy, infernal or musically talented. If you want to play a barbarian simpleton you still can. I'd like to try a druid simpleton some day.

 

[hanez]

My players were happy when reading the 4e PHB to see that a wizards reliance on a spellbook was drastically lessened/removed. No longer did they have to worry about it being stolen.

My players were super pumped when reading the 4e PHB that their clerics and paladins no longer needed pesky alignment and they could now act however they like and retain their powers.

Just like my players were pumped to see that they could use so many different stats to fill their prime requisites, they could pick the combat powers and combat role they wanted to fill and then role play anything they wanted!!!

But... an odd thing happened over the year and a half of our campaign. They werent roleplaying at all. They complained that their classes felt bland, generic, that they really didn't see any difference at all between the classes except for combat powers (which were themselves quite similar). They felt the system and the classes over focussed on combat sooo much that the game was just getting boring, it felt like we were playing D&D minis much more then we were playing D&D, despit my attempts to insert role playing into the story, they looked at their classes and didnt see a single prompt as to how they should roleplay.

I have no problem with Druid simpletons. But, I do have a problem with classes that are so generic and flexible that they become flavorless collections of combat powers that give no prompts whatsoever to how the player might act.

I'm not arguing for extreme class restrictions typical of early D&D, (e.g. only humans can be paladins or that the Druid must defeat the Hierophant Druid to level past 11), but what is wrong with Rogues being sooo good at talking to people, pickin locks, finding out secrets, that it is hard for other classes to match them in this area? Whats the problem with him being so good in this area, that he might be a tad bit worse at combat for the exchange?

 

[Dagredhel]

Too many options can be overwhelming. A little structure and definition can be a good thing. And classes, which are essentially character-building templates, are an integral part of D&D.

A strict divide between combat and noncombat abilities could be maintained without creating a dichotomy between class-defined combat options on the one hand and completely freeform noncombat ability selection on the other.

One approach would be to define noncombat tracks which include themed noncombat abilities. 'Backgrounds' could provide some direction in noncombat ability selection.

Alternately, a character could start with a choice of noncombat abilities defined by class or background, but the player could be given greater choice in developing the character as levels are gained. Personally, I'm fond of this idea.