D&D 5E D&D needs to let go of the 'all classes are equal' concept

[Jd Smith1]

While I do like the fact that 5e has done well in achieving balance between warriors and spell-casters, I feel they have taken it too far. Not all classes need to bring the same firepower to bear, and the effort to instill 'combat balance' has dumbed down a lot of the class concepts.

By all means keep the fire-power-based classes, but things like bards/skalds should be focused more on roleplay, and not just as a support spellcaster. They should be lawyers, face men, PR specialists, and all the other roles that they actually filled.

D&D's glaring weakness is, IMO, that classes focus on combat capability, not role-play. I do not see why you cannot have a mix of both types available. If the GM doesn't want to run anything beyond a murder-hobo game, all be needs to do is to make sure his players are up to speed; after all, manmaging expectations is one of the most important duties of the GM.

 

[Retreater]

Many OSR systems (and the pre-3.x era D&D games) handle this by having different XP requirements for level advancement. I'm getting on board with this mentality.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Many OSR systems (and the pre-3.x era D&D games) handle this by having different XP requirements for level advancement. I'm getting on board with this mentality.

That reminds me of the Bard in 2E, who casts wizard spells at (thanks to the XP chart differences) a higher caster level than the actual Mage class.

I'm kind of worried that the same thing could happen to other classes. If the difference between a Peasant and a Fighter is that the Peasant has half the attack bonus and half the XP requirements, then they could end up as being strictly superior once you normalize for XP totals rather than level.

 

[Jd Smith1]

That reminds me of the Bard in 2E, who casts wizard spells at (thanks to the XP chart differences) a higher caster level than the actual Mage class.

I'm kind of worried that the same thing could happen to other classes. If the difference between a Peasant and a Fighter is that the Peasant has half the attack bonus and half the XP requirements, then they could end up as being strictly superior once you normalize for XP totals rather than level.

This is exactly the number-crunching I hate: all the focus upon combat.

A peasant will lack the skills and social graces needed to function outside of his own class, will lack knowledge of the greater world, know no other language that his native one. His formative years would have been spent on back-breaking labor from can-see to can't see on a diet of bread and pottage. A peasant literally cannot pass for anything but a peasant.

So many fantasy settings simply project the modern classless society onto their settings. Add in a combat focus, and you end up with a bland, narrow spectrum that greatly inhibits role-play and gives no depth to a setting.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Yeah. I am more interested in them being different, not more similar....

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This is exactly the number-crunching I hate: all the focus upon combat.

A peasant will lack the skills and social graces needed to function outside of his own class, will lack knowledge of the greater world, know no other language that his native one. His formative years would have been spent on back-breaking labor from can-see to can't see on a diet of bread and pottage. A peasant literally cannot pass for anything but a peasant.

So many fantasy settings simply project the modern classless society onto their settings. Add in a combat focus, and you end up with a bland, narrow spectrum that greatly inhibits role-play and gives no depth to a setting.

If you're not getting into combat, then you don't need all of the combat stats, and you certainly don't need rules for how non-combatants progress in their non-combat abilities by engaging in combat. That's why commoners have a singular fixed stat block, rather than an entire class progression.

I have nothing against playing as non-combatants, but I question whether that's something to be added to D&D, rather than some other game that's less combat-centric.

 

[Jd Smith1]

If you're not getting into combat, then you don't need all of the combat stats, and you certainly don't need rules for how non-combatants progress in their non-combat abilities by engaging in combat. That's why commoners have a singular fixed stat block, rather than an entire class progression.

I have nothing against playing as non-combatants, but I question whether that's something to be added to D&D, rather than some other game that's less combat-centric.

Why can't D&D have both combat and role-playing focuses with RAW?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why can't D&D have both combat and role-playing focuses with RAW?

Because the focus of the game is determined by where the rules are, and balanced combat requires a lot more rules than balanced social interaction. Some people question whether you need any rules to govern social interaction, or whether all attempts at codifying such a thing will always be counter-productive.

As it stands, you can already make a fighter who is a peasant and a wizard who is a noble, and they will interact socially based on their backgrounds, but they'll also be relatively balanced if they happen to wind up in combat. If you don't care about balanced combat, then you can just ignore all of that stuff about levels and proficiency bonus, and your social interaction remains unaffected.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Because the focus of the game is determined by where the rules are, and balanced combat requires a lot more rules than balanced social interaction. Some people question whether you need any rules to govern social interaction, or whether all attempts at codifying such a thing will always be counter-productive.

As it stands, you can already make a fighter who is a peasant and a wizard who is a noble, and they will interact socially based on their backgrounds, but they'll also be relatively balanced if they happen to wind up in combat. If you don't care about balanced combat, then you can just ignore all of that stuff about levels and proficiency bonus, and your social interaction remains unaffected.

I'm not arguing for more rules for social interaction (although more skills would help), but rather that the focus on making every class combat-compatible strips them of role-play value. D&D has always been cursed with a cookie-cutter PC creation system, and while 5e is better than earlier editions, there still isn't all that much difference between individual PCs.

When every PC is designed as a hammer, every problem put before them will be a nail.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm not arguing for more rules for social interaction (although more skills would help), but rather that the focus on making every class combat-compatible strips them of role-play value. D&D has always been cursed with a cookie-cutter PC creation system, and while 5e is better than earlier editions, there still isn't all that much difference between individual PCs.

When every PC is designed as a hammer, every problem put before them will be a nail.

Fair enough, but if that's your goal, then what's wrong with writing up a simple stat block and playing it? If your Bard (for example) is just a social character who knows stuff, and can't fight or cast spells in a meaningful capacity, then why give them weapon proficiencies and hit dice per level?

The concept of character class and level only really makes sense in the context of heroic adventurers; it doesn't make sense to apply that to non-combatants.