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

[Jd Smith1]

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.

I never suggested that the bard be a non-combatant, only that the focus on the class not be one of equal firepower to others, but rather a focus on roleplay.

I don't know what your gaming experience is, but it is very easy to have a campaign that incorporates both combat and non-combat activity.

Since 1979 I've never run a group of 'heroic adventurers'; what I have run are groups of PCs out for personal gain or personal causes. Again, D&D does not have to be a bland sameness where cookie-cutter PCs mechanically murder, rob, and repeat. It can also have depth and color, and the system should support both styles of play.

 

[Umbran]

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

General game design philosophy - don't balance rules-based elements with things that are not rules-based.

Until D&D has robust and interesting rules for social challenges, you shouldn't weaken a class in other areas and say, "It is balanced by their social abilities."

 

[payn]

IDK, I can make a unique and interesting character despite mechanics. I could play the same Fighter over and over and never feel the same way twice. Role playing is not tied exclusively to mechanics.

I do agree that the game could use some more role play focused PC options. However, you can't put them on an even scale with combat options. You'll end up with no skill fighters and deadmeat low level casters. It completely unbalances the party and makes GM-ing difficult.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

D&D's glaring weakness is, IMO, that classes focus on combat capability, not role-play.

My main point against this is that there shouldn't be mechanics for things that don't need mechanics. This applies to a multitude of suggested rules for D&D that I've come across.

I don't see any reason why a bard should be worse at combat than a wizard or why a fighter has to be worse at roleplay than a warlock. The classes all should have equal combat mechanics and equal roleplay potential.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I do agree that the game could use some more role play focused PC options. However, you can't put them on an even scale with combat options. You'll end up with no skill fighters and deadmeat low level casters. It completely unbalances the party and makes GM-ing difficult.

Not really. My group regularly nerfs aspects of their PCs, especially since we started using the 5e system, and has had zero impact on the level of GM difficulty. Is a PC dies, the replacement comes in at first level regardless of the party's level.

Party balance is another one of those concepts which I disagree with. My group always has players advancing in levels at different rates, ignoring class abilities, and the like. Nor do I concern myself with 'balanced' encounters.

Campaigns should flow at a natural rate, not tied to numbers and ratios and other artificial criteria.

 

[Horwath]

one problem that 5E has is ASI's

or rather how everything is thrown is the same resource pool. Ability increase, combat feats and exploration/social feats.

1st: I would remove bonus abilities per level(like Pillars of eternity) what you have at 1st level, you have it. Except magic bonuses or special class features.
make point buy 8-10-12-14-16 with costs 0-1-2-3-5 and pool of 14.
make every race give +2 to 2 scores or +2 to one score if they have really STRONG racial features.
make every class give +2 to one ability picked from 3 abilities(non stackable with racial bonus)
this will give max of 18 to two abilities.

then make Extra feats/skill proficiencies level based outside class.

I.E:

1st level: non-combat feat, combat feat
2nd: Extra skill proficiency or tool&language
3rd: Extra expertise
4th: non-combat feat
5th: combat feat
6th: Extra skill proficiency or tool&language
7th: Extra expertise
8th: non-combat feat
9th: combat feat
10th: Extra skill proficiency or tool&language
11th: Extra expertise
12th: non-combat feat
13th: combat feat
14th: Extra skill proficiency or tool&language
15th: Extra expertise
16th: non-combat feat
17th: combat feat
18th: Extra skill proficiency or tool&language
19th: Extra expertise
20th: non-combat feat

now that you armed every character with basic combat, exploration and social possibilities(6 non-combat feats, 5 combat feats, 5 extra skill proficiencies outside starting and 5 extra expertise), regardles of class or multi-class combo and you kept ability scores in check(bounded accuracy) you can start balancing out classes, pushing every class in a direction that will excel in it's field.

feats should be on current half-feat power level, and I guess we could all agree more or less what goes under combat and what under non-combat feat.

 

[John R Davis]

Difficulty to hard wire in social mechanics. If you do then the non-social PCs twiddle their thumbs during that bit. Leave it to the players to roleplay how they think their pc would react etc.

 

[Umbran]

My main point against this is that there shouldn't be mechanics for things that don't need mechanics.

Nothing NEEDS mechanics. Kids do roleplaying all the time without any mechanics at all.

Mechanics are a thing we may want, for various reasons. But, since your various reasons may not match someone else's, your percieved "needs" for various mechanics will differ, which makes your sentence above non-functional without a specific context of goals or desires for the particular table.

 

[Umbran]

Difficulty to hard wire in social mechanics.

No, it isn't. Not in the slightest. There's Fate variants, for example, that have social mechanics that are exactly the same form as the mechanics for physical combat. Fate Accelerated, for example, doesn't recognize a mechanical difference between a physical task or conflict resolution and social task/conflict resolution.

 

[payn]

Not really. My group regularly nerfs aspects of their PCs, especially since we started using the 5e system, and has had zero impact on the level of GM difficulty. Is a PC dies, the replacement comes in at first level regardless of the party's level.

Party balance is another one of those concepts which I disagree with. My group always has players advancing in levels at different rates, ignoring class abilities, and the like. Nor do I concern myself with 'balanced' encounters.

Campaigns should flow at a natural rate, not tied to numbers and ratios and other artificial criteria.

If that is the case, then you shouldnt worry about any of this. Your group clearly just makes it work despite the mechanics.