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

[TwoSix]

OK: 5e has made all classes in the PHB to be roughly the same combat capability; in the process, they have changed the very nature of the classes.

While I applaud them clearing up the earlier edition problem of spell casters eclipsing warriors at higher levels, my point was that they should have let some classes which are better-suited for role-play focus be included. I used bards as an example, because historically bards/skalds were lawyers, face men, PR specialists, and entertainers all rolled into one. Whereas in 5e they are just a support spellcaster.

I never suggested non-combat characters. I simply said that by making every class combat-equal, they had made a mistake.

I think I would argue that while each class has the capability to be good at combat, many of the classes can make choices that push them firmly away from combat and firmly towards roleplay. Multiple subclasses of bard like glamour or secrets, redemption paladin, multiple builds of warlock, an enchantment or divination wizard, etc.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I think I would argue that while each class has the capability to be good at combat, many of the classes can make choices that push them firmly away from combat and firmly towards roleplay. Multiple subclasses of bard like glamour or secrets, redemption paladin, multiple builds of warlock, an enchantment or divination wizard, etc.

Bards are being used as an example, not the issue. And neither of those options are in the PhB, which is the area under discussion.

Although maybe WOTC is waking up to their shortcomings. Very unlikely, but one can dream.

 

[thom_likes_gaming]

I'm a big fan of "making the numbers come to life" as a basis for RP. Thus, no class is inherently more or less "combat focused" than any other. You get what you build.
Want a not-too-much combat focused bard (or rogue, cleric, sorcerer...)? Then build one and describe and play them appropriately.
Not sure why the rules ought to focus on anything more or less than what they do. The building blocks are all there, what you build with them is up to you.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

It seems that the difference lies in how roleplay forms the performative expectations of the players, while combat forms the mechanical expectations of the classes. Why or how this became the case in D&D seems like a natural outcome of designers having to compromise between people with different play preferences regarding the intersection of roleplay, combat, and social mechanics.

All the rules are combat-focused because you don't need rules for the rest of it. That incorrectly gives the impression that it is a combat-focused game. That most players are min/maxing murder hobos dosesn't help. That said, D&D also seems to downplay the rest by oversimplifying and under-explaining. Take the couple charisma based skills, for example.

When designers give players tools that are predominately combat-focused, most problems in the game will look like they require combat-solutions.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the answer is pretty simple...

People who don't want to focus on combat in their roleplaying game and instead focus on roleplaying don't use D&D. There are plenty of other RPGs out there you can play to get a much better game experience for the style you are looking for.

Most players and designers learned through the d20 glut that trying to turn every RPG into a d20 game did nothing but reduce a game's experience. They discovered the hard way that Call of Cthulu doesn't feel like Call of Cthulu when using d20 rules. And the 7th Sea fans had little to no use for Swashbuckling Adventures (and the d20 D&D fans had little use for it either.)

So complaining that D&D isn't willing to move away from being D&D at this point in time seems kind of silly. Because there are literally hundreds of other games out there better suited to do the things they are good at then trying to jerry-rig 5E into being a pale imitation. The D&D designers have let the game be what it is... and as players we'd all be better off expanding our reach on the games we play for the experiences we want rather than try to shove the round D&D into the square peg.

 

[Aldarc]

Most players and designers learned through the d20 glut that trying to turn every RPG into a d20 game did nothing but reduce a game's experience.

squints at all the 5E Engine games ...have they?

 

[DEFCON 1]

squints at all the 5E Engine games ...have they?

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Undrave]

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.

A bit hard top do if you do milestones instead... Do you have to count 'kills' as the source of XP when in combat or you just give out chunk so even if a character just cowered during the whole fight they gain XP for it? Because I can't imagine a low level character being able to do jack squat in a game with no bounded accuracy so that sounds like you'd need to include low level scrubs for the low level characters to gain a chance to gain some combat XP.

but rather that the focus on making every class combat-compatible strips them of role-play value.

Why? Why is there always this false dichotomy that 'You can either be good at Role-play or be good at combat'. Why exactly is there a need for a trade off? Why can't a class be good at both?! You don't use both set of skills at the same time. There's no mechanical reason why a character with more Skills need to more feeble in combat and vice versa. There's no reason a Fighter can't be an expert at Persuasion, for exemple.

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."

What Umbran said...

Is a PC dies, the replacement comes in at first level regardless of the party's level.

That probably worked back in the days but in 5e it means that new character can't contribute as often over the course of an adventuring day because they have less ressources AND they're more fragile to high damage rolls. That seems less than ideal and needlessly punitive... but I guess it motivate people to do the whole 'inching forward with a ten foot pole' game style where you're afraid of everything. Seems too slow paced for me.

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.

Seems like you kit bashed the game to your liking.

Not every GM will have access to gamers of the quality I have assembled after decades of vetting.

'Gamers' who don't like gamest elements in their game (do they even call it a game?) Also, not to be mean, and I'm sure that's not how you wanted to come off, but that sentence sounds suuuuper conceited and elitist. Dial it down a bit.

I disagree. While 5e has brought forth some incremental rules improvements, it has eliminated the role-play classes. For a game that is 40-odd years old, D&D is mired in poor planning and unoriginal thinking.

'Role-play class' eh... You know, when people complain that the Fighter doesn't get non-combat stuff, there's ALWAYS someone to go "Just role-play more!" so what is it? All classes can role-play to go beyond their rules or there's too many class abilities to be able to role-play? You can role-play from any class. Besides, there ARE role play classes: Backgrounds. That's where you can get that sweet sweet hook you're looking for... But there's still plenty of role playing hook to mine out of a class as simple as Fighter: Where did you train? Who trained you? What's the History of your Fighting tradition? Who did you train WITH? and Why?

Furthermore, if you want more role-play 'classes' I think the party roles from Acquisition Inc. can also fit the bill.

Well, you would need high Wisdom and charisma, for a start. Those are generally not preferred stats for those two classes.

So? Just invest in those stats, what's stopping you? You want role play or not?

I'm a big fan of "making the numbers come to life" as a basis for RP. Thus, no class is inherently more or less "combat focused" than any other. You get what you build.
Want a not-too-much combat focused bard (or rogue, cleric, sorcerer...)? Then build one and describe and play them appropriately.
Not sure why the rules ought to focus on anything more or less than what they do. The building blocks are all there, what you build with them is up to you.

Yup! I was considering making a Mastermind Rogue who spends most of his time doing their range Help Action. Maybe slinging a crossbow from time to time when the opportunity arise. Throw in the Inspiring Leader feat for some more support shenanigans and put all your expertise in CHA skills. Could be fun, even if you don't get to Sneak Attack all the time and sacrifice your DPS.

 

[Undrave]

I think the answer is pretty simple...

People who don't want to focus on combat in their roleplaying game and instead focus on roleplaying don't use D&D. There are plenty of other RPGs out there you can play to get a much better game experience for the style you are looking for.

What DEFCON said.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think that the focus on combat vrs role play classes is focusing on particular branch of a single tree in the wider forest & missing that the problem exists in other areas more friendly to being quantified than the value of roleplay capabilities. In the past some classes had monstrous damage & wet tissue paper defense, powerful abilities that didn't directly deal damage but were able to impact a powerful shift in combat through buff/debuff/battlefield control/etc, some had great defense, some had things I'm not mentioning, and still others had powerful social abilities....

In 5e they massively constrained everyone's damage and defense to be within a very narrow range with nonmagic equipment from the phb only & classes that once had powerful nondamage abilities & varying defenses. Yes there were problems at the extreme end that could be pretty bad if the gm didn't know how to handle them, but now everyone is pretty much the same & trying to fill a niche other than "kill it fast" winds up feeling lacking & wondering if bothering makes any difference because all of the extra but irrelevant areas of averageness forcing the powerful niche to be constrained. Add in magic items to a system designed for them to be "optional" and by simple virtue of those items generally being damage related it makes those already hamstrung non-damage niche areas even worse off