D&D 5E Dose D&D have room for a diplomat class?

[DEFCON 1]

The game already has a non-combat diplomat class. It's the Rogue with a DEX of 8 and CHA and INT of 16.

And that's the truth of it. You don't need new non-combat classes, you just take the existing classes and MIN the combat ability score. Boom! Your character is effectively a non-combatant.

 

[TwoSix]

I said "NPC classes" as a reference to 3e, to differentiate from the more adventurous "PC classes", but I always meant classes for player characters and just didn't have a good name. Later in my post I tried "adventurer class" and "commoner class" but that doesn't seem to fit either, as sages and diplomats are not commoners per se.

It feels like a question of whether or not there's room in the game for a class with little to no intrinsic supernatural power that also isn't either

1) a preternaturally skilled combatant or
2) a stealthy sneak attacker.

I think there probably is, but exactly how you design it is tricky.

 

[Mallus]

Under 5e's framework, "diplomat" makes the most sense as a Background whose special perk is "Diplomatic Immunity", ie they're shielded from prosecution for minor (and perhaps some major) crimes. Until the PC is recalled in disgrace, that is.

I see 5e as open to adding classes. But there needs to be a good reason for it. A particular combination of fictional niche and mechanical representation that justifies it. They are so many ways to do a credible diplomat in RAW 5e, I don't see "diplomat" as needing anything more than a new Background, if that.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Part of this thought is that I was wondering how you would do classes for a star treck like setting and you have a lot of people like Spock and Scotty who are scientists and engineers not fighters.

I'd honestly play a different, more narrative system. FATE, Savage Worlds, etc. D&D has always been pretty heavily combat invested. Sure, you CAN play D&D for sessions without violence, but why force a square peg into a round hole? Its rules mainly focus on butt kicking adventure, and other systems handle different styles better.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Thaaat is a good question. I'm not really sure. There are about a billion ways you can make a diplomatic class. (In fact I think you had about a half dozen in d20 Modern alone.) I would try it through two kinds of abilities. Some that gives you an extra bonus when you complete a check. (You have the ability to talk a wizard out of their spell slots.) Then others that give you advantages under different circumstances. (Something like getting an advantage when talking with wood sprites.)

The ability to "talk" spell slots out of someone has some legs, but gaining advantage against a creature type, IMO, doesnt. Advantage doesn't stack, and someone can always just "Help" the persuade check anyways.

If you play up the supernatural aspects, you could probably base a bard, cleric or psion subclass out of it though. An order that promotes peace, can halt enemies in their tracks, throw up aversion auras similar to the Sanctuary spell, etc.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

My first thought in response to this question was that Princess Leia is a diplomat, so yes, narratively at least, a diplomat can be part of an adventuring party. I'm pretty sure that the Star Wars and Traveller game both had diplomats as adventurers so these would be good spots to look for inspiration.

As for classic D&D play, it could work. I've always really liked the idea of letting players choose where they want their PCs' strength among the 3 pillars of combat, exploration, and social interaction, though back in 1980 I didn't think of it in those exact words. I've always thought the only important balance between PCs is spotlight balance. Everyone should get time to shine in their chose specialty, and should be able to contribute, at least a little bit, almost all of the time. Princess Leia is a good example of this too. Then it's up to the DM to provide encounters to make this happen. This idea sometimes sparks internet arguments about "catering to special snowflakes," but in reality it's no different than what a DM should do for every single character. If there's an undead slayer in your party, you put in undead challenges so the player gets to have fun. This is no different.

 

[nomotog]

The ability to "talk" spell slots out of someone has some legs, but gaining advantage against a creature type, IMO, doesnt. Advantage doesn't stack, and someone can always just "Help" the persuade check anyways.

If you play up the supernatural aspects, you could probably base a bard, cleric or psion subclass out of it though. An order that promotes peace, can halt enemies in their tracks, throw up aversion auras similar to the Sanctuary spell, etc.

I was using advantage the general term not the game term. (Though that dose bring up the reason I don't like advantage as a game mechanic.) It could be something like the ability to make a diplomacy check on someone who doesn't speak the same language or the ability to roll a guaranteed 20 so many times a week or day. You could actually still a few abilities from the rouge in that respect.

Going supernatural is one way you can do it because it opens the door to abilities that might stretch your imagination. One thought would be the idea of packs where you gain a temporary power based on the person you talked with. (Ya that is where the spell slot idea comes from.) Talk a dragon out of their fire breath, or talk a nymph out of their stunning looks.

 

[Mallus]

Part of this thought is that I was wondering how you would do classes for a star treck like setting and you have a lot of people like Spock and Scotty who are scientists and engineers not fighters.

Kirk... and Spock not... trained fighters? Have you... ever... watched... the original... Star Trek?

(For the Federation's sake, they teach humanities lessons via fistfights)

 

[Fralex]

Somehow, this seems relevant:

[sblock]

Problem Sleuth: Load weapon.

You load the CARTRIDGE into the BLOTSPITTER, pull back on the bolt handle, lock and load with a DING.

Problem Sleuth: LV. 98 SLEUTH DIPLOMACY -> POISON PEN LETTER

You hammer at the KEYS of the SMITH CORONA. The machine gun fire of your typing roars throughout the heavens.

You pen a strongly worded, rather UNPLEASANT NOTE to Demonhead Mobster Kingpin.

With a flourish you notarize the memorandum with some official marks and present it to Demonhead Mobster Kingpin for his judicious consideration!!!

[/sblock]

On a more serious note, I would actually be interested to see how a diplomacy-based, non-combative character played in D&D. As long as your fellow players don't mind that you won't contribute to fights, I see no problems with giving it a try.

 

[Riley37]

Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qi-Gon Jin once went on a diplomatic mission to the Trade Federation.
The negotiations did not last long...

In some settings and situations, it's useful for a diplomat to also have combat ability. People are less inclined to shoot the messenger when the messenger can shoot back.

I don't see much advantage to creating a new class.
You don't need a Left-Hander class in order to play a left-handed character.
You don't need a Rider class to play a character who rides horses.
You don't need a Perceiver class to play a character who has sight, hearing, and a strong bonus to Perception.
You don't need a Food-Eater class to play a character who enjoys three meals a day, nor a corresponding class for the other end of that process.