D&D 5E Drop the rotating spotlight model of niche protection for 5e

[billd91]

I think the idea of having 2 classlets has some merit, thinking of them as packages of related abilities that work well together. They help build archetypes like the front rank fighting warlord, or perhaps even the artillery (archery) warlord, or the rakish archer or rakish duelest.

But I think completely separating them into silos of combat and non-combat isn't a good method and is one of 4e's weaknesses. How many skills can be used in combat situations? Would any non-combat classlet heavy on acrobatics have an impact on combat? It probably would. It would certainly affect mobility.

I think that for this concept to work, the classlets may have to mix combat and non-combat applications. If they don't, then you may have to include both combat and non-combat versions of acrobatic-focused classlets. And if someone takes both, are they actually getting less utility out of them than someone taking the one and then a classlet based on something else.

Following the idea of classlets further, I think we may want to take a closer look at SWSE talent trees. That may be the structure to explore. Class determines which combat talent trees and which non-combat talent trees you can pick from.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Eh, I can sort of see the argument that combat gets excessive mind-share, but I disagree that 4e 'neglected' the non-combat side of the equation. It simply filled it with a fairly streamlined and generalized system designed to provide good solid rules that get out of the way of doing all the myriad things you may want to do in different situations and different styles of game.

This isn't an accident. It isn't neglect either. It is a conscious and calculated game design decision. One of the things it does is tend to even out the differences in agency that existed in previous editions, where the lack of specific permission for a character to be good at something made them bad at it for instance. This lead to a situation where it was natural for spells to simply fill in all those incompetencies with an answer box.

There are things that can certainly be made more polished on that side of 4e's design, (and on the combat side for that matter), but the core concept is good. Skill Tricks for instance would be a perfectly good addition, as would a more refined SC system. However I think adding a lot of codified rules for what you can and can't do wouldn't be a good idea. Skill Tricks would work because you don't HAVE to have some trick to pull something off, it just makes you better at it or able to apply your skill in a few additional situations. Things like CPP rules and lots of 'trained only' things OTOH wouldn't be good in general.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The idea of separate classes for non-combat abilities, roles, etc. has been suggested by many people over the last few years, and is hardly new, anyway.

DragonQuest did that exact same thing with its "professions". If you developed "ranks" in "Ranger", then that said nothing about weapon ability, D&D-ish cure spells, or anything else that we might envision embedded in a D&D ranger class. All it said was that as you went up in ranks, you got better at sneaking around in the wild, avoiding being snuck up on in the wild, not getting lost, etc. It is fairly narrow, but obviously useful in combat and non-combat situations. (DQ being very old and a very wargaming-oriented RPG in its presentation, the actual mechanics are nothing to write home about--lots of highly fiddly percentage checks, basically.)

All this really does is say that skills aren't these isolated things, but suites of themed abilities that people often want together. How many people want to be expert at spotting ambushes but don't care anything about sneaking themselves? Sure, you'll have a few, the same way you'll have wizards that want to use halberds--but you can satisfy most people with this setup. Compared to a skill-based game, you trade off a list of people a bit unsatisfied with this or that for far less complexity.

It would take some careful design, because now skills are not cafeteria style. Heck, they aren't even scoped cleanly. Sneaking in the wild is different than sneaking in the city. And for this reason, you'll need some fairly wide-open and flexible multiclassing, so that people can go as wide or deep as they want. (DQ gets around this by given major XP bumps when sufficient depth and breadth are achieved. By tweaking these requirements, you can make the characters as specialized or general as the group prefers, and then each character is explicitly rewarded when they meet the targets.)

 

[Blacky the Blackball]

Based on what D&D has been for every edition prior to 4E (and the latter days of 3.5 which led to 4E e.g. mystic theurge and other contrived classes with no archetype), I think to avoid needless complication maybe it may be time to look elsewhere for your fantasy RPG needs? In D&D done properly, class and archetype are synonymous. Deviating from that leads to meaningless class names and archetypeless classes like the mystic theurge or warlord, which are thematically rudderless, and dilute D&D's reflection of the fantasy genre.

Enough of that, I reckon. Maybe stick with 4E if that's your bag.

I'm all for classes being archetypes, but I'd give the Warlord a free pass. Of all the new 3.x/4e classes it's the one that seems most archetypal (in a shouty-sergeant type of way)

 

[Kannik]

This isn't an accident. It isn't neglect either. It is a conscious and calculated game design decision. One of the things it does is tend to even out the differences in agency that existed in previous editions, where the lack of specific permission for a character to be good at something made them bad at it for instance. This lead to a situation where it was natural for spells to simply fill in all those incompetencies with an answer box.

This is an astute observation -- the more specific the game became about what a character could do, the more it often became assumed by players that you couldn't do something unless it was explicitly mentioned or granted. As things became codified through feats, skills and abilities it became easy to slip into the mindset that unless it is codified by a game aspect it didn't exist for your character.

The end point (of sorts) of this might be that given that direction of game design, when 4e emerged and there were many power cards in front of you there was a tendency to slip into a mode to relating to the character as only those power cards, despite the actually very large freedom that had been re-granted retro-style. (And without that freeform-ness being noted as such (and noted as a change) via text in the DMG or PHB it isn't a surprise that it wasn't noted by those who had gotten used to high codification and seen as a loss or lack)

Myself I like to occupy the middle way between full openness of 1e (here's THAC0, spells and HP, the rest is up to you to describe) and the minutia of 3e (specific listen, see things, search for things skills). I think you can provide some game-rule support for things without becoming bogged down, primarily by allowing differing skills to have different granularity (profession or background skills are very free-form to allow for RP and inventiveness, Spot is specifically all about how well you notice things) and a good discussion in the DMG to illustrate how to allow backgrounds, player input, skills and PC abilities and narrative to interplay and support each other for a rich rich rich experience, sans straight-jackets on either the player or the PC end of things.

As to the thread topic and spotlighting, I think a great way to look at the issue might be to look at it from the reverse end; rather than look to ensure no spotlight stealing simply work towards allowing each character to have the opportunity to participate in every scene. They don't have to participate (it isn't required) and they don't have to participate equally (they may not pull as much weight as another character), but if they choose to help they can either through a direct skill, profession, background, etc. And this comes as much as from the DM and adventure design as it does from straight up rules. More discussion in the DMG. If your rogue is sneaky-sneaking through a section of the adventure, allowing the retired soldier fighter to hit up the taverns, ply the off-duty city guard with booze and tales of battle in order to get some corroborating information is allowed and encouraged (and not forced) if the player so desires to do it, and whether the fighter had invested points in diplomacy or not. It doesn't steal the rogue's thunder, nor does it force the fighter player to sit around for a few hours until the rogue returns.

Or maybe the fighter goes to the tavern, plys the city guard with booze and tales of battle, then drinks some more, sings songs into the morning, stumbles back to the inn to meet his companions, and totally forgot to ask about that information. Fighters do that, sometimes.

peace and options,

Kannik

 

[MortonStromgal]

having 2 classes will give more ammo to the MMO argument. EQ2 for example you can be a Monk/Alchemist. Granted they only deal with crafting for the other class but comparisons will run wild.

 

[Lanefan]

The idea that class=archetype is something that I hope goes into one of the modules WOTC talks about and I can safely drop it in the ocean in my game. If you want strong archetypes based on class, with rotating spotlight, that absolutely should be an option.

However, it also absolutely should be an option and not a pre-defined way to play the game.

Where I'd prefer they do the exact opposite: get the archetypes into the core game first so people - particularly new players - can dive right in and play what they're already vaguely familiar with. Then, have all these other ideas (classlets, non-niche stuff, etc.) presented as bolt-on options. But present them at time of initial release so those who do want to use them right away, can.

Lanefan

 

[Dragonblade]

Based on some of the tweets coming out of DDXP, my impression is that WotC has siloed the game into 3 core areas for 5e: Combat, Social, Exploration. And you can specialize in each one to various degrees.

They specifically mentioned a Fighter taking the "Noble" package to get more social skills... Sounds intriguing and roughly what I was looking for. I'd like to see more concrete mechanics around it, though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Based on some of the tweets coming out of DDXP, my impression is that WotC has siloed the game into 3 core areas for 5e: Combat, Social, Exploration. And you can specialize in each one to various degrees.

They specifically mentioned a Fighter taking the "Noble" package to get more social skills... Sounds intriguing and roughly what I was looking for. I'd like to see more concrete mechanics around it, though.

That doesn't sound bad. I think class can contribute some flavor to any of the different areas, but it makes good sense to have a different game construct for each one.

I'm curious though, I've always kind of felt like siloing feels a bit limiting too, but if say you have 3 of them and can focus on 2 of the three with the 3rd being left to a more basic level of competency that will be good. Nobody is terrible at combat, but you might be weaker or find it more profitable to try to find ways to use your social/exp stuff to help you win the fight, etc.

 

[FireLance]

They specifically mentioned a Fighter taking the "Noble" package to get more social skills... Sounds intriguing and roughly what I was looking for. I'd like to see more concrete mechanics around it, though.

So, would a Fighter Noble be a Warrior Lord?

 

[howandwhy99]

It's been said a hundred times before. Why don't we make this modular?

Some players do want a game where combat is not the central concern of the campaign. If everyone plays a Magic User, Cleric, Thief or variant, why would they necessarily have to be as good as a guts-n-glory warrior and seek out combat? Thieves actually make a living out of avoiding combat.

What I think could be included as a primary option are game systems that focus on magic, clericism, and thieving (as well as some subclass additions), so players can engage where they want in what they want.

This isn't to short change anyone who wants to play everything. It simply allows me, who has a weak STR PC to be weaker than your PC who has a high STR when STR comes into play. All 10s for all scores, HP, AC, and everything else, for all characters makes jack a very dull boy.

 

[Hussar]

Based on what D&D has been for every edition prior to 4E (and the latter days of 3.5 which led to 4E e.g. mystic theurge and other contrived classes with no archetype), I think to avoid needless complication maybe it may be time to look elsewhere for your fantasy RPG needs? In D&D done properly, class and archetype are synonymous. Deviating from that leads to meaningless class names and archetypeless classes like the mystic theurge or warlord, which are thematically rudderless, and dilute D&D's reflection of the fantasy genre.

Enough of that, I reckon. Maybe stick with 4E if that's your bag.

Guess I've been playing D&D wrong since 2nd edition. After all, I played a Cleric Monk from the Complete Priests guide back in about 1990. Played bards as warlords back in 2e too. My paladins were holy warriors, true, but, about as far from the "shining knight" archetype as I could make them (I was a big David Eddings fan at the time, sue me). Then again, that player back in the 80's when I played 1e whose ranger was based on The Gunslinger from Stephen King complete with six shooters would be right out in your game too.

I guess, I've just been doing it wrong for decades.

 

[hanez]

Guess I've been playing D&D wrong since 2nd edition. After all, I played a Cleric Monk from the Complete Priests guide back in about 1990. Played bards as warlords back in 2e too. My paladins were holy warriors, true, but, about as far from the "shining knight" archetype as I could make them (I was a big David Eddings fan at the time, sue me). Then again, that player back in the 80's when I played 1e whose ranger was based on The Gunslinger from Stephen King complete with six shooters would be right out in your game too.

I guess, I've just been doing it wrong for decades.

You haven't been doing it wrong. I love taking classes/archetypes and changing them to suit my needs. Thats the beauty of archetypes as classes, you have a strong idea that shapes and gives spirit to an other wise lifeless mechanical class, and players can STILL change that default archetype if they wish. Players who dont change the archetype, at least have the default archetype to help them roleplay/get into character.

I find this is MUCH better then having a class represent some tactical/mechanical methods on a battlefield and little else. What ends up happening here is some people craft a character, the same type of people who would have changed a strong archetype. But the players who don't think about that end up having bland, flavorless characters defined by powers because the rules don't nudge them in any direction.

Thats my experience at least. For example as much as my players hated alignment, it gave them something to roleplay and judge their actions, they discussed it and it often effected their choices. WHen it was removed, morals were NEVER an issue because there wasnt even a threat of any mechanical repercussions. This had a negative impact on my campaign because we saw one less non combat/roleplaying thing my players would talk about. Multiply this by all the choices to take fluff out of the game (less archetype driven classes, fluff left up to the players, divine powers not dependant on gods approval, weaker non combat niches, no alignment effects, powers as mechanics with one sentence of flavor) and you end up with players who forget that this is a roleplaying game and not a tactical minis game.

 

[SensoryThought]

To the OP, I agree almost entirely with your analysis, except I would argue the lack of focus or mechanics for non-combat in D&D has existed from day 1. As a fun exercise suggested by Geeknights, go through the D&D character sheet of any edition and highlight anything that relates to combat. I bet by the end, name, alignment, gender and in some cases nonweapon proficiencies or skills are the only things not highlighted. Same with the core rulebooks too.

In fact, when you look at the essential game, you only progress by getting xp and treasure that are awarded by killing monsters. So aren't the combat rules the crux of the system?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To the OP, I agree almost entirely with your analysis, except I would argue the lack of focus or mechanics for non-combat in D&D has existed from day 1. As a fun exercise suggested by Geeknights, go through the D&D character sheet of any edition and highlight anything that relates to combat. I bet by the end, name, alignment, gender and in some cases nonweapon proficiencies or skills are the only things not highlighted. Same with the core rulebooks too.

In fact, when you look at the essential game, you only progress by getting xp and treasure that are awarded by killing monsters. So aren't the combat rules the crux of the system?

Yeah, this being some sort of 4e characteristic has always mystified me. 4e is really no more combat focused than any other edition has been. What IMHO it has been is thankfully blessed with a lack of random artificial limitations like alignment restrictions and ambiguous and questionably valuable elements like 9-way alignment compared to any other edition. Rules like that don't create RP, rules just tell you what you CANNOT do, not what you can. IME nobody at any of my tables has ever cared about alignment. At best it was a way to say "my guy is EVIL!". Heck, I couldn't tell you the alignment of one PC from any of my old campaigns. I can tell you a lot about their personalities though.

I don't think hanez is wrong about archetypes in general, and I've always been more of a fan of fewer broader classes, but I think Warlord IS an archetype. In fact it is the one archetype that really hasn't been well represented by D&D in general because either it was force-grafted onto all fighters or just ignored entirely. It MAY be a narrow enough archetype that it can be relegated to 'sub-class' type implementation (along with things like witches, sorcerers, assassins, etc). I think 4e did do a pretty good job of making some of these archetypes really useful and exploring them far better than they were before.

 

[SensoryThought]

I also like the warlord both for the idea of a tactician and leader, but also as a healer that isn't loaded with all that faith baggage many players don't want to be lumped with. You can argue about the mechanics and execution (and many do), but I think the concept is a good one.

 

[Hussar]

AbdulAlhazred - I've long argued that the main problem with 4e is presentation. Like you say, I don't think 4e is any more or less combat centric than any other version of the game. SensoryThought's point about looking at the character sheet is well taken. However, the game that's presented is SO heavily combat oriented. The powers are all written from a point of view as to how they will impact combat. Even the utility powers frequently suffer from this.

Add to this a few rather poor choices in wording (skip past the gate guard) and you get a very strong sense that 4e is all about miniature combats.

 

[Number48]

Maybe I woke up on the wrong side of the bed or maybe somebody pissed in my Cheerios, but I've been a bit down since reading about the classes. Color me disappointed that WotC essentially took the idea of 2 classes and said, "Let's implement this in the worst way possible!" The concepts we've heard so far are clunky and restricting. You can take a fighter and give him the Noble package? Why not take ANY character and give him the Noble package? But no, WotC is trying so hard to not move in a new direction they're charging in reverse. I do still hold out some hope I'm proven wrong.

BTW, when I was designing my take on the 2-class system (here), I pictured taking a 4E character and removing everything non-combat and taking a PF character and removing everything combat as the starting point. Do you know what you get when you remove all the non-combat from a 4E character class? Pretty much the same thing you had before you removed it. That's why 4E is an unmitigated disaster for WotC.