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

[hanez]

I couldn't disagree more. If 5e follows this theory I will be able to smell it in the first 40 pages and put it back down right in the store.

Some points:

You forgot to mention how making classes equally effective in combat regardless of niche made them feel the same. Didn't see how you're going to overcome this without having niches either


Your post also assumes players want to all be equally effective at combat and non combat. Players pre 4e have always been able to set their combat effectiveness and there non combat effectiveness according to their own wishes. Skills, Feats, Items and Spells can be chosen on the players desire.

Let Burselbutt (my gnome bard) keep collecting non combat feats and spells so when he has to charm a King, thats his time to shine. And Taku (my brothers barbarian) well he can keep picking powers to rip orcs heads off if thats what he likes. Bursellbutt and Taku don't need you telling them they need to select powers from a variety of sources so they dont have a niche.

Some theives like to focus on being skillmonkeys and sneakers, how are you going to satisfy them by shoving combat powers down their throat?

What Im trying to say is it sounds like you want to TAKE AWAY my ability to focus on non combat at the expense of combat. You also wants to take away someone elses ability to focus on combat at the expense of non combat

No edition was perfect. The fighter should be able to boost his non combat area if he wishes. But pushing everyone into a rigid power structure where everyone is equally good in all areas will not make the game more fun for me or my group.

Anyways, we all ready tried that. I thought the only reason Im in this forum is that they gave up on telling me how I am supposed to play my character?

Frankly I'm still astounded at WOTCs actions. This is akin to turning monopoly into the game of life, or adding complicated and more granular mechanics to risk to make it "more realistic". Your trying to change the very CORE of what d&d IS and means to player. Stop What your arguing for sounds like a very fun and interesting game, but its in many ways opposed to D&D. They should try it out as something else, it might gain in popularity, it might replace D&D. But calling it D&D is just brand destruction.

D&D needs updates, twists, ever more elegant rules, new ideas and rebalancing. What it doesn't need is people changing what it means to be a fighter, or a theif or a wizard.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I thought the only reason Im in this forum is that they gave up on telling me how I am supposed to play my character?

We're all holding our breath on that one.

D&D needs updates, twists, ever more elegant rules, new ideas and rebalancing. What it doesn't need is people changing what it means to be a fighter, or a theif or a wizard.

No, it certainly doesn't.

 

[Hussar]

What Im trying to say is it sounds like you want to TAKE AWAY my ability to focus on non combat at the expense of combat. You also wants to take away someone elses ability to focus on combat at the expense of non combat

Yes, absolutely. Why should your choice of class force you into a specific focus? Why can't I have a diplomatic fighter or a combat wizard? You say that players will choose where there focus is. And that's true. However, by choosing that focus, you pretty much close down the option of choosing any other archetype.

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.

 

[SlyDoubt]

Yes, absolutely. Why should your choice of class force you into a specific focus? Why can't I have a diplomatic fighter or a combat wizard? You say that players will choose where there focus is. And that's true. However, by choosing that focus, you pretty much close down the option of choosing any other archetype.

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.

Your last statements leave no room to argue. SHAME!

Really though I see what you mean. I guess the difference is which is the focus of the character first and foremost. Being a fighter, or being a diplomat? The idea being both should be achievable to some extent from each direction.

A fighter who has a knack for words or a diplomat who has some skill with a blade!

I want BOTH.

 

[Hussar]

Slydoubt- well, thinking about it, does it really matter how you achieve that end point, so long as the end point is reached. So long as you get the "talky fighter", how you reach that isn't so important.

What I could envision is an extremely basic outline for classes. Each class would be a collection of themed abilities, probably mostly combat oriented, similar to what classes have been all the way along. That gives you your basic vehicle for your character in the game.

For those who don't care about the talky bits, or want to free-form the talky bits (a la AD&D), that's probably good enough.

Layer on another module and you get stronger archetypes. This is where you'd get the "sub classes" (although that's a bit of an older term) where each of the basic archetypes get a layered set of changes to create a more traditional strong archetype class.

Or, go to a different module, where the basic chassis is layered with a thematic concept that isn't tied to specific flavor. Thus a "diplomatic fighter" could be virtually any flavor concept from knight or commander or pirate or whatnot, but, will be mechanically fairly similar regardless of the specific concept.

Something like that anyway.

 

[rounser]

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

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.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I mentioned in another thread a possible way I could see D&DNext working out. I do not see the Basic version of the game giving the customization some of you are looking for at the start, but I do think that it may become available in a latter "Advanced" module.

Consider this: The basic rules would predetermine your social and exploratory roles without expanding to much on them. The advanced module would tell you that the Fighter is an Intimidating Athlete, the Wizard a Impressive Scholar, the Rogue a Glib Explorer, the Cleric a Diplomatic Hierophant, etc. It would also go in to how to change and alter these roles.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Some gamers seem fairly opposed to the idea of "classlets" (coined by Billd91) and I do agree that it can take focus off the pure archetype. However there is no need to multiclass every single concept. The explorer part of Explorer Wizard is simply a preselected package of skills. In 3ed this was already possible (yet expensive). It is not necessary to mention this in the class entry on the record sheet but I really want the option to pick role.

Now, I think it's important to remember that all players do not long for the spotlight. Some players want a lot of attention, some are content with a little and a fair share of players rather stay out of the spotlight alltogether.

A player who choses to be a Faceman craves attention and is pretty likely to engage in entertaining debates with the DM when trying to convince guards to let him through or interrogating prisoners.

An Explorer still wants some attention but in a more toned down manner. An explorer player constantly interviews the DM about details. Since objects won't talk back explorer is a good niche for a player who wants to do things but aren't exactly comfortable in a showy environment.

Another player doesn't want attention during the actual game but likes to enjoy status from some facts established about the character early on. A Status player is likely to describe the character and its' titles in great detail (monologue) and from then on remain rather silent.

The fourth niche is for the player that doesn't want to talk or be seen at all. They tend to be mysterious yet resourceful. Some players are willing to trade all attention for the ability to be the last character standing.

I'd like to present four roles/niches/classlets/skillsets or whatever you like to call them:

Dungeon: explore skills, lock picking, trap disabling. In short, capabilities that allow the player to role-play in a matter of factly way by pose questions to the DM about the environment. [interview]

Urban: social skills, bluff intimidate, haggle. A player who wants a dialogue with the DM. Perhaps die rolls are out of the question and these skills should be govered by some other mechanic, such as Vampire hand signals. [dialogue]

Organized: knowledge skills, secrets, contacts. A player who likes to, now and again, get up on a soap box and talk uninterrupted about themselves and known facts. [monologue]

Wilderness: survival, awareness, animal handling. Players who are shy or otherwise not interested in talking likes to be hard to kill. [interviewee]

I forgot! There is the fifth type of the joker too. Some players like to be utterly unpredictable and spring surprises upon the other players and the DM alike. They like to shout something completely inappropriate and the get away with it scot-free. Use Magic Device is an important skill to these guys.

 

[Li Shenron]

I want to point out a few things, even if I understand that these will sound like a strenuous defense of 3ed... I apologize, but 3ed is the only D&D system I used to know really well after all I don't want this to sound against any other edition, just because it is based on saying something good of one edition in particular.

1) I have no problems with rotating spotlight. That's exactly what "roles" mean to me, so if I play a roleplaygame, that's what I am expecting from it: different characters shining at different things. It doesn't bother me the least.

2) From what I've seen in my experience, already in 3ed there was hardly a class that sucked in combat. All the fighter types had obviously good and straightforward combat-related features. Rogues had sneak attack, which required a very different approach to combat based on finding ways to activate the bonus damage; IMHO playing a Rogue in combat was actually more exciting than the average Fighter (unless you approached the Fighter with an attitude towards specializing in feats that opened up for more combat options). All spellcasters had a lot of combat spells, both tactical and simpler damage-dealer or buffs. Combat was not when some classes sucked (I only had issues with Monks and Bards in combat, but I've never understood how much the problem was in the class design and how much in players' abilities). In fact I want to point out that when I hear fans of 4ed, they generally say that 4e did a good job at actually making the fighter-types better in combat and toning down the spellcasters a bit.

3) In theory, 3ed already offered some non-combat stuff to do to many classes, mostly via skills, spells and class abilities. Personally I think only Fighters and Monks had seriously quite too little to do out of combat, besides forcing/sneaking their way somewhere. These should definitely needed more. But more commonly, characters who had nothing at all to do out of combat were the result of players maxing them for combat, e.g. trying to only get themselves combat feats, offensive/defensive spells, and asking all the time how to make their skills useful in combat (e.g. every fighters spending all their skill points in Climb, Jump and Swim because maxing them out is "must-have", except that they never used those skills but cried they couldn't afford others...). Now it sounds like players would like to be forced to take non-combat stuff because they realized they suck out of combat, but I could bet that later on the same players will want the right to give up the non-combat mandatory abilities in exchange for more combat ones whenever they are not interested. Somehow this brings me back to the period when the forums were full of threads about wanting to play "gestalt" characters...

4) OP's quote: "The flaw is that getting equal spotlight time is very dependent on how well the DM, the adventure itself, and the players can smoothly shift the spotlight fairly. A combat heavy DM is going to frequently have a bored skill monkey player. Likewise, a fighter shines in combat, but in a session filled with intense RP and skill checks, they might as well go play Nintendo.". So what...? The group (players + DM) have the responsibility of making the game together. It is impossible that the game takes care of this. The DM and players must agree together on what are the characters and the adventures. A DM that runs adventures only based on her own agenda, not realizing that some PC are unsuitable, sucks as a DM. A player that obtusely wants to play one and only PC archetype at any cost even if this forces the DM (or others) to play a game they dislike, sucks as a player. So in your example, a combat-heavy DM runs a combat-heavy game for combat-heavy players, period, and no one gets bored. Otherwise if the group is balanced, the DM must avoid unbalanced sessions, is it hard? Yes, sometimes it's hard, but it's also her damn job! If the DM isn't having fun in doing this, then again the group's game just need to be rediscussed and rearranged.

 

[Saracenus]

I think that themes in 4e get at the idea of "2 classes" and is a possible vector for the idea of class for combat and theme for non-combat.

Unfortunately for those of us playing 4e, themes reinforce the combat side with crunch while leaving the fluff in the discpition.

It would take some reconcepulization of themes to accomplish this.

Hopefully themes will be one of the elements that are used in 5e from 4e.

Sent from my HTC EVO using Tapatalk