Nope, I'm not! Isn't this fun?
Yes, you are! And no, it's not
Ignoring rules can sometimes, though not always, cause issues. Since hit points are explicitly not meat, then your noncombatant "PC" just has lots of plot protection. It's probably how someone so unsuited to the adventuring lifestyle wasn't murdered by the first kobold they came across.
Explicitly in 4e. It wasn't in 3.5e. And, regardless, there are plenty of people that want HP to be meat to some degree. And I don't think it's an insignificant number. And, in an inclusive edition, I expect HP to be given support in multiple areas (HP as all meat might be an outlier, but some meat is popular, and "only the last HP might count, but maybe not" is popular, too).
This argument isn't persuasive.
Woefully inadequate for the experience I'm looking for. In-depth or dynamic support for non-combat roles, please.
You are still describing, for purposes of normal D&D, NPCs. These are not adventurers. These are people to whom adventurers turn to for help back in town or, at worst, escort under heavy guard to an archaeological site.
Adventurers also turn to help from monsters (which people want to play), or even other combat-focused characters (which people want to play). If I (or my players) want to play in a game (using D&D's rules) that supports playing a non-combat character, I should be able to do so. These things can be very
useful to adventurers, and I want there to be support when I play one of these characters.
D&D PC classes model adventurers (inasmuch as they model anything). Therefore, PC rules should not try to model these types of characters.
And I think this should be expanded. Just as I think there should be in-depth or dynamic rules on non-combat activity. I want rule support. People can ignore it if they want to. It doesn't even need to be baseline. Just give me the support to have the fiction I want backed up by the mechanics, please. That, to me, is a reasonable request (but then, so is asking to be a non-combat character in a fantasy game).
Who cares? No one other than you will ever look at your sheet.
In your group. If a player in my game is absent, I take their sheet, and RP them (as an NPC, effectively), and I use their sheet to do so. My players also look at each others' sheets occasionally, seeing what they're capable faster than the other person can typically tell them.
And, as I said, I want the fiction of the game to be reflected by the mechanics. If I want to trade my combat prowess for some more non-combat expertise, that seems reasonable, to me. It doesn't need to be 1-for-1, thus my earlier example (3/3/3 becoming 5/1/1 or 1/4/3 or /2/2/4).
Did you complain about this in 3rd Ed?
I believe I explicitly said as much. I said, "As much fun as I had with 3.5, this was a problem for us." I then mentioned that my RPG works better for us when we want to scratch that itch, but that you could definitely make a class-based non-combat character. So, yeah, it was a problem for us in 3e.
I mean, D&D has never let you create a complete noncombatant.
Right. That's a problem for us.
There's "I'd like to be able to tweak," and there's "I want to ignore most of the game." You're asking for the latter, and I don't think it's a reasonable request.
No, I'm asking for more support in other areas. You know, the other two-thirds of the pillars they're talking about. That's what I'm asking for. About two-thirds the game to have support. And I think that's a reasonable request. I can agree to disagree, though. As always, play what you like
I don't think this form of siloing is preventing character concepts you want. This form is merely saying that feats are a combat-focused module instead of a generic character building module.
I suggest that backgrounds and traits be expanded on, so that it's feasible to, say, build a character with two backgrounds and no specialties, or to trade out a feat for a trait.
The benefits of siloing for those who play combat heavy games are enormous. Those are the people who care the most about combat balance, and who want balanced combat regardless of how much focus they put into the other pillars. For groups who aren't so worried about that, a few optional rules can easily give you the flexibility you need to play the characters you want.
While I see what you're saying, I disagree (maybe... keep reading for more on this). I'm asking to be better
at non-combat roles by losing my combat stuff. Just like, theoretically, somebody could be better
at combat by losing their social / exploration stuff. You're saying (as far as I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong because I'm certainly not trying to misrepresent you) "you can still do non-combat stuff without feats."
That's true. I want a trade-off, though. I want my focused Sage to be better at sagery (that's right, sagery) than your Sage-Knight. Again, it doesn't need to be baseline. And, again, the tradeoff doesn't need to be 1-for-1 (my 3/3/3 becoming 5/1/1 or 1/4/3 or 2/2/4). But, I don't want my focused Sage to be just as good as sagery as your Sage-Knight. I want him to be better.
If the solution is simply "implement talents (or improve backgrounds), and take a 2nd one instead of one of each", then I'd say you're just making two sets of feats, and instead of labeling them "Combat Feats" and "Interaction / Exploration Feats", you're calling them "Feats" and "Talents (or Backgrounds)" instead.
And, you know what? If the rules support trading feats or specialties over for talents / backgrounds 1-for-1, and they both have in-depth or dynamic support for their areas, that's more than good enough for me. You've essentially done what I want (and given my style support), you just didn't use the name. And I'm totally okay with that, if you are. As always, play what you like