How weak can the combat tier be in a class?

[bedir than]

The three pillars of play are combat, social and exploration. Every class has a relative power level in each of these, but none are as weak in combat as the Champion is in both social and exploration. If once were to graph the classes relative power levels in each pillar the combat pillar would all be medium to high, where as the other two would be low to high powered.

How playable is a low combat class at your table? Do they need to at least be squishy and stay alive? If your party has more than four would it the 5th, 6th, etc PC be OK if it was high functioning in the other two pillar?

I've been working on a series of "Unprestige Classes" that are weak combatants, but fill roles in the social and exploration sphere. The three partial classes, meant ideally for 1st and 2nd tiers of play, though certain builds would be possible to the 3rd tier. They could not exist at the 17-20th levels. The three are the Uncommoner, the Expert and the Factotum.

My goal here is to discuss how important combat potency is to a playable class.

 

[GreenTengu]

The weakest you can go is standard proficiency bonus and simple weapons with d6 hit die, never getting any particular features that apply to combat beyond the standard actions and what you could do with skills.... although, in most D&D games combat is such a big part, so such a thing would be basically unplayable.

For them to be balanced, you'd have to make them just so strong in the Exploration and Social parts to compensate that pretty much everyone else would feel like during those parts of the game they can just sit back and not do anything.

You can kind of do that with the Bard already. Give a Bard crappy Dexterity, never teach them any spells that apply directly to combat and you pretty much have what would bottom out as the most useless thing in combat. They can hand out a few bursts of inspiration, but those apply out-of-combat as well as in.

 

[CapnZapp]

All player character classes are combat capable. None are "weak" in social.

 

[bedir than]

All player character classes are combat capable. None are "weak" in social.

What Champion features apply to the social tier of play?

 

[CapnZapp]

What Champion features apply to the social tier of play?

You don't need any particular class features to be able to participate in the social pillar.

You attempt to paint the Champion as especially weak in this pillar. I'm arguing it is not. Everyone can roll high on a Charisma check; it's not like the Champion is somehow excluded from the pillar or can't take most if not all available courses of action.

You might want to sacrifice a bit of your combat prowess to up your Charisma score, but that's about it. All fighters have extra feats: take Actor and suddenly you're a top tier contender compared to all the combat-focused builds!

The truth is that the social pillar has very little mechanics in the D&D game. D&D is about combat; which takes up perhaps 90% of its rules and features.

All you need to not suck at social is a lucky d20 and a not-negative Charisma modifier. That and a well-oiled talking machine (your mouth as player). And the Champion can easily give you that. And what's more: many other character builds does not give you much more than that!

Thus I argue: the Champion does not stand out as being uniquely weak in Social. The social pillar is much too ...unsophisticated, is that a good term? for making that call.

I'd recalibrate and instead say that most classes are uninterested in the social pillar (some Charisma-based classes are social almost unintentionally!), but can still play well enough (again because the game doesn't care enough to add actual hurdles for social play).

 

[bedir than]

You're claiming that Champion is just able to succeed in social settings as any Bard, or a Enchanter Wizard, a Mastermind Rogue, a Purple Dragon Knight?

 

[ccs]

You're claiming that Champion is just able to succeed in social settings as any Bard, or a Enchanter Wizard, a Mastermind Rogue, a Purple Dragon Knight?

Yes.
Step 1) Participate as a player. This is mandatory. If you don't participate it doesn't matter what your class/race/stats/etc are.
Step 2) Not having a negative modifier to your charisma score helps, but isn't required.

Wich step don't you understand?

 

[bedir than]

Yes.
Step 1) Participate as a player. This is mandatory. If you don't participate it doesn't matter what your class/race/stats/etc are.
Step 2) Not having a negative modifier to your charisma score helps, but isn't required.

Wich step don't you understand?

By this justification there is no Class that is weak at combat. There is no class that is weak at exploration.

I'm fine with those that feel such a thing, but it doesn't apply to the questions asked.

 

[ccs]

How playable is a low combat class at your table? Do they need to at least be squishy and stay alive? If your party has more than four would it the 5th, 6th, etc PC be OK if it was high functioning in the other two pillar?

Completely viable - depending upon the player.
The whole party could be combat deficient if they chose to be. All that means is that different types of adventures will be run....

 

[CapnZapp]

You're claiming that Champion is just able to succeed in social settings as any Bard, or a Enchanter Wizard, a Mastermind Rogue, a Purple Dragon Knight?

No, I'm not.