Remathilis
Legend
nutluck said:I think a better example would be Conan and Indy as your choices. Since Mr Hawking has disabilities and that makes it impossible for him to add anything to a fight. Conan is a much better fighter than Indy is so i think that is a better example. In that choice I would choose Indy.
See, that changes the dynamic. Conan is classically a brute warrior (abit a cunning one) but a noble savage and much more (in D&D terms) a warrior with a smattering of other odd skills. Indy is primarily a scientist who can also punch out Nazis. Stephen Hawking is a BRILLIANT mind who can mentally solve even the most difficult physics problems, but can't move out of his chair.
If I were at a quiz-bowl, I'd want Mr. Hawkings. If I were in a barfight, I'd want Conan. If I didn't know which I was walking into, I'd want Dr. Jones.
nutluck said:rapier-wielding fighter - had one was a noble concept, worked well and added a lot of flavor and RPing to the game as a whole.
pacifist cleric - had something similar, a cleric who refused to take the life of another ever. He would still hold person or use subdue damage ect.
diplomat rogue - had one the can work very well, he was a spy for a kingdom.
floofy bard - had one but was a noble class(from a 3rd party book) and worked much like the fighter above.
The rapier-wielding fighter is a great concept, but fails at its assigned role: dealing damage. It probably can't tank either, leaving his allies in an uncomfortable spot: he's a fighter thats not good at fighting (though technically better than his closest compatriot, the rogue) and effectively doesn't contribute to the group what a greatsword-wielding plate-armored gentry knight would.
The Pacifist Cleric starts out by cutting a huge swath out of his spell selection (flame strike, holy word, sound burst) and could theoretically extend beyond those direct damage spells depending on his ethos (bull strength on the fighter is aiding in killing, ditto hold person to attack a defenseless foe). In reality, a healer (mini's HB) is a worse example of this: a cleric who has crippled spell access (healing spells, that's all) and poor combat ability to boot.
The Diviner (a stretch, I'll give you it) should represent the mage who fills his spell slots with neat utility magic (fly, grease, rope trick) but lacks any offensive magic to harm foes the fighter is incapable of (fireball, magic missile). Against foes with high AC and DR, the wizard is a great equalizer, a wizard who cannot harm those foes are effectively crippling their party, no matter how useful having Knock memorized is...
The diplomacy rogue (and really, the floofy bard) are the non-aggressive skill masters who focus on an out of combat role (social skills, performance, con-artistry, etc) at the expense of any real ability to work in combat (run a social-heavy rogue in a tomb-based dungeon to feel the power of uselessness).
nutluck said:non-combat builds does not make them useless in combat. And while DnD might emphasize dungeons, monsters and exploration that is far from the only style that can or should be played with it. Many styles can work it is only a matter of what the group enjoys. So what you see as a problem I see as a strength as it caters to more people.
If your game is built around the premise that non-combat characters are viable and indeed preferable (see Lizard's post) I agree. The problem comes with the mixed bag element of most D&D. This week we're solving the murder mystery du jour, next week we're sacking the old catacombs near town. I want a group of PCs that have something to say in BOTH those adventures, not a bored fighter sitting around while the rogue rolls skill checks only to have next week watch the fighter rocking hard against some monstrous foes while the rogue is sitting there praying for a twenty.
nutluck said:Once more disagree, it limits what a player might want to play and it limits certain game types that might not be heavy combat focused. Which yes most DnD games are but they don't have to be.
I've played SW Saga. Its nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make a character that sucks in combat (well, its possible, but you have to work at it). However, most of our SW games don't involve a lot of combat. Even my PC (a solider working the mandelorian/Boba Fett angle) is a great pilot, field medic, and steely-eyed scout. The scoundrel (a verpine tech mechanic) has all sorts of abilities out of combat from fixing the hyperdrive to modifying equipment, but he can also knock a foe on his butt with a well-aimed blaster-bolt. The closest we have no a non-combatant is our Noble/healer PC, and she can still hit with her pistol with some regularity. We all add something to combat, we all add something out of combat. No one feels useless.