D&D 5E Let's discuss PC contribution and D&D Next

[ForeverSlayer]

Before I hijack another thread I think I will just create this one.

I want to discuss PC contribution in the game and where it should go in the next edition of D&D.

Now I want to start off that I don't think a game should be designed according to specific PC contribution. I believe PC contribution is different for everyone and every group. I have seen the age old topic about certain classes like the Fighter, in 3rd edition, not contributing to the party in a meaningful way. Now what do they mean by this? In our games the fighter and rogue have always contributed to the party. The fighter does damage, therefore he contributes to the party in our eyes. The rogue not do a lot of damage during combat? That's okay because he makes up for it in his other areas.

I don't know about you but we don't have this magical list of what we think PC contribution needs to be measured against to see if they are contributing enough. PC contribution covers a wide range of areas and I don't think we need to be measuring classes according to certain notions that we have about contribution. It should be up to the player to contribute where he feels comfortable and where is wants his class and concept to contribute. 4th edition, in my opinion, felt that combat was going to be their measuring stick and I don't like that. I don't want to play in a system that forces my contribution level to be at a certain point.

I hope D&D next allows me to set my own contribution level.

Discuss how you see PC contribution.

 

[Minigiant]

I think the contribution issue is more of replacement issue and a significance issue.

Few people want to play replaceable PCs, PCs who do not fulfill a need of their allies, or PCs who are a drag on the rest of the party.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I hope D&D next allows me to set my own contribution level.

Wouldn't the best way to do this be to give you as precise a level of information as possible?

If character level is a good gauge of power, as it has been intended to be throughout D&D's history, then your contribution can be set by varying your PC's level. If the party is, say, level 12, and you want a low level of contribution then your PC could be level 8. Where this could fail is if some classes contribute significantly more or less than others. What if a level 8 druid contributes more than a level 12 monk? Then your intentions may be thwarted by an uninformative system.

 

[steeldragons]

PC contribution should be just as you say.

Everyone contributes, in or out of combat, as they see fit, are comfortable with, and makes sense with their character concept.

The "system" should not be telling any player, "This is what you need to do to contribute."

It can offer guidelines! I hope it does, as BECM did, in their class descriptions. "Fighters stay up front...do the [ya know] FIGHTING! Magic-users, DON'T try to engage hand-to-hand! Help from the rear and be careful/SMART about it. Cleric, help out where you can. Cast spells or fill in/help the fighter! Rogues [nee Thief] be sneaky n' do wut ya do.", etc...I'm paraphrasing, of course.

But the GAME? The "SYSTEM" should not be telling players how to make their characters contribute beyond some suggestions of the....forgive me, and I totally don't mean this is a 4e way...the "role" of their class....as makes sense to the class abilities.

I think, to urge contribution, this is the best way. Some players will have well-formed concepts of their characters. Some might not. Those that DO, don't need any direction. Those that don't? Might.

I think examples are key. The lists of "feats" (under Themes) and the lists of Skills (under Backgrounds)...and/or Class Abilities should be presented with an array of examples of how to use them in play...in and out of combat. Give those without a concept "something to do" and give those with one some ideas they might not have thought of...but could easily be applied and work for their character concept.

Not "I use this mechanic....this happens. Move X squares. +1 to Y. +2 to Z. Save/No save. etc"...but an array of how this might be used for various, different purposes. Naturally, the players (as they often do) will come up with things that aren't in the books or the DM has thought of...HOPEFULLY!

Case in point (and play): During the playtest of ENworld's own ZEITGEIST setting, which we were playing in 4e, my "Hunter Ranger"...from the Essentials rules, I believe...gained the "power" to create a Bridge of Vines...or thorns?...vines, I think.

We were on a platform with a narrow access point with enemies racing up it. I asked if I could use the "bridge of vines" to create a "wall". I think I was allowed 10 feet [or 10 "squares"? I don't really remember]...the DM said it was a bridge...it needed a starting and end point.

Fair enough.

I had no concept of how 4e "powers" worked...only that I could do this thing once per day...I asked if I could put one end of the "bridge" in front of me and another/the other "end" a foot or two in front of that... effectively making a "wall" of 5 feet [or "squares" or whatever].

The DM, graciously, allowed it (lauded my creativity!) and we had a defensible 5 foot/square "barricade", of sorts, to protect us for a time and attack the things coming at us one or two at a time as they clawed their way over...instead of being ripped to shreds, immediately. Which we surely would have been.
/End case in point.

DM adjudication NEEDS to come back into 5e...WITH a solid array of guidelines, to be sure! But not just be "allowed", but ENCOURAGED. [I hear the beating of the "End DM Fiat" drums being pounded, even now. hahaha.]

A PCs ability to contribute shouldn't be dictated on the page...beyond suggestions. If that's all your players do...bully for you. But, for others, it shouldn't be ALL they can do.

--SD

 

[Sunseeker]

All classes should provide a minimum level of contribution in all pillars of the game at level 1. In this manner, a new person can sit down with whatever class they think is cool and participate in all parts of the game. They won't sit down with their shiny new fighter and then be told "Oh, fighters can't do this and they can't do that and all they can do is hit things, and since we're not going to hit a lot of things in this game, you're not going to do much."

At low levels, there should be a lot of overlap across the pillars between class capabilities, DCs will be low, ACs will be low, 1d8+2 damage won't be all that far off from 1d6+3 damage. Intimidate will come in handy just as often as diplomacy because most of the people you'll be talking to will be mooks who would give in whichever social tactic you choose.

By 5th level, classes should start showing their strengths in one area more than others, but still with plenty of room to participate in the other pillars, though they may have more niche applications here. Players should still have the ability to choose which pillar you improve over others though. Perhaps your Barbarian isn't very accurate, but he's really strong and really scary and makes enemies run away without ever hitting them.

The higher level you get, the more specific your role in the party becomes, perhaps the wizard has a spell for everything, and the cleric of a war god blows up stuff and the rogue can do a special attack to one-shot people and the fighter can't be hit except by the Goddess of Accuracy. Maybe the Wizard specialized in turning people into mice, maybe the cleric can heal you to full every other round. Maybe the rogue can just look at a lock and it opens. Maybe the fighter is a two-weapon dervish of slicing and dicing and he can also frappe!


So, in short, at low levels, PCs should contribute to the pillars of the game fairly evenly. As they advance, they become more and more effective at fewer areas, but in those areas they are unequaled.

 

[steeldragons]

Wouldn't the best way to do this be to give you as precise a level of information as possible?

I tend to think not.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Now I want to start off that I don't think a game should be designed according to specific PC contribution.

I'll go you one better: I don't think the game should even concern itself with "PC contribution." Just give the players lots of choices, and let them figure out how best to contribute to the game themselves.


All this stuff about being able to sit down without even reading the rulebook and "contribute" as much as as someone who has been RPGing for 30 years is a bunch of hooey that will only hasten the demise of our beloved hobby, IMO. (Maybe the next edition should revive the Advanced D&D name, just to give people a clue.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

PC contribution, as defined above, is dependent not only on the character (and the accompanying rules), but on the player. Realistically, an eager, capable player will leave a mark on the game no matter what, while a wallflower or a newbie might not.

As far as the rules are concerned, it's important that each of the major character types is good at something and can conceivably be useful, and none of them is clearly dominant. That's about as far as it goes.

Wouldn't the best way to do this be to give you as precise a level of information as possible?

If character level is a good gauge of power, as it has been intended to be throughout D&D's history, then your contribution can be set by varying your PC's level. If the party is, say, level 12, and you want a low level of contribution then your PC could be level 8. Where this could fail is if some classes contribute significantly more or less than others. What if a level 8 druid contributes more than a level 12 monk? Then your intentions may be thwarted by an uninformative system.

Maybe, but this grossly oversimplifies the issue. A level 12 character with average ability scores is different from one with godly numbers. A level 12 character who has been relieved of his equipment is no match for one loaded down with ridiculous gear. A level 12 character optimized by a rules expert is not equal to one hacked up by a casual gamer. Moreover, two characters that are equal at one table might not be at a different one, depending on how the DM interprets rules and what the style of game is.

I don't see how any game writer can comprehensively account for all of this, nor how any ruleset can do so. The "giving precise information" is accomplished by having a nice character sheet with detailed, readable information, all of which has to be taken into account to understand how that character will function in the game world.

In other words, there is no reason to expect that all level 12 characters should be equal. In fact, even if a variety of variables are controlled for, there's still no reason to expect that, because there's always more variables. The game is modeling a fictional world. It's way too complex to be abstracted in that fashion.

 

[Tallifer]

I think Player contribution is as important as Character contribution. The Wishlist of the Fourth Edition was an attempt to incorporate Players into the writing of the story, to make storytelling more cooperative. Reflavouring is another way in which Players can make their own conceits fit into the Dungeon Master's world.

However some of the most enjoyable games have been ones in which Players were allowed to create entire portions of the world. When I wanted to play an Earthborn Genasi in a world with no Genasi, not only did my dungeon master allow me to reflavour him into a human whose ancestor had mated with the daughter of a mountain spirit, but he allowed me to create a fantastic version of India from which my exotic character had been exiled. When I wanted to play an elfin cleric in chainmail in Rolemaster, that dungeon master allowed me to weave a crazy story about an isolated tribe of coastal Eskimo-like elves who had encountered dwarves: it is all too long ago to recall how that worked exactly.

I listened to a podcast which discussed the Dresden Files. I was intrigued when they talked about how the Players are expected to cooperatively build the setting before the game begins.

 

[Doug McCrae]

A level 12 character with average ability scores is different from one with godly numbers. A level 12 character who has been relieved of his equipment is no match for one loaded down with ridiculous gear. A level 12 character optimized by a rules expert is not equal to one hacked up by a casual gamer. Moreover, two characters that are equal at one table might not be at a different one, depending on how the DM interprets rules and what the style of game is.

Good points. 3e attempted to measure the contribution of stat arrays, at least relative to one another, with the point buy system. And magic items, by gold piece value.

Two other factors you mention - optimisation expertise and campaign style - I agree that they are important and need to be taken into account when assessing contribution, but it has to be done 'by ear', I don't think a metric is possible.