Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[N'raac]

I agree, I just find the cost a little skewed across the classes.

I always wondered why, if the game was focused on three tiers, that classes weren't necessarily built to support it. It bugged me when when I was looking at the 5e playtest documents. Why not give each class a class ability choice at each third level on one tier. That way, a class isn't making choices between combat feats and non-combat feats, but between various options in each tier. (Not that I'm convinced of the tier system, but it just seemed odd).

We could also build on this. There's no reason every class needs to be the same. What if every L1 character (not 1st level in the class, L1 character, like "every L1 character gets a Feat") got a combat, exploration and social ability. Perhaps these could be from lists dictated by race, rather than by class. Then, as they gain levels, their class determines what they get, perhaps

Fighter
Level 1 - Choice of Combat Feats
Level 2 - Choice of Exploration Feats
Level 3 - Choice of Combat Feats
Level 4 - Choice of Social Feats

Rinse and repeat

Wizard
Level 1 - Choice of Exploration Spells
Level 2 - Choice of Combat Spells
Level 3 - Choice of Exploration Spells
Level 4 - Choice of Social Spells

Rinse and repeat

Bard
Level 1 - Choice of Social Abilities
Level 2 - Choice of Exploration Abilities
Level 3 - Choice of Social Abilities
Level 4 - Choice of Combat Abilities

Rinse and repeat

I just thought it was odd that they put some much emphasis on the three tiers and then didn't bake them into the classes. Oh well.

No reason everyone has to have 2 in one category and one in the other two, either.

 

[Balesir]

ii) Select a number of skills that are applicable to the task; generally the more complex and difficult the task, the more skills would be relevant. The GM and player works this out together, so the player can influence which skills are relevant by picking appropriate tactics.

I really like most of this - especially the complications (would maybe need more details) and bonus for successes after the first - but it has a problem here in that more complex tasks will be more likely to succeed if it works this way. Maybe allow the selection of as many skills as the player likes that can be justified by the plan, but difficulty increases the minimum successes needed? Bonus successes still bring perks, failures still bring complications (thus adding lots of skills is not risk-free), but a certain number of successes are needed to succeed at the base action/plan. I think that could work.

Nice. This resolves an issue I had with infiltration, which is disguise, bluff, some stealth and possibly even a version of survival (but applicable to a hostile urban environment rather than the wilderness).

This is called "Streetwise" in 4E and I think the name fits well.



P.S. On the references to 4E thing, since those who like 4E found that a lot of these issues were addressed in that edition, referring to it seems very natural. I understand that some folk don't like the way 4E did some of the addressing, but the frequent apparent assumptions that 4E didn't happen - things like "we want to use already existing mechanisms" when an alternative exists in 4E but is being (what seems like deliberately) ignored - are just irritating to me and, I imagine, to others like me. I'm perfectly happy to discuss alternatives and new options for doing stuff, but it just rankles when I see what I find perfectly good solutions being plain ignored - not even noted with a "but I really don't like this way of solving the problem" but just bypassed as if they were never presented - such that it's hard to keep focussed on being constructive sometimes.

 

[Mike Eagling]

This is called "Streetwise" in 4E and I think the name fits well.

What the urban "survival" skill? Yeah, it wasn't quite what I had in mind at the time but based on my knowledge of that skill from modern-era/futuristic games I guess it's the closest fit.

Not sure I like the name "streetwise" for a fantasy setting but I'm at a loss for a suitable alternative!

 

[Balesir]

Not sure I like the name "streetwise" for a fantasy setting but I'm at a loss for a suitable alternative!

Well, it's better than "Urban Survival" which is the only other name I could think of!

For the vibe I get reading about (real) medieval towns, I think it fits pretty well, actually, even though "strete wyse" might not have been an actual early English term...

 

[Mike Eagling]

Well, it's better than "Urban Survival" which is the only other name I could think of!

For the vibe I get reading about (real) medieval towns, I think it fits pretty well, actually, even though "strete wyse" might not have been an actual early English term...

Very true, it's just "Streetwise" always makes me think of James Cagney in The Public Enemy

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, you could go with "city-savvy" or make up a word, like "polisophistry."

 

[Starfox]

But I think Starfox' issue has to be resolved first - providing resources to enhance non-combat options is only beneficial if players want those non-combat options enough to use their resources to buy them instead of combat enhancers.

I didn't mean that this was an issue that has to be forced - some payers like to sit back except in combat. But too often they think this is what they want, but end up disappointed anyway when they become wallflowers in social scenes.

Teaching players this might be as simple as emphasizing the noncombat options in the character design chapter. But some siloing might be needed (meaning you have some resources (like feats) that MUST go into non-combat).

Another way is to point out that you, as DM, will actually USE these rules. As said earlier in the thread, in an old-school game style, social skills are not rolled - they are played - and investing in them are lost.

 

[Starfox]

a problem here in that more complex tasks will be more likely to succeed if it works this way.

I kind of saw that as a feature. I'm not proposing this as a system to resolve any vital action (that is still best done in regular play), and a player that comes up with a more involved plan getting a better chance (at greater risk of side effects) is a good thing IMO. But if we want to keep difficulties reasonably the same, we can add +2 DC per extra allowed skill or so.

The important thing here is to keep it simple, so that it can actually be resolved in just a few rolls - encouraging people to use it.

 

[pemerton]

A Charm or Dominate spell give the player of the caster a high degree of certainty in respect of their control.

If non-magical social skills are to be viable alternatives, the player of the PC using those skills has to be able to achieve the same certainty/finality. (In discussions of game design this is often called "conflict resolution".) For instance, if the player succeeds in persuading the NPC to do XYZ, then the NPC can't change his/her mind even if the GM thinks that that would be "better for the story", or would be likely given the NPC's personality (the NPC's personality should have been a factor in the prior action resolution, and so already taken full account of).

This would be something of a change to pre-4e D&D adjudication, however. Typically only in combat (with its hp rules) and in spell casting has D&D exhibited this sort of finality in action resolution.

 

[Aenghus]

Pinning down what's the acceptable design space for these mechanics is a serious question. Mechanics like "Here's one I prepared earlier" or "I'm calling in a favour" are controversial in D&D if not preset but retconned into existence, but these are the sort of mechanics that are essential for narrative space options.

Social mechanics can seem to be location dependent e.g. some could be argued as working only in civilised area, while some exploration mechanics may also be useful in limited circumstances. Which is a problem as the less reliable mechanical features are, both in a binary work/doesn't work way and in a chance of working way, the less useful and attractive those features are compared to competing features which may be more reliable. I certainly know I choose features with the best combination of reliabiity, chance of being useable and power. unless prioritising flavour over raw power, and even then marginally useful abilities are likely not to make the cut.