D&D General The "Jack Of All Trades" is a cursed archetype in tabletop RPGs

[Leatherhead]

That entirely depends on how the JOAT class is designed. Bards have traditionally been the JOAT of D&D, but in 5e (at the very minimum) they are healers on par with all but the most specialized (life cleric). And I would argue that they can be very good in other areas as well.

I do agree, however, that a generalist can't be too far behind a specialist. Plenty of people, IME, will look at a well balanced JOAT and scream that it can't possibly be balanced. But, as you said, they don't consider that the class can only do one thing at a time. What seems unbalanced on paper is balanced in play.

This is feature of the healer role. In order to be a functional healer you have to hit a baseline competency of healing checkmarks (In short, Restoring HP/Status Curing/Revivify), which means that what kind of caster you are is the largest dictator of how good you are at healing.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This is feature of the healer role. In order to be a functional healer you have to hit a baseline competency of healing checkmarks (In short, Restoring HP/Status Curing/Revivify), which means that what kind of caster you are is the largest dictator of how good you are at healing.

Right. Another way to put it is that a jack of all trades needs sufficient depth in all of their primary roles, but their breadth can be distributed across multiple roles. Whereas a specialist should have the bulk of both depth and breadth in their primary role. A hybrid who lacks depth in their primary roles simply can't perform adequately at anything, and this is the most common mistake I see in hybrid designs.

 

[Fanaelialae]

When I first started playing WoW many years ago I created a Paladin and as I leveled I selected talents (or whatever they were called back then) that were good for both healing and tanking. By my reasoning, being able to heal myself would make me a more effective tank because I could keep myself alive longer. Nope. People laughed at me and refused to group with me until I fixed my talents.

Having played WoW back in the day (primarily druid), this is because hybrid roles were very useful when soloing, but when grouped people tended to want specialized roles. The tank that can heal is significantly less useful if you have a dedicated healer in the party. People would rather have a tank who is the best tank they can be.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That entirely depends on how the JOAT class is designed. Bards have traditionally been the JOAT of D&D, but in 5e (at the very minimum) they are healers on par with all but the most specialized (life cleric). And I would argue that they can be very good in other areas as well.

I do agree, however, that a generalist can't be too far behind a specialist. Plenty of people, IME, will look at a well balanced JOAT and scream that it can't possibly be balanced. But, as you said, they don't consider that the class can only do one thing at a time. What seems unbalanced on paper is balanced in play.

I can't stress this enough. The jack of all trades usually suffers too much for trying to be competent in many areas.

I liked the ADnD bard, because as a package they were competent enough to more or less fill all roles if it was void, but was enough behind to justify the specialist's existence.

In 5e the bard still is a jack of many trades, but with high competence in spellcasting too. I think that is a good approach.
Ideally you have a scale of characters that are highly specialized and less so.

Having played WoW back in the day (primarily druid), this is because hybrid roles were very useful when soloing, but when grouped people tended to want specialized roles. The tank that can heal is significantly less useful if you have a dedicated healer in the party. People would rather have a tank who is the best tank they can be.

Actually in most groups that spec would have worked well enough. Instead you were mocked for not taking the +1% more hp talent which was usually not very useful at all... exactly why I quit before I really started...
In FFXI I had a very unique combo of class, subclass and race (usually redmage/warrior/galka) ... I could solo very well, but if I was invited to a group I had not a single complain... instead everyone was surprised how effective I was in fullfilling the role (usually tanking with self sustain).

 

[MGibster]

Having played WoW back in the day (primarily druid), this is because hybrid roles were very useful when soloing, but when grouped people tended to want specialized roles. The tank that can heal is significantly less useful if you have a dedicated healer in the party. People would rather have a tank who is the best tank they can be.

I understood the reasoning once I got a bit more experience with the game. I was happy when they got rid of the talent trees because all they provided me with was the illusion of choice. I could choose any talent I wanted but if I didn't pick the right combination then it became difficult to impossible to participate in group activities. And depending on the group dynamics, sometimes this applies to D&D as well with players getting upset when someone doesn't optimize their character to their fullest potential.

 

[Thomas Shey]

When I first started playing WoW many years ago I created a Paladin and as I leveled I selected talents (or whatever they were called back then) that were good for both healing and tanking. By my reasoning, being able to heal myself would make me a more effective tank because I could keep myself alive longer. Nope. People laughed at me and refused to group with me until I fixed my talents.

Its really, really difficult to get the balance on a healing ability contrasting with other uses of action in rpgs, FTF or computer. Even when combat healers are a necessary thing to make the game work, setting them so they're actually useful as a partial operating system without making the synergies so strong its The Winning Way is a very fine line. Given that most games will make it a bad idea before they make it too good.

 

[Stalker0]

In 5e the bard still is a jack of many trades, but with high competence in spellcasting too. I think that is a good approach.
Ideally you have a scale of characters that are highly specialized and less so.

I feel that the 5e bard has learned the lesson of the failed JOAT archetypes from the past, because the 5e bard is AMAZING.

The 5e bard is a STRONG spellcaster, not an okay one, a fully stocked powerful caster.

They are a decent buffer. Bardic inspiration is a good bonus that the bard has plenty of and requires minimal actions for the bard to use.

From there, some JOAT is sprinkled in. The ability to swap spells with any class lets you fill in a weak niche for your particularly party. That's critical, we aren't shoehorning the bard into a specific JOAT, they choose what they need to help their particularly party. And then the actually JOAT ability is just nice, more a ribbon than anything (though anything that boosts initiative is always nice).

But to me the lesson of the 5e bard is....at its heart the Bard is a strong spellcaster, with a bit of JOAT sprinkled in..... but its bones are not JOAT like some of its previous incarnations. This allows the bard to stand as a core party member just fine, but it can stretch just a bit to fill in gaps that the particular party needs. Its a great class design, to me one of the highlights of what 5e did right.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

A jack of all trades character class has never been good design in a team RPG, and this is due to the fact that you can only do one thing at once so the definition of the concept is that you are always doing something you aren't the best at.

It works in a solo/team cRPG because the PCs in most CRPGs are Special and surrounded by NPCs who are, ultimately, not as good at things as they are. If you take, for example, a reasonably skilled player playing as Commander Shepherd your guns are probably doing more damage than those of your squadmates no matter which class you pick assuming you care enough about shooting to use them at all. Because, being a PC surrounded by NPCs you are awesome - your choice is how to be awesome and "I'm awesome because I'm as good as anyone at anything" works.

But in a team based RPG your team mates are masters of things. A Jack Of All Trades Master of None can only do one thing at once so they are never ever doing anything they are a master at. They are always second rate compared to other party members. And they can't even do everything at once, stacking synergies, due to the action economy and due to that being something they would be a master at.

In D&D 5e it is worse than that because there are a number of hybrid characters with secondary areas. A paladin, for example, is a primary brawler and secondary healer and secondary face. By contrast a melee cleric is a primary healer and secondary brawler. A "jack of all trades" brawls like a cleric and heals like a paladin. And stealths at best like a non-Shadow monk, but not like a rogue, ranger, or shadow monk.

So given that most characters are flexible and should be able to contribute in all three pillars (meaning they should have at least three areas of reasonable expertise of which a non-JOAT class should be a master of at least one) you're down to at least the fourth and probably the fifth or sixth area a class contributes in before a Jack of All Trades nature means that its area of all trades is better than the mediocrity of another class unless they are actually a master of something, exploiting synergies.

As you describe it, the only JOAT-MON character class that I can think of is the Artificer. Maybe.
Actually, although they aren't as good in any one field as a class that specialises in it, they are secondary in many. Given that you're specifying a JOAT-MON class as being mediocre and worse than the secondary focus of a class at what they do, I'm not sure than any 5e D&D classes come to mind.

Bear in mind that there is a difference between a JOAT character class and a JOAT character. The Wizard is the classic JOAT character class: able to perform well at all pillars of the game simply by virtue of having powerful and versatile spell that can be used. That doesn't mean that a specific wizard character can't be built so that it is better at one portion of the game and not in another, simply by not selecting any social-situation spells and picking more combat ones for example.

Likewise the Bard class cannot be regarded as a JOAT-MON class, because it is pretty much the undisputed master of the Social pillar, but can be a JOAT class because it can contribute effectively in all the other pillars as well.

Others have pointed out that the assumption that there will always be a specialist who can outdo the JOAT in the party is flawed.

However there is another point: Most JOAT classes are also support classes.
The specialist isn't getting to contribute instead of the JOAT, they are both contributing because the JOAT is enabling the specialist.
The bard is turning the rogue invisible and giving them inspiration. The artificer gives the wizard an extra 3rd level spell slot and automatic pass on concentration checks etc.

 

[Aldarc]

I feel that the 5e bard has learned the lesson of the failed JOAT archetypes from the past, because the 5e bard is AMAZING.

The 5e bard is a STRONG spellcaster, not an okay one, a fully stocked powerful caster.

They are a decent buffer. Bardic inspiration is a good bonus that the bard has plenty of and requires minimal actions for the bard to use.

From there, some JOAT is sprinkled in. The ability to swap spells with any class lets you fill in a weak niche for your particularly party. That's critical, we aren't shoehorning the bard into a specific JOAT, they choose what they need to help their particularly party. And then the actually JOAT ability is just nice, more a ribbon than anything (though anything that boosts initiative is always nice).

But to me the lesson of the 5e bard is....at its heart the Bard is a strong spellcaster, with a bit of JOAT sprinkled in..... but its bones are not JOAT like some of its previous incarnations. This allows the bard to stand as a core party member just fine, but it can stretch just a bit to fill in gaps that the particular party needs. Its a great class design, to me one of the highlights of what 5e did right.

IMHO, the Magical Secrets comes online a little too late to be useful as a JOAT to your average adventuring party. All bards get Magical Secrets at 10th level, by which point, most games are over. The Lore Bard is the only one who gets them potentially early enough to make a difference.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And then the actually JOAT ability is just nice, more a ribbon than anything (though anything that boosts initiative is always nice).

Way stronger than a ribbon. Any Bard with Counterspell or Dispel Magic gets to add half their proficiency bonus, and half proficiency plus a decent ability score is plenty to have a good chance of success at most skill checks. Initiative is good, too, though IMO high init is overrated.