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

[Neonchameleon]

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.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

It seems like that's really going to depend on whether the roles this character has competency but not mastery in are all successfully filled on the team, whether they benefit from an additional teammate having some competency in them, whether their competency but not mastery is enough to get by, and whether the jack of all trades character's player shows up often on occasions when the folks playing masters of those various trades do not.

Personally I place a high premium on being able to participate meaningfully in all parts of play, so these archtypes appeal to me, even if they are not particularly optimal.

 

[ReshiIRE]

It should also be noted that a Jack of All Trades is significantly more useful the less members of a party there is (though they can still be useful in larger groups depending on play-style). That's where they shine really; if you have less than 4 players, having someone who can double up on a role is immensely useful.

 

[payn]

I wish classes were more versatile in general. That is why many folks find the JOAT so appealing, because it comes with a toolbox instead of just a hammer. More thought needs to be put into the pillars of the game instead of x class can do y and is SOL at z, imo.

 

[jmartkdr2]

One workaround that seems popular enough is for the class to be JOAT, but individual characters are able to specialize a bit - they can master one thing at least.

So a bard, under this method, could still be a top-tier healer or controller or stabber or buffer, but they have to pick one. Similar to ideas for swordmage and warlock and such.

 

[Krachek]

The real curse is looking at your skill bonus before telling what your character will do.

 

[payn]

One workaround that seems popular enough is for the class to be JOAT, but individual characters are able to specialize a bit - they can master one thing at least.

So a bard, under this method, could still be a top-tier healer or controller or stabber or buffer, but they have to pick one. Similar to ideas for swordmage and warlock and such.

Sounds like the Pathfinder 1 ranger. You had a combat style you could choose, two weapon, two handed, range, etc... On top of that, you had favored enemy, favored terrain, and spells to round out the character's abilities. The PF1 ranger allowed you to specialize in a number of ways that made playing the class over and over interesting while also hitting all three pillars. It wasn't a perfect spread across the pillars of the game but its a great concept to use an archetype for future design.

 

[Minigiant]

It depends.
Successful JOAT or dual-type classes in gaming combine the "multiple trades" into one action.

These are your magic smites, teleport strikes, tech bullets, drain and heals, feint and stabs, magic eyes, mark and track, etc

 

[Northern Phoenix]

I generally find that in D&D, it is often a bigger problem that you can be too good at too many things than the opposite. The infamous "do everything Wizard" being just the most famous, but probably not the most egregious example.