D&D 5E The Quest to Reduce "Sameyness" (+)

[Lanefan]

I think this is old school. It is certainly how it was when I started playing, I think the game is different now and better for it.

I disagree that it's any improvement at all.

So the game should be less fun because no one wants to play a face class?

If nobody wants to play a face class then fine, either they've got to go and recruit an NPC as their face or they have to go without.

It's called being forced to make choices where none of the options are perfect.

Sure it is self inflicted, but it is so easily countered by forexample letting your Ranger take a subclass that adds his wisdom to charisma skills.

And thus allowing the Ranger to, in effect, multiclass without having to suffer any of the drawbacks multiclassing entails.

No. You want that feature, you multi- into a class that can provide it.

Typically no. There is a social contract between players (not characters) in all games. Sometimes it is explicit, sometimes it is implicit, but it almost always includes things like you don't kill other PCs.

How did you jump from "spies, or turncoats, or cowards," to "kill other PCs"? Just because someone in the game world has "PC" stamped on the forehead doesn't automatically mean you can trust it! They're allowed to be individuals, and to have their own agenda which may or may not entirely agree with that of the party or of any other PC.

And no, that "social contract" doesn't apply to all games. In some games, almost anything goes as long as the disputes (if-when they arise) stay in-character.

 

[Lanefan]

Ok the cowardly sidekick who is the only one who can pick locks says he is not entering the dungeon in Tomb of Horrors. What does the party do?

If they're decent people they just go back to town, fire that sidekick, and hire another.

And if the sidekick was someone's PC, so be it. Everyone's having their character do what it would do, and it wouldn't be the first time someone's roleplayed a character right out of a party. (allowing the player's replacement PC to join the party while in town would be the nice thing to do as DM; and if the replacement PC isn't a lock-picker they'll need to recruit one of those as well)

They can't do anything because he is needed. They essentially have to listen to him because his skills are a central, core part of the party and one that is necessary for this particular part of the adventure.

As noted above: they don't have to listen to him, they just have to replace him.

 

[Lanefan]

To avoid derailing this thread any more with talk of PC trustworthiness etc., I've started a new one here:

D&D General - Character Individuality

In an unrelated thread @ECMO3 and I got into it a little over character individuality vs party unity; and to avoid derailing that thread any further I'll start this one instead, with a series of questions to get things going: The question is this: to what extent are PCs allowed to be...

www.enworld.org

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If they're decent people they just go back to town, fire that sidekick, and hire another.

And if they are not, they kill him, go back to town, and hire another.

 

[Lanefan]

And if they are not, they kill him, go back to town, and hire another.

I was going to add this to what I said but then I'd be accused of promoting PvP and all that. I'm glad someone said it, though.

 

[DND_Reborn]

To avoid derailing this thread any more with talk of PC trustworthiness etc., I've started a new one here:

D&D General - Character Individuality

In an unrelated thread @ECMO3 and I got into it a little over character individuality vs party unity; and to avoid derailing that thread any further I'll start this one instead, with a series of questions to get things going: The question is this: to what extent are PCs allowed to be...

www.enworld.org

Thank you! I saw there was post in my thread and got excited until I saw it was a back-and-forth with someone I am ignoring... I was going to say something about this, but thank you for being considerate and moving your discussion elsewhere.

 

[ECMO3]

Why not?

Let's say the NPC is the party's only Thief. Why can't the other PCs ignore him when it comes to non-Thieving-related matters, just like they ignore the PC Wizard when it comes to melee-combat-related matters?

So if the NPC Thief says at a junction "Hey, let's go this way - I can just smell the treasure down there!" the rest of the party can ignore him and decide to go the other way, toward the castle dungeon in which is the person they've been sent to rescue.

In 5e RAW, and this is really my point, the wizard with the right background has a great investigation and proficiencys in theives tools. With a feat he can even get expertise. So your 3-person party has that covered and they don't even need to bring the Thief at all. The thief "niche" can be covered while leaving the thief NPC at home.

The whole premise here is every class should have a niche and that you should use DMPCs/NPCs to fill in that niche because other classes should not be able to. If this is the game, and the party decides to leave the NPC then by definition the niche is not being filled.

The DMPC is there specifically to fix a problem that is caused by not allowing classes feats or capability outside their "
niche". If he is not there, that problem is not fixed.

 

[ECMO3]

And thus allowing the Ranger to, in effect, multiclass without having to suffer any of the drawbacks multiclassing entails.

No. You want that feature, you multi- into a class that can provide it.

There is no logical reason tom exclude from the Ranger class. And there are drawbacks, because he is not getting other abilities.

For example the Ranger who takes Fey Wanderer and gets this specific benefit at 3rd level can't take the Gloom Stalker subclass. He is essentially giving up being invisible in darkness .... and darkvision if his race doesn't have it.

 

[Lanefan]

In 5e RAW, and this is really my point, the wizard with the right background has a great investigation and proficiencys in theives tools. With a feat he can even get expertise. So your 3-person party has that covered and they don't even need to bring the Thief at all. The thief "niche" can be covered while leaving the thief NPC at home.

This niche-covering by other classes leads directly to the sameyness the OP is trying to defeat.

The whole premise here is every class should have a niche and that you should use DMPCs/NPCs to fill in that niche because other classes should not be able to. If this is the game, and the party decides to leave the NPC then by definition the niche is not being filled.

And if not filling that niche is their choice then so be it.

That said, using NPCs to fill a gap is my second choice; my first is for some or all of the players to run a second PC.

And there's also this: in-character it makes sense that the characters would soon enough come to realize that there is strength in numbers, meaning their logical move would be to hoover up every adventuring character they can find and go into the dungeon with a party of dozens; no niche left uncovered and most having several layers of backup coverage.

The DMPC is there specifically to fix a problem that is caused by not allowing classes feats or capability outside their "niche". If he is not there, that problem is not fixed.

You see this as a bug, I see it as a feature. Leaving niches uncovered is sometimes a difficult choice and sometimes has consequences; I like both of these.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

How specific is a niche though? Lockpicking as the example, was once a "niche" of the Thief class. Well, except for the Knock spell.

But what about, say, the fighter? The closest thing I can think was ever a niche for them was getting weapon mastery, which is really specific. In contrast, wizards had cast spells from what I can tell. Clerics was Turn Undead.