D&D 5E What if 5e had 2 types of roles

[GMforPowergamers]

Now being that 5e speculation is all the rage I placed it here, but this is mostly a change to 4e I have been considering...

What if each class/build or subclass had a combat and a non combat role.

I orginaly was thinking about the 5 man band from tv topes, but then I started thinking levrage.

In the show the main characters are broken down into Mastermind, Grifter, Theif, Hacker, and Hitter

The same way striker means you are best at single target damage, and Leader means you are a supporter that buffs and heals, can we come up with roles for the other parts.

I imagin skill challanges being part of this, what are you best suited for.

 

[Dice4Hire]

4E can already work well with two roles, leader and striker.

 

[delericho]

There's also an argument for 'social' roles: Noble, Soldier, Academic, Underworld, Clergy. Or something along those lines.

But, ultimately, I don't think adding non-combat or social roles really helps. Doing so just increases the complexity of the game, and means you need many more classes to cover all the combinations.

On the contrary, I think I'd be inclined to remove class skills entirely, let any class choose any skill, and let people find their own non-combat role. (Oh, I think I'd also give every class the same number of skill choices, too. Rather that give the Rogue many more than the Fighter, when they're already balanced in combat terms.)

 

[Pickles JG]

Dice4Hire I think you have missed the point

I like the idea of separating combat & non combat roles & also of splitting improvements like feats between combat & non combat too. 4e is pretty easy to split - only the skill system & a very few powers or feats are the out of combat role anyway.

I had not though of it as creating more basic classes rather that you have a combat class & a non combat one.

 

[KidSnide]

I think there's a lot of room for non-combat roles.

Looking at the Infiltrator role, there are a collection of stealth and lock/trap bypassing abilities that could be handled through martial abilities (like the rogue), primal abilities (cat druid?), magical abilities (invisibility / knock) or shadow abilities (a more magical ninja / assassin).

Similarly, a Face role has a number of variations. There are a variety of non-magical versions such as performer, courtier, military leader, plus more power source specific versions such as an arcane enchanter or a divinely inspired presence.

It gets a little harder from there. An Explorer role (think ranger "knack of the wild" abilities) could have martial or primal variations. An arcane (Mordenkainen's mansion) variate is also easy to see.

A Information role could come from scholarly knowledge (martial?), divination (arcane or divine?) or political/underword connections (also martial?).

Specific game styles could add specialized non-combat roles such as kingdom management or army leadership.


In terms of implementation, these non-combat "classes" end up operating like themes in the sense that they are a "third leg" of character creation. Each combat-class can choose from a selection of appropriate non-combat "classes", mostly by power source. For example, a barbarian might be allowed to pick any non-combat "class" from the martial or primal power source, while a druid might be able to choose from any primal or divine non-combat class.

-KS
-KS

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I kind of like this idea.

First, you'd get rid of the idea of "class skills" entirely. In fact your combat-based class has no bearing on skills, and grants none. You get your skills from your non-combat role, as suggested.

I can easily envision a version of character creation rules where it could be the third pillar of character creation, and by tying your skills to it, it feels meaningful.

I also like the idea of power-source-based flavour for this element.

It actually kind of reminds me of the old "kit" system under 2e. For example, like this a Rogue with the "Courtier" theme would feel and play totally different from one with the "Acrobat" theme, and would have a completely different selection of skills (with some overlap, of course). That said, there should be nothing to stop another character with access to the same power source from taking the same themes. No reason you couldn't have a Fighter Courtier, or Fighter Acrobat, etc.

I might have to play with this next time I start a new game.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Dice4Hire I think you have missed the point

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.


But to perhaps be more on topic, why are you using the term 'role' That is just confusing the issue, especially after 4E rather clearly put role as meaning combat role.

As or more non-combat, that might be useful, but I think it would be better to pick two different aspects (to use a different word), one of which is a standard role (as per 4E) and the other is a selection of non-combat abilities. So you could have a defender-infiltrator, or a leader face, or a defender face, or whatnot.

This would of course work a lot better if ability scores were de-emphasized.

 

[MortalPlague]

This is something I would love to see. I think certain recent 4th Edition developments have hinted that this may be in the works; look at themes, for instance. That seems like a trial-run of this very idea (though themes don't go quite all the way).

 

[mudlock]

Cool idea, think it could be something that themes could grow to be (or could have been if they were willing to make more changes up-front) but I just want to plug TVTrope's Cast Calculus page (which references the five-man-band.) It should be required reading for all your players before they sit down to make their characters for any story-based game.

Cast Calculus - Television Tropes & Idioms

(It also explains why I refuse to run a story-based game for more than 5 players.)

 

[Ryujin]

Call of Cthulhu did something similar, in that you were encouraged to play two characters; one who fought and was eaten by unnameable horrors, while the other did research at home and went quietly bonkers. I always preferred to play one character who went noisily bonkers, while being eaten by unnameable horrors

One thing, that I think 4e players really need to get away from, is the need to squeeze every last point of hit and damage bonus out of their characters. I've tried, but haven't succeeded. My own characters tended to be the party skill monkey; looking like they contributed little in combat. My Cunning Bard, in particular, reminded me very much of Flynn from "The Gamers: Dorkness Rising."

Sir Osric - "Help us man!"
Flynn - (playing his lute) "I am!"

You need to balance interaction and skill use, with combat. You also need willing players, unfortunately