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

[devoblue]

I really like this idea, especially as expressed by KidSnide.
Forcing players to have an RP component of their character that provides little to no combat benefit, while balancing all classes combat effectiveness will lead to more interesting characters, without players who want to min/max feeling like they are missing out.

Could help to turn the balance a bit back towards RP, instead of the wargame slant it has gained of late.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Isn't non-combat fluff, partly what "themes" are about. Or could be more so?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.)

Yeah, I think themes really answered this nicely. You have a range of choices of combinations of theme and background to play with. Shaded by race and class. Plenty of variety.

The thing is non-combat is not the opposite of combat. There are no roles that make consistent sense outside of combat. I just don't see a real need for another rule.

 

[catastrophic]

A second set of roles could be a really solid addition. A lot of people aren't getting the kinds of advantages it has-

*It allows people to play different roles in the same game. I might play a defender in combat, and be really front and center, but then play a 'lookout' in noncombat, and be in more of a support role.

*It allows for better and hence more fun design by comparmentalising the system. Split combat from noncombat, but allow the kind of variety that roles bring, and the two features enhance one another. For instance, when designing, you don't have to worry about your lookout skill buff effecting intimidate rolls in combat, so you can more freely design how the skill buff works in noncombat.

*It allows for a variety of scenes. Not only would you a clear and fun distinction between combat and noncombat, potentially with different system dynamics (albiet it built on the same core mechanics), but you could even design the noncombat system to handle different kinds of non-combat, OR design the noncombat system so that each 'role' gets a bunch of spotlight time in key adventurer activities (thief stuff, travel and exploration, diplomacy, ect).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

OK, you're a 'lookout'. That's great in a situation where someone needs to be doing that job. There are 1000's of different situations that you're all lumping into 'non-combat'. Non-combat DOESN'T EXIST. It is a negatively defined open-ended category. For instance, what do 'lookouts' have in common? High Perception? It isn't as if it is hard to give most characters that trait. Worst case you use WIS as a tertiary stat, etc, you can still be 'radar'. You can pick all kinds of options that will help that. Things to make you Stealthy, quick, etc.

The thing is, what is this guy going to do when he's in some other situation where his utility is low? Honestly, the issue with out-of-combat is more that certain PCs are much better or worse in specific situations than the other way around.

 

[catastrophic]

OK, you're a 'lookout'. That's great in a situation where someone needs to be doing that job.

Ahh, but you see, that's my point.

If you're the kind of player who wans to have different, distinct roles- not my style, but ok- then adding roles helps wiht that. Everyone still gets equal time in combat.

OTOH, my preferred method would be universal noncombat roles.

There are 1000's of different situations that you're all lumping into 'non-combat'. Non-combat DOESN'T EXIST. It is a negatively defined open-ended category. For instance, what do 'lookouts' have in common? High Perception?

It depends on the system, but you could easily defined universal roles for a broad variety of noncombat roles, but focusing on mechanics.

An example. A lookout is a support role who's job is to oversee the caper and make sure that everything is going to plan, and that no unexpected events derail the plan. They serve this role no matter what the caper is-

*In a stealth mission, they're the one keeping an eye on the guards or the people looking for you

*In a social mission, they're the ones making sure that you get some time alone with the target

*When gathering information, they know the best places to ask, and who to keep out of earshot.

*In a travel mission, they're the navigator, keeping an eye out ahead of obstacles and changes in the weather

*While doing research, they're the one who finds the tomes and maps, while some others pre over them or make notes.

*While sailing on a ship, they're up in the crows nest saying 'land ho!'


Each of these actions are more or less the same- they're an information role. In such a system, the gm might arrange complications that get in the way of the goal, and nodes which you can exploit if you know they're there. Seeing those complications and nodes coming is a good, story-resonant tactical role for a pc to serve in.

Some other roles for such a system might be:

Interference: A noncombat tank who takes on complications head on. In a social task, they're distracting the grand vizier while their allies speak to the princess. In a wilderness trek, they're carrying a heavier pack, or hauling people up a rope. Using the language above, interference roles work to negate complications.

Fixer: A controller/leader who changes the state of play. In an underworld information gathering trip, they're calling in favours, and running down snitches. In a stealth mission, they're providing disguises, or blowing out torches. Using the language above, fixers work to exploit nodes.

Face: The up front guy who gets the deal done. A face focus's on results, a striker-type depleting the 'hit points' of the challlenge faster than the other roles. When researching, they're doing the heavy reading, even if they don't want to. When bypassing a trapped room, they're the guy with the lockpicks standing on their head.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm just not sure I see anything resembling a unifying mechanic or a basis on which you can assign PC capabilities to a unified set of mechanisms that makes each of these really distinct. You also run the danger of making the game TOO team oriented at some point. You can run into this already with combat, where 2 characters that go off to do X may not really be able to handle a fight that develops. Leaders are of course infamous here. In a sense the 4e skill/challenge mechanics already tend in this direction. I'm not sure it is something to emphasize a whole lot more. You get a pretty good dose of it just because of ability score distribution.

In other words there are characters that somewhat fit these descriptions, but they also fit many other possible descriptions and I'm just skeptical that you need this kind of differentiation. Combat roles flow very naturally out of the logic of tactics in general, but to say there is a strong analogy in other areas of conflict that is consistent across all/most of them is a lot tougher.

 

[KidSnide]

Yeah, I think themes really answered this nicely. You have a range of choices of combinations of theme and background to play with. Shaded by race and class. Plenty of variety.

The thing is non-combat is not the opposite of combat. There are no roles that make consistent sense outside of combat. I just don't see a real need for another rule.

I mostly disagree.

Themes are a nice idea, but they don't have a meaningful effect on your non-combat ability.

You're right that non-combat is not the opposite of combat (at least not in a meaningful way), but I do think there are roles that make sense outside of combat.

Those roles can be a little more particular to specific styles of games, but it's not too hard to imagine. Most games I've seen have characters who take on the "face/persuasion" niche, the "infiltration" niche, the "I know things about people" niche, the "I can manipulate magic" niche and the "I'm rich or important and have access to more stuff" niche. Not all games will have these (especially the last one), but I think there are some experiences that are common to enough games that one could make them a meaningful component of character creation.

And, as I added, the "I can captain a ship" niche and "I can run the economy of a duchy" niche can be added into supplements for those types of campaigns.

But, yes, I think "lookout" is far too narrow for a specific non-combat role. Instead, there is probably an "exploration" role that captures perception, survival, local knowledge about a type or types of terrain (whether it be tundra, forest, slum or court) and some sort of tricks that you can perform in the right context.

-KS

 

[KarinsDad]

I think that well defined rules for combat roles are great. You are a controller that dazes. You are a defender that attacks multiple foes. There can be a little bleed over, but the controller really cannot defend too well.

I think that well defined rules for non-combat roles are extremely questionable. You are an sophisticated infiltrator that only does this via guile. Because of your role, you don't infiltrate via stealth. That's a different role.

It's ok to have rules for skills. Either the skill works, or it doesn't work.

To have rules for non-combat roles though implies that players have to roleplay within certain guidelines, just like they have to do so today via combat roles. It's no longer just about using skills to accomplish the roleplaying goals, it's about following the rules laid down about the non-combat roles.

I see this with backgrounds and themes. For many players that I have played with, a background was merely a way to get some mechanical advantage. The player might have merged that background within his or her own concept of the background of the PC, but it was mostly to gain the mechanic.

The game mechanic background drove a portion of the actual background, but tended to not really be what the player was looking for. He just wanted the Perception skill and his class didn't supply it.

When themes came out, I saw the same thing happening. The player took the theme more to gain the mechanical advantage then to really roleplay a PC with that theme.

I suspect that the same thing will happen with non-combat roles. They will be treated like the current backgrounds or themes (at least by many of the players that I play with, obviously, people can protest that other players might play differently) as merely mechanical tools to give the PCs non-combat options.

I prefer a system of the background / theme / non-combat role has ZERO to do with mechanical game advantages. That way, the player has a tendency to roleplay the PC as s/he envisions the PC, not in a way that sort of, kind of, partially, follows the background / theme / non-combat role that gave the mechanical advantage.

Any mechanical advantages should merely indicate the chance for success, not limits (like with combat roles today) as to how to do things. Most Strikers tend not to heal a lot. It's a limit on the role.

I think that background / theme / non-combat role should be totally divorced from mechanical game advantages.

So my suspicion is that non-combat roles will merely be just another layer of mechanical gain rules and/or additional abilities similar to backgrounds and themes that don't add much more with regard to non-combat than giving more stuff to the PCs.

I think the same if the game were split up into handing out combat feats, and non-combat talents. If the same pool of feats isn't used for both like in 4E, then there is a lot less give and take and decision making on how to design the PC. All PCs get the best of both worlds and can be "All Americans" by definition. There are a lot of good PC concepts where the PC isn't good at both skills and combat, but breaking this apart (or as an example, giving everyone the same number of skills) means that everyone is equally good at both combat and non-combat.

Instead of a system like this, I would prefer a system similar to the old multiclass rules.

In other words, your Barbarian PC can be a kick butt combatant, but never ever be good at anything else. Or as the PC Barbarian gains levels, he can be like Conan where he gains a lot of thieving type skills and later on in his career, leadership skills (being a captain and such), and even later on diplomacy skills (as a King), etc. The player decides, the rules on non-combat roles (or non-combat feats/talents) doesn't turn the PC into a cookie cutter of every other Barbarian PC out there that now has to pick 6 skills (or 6 boosts to his current skills), even if the player doesn't want his Barbarian to be skilled.

Or, he could take feats with his Barbarian like in 4E where he starts to become even Bard-like in his skill versatility, but he's not quite as good at combat because of it.

In a split of combat and non-combat feats and potentially roles, PCs are somewhat forced to be semi-decent at both. They cannot lean in one direction or the other too much. That takes away from the game instead of adding to it.

 

[KarinsDad]

Those roles can be a little more particular to specific styles of games, but it's not too hard to imagine. Most games I've seen have characters who take on the "face/persuasion" niche, the "infiltration" niche, the "I know things about people" niche, the "I can manipulate magic" niche and the "I'm rich or important and have access to more stuff" niche. Not all games will have these (especially the last one), but I think there are some experiences that are common to enough games that one could make them a meaningful component of character creation.

And, as I added, the "I can captain a ship" niche and "I can run the economy of a duchy" niche can be added into supplements for those types of campaigns.

You just named 7 non-combat roles off the top of your head. There are 4 combat roles in the current game. I bet you can come up with 30 or more non-combat roles.

What if the player wants his PC to captain a ship and be rich and be a know it all? Now, he suddenly has a bunch of non-combat roles.

What if the player wants his PC to not do any of this? He wants to play a dumb Barbarian that gets drunk every night and fights every day.

Either the non-combat roles have to be optional (in which case, there is a disparity between balance of PCs that take them and do not take them), or the non-combat roles have to be replaceable via combat abilities to achieve game balance. Theoretically. In the latter case, you have 4E where feats allow the PCs to head in combat directions, or non-combat directions.