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

[Tony Vargas]

I agree that the non-combat roles solution does not resolve the issue of players seeking mechanical benefits over role-playing backstory, but it is not designed to do so. The purpose of non-combat roles is:

1. to ensure that each character has an area of non-combat competence (a non-combat "niche" as it were);
2. to place similar non-combat abilities in a common context so, for example, magical forms of stealth can be balanced against non-magical forms of stealth; and
3. to provide a shorthand way of understanding a party's ability (e.g. "This party has three infiltrators, a face and an explorer. I know what they're well suited for...")

I think it's a fine idea. The challenge would be making each role viable in every non-combat challenge, just as each combat role contributes in each encounter.

The obvious ways of defining roles - by stats and skills or social roles - doesn't do that.

For instance, if the roles were 'Face' (CHA interaction skills), 'Scout' (stealth/perception), 'Brains' (INT and knowledge skills), and 'Brawn' (Athletics & Endurance), everyone else would sit out the social challenges as the Face did his thing. If they were 'Noble,' 'Scoundrel,' 'Yeoman' and 'Savage,' again, when you're in the wilderness challenge, the Nobel sits it out, when you're in the mean streats, the Scoundrel is doing everything himself.

So, while the idea has merit, the details would be very hard to get right.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think it's a fine idea. The challenge would be making each role viable in every non-combat challenge, just as each combat role contributes in each encounter.

Precisely. I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

Just like skill challenges today where the challenge is to make at least some skills of every PC at your table viable, with non-combat roles, the challenge would be even more difficult.

Instead of simplifying the system, it actually makes it slightly more complex because it forces each PC into a non-combat role which implies certain non-combat skills.

In 4E, the Fighter might be limited to Athletics, Endurance, Heal, Intimidate, and Streetwise shy of taking a specific background or feat, but at least the Fighter can delve into multiple non-combat roles (e.g. the "Face" with Intimidate, "Brawn" with Athletics or Endurance, and "Knowledge" with Streetwise). Although the Fighter straight up isn't necessarily great in these side areas (although he can be), at least he can train them at level one.

In 5E with non-combat roles, if the Fighter takes the "Face" role, then it really limits him in a wilderness skill challenge.

Once the skills are grouped into non-combat roles, the ability to contribute in certain types of skill challenges (often limited in which skills are viable for the challenge) is only possible if most skills are in multiple non-combat roles.

This implies almost by definition that combat feats and non-combat feats will have to be segregated because PCs would almost be forced to be a little bit of Jack of All Trades via Skill Training and Skill Focus. Without that type of mechanic change, the Face PCs are almost always useless in the wilderness, the Brawn PCs are almost always useless in a library, etc. This then leads back into the concept that all PCs are "all Americans" (or jack of all trades), regardless of how capable the player wants his or her given PC to be in non-combat.


I was playing an Ardent|Bard recently where he was only so so doing damage in combat and wouldn't have done well in combat on his own. But, he helped the group out tremendously with temp hit points and he had such a high survivability himself that the DM couldn't hardly phase him with damage in combat. Out of combat, he was a skill monkey though. It was a lot of fun to almost always have a skill available in most situations. But, I wouldn't want every PC of mine to be similar to this because the designers were forced with non-combat roles to create a set of feats only usable for non-combat abilities.


Alternatively, every PC could have every skill available for training at level one. But with such a rule, what's the point of having non-combat roles?

 

[KidSnide]

I think it's a fine idea. The challenge would be making each role viable in every non-combat challenge, just as each combat role contributes in each encounter.

Precisely. I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

Just like skill challenges today where the challenge is to make at least some skills of every PC at your table viable, with non-combat roles, the challenge would be even more difficult.

Instead of simplifying the system, it actually makes it slightly more complex because it forces each PC into a non-combat role which implies certain non-combat skills.

I think it's absolutely correct to note that a major challenge is designing the game so that every character can participate in every major encounter. However, I think there are two important observations to make.

First, there is a difference between a non-combat obstacle and a non-combat encounter. An obstacle could be something like a pit trap our a haughty courtesan with a secret. It's possible that the obstacle is only well suited to the skills and abilities associated with one or two roles. However, an obstacle doesn't take a lot of time at the table, and it's OK if only a single character gets to shine overcoming it.

In contrast, an encounter is a more complex situation (persuade the duke, save the village from the forest fire, figure out where to go next in the dungeon) that takes longer and should be amenable to a wider variety of abilities. An encounter could have a variety of obstacles and there should be multiple ways of "solving" it.

In terms of making sure that each character can participate, the non-combat encounter design is at least as important (if not more so) than the character creation rules. If a GM wants an involved wilderness exploration, there should be multiple ways to participate. (An infiltrator should be able to scout ahead, an information gatherer should be able to learn something about the location of the goal.) If it's just going to be a series of survival checks, then the it should be written as an obstacle that doesn't take a lot of time, rather than a full encounter. (For example, a complexity 4 skill challenge might be OK, but a complexity 12 skill challenge would be awful.)

Second, there is a little confusion between Role and Theme. A Role should be well-defined, in the sense that the Face role is good at influencing NPCs and the Defender role is good at both drawing and surviving attacks. However, PCs don't just choose to be a Face or Defender. They choose a Face Theme like Courtier or Performer or a Defender Class like Paladin or Fighter. Just like Paladin and Fighter have secondary roles, the Courtier or Performer would give some ability to participate in (but not dominate) other role-focused challenges. For example, the Courtier might choose from some information gathering or exploration abilities and the Performer theme might have some talent options in infiltration (or possibly any other role). Either way, each character could potentially participate (but maybe not dominate) in a non-combat encounter through one of two different roles.

This is where the design fits together. The design guidelines for a non-combat encounter would make it OK if there is one (of a small number) of roles that wouldn't apply to a given non-combat encounter. But, if the encounter is designed so that two roles couldn't meaningfully contribute, then there is a risk that some characters could end up as dead weight. An author/GM could take that risk (or know their party), but it's a potential issue.

Alternatively, a GM could say that a campaign was going to feature a lot of infiltration (or social gameplay, or wilderness exploration) and suggest that each PC in the campaign take the relevant role as a primary or secondary aspect of their characters.

-KS

 

[catastrophic]

I don't you need to cut anyone out of a given challenge, anymore than say, having a solo fight makes a controller less useful sometimes.

I also think you're missing a better option for noncombat roles- roles that you tke up on a case by case basis.

Imagine if each skill challenge has four roles, and then people are put into roles based on their skills, backgrounds, and the plans they come up with?

That way, each skill challenge could be built on the same system, but each one would put people in a different tactical role. These roles and effects are way simplers than combat, so people should be able to adapt, and they'll have the fun of doing different things.

You could even have a 'backup' role for people who don't fit into the skill challenge- the thnig is, you could make that role very IMPORTANT by having them really be the backup- when major complications arise, everyone else is busy doing their job- it's up to the backup to improvise a solution.

 

[KarinsDad]

This is where the design fits together. The design guidelines for a non-combat encounter would make it OK if there is one (of a small number) of roles that wouldn't apply to a given non-combat encounter. But, if the encounter is designed so that two roles couldn't meaningfully contribute, then there is a risk that some characters could end up as dead weight.

Could you give us an example of the exact roles that you are talking about, and the exact skills that apply to each role, and how these roles actually work within the rules, and some examples of non-combat encounters that these roles apply to?

People in this thread have come up with quite a few roles and I wanted to make sure that we are talking apples and apples here. In order to understand whether a design works or not, I need an idea of what that design looks like.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Precisely. I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

Just like skill challenges today where the challenge is to make at least some skills of every PC at your table viable, with non-combat roles, the challenge would be even more difficult.

If it were done wrong. If it were done right, it'd make designing non-combat challenges /easier/, since every character would have something worthwhile to do in every possible non-combat challenge. The issue is making roles that work as well and as broadly non-combat as the combat roles do in encounters.

In 4E, the Fighter might be limited to Athletics, Endurance, Heal, Intimidate, and Streetwise shy of taking a specific background or feat, but at least the Fighter can delve into multiple non-combat roles (e.g. the "Face" with Intimidate, "Brawn" with Athletics or Endurance, and "Knowledge" with Streetwise)....In 5E with non-combat roles, if the Fighter takes the "Face" role, then it really limits him in a wilderness skill challenge.

Except, as I pointed out 'Face' is not a good role. Even though it's been brought up in the past, it only works in certain sorts of challenges. Rather, each role should have something to do in a negotiation or other challenge that, now, would tend to be hogged by the 'face' (high CHA) character.

This implies almost by definition that combat feats and non-combat feats will have to be segregated because PCs would almost be forced to be a little bit of Jack of All Trades via Skill Training and Skill Focus.

Yes, they'd have to be. Trading between combat- and non-combat- would be inherently imbalancing, since a DM might choose to emphasize one or the other.


So, what might be some workable roles that'd aply across many different challenges? Challenges that might include schmoozing in court, searching for a fugitive in the back alleys of the city, breaking into a trap-filled vault, running a naval blockade, and/or trekking through a hostile wilderness - among other things... ?

'Face' for instance, definitely doesn't cut it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So, what might be some workable roles that'd aply across many different challenges? Challenges that might include schmoozing in court, searching for a fugitive in the back alleys of the city, breaking into a trap-filled vault, running a naval blockade, and/or trekking through a hostile wilderness - among other things... ?

'Face' for instance, definitely doesn't cut it.

Unlike the combat roles, I think several different things can work here, but some of them are mutually exclusive, and each set would have somewhat different implications for skills, feats, powers, etc.

For example, you could have a "Lore" role. If this guy takes "face" abilities, then his negotiation is from a basis of having information. But he has the same kind of knowledge edge when trying to find a path in the wilderness or disabling traps or whatever skills and other abilities he gets.

Several people have already objected that non-combat roles would be nothing more than a theme. And if kept too open-ended, they would be. For it to be a role, it has to carve out some rather wide territory that is different than the roles next to it, and has a boundary. (Failure to do this was why the initial controller role was a bit off.)

So "Lore" might or might not work. To know if it will, we need the rest of the set. One obvious parallel but different way is the "Gear" guy. He gets and maintains good equipment, and knows how to use it. Then you might do other roles focused on "Magic" or "Inherent Abilities".

I'm being vague here, because this is just an example, and I think those are all probably too broad for good non-combat roles. Ideally, you'll have around 8-10 roles that carve up the most common archetypes, with boundaries but overlapping in the skills associated. (You might have more than that as purely secondary roles.)

I don't think they can be properly evaluated except as part of such a set, and then a big part of that evaluation is the set as a whole.

Edit: One negative test. If any role in the set is worded/explained such that most everyone expects it to have a particular skill or particular high ability score or such, then it is probably off. If a "Lore" character can be built on Int or Wis, you are OK for this test. If only one or the other, not. If your "Infiltrator" could get into places with Dex/Stealth or Cha/Bluff, OK. If only one, no.

 

[KidSnide]

Could you give us an example of the exact roles that you are talking about, and the exact skills that apply to each role, and how these roles actually work within the rules, and some examples of non-combat encounters that these roles apply to?

This is just a sketch of a design. (I would call it "ex recto"... you know... "outside the box"...). I'm not sure the roles are right and basically every part of the design needs to be filled in and refined -- and that would just get to a first draft. But I figure it would provide a slightly more concrete straw man for this discussion.

I had been imagining four roles: Face, Infiltrator, Explorer and Lore, each of which would have multiple themes. Much like classes, each theme would be provide both a primary and a secondary role. For example, a Sneak (the theme that goes with a traditional thief concept) would have a primary role of Infiltrator and a secondary role of Explorer or Face, all with the martial power source.

Themes would provide a minimum set of fixed skills (and, presumably, some optional skills) and access to a significant number of utility powers (assuming we're staying close to the 4e character building philosophy). As a separate matter, I am inclined to think that rituals and martial practices should be organized into sets of abilities that would be selected through feats. Themes should also grant some of these ritual abilities.

Face Themes would typically focus on Bluff, Diplomacy, History, Intimidate, Insight and/or Streetwise and would shine in NPC persuasion challenges. Face themes would support other types of challenges through the secondary role and would commonly have leader-like abilities that help other characters succeed. Face themes can also provide effective support for infiltration and lore by grifting or identifying knowledgeable contacts. Explorer challenges can also involve face obstacles (i.e. difficult natives or magical constructs amenable to persuasion) or they can be supported by arranging for help (extra camels, a better map, etc...).

Infiltrator Themes would typically focus on Acrobatics, Athletics, Bluff, Stealth, Streetwise and/or Thievery and would shine in infiltration challenges. Infiltrator themes would support other types of challenges through the secondary role, through scouting (i.e. exploration challenges), stealing valued property (for persuasion challenges), or retrieving critical information (for lore challenges). Infiltrators can also be very helpful with physical obstacles (like cliffs) that show up in explorer challenges.

Explorer Themes would typically focus on Athletics, Dungeoneering, Endurance, Heal, Insight, Nature, Perception, Thievery and/or Streetwise and would shine in travel and exploration challenges. Explorer themes would support other types of challenges through the secondary role, by noticing important information (infiltration, persuasion, and lore challenges all apply), providing cover for an infiltration from the outside, or engineering solutions to physical problems.

Lore Themes would typically focus on Arcana, Heal, History, Insight, Nature, Religion and/or Streetwise. Many Lore themes would have access to research or divination powers to provide useful clues or domain knowledge applicable to many different forms of challenge, as well as secondary role. Other Lore themes might have "Brains" theme abilities to provide game benefits to their schemes (like Intelligent heroes from d20 Modern).


To continue with the Sneak example:

• A sneak would gain Stealth and Thievery and would have access to utility powers that look something like the Stealth-themed rogue powers, plus what are now Stealth and Thievery skill powers.
• A Sneak also has a theme ability (think "class ability", but for theme) something like "That Was Nothing" - an encounter immediate reaction to failing a Stealth roll that allows the sneak to re-roll the check if they forgo their action. (That description isn't quite right, but the idea is that the guards look around and decide they didn't hear anything after all.)
• The Sneak theme might come in two varieties, one with Explorer as a secondary role and one with Face as a secondary role. The Explorer version gains perception and gets some kind of trap disarm benefit. The Face version gains bluff and gets some kind of benefit for disguise. (Maybe there is a Lore variety that gets Streetwise?)
• The Sneak also gets 1 or 2 skills from a Sneak list (Acrobatics, Athletics, Bluff, Perception, Streetwise) plus 1 or 2 skills from the full list.
• At higher levels the Sneak might gain a martial practice (or maybe a utility power) to help a group of no more than 10 people make a stealth role using the Sneaks role with some penalty. (There is an assassin utility power that does something like this.)

A couple general points:

• Most themes would come with a theme ability that provides a re-roll on the theme's core skill when it is used in a theme-appropriate manner.
• All (or nearly all) themes would come with the ability to choose a small number of skills for the complete list. I think this is just a good idea for character customization.

Except, as I pointed out 'Face' is not a good role. Even though it's been brought up in the past, it only works in certain sorts of challenges. Rather, each role should have something to do in a negotiation or other challenge that, now, would tend to be hogged by the 'face' (high CHA) character.

I see this issue, but tends to disagree. Face is too limiting for a theme (there should be more), but persuasion is useful a wide variety of encounters.

Hogging is a separate issue. It's important to design negotiation encounters so that having the most diplomatic character do all the talking isn't usually the best strategy. But that's at least as much a question of encounter design as it is of character design. (It would also be a great thread.)

-KS

 

[KarinsDad]

I had been imagining four roles: Face, Infiltrator, Explorer and Lore, each of which would have multiple themes. Much like classes, each theme would be provide both a primary and a secondary role. For example, a Sneak (the theme that goes with a traditional thief concept) would have a primary role of Infiltrator and a secondary role of Explorer or Face, all with the martial power source.

Themes would provide a minimum set of fixed skills (and, presumably, some optional skills) and access to a significant number of utility powers (assuming we're staying close to the 4e character building philosophy). As a separate matter, I am inclined to think that rituals and martial practices should be organized into sets of abilities that would be selected through feats. Themes should also grant some of these ritual abilities.

Face Themes would typically focus on Bluff, Diplomacy, History, Intimidate, Insight and/or Streetwise and would shine in NPC persuasion challenges. Face themes would support other types of challenges through the secondary role and would commonly have leader-like abilities that help other characters succeed. Face themes can also provide effective support for infiltration and lore by grifting or identifying knowledgeable contacts. Explorer challenges can also involve face obstacles (i.e. difficult natives or magical constructs amenable to persuasion) or they can be supported by arranging for help (extra camels, a better map, etc...).

Infiltrator Themes would typically focus on Acrobatics, Athletics, Bluff, Stealth, Streetwise and/or Thievery and would shine in infiltration challenges. Infiltrator themes would support other types of challenges through the secondary role, through scouting (i.e. exploration challenges), stealing valued property (for persuasion challenges), or retrieving critical information (for lore challenges). Infiltrators can also be very helpful with physical obstacles (like cliffs) that show up in explorer challenges.

Explorer Themes would typically focus on Athletics, Dungeoneering, Endurance, Heal, Insight, Nature, Perception, Thievery and/or Streetwise and would shine in travel and exploration challenges. Explorer themes would support other types of challenges through the secondary role, by noticing important information (infiltration, persuasion, and lore challenges all apply), providing cover for an infiltration from the outside, or engineering solutions to physical problems.

Lore Themes would typically focus on Arcana, Heal, History, Insight, Nature, Religion and/or Streetwise. Many Lore themes would have access to research or divination powers to provide useful clues or domain knowledge applicable to many different forms of challenge, as well as secondary role. Other Lore themes might have "Brains" theme abilities to provide game benefits to their schemes (like Intelligent heroes from d20 Modern).

Thanks. I now know a bit better where you are coming from, especially with regard to the secondary role.

This seems like a lot of material for a new player to digest and it still sounds more like skill challenge game theory.

Wouldn't all of this work just as well if the game added 2 or 3 skills to the number of trained skills and the number of trained skill options that each PC class gets?

Doesn't Aid Another already handle the secondary role that you are discussing in many cases?


In the software industry, we don't try to fix symptoms of problems, we try to fix the root cause of an issue.

The root cause of most of this is that there are major skill encounters where some players shine and some players sit on the sidelines.

So, one person thought that it would be good to come up with non-combat roles just like we have combat roles. The problem is that there are no good set of non-combat roles that do more than just segregate the skills into lists. Hence, the non-combat roles are not what are needed, it's the skills that are needed. A bunch of extra themes and theme powers and skill powers are not needed. That's just bloating the system.


And, this non-combat role system is going to actually add a problem to the system that the current skill system has an inbuilt way to minimize.

There are skills that are just flat out better than other skills. So unless the players get together and design their PCs as a team, most PC groups have many of the skills, but there are some straggler skills that often do not get taken.

By expanding the skills that each PC can get (either by allowing every class to take every skill, or through your role method), the Fighter can now take Perception. So, he takes Perception instead of Endurance. Endurance is now taken even less often than in 4E and the group loses it.

By just adding 2 or 3 skills to every PC's list and to how many starting trained skills they get, it allows each PC to be more versatile without creating this massive set of non-combat role and theme layers that the game designers have to explain to new (and current) players.


Another major problem that I have observed (and Essentials has addressed this issue for some classes) is that as most players get into low to mid Paragon levels (partially because of Paragon Paths), they start forgetting some of their PC's powers or abilities. It happens nearly every gaming session once PCs get high enough level because the PCs have so many options and so many conditionally dependent abilities that players forget stuff. I had it happen to me just a few weeks back where I was actually planning to use one of my PC's abilities, but by the time my turn came around, I forgot.

The more layers and rules added to the game (i.e. non-combat roles, themes, etc.), the more the game gets bogged down in minutia.

Game bloat is one of the big problems in 4E. It's not just in the number of powers and items and feats that players can acquire, it's in the number of different ways that conditions can be thrown, the number of ways they can end, the new features of monsters, etc.

Even something as simple as adding in skill powers or theme powers or abilities will mean that in the middle of roleplaying a skill encounter, a player will suddenly go "Wait, wait, I have a power that will help with that.". He then flips through his character sheet for 20 seconds "Here it is. I add +3 to my Bluff, does that help?".

The immersion of the roleplaying just got sidetracked as the player looked something up on his sheet.

Alternatively, the player forgets he can do that in the ebb and flow of the roleplaying, and a few rounds after it was needed, he remembers. Opps.


I now understand where people are coming with this non-combat role concept, but I just see it as a way to change the current skill distribution. It might be a good tool in the DMG for helping to create skill challenges, but it should be transparent to the players unless the only thing it is used for is skill acquisition. Players already have a ton of stuff on their character sheets and adding more just bloats the system.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The more layers and rules added to the game (i.e. non-combat roles, themes, etc.), the more the game gets bogged down in minutia.

Game bloat is one of the big problems in 4E. It's not just in the number of powers and items and feats that players can acquire, it's in the number of different ways that conditions can be thrown, the number of ways they can end, the new features of monsters, etc.

Even something as simple as adding in skill powers or theme powers or abilities will mean that in the middle of roleplaying a skill encounter, a player will suddenly go "Wait, wait, I have a power that will help with that.". He then flips through his character sheet for 20 seconds "Here it is. I add +3 to my Bluff, does that help?".

The immersion of the roleplaying just got sidetracked as the player looked something up on his sheet.

Alternatively, the player forgets he can do that in the ebb and flow of the roleplaying, and a few rounds after it was needed, he remembers...

This is why I stated the test that I did. It checks to see if the proposed role adds something to the game. "Face" is a bad role because everyone that takes it is going to have Cha and at least 2 of a small set of skills. That's what "face" is, in game terms. So for a "Face" role, everything you just said is absolutely correct.

Well, that last little bit might be helped by a "Face" role, but it isn't worth the trade for the bloat. Another test for a good role is that it becomes a useful form of shorthand, so that the players and the rest of the group can reasonably expect at least some usefulness in a situation. This helps with keeping the character straight. "Face" could possibly pass that test, if you made "face" robust enough, though that would have its own problems.

All my "tests" are really doing is saying that for a set of roles to pass your objections, they have to cut across the grain of the current game elements, in ways that make sense for a broad swath (if not all) non-combat functions.

Thinking about it pre 4E, "defender" was nothing but "wears lots of armor and has lots of hit points", with a few niche exceptions. That just made "tank" a role more honored in the abstract than the concrete. But as soon as someone thought enough about it to define "defender" as "makes you pay attention to them or else", and said that everyone with that label had to meet that criteria, it has useful meaning. Sure, lots of armor and hit points will often go with that function, but even then the conception of the role says don't stop there. That's why the 4E paladin can be a decent defender (among other things) while the earlier versions is a watered-down defender to compensate for his other things.

I gather that you and Abdul think that once that kind of thinking is applied to any set of non-combat roles, all sets will be excluded. I think that maybe there are a set of roles that will work, along with a bunch of others that should be excluded on the grounds that you guys have stated.