Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What if 5e had 2 types of roles
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5700601" data-attributes="member: 2011"><p>Precisely. I think you've hit the nail on the head here.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>In 5E with non-combat roles, if the Fighter takes the "Face" role, then it really limits him in a wilderness skill challenge.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 5700601, member: 2011"] 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What if 5e had 2 types of roles
Top