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

[KarinsDad]

I'm sorry, but you really degenerated into 'whaaa! my wizard isn't omnipotent anymore!' towards the end, there.

Yes, 4e is balanced. Yes, there are certain things you can do in an imbalanced or badly-balanced game that you can't do in a balanced one - like easily ruin the play experience for everyone else with an overpowered (or non-contributing) character. Some miss that, some don't.

You took it as a whine that Feather Fall is basically worthless in 4E?

I don't need an omnipotent Wizard. But, I'd like to have a system where some of the fairly low frequency typically non-combat utility powers can actually be taken without gimping the Wizard compared to other classes. And, it's not just for Wizards. It's for any class that has non-combat utility powers. For example, skill powers for Rogues.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm going to ignore the edition war and get back to the issue.

I seem to recall that you brought up earlier editions.

Kidsnide, as I said upthread, I think an idea solution to that would be to let people play various roles in noncomba events. I do think that you could have universal, static roles, but I feel like versatile roles could add something really special to a game- especially since if people wanted, they could play their preferred role most of the time, anyway.

Imagine if there was an explicit skill pecking order in the system. Whoever has the best skills, ie whoever wants to be the guy who's good at x, plays the 'expert' role for that challenge, and gets the spotlight.

Then you could have two intermediate roles- a lookout, and a grunt, ie, and information based controller type, and a grunt-work defender type.

Then we literally take the guy who isn't skilled in the area, and give him a special role- backup. It could almost be an in-game joke BUT- since he's the backup, he's the guy who has to deal with any wierd complications that arise, mainly by improvisation.

I think a dynamic like this could be really cool.

And what happens if two players or even three players want to be the Expert? What if a player doesn't want to be made fun of as the Backup?

Dynamic roles sound like they will work better in theory than practice. Although intriguing, this doesn't sound like something that will be easy to implement and to teach players. The game system is complicated enough without having discussions at the beginning of every skill challenge where the players plan out ahead of time which PC will be taking which role.

Roleplaying becomes game mechanics decision making.

Player 2: "I forgot. Kragnor has Perception. Maybe we should make him the lookout instead of the grunt."

Player 3: "Well if Kragnor is the lookout, can Max be the expert?"

Player 1: "No, Celine has to be the expert because we need to convince the barkeep. Both Kragnor and Max can be lookouts."

Player 3: "But if they are both lookouts, then we won't have a grunt."

Even in combat, whenever a group decision has to be made, it takes a while as people discuss. Whenever each player makes his own decisions without group consensus, it tends to go much faster.

And then as discussion is done on which role each PC will take, it could morph into a discussion as to how the group should handle the skill challenge.

Player 2: "Ok, so if Celine is the expert and talks to the barkeep, Max will try to distract the drunk with Bluff."

Instead of the spontaneity of (at least for our group's) 4E's skill challenges, there could easily be a lot of pre-planning of them with such a system. It might not happen with every group, but people are people.

I just see dynamic non-combat roles as having a lot of potential issues that are not necessary in the current system of each player using the PC's skills the best way s/he can as part of a spontaneous roleplaying session.

Does it even sound fun to have a table discussion as to who is going to take the grunt role? Doesn't that just sound like a big old game mechanics discussion? meh. Personally, I'd rather spend that time roleplaying the skill challenge.

 

[catastrophic]

No, it was you. Anyway, i'll give an example system overview in a day or two. In any event, players decide various things in rpgs all the time, and it's not a problem unless they have a problem making decisions in general.

Also, obviously, as with 4e, none of the roles are compulsory, and all can be done without.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd like to have a system where some of the fairly low frequency typically non-combat utility powers can actually be taken without gimping the Wizard compared to other classes.

Try 4e. Those old non-combat spells that you couldn't afford to fill slots with in the past are now 'rituals,' that don't count against your powers, at all. You can have several infrequently-useful rituals without giving up /any/ attack or utility spells, at all.

And, it's not just for Wizards. It's for any class that has non-combat utility powers. For example, skill powers for Rogues.

Utility powers are one area where 4e PCs can choose non-combat vs combat aplications... sorta. There are very often combat aplications for ostensibly non-combat utilities, and vice-versa. And, utilities are a fairly small slice of the PCs combat power. Attack powers, class features, and basics (attack/defense/hps/etc) cover the lion's share of combat power. If you want to use mostly non-combat-emphasizing utilities, you'll hardly suffer much loss of combat effectiveness - and, potentially non-combat utilities are there for every class, in the form of skill powers, if nothing else.


Anyway, getting back to the subject of non-combat roles... Things rituals and utilities, as well as skills, would be prime places for non-combat functionality. But should they encompass role support? I'm thinking maybe not. The Wizard (controllers in general) push a lot of their combat role support onto their powers, and the result is less than elegant. Perhaps classes should have additional ('siloed') non-combat features that support their non-combat roles?

 

[Minigiant]

Again I think everyone is puling away from the first or second step of adding/changing roles to noncombat.

What is getting separated into different roles?

In combat, the simple description of the traditional roles were deal damage, take damage, prevent damage, and heal damage. For the most part we like it this way. Every combat involved damage so every role had something to do.

But the traditional noncombat roles were based on skills and divided based on them. We had faces, sneaks, lookouts, athletes etc. The problem we had is that the challenges didn't include every skill so the characters without it were often forced to sit around. So either skill access cannot be the main focus or noncombat must have the usage of multiple skills, powers, rituals or whatever hardcoded into each noncombat encounter.

Is it going to be offense, defense, and healing like combat. Or is it going to be a skills role, a utility power role, and a ritual role?

If the main issue is that everyone is not involved then it is the noncombat encounter itself that must be targeted.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In combat, the simple description of the traditional roles were deal damage, take damage, prevent damage, and heal damage.

Sounds like the key word there is 'damage.' In combat, you do have hps as a barrometer of success, so you can kinda bottom-line it like that.

In non-combat, what do you have, really? Well, in skill challenges, you have successes (and failures).

So, you might have corresponding roles of: make checks, reduce chances of failure, improve chances of succes, mitigate failures. :shrug:

Is it going to be offense, defense, and healing like combat. Or is it going to be a skills role, a utility power role, and a ritual role?

skill/utility/ritual runs into the same problems as various skills - aplicability. In combat, everyone can contribute, even in combats where their role isn't at it's shiniest. A striker still contributes when fighting minions, a controller still contributes when fighting a solo, a leader still contributes when no one's taking much damage, a defender still contributes when enemies can ignore his mark.

If the main issue is that everyone is not involved then it is the noncombat encounter itself that must be targeted.

The question of how non-combat encounters will be handled is an important one. If the Skill Challenge is the model, then it'll be impossible to get away from skills, which are notably situational...

 

[Minigiant]

Sounds like the key word there is 'damage.' In combat, you do have hps as a barrometer of success, so you can kinda bottom-line it like that.

In non-combat, what do you have, really? Well, in skill challenges, you have successes (and failures).

So, you might have corresponding roles of: make checks, reduce chances of failure, improve chances of succes, mitigate failures. :shrug:

Those were my suggestions for roles.

Role 1: Make the harder checks
example- The Fighter gets a +3 class bonus to Athletics, Endurance, Heal, Intimidate, and Streetwise. Now the fighter will most likely be the lead of a large percentage of the party's noncombat encounters. The fighter would also make many noncombat power options that provide raw bonuses to these skills.

Role 2: Improve chances of success
example- The Rogue would get a class feature that doubles his aid another bonus and have a naturally high number of class skills. Rogues would also get powers and rituals that allow the party to skip steps, grant bonus to everyone, or DCs.

Role 3: Mitigate failures and Provide high Passive/Defensive Opposed check support
example- The cleric gets Insight as a free class skill and Perception on their list. They also get powers that grant rerolls before or after the result is given or straight cancel penalties. Holy mind control.

skill/utility/ritual runs into the same problems as various skills - aplicability. In combat, everyone can contribute, even in combats where their role isn't at it's shiniest. A striker still contributes when fighting minions, a controller still contributes when fighting a solo, a leader still contributes when no one's taking much damage, a defender still contributes when enemies can ignore his mark.

I don't like the skill/utility/ritual model either. I was just laying it out there in case other people liked it and could find a way to make it work.

The question of how non-combat encounters will be handled is an important one. If the Skill Challenge is the model, then it'll be impossible to get away from skills, which are notably situational...

I'm hoping the skill system is redone with this in mind. More focus away from making more skills involved to making characters involved in the rolls themselves.