Your combat schtick should be separate from your non-combat

[Username17]

Which is to say, that there's two important things that characters need to do:

1. Be useful in combat.
2. Be useful out of combat.

All characters need that, but there's no blindingly important reason why a class based system should require that you get your usefulness in combat and out of combat from the same source.

You have your heroes who are "smiths" or "sailors" or have some other skilled position, and they go off and solve non-combat problems with their skills. And sometimes these peoples are wizards, and sometimes they are warriors, and that's OK.

When you go up in level, you should really be getting two classes instead of one. One can be your combat schtick, and the other can be your noncombat schtick. That way the number of classes which need to be in the game can go down, while the number of characters which can be represented can go up.

For example: Let's say that you have 6 basic combat schticks:

Warrior/Brawler (specializes in large damage, either reliably or explosively)
Archer/Wizard (specializes in ranged attacks, either reliably or explosively)
Brute/Dodger (specializes in defense, either reliably or explosively)

And then you had 4 non-combat schticks:

Specialist (MacGivers stuff)
Healer (fixes party members)
Diviner (gathers information)
Diplomat (achieves social results)

That's 10 classes, which is one less than the PHB currently has. But on the other hand, it actually creates 24 different 1st level character archetypes - which is more than double the current value.

Here's how the current classes fit into this conceptually:

Barbarian (Brute/diviner - the only important noncombat ability that Barbarians are allowed in D&D is their information gathering)
Bard (Archer/Diplomat - these guys don't normally get a meaningful combat schtick, but conceptually they are supposed to be able to conribute meaningfully from a distance)
Cleric (Warrior/Healer)
Druid (These guys can do everything, but conceptually they are supposed to be Wizard/Healers or Brawler/Healers)
Fighter (Warrior/ Just about anything you want - these guys aren't normally given a non-combat schtick, which is part of why they suck so bad)
Monk (Dodger/Diviner - the only vaguely useful thing I've ever seen done with a Monk was as a dedicated Scout)
Paladin (Brute/Healer)
Ranger (Warrior/Diviner - their scouting and tracking abilities are good)
Rogue (Brawler/Specialist or Brawler/Diplomat)
Sorcerer (Wizard/Anything - these guys have no non-combat schtick to begin with. Conceptually they should be Wizard/Diplomats).
Wizard (Wizard/Diviners)

And that leaves a lot of room, especially among the brutes and dodgers of the world. If I want a character who specializes in not getting hit and healing people, shouldn't there be a class for that?

And now there can be.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

The thing is that the casters can do lots of noncombat tasks. A cleric isn't just a healer, he's also a primary diviner. And they do stuff that isn't even on the list, like teleportation. So casters are way more versatile than a simple classification can give them credit for.

On the subject of Fighters:

Fighters really don't do much beyond fighting, and that's the problem. They could possibly get diplomacy added to their list, but that's about it.

In fact, the skill based nature of 3E really screws the fighter. In 2nd edition you could help search stuff as a fighter, because most of the results were action based, not skill based. If you opened the chest and searched the robe pockets you'd find the key. Now that amounts to a search check DC 25 or so.

In prior editions, I found fighters were doing a lot of that sort of thing, because they had a lot of hit points and could likely soak a suprirse attack better, and becuase it gave them something to do. Also, they could prod areas looking for pressure plates and other traps, because back then you really couldn't trust your rogue to find every trap. At low levels he just plain didn't have the percentage necessary and at high levels you had to worry about those undetectable Gygaxian deathtraps.

Now, it's a different world. Now since the rogue can take a 20 on search checks, the fighter isn't needed to do that sorta thing anymore.

All I can think to do is to turn the fighter into a diplomatic character too, though this still gives him nothing to do during a dungeon crawl, and honestly I have no clue how to help him there.

[Username17]

The point is that being a "Fighter" shouldn't even determine what it is that you do from a noncombat standpoint.

You should be a "Fighter" - which determines your primarily combat abilities only. Then you should choose some other non-combat schtick and do that. It could be casting divination spells or healing the party between fights. It doesn't really matter, whatever you choose can be justified from some sort of flavor standpoint. Or heck, the Fighter could get the whole trap disarming thing going, it really doesn't matter who is doing which non-combat task from a game balance standpoint.

The point is that characters can't be allowed to walk in with no non-combat schticks. It's boring.

-Username17

[The_Hanged_Man]

Assuming your combat and non-combat types are accurate, why couldn't you also be a warrior/warrior and just fight?

[da_chicken]

DM: "Wecome noble knight!"
Player: "Roll initiative. I charge in!"
DM: "You die horribly."

I don't really see where Frank is going with this, however. I remember him saying that your class wasn't your career... and that's exactly what he's saying here. I could be wrong.

[Wrenfield]

And then you had 4 non-combat schticks:
Specialist (MacGivers stuff)
Healer (fixes party members)
Diviner (gathers information)
Diplomat (achieves social results)

the Specialist seems a bit vague and seemingly covers a lot of territory - crafting, disabling devices, stealth (Spot, Hide, etc.) skills? It might be a bit much to have just 4 archetypes for the "out-of-combat" specialty.

Does Diviner consist of both scholarly types who data-mine from written material ... and stealthy types who glean info from Gather Information & Search skills?

It would seem in a system like this, there would be a need for a serious revamping of the core skill naming conventions and class access. Skill mechanics should not be an issue. Although skill ranks per character level will also need revision. How would you handle WotC's mechanism for bonus skill ranks based on INT?

But overall, I like the idea.

[Username17]

Assuming your combat and non-combat types are accurate, why couldn't you also be a warrior/warrior and just fight?

For the same reason you can't just be a Half-Orc Twice instead of taking a character class. I don't really see how "You get to pick one combat class and one non-combat class each level" translates into "You get to take your combat class twice".

I don't really see where Frank is going with this, however. I remember him saying that your class wasn't your career... and that's exactly what he's saying here. I could be wrong.

I'm saying that your non-combat abilities and priorities should be divorced entirely from your combat focus. The fact that you swing a sword should have no bearing at all upon whether you sneak around, cast utility spells, or heal the sick.

It might be a bit much to have just 4 archetypes for the "out-of-combat" specialty.

Quite possibly. The thought had certainly occurred to me to allow characters access to the same number of basic combat and non-combat classes.

It would seem in a system like this, there would be a need for a serious revamping of the core skill naming conventions and class access.

I'm not entirely sure why - by and large your Skill selection can be determined by the non-combat portion of your class.

A spell ability based NC class might get spells like Knock and Teleport while getting relatively few skill points and a restrictive list. A skill based NC class might get some special abilities (such as HiPS and Skill Mastery) and get a lot of skills and a permissive list.

I'm not wedded to a particular list of non-combat classes. The combat classes seem pretty solid and all emcompassing - but the non-combat classes are a lot more free form. I mean, I started working on this idea at like 11 O Clock last night.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1082137181[/unixtime]]The point is that being a "Fighter" shouldn't even determine what it is that you do from a noncombat standpoint.

The problem is that that's not how a class system works. One class determines your noncombat and combat attributes. If you're a spellcaster, your divination abilities and your combat abilities both come from your class abilities.

The point is that characters can't be allowed to walk in with no non-combat schticks. It's boring.

I agree, but what is really left for the fighter to do where he still ends up feeling like a fighter. A knight who disarms traps just doesn't feel like a knight anymore.

When you choose a fantasy archetype like Lancelot or Boromir, that's basically all they do is fight. You've got a little diplomacy, but you don't contribute much of anything else, and I'm really not sure how to fix that without totally ditching the concept of knights and creating weird fighter/rogues or base class eldritch knights.

The thing is that we have a bunch of types of skills:
-Physical Obstacle Bypassing (Jump, climb, swim, Survival): These skills tend to suck bad, because spells duplicate them.
-Social obstacle bypassing (Diplomacy, Bluff, Forgery, Intimidate, Disguise)
-Classic theif skills (Hide, Move silent, sleight of hand, Disable Device, Escape artist, Use magic device)
-Defensive (listen, spot, sense motive)
-Recon (search, Gather information)
-Caster skills stuff (concentration, spellcraft, knowledge arcana/religion)
-Miscellaneous knowledges (Appraise, Speak language, other knowledges)
-Combat Skills (Tumble, Ride)
-background skills (Craft, profession, perform)

Now, the thing is that the classic fighter doesn't seem to fit many of these beyond physical bypass, diplomacy, defensive and background skills.. maybe some miscellaneous knowledges too.

The problem is that physical bypass pretty much sucks at anything beyond low levels, and defensive skills end up being purely passive, and for the most part semi-combat based mostly. There are a few times spot can be used in a non-combat environment but most of the time it's determining if you get surprised or not. Background skills are used outside of actual play. So we're left with diplomacy only as the truly viable skill.

[Wrenfield]

I always felt that the Survival skill was well-suited for Fighters in addition to Rangers and Barbs. Besides weapon training, Fighters also learn how to traverse/navigate, combat, and set-up positions in a variety of terrain types as well. After all, melee and archery combat rarely takes place on flat & featureless sterile ground. That tactical-based fighter should be proficient in how to swing a sword in his native wetland/swamp or mountainous terrain. And by virtue of learning how to fight in such terrain, he should have some survival skills to go along with it.

A straight-level Fighter with a maxed-out Survival skill is a huge boon to a party without being overbalanced ... and completely believable to boot. It does not impinge on the Ranger or Barb either as they still have a plethora of other skills at their beck and call.

For further comparisons, think of all the armed forces today and their emphasis on training soldiers how to fight in a variety of terrains (desert, forest, amphibious, urban, arctic, etc.). Yeah, I realize we're talking *todays* soldiers, but Fighters in D&D should not be represented solely as guys who train with weapons in a vacuum. The people, organizations, or governments that gave them their fighting skills had a high probability of including travel and terrain maneuvers during the training process.

[RandomCasualty]

Survival is ok, but it's not really much of a noncombat skill. It's basically a way to avoid paying for rations, and while it's cool and all, a bag of holding filled with iron rations is just as good at high levels.

I agree fighters should have it however.

[Username17]

The problem is that that's not how a class system works. One class determines your noncombat and combat attributes.

Huh?

A class system means that when you advance one thing, you have to advance another thing. That is, you have to take one thing from column A and one thing from column B - you can't take two things from column A.

That's how a class system works.

Since the combat and noncombat abilities are balanced separately - there is no actual reason why you couldn't select which column A and which column B you were using indepently. There is no driving game mechanical reason why a character who uses magic in combat should have to use magic out of combat and vice versa.

-Username17

[User3]

I vote that instead of this system, we take all craft and profession skills off of the class lists for PC classes.

You see, I don't want to play the adventure where my character makes pots.

Ever.

I don't want a contrived adventure where only my skill in pottery saves the day.

Ever.

I don't ever want to make a single GP by selling even one pot.

Ever.

I wouldn't even sell a magic pot. I'd just leave it in my Bat-cave on a shelf marked "Magic Pot. Do not touch with tongue."

-------------
My a character has a profession. I call it Adventurer. He goes on adventures. Sometimes he does it for fun, and sometime for money, and sometimes for the girl. In between adventures he practices his adventuring skills and looks for rumors and stuff to get into more adventures.

What's the skill package look like for that?

[Username17]

I don't want a contrived adventure where only my skill in pottery saves the day.

But some people do. Some people want to have the character who has some sor of domestic skill that saves the day sometimes.

They want to play...

Sinbad (Sailing)
Will Turner (Blacksmithing)
Natasha (Cleaning - and I'm not kidding)
Rumpelstiltskin (Spinning)

etc. etc. etc.

If you want to be the guy who casts magical spells to open stuff, go nuts. But there's nothing wrong with people who open stuff because they have an intricate knowledge of how metal objects are put together.

-Username17

[The_Hanged_Man]

1082147517[/unixtime]]

Assuming your combat and non-combat types are accurate, why couldn't you also be a warrior/warrior and just fight?

For the same reason you can't just be a Half-Orc Twice instead of taking a character class. I don't really see how "You get to pick one combat class and one non-combat class each level" translates into "You get to take your combat class twice".

The point is, some people don't want to do anything but fight, or be blaster mages. And some people don't want any combat at all.

You've created an interesting system for breaking down the character classes into combat-based areas, and non-combat-based areas. That's not a bad way to look at it, although I think your lists are either too limited, or too inclusive, depending on which way you want to go. But not everybody wants a mix of combat and non-combat skills.

I think you're trying to get equal blends of combat nastiness and non-combat usefulness in all the classes. Good, I like that, that's the way I play. If that's the goal, it's not a big step to openly acknowledge combat-only, and non-combat-only, blends. We're talking about hypothetical hypotheticals here, so what's the harm in discussing it?

[RandomCasualty]

1082157427[/unixtime]]
There is no driving game mechanical reason why a character who uses magic in combat should have to use magic out of combat and vice versa.

Sure there is... spells are divided into levels, scorching ray and knock are both 2nd level spells. So if you can cast a scorching ray to burn something then you can also use knock out of battle to open a door. D&D is set up wtih the whole system that magic is for combat and noncombat, and spellcasters can do combat and non-combat stuff.

And we can't divide spellcasting into combat and noncombat with any degree of reliability. What's a silent image? Certainly it has lots of noncombat uses... distractions, entertainment... but it can also be used in combat too. Charm person can be used in combat to take an enemy out of the fray, it can also be used to get information out of an NPC in a social situation.

Unless we totally rewrite both the spells and the spell system, trying to separate combat spellcasting from noncombat spellcasting is futile.

On Domestic Skills:

As for the domestic skills, they're plot devices, not actual stuff you'd do in an adventure. You wouldn't for instance write an adventure where a DC 40 sowing check wins the day, unless you had a PC who had a good sowing score to begin with and you designed the quest with that in mind.

Personally I'd prefer those crap skills handled like 2E secondary skills. They're something extra you have, you don't have to pay any skill points that could be used on real skills for them. From a mechanical standpoint, it doesn't really matter if a PC is skilled in farming. You should be able to take that stuff for free as simply character background.

[Lago_AM3P]

You've created an interesting system for breaking down the character classes into combat-based areas, and non-combat-based areas. That's not a bad way to look at it, although I think your lists are either too limited, or too inclusive, depending on which way you want to go. But not everybody wants a mix of combat and non-combat skills.

Well, sorry, but that's ALREADY the way the game works. Do you think that exotic weapon masters or frenzied berserkers really want to have a skill list? Hell no.

Why do you think that even the retarded Int 3 / Cha 3 fighter still has to at least pick one skill to level up per session? Since we're already there, and the current solution for such characters is to ignore the abilities they were forced to get, what the heck is wrong with this idea?

[Username17]

But not everybody wants a mix of combat and non-combat skills.

Then they should play a point based game.

-Username17

[Crissa]

Mmm... I like your idea, Frank.

It would take out the problems that we have with the Fighter being useless between battles and the Mage sovling all the problems 'because he has magic'.

...Everyone but Lago seems to be intentionally misreading your post, though. I think K has a point - but K, if you could choose your noncombat skills seperately, we wouldn't have the problem of your mage not having all the skills. He could be a Wizard/Diplomat while my monk could be a Dodger/Specialist.

Oh! the reason to stack the specialist together is because they're wanting to use lots of smarts skills; and which smarts skills they use specifically varies from character to character. That's why the Rogue has more skills than they can take.

-Crissa

[Count Arioch the 28th]

You know, Frank, that's a damn fine idea.

It ain't D&D, but it could make a very entertaining game nonetheless.

[User3]

DnD has a perfectly suitable system for non-combat skills. Just because fighters get hosed in that area does not make the whole system moot.

Spend the skill points on a Craft or Profession, and your DM will find a way to put it in your game(most likely because he'll get tired of you contriving situations to use your skill).

People who don't want to be garbageman/adventurers or Potter/mages will clearly state that preference by not taking those skills. Forcing people to track a whole seperate class just for flavor is pointless and cruel.

[RandomCasualty]

Is there really any problem with having characters only need to spend 1 point on profession or useless craft skills to gain some decent benefits?

One thing I realyl think the D&D skill system should adopt is somewhat what GURPS does, and that's each skill is easy, medium, hard or very hard to learn, meaning you spend more points on it.

This would allow people to rapidly master skills like jump, which really don't help much, and allow small little backstory skills without taking a huge power hit early on.

Now, still none of this actually fixes the warrior archetype, because we have yet to figure out what his niche is supposed to be outside of combat.

[Username17]

People who don't want to be garbageman/adventurers or Potter/mages will clearly state that preference by not taking those skills. Forcing people to track a whole seperate class just for flavor is pointless and cruel.

What does that have to do with anything?

I'm not suggesting that you have a class "Craft: Pottery", I'm suggesting that you have a class "Guy who has skills" and that those skills come in instead of gaining healing spells, or other abilities which are useful to the party but have no actual relevence in combat.

People should be balanced in combat, people should be balanced out of combat. Losing access to utility out of combat does not game mechanically justify even a single point of bonus damage for a Player Character. Losing access to utlity in combat does not justify even a single bonus to Diplomacy.

But losing access to healing spells justifies having Disable Device, losing access to Disable Device justifies having healing spells. If you were not going to use it in combat, trading it for other things oyu weren't going to use in combat can be very much justified from a game balance stand point.

And the "Pick one from column A, one from column B" approach of a class system allows for that very well.

Now, still none of this actually fixes the warrior archetype, because we have yet to figure out what his niche is supposed to be outside of combat.

Depends upon the warrior archetype. The Paladin heals people out of combat, the Ranger scouts out of combat. They are both warrior archetypes. Or to use historical examples: Theseus figures out tricks to undo puzzles and traps outside of combat; Odysseus uses his persuasion and razor wit to win over neutrals and trick enemies outside of combat.

And so on. Being a "warrior archetype" means that you hit people with a sword (or spear, or chainsaw, or whatever). It doesn't actually say a damn thing about what you do the rest of the time. Odysseus and Theseus are both Warriors from a combat archetype standpoint, but one is a Specialist and one is a Diplomat from a non-combat archetype standpoint.

The point is - every character has to be capable of advancing the storyline whether they are currently being attacked by a hydra or not. How they go about doing that is variable, and more importantly independently variable in and out of combat.

For every character whose magic is useless in combat (because it takes too long to cast, or can't hurt people, or requires a clear mind, or whatever) and must live by his wits and a rapier when faced with thuggery - there's a battle mage whose spells have no combat applications who must live by a fast mind and a faster tongue when there's noone to blow up with hellfire from the sky.

-Username17

[User3]

Rather than have a whole new set of classes that have a 0% cool factor and bunch of new things to track, why not just use the D20 Modern Occupation rules.

That way I can take the Adventurer Occupation, and all the bakers out there can go crazy with their bad selves, and no one has to track more mechanics than necessary.

[Username17]

Rather than have a whole new set of classes that have a 0% cool factor and bunch of new things to track, why not just use the D20 Modern Occupation rules.

Are you even pretending to read the things I write?

-Username17

[User3]

You appear to be proposing a 2E mult-class system with fighting stuff on one side and non-fighting stuff on the other.

The D20 Modern system gives players a background that is basically handled like a single free feat, and it adds 2-3 fixed class skills per background to all your classes that you gain in the future.

It sounds way better than your system.

I agree that all players need a combat and a non-combat set fo skills, but I've always been a believer in letting players handle that issue on their own. Some players really don't care if they can't be potters or the talky guy. Fighter players tend to not be the talky guy, in my experience(except for one samurai/necromancer, who made such bad RP choices that no skill mod would help him).