Non-combat classes

[spongeknight]

Why in the world do current roleplaying systems combine a character's combat and noncombat abilities together in the same pool of character resources? That's such an outdated idea that I can't even grasp why games as modern as Shadowrun or D&D 5th edition continue to use such a broken paradigm. I mean, it's obvious, right? The things a character can do out of combat should not take resources away from what he can do in combat, and making an effective combatant shouldn't cripple your character's ability to contribute to the adventure outside of combat.

Sticking to the example of Dungeons and Dragons, the ranger should not be a class. Instead fighter should be the class, and the out of combat abilities every character gets could be spent towards tracking and scouting if that fighter wanted. Similarly, that fighter should have the option to take social skills, stealth powers, long-range communication spells, medical knowledge, or anything else that can contribute to adventures. There is absolutely no reason why an expert swordsman can't also be a doctor or a thief when he isn't cutting fools up, and yet almost every game currently on the market demands that the swordsman lose combat ability to do anything else.

I think the solution is obvious for class based systems: make out of combat utility come from a sub-class. That's not even a new idea, MMOs have been doing it for decades. With each character choosing a class for combat abilities and a sub-class for noncombat abilities, everyone gets to participate in adventures without unbalancing fights or being left out everywhere else. Feats can be split up into combat feats and noncombat feats that are assigned by character level, and they can't be switched for each other. Skills should be independent of classes.

So, if this idea were implemented, what out of combat roles do you think would fit in with a standard fantasy adventure setting? I'm seriously considering making a D&D 3.5 hack out of this and bolting it onto the core system, but I'm having trouble deciding which sub-classes should be made. Right now my list is:

Stealth/scouting class
Healer
Crafter/engineer (makes magic items later on)
Socialite
Communications
Navigator/cartographer/spelunker

What does everyone else think? Any ideas for more sub-classes or a more streamlined approach?

[Kaelik]

Your ideal of combat and non combat never the twain shall meet is not actually possible.

Wall of Stone is a spell. It has both combat and non combat applications. Stealth is a skill, it has both combat and non combat applications. The idea of completely divorcing the two is actually impossible to achieve.

Just decide what things you want a class to do, and what things you want all classes to be able to choose. Have sub classes, that is fine. But recognize first that things that help you combat and things that help you not combat are not mutually exclusive even in a game as simple and bullshit as 4e.

[JonSetanta]

You forgot Diplomancer/Mediator/Speaker

[shadzar]

Why in the world do current roleplaying systems combine a character's combat and noncombat abilities together in the same pool of character resources? That's such an outdated idea that I can't even grasp why games as modern as Shadowrun or D&D 5th edition continue to use such a broken paradigm.

Because D&D isn't modern, nor should it be. There are other games out there that people can play techtree in, but D&D is a packaged class game. you get your class, and play with what you get. People should just accept it and then see the thread PL made about the next DDN.

Shadowrun i know nothing of and could care less, but pretty sure it will enver be "modern" either as it is still founded in the original game philosophy. like D&D I am sure people try to modernize it, but then it really isnt the same thing any more.

TTRPGs can only survive if they remain true to themselves, otherwise everything is just another "trouble" in Faerun, time of troubles, spellplague, reckoning, what have you.

if you want something more modern, then you have to use a modern game system, and even d20 is still based on previous system design, which means it wil never be able to be modern.

you want combat separated from noncombat, you will have to start with a system that was made for that, and it seems Shadowrun like D&D, was not made that way. thus, as i predicted 4th would fail, i too predict 5th will, because it has lost its focus and trying to be something it is not.

bamboo may grow as tall as a tree, but it will always just be grass, so too D&D will only be D&D.

modern would be nothing set or predefined, but everything can be assigned based on taste. this would be impossible to "balance".

[spongeknight]

Your ideal of combat and non combat never the twain shall meet is not actually possible.

Wall of Stone is a spell. It has both combat and non combat applications. Stealth is a skill, it has both combat and non combat applications. The idea of completely divorcing the two is actually impossible to achieve.

Just decide what things you want a class to do, and what things you want all classes to be able to choose. Have sub classes, that is fine. But recognize first that things that help you combat and things that help you not combat are not mutually exclusive even in a game as simple and bullshit as 4e.

True, separating them entirely is impossible. But the goal isn't to do that, it's to make it so that all characters can do things both in and out of combat. A focused Diplomancer literally can't participate in combat against oozes or golems because all of his character resources went into talking instead of stabbing, and pretty much every martial class ever printed can't do dick to things he can't kill with hit point damage. There needs to be a middle ground, and the only real way I see that happening is to divorce the idea that every character resource needs to be consciously assigned to being better at combat or being better at not-combat.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Ah.

So. every character is multiclassed, with one class from set A, and the other from set B, where set A contains only classes that definitely have something to do in every type of supported combat encounter, and set B contains only classes that definitely have something to do in every type of supported non-combat encounter?

[Username17]

True, separating them entirely is impossible. But the goal isn't to do that, it's to make it so that all characters can do things both in and out of combat. A focused Diplomancer literally can't participate in combat against oozes or golems because all of his character resources went into talking instead of stabbing, and pretty much every martial class ever printed can't do dick to things he can't kill with hit point damage. There needs to be a middle ground, and the only real way I see that happening is to divorce the idea that every character resource needs to be consciously assigned to being better at combat or being better at not-combat.

You are an idiot. A focused mind blaster can't participate in combat against an Ooze either, and it isn't because they don't have some awesome combat powers. He has a whole bunch of stabbing, it's just that his stabbing happens to have a "no mindless creatures" clause, and in the halls of slime he is boned.

Divorcing combat points from non-combat points doesn't do anything at all to prevent characters from putting all their eggs into baskets that one opponent or another might happen to be immune to. The first time Flame Speaker meets a fire immune Fire Elemental, he's going to be embarrassed. But he's not going to be embarrassed because he doesn't have combat abilities on his sheet, he's going to be embarrassed because his opponent happens to have an immunity that invalidates all of those abilities.

-Username17

[shadzar]

Ah.

So. every character is multiclassed, with one class from set A, and the other from set B, where set A contains only classes that definitely have something to do in every type of supported combat encounter, and set B contains only classes that definitely have something to do in every type of supported non-combat encounter?

sounds like FFX-2 job system....

[Kaelik]

True, separating them entirely is impossible. But the goal isn't to do that, it's to make it so that all characters can do things both in and out of combat. A focused Diplomancer literally can't participate in combat against oozes or golems because all of his character resources went into talking instead of stabbing, and pretty much every martial class ever printed can't do dick to things he can't kill with hit point damage. There needs to be a middle ground, and the only real way I see that happening is to divorce the idea that every character resource needs to be consciously assigned to being better at combat or being better at not-combat.

1) What Frank said.

2) So make every class have something both combat and non combat. Then if every class has both, no one will be able to trade one for the other. Congratulations, you have figured out that Fighter is a terrible concept for a class and Wizard and Rogue aren't. Welcome to 2003.

[spongeknight]

You are an idiot. A focused mind blaster can't participate in combat against an Ooze either, and it isn't because they don't have some awesome combat powers. He has a whole bunch of stabbing, it's just that his stabbing happens to have a "no mindless creatures" clause, and in the halls of slime he is boned.

Divorcing combat points from non-combat points doesn't do anything at all to prevent characters from putting all their eggs into baskets that one opponent or another might happen to be immune to. The first time Flame Speaker meets a fire immune Fire Elemental, he's going to be embarrassed. But he's not going to be embarrassed because he doesn't have combat abilities on his sheet, he's going to be embarrassed because his opponent happens to have an immunity that invalidates all of those abilities.

-Username17

Okay, way to take one example I made and determine that everything else must be invalid as well. Except you missed the entire second part of that sentence anyway, so all you managed to do was take a single half of a single sentence of everything I wrote and go "sometimes that doesn't work though so you're an idiot!" Please at least try.


@Kaelik: That's my point
There is absolutely no reason that "I'm a master swordsman" or even "I'm a devoted servant of a deity/greater power" can't be valid character concepts. Not everyone has to play wizards or druids with built in noncombat options. Hell, there are more martial classes than spellcasting classes in Dungeons and Dragons because people want to play melee fighters. So the ability to play classes with such limited functionality must therefor be paired with something they can actually do outside of combat.

I'm fine with wizards/druids/rogues not having this bonus, since as has been pointed out those classes already have decent built in options for both roles. But even in just the Player's Handbook you've got the barbarian, bard, fighter, monk, and paladin who either suck or can't even perform one of those two core roles for a player character. That's half the base classes! Iconic classes! The solution isn't "nobody plays those classes anymore" it's "we need to give people who play those classes a second choosable ability set for what they can't do now." Sure, you could also build functionality straight into those classes and have barbarians always be trackers and paladins always be healers right from level 1, but that would require re-writing each and every class. The Tomes did a pretty good job of that, but not everybody is willing to play a batshit crazy Tome game just to have noncombat options as a fighter.

[hogarth]

Right now my list is:

Stealth/scouting class
Healer
Crafter/engineer (makes magic items later on)
Socialite
Communications
Navigator/cartographer/spelunker

What does everyone else think?

If by "noncombat abilities", you mean "stuff that nobody gives a shit about in D&D past level 5 or so because you can use magic instead" (e.g. speaking languages, tracking, mapmaking, mundane healing, etc.), then I totally agree that that stuff shouldn't count as a class feature and it's fine being relegated to a Background or Subclass or Quirk or One Cool Thing or whatever you want to call it.

I'm not sure "stealth" belongs on that list, though.

[Dean]

Your sub-class idea is a fine one it just solves a slightly different problem than you think it does. Main/Sub class systems allow more modification and options than one class systems. If you also declared that your Main class was gonna bring fightan powa and each sub class was going to give the out of combat oomph then yes you would be able to make sure everyone had out of combat options. But that's only there because you would have said as a design goal "Every sub class will have out of combat powers" and that's not different than just saying "Every class will have out of combat powers". The thing sub classes do is let you mix and match things to give players more options. As 10 classes give 10 options and 5 main and 5 sub classes give 25.

I think the most important thing when giving out of combat options are for everyone to have access to the Stealth game, the Social game, and the Movement game. People can specialize and it would be fine for the Shadow Mage to be stealthier and the Enchanter to be more social but they shouldn't be kicked out of each others games. So if you're going to write different sub classes to give out of combat options you should try to stop them from only having options in the stealth game or crafting game but to have one preferred game and some options in the others. If you wanted a list for a few classes that could specialize in each game you could do something like...

Stealth Classes: Cat Burglar, Shadow Mage, Commando
Social Classes: Noble, Enchanter, Demagogue
Travel Classes: Teleporter, Sea Mage, Master Merchant
Crafting Classes: Alchemist, Steampunk Tinker, Legendary Blacksmith

[Kaelik]

The solution isn't "nobody plays those classes anymore" it's "we need to give people who play those classes a second choosable ability set for what they can't do now." Sure, you could also build functionality straight into those classes and have barbarians always be trackers and paladins always be healers right from level 1, but that would require re-writing each and every class. The Tomes did a pretty good job of that, but not everybody is willing to play a batshit crazy Tome game just to have noncombat options as a fighter.

Writing fourteen subclasses for everyone to choose from is not easier than rewriting classes that don't have abilities to have abilities. And it is less offensive too.

I don't want to play in a game where the Teleport Attack Rogue can't teleport us around because he took the Diplomancer subclass, so the Wilderness Ranger teleports us around and the Paladin tracks shit. I would much rather play a game where the Paladin diplomacizes, the Teleport Rogue Teleports over long distances too, and the Wilderness Ranger with his army of animal companions also tracks.

There are two unestablished premises you have that I do not believe:

1) Writing a bunch of subclasses is easier than adding non combat abilities onto classes.

2) For some reason it is a good thing characters to have non combat and combat abilities that are completely unrelated in theme.

[fectin]

Separating combat from non-combat seems perfectly plausible to me. You have some abilities that only work while the battle music is playing, and some that only work while it isn't.
To do so, you have to remove everything that makes a TTRPG superior to a videogame, so I don't know why you would do that. But you could.

[Sashi]

I don't want to play in a game where the Teleport Attack Rogue can't teleport us around because he took the Diplomancer subclass, so the Wilderness Ranger teleports us around and the Paladin tracks shit. I would much rather play a game where the Paladin diplomacizes, the Teleport Rogue Teleports over long distances too, and the Wilderness Ranger with his army of animal companions also tracks.

On the other hand I don't want to play in a game where the Paladin of Obad Hai can't speak with animals, bodyguard fighters can't spot sneaking assassins, and flask rogues can't brew potions of disguise self, sorcerers can't pick locks.

I also don't want to play in a game where rogues have to sneak, rangers have to track, and bards have to diplomance. I don't want to be yelled at if my druid doesn't take survival. Or treated like I let the party down because my rogue trained handle animal instead of bluff.

Saying "that ability is incongruous with my concept of that class, therefore they can't have it" is literally the mindset that leads to fighters not having nice things. And the more you straightjacket the classes into YOUR idea of what that class is "supposed" to do, the more you stifle other people's ideas.

Sure it's stupid to make it so someone takes "Wizard" as a combat class and "Diplomancer" as a non-combat class. But it's equally stupid so say that the guy who casts fireball can't also be the guy diplomances. Or that the guy who swings a sword can't cast scry.

[Kaelik]

On the other hand I don't want to play in a game where the Paladin of Obad Hai can't speak with animals, bodyguard fighters can't spot sneaking assassins, and flask rogues can't brew potions of disguise self, sorcerers can't pick locks.

Great, but all those skills already exist and are already open to everyone. None of those need to be added to classes. Also, as previously established, bodyguard "fighters" are not real people.

I also don't want to play in a game where rogues have to sneak, rangers have to track, and bards have to diplomance. I don't want to be yelled at if my druid doesn't take survival. Or treated like I let the party down because my rogue trained handle animal instead of bluff.

Great, no one cares, because once again, those are already skills and not class features. (Except Stealth, that is a complete train wreck.)

Saying "that ability is incongruous with my concept of that class, therefore they can't have it" is literally the mindset that leads to fighters not having nice things.

No, what leads to fighters not having nice things is that the fighters fucking theme is "class that doesn't have nice things" if fighters do anything out of combat, people complain that they are acting like Rogues or Rangers. If Fighters use a Bow, they are acting like Rangers. If Fighters move around and teleport they are evil bad anime and/or "Warblades."

The thing that leads to fighters not having nice things is that you want to call them fighters and then whine about how they can't do anything but fight.

And the more you straightjacket the classes into YOUR idea of what that class is "supposed" to do, the more you stifle other people's ideas.

No, the more specifically themed classes are the more capable they are of satisfying people who want to play that theme, and the more classes you need to make to satisfy more themes. There is a reason that literally everyone that exists in the universe wishes the Wizard was replaced with a bunch of different versions of the Dread Necromancer and the Beguiler.

Or that the guy who swings a sword can't cast scry.

No, it really isn't that crazy to say that not everyone in the world gets to scry. It is totally reasonable to limit scrying to only "Wizards" (or even better, a limited subset of specific Wizard like classes) and Duskblades, and Spellswords, and not to literally everyone.

[Sashi]

Great, but all those skills already exist and are already open to everyone. None of those need to be added to classes.

2 ranks/level and cross-class costs does not make something "accessible". Pretending full-classed paladins can sneak worth a damn is just being facetious.

Also, as previously established, bodyguard "fighters" are not real people.

Fuck you. I never agreed to that. Even if I did, we're talking about how to let them be real people, not how to kick them to the curb for lacking abilities.

The thing that leads to fighters not having nice things is that you want to call them fighters and then whine about how they can't do anything but fight.

No, I'm trying to let fighters take scry, track, teleport, or alchemy abilities. It's assholes like you who try to keep fighters from scrying because they're not called duskblades.

No, it really isn't that crazy to say that not everyone in the world gets to scry. It is totally reasonable to limit scrying to only "Wizards" (or even better, a limited subset of specific Wizard like classes) and Duskblades, and Spellswords, and not to literally everyone.

I don't even understand how you can be blaming this problem on me when you are the one trying to deny abilities based on arbitrary lines drawn in your head. I'm saying it doesn't matter who scrys and who gathers information, as long as the deeds done got did. You're saying that it's vitally important only wizards and duskblades can use scry and that fighters suck because people don't let them scry. It's a fucking ouroboros of stupid.

[shadzar]

I'm saying it doesn't matter who scrys and who gathers information, as long as the deeds done got did.

the problem is that if a class-based game, there needs to be a division of the classes. people wanting something that allows for combat and non-combat abilities want a non-class based game so that features aren't all chosen for them by the designers.

all the fussing about balance and non-combat abilities and such, when people still want a class based game. leave the classes behind and tr to make the game that allows for this. PO: S&P, 3.x, these didn't do it because the foundation was still in those classes. you need a build your own class system so you can pick the combat things you want and the non combat things and there is no nice neat package already lumped together for you to choose.

if playing a game and everyone agrees, anyone can scry, that is setting related, and if agreed to by everyone, then just do it. why do the gamebooks have any say over how you play?

[Kaelik]

Pretending full-classed paladins can sneak worth a damn is just being facetious.

Paladins can't sneak because they are in heavy armor. Or because sneak doesn't even fucking work, because the rules are borked. Not because cross class skills are something that has to be in the game.

Fuck you. I never agreed to that.

Not my problem that you are an idiot. I said established not agreed.

Even if I did, we're talking about how to let them be real people, not how to kick them to the curb for lacking abilities.

No, the discussion is how to make characters real people. Not how to make classes real people, because you still won't let Fighters get class abilities. But here is the funny part. You are demanding that you take the "Fighter" class who doesn't use magic during combat, but then cast spells. And that is literally the stupidest concept that has ever existed ever.

No, I'm trying to let fighters take scry, track, teleport, or alchemy abilities. It's assholes like you who try to keep fighters from scrying because they're not called duskblades.

So to be clear, you hate the idea of being a duskblade or spellblade, because that would be terrible. But you love the idea of being a "Fighter" who casts spells.

Seriously you fucking retard, this infatuation you have with calling someone a fighter because they use sword is dumb as shit and only exists because D&D used fighter as the name for a class, which by the way, in the original D&D was basically just a shit class you got if you weren't good enough to be a Cleric or a Wizard or a Paladin.

I don't even understand how you can be blaming this problem on me when you are the one trying to deny abilities based on arbitrary lines drawn in your head.

Those arbitrary lines in my head (or hey, anyone else who writes a class's head) are called themes.

I'm saying it doesn't matter who scrys and who gathers information, as long as the deeds done got did. You're saying that it's vitally important only wizards and duskblades can use scry and that fighters suck because people don't let them scry.

No, I am saying that it does matter who does shit, because the game is better when character have established themes that define their abilities, instead of every character having the abilities "have a completely random assortment of abilities." I am saying that fighters will always suck forever because the theme "fights things with a sword and not a bow and not magic and doesn't do anything but fight" that the name fighter invokes is a shitty theme that will never be good.

Now yes, if you want your fighter to gain spell levels and cast spells and never pick up a sword because you want to fuck the idea of themes in the ass, then yes, a fighter can be just as good as everyone else. But since at that point most people would describe the character as something other than a fighter, it seems clear that the incredibly stupid name "Fighter" isn't doing anything to help you.

[shadzar]

"fights things with a sword and not a bow and not magic and doesn't do anything but fight"

who came up with this?

in your "theme" idea, which people with common since call them archetypes... this is your fault for having a bad "theme".

no magic, makes sense. its a fighter, they use weapons and exotic form to do combat. combat is the ONLY part of an RPG that needs rules. so they only need rules for combat. casters get rules for other things only because those spells DO other things outside of combat (except 4th edition).

and who said a fighter couldnt use a bow? its a weapon, the fighters specific schtick is using all forms of weapons.

it is the players that allow the fighter not to be able to do anything but fight, same with the cleric being forced to being a walking med-kit.

do some player just want to relax with a character that just hits things with a sword? yes, and they should be able to. if the other players like the other parts so much, then that us the time they get to use the most so should enjoy having the fighter player that only wants to fight, but that player will likely drift out soon enough as they might not be that interested in playing, or they might have more energy another day to add more.

[OgreBattle]

I figure it'd be best if you had your shthick, and then it gave you non-combat and combat applications

ex:

-You can scry. You can predict enemy movements in combat and foretell allies of danger

-You are really sneaky, this helps you stab people

-You have superhuman endurance, you can shrug off blows that would fell lesser horses

-You're a healer. You know where every humanoid's hurty spot is, and with a dissection the hurty spot of anything else.

[shadzar]

so you want class archetype?

the new L&L i just touched on this whole non-combat thing a bit, but will add more thoughts here if requested to keep it separate from the mess Mearls spotted off in that article.

basically all goes back to just having 3 classes, (arcane, divine, melee) and then letting people choose abilities to fill in character ideas to merge divine melee to get a Paladin concept, etc. no, rogues arent needed in the game at all, they serve no purpose except as NPC dressing to flavor cities with a guild or den of thieves. and every character in D&D already is a thief anyway.

[Sashi]

I never said the theoretical Fighter using scry had to be swords only, fighting all the time, no items, final destination. I simply don't see any more thematic dissonance between Scry and Black Tentacles than I do between Scry and Spiked Chain Trip Monkey. I mean, it's Divination, there's not much stopping any random asshole from learning to read tea leaves or stare into a crystal ball.

But that's not even the real discussion here. I'm talking about having a conceptual umbrella of "Information Abilities" that solve the problem of not knowing stuff. And then letting people choose from the list based on what they think is appropriate for their specific character. So let's pretend that knowledge checks and social skills are up to snuff with divination spells and can actually be used to overcome similar challenges all the way through to 20th level. I mean the central plot of Game of Thrones hinges on Eddard succeeding on a Knowledge Check, so it could possibly have also been solved by diplomancing enough whores or using Prying Eyes to listen in on Cersei grumbling about how she never let Robert Baratheon fuck her. Or that half successes on two out of three is also good enough.

And let's also shoot the "Fighter" concept into the sun. Every 20th level character has to do something reasonably fantastical.

I'm fine with the half-dragon duskblade riding her flying hippo to the library of Alexandria to make some knowledge checks while the awakened housecat wizard rides his broomstick on to the River Styx Boatmen's guild for some socializing and the Nezumi shadowdancer shadowwalks to her nest and peers into her crystal ball.

What say you?

[shadzar]

why does every game at every table in every house, have to reach level 20?

[hogarth]

On the other hand I don't want to play in a game where the Paladin of Obad Hai can't speak with animals, bodyguard fighters can't spot sneaking assassins, and flask rogues can't brew potions of disguise self, sorcerers can't pick locks.

I also don't want to play in a game where rogues have to sneak, rangers have to track, and bards have to diplomance. I don't want to be yelled at if my druid doesn't take survival. Or treated like I let the party down because my rogue trained handle animal instead of bluff.

Long story short: you want to play a classless game system. Good news! There are lots of classless RPGs out there.