Non-combat encounters in D&D are resolved through "skills"; in 5E these are Acrobatics, Animal Handling, Arcana, Athletics, Deception, History, Insight, Intimidation, Investigation, Medicine, Nature, Perception, Performance, Persuasion, Religion, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, and Survival. You roll a dice, add your proficiency if you are trained in the releavnt skill as well as the relevant ability score modifier (egs. Charisma), and hope to beat the difficulty check set by the Dungeon Master. Rogue's in 5E not only have training in the most skills (four), but also have Expertise in two which grants doubled proficiency bonus. The poor fighter has training in 2 skills.
Of course, even without the right skills all players can contribute IDEAS out of character or remind their fellow players to say certain key points, and in that way contribute to non-combat encounters and conversations. I should probably remind players that they can always do that even when their character's skills aren't relevant to the situation. Outside of that though, it's probably best if the system doesn't consciously reduce the number of skills non-Rogues have to contribute. So the fix is fairly simple: Make more skills available to non-Rogues, either through a) training or through b) ability scores.
a) One could simply consider giving the non-Rogues training in more skills (i.e. more skill proficiencies). That would work. Since I'm working on a classless system anyway, it'd be best to keep prowess in skills separate from combat abilities anyway and all characters would have training in the same number of skills. But 13th age goes a step further with their backgrounds system: basically, instead of ticking boxes in a laundry list of skills, the player makes up a background that describes their character which justifies what sort of skills she has. A background like "street rat of Agrabah" could mean a whole host of skills relevant to escape, stealing, lying and stealth. I found this system extremely compelling when I applied it to my own paladin in 13th age as the mere act of thinking through the relevant background breathed life and character into my otherwise boring but mechanically competent paladin. The flexible background system used by 13th age is especially appropriate for this classless system since it encourages players flesh out really unique character concepts.
To finish it up, let's borrow from another well thought out system: Numenera. In Numenera, player characters can be quickly summed up as an (adjective) (noun) who (verb). Try it, it's quick and fun! Basically we're sort of borrowing the (verb) here. Let's have every PC be especially good at something: Expertise in one skill as well. So the PC could have a background which dictates what sort of skills the character has mastered, but are also talented at one skill in particular. What talent can be pretty flexible, such as "working with artifacts" or "finding weaknesses" or "cooking" or whatever players can think of.
b) The ability scores is another issue. There are six ability scores in D&D; Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. Of these six, strength and constitution very rarely play a role outside of combat. No matter how many skills or what backgrounds players think of, if their PC's ability scores are only focused on strength and constitution they're going to have a problem contributing (*cough barbarians cough*). Whatever it is, we need to encourage players to invest in ability scores OTHER than strength and constitution. Fortunately 5E isn't so bad with this nowadays, since with point buy players cannot sink all their points into a single ability score as much as it maxes out at 15. Players who max out their strength and constitution to meaningful levels (14 or 16 with racial bonuses) will have plenty left over for another ability score or two. Coupled with 13th age's flexible background system, players who plan their background to match their tertiary ability scores should have plenty of opportunities to contribute outside of combat. I should probably advise players to play to their strengths in that manner.
There are other things we can do to help player characters contribute outside of combat such as social connections where the PC is considered proficient when conversing with a specific groups of people. Interaction with NPCs features often enough in RPGs that it is considered one of the three pillars of adventuring in 5E, so extra care should be taken in the design to allow all PCs to interact meaningfully with NPCs, at least sometimes.
Unfortunately, there is one consequence of this design which clashes with traditional D&D design. What role do Rogue-ish concepts characters play if everyone is good at skills? Probably not even BETTER at skills. I think it's worthwhile trying to flesh out a solid role for rogue-ish flavored characters to play on the battlefield that are effective and desirable to the party. I'm not entirely sure yet, but I'm leaning towards focusing on providing flexibility on the combat and mobility, as opposed to straight out pure dishing out of damage and dealing damage of warriors. Or maybe just go with 4E strikers aka Damage per Round focused glass cannons. Strikers in concept clash with traditional D&D design since the fighters are both defenders AND strikers of 4E rolled into one, so I'm leaning towards more flexibility/mobility which allows for better target prioritization. I suspect both approaches can exist side by side though. We'll see.
To finish it up, let's borrow from another well thought out system: Numenera. In Numenera, player characters can be quickly summed up as an (adjective) (noun) who (verb). Try it, it's quick and fun! Basically we're sort of borrowing the (verb) here. Let's have every PC be especially good at something: Expertise in one skill as well. So the PC could have a background which dictates what sort of skills the character has mastered, but are also talented at one skill in particular. What talent can be pretty flexible, such as "working with artifacts" or "finding weaknesses" or "cooking" or whatever players can think of.
b) The ability scores is another issue. There are six ability scores in D&D; Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. Of these six, strength and constitution very rarely play a role outside of combat. No matter how many skills or what backgrounds players think of, if their PC's ability scores are only focused on strength and constitution they're going to have a problem contributing (*cough barbarians cough*). Whatever it is, we need to encourage players to invest in ability scores OTHER than strength and constitution. Fortunately 5E isn't so bad with this nowadays, since with point buy players cannot sink all their points into a single ability score as much as it maxes out at 15. Players who max out their strength and constitution to meaningful levels (14 or 16 with racial bonuses) will have plenty left over for another ability score or two. Coupled with 13th age's flexible background system, players who plan their background to match their tertiary ability scores should have plenty of opportunities to contribute outside of combat. I should probably advise players to play to their strengths in that manner.
There are other things we can do to help player characters contribute outside of combat such as social connections where the PC is considered proficient when conversing with a specific groups of people. Interaction with NPCs features often enough in RPGs that it is considered one of the three pillars of adventuring in 5E, so extra care should be taken in the design to allow all PCs to interact meaningfully with NPCs, at least sometimes.
Unfortunately, there is one consequence of this design which clashes with traditional D&D design. What role do Rogue-ish concepts characters play if everyone is good at skills? Probably not even BETTER at skills. I think it's worthwhile trying to flesh out a solid role for rogue-ish flavored characters to play on the battlefield that are effective and desirable to the party. I'm not entirely sure yet, but I'm leaning towards focusing on providing flexibility on the combat and mobility, as opposed to straight out pure dishing out of damage and dealing damage of warriors. Or maybe just go with 4E strikers aka Damage per Round focused glass cannons. Strikers in concept clash with traditional D&D design since the fighters are both defenders AND strikers of 4E rolled into one, so I'm leaning towards more flexibility/mobility which allows for better target prioritization. I suspect both approaches can exist side by side though. We'll see.
I like 13th Age background feature but seasoned D&D GM should watch out for falling back to D&D style e.g. "roll for Perception check" "ummm is that a 13th Age thing?"
ReplyDelete