Utility across the classes

[AvatarVecna]

I'm considering doing an urban-ish social game that hopefully will go on long enough to get to a fairly high level. That said, I'm a bit worried over how viable certain classes would be in such a set-up. IMO, Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, and Sorcerer in particular seem like they generally lack the out-of-combat utility other classes might enjoy in such a game, and I neither want to restrict my players too much in class choice nor leave them with little to do most of the time if they want to play the big tough guy. What are your thoughts on this? Which classes/sub-classes do you think are lacking in out-of-combat utility, and what changes would you make to solve this problem?

[Biggstick]

They then need to do this cool awesome thing called role playing. It doesn't matter what their class is but their level of commitment to creating a fun and interesting character.

[mgshamster]

I'd allow them to take a background feature as part of character creation. Those add a bit of utility to all characters and help remove some of the issues you're seeing. It really helps with the out-of-combat utility Bf encourages some roleplaying.

Additionally, encouraging or even granting a feat tailored around the less popular noncombat focused feats, like acting, can go a long way.

[Tanarii]

Most classes can do okay by selecting the right background. Although you'll probably see a lot of charlatans, criminals, entertainers, nobles and urchins from those less than out-of-combat oriented classes. It might require a raising a secondary skill a bit too.. I mean you can probably be effective as a Rock Gnome Sage Barbarian with a 14 Int, Artificer's Lore racial, Tinker, and Arcana, History and Nature, with Research backing it up for when you fail a check.

But yeah, classes with Expertise or Spells or both are going to be strong.

From the classes you listed:

EKs can do okay as a sort of enforcer, with a few backup utility cantrips and spells.

Shadow Monks are fine for on the stealthy/scouting front. Plus they get a free artisans tool prof, which is more likely to be useful in that environment,

Sorcerers should be awesome. Subtle spell. Plenty of non-blasts spells to select from.

All in all, I'd expect Barbarians, Rangers, and Druids to be the most out of place, although the latter two have some spells that might come in handy. And rangers are okay scouts just from taking Stealth, Perception and Investigation.


IMO the D&D rule set doesn't support itself a heavy social /non-combat game very well. By which I mean you can totally do it, but the combat, spells and even skills system aren't robustly oriented towards it. You'll end up doing lots of in-game stuff sans rules. That's fine and dandy if you're cool with that.

[Lappy9001]

In my own experience, characters with less mechanical inclinations towards urban sociability don't have much of a problem with some creative role-playing. But if you're concerned about that, maybe offer some ribbon abilities? Or maybe giving everyone an extra tool or skill proficiency that would be useful in an urban setting.

[Toadkiller]

Also the guidance cantrip gives some extra proficiency on skills, encouraging it to be present in the party helps. I have a cleric1/wizard that serves as the party mini-rogue via background skills and guidance. She doesn't have expertise, but guidance has bridged the gap.

[djreynolds]

I'm considering doing an urban-ish social game that hopefully will go on long enough to get to a fairly high level. That said, I'm a bit worried over how viable certain classes would be in such a set-up. IMO, Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, and Sorcerer in particular seem like they generally lack the out-of-combat utility other classes might enjoy in such a game, and I neither want to restrict my players too much in class choice nor leave them with little to do most of the time if they want to play the big tough guy. What are your thoughts on this? Which classes/sub-classes do you think are lacking in out-of-combat utility, and what changes would you make to solve this problem?

IMO, players often create characters geared towards combat, but they can grab the skilled feat or throw ASI into charisma as well.

Also rogue is a real cheap dip for expertise, it offers a lot of potential.

Another option is lowering the social DCs so that there is a bigger margin of success.

I have used for intimidation, strength and charisma bonus added together and then halved. Its not terrible to work out.

If you think on a fighter, he has perception and insight so the rogue cannot pull one over on him while trying to get into town.

He has history of battles, he knows something of basic survival and how to handle horses or pack animals.

He has intimidation to scare off that same rogue.

[Asmotherion]

I'm considering doing an urban-ish social game that hopefully will go on long enough to get to a fairly high level. That said, I'm a bit worried over how viable certain classes would be in such a set-up. IMO, Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, and Sorcerer in particular seem like they generally lack the out-of-combat utility other classes might enjoy in such a game, and I neither want to restrict my players too much in class choice nor leave them with little to do most of the time if they want to play the big tough guy. What are your thoughts on this? Which classes/sub-classes do you think are lacking in out-of-combat utility, and what changes would you make to solve this problem?

Sorcerer: He is a spellcaster in a world that (for it's most part) has no idea about magic. I think he'll be ok... Think about this: A mere prestidigitation/minor illusion cantrip would be more than enough to grant a +5 to a perform/intimidation/persuation check to someone who has never seen magic (Not RAW, but IMO any good DM should consider it a situation bonus to the check)... For example, you could make a puff of smoke appear in your hand, and then an intimidation check to tell the target "I'll burn you alive unless you speak". I think it's safe to assume he would either wet his pants or run for his life. Smart players can really work with that.

Monk: He can move at speeds unconsivable to most people, and depending on his speciallisation, can be an excelent spy, a reknown martial artist (with high connections), or pretty much anything, depending on his backround. Again, a smart player can work with this.

Barbarian: Ever seen a man lift a car with his bare hands? Now imagin this man putting the same car down, and asking for answears... Can also be further specialised by the skills he might pick... for example, he might be an excelent cook (one piece style) or an animal handler because he used to be a pokemon dog trainer.

Fighter: Can be a decorated veteran, a police officer tougher than ussual... again, his main focus is fights, but he can have skills to be excelent at.

Ranger: I won't be using the pokemon dog trainer example again. He can be some kind of bounty hunter, if you chose that specialisation, and be an expert at information gathering through the mafia network, and used to environments like the city, the sewers, airborn fights etc.

The thing is, a smart player can work around anything. If they can't it's their bad for choosing the class in the first place, not yours. Let them reroll a character and make their death (or exit scene) memorable; I always find it usefull when a player tells me (secretly; this is a rule I like to enforce) that he wants to roll a new character, since I can bluntly kill his previous character in front of the other players, and feel no regrets about it... helps give the campain a more realistic feel, and unite the party under the death of a lost companion.

[JellyPooga]

They then need to do this cool awesome thing called role playing. It doesn't matter what their class is but their level of commitment to creating a fun and interesting character.

Ding Ding Ding! Biggstick wins by knockout in the first round!

[rollingForInit]

As long as you make sure the players like this idea, they'll make characters, and choose classes, with that in mind. I'd expect that many players probably wouldn't go Champion fighter, or barbarian, since they are very combat-oriented with few mechanics to do anything else. An Eldritch Knight, though, has cantrips and spells. That's useful. Any class with spells will be useful. The Sorcerer has the Subtle Spell metamagic which will be really amazing when combined with spells like Charm Person/Detect Thoughts/Suggestion/etc. Monks have a lot of ribbon abilities, and several archetypes that could work nicely. Rangers have spells and some features that could be useful otherwise as well.

And then, some players might not care about mechanics, and just go all-out on role-playing and make a really interesting Barbarian, who causes plenty of more interesting situations than the silent, passive wizard that has plenty of spells.

[Warwick]

The short answer is that D&D isn't really designed for that, so it's not going to be optimal. You could work around it with backgrounds, or you could rework certain abilities to be more 'urban' (this may be particularly relevant for the Ranger), or you could give them special/magic items to cover the gaps. It all really depends on what exactly they're going to be doing.

For that matter, just let them know the campaign won't have super intense or deadly combat. They'll probably feel more relaxed about putting character-building resources into social/utility stuff instead of combat. And if they know that and they still go all-in, it's their fault for bringing a killing machine to a tea party (and your fault for approving it).


Ding Ding Ding! Biggstick wins by knockout in the first round!

The entire game is role-playing. If you mean 'in-character talking', then I'd note that there are plenty of non-combat obstacles that are not amenable to be talked away, which is where non-combat utility skills, abilities, and spells come it.

[JellyPooga]

The entire game is role-playing. If you mean 'in-character talking', then I'd note that there are plenty of non-combat obstacles that are not amenable to be talked away, which is where non-combat utility skills, abilities, and spells come it.

Whilst what you say is true to an extent, those non-combat "utility" abilities aren't the be-all/end-all of roleplaying. Roleplaying a lack of those abilities is just as fun (if not more so, sometimes) as roleplaying having those abilities. Roleplaying is about more than just rolling dice; the socially inept Barbarian trying and failing to make civilised conversation is a classic example of such an occurence. As the saying goes; D&D isn't all about "winning" all the time; failure is often more fun than success because it gives you another obstacle to overcome.

[Specter]

My experience: as long as the barbarian has stuff to destroy, he won't care about guys talking or disarming traps. 'Barbarian' here is code for the classes you mentioned, except Ranger because they're resourceful.

[smcmike]

the socially inept Barbarian trying and failing to make civilised conversation is a classic example of such an occurence. As the saying goes; D&D isn't all about "winning" all the time; failure is often more fun than success because it gives you another obstacle to overcome.

This, exactly.

How many protagonists in fiction are highly socially skilled? Very few! Bumbling through social encounters makes the plot more interesting, not less. A barbarian comes with built-in narrative tension that a more sophisticated character may lack.

Also, what's the worst that can happen? He makes people mad and they try to fight him? Win!

[Tanarii]

Roleplaying is about more than just rolling dice; the socially inept Barbarian trying and failing to make civilised conversation is a classic example of such an occurence.
Just thought I'd jump in here with a random tangent, and object to your use of Roleplaying as meaning 'talky-time', as opposed to in-character decision making.

Carry on. :smallbiggrin:

[JellyPooga]

Just thought I'd jump in here with a random tangent, and object to your use of Roleplaying as meaning 'talky-time', as opposed to in-character decision making.

Carry on. :smallbiggrin:

Oh don't get me wrong, I used a social example as one of the most well known examples, but as you say it applies to more than just that. Any lack, from physical to mental is just as much an opportunity to roleplay as any strength and every character has both, even those that strive to be jacks-of-all, whose lack of specialisation is a weakness in itself.

[brainface]

I would absolutely play a totem barbarian as the angry guy in a well-tailored suit, loudly shouting inquiries at birds mid masked ball.

[Grod_The_Giant]

They then need to do this cool awesome thing called role playing. It doesn't matter what their class is but their level of commitment to creating a fun and interesting character.
Anyone can talk, yes. And it can be fun to bumble sometimes. But ultimately we went to be successful at things, and it's difficult to do that when you don't have the proper tools. Roleplaying is a constant, a character-neutral activity-- your ability to do so is completely unrelated to anything written down on your sheet. If character A can roleplay a conversation and character B can roleplay a conversation and automatically mimic speech patterns and determine personality traits (Mastermind Rogue), character B is more useful. If AvatarVecna says "I'm worried about mechanics," saying "just ignore the mechanics!" isn't the most helpful advice.

It is absolutely valid to worry about characters being underpowered in social or exploration encounters, just as it is it worry about them being underpowered in combat-- the only difference is that D&D forces you to be good at combat. Every character should be, mechanically, good at one aspect of the main campaign activity and one or two side-things.

As to the matter at hand... there are some UA subclasses that help. A Monster Hunter Fighter can do decently well, with bonus skills and bonus dice to detect lies. The Purple Dragon Knight gets an Expertise. Shadow Monk, as mentioned, isn't much for talking but is an exceptional sneak, which is likely to still be useful. Sorcerers can do fine by just not picking blasty spells. Rangers and Barbarians are trickier; they might do with some new ribbon abilities or "Urban ____" subclasses.