What do you think about PCs that focus on roleplay rather than combat?

[BlackOnyx]

TL;DR


I realized that I've built my character with roleplaying as a priority rather than combat prowess. That in mind, I had a few questions for my fellow members in The Playground:


(1) Have you ever played a character that prioritized roleplaying over combat prowess? Why? Did you enjoy it? Do you think 3.5e can be conducive to this style of gameplay?


(2) How do you feel when a fellow party member creates a character that isn't built with combat in mind? Do you feel it hinders you or your party? Or is it simply another opportunity to make your character shine in their absence?


EDIT:

To clarify for some of the initial replies, my question is more in regard to how you feel about prioritizing roleplaying choices over combat utility. The character in my example below (a cloistered cleric) still has significant combat utility, though that's more a pleasant side effect than a result of any planning on my part.

I've changed the post title and full context (below) to more accurately reflect that sentiment. Apologies for the misunderstanding.



*****

Full context:

While I was upgrading the PC from my current campaign the other day (we just hit level 9), I had a thought: how do others feel when one party member creates a character that isn't optimized for combat?


Let's face it, in most campaigns, D&D has a tendency to be very combat oriented. Experience—the basis for character development—is intrinsically tied to slaying bad guys and monsters. Given the setting, it's rare to play a session without one (if not two or three) small skirmishes involving the PCs themselves.


What happens, then, when you play as a character with a more out-of-combat focus? Does it ruin the game balance? Does it weaken the party?


I find that my current character, Nicholas (a cloistered cleric) falls into this category to some extent (in the sense that I built him without combat in mind). Born as the well to do son of a noble family, he left on his own when he grew bored of dealing with the responsibilities of his station. I pictured him as more more of an intellectual/social savant than a fighter, approaching problems with negotiation and manipulation rather than violence. That in mind, when we did our initial character creation, I assigned his ability scores as such (we rolled stats):


WIS 16
INT 16
CHA 16
STR 12
DEX 13
CON 12


Although I felt this setup fit Nick's image, I also realized that it didn't necessarily represent the optimal build for a character with access to the cleric's spell list. Especially considering the lower martial prowess of a cloistered cleric, buffing at least one or two of Nick's physical stats could have helped to round out his combat “deficiencies.” As such he's a bit fragile, making combat that much more dangerous for him. (Granted, in his case, the cleric spells still allow him the chance to provide a lot of utility via buffing/summoning etc. It's more of a lucky side effect than intentional optimization on my part, though. If he were a non-caster, it would be another story.)


That context in mind, a few questions for you all:


(1) Have you ever played a character that prioritized roleplaying over combat prowess? Why? Did you enjoy it? Do you think 3.5e can be conducive to this style of gameplay?


(2) How do you feel when a fellow party member creates a character that isn't combat optimized? Does it irritate you? Or is it simply another opportunity to make your character shine in their absence?

[Psyren]

Your definition of "optimized for combat" is a bit too narrow here; it doesn't have to mean that you're the one on the front line swinging your mace around or raining destruction down upon enemies directly. In fact, spellcasters who focus on buffing and minions are very often MORE "optimized for combat" than the ones who try to wade in and get their hands dirty.

Remember that every single time a monster wastes its turn, you win. There are several ways you can make this happen - get them to hit a disposable summoned minion, place a battlefield control effect that they need to burn actions or resources escaping from, and even swinging at a buffed party member. In a turn-based game, the side that wastes its turns will always lose, and the side that made them do that will win - it's as simple as that.


With that misconception out of the way, I can answer your specific questions, which are not actually all that closely related to the character you're playing:

1) D&D is not very good at handling non-combat stuff, no. But as I covered above, your cleric is not actually a noncombatant - he's just not much of a fighter himself. Buffing and minions are fine (and even encouraged) with stats like that.

2) The only "hindrance" is, as noted above, a character who wastes their turn. Buffing and summoning are almost never that. You can contribute, even in D&D, without actually doing much fighting.

[Eldariel]

...your combat potential is up there in the top tier. Just because you're not swinging a sword or lack physicals doesn't mean you aren't a powerhouse in fighting. On the contrary, your combat ability is probably greater than that of a Cleric doing mook duties swinging a club - Cleric CC and SoX spells are insanely powerful, even eclipsing Wizard at places (Ice Slick, Wall of Sand, Shivering Touch, etc.).

But yeah, while the non-combat systems in 3.5 are kinda barebones, they're still servicable and many of my best sessions in 3.5 and in RPGs in general have been heavy on non-combat stuff (generally discussions); heated arguments, big decisions, emotions and actually caring about the world just tend to lead to a whole different level of engagement than combat encounters, though they can be engaging as well.

[BlackOnyx]

Your definition of "optimized for combat" is a bit too narrow here; it doesn't have to mean that you're the one on the front line swinging your mace around or raining destruction down upon enemies directly. In fact, spellcasters who focus on buffing and minions are very often MORE "optimized for combat" than the ones who try to wade in and get their hands dirty.




...your combat potential is up there in the top tier. Just because you're not swinging a sword or lack physicals doesn't mean you aren't a powerhouse in fighting. On the contrary, your combat ability is probably greater than that of a Cleric doing mook duties swinging a club - Cleric CC and SoX spells are insanely powerful, even eclipsing Wizard at places


Apologies, a cloistered cleric was probably a bad example for this particular inquiry. The process I went through to choose my PC's traits (with non combatant qualities in mind) was what I intended to comment on. You both are absolutely correct, a support caster can make for an important (if not essential) team member in combat.


I think I got a bit too detailed in my "full context" section. The description of his combat "style" was not really related to the question--I simply got a little too excited to share and added details that weren't necessarily related to the topic in question. If anything, they muddled the initial point I was trying to get across.


I'll try to rephrase the initial post to make that clearer. The phrasing I should have used is something more along the lines of "I've prioritized my character with RP in mind rather than combat" rather than "not combat optimized."

[Anymage]

Role playing is orthogonal to RP. To a certain extent, optimization is even good for RP; most real-life people tend to specialize in doing whatever they're good at.

3.5 D&D is a bad game to discuss this in. Partially because the level system dictates that some of your character's prowess will wind up being applicable in combat, partially because certain classes are just so much better than others. So I'll pretend you were talking about a point-based system:

-It's hard to roleplay when you've bled out on the floor. If you're playing a system where you expect your character to see combat - and this is almost every system out there - you'll want at least enough combat competence that you don't become a liability or corpse the moment a fight breaks out. Again, this is realistic; people with no combat capabilities tend to avoid situations where combat is likely (and as such, tend not to become PC style adventurers), people with combat training tend not to like carrying along characters who will become liabilities, and combat-inept liabilities tend to die early on before they can become proper PCs. So at least a minimum is required.

-How much you have to optimize is more a matter of the group than anything else. It's okay to have one character's niche be the specialist bruiser. After that, and relevant to D&D again, it's best to think of the tier system. Four druids will be playing the same game. Four fighters will be playing the same game. A druid and a fighter will be hard pressed to feel like they're on a level field. Whether to roll a druid or a fighter depends on what the rest of the team is playing. Whether you're being constantly outshined or you're constantly outshining someone else, both are problems.

[chainer1216]

Its cool as long as youre not being a condescending elitist about it.

A saying i find applies to most everything in life.

[BlackOnyx]

3.5 D&D is a bad game to discuss this in. Partially because the level system dictates that some of your character's prowess will wind up being applicable in combat, partially because certain classes are just so much better than others. So I'll pretend you were talking about a point-based system:


Correct. This is the assumption I had in mind. Within a given class, how do you feel about choosing traits that don't necessarily optimize combat potential (i.e. ability scores that don't necessarily jive with your class's focus).

When you get into the different class tiers like you mentioned, it's apples and oranges. Even the most optimized tier 4's are going to have difficulties keeping up with a "sloppy" tier 1.



Again, this is realistic; people with no combat capabilities tend to avoid situations where combat is likely (and as such, tend not to become PC style adventurers), people with combat training tend not to like carrying along characters who will become liabilities, and combat-inept liabilities tend to die early on before they can become proper PCs. So at least a minimum is required.


A good point. Danger is in the D&D job description; those who can't endure it don't last long.



A druid and a fighter will be hard pressed to feel like they're on a level field. Whether to roll a druid or a fighter depends on what the rest of the team is playing. Whether you're being constantly outshined or you're constantly outshining someone else, both are problems.


Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on a character with high social and intelligence skills that can keep himself from getting killed in combat (i.e. an evasive, skill focused rogue)? Could a character that doesn't contribute much to combat (and instead focuses on non-combatant skills) be a viable addition to a high powered team so long as they could keep themselves from getting killed?

[Eldariel]

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on a character with high social and intelligence skills that can keep himself from getting killed in combat (i.e. an evasive, skill focused rogue)? Could a character that doesn't contribute much to combat (and instead focuses on non-combatant skills) be a viable addition to a high powered team so long as they could keep themselves from getting killed?

Depends on what they are able to contribute. In 3.5, the same characters who shine in combat (Clerics, Wizards, Druids) can generally also handle the non-combat stuff. Wizards are the masters of Knowledge and all Int-based skills, Clerics can master pretty much anything and Druids naturally jive with the natural world, especially since Wildshape gives them extra point buy to put into mental stats. Thus, it's hard to argue in favour of e.g. NPC Expert instead of Factotum since both do the same thing non-combat (well, Factotum is just plain better) while one also brings combat prowess. And again, spells buff skills and stats and everything, and do otherwise impossible things, so the best non-combat stuff comes in spells, which just so just happen to be the best combat tool. In this game, it just aligns: the best characters at doing anything are also the best combatants.

But yes, it's a very common trope that you have an expert you have to protect and get to the dangerous place so they can do their thing. It's a common trope because it works - I personally love playing a character who has to rely on others since I like being a strategist and a leader and that's neatly balanced by not being able to do things yourself. That's definitely doable in D&D, but you have to Rule 0 the expert's abilities so that they aren't better done by the protective spellcasters. Something like special heritage, divine seed, or whatever so they can do something others can't just easily ape. It's actually what the party system is supposed to do; everyone has their niche and the non-combatants can know/do the Quest Relevant Stuff (steal Smaug's hoard, dump the one One Ring in Mt. Doom, or whatever) while the others escort them to enable them to get there and do it. In 3.5 it just so happens casters are the best at escorting, fighting, talking, carrying, moving, creating, destroying, whatever, you name it, casters are the best at it. So it only works if you make it work and change things around a bit. Or then you play 4 demigods of all trades - that can also a very, very engaging.

[bahamut920]

As long as the character can do something, I'm not going to make a big fuss about it. A Cha-based rogue who acts as party face during social situations and hides behind the sorcerer when combat comes up (not joking, I have had a fellow player in a previous campaign who did this; I was playing the sorcerer) is still contributing to the party's effectiveness. Any combat avoided, grace/favor earned with NPCs and organizations (especially ones with influence, eg. the King or the leading merchant guild of the country) is helping the party.

Optimize for your character's role. That role doesn't need to necessarily be combat-applicable (although some basic combat competence is appreciated), but be good at what you do. The only players I actively dislike are ones who accomplish nothing but being disruptive.

That said, make your character appropriate to the game you're playing. Don't play a rogue with 8 Str/Dex/Con and 18 Cha in a dungeon crawl, and don't bring Bert the half-orc barbarian, who lives only to smash faces, to an RP-heavy social intrigue game set in the royal court.

[RoboEmperor]

All combat PCs can roleplay too so I don't see what the issue at hand is. Especially spellcasters. Naked 20 cleric can kick ass with Conjure Ice Beast without resorting to buffing and healing.

As for your question, no I don't care if my party members are total deadweight. My PC can always beat all campaigns solo so i actually prefer to have weak ass party members that don't care about contributing to fights because it lets me go crazy. Suddenly my restriction for 1 outsider at a time becomes 6. I rain hell upon my enemies with Spell Turret saturated Animated Objects, and when I utterly slaughter any encounter, if my party says "Good Job" instead of "Game hogging power gaming piece of ****" I am more than happy.

[Psyren]

To clarify for some of the initial replies, my question is more in regard to how you feel about prioritizing roleplaying choices over combat utility. The character in my example below (a cloistered cleric) still has significant combat utility, though that's more a pleasant side effect than a result of any planning on my part.


Well I mean, of course he does, he's a cleric :smalltongue: That's the definition of T1 after all, they can do everything (with at most a day's notice.)


But all right, you've asked a more general question in the OP - are characters deliberately built without a combat focus okay in a combat-focused game like D&D? (I like this wording of your question better, because it doesn't set up the usual false dichotomy between combat and roleplay.)

The answer is generally yes, but it also depends somewhat on the campaign. As both a GM and a fellow player, I would look a little askance at someone who rolled up, say, a social dilettante with no combat prowess at all (not even the support variety) in a zombie apocalypse campaign where we have to defend a stronghold. Certainly that would be a fine concept to start a character with (a crisis brings together all walks of life after all) but I would be less enamored if that character neglected any sort of survival skills in favor of further buffing a socialite side that would never see use in that particular campaign.

The bigger problem is the system itself; D&D is just not that good at doing non-combat encounters. You can certainly do them, but other systems do a better job.

[Red Fel]

Depends on what they are able to contribute.


As long as the character can do something, I'm not going to make a big fuss about it.


But all right, you've asked a more general question in the OP - are characters deliberately built without a combat focus okay in a combat-focused game like D&D? (I like this wording of your question better, because it doesn't set up the usual false dichotomy between combat and roleplay.)

The answer is generally yes, but it also depends somewhat on the campaign.

All of this.

First, as others have said, it depends on the campaign. A hack'n'slash campaign won't have much use for a "face" character, for example. And it's true that, generally, D&D is not optimally suited to non-combat or low-combat campaigns.

That said, contributing to the party's success is a spectrum. The average character falls somewhere between "dead weight" and "Tier 1." Granted, "does only one thing and nothing else" is only one step above "dead weight," given that when pony's one trick doesn't apply, pony is useless. But if you have an array of skills, even though they may be non-combat, which contribute to the party's success, it's still good for the party. And that's the takeaway: As long as it's helping the party, you're doing it right.

So, really, with respect to this character, or really any in a similar position, the question isn't, "Did I make a mistake in not optimizing for combat?" It's, "How much does this character contribute to the party's success generally?"

[Grod_The_Giant]

As long as you're happy, and you're not making your teammates unhappy, play whatever you want. If you want to be good at one narrow slice of the game and just sort of hang around for the rest of the time, knock yourself out.

Personally, though, I prefer that everyone's character can contribute to as many avenues of play as possible, because I don't find "sitting around for an hour while the face/combat monkeys/sneaky guy/whatever does their thing" to be a sustainable thing. You don't need to be able to do everything, or be the best at everything, but... I don't want anyone sitting around feeling useless for an hour of combat, then an hour of talking, doing thirty minutes of crafting, then being useless for an hour of investigating, you know? Combat is probably the trickiest aspect of the game to give up on, because

Not participating is rarely an option; if a dragon swoops from the sky or a horde of orcs comes charging down the hill, you can't really say "uh, I'm not with them."
It's the hardest part to fake. Social scenes, investigations, planning, exploring... to a greater or lesser extent, depending on GM, you can make up for not having skills or class features by having out-of-game skills. Anyone can contribute to brainstorming sessions, and there are plenty of DMs that will let you get away without rolling skill checks at all if your roleplaying is good. But combat is the crunchiest part of most RPGs, and it's certainly the crunchiest part of 3.5. It's the part where groups tend to stick closest to RAW.
Failure isn't an option. In other avenues of the game, failure usually means you have to do something differently, or new complications arise (including, perhaps, combat). The story continues in-- potentially-- a more interesting way. In combat? Failing usually means you're dead. It means you're out of the game altogether until someone can access a resurrection spell, or a new character can be introduced. It's not a fun new wrinkle, it's a massive roadblock.


So I guess my answer would be that it's fine if you focus on other parts of the game, but I'd prefer it if your character could at least hold their own in a fight.

[Zanos]

As long as your character pulls their weight against the difficulty of the encounters the DM runs I don't really care. If you're dead weight I will probably RP asking why we're giving an equal share to a sack of slightly moldy potatoes.

[Geddy2112]

I am surprised that nobody brought up the Stormwind fallacy- That one must either focus their character on roleplaying or rollplaying.

Both are part of the game, and you can build a character that is good at both. The two are not completely independent of each other, but being good at one does not mean sucking at the other.

I like players that are not deadweight mechanically or in roleplaying. My group is pretty roleplay heavy, but we also have a lot of combat so it is expected to contribute to both at my table.

[bahamut920]

I am surprised that nobody brought up the Stormwind fallacy- That one must either focus their character on roleplaying or rollplaying.

But all right, you've asked a more general question in the OP - are characters deliberately built without a combat focus okay in a combat-focused game like D&D? (I like this wording of your question better, because it doesn't set up the usual false dichotomy between combat and roleplay.)
It actually has been brought up, just not by name.

[jdizzlean]

d&d is a roleplaying game, some people choose to roleplay the combat above the interactions, and of course some do the reverse. if everyone played a combat monkey and did nothing else, there'd be very little for the DM to do other then constantly pick what monster you're fighting, and that would be sad.

[Psyren]

It would - but it's trivially easy in this game to make a "combat monkey" that does plenty of other things. Even low tier combat classes like Barbarian and Cavalier can have strong and well-defined out of combat roles.

[Felyndiira]

Until my Saturday group switched to 5e, I was playing a DSP Psion inventor, specializing in the metacreativity discipline. Her most common in-combat contribution is just toss out an astral construct (craft a magical robot), then twiddle her fingers while the robot does all the work. As a psion, she doesn't have nearly as many battlefield control powers as conventional arcane casters; and without no blasting or buffing, either.

Most of her build is designed around magic item crafting and magical creations. She uses Ectoplasmic Creation to great effect along with having high ranks in eight different craft skills, making impromptu devices - traps, Rube Goldberg contraptions, instant furniture, gates, steampunk machinery, and others - as needed. She would also often use the "servant" property of Astral Constructs often in conjunction, testing ideas like a floating throne propped up by three flying AC robots on-the-spot. She does these experiments even in combat, making things like gates or rams or menacing-looking contraptions to control enemies, or just dropping tables/ironwood anvils on enemies when she can.

With 8 hours of downtime, she could create custom magic items to fit the situation. Once, after a botched attempt to kidnap a lieutenant of our enemies, she crafted specialized disguise self bracelets that impersonated the party, which we used to frame our enemies (by implying that they were using those bracelets to frame us) and get the city's law enforcement on our side.

The character - despite being less-than-stellar in combat - was extremely fun to play due to the creative potential of her powers, and I always seek chances to play her again in other RPs.

[Zanos]

d&d is a roleplaying game, some people choose to roleplay the combat above the interactions, and of course some do the reverse. if everyone played a combat monkey and did nothing else, there'd be very little for the DM to do other then constantly pick what monster you're fighting, and that would be sad.
Yes, and the role you play in D&D tends to universally be someone who fights creatures. Almost all of the ruleset is designed to support a combat first, dungeoncrawling second, social stuff last approach. There's maybe a dozen of pages of rules on social interaction and hundreds on combat.

There's nothing wrong with RP heavy games, I've been enjoying a lot of Vampire myself recently, but D&D is not the best system for them.

[Nifft]

There is no such thing as "roleplay rather than combat" because combat is a form of role-play.


However, you can create a character who is specialized in overcoming non-combat challenges, and that can be great, depending on the campaign -- combat challenges are quite common across all campaigns, but they're certainly not the only kind of challenge which the PCs must overcome.

If you're in a campaign with a lot of non-combat challenges, a PC with non-combat focus might be highly relevant in serving the character and party goals.

Some common non-combat focus areas in D&D are:
- Social challenges
- Environmental & exploration challenges
- Investigation & knowledge challenges
- Infiltration & stealth challenges
- Out-of-combat healing & status effect recovery
- Item creation & gear repair
- Divinations to prep for tomorrow's adventures

Many combat-oriented characters can also fill some of these non-combat focus areas, so look at the rest of your group and figure out how you'll add value.

I suspect you'll want to have some way to also contribute to combat, even if it's explicitly not your focus.

[jdizzlean]

Yes, and the role you play in D&D tends to universally be someone who fights creatures. Almost all of the ruleset is designed to support a combat first, dungeoncrawling second, social stuff last approach. There's maybe a dozen of pages of rules on social interaction and hundreds on combat.

There's nothing wrong with RP heavy games, I've been enjoying a lot of Vampire myself recently, but D&D is not the best system for them.

i was speaking about the PLAYER, not the CHARACTER. Because it's the players after all who drive a story. you can take a low or high op character and give it to two different players, and they will do 2 completely different things with it. the only way around that is to screen out people ahead of time if you want 4 or more robots doing what you think they should be doing.

[Azoth]

We have a guy in my current group that designs and plays characters like this constantly. Can be level 10 and he struggles to kill a housecat on his own. He compensates by being built to handle social interactions, knowledge checks, and scouting duties. Handy guy to have around in most situations. His defenses are top notch too, so we don't need to protect him in combat.

Where he gets to be almost insufferable is that he tries to open dialogues and talk down EVERY fight. Being swarmed by mindless undead? Tries to talk them out of it. Get caught robbing a dragon? Tries to talk the dragon into letting us go. Corner the BBEG in the middle of a doomsday ritual? Tries to talk him out of ending the world and succeeding in his master plan. Run into someone who killed you father? Tries to stop them from preparing to die.

[Pope Scarface]

Party size is also an important factor. My Friday group is a 3 person party, so I have to be able to hold my own in a fight. If it were a 6 person party, as long as I'm good at something useful, i could slack off in the combat department a bit.

Also, if you are an old-school adventuring party (we professionally dungeon raid for profit/are basically mercenaries for hire) it can be difficult to justify being part of the group if you don't hold up your end in combat.

[Necroticplague]

Let's face it, in most campaigns, D&D has a tendency to be very combat oriented. Experience—the basis for character development—is intrinsically tied to slaying bad guys and monsters. Given the setting, it's rare to play a session without one (if not two or three) small skirmishes involving the PCs themselves.
Minor nitpick: xp is for overcoming challenges, not combat in any way.


What happens, then, when you play as a character with a more out-of-combat focus? Does it ruin the game balance? Does it weaken the party?Not much, because utility is an important part of making an effective party work; no, see previous; no, see previous.
Somebody needs to make sure the basic utilities like light, food, drink, and healing are taken care of. Having a character devoted to such support would strengthen the party, since they could then ignore those aspects in favor of more direct usefulness.


(1) Have you ever played a character that prioritized roleplaying over combat prowess? Why? Did you enjoy it? Do you think 3.5e can be conducive to this style of gameplay?This question makes no sense. Roleplay and combat prowess are orthogonal to each other. In fact, depending on the role one is playing, some amount of combat can be required to roleplay the character properly


(2) How do you feel when a fellow party member creates a character that isn't combat optimized? Does it irritate you? Or is it simply another opportunity to make your character shine in their absence?
Don't particularly care, as long as they don't later whine about how useless they are in combat; not really; huh?