Out of Combat Abilities for Non-Casters [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Dienekes

2018-12-18, 08:20 PM

Malifice

2018-12-18, 09:10 PM

Rixitichil

2018-12-18, 09:30 PM

I note a familiar's range of scouting can be limiting. Beyond 100' it can't be given telepathic orders, so cannot react on the fly to new information.
The key thing to making Non-casters useful in non-combat encounters is being proactive with skills and background features. There are quite a few useful class ribbon abilities hidden about various subclasses too, (like the Thief's Second Story Work or the Battle master's ability to discern the quality of a person's bodyguards.)
It is also worth remembering that in a game with encumbrance, higher Strength characters can often carry a variety of useful mundane items lower Strength characters might find too heavy to lug around.

Leith

2018-12-18, 09:52 PM

Purple dragon knight and samurai get bonuses to persuasion, making them excellent negotiators and inspiring leaders. Although not of the other PCs necessarily.

I think most DMs and partys focus on the magic and the special abilities over basic ability checks. With good reason, spells can do things that skill checks can't and generally don't require a die roll. Ritual casting and cantrips mean you don't need to expend spell slots every time.

Nevertheless, if you can wean yourself and your party away from that martials have a lot to offer as is. Of course the rogue already does with expertise. Check out the inquisitive, the mastermind and purple dragon knight. Maybe not as impressive as you'd like, but fighters are called fighters for a reason. The thing that disappoints me in 5e is that everyone is at least as good as the fighter at fighting.

Dienekes

2018-12-18, 10:04 PM

All of that stuff already exists in the game has written.

You can break objects with a strength check using the object interaction action. If you want a martial character that is an inspiring leader, there is an inspiring leader feat (and the two core martial classes fighter and rogue get extra feats). If you want a martial that is good at killing wizards, there is the mage slayer feat.

If I wanted to play some kind of inspiring leader fighter type, I would take that feat at first level at a variant human, before selecting the battle master archetype at the level and picking up manoeuvres like Rally and so forth (all the warlord type manoeuvres).

From there levels in Valor bard and Crown Paladin look pretty good for auras and bardic inspiration.

I think everything you just listed are in combat abilities. I'm looking for things that let the Fighter act like an inspiring leader out of it.

Nevertheless, if you can wean yourself and your party away from that martials have a lot to offer as is. Of course the rogue already does with expertise. Check out the inquisitive, the mastermind and purple dragon knight. Maybe not as impressive as you'd like, but fighters are called fighters for a reason. The thing that disappoints me in 5e is that everyone is at least as good as the fighter at fighting.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement in the running of the game then. I like that everyone is roughly equivalent to a Fighter in how they act in combat.

I just wish that everyone were roughly equivalent out of it, too.

Malifice

2018-12-18, 10:07 PM

Give Barbarian some breaking object abilities, perhaps even disenchanting items more easily by hacking at them.

Barbarian player: 'I take the object interaction action/ attack action and break the magic item/ smash it with my axe'

Perhaps let Barbarians use Strength for Intimidation, since they're already pretty MAD.

From the PHB:

Normally, your proficiency in a skill applies only to a specific kind of ability check. Proficiency in Athletics, for example, usually applies to Strength Checks. In some situations, though, your proficiency might reasonably apply to a different kind of check. In such cases, the GM might ask for a check using an unusual combination of ability and skill, or you might ask your GM if you can apply a proficiency to a different check. For example, if you have to swim from an offshore island to the mainland, your GM might call for a Constitution check to see if you have the stamina to make it that far. In this case, your GM might allow you to apply your proficiency in Athletics and ask for a Constitution (Athletics) check. So if you’re proficient in Athletics, you apply your proficiency bonus to the Constitution check just as you would normally do for a Strength (Athletics) check. Similarly, when your Half-Orc Barbarian uses a display of raw Strength to intimidate an enemy, your GM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma.

Fighters might give benefits to help actions, or perhaps be somewhat inspiring as leaders of men sort of thing.

Any Fighter of 4th level that wants this already has:

Commander's Strike
When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks and use a bonus action to direct one of your companions to strike. When you do so, choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you and expend one superiority die. That creature can immediately use its reaction to make one weapon attack, adding the superiority die to the attack's damage roll.

Distracting Strike
When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to distract the creature, giving your allies an opening. You add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll. The next attack roll against the target by an attacker other than you has advantage if the attack is made before the start of your next turn.

Maneuvering Attack
When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to maneuver one of your comrades into a more advantageous position. You add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll, and you choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you. That creature can use its reaction to move up to half its speed without provoking opportunity attacks from the target of your attack.

Rally
On your turn, you can use a bonus action and expend one superiority die to bolster the resolve of one of your companions. When you do so, choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you. That creature gains temporary hit points equal to the superiority die roll + your Charisma modifier.

Inspiring Leader
You can spend 10 minutes inspiring your companions, shoring up their resolve to fight. When you do so, choose up to six friendly creatures (which can include yourself) within 30 feet of you who can see or hear you and who can understand you. Each creature can gain temporary hit points equal to your level + your Charisma modifier. A creature can't gain temporary hit points from this feat again until it has finished a short or long rest.

Which does all the above and more.

If you want those options, they're there in the game already.

Dienekes

2018-12-18, 10:19 PM

Which does all the above and more.

If you want those options, they're there in the game already.

I mean, you said all this. And I'm still not entirely certain you understand what "out of combat" means.

I'll admit you have a point about the barbarian and the Strength to Intimidate. I missed that bit, thank you.

djreynolds

2018-12-18, 10:24 PM

Anyone can theoretically just roll, but often martial types feel because of their 10 in say intelligence, they cannot contribute without a high ability score... but they can.

Often, I choose a skill if possible in every skill section. Insight, intimidation, athletics or acrobatics, history. That's 4 out of 5.

So unless the DC is unobtainable, you can still always roll.

I know it feels because of lower stats in intelligence, dexterity, or wisdom, you "shouldn't " roll... but you can.

Just because your arcana check is zero or minus one, it's not a failure. It just means your chances are less than a wizard with +11 to arcana

HappyDaze

2018-12-18, 10:25 PM

And I'm still not entirely certain you understand what "out of combat" means.

What exactly do you want to be able to do? Does it have to have mechanics? I mean, "acting like an inspiring leader" doesn't really require any mechanics; it's a roleplaying style.

Keravath

2018-12-18, 10:26 PM

Your difficulty may be allowing the scouting familiar a bit more utility than might be reasonable though that depends on the circumstances. Familiars are typically small beasts with poor AC and very few hit points. They are vulnerable to both natural predators as well as whatever creatures they may be trying to scout. Many creatures seeing an unexpected animal in their midst will kill it first since, to be honest, the monsters are probably as aware of the common uses of familiars as the players. On the other hand, if you send in a rat familiar ... it is pretty slow and likely a food source for most dungeon creatures.

In addition, familiars have a 100' range for telepathic communication or seeing through their senses. They are also not very intelligent so you can't send it off to scout something beyond the 100' range and expect to get a coherent report. I would say impressions at best if anything.

However, even on my characters with familiars, I only occasionally use them for scouting and when I do I fully expect that there is a good chance they will wind up dead ... and they are more valuable alive than dead since I don't want to sacrifice a spell slot or time to recreate the familiar.

As for other out of combat utility ... the game has three pillars - combat, social and exploration. Social and exploration are most strongly affected by role playing and skills. Some spells do have out of combat utility as well as in combat (charm, suggestion, friends, light cantrip ... but that is the nature of spells). However, most out of combat situations are dominated by skills. Depending on the choice of race, class, background and secondary stats the fighter can be decent at all three pillars though, to be honest, the lore bard is likely to have the best skills for social situations due to skill expertise and high charisma.

P.S. A rogue generally makes a better scout than a familiar (though an arcane trickster rogue with a familiar and expertise in stealth is probably the best scout since they can use multiple techniques).

HappyDaze

2018-12-18, 10:31 PM

If you're the high-Strength guy, don't be afraid to fill your pockets, pouches, and pack with all sorts of useful items famous in earlier editions that others don't/won't bother to carry. Flasks of oil, longer lengths of rope, iron spikes and a hammer, a set of mirrors, tools of various sorts, possibly even alchemical toys or a 10' pole. You never know when the odd piece of kit might make all the difference.

djreynolds

2018-12-18, 10:43 PM

[QUOTE=djreynolds;23581060]

I apologize, it double posted, I'm sorry

Dienekes

2018-12-18, 10:43 PM

What exactly do you want to be able to do? Does it have to have mechanics? I mean, "acting like an inspiring leader" doesn't really require any mechanics; it's a roleplaying style.

I mean... yes.

If something is just roleplay then it's available to anyone, really. This is specifically about the base out of combat utility of casters and martials. Sure, you can act like a swell guy, but so can the caster.

And I was hoping for people to just spitball some interesting mechanical abilities they thought would suit barbarians, rogues, fighters, and the like. Or even just concepts they wished were easier to pull off, for us to think about.

Instead, I mostly just seem to be getting people to say "play better" which, I guess is fair. It just seems a bit odd, since *almost* everything people are suggesting the martials should do, the casters can do just the same. Fighters get backgrounds? So do Sorcerers. Fighters get a lot of funky items. so can anyone with a Bag of Holding.

djreynolds

2018-12-18, 10:51 PM

As crazy as it sounds, a class can select a feat, not combat oriented.

But it takes sacrificing something else.

That's the dilemma

Malifice

2018-12-18, 10:52 PM

I mean... yes.

If something is just roleplay then it's available to anyone, really. This is specifically about the base out of combat utility of casters and martials. Sure, you can act like a swell guy, but so can the caster.

And I was hoping for people to just spitball some interesting mechanical abilities they thought would suit barbarians, rogues, fighters, and the like. Or even just concepts they wished were easier to pull off, for us to think about.

DnD doesnt really have mechanics outside of combat. Combat is where 99 percent (more probably) of all class features, special abilities, spells and rules crunch are directed.

If you're not in combat (turn based action) then you're pretty much just roleplaying (talking) and making the occasional ability check (social linked skills or exploration linked skills).

Very few of any single classes abilities are directed outside the Combat pillar, and the one class that does have a few class features that are specifically aimed at a pillar other than combat (the Ranger and the Exploration pillar, with natural explorer) is almost universally derided.

Mellack

2018-12-18, 11:15 PM

I mean... yes.

If something is just roleplay then it's available to anyone, really. This is specifically about the base out of combat utility of casters and martials. Sure, you can act like a swell guy, but so can the caster.

And I was hoping for people to just spitball some interesting mechanical abilities they thought would suit barbarians, rogues, fighters, and the like. Or even just concepts they wished were easier to pull off, for us to think about.

Instead, I mostly just seem to be getting people to say "play better" which, I guess is fair. It just seems a bit odd, since *almost* everything people are suggesting the martials should do, the casters can do just the same. Fighters get backgrounds? So do Sorcerers. Fighters get a lot of funky items. so can anyone with a Bag of Holding.

You are right in that both martials and casters can do the same things out of combat, so all fair and equal there. If a caster has taken a spell to add extra out of combat utility, that means they did not learn/memorize a combat spell in that slot. They have traded a combat power for it, so it would seem fair to me for them to get something extra for it.

Dienekes

2018-12-18, 11:24 PM

You are right in that both martials and casters can do the same things out of combat, so all fair and equal there. If a caster has taken a spell to add extra out of combat utility, that means they did not learn/memorize a combat spell in that slot. They have traded a combat power for it, so it would seem fair to me for them to get something extra for it.

This would be reasonable, if many/most spells with out of combat utility didn't also perform well in combat: invisibility, charm, etc.

Mercurias

2018-12-18, 11:35 PM

I’m of the opinion that a failed roll can often be way more entertaining than a successful one. I’m currently wanting to roll a Champion and play him as a showboating gladiator. A strong personality in Roleplay is going to have a big effect on the story. Whether or not he has a +11 in Persuasion, if a loud guy in armor decides to try and make a ruckus then he’s probably going to get one.

You don’t even especially need to be playing stupid to get it. If you’re playing a soldier who has gained the trust of his general for making the right call, that general shouldn’t need much of a persuasion check to be convinced you’re warning her of the horde of goblins coming from underground. You could probably lobby for advantage while you’re at it. Good DMs shouldnt set unrealistic skill checks that you would need to min/max to achieve.

strangebloke

2018-12-18, 11:49 PM

The difference is that while martials can build for out of combat stuff, they usually have to sacrifice build space to do it, and most of the time you'd still rather just have a wizard with the right spell prepared.

There's also the issue that everything uses ability checks and there's not really good and interesting resolution mechanics for non-combat encounters. So at some tables, a fighter is perfectly capable of schmoozing the nobility if he has the right situational advantages. At other tables, you might get lovelies like:

"roll persuasion to avoid embarrassing yourself. Wait you're not proficient? Disadvantage."
"But its my own father I'm trying to convince here! He should know me!"

Vogie

2018-12-18, 11:52 PM

Some ideas:

Limitless learning- Fighters continue to train and thus can change their feats over time. You could rebuild the feat system (or a portion of the feat system) so it more closely resembles a Spell list, then restrict the fighters to only use those over the course of the day. You could have them shift their feats around daily, after a long rest, so they have to spend an hour in training to keep their senses sharp, or only allow shifts each level.
The Bourne Legacy - the Fighter has a massive passive perception, far above what would be available for their stats. It could be gated by # of times/day or short rest, but the fighter will automatically glean large amounts of information in an area. Your survival skills increase when you are fatigued, are bloodied/low on health, or are low on rations.
Swords AND Plowshares - while normal PCs may tangentially be related to their backstories, professions and social traits, fighters are still that when not actively fighting. They get an additional Social trait or feat for free, and that trait's bonus is increased by 50-100%. They also gain additional benefits while in environments populated by that profession, gaining information without use of diplomacy, bluff, or intimidation checks, and can find local work faster than Players of other classes.
The Man They Call Jayne - Fighters gain a passive leadership feat while staying in an area for a period of time, and they will be actively sought out by the community as a person of help, more than the other classes. They attract people who wish to learn from them, but can only pay in favors. The longer a fighter stays in an area, he or she will accrue more one-use benefits from the locals, such as use of horses, carts, locksmiths, crafters, and the like, and can use these network of favors to gain knowledge similar to a spell, such as divination, Suggestion, charm person, comprehend language or commune... or just add the appropriate NPC allies to the group for a period of time.
With Maximum Effort - When studying a difficult problem, a fighter can gain a class skill for an encounter and using their intelligence or wisdom modifier as the value. This allows a fighter to suddenly gain skills such as Acrobatics, Swim, Animal Handling, Climb, Use Rope, et cetera, for a brief period. This could also manifest as self-only castings of Spiderclimb* (*like a heavily intoxicated spider), Feather fall* (*but only when against a wall), Rope Trick* (*without the extra-dimensional part), and so on.
Suck it up, you Big Baby - Being a fighter has fighting right on the tin, and because of that, a fighter gains the ability to bandage the wounds of themselves and others. While not channeling energy, the fighter nevertheless gains the ability to cast Spare the Dying, detect poison, and Cure light wounds... although the somatic component is putting on the material component (bandage), and the verbal component is muttering under your breath or cursing.
Utility Belt - The fighter gains a small pouch of trinkets that come in handy from time to time. These trinkets are mundane, but act in the same manner as the cantrips Ghost Sound, Flare, light/produce flame, know direction and open/close.
Portal Combat - It just so happens that fighting beings with the ability to blink and teleport is something that fighters have to do on occasion, and fighters are trained to battle these foes. This could be a device that allows them to Side-Along follow a teleportation spell, a strike that acts as a small dimensional lock on a target, a bonus to shooting ranged weapons through the "gate scar" behind the teleporter, or a Grappling weapon that teleports with the target (similar to the Paladin's weapons in the forgettable movie Jumper)

Malifice

2018-12-19, 12:12 AM

This would be reasonable, if many/most spells with out of combat utility didn't also perform well in combat: invisibility, charm, etc.

Invisbility still requires use of the Stealth skill (it doesnt make you hidden in and of itself). OOC its better off getting used on the party Rogue.

Charm also still requires use of the Persuasion skill (it only provides advantage on a Social skill check). Its better off being used to help the party Face.

These were intentional design decisions to stop Casters being swiss army knives and do-it-all PCs. They have spells that can aid other PCs (skill monkeys and martials) do their jobs better.

Unlike in 3E where those spells simply allowed the caster to auto-succeed in Stealth or Persuasion (thus invalidating the rest of the party), the 5E versions of those spells simply provide a buff, and are best used to assist other PCs who are good at those skills, be better at them.

HappyDaze

2018-12-19, 12:56 AM

It just seems a bit odd, since *almost* everything people are suggesting the martials should do, the casters can do just the same. Fighters get backgrounds? So do Sorcerers.
So you want something that the martial characters can do better than casters just because they're not casters? Some games give caster-types penalties or restrictions/geasa that restrict them in some ways, but D&D has rarely gone this route outside of a few odd kits and prestige classes in earlier editions. However, there's no reason a 5e DM couldn't make that the case in his campaign world if he so desires.

SleepIncarnate

2018-12-19, 02:32 AM

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is that at level 6, totem barbarians specifically get non-combat bonuses based on which totem they pick.

Bear doubles your carrying capacity and gives advantage on strength rolls to push, pull, lift, or break things. Think those big block puzzles in Zelda games.

Eagle vastly increases your visual range helping you spot things others might miss. It also negates the penalties of dim light, meaning if you have dark vision, you never suffer disadvantage from darkness.

Wolf allows you to track and sneak at normal speed, rather than the usual half speed.

Elk doubles your movement speed and the movement speeds of up to 10 others. Get places in half the time.

Tiger grants two more skill proficiencies.

Not everything for the martials is combat based. A lot of the rogue's stuff is exploration and RP utility too, such as expertise. Monks can run on water or up walls, which can be used for running a message of impending attack. There's more to the martials than just combat. That said, they are more heavily focused on combat than the casters, because that's their main role.

Dark Schneider

2018-12-19, 02:34 AM

Simply try to fit always any action to at least one proficiency (skill or tool). I.e. for breaking objects, use Athletics.

Knaight

2018-12-19, 03:14 AM

There's the attribute check system which can cover everything (up to and including being effectively able to replace the combat system), so you do at least have a general workable framework. That said it doesn't hurt to have specifics, much the way everyone does in combat and casters have spells. There's a few major ways to do this, by which I mean you can steal from a number of games. Notably:

D&D 3.5: Skill tricks potentially work pretty well here, restricted to martials in particular.

Reign: There's broad "esoteric disciplines" for a lot of skills, and while the mechanics don't transfer at all the concepts generally do - though the skills in question are different, so you'll probably want to detach the concepts from the specific skill system a little.

Qin: Martial characters get "Taos", which here are supernatural wuxia powers. One of them even is a specific breaking stuff power, involving blowing large holes all over the place.

Fate: There's a lot of pretty conventional stuff in Fate that transfers well. Most notably there's "stunts", which are effectively skill specializations, feats, and skill swap mechanics (where you use one skill instead of another). It's a free system with a lot of builds, with Spirit of the Century being particularly worth looking at.

Odds are good that you're already at least as familiar with skill tricks as I am, but I'll be back with edits to add some info on Reign and Qin, sticking to concepts and not game mechanics (which are pretty brilliant in both cases; both games are well worth getting).

Reign

Each of the disciplines below has 3-5 attached talents, that cost 1-5 talent points each (which could be handed out kind of like ASIs).

A whole breathing school that ties in especially well with qi, allowing a mix of healing, skill swaps, and skill boosts at cost of injury.
A school that is basically detailed improvements to athletics.
A running discipline that among other things lets you shrug off any leg injury short of amputation or shattered bones.
A climbing discipline that basically gives fall resistance, fast climbing, and other related things.
Two disciplines about being a terrifying military commander.
A discipline about using arts to screw with people's emotional states in specific ways (including a failure mitigation which is downright hilarious, where your screwups get interpreted by the audience as just too sophisticated art for them to understand).
A solid tracking and pursuit school far more interesting than the likes of the "Tracking" feats.
An espionage school for information gathering.
A discipline of using jester tricks as a social fallback.
Several more.

There's also about 900 pages of free expansions for Reign, which drastically extend this list.

Qin
Taos are combinations of modifications to stats/skills/whatever and specific usable powers, powered by qi. The qi can be removed easily enough. Specifics include:
Two movement school that lets you go full Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. One is all about massive movement in various directions, the other mostly a matter of pulling off the ridiculous feats of balance (on water, thin tree limbs, etc.).
A breaking stuff tao, which lets you do things like shatter decently sized metal structures in one strike.
A tao that lets you make truly exceptional masterpieces.
Superspeed.
Luck powers.
A tao that lets you make improvised tools work way better than they have any business working.
An intelligence boosting tao that involves, among other things, eidetic memory (and that's not the highest level).
Broad social skill boosts.

Azgeroth

2018-12-19, 06:09 AM

if i'm understanding the OP correctly, the issue your having is that martial characters lack the utlity of casters..

sorry to say, your absolutely correct, and whilst there are some niche ways you can as a martial provide some utlity, you will never never match the utlity of a caster..

but thats no help is it? so what niche utlity roles can you fulfil out of combat??

1. you are the trap ginuea pig.. because high HP/AC.. why worry? just walk straight in! that's what your here for, soak up that damage!

2. be the pack mule, climbing kits, extra rope, extra oil, extra x tools/kits (think spare thieves tools, bags of chalk, small mirrors, 10 ft poles etc)

3. be a helpy helperton, help action, all day, every day..

4. so you cant warp reality, or commune with higher powers, but you can absolutely be a friend to any NPC persons that fit a martial type in a way non-martials never will..

if your looking for specific stratgems, it would help to have specific scenarios.

Damon_Tor

2018-12-19, 07:54 AM

4e had "Martial Practices" which were basically rituals for non casters. I don't see why those exact elements couldn't simply be ported directly into your game.

Grod_The_Giant

2018-12-19, 07:59 AM

It just seems a bit odd, since *almost* everything people are suggesting the martials should do, the casters can do just the same. Fighters get backgrounds? So do Sorcerers. Fighters get a lot of funky items. so can anyone with a Bag of Holding.
This is, unfortunately, the fundamental problem with trying to increase non-magic-based utility in d&d: everyone has equal access to the basic skill system, but casters ALSO have a unique subsystem that only they can use.

strangebloke

2018-12-19, 09:08 AM

This is, unfortunately, the fundamental problem with trying to increase non-magic-based utility in d&d: everyone has equal access to the basic skill system, but casters ALSO have a unique subsystem that only they can use.

That said, not all skills are created equal, and a dex or wis focused character will have more utility in the skill checks than an int or str based one.

...which of course just favors casters even more, since they pretty much all need dex and a lot need WIS or CHA.

But the other thing to say here is that in my limited experience, STR checks come up nearly as much as DEX checks, and that if your party doesn't have a strong man or a smart man, you'll miss him sorely. So IMO the different abilities actually kind of creating a self-balancing system. Yes, CHA and WIS based casters have an advantage, but you can't really dispense with INT and STR.

Dienekes

2018-12-19, 09:33 AM

Thank Vogie, those look pretty interesting. A few got my mind working on variations to adapt to different classes.

And definitely thanks to you too Knaight. It's been so long since I used skill tricks I pretty much forgot about them. I will definitely look up Reign and Qin and raid them for good ideas.

Specter

2018-12-19, 09:35 AM

I feel this, but it hasn't bothered anyone in my table. Even a brute barbarian can still lead in nature and intimidate someone, so it's not a desperate situation.

strangebloke

2018-12-19, 09:53 AM

I feel this, but it hasn't bothered anyone in my table. Even a brute barbarian can still lead in nature and intimidate someone, so it's not a desperate situation.

I also think its important to use alternate ability scores for checks from time to time, so that the Barbarian can use his hulking mass to intimidate people.

Willie the Duck

2018-12-19, 10:34 AM

There is one caveat, and that's from what it looks like to me (and from the month or two that I've been playing), it still seems like the martial classes are lagging behind the casters in terms of out of combat utility.

Now, I know the background and skill system do add some base utility for everyone. And that's good. But, at my table it definitely still feels for the most part that casters are running the show until combat actually starts. Most noticeably, the wizard's familiar seems to be doing the vast majority of scouting while even the Ranger is left twiddling their thumbs.

Starting with your last point, I would categorize this as the confluence of a specific weakness and specific strength, rather than a generalizable issue -- the designers definitely screwed up a bit with the ranger, and made familiars remarkably useful. To your more general point, this is definitely a real issue. One I think is exacerbated by a general disconnect between the designers and the player base on policing the 15 minute workday. A wizard who has a solution to every OOC problem is (IMO) supposed to have to have dedicated their precious spell loadout to the project, in which case they are basically a rogue by another name and mechanic. That doesn't seem to happen in a lot of groups.

I feel this, but it hasn't bothered anyone in my table. Even a brute barbarian can still lead in nature and intimidate someone, so it's not a desperate situation.

I think there is a large swath of gamers where some of the (legitimately there) absurdities of the game genuinely aren't that big of an issue because 90% of the OOC things they want to do can be accomplished regardless. So what if spellcasters get this one little thing if you can still accomplish what you want to do?

Personally, I never did understand why the [spellcaster] flag was such a pants-wettingly big deal. It is the go-to mechanic for the system to deal with additional modular character facets and precedes the existence of a skill system (ex: rangers have spells in the first place because it was how EGG gave them Aragorn's in book healing herb skills before there was such a thing as a herbalism non-weapon proficiency). If a given class is lacking in OOC abilities, then yes, I think a house rule (or suggestion for fix for 6e) might be in order. First thing I'd suggest (after giving them more skills, Expertise, or Jack of all Trades, or the like) would be some OOC-useful spells.

Unoriginal

2018-12-19, 10:44 AM

MilkmanDanimal

2018-12-19, 11:02 AM

If you want your non-casters to have some utility out of combat, choose a background with some interesting abilities, and use those skills. If the character is 100% built for combat, well, there won't be much to do out of combat, but you can give a Fighter a Noble background or a Barbarian a Sage to give some weird flavor.

Raynor007

2018-12-19, 11:21 AM

It's not in the RAW, but my group has implemented an alcohol consumption rule where the drinkers have to make periodic Constitution saves depending on how much they drink. Martial characters will naturally be better at this. We also make a point of playing tavern games (darts, knife throwing, armwrestling, etc), which martial characters will also excel at versus spellcasters. I've toyed with the idea of making movement speed tied in some way to Athletics: a character with Athletics -2 should not be able to move at the same speed as a character with a +5 in Athletics. Don't ask for more on this idea; I don't have anything concrete.

Conceivably, you could turn some of the Fighter's combat abilities into non-combat abilities if you wanted. Second Wind could be used to resist the effects of exhaustion, Action Surge could be used to do more of any given activity that you're trying to do (drinking TWO steins of ale instead of one), etc. In my opinion, Know Your Enemy is one of the coolest abilities in the game, and really lets you get into the character of the guy who sizes up everyone he meets, even unthinkingly. As long as we're talking about changing the rules, you could make that one of the Fighter's level 1 abilities, and you should be all set. Remember also that Fighters get more ASIs/Feats than most, intentionally, so that they can round out their utility (or maximize, if that's your thing).

Don't make Charisma your dump stat. Never underestimate the social power of a good-looking, athletic person with a weapon instead of a component pouch filled with lint and crystals.

Is any of this comparable to spamming Minor Illusion or Thaumaturgy? No; magic is inherently more versatile than physicality. I also think that spells are less useful outside of combat than most people understand. Spells are not subtle, and can be off-putting; when you cast a spell, most people around are going to notice, to one end or another. Spell Slots (generally) only regenerate on a Long Rest, so consuming them OUT of combat means that spellcasters are going to be less useful IN combat. Fighters don't have that problem.

strangebloke

2018-12-19, 11:59 AM

The casters have options to fix some items, make resting more comfortable/less risky, and to travel faster/in places that'd otherwise require special circumstances (underwater, in the sky, in other planes, etc).

It's all pretty nice, but hardly make non-magical contributions lacking.

Aside from that, what out-of-combat abilities can 5e casters have that the non-casters can't?

More to the point, I think that the divide isn't truly between casters and non (although most noncasters do fall a bit behind) but rather a bit more complex. Like think about it this way:

By Default Has Broad Out-of-Combat Utilty:
1. Wizards (ritual casting)
2. Druids (ritual casting)
3. Clerics (ritual casting)
4. Bards (boosted skills, normal casting)
5. Rogues (super-boosted skills)
6. Ranger (Boosted skills, certain spells. Easily the weakest here)

Can Build Towards Out-of-Combat-Utility
7. Sorcerers (Subtle, certain spells, cantrips, etc.)
8. Warlock (Can get familiar, certain invocations, certain spells, cantrips, subclass features)
9. Monk (specifically shadow and 4e monk. Otherwise, the monk's only out-of-combat gimick is Step of the Wind.)
10. Fighters (extra feats to pick up things like ritual caster, prodigy, magic initiate)

Has Very Limited Out of Combat Utility
11. Paladins (can cure diseases efficiently? Help with saves versus traps? Note: I count healing, even if done out-of-combat, as a combat-boosting ability)
12. Barbarian (can burn rage to enhance a single str check? Totem Barb has some ritual casting?)

Its worth pointing out that being able to build toward out of combat utility doesn't mean that you'll be worse in or out of combat. A sorcerer doesn't have to drop a lot of resources to be very strong out of combat, whereas a ranger's default out-of-combat boosts are famously wonky.

Hail Tempus

2018-12-19, 12:50 PM

So, I'm getting into 5e and honestly a lot of what I'm seeing I quite like. As a martial fan, especially of fighters, I'm seeing quite a lot that looks like it will be fun.

There is one caveat, and that's from what it looks like to me (and from the month or two that I've been playing), it still seems like the martial classes are lagging behind the casters in terms of out of combat utility.

Now, I know the background and skill system do add some base utility for everyone. And that's good. But, at my table it definitely still feels for the most part that casters are running the show until combat actually starts. Most noticeably, the wizard's familiar seems to be doing the vast majority of scouting while even the Ranger is left twiddling their thumbs.

So I was wondering if anyone wanted to help brain storm with me some abilities to add to the non-caster classes. Not to particularly increase their power, but their out of combat versatility.

Some ideas I've had:

Give Barbarian some breaking object abilities, perhaps even disenchanting items more easily by hacking at them.

Perhaps let Barbarians use Strength for Intimidation, since they're already pretty MAD.

Fighters might give benefits to help actions, or perhaps be somewhat inspiring as leaders of men sort of thing.

Really, I'm looking for anything out of combat thing you think your character should be pretty good at, that for whatever reason either isn't in the game or is hard to replicate.

Thanks. Aren't a lot of the things you're talking about more based on your character's basic build (ability scores, skills etc.) than whether they're a martial or caster class? A Half-Elf fighter can serve as the party face as well as any other character class (other than a Bard or Rogue with the appropriate expertise). A Dexterity based Paladin can make a perfectly good scout. For the social and exploration aspects of the game, full casters aren't really the best choice in most cases (other than Bards), especially given how Charisma and social skills aren't typically a priority for classes like Wizards, Druids and Clerics. It's not a great idea for the Wizard to cast Invisibility on himself and scout ahead, the Rogue is the better choice. And trying to use a spell like Charm Person in a social setting is a recipe for violence (the Baron's retainers and guards will not take kindly to seeing someone cast a spell on their lord).

Out of combat, the full casters have utility when it comes to magical stuff- identifying a magic item, or talking to the spirit of a deceased person. I'm not really convinced, however, that they're inherently more useful outside of combat than martial classes.

Dark Schneider

2018-12-19, 01:13 PM

This is, unfortunately, the fundamental problem with trying to increase non-magic-based utility in d&d: everyone has equal access to the basic skill system, but casters ALSO have a unique subsystem that only they can use.
Because they are trained for that. The corresponding for fighter are martial skills. And the rogue is really skilled. You can do many things with skills and tools, and unlimited use.
Also there is the Skilled feat, very nice if you want to have abilites out of combat with any character beyond their base training.
And the training itself for downtime, to get new tools or languages.

Dienekes

2018-12-19, 01:22 PM

This is, unfortunately, the fundamental problem with trying to increase non-magic-based utility in d&d: everyone has equal access to the basic skill system, but casters ALSO have a unique subsystem that only they can use.

This is true, but I do think that just giving a couple class abilities can help this. D&D already does it, just not particularly well. The Ranger being the most obvious example. The Ranger does get more abilities that help out of combat movement. And Barbarians do have danger sense to help with traps. Battle Masters can get vague ideas about enemy's stats. It's just they're pretty bad abilities, more fluff than effect. The Ranger especially stands out in this regard. Since most of the abilities one gets from Natural Explorer are more bookkeeping than effect, so even when the GM does take it into account it doesn't particularly feel like the Ranger is actually contributing.

I don't see the problem in giving other classes that have such limitation some class abilities to give them an out of combat niche or two. I was hoping to get some ideas from like-minded players. And thankfully a couple have.

Willie the Duck

2018-12-19, 01:35 PM

The Ranger especially stands out in this regard. Since most of the abilities one gets from Natural Explorer are more bookkeeping than effect, so even when the GM does take it into account it doesn't particularly feel like the Ranger is actually contributing.

Shouldn't anything that is book-kept be contributing? I mean, if the presence of the ranger means that the party gets to the macguffin twice as fast, shouldn't that have an effect? A few modules make this explicit (those who find the dungeon in Tomb of Annihilation quickly have a chance at saving <spoiler>), but for many/most gamers, the DM will have to make the effort to make the bookkeeping benefits meaningful. But they still hopefully are.

I acknowledge that the designers made most of the ranger contributions rather boring, in no small part because a lot of them are set up as, 'if you are travelling thusly _____, you will receive the penalty of ______, unless you have a ranger, in which case the penalty is avoided' (therefore making the with-ranger scenario be 'you travel to your destination without complication'... yay :-| ), but that isn't the same as not contributing.

I don't see the problem in giving other classes that have such limitation some class abilities to give them an out of combat niche or two. I was hoping to get some ideas from like-minded players. And thankfully a couple have.

Given what you have rejected, I think taking another crack at explaining exactly what you are looking for would be fruitful.

Mjolnirbear

2018-12-19, 01:38 PM

There's no denying spells have a lot of out of combat utility. But most of those spells a) buff what others can do (Charm Person, Invisibility) and b) carry an opportunity cost (a spell known/prepared, a spell slot). They are largely combat abilities that happen to also be useful out of combat, and the known spell cost is a big deal to casters like warlock and sorcerer.

Those spells that are straight 'fix-it' options, such as water breathing, are also really rarely needed.

Fighters can also use their combat abilities out of combat, with a bit of imagination. You have two actions in a row. You can Dodge then Dash your way though the guards to reach the MacGuffin. You can initiate up to eight grapple-shoves and clear a path for the noble you're protecting. You can do circus strongman acts to please or intimidate a crowd. You can Help the Face during diplomatic negotiations and Help the Spy suss out the evil Vizier's intentions at the same time. You can do Robin-Hood cut-the-hanging-rope feats and interpose your shield to protect the child from the gnoll's fangs.

All things that you can do better than others. Just like Charm makes you better at convincing people of stuff.

You also get more ASIs. That means more feats, which can offer amazing utility, such as Magic Initiate, aka "I can cast identify and Minor Illusion too". Especially those feats fewer people take because most can only really afford one (like tavern brawler, or Skulker, or Actor, or Inspiring Leader). But even in a feat less game, you can improve yourself far beyond others and gain a breadth of abilities you wouldn't otherwise be able to consider.

And of course most subclasses offer more. BM has that identify thing and the maneuvers. Cavalier has mounted combat. EK has spells. Champion has...well, it has crap. But not every crayon can be the sharpest.

You're asking what the fighter brings in out-of-combat utility, when you should be asking what your combat abilities can do out of combat. It's a lot more than you've realised.

Unoriginal

2018-12-19, 01:42 PM

More to the point, I think that the divide isn't truly between casters and non (although most noncasters do fall a bit behind) but rather a bit more complex. Like think about it this way:

By Default Has Broad Out-of-Combat Utilty:
1. Wizards (ritual casting)
2. Druids (ritual casting)
3. Clerics (ritual casting)
4. Bards (boosted skills, normal casting)
5. Rogues (super-boosted skills)
6. Ranger (Boosted skills, certain spells. Easily the weakest here)

Can Build Towards Out-of-Combat-Utility
7. Sorcerers (Subtle, certain spells, cantrips, etc.)
8. Warlock (Can get familiar, certain invocations, certain spells, cantrips, subclass features)
9. Monk (specifically shadow and 4e monk. Otherwise, the monk's only out-of-combat gimick is Step of the Wind.)
10. Fighters (extra feats to pick up things like ritual caster, prodigy, magic initiate)

Has Very Limited Out of Combat Utility
11. Paladins (can cure diseases efficiently? Help with saves versus traps? Note: I count healing, even if done out-of-combat, as a combat-boosting ability)
12. Barbarian (can burn rage to enhance a single str check? Totem Barb has some ritual casting?)

Its worth pointing out that being able to build toward out of combat utility doesn't mean that you'll be worse in or out of combat. A sorcerer doesn't have to drop a lot of resources to be very strong out of combat, whereas a ranger's default out-of-combat boosts are famously wonky.

Again, while you do have a point, I'd like to know what out-of-combat things casters can supposedly do (with rituals or not) that non-casters cannot, aside from making resting more comfortable and making travel faster/more exotic.

strangebloke

2018-12-19, 02:20 PM

Again, while you do have a point, I'd like to know what out-of-combat things casters can supposedly do (with rituals or not) that non-casters cannot, aside from making resting more comfortable and making travel faster/more exotic.

Water breathing to explore a dungeon miles underwater.
Plane shift to take the fight to the Slaad's home base.
Teleport across the continent to where the Lich has taken the princess, intending to sacrifice her to his dark god this very night.
Dispel the magic holding the adamantine door closed.
Drop from an airship with feather fall so that you avoid dying.
Charm a guard who's otherwise not possible to be persuaded/intimidated.
Identify an item to avoid getting cursed.
Use detect magic to find a single magic item from amongst a pile

Yes, a DM can allow for other solutions to these problem if there's no caster available, but you could say the same about any out-of-combat thing. "What does having diplomatic skills really gain you? The DM clearly wouldn't put you in a situation where that's the only solution is diplomatic skills when none of you have that." Sure, its reasonable that you could find an NPC wizard to cast identify, but you could also reasonably expect to hire a courtesan to act as the party face for you. Sure, you might be able to go on a whole quest in order to gain access to a natural portal to Limbo, but you could also do a whole quest instead of using a persuasion check to get past the guards at the gate.

Ultimately, you don't need to have any out of combat abilities. A team full of characters with no skill or tool proficiencies would still be possible to run, they'd just need to find other solutions to out-of-combat problems. But that doesn't change the fact that such a character is horribly weak in out-of-combat situations.

Grod_The_Giant

2018-12-19, 02:21 PM

Again, while you do have a point, I'd like to know what out-of-combat things casters can supposedly do (with rituals or not) that non-casters cannot, aside from making resting more comfortable and making travel faster/more exotic.

Communicate precisely with animals.
Decode unknown languages.
Determine if objects are magical or not.
Feed a large group instantly.
Create a nearly-unbreakable coded message.
Un-spoil food
Transport hundreds of pounds of stuff without being slowed.
Move things around without touching them.

And that's just 1st level spells. You can do similar stuff with ability checks, but not as fast, not as effectively, not as reliably, and not as independently. And the power to do stuff with spells scales up much faster than most GM's willingness to let you do stuff with an ability check.

Perhaps the single greatest advantage utility spells have over ability checks is that don't require GM buy-in. Sure, I can replace Goodberry with a Survival check, but the spells means I don't have to deal with the GM hemming and hawing about what kind of resources are available and how long it takes. I could try to figure out what to say to a guard to get him to see things my way, gamble on whether or not they'll be approachable, or I could cast Charm Person.

Willie the Duck

2018-12-19, 02:39 PM

I was thinking about whether I should post the common ritual spells, and whether comprehend language/tongues are functionally distinct from knowing the languages (at least as far as a caster/non-caster distinction is concerned).

Honestly speaking, though, if ritual spells are the defining feature, I don't see a problem. Martial classes can easily pick up ritual caster (wizard, cleric, or druid) if they want those specific out-of-combat abilities. Yes, theoretically that makes them casters, but if all things have to be able to happen with the [magic] tag, that's a level of game rigor I personally couldn't care about. To me, it has to be something more than that. Yes, goodberry is a good example of something that doesn't do something a skill can't but does it easier (how much goodberry messes with the wilderness exploration and encumbrance parts of the game has been a personal gripe for no few editions now), but as said it doesn't do anything you can't readily do. Charm Person -- boy howdy, that certainly does exclude some of the pitfalls of diplomacy, but it creates as many issues/risks/concerns as it obviates. I'd call that a parallel, but not superior, avenue of problem-solving.

Hail Tempus

2018-12-19, 02:57 PM

A lot of the out of combat stuff people are listing (like Water Breathing, Identify, Detect Magic) are explicitly part of the spell-casters' job. It's like a Rogue's ability to pick pockets or a Barbarian's ability to kick down doors and intimidate people. A PC party is meant to be a team, where the different character classes complement each other and cover each other's weaknesses (my Wizard is buddies with the party's Barbarian because that Barbarian keeps giants and other hard-hitting monsters away from him so he can do his job).

The big things, like teleporting to another plane, are actually kind or irrelevant, from a narrative perspective. You're almost better off not bothering to learn spells like that, because if your DM wants to do an adventure in the City of Brass or Mechanus, he'll give you a way to get there.

And it terms of social encounters, you're usually better off just giving the Bard or Paladin Guidance and letting them smooth-talk the guard. Charm Person (a) requires a save, and (b) in most places would be considered a hostile act if the target's friends see you casting it on their buddy.

Willie the Duck

2018-12-19, 03:18 PM

The big things, like teleporting to another plane, are actually kind or irrelevant, from a narrative perspective. You're almost better off not bothering to learn spells like that, because if your DM wants to do an adventure in the City of Brass or Mechanus, he'll give you a way to get there.

This is the second time today (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23582393&postcount=600)I have seen a statement declaring DMs pre-emptively facilitating a plot, regardless of player action (and potentially devoid of player agency?), and acting like it was a known and accepted truism about the gaming world at large. Did we sandboxers lose a war and no one tell me? DMs have plots that they will get the PCs on board with regardless? No more, 'if you want to adventure in the outer planes, invest in figuring out how to get there?'

HappyDaze

2018-12-19, 03:20 PM

Water breathing to explore a dungeon miles underwater.
Plane shift to take the fight to the Slaad's home base.
Teleport across the continent to where the Lich has taken the princess, intending to sacrifice her to his dark god this very night.
Dispel the magic holding the adamantine door closed.
Drop from an airship with feather fall so that you avoid dying.
Charm a guard who's otherwise not possible to be persuaded/intimidated.
Identify an item to avoid getting cursed.
Use detect magic to find a single magic item from amongst a pile

Yes, a DM can allow for other solutions to these problem if there's no caster available, but you could say the same about any out-of-combat thing. "What does having diplomatic skills really gain you? The DM clearly wouldn't put you in a situation where that's the only solution is diplomatic skills when none of you have that." Sure, its reasonable that you could find an NPC wizard to cast identify, but you could also reasonably expect to hire a courtesan to act as the party face for you. Sure, you might be able to go on a whole quest in order to gain access to a natural portal to Limbo, but you could also do a whole quest instead of using a persuasion check to get past the guards at the gate.

Ultimately, you don't need to have any out of combat abilities. A team full of characters with no skill or tool proficiencies would still be possible to run, they'd just need to find other solutions to out-of-combat problems. But that doesn't change the fact that such a character is horribly weak in out-of-combat situations.

Doing many of those involves using up resources that the spellcaster might otherwise have used in combat. Are you suggesting that there be non-combat options that might use up Rage and/or Action Surge for martial characters? Otherwise, I'm not sure what tradeoffs martials can offer up for such utility.

Unoriginal

2018-12-19, 03:45 PM

Alright I don't have the time to respond to everyone's points right now, and many deserves a response, but this one I have to address now.

This is the second time today (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23582393&postcount=600)I have seen a statement declaring DMs pre-emptively facilitating a plot, regardless of player action (and potentially devoid of player agency?), and acting like it was a known and accepted truism about the gaming world at large. Did we sandboxers lose a war and no one tell me? DMs have plots that they will get the PCs on board with regardless? No more, 'if you want to adventure in the outer planes, invest in figuring out how to get there?'

If you want to adventure in the outer planes, you have to invest in figuring out how to get there.

If it is impossible to get to the outer planes without having a wizard with the right spell in your team, then you either have one or you can't accomplish what you want.

A sandbox campaign will generally not have only "one PC must be of a certain class and take a specific option" to accomplish X. Therefore, there will usually be more than one solution to X.

The DM is the one who makes it so there is more than one solution to X. Therefore, if other solutions to X exist, they are provided by the DM and the world they created.

In a sandbox campaign, there will sometime be "this is a locked chest, there is no key for it anywhere, it can't be forced open, and you will never find what's inside" situations. But more often there will be "this is a locked chest, the key is somewhere in the sandbox" situation.

Doesn't mean finding the key is easy, but it's still the DM who put it in the sandbox.

Vogie

2018-12-19, 03:55 PM

This is the second time today (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23582393&postcount=600)I have seen a statement declaring DMs pre-emptively facilitating a plot, regardless of player action (and potentially devoid of player agency?), and acting like it was a known and accepted truism about the gaming world at large. Did we sandboxers lose a war and no one tell me? DMs have plots that they will get the PCs on board with regardless? No more, 'if you want to adventure in the outer planes, invest in figuring out how to get there?'

So far, the thread has devolved into examples of the myriad and wide-ranging Out-of-Combat abilities that casters have, followed by "Yeah, besides those, what out-of-combat abilities can 5e casters have that the non-casters can't?" then more examples, then more goalpost shifting, more examples, and so on.

This thread has taught me that all utility spells are just ability checks in disguise. At this point, I'm fairly certain that a sufficiently high Arcana check will force the DM to create a Stargate and it is a generally accepted belief that a high enough Persuasion roll, with proficiency, is essentially the same as Dominate Monster cast at 9th level.

Max_Killjoy

2018-12-19, 04:05 PM

Even in a sandbox, the DM might plant some seeds, but it's up to the players whether they choose to water this or that seed.

There's a tricky grey area for seeds that require some extra tools to grow, such as extraplanar hijinks. Does the DM simply say "here's a seed, it's up to you to find a way to get there", or does the DM have a responsibility to make the seed accessible?

Hail Tempus

2018-12-19, 04:06 PM

HappyDaze

2018-12-19, 04:07 PM

Alright I don't have the time to respond to everyone's points right now, and many deserves a response, but this one I have to address now.

If you want to adventure in the outer planes, you have to invest in figuring out how to get there.

If it is impossible to get to the outer planes without having a wizard with the right spell in your team, then you either have one or you can't accomplish what you want.

A sandbox campaign will generally not have only "one PC must be of a certain class and take a specific option" to accomplish X. Therefore, there will usually be more than one solution to X.

The DM is the one who makes it so there is more than one solution to X. Therefore, if other solutions to X exist, they are provided by the DM and the world they created.

In a sandbox campaign, there will sometime be "this is a locked chest, there is no key for it anywhere, it can't be forced open, and you will never find what's inside" situations. But more often there will be "this is a locked chest, the key is somewhere in the sandbox" situation.

Doesn't mean finding the key is easy, but it's still the DM who put it in the sandbox.

If it's in the rulebooks--through class abilities, spells, whatever--and the DM is allowing those sources, then it's on the players if they don't make use of it. The DM shouldn't have to tell experienced players that they're likely to need a cleric or wizard or whatever. Inexperienced players should be experienced players by the time the situations mentioned become issues.

Willie the Duck

2018-12-19, 04:10 PM

Doesn't mean finding the key is easy, but it's still the DM who put it in the sandbox.

There's a tricky grey area for seeds that require some extra tools to grow, such as extraplanar hijinks. Does the DM simply say "here's a seed, it's up to you to find a way to get there", or does the DM have a responsibility to make the seed accessible?

I think the DM that wants extraplanar adventures to be possible needs to make learning a planar transit spell possible (or other transit options, like portals, possible). That seems far different from the statement, " You're almost better off not bothering to learn spells like that, because if your DM wants to do an adventure in the City of Brass or Mechanus, he'll give you a way to get there," but I may be reading into it more than Hail Tempus intended.

strangebloke

2018-12-19, 04:14 PM

Perhaps the single greatest advantage utility spells have over ability checks is that don't require GM buy-in. Sure, I can replace Goodberry with a Survival check, but the spells means I don't have to deal with the GM hemming and hawing about what kind of resources are available and how long it takes. I could try to figure out what to say to a guard to get him to see things my way, gamble on whether or not they'll be approachable, or I could cast Charm Person.

That's the real kicker. While we obviously don't want a return to 3.5's skill system, with Bear Lore and modifiers for sneezing while climbing, it'd be useful to have a more rigid expectation about what can and cannot be done with the skills.

I find the current DMG guidance on how to arbitrate navigation, for example, to be quite good, but its all over the book and very messily organized.

I'd really appreciate a more unified system. Something more like:

characters can move 'x' miles per day on foot, 'Y' if they're mounted, 'xa' if they're mounted in diffcult terrain, etc.
every 'z' miles they travel, roll on these encounter tables. Roll every 'za' miles if the region is more dangerous, or 'zb' if its less.
environment encounters with actual rules, something similar to the complex traps in Xanathar's.
Characters can travel with reckless speed, and if they do so the encounter rolls are made with disadvantage. Characters can travel cautiously, setting up camps

And if these rules are reference by things like the Ranger's class features, then they should be in the PHB as well.

Malifice

2018-12-19, 04:15 PM

I think the DM that wants extraplanar adventures to be possible needs to make learning a planar transit spell possible (or other transit options, like portals, possible). That seems far different from the statement, " You're almost better off not bothering to learn spells like that, because if your DM wants to do an adventure in the City of Brass or Mechanus, he'll give you a way to get there," but I may be reading into it more than Hail Tempus intended.

The general assumption is that spells like teleport or plane shift are simply factored into by the DM.

If I know my party has a Wizard with Plane Shift, when I sit down to design my adventure for the players during the week, I'll consider a planar adventure.

Im certainly not going to devise a planar adventure for a group that lack the means to travel the planes, unless I also intend to provide access to such a means.

The net result is the benefit of spells like Plane Shift or Teleport are a little illusory. You'll only ever 'need' them when the DM requires you to 'need' them.

Dark Schneider

2018-12-20, 04:40 AM

It is related with balance. Seems that all the proficiencies that non-casters get are for free, maybe simply because "hey they need to have right?". Let's compare:
- Fighter: heavy armor (3 feats), martial weapons (1 feat), many more ASI, d10 HP.
- Rogue: light armor (1 feat), 4 extra martial weapons, 2 extra skills, expertise in 2 skills, thieves' tools, sneak attack.
- Casters: spell casting related skills (like also rituals), some get d6 HP.

Do you see so rare? Much is sacrified for spell casting abilities, many proficiencies that can only be adquired by feats, that even the fighter get many more ASI even if they already have them, less HP on average, skills that can't even be adquired by feat only by class, more skills...

The problem is not the non-combat skills for non-casters, is when you want to be the Master of the Universe in combat, and also do so many things out of combat. The system is prepared to get a fighter with Medium Armor Master (no disadvantage on stealth), training or get by background thieves' tools, and get Skilled and/or Prodigy feats, to be good at many things. But hey, I want to be the monster killer wearing the most heavy armor, maxing the STR, getting all the killer feats...and also be good out of combat...ummm, no, that is not possible, by anyone, casters are also bad at many things because they decided to get spell casting.
And even the spells are not free, you have to get them in place of others for classes with known spells, search and copy in the case of wizard (that has the cumber of the spellbook), limited uses per long rest, depends of level to even be able to use them (you can use your proficiencies from lvl 1, but you can't use a lvl 3 spell at lvl 1, you need lvl 5 at least).

So for me it is well balanced.

strangebloke

2018-12-20, 09:23 AM

The net result is the benefit of spells like Plane Shift or Teleport are a little illusory. You'll only ever 'need' them when the DM requires you to 'need' them.

As Willie pointed out, there's also this thing called a 'sandbox' campaign where stuff is happening and if the PCs can get there, they can do more stuff in the setting.

Like the first thing I do after making a campaign setting is to plot out the villain's evul schemes. Certain elements of those schemes will certainly succeed! And if the players lack key tools like teleport, they'll miss out on really important opportunities to stop key parts of the villains plan.

Now if you're running a 100% pre-prescribed module, things are different, but the fact remains that in such an adventure a teleporter will feel essential.

And that's ignoring the massive number of things that casters can do outside of combat, that theoretically could be done using other methods, but would be way more inconvenient. Identifying a pile of magical weapons without magic is a dangerous chore.

Dark Schneider

2018-12-20, 09:31 AM

strangebloke

2018-12-20, 09:53 AM

Well as long as they are magical weapons, what did you expected? Using a heavy armor (that can protect also out of combat), or avoiding damage (with Evasion), is better done by non-casters.

Also, who have Identify? It is mentioned like if it was something automatic for any magic. It is a Bard or Wizard spell, so we are reducing the possibilities a lot, in the case of Bard, he has to use one of his valuable known spells to get it, in the case of Wizard, well he has to use a spellbook.

Or pay for service, just like a caster could need to hire a mercenary for protection, a non-caster could have to hire someone to identify the treasure. Just like in real life, no one can do everything.

You are missing literally every point.

Using heavy armor and avoiding damage are done just fine by some casters (clerics and paladins) but that is a matter of combat utility.

Not every caster has Identify. Not every party needs identify. But wizards do have meaningful out-of-combat utility that nobody else does because they can cast useful rituals like identify with a low opportunity cost.

Most casters have lots of out-of-combat utility by default. Druids can cast past without trace and goodberry and longstrider and speak with animals and a dozen other useful things. Clerics have guidance and silence and ceremony and tons of other out-of-combat things.

The two full casters that don't have utility by default, Warlocks and sorcerers, can easily build into huge out-of-combat utility.

The only non-caster with significant out-of-combat utility by default is the rogue. Rangers are casters who have nonmagical out-of-combat utility. Fighters and Monks can build into some utility.

Willie the Duck

2018-12-20, 10:19 AM

The general assumption is that spells like teleport or plane shift are simply factored into by the DM.
If I know my party has a Wizard with Plane Shift, when I sit down to design my adventure for the players during the week, I'll consider a planar adventure.
Im certainly not going to devise a planar adventure for a group that lack the means to travel the planes, unless I also intend to provide access to such a means.
The net result is the benefit of spells like Plane Shift or Teleport are a little illusory. You'll only ever 'need' them when the DM requires you to 'need' them.

Hmmm. We might be chasing causal chickens and eggs, but I might disagree. When I make a sandbox, the presence or absence of extraplanar hooks is going to be character independent*, because I try to create a world that keeps on churning as it always has regardless of who the players are or what they can do. Mind you, I probably don't have anything fleshed out if I know I'll have plenty of time to craft something if someone decides they want to go fishing in the elemental plane of water. But rumors of something exciting happening on the outer planes are going to be there, and the players can actively choose to try to follow up on these hooks as they see fit. If the player already has a spell to accomplish this, excellent!, they can get there faster. If they don't, well then getting access to that spell can be the first step in that adventure.
*this is not actually true, specific to the extraplanar part. We usually don't have the other planes exist in our games as travelable-to destinations. No one in my main group has interests in the planes. We've just never gotten into them. However, I am generalizing this concept to similar thoughts, like spelljamming and far away continents and the like.

So the benefits of Plane Shift or Teleport aren't illusory, they are the first step in a specified direction. They are an active vote by the player saying, 'I am going to invest in this, so you the DM ought be on notice that I will be following up on these hooks left scattered about.'

Unoriginal

2018-12-20, 10:20 AM

Spells are shortcuts. Efficient shortcuts, and often awesome ones. And we should acknowledge what they can do alongside the fact the long path does exist.

strangebloke

2018-12-20, 10:28 AM

Spells are shortcuts. Efficient shortcuts, and often awesome ones. And we should acknowledge what they can do alongside the fact the long path does exist.

The ability to do something quickly represents a different capability than the ability to do something slowly.

I can, without tools, cut down a tree. But if I was relying on that ability to make firewood, I would freeze.

Yes, a player can walk instead of teleporting. But that's pretty much useless if the Lich is 500 miles away and is going to do his ritual tonight. If you show up to fight the Lich and he's underwater, you'd have to trek back to civilization to find someone who can cast Water Breathing on you. Yes, your DM can tailor the adventure to your party, but that ignores modules and sandbox campaigns, both of which are staples of many tables.

But more to the point, unoriginal, you're shifting the goalposts.

The argument of OP was "give non-casters more to do out of combat."

I don't really think its a caster thing. Paladins can't keep up with rogues out of combat. But (nonmagical)fighters, barbarians and (non-shadow)monks can feel very limited out of combat and I think that's pretty crappy.

Dark Schneider

2018-12-20, 10:43 AM

You are missing literally every point.

Using heavy armor and avoiding damage are done just fine by some casters (clerics and paladins) but that is a matter of combat utility.

Not every caster has Identify. Not every party needs identify. But wizards do have meaningful out-of-combat utility that nobody else does because they can cast useful rituals like identify with a low opportunity cost.

Most casters have lots of out-of-combat utility by default. Druids can cast past without trace and goodberry and longstrider and speak with animals and a dozen other useful things. Clerics have guidance and silence and ceremony and tons of other out-of-combat things.

The two full casters that don't have utility by default, Warlocks and sorcerers, can easily build into huge out-of-combat utility.

The only non-caster with significant out-of-combat utility by default is the rogue. Rangers are casters who have nonmagical out-of-combat utility. Fighters and Monks can build into some utility.
We are reducing even more, to Wizards. Well, they use a spellbook, so it is how they pay for flexibility. Are the pure magic users of the system. A the cost of: lesser proficiencies, d6 HP, less ASI, no Expertise, no Evasion...notice that many things non-casters get are permanent, immediate and unlimited usage, compared to spells.

The things a non-caster can do out of combat are also permanent, immediate, and unlimited usage. Spells use slots, and are level dependant.

Avoiding damage is not combat, a trap, be surprised by something natural (DEX saving throw). And can be life saving.

Non-combat classes can also be very useful out of combat, if they get that way. Again, you can't want to be the superb in combat and also out of it.
A rogue is skilled out of combat.
A fighter can get easily Skilled and Prodigy feats with all those ASI.
The Shadow Monk can teleport all the times he wants in shadows up to 60 feet, run over water, fall large distance, a moving capacity that you quickly run out of spell slots if you want to do with magic.

You are ignoring the limited vs unlimited usage, concentration vs fixed, conditional vs permanent...

You can do some things with spells if you have it, prepared, and use a spell slot, many times with concentration requirement. Many of non-casters out of combat skills are permanent, unlimited, and non-dependant of anything.

You can try to convice someone enchanting him, to get advantage on roll, but when it ends the target knows it. In the other hand, the fighter with Skilled feat can easily have the Persuasion proficiency, so it has no advantage for the roll with drawbacks during a certain time and under some conditions (have the spell and cast it), but a permanent improved persuasion to roll with.

And that is the difference. Spells are concise, have requirements, conditions, duration...the non-caster abilities they can get can be more mundane, but are always present, without conditions, always available to use.

Willie the Duck

2018-12-20, 10:45 AM

Not every caster has Identify. Not every party needs identify. But wizards do have meaningful out-of-combat utility that nobody else does because they can cast useful rituals like identify with a low opportunity cost.

Most casters have lots of out-of-combat utility by default. Druids can cast past without trace and goodberry and longstrider and speak with animals and a dozen other useful things. Clerics have guidance and silence and ceremony and tons of other out-of-combat things.

The two full casters that don't have utility by default, Warlocks and sorcerers, can easily build into huge out-of-combat utility.

The only non-caster with significant out-of-combat utility by default is the rogue. Rangers are casters who have nonmagical out-of-combat utility. Fighters and Monks can build into some utility.

What is the significance of it being default? I mean, you yourself stated here that not everyone needs identify, we can universalize this and say not everyone needs any given thing. Certainly if someone else already has the thing, having a modular class feature that you can then choose not to use for OOC utility is in some lights more advantageous. And, as you mention, both spellcasters and non-spellcasters show up without inherent utility, but can be built towards it. A fighter, with their two extra ASIs, can pick up Magic Initiate and/or Ritual Caster and have a large portion of those ooc abilities that the casters have, but also choose not to do so if they don't want to.

I'm sympathetic to a lot of the arguments on the subject, particularly that too many spells make problems completely go away, that skills attempting to do the same often require rolls with a notoriously swingy roll attached, and that the all-too-common 15 minute workday makes much of the challenge of using spells to solve things instead of skills less that a real challenge. Things not being default, however, I really don't see as a notable issue.

Contrast

2018-12-20, 10:52 AM

Unoriginal

2018-12-20, 10:52 AM

I am not moving or "shifting" the goalposts, thank you very much, strangebloke.

I am talking about something that is different from what OP wrote because, as it appears, the conversation shifted to another topic, which I was responding to. Like several others.

But apparently it warrants implying that I'm dishonest and a ****ty debater. I guess.

But do not worry, I won't be polluting this thread with my responses or my presence any longer.

Max_Killjoy

2018-12-20, 10:55 AM

But more to the point, unoriginal, you're shifting the goalposts.

I don't think that's a fair assessment given the natural conversation drift that's gone on in the thread.

Dark Schneider

2018-12-20, 10:56 AM

While I'm inclined to agree that spellcasters get a lot more potential OOC abilities (expertise in Insight just isn't comparable to Detect Thoughts in most situations) I don't know what the solution is
Well that is an excellent example. How many times can you Detect Thoughts, and Insight? If you have to ask to many people, which one is better?
Also, Detect Thoughts exhaust your other spell capabilites as long as you use a spell slot, using Insight is for free.

Max_Killjoy

2018-12-20, 10:59 AM

Well that is an excellent example. How many times can you Detect Thoughts, and Insight? If you have to ask to many people, which one is better?
Also, Detect Thoughts exhaust your other spell capabilites as long as you use a spell slot, using Insight is for free.

I think that there's also a tendency to forget that magic in D&D is very rarely subtle, and tends to be noticed, and if you go around casting spells at people they're often going to be offended and react poorly in some way.

mephnick

2018-12-20, 11:10 AM

I think that there's also a tendency to forget that magic in D&D is very rarely subtle, and tends to be noticed, and if you go around casting spells at people they're often going to be offended and react poorly in some way.

Exactly. If someone uses Detect Thoughts randomly in some social encounter, I treat that as an automatic failure. People know there is mind magic and will shut down immediately if someone points at them and mutters weird words. Great, you can read their minds, but now they're trying to kill you or running away. Good job. Should have just let the Samurai player try and talk to him.

strangebloke

2018-12-20, 11:16 AM

Non-combat classes can also be very useful out of combat, if they get that way. Again, you can't want to be the superb in combat and also out of it.
A rogue is skilled out of combat.
A fighter can get easily Skilled and Prodigy feats with all those ASI.
The Shadow Monk can teleport all the times he wants in shadows up to 60 feet, run over water, fall large distance, a moving capacity that you quickly run out of spell slots if you want to do with magic.

You are ignoring the limited vs unlimited

Ah yes, I forgot. The wonderful utility of being able to face-tank traps. Of course the fighter is good for something.

Good thing that there's no moon druids or wizards with shield out there who are even better at damage absorption. Good thing that the best trap disarmer is a 1/3 caster, the arcane trickster.

As I detailed in my earlier post, fighters and monks can, like sorcerers and warlocks, build into out-of-combat utility with some utility cost.

Even then, though, this is generally done by making them able to cast spells. Rogues are the only noncaster who has significant out-of-combat utility. Some fighters can get skulker or prodigy and get a few tricks, but that means sacrificing a significant amount of combat power, and at the end of the day, having skulker does not even remotely compare with everything that a ritual caster brings to the table.

Everything else that noncasters get is pretty minimal, being related to things like traps and running really fast.

I'm not ignoring resource consumption. That's why I'm talking so much about ritual casting and cantrips. It doesn't require resources. Concentration is mostly irrelevant out of combat.

What is the significance of it being default? I mean, you yourself stated here that not everyone needs identify, we can universalize this and say not everyone needs any given thing. Certainly if someone else already has the thing, having a modular class feature that you can then choose not to use for OOC utility is in some lights more advantageous. And, as you mention, both spellcasters and non-spellcasters show up without inherent utility, but can be built towards it. A fighter, with their two extra ASIs, can pick up Magic Initiate and/or Ritual Caster and have a large portion of those ooc abilities that the casters have, but also choose not to do so if they don't want to.

I'm sympathetic to a lot of the arguments on the subject, particularly that too many spells make problems completely go away, that skills attempting to do the same often require rolls with a notoriously swingy roll attached, and that the all-too-common 15 minute workday makes much of the challenge of using spells to solve things instead of skills less that a real challenge. Things not being default, however, I really don't see as a notable issue.

Well, opportunity cost.

A fighter who grabs ritual caster is giving up significant combat utility to *not* be equal to a wizard out of combat. A fighter who has ritual caster is also no longer a non-caster. Really I have a tough time calling a shadow monk a non-caster.

The issue being brought up in the OP is that if you want to play Bob the Sword-Guy-Who-Isn't-A-Caster, and you don't want to sit around like a lump out of combat, your options are basically:

Rogue
Fighter with prodigy.

I am not moving or "shifting" the goalposts, thank you very much, strangebloke.

I am talking about something that is different from what OP wrote because, as it appears, the conversation shifted to another topic, which I was responding to. Like several others.

But apparently it warrants implying that I'm dishonest and a ****ty debater. I guess.

But do not worry, I won't be polluting this thread with my responses or my presence any longer.
Wow, it was really not my intent to insult you. Sorry I said what I did.

I was just trying to bring the discussion back more to the realm of the OP, since that's a conversation I find more interesting. I'm not saying you're a dishonest debater; I don't view this as a debate at all. Its a discussion, but I get a little frustrated when the conversation drifts off into very tired topics like: "Should the DM accomodate the party not having a balanced composition?"

I suppose that phrase "shifting the goalposts" was the incorrect one to use.

Dienekes

2018-12-20, 11:16 AM

I'm going to assume what OP meant is that they wanted to see more features like the assassin gets at 9th and 13th level.

While I'm inclined to agree that spellcasters get a lot more potential out of combat abilities (expertise in Insight just isn't comparable to Detect Thoughts in most situations) I don't know what the solution is. The problem with things like the assassin ability is that the moment you give a class an ability like that, you're effectively taking it away from everyone else.

If you'd let a thief rogue establish an alternate identify or impersonate someone (which, lets be honest you probably should), that devalues being an assassin. As a result you kind of need to make the abilities really good at a very specific thing so it seems worth it above just being a regular person trying to do that thing. But then you end up with something that may never see actual relevance and we're basically back where we started.

Honestly probably the easiest solution is just taking a big set of pruning shears to the spell lists.

Edit - Thinking about it the level 9 swashbuckler feature strikes a nice balance between getting a combat ability in but including out of combat relevance.

Yeah, that was pretty much what I was going for. Some more flavorful abilities for non-magic characters to use out of combat so they're not just sitting around waiting for combat to start and letting the mages handle everything else. I didn't think this would be a problem, since they already exist in the game, they're just (in my opinion) usually too limited and sparse as presented in the game currently. Thus far I think I've gotten 2-ish responses that actually do that. A couple that say I'm wrong for wanting all my players to interact meaningfully with the game without hitting people. And a hell of a lot of mage vs non-mage debate.

I probably should have known the thread would turn into a mages verse non-mages debate in less than half a page. But, I'm still a bit disappointed it did. I think it's best to just abandon thread at this point and let everyone duke it out.

tchntm43

2018-12-20, 11:22 AM

There are tool skills that any character can learn (and some begin with). Like, the dwarf in my group has proficiency with Mason's Tools. And the Xanathar book has extended explanations of what can be done with each tool. As DM, I like to try and design the adventure in a way where some of those skills might actually have a use, so that they don't feel useless. I mean these aren't skills specific to non-casters, but learning them can be a good option for downtime between adventures, while the casters are probably using the time doing other stuff.

Willie the Duck

2018-12-20, 12:19 PM

Note: Line returns removed from quotes for size.

Well, opportunity cost. A fighter who grabs ritual caster is giving up significant combat utility to *not* be equal to a wizard out of combat.
Yes, and to a lesser degree, a wizard who picks utility spells as their free-from-level-up spells also has an opportunity cost to their utility. More to the point, there should be and opportunity cost to greater capacity. And the fact that the fighter has the option to choose either utility or greater combat capability is a benefit, not a hindrance. If, overall, you think the fighter underperforms and it needs an extra ASI here or there to be balanced, I'd gladly listen to that argument. But the ability to take that ASI and turn it into the thing you think your character needs is not a penalty.

A fighter who has ritual caster is also no longer a non-caster. Really I have a tough time calling a shadow monk a non-caster. The issue being brought up in the OP is that if you want to play Bob the Sword-Guy-Who-Isn't-A-Caster, and you don't want to sit around like a lump in combat, your options are basically: Rogue, Fighter with prodigy.

I understand this argument. My basic response is simply that we are way late to change that. I've said this multiple times in the past few days, and I think already in this thread: the spell mechanic is how D&D set it self up to do a lot of these things, and it hasn't stopped and re-addressed that since. In 1975 when they were trying to make a class that emulated Aragorn, they took his herbalism talents, noticed that they didn't yet have a skill system in the game, and gave the under-construction Ranger class access to a smattering of spells. Spells are the go-to mechanism for modular problem-solving mechanics in the game, and there isn't a lot of momentum to change that. In no small part, I think, because (ex.) how would a universal translator non-magical ability differ from a fighter with ritual caster casting tongues? The idea that people would balk over a [magic] tag was not something anyone prepared for.

Yeah, that was pretty much what I was going for. Some more flavorful abilities for non-magic characters to use out of combat so they're not just sitting around waiting for combat to start and letting the mages handle everything else. I didn't think this would be a problem, since they already exist in the game, they're just (in my opinion) usually too limited and sparse as presented in the game currently. Thus far I think I've gotten 2-ish responses that actually do that. A couple that say I'm wrong for wanting all my players to interact meaningfully with the game without hitting people. And a hell of a lot of mage vs non-mage debate.

It would be nice. I think reaction to 3e made them try to keep the skill system as nebulous as possible. Otherwise I think there could be a lot more little sub-mechanisms that could be used for social or environmental situations. That, plus bounded accuracy meaning that you couldn't give out little +1 bonuses (using the older systems, were +1 amounts to like +1/3 in 5e) here and there for ooc tricks and stuff.

I probably should have known the thread would turn into a mages verse non-mages debate in less than half a page. But, I'm still a bit disappointed it did. I think it's best to just abandon thread at this point and let everyone duke it out.

Agreed. I have no patience for this. Especially if fighter with RC feat is somehow now a mage.

Malifice

2018-12-20, 12:50 PM

As Willie pointed out, there's also this thing called a 'sandbox' campaign where stuff is happening and if the PCs can get there, they can do more stuff in the setting.

And who creates the stuff that's happening 'out there'? The DM.

Feel free as a DM to create an adventure set somewhere where the PCs cant get to. Stat up a dozen encounters that will never get used if you really want.

Seems like a bit of a waste of time to me.

You (as DM) either want them to adventure in the planes (you set your adventure there) in which case youve already turned your mind to how they get there, or you've designed your adventure somewhere else.

Max_Killjoy

2018-12-20, 12:57 PM

Willie the Duck

2018-12-20, 01:07 PM

And who creates the stuff that's happening 'out there'? The DM.

Feel free as a DM to create an adventure set somewhere where the PCs cant get to. Stat up a dozen encounters that will never get used if you really want.

Seems like a bit of a waste of time to me.

Holy cow, Malifice, I directly addressed you (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23584398&postcount=62) with a lengthy response. And both Strangebloke and I clearly stated that these were not places we as the DM would disallow the player's get to (in fact the challenge of the players getting to them is the direct subject of discussion). Obviously if you are not going to allow players to get to the outer planes, then writing up encounters would be futile (I'd also suggest letting your players know this before they pick up a planar travel spell), but no one was arguing that case, making this is a strawman argument.

You (as DM) either want them to adventure in the planes (you set your adventure there) in which case youve already turned your mind to how they get there, or you've designed your adventure somewhere else.

The entire point of a sandbox campaign style is that you are trying not to influence where the players adventure based on where you want them to be. You put boundaries (maybe even 'that doesn't exist in this campaign'-level constraints), maybe even 'beyond here be dragons' drawn on the map (whether that is a warning or incentive might depend on PC level). But in the end you plunk the PCs down in a location and start describing what is around them and they choose the direction they head. It has its weaknesses and strengths, and I wouldn't categorically call it better or worse than other playstyles, but it is definitely an existing style of play that lots of people enjoy.

strangebloke

2018-12-20, 01:08 PM

Yes, and to a lesser degree, a wizard who picks utility spells as their free-from-level-up spells also has an opportunity cost to their utility. More to the point, there should be and opportunity cost to greater capacity. And the fact that the fighter has the option to choose either utility or greater combat capability is a benefit, not a hindrance. If, overall, you think the fighter underperforms and it needs an extra ASI here or there to be balanced, I'd gladly listen to that argument. But the ability to take that ASI and turn it into the thing you think your character needs is not a penalty.

Yes, its a boost! I completely agree.

My earlier post notes that in practice a Sorcerer, by building only slightly into Out of Combat utility, can do nearly as well as someone like a ranger.

And Bards have default support for out-of-combat stuff, but they have a lot of limitations in combat, like lacking a damage-dealing cantrip.

But having it be one option amongst many makes it much less likely to be taken, especially if there's thematic dissonance with whatever the player is going for. Maybe I don't want to be a shadow monk, or a ritualist.

In an ideal world, I would want everyone to have some capacity to contribute in a non-combat environment, but in practice if you're in a party of five or so, and you specced into a mostly-for-combat build, you likely won't have anything to do between fights other than normal diceless interactions.

Its a bit annoying for my party's barbarian if there's a session without much combat. I'd like to see some features that boost the Barbarian's ability to intimidate people, or the fighter's ability to direct troops.

I do think that the Barbarian and fighter are a little undertuned, particularly considering a featless, magic item-less game, and that's why I'd be Okay with them getting a free out-of-combat ribbon ability. I'd be a little more cautious doing so for the paladin, because the paladin already has so much going on.

I understand this argument. My basic response is simply that we are way late to change that. I've said this multiple times in the past few days, and I think already in this thread: the spell mechanic is how D&D set it self up to do a lot of these things, and it hasn't stopped and re-addressed that since. In 1975 when they were trying to make a class that emulated Aragorn, they took his herbalism talents, noticed that they didn't yet have a skill system in the game, and gave the under-construction Ranger class access to a smattering of spells. Spells are the go-to mechanism for modular problem-solving mechanics in the game, and there isn't a lot of momentum to change that. In no small part, I think, because (ex.) how would a universal translator non-magical ability differ from a fighter with ritual caster casting tongues? The idea that people would balk over a [magic] tag was not something anyone prepared for.

Well, I think there's an issue with gaining the ability to do too many different kinds of things, as well as how flashy magic has inherently become in later editions which messes with the thematics of a character.

I think the fix in 3.5, and the fix here, would be to introduce 'skill tricks' or something similar. Keep the skill system nebulous in general, but allow there to be discrete tricks you can pull off under special circumstances.

Something Like:
mosquito bite
requires Sleight of Hand and Medicine Proficiency, and Dex 17

When you attack a creature with a light melee weapon, you can make a sleight of hand check. If this check beats the target's passive perception, the target will not notice any damage dealt, and may not even notice that you targeted him with an attack. Once you have used this ability against a creature, you cannot use it against that creature until you have completed a long rest.

...But that's probably too fiddly. Still, it would allow a fighter who was built for it to get away with poisoning or stabbing someone and then slipping away quietly, and I think the idea is clear.

Agreed. I have no patience for this. Especially if fighter with RC feat is somehow now a mage.
I mean, he isn't a mage. But he's got a wide range of overtly magical effects available to him.

It seems strange to say, but limitations define a character as much as capabilities. This came up a lot in 3.5, when someone wanted to build... I don't know, some superhero character, and someone would say "A wizard can do all the right things."

Well yes, but that Wizard build also can walk through walls and do a million other things, and I want my character to be focused on the things I care about.

So ritual caster almost does too much. You just wanted a pet (find familiar) and now you are also making magic houses and translating? Or shooting firebolts? You've spent build resources on something that mechanically useful but not thematic for your character.

Hail Tempus

2018-12-20, 01:10 PM

Malifice

2018-12-20, 01:14 PM

Hmmm. We might be chasing causal chickens and eggs, but I might disagree. When I make a sandbox, the presence or absence of extraplanar hooks is going to be character independent*, because I try to create a world that keeps on churning as it always has regardless of who the players are or what they can do.

No offence, but that's largely impossible (barring some kind of awesome computer program). Even the most detailed sandbox has generally just sketched out notes on who is where and doing what. 'Zoomed in' locations (largely triggered by when the PCs go there and check it out). They're also scattered with hooks leading to other specific locations (placed by the DM).

Like; if Im playing in a sandbox you've knocked up, and suddenly decide to head to some random dungeon you were'nt expecting me to go to, wouldnt you kind of have to either come up with the half dozen or so encounters on the fly in that session, or instead steer the PCs elsewhere?

It's highly doubtful you have every dungeon filled with pre-statted up monsters, likely with rosters changing from week to week, or month to month.

Also, I rarely see a sandbox without a plot steering the PCs in a certain direction. It would be a little boring if that were so. Think online first person exploration games like Fallout and so forth. They're as sandboxy as you can get (and beyond the ability of a human DM to create) but they all feature a plot that the player is expected to follow (at his own pace mind you).

strangebloke

2018-12-20, 01:15 PM

And who creates the stuff that's happening 'out there'? The DM.

Feel free as a DM to create an adventure set somewhere where the PCs cant get to. Stat up a dozen encounters that will never get used if you really want.

Seems like a bit of a waste of time to me.

You (as DM) either want them to adventure in the planes (you set your adventure there) in which case youve already turned your mind to how they get there, or you've designed your adventure somewhere else.

Dude...

No.

I set up a list of general things that are happening. Not full encounter days. At the end of most adventuring 'days' the PCs will get news about what is happening elsewhere. Most of the time, the assumption is that they won't be able to address even half the stuff that's happening, but they'll choose where they can go next, based off of their own evaluation of their abilities, and based off of where they can plausibly get too. Real shame that Sycorax is destroying Wetville, but we're on the other side of the continent.

Then I plan out an adventuring day.

The stuff they don't fix contributes to a developing situation in that area of the world, and if they go there having allowed something bad to happen, things will be different than if they had been able to intervene. It gives the PCs the feeling that what they're doing matters, and that their decisions are important. It also gives them the ability to decide what kind of campaign they want to do.

Like; if Im playing in a sandbox you've knocked up, and suddenly decide to head to some random dungeon you were'nt expecting me to go to, wouldnt you kind of have to either come up with the half dozen or so encounters on the fly in that session, or instead steer the PCs elsewhere?

It's highly doubtful you have every dungeon filled with pre-statted up monsters, likely with rosters changing from week to week, or month to month.

Also, I rarely see a sandbox without a plot steering the PCs in a certain direction. It would be a little boring if that were so. Think online first person exploration games like Fallout and so forth. They're as sandboxy as you can get (and beyond the ability of a human DM to create) but they all feature a plot that the player is expected to follow (at his own pace mind you).

The purpose teleport etc. serves here is that they give the PCs more choices as to which encounters they want to deal with, and how many. No I don't have everything planned. If we get to the end of what I have planned for the day, the party goes back to the Inn or wherever, and I tell them the 'news' from around the world. Then they decide where they want to go next. Then I plan.

Sure, there's a plot. But the order in which the encounters occur and the extent to which the PCs are able to impact the plot is driven by the capabilities of the characters, not the DM.

This does lead to some situations where the high level PCs waltz through a low-level dungeon, or where low-level guys stumble onto a hellmouth, but those moments are usually over with quickly.

Malifice

2018-12-20, 01:19 PM

Or, as noted earlier, some DMs say "here's a door to get to another area of the sandbox, and there are also several different keys that will open that door, but if you want to open the door, it's on you to actively go find the keys". That is, ways to get to the other planes exist in the setting, but the DM is not (under this model) obliged to simply hand them to the PCs.

Indeed, you could do that with an island and a boat as well (the boat being the key to unlocking the encounters on the island).

Would you (as DM) create an adventure set in the planes, when you're DMing a group of Fighters with no means to get there?

If you're creating such an adventure, you're either wasting a lot of your time that could be devoted to a quest that the group can do during the weekend session, statting up encounters that the players wont face.

Malifice

2018-12-20, 01:25 PM

Dude...

No.

I set up a list of general things that are happening. Not full encounter days. At the end of most adventuring 'days' the PCs will get news about what is happening elsewhere.

They're called hooks. You're the filter through which this information gets fed to the players. They use that information to decide where to go next.

Ultimately you're the guy (as DM) that decides to insert a planar hook (and adventure) to your PCs, or not to.

If you want them to deal with it (go there and adventure) it's kind of incumbent on you to either ensure they either have the means to get there, or provide a mechanism for them to attain those means. If you dont do either, they dont go there and do the adventure. You've wasted your time.

And yes, advancing high enough in level in the Wizard class to obtain the spell is one mechanism they can use to get there.

Willie the Duck

2018-12-20, 01:48 PM

I think the fix in 3.5, and the fix here, would be to introduce 'skill tricks' or something similar. Keep the skill system nebulous in general, but allow there to be discrete tricks you can pull off under special circumstances.

Something Like:
mosquito bite
requires Sleight of Hand and Medicine Proficiency, and Dex 17

When you attack a creature with a light melee weapon, you can make a sleight of hand check. If this check beats the target's passive perception, the target will not notice any damage dealt, and may not even notice that you targeted him with an attack. Once you have used this ability against a creature, you cannot use it against that creature until you have completed a long rest.

...But that's probably too fiddly. Still, it would allow a fighter who was built for it to get away with poisoning or stabbing someone and then slipping away quietly, and I think the idea is clear.

Well, yes, except that's not out of combat abilities, but I get your point. I would have loved to have seen more of that in the game. I think it got wiped out in the simplicity-focus of bounded accuracy.

So ritual caster almost does too much. You just wanted a pet (find familiar) and now you are also making magic houses and translating? Or shooting firebolts? You've spent build resources on something that mechanically useful but not thematic for your character.

I can get this too, but again I think it's part of the large-grab modular nature of the class system the game landed on (another early-in-development decision's downstream consequence). If you have access to one spell (or 'spell'), you usually have access to many. You can deliberately artificially constrain yourself for RP reasons, but rarely with any compense. Kinda like a necromancer or illusionist who only wants those types of spells.

No offence, but that's largely impossible (barring some kind of awesome computer program). Even the most detailed sandbox has generally just sketched out notes on who is where and doing what. 'Zoomed in' locations (largely triggered by when the PCs go there and check it out). They're also scattered with hooks leading to other specific locations (placed by the DM).

None taken. All campaign types are attempts to approach an ideal (to a lessor or greater degree) rather than a pure implementation of the ideal. And yes, sandboxing requires you to have more stuff sketched out less rigorously and both you and your players having to be okay with that. If you buy in to the ideal, though, it's worthwhile because it gives your players a greater sense of agency to know that 1) they are not on an adventure railroad, and 2) their success and failure (and most importantly decisions) matter, since you will not be moving them from point A to point B simply to keep things going according to your notes.

Like; if Im playing in a sandbox you've knocked up, and suddenly decide to head to some random dungeon you were'nt expecting me to go to, wouldnt you kind of have to either come up with the half dozen or so encounters on the fly in that session, or instead steer the PCs elsewhere?

The goal is to have anything the players could reasonably reach during the session they make this decision at least well enough thought out that this sudden decision won't throw you too bad.

Also, I rarely see a sandbox without a plot steering the PCs in a certain direction. It would be a little boring if that were so. Think online first person exploration games like Fallout and so forth. They're as sandboxy as you can get (and beyond the ability of a human DM to create) but they all feature a plot that the player is expected to follow (at his own pace mind you).

That's contradictory. A game with a plot you are supposed to follow that is steering you in certain directions is the exact opposite of a sandbox. If that's what's happening, it isn't a sandbox. I think you might have your definitions reversed.

Malifice

2018-12-20, 01:57 PM

That's contradictory. A game with a plot you are supposed to follow that is steering you in certain directions is the exact opposite of a sandbox. If that's what's happening, it isn't a sandbox. I think you might have your definitions reversed.

No, Im saying a Sandbox without a plot is boring and meaningless.

Its' the Fallout 76 of Fallouts (namely once you've completed the Story line, and are just wandering about triggering random encounters for loot drops).

There has to be a plot. Some kind of story or reason beyond 'go there, kill things. take their stuff.'

Hail Tempus

2018-12-20, 02:02 PM

Max_Killjoy

2018-12-20, 02:06 PM

No, Im saying a Sandbox without a plot is boring and meaningless.

Its' the Fallout 76 of Fallouts (namely once you've completed the Story line, and are just wandering about triggering random encounters for loot drops).

There has to be a plot. Some kind of story or reason beyond 'go there, kill things. take their stuff.'

Characters live in a setting. The characters make plans and decisions, interacting with the world and the other people (NPCs). NPCs also have desires and plans and goals, and make decisions, also interacting. They do things, NPCs react, PCs, react etc, conditions change, new decisions and plans are made, more stuff gets done, etc.

The people in the setting drive the events of the setting forward. There is no pre-existing plot. A lot like real life.

Story may emerge over time, but it's always trailing behind the events of the day. Again, a lot like real life.

Seriously, there is no pre-existing plot in real life... real life is not a narrative or a story -- would you describe the real world as "wandering about triggering random encounters"?

strangebloke

2018-12-20, 02:08 PM

They're called hooks. You're the filter through which this information gets fed to the players. They use that information to decide where to go next.

Ultimately you're the guy (as DM) that decides to insert a planar hook (and adventure) to your PCs, or not to.

If you want them to deal with it (go there and adventure) it's kind of incumbent on you to either ensure they either have the means to get there, or provide a mechanism for them to attain those means. If you dont do either, they dont go there and do the adventure. You've wasted your time.

And yes, advancing high enough in level in the Wizard class to obtain the spell is one mechanism they can use to get there.

I don't really think you're listening.

I run a game where the fact that it takes three months to get somewhere as opposed to 60 seconds is going to be the difference between success or failure.

I ALSO run a game where failure, including failure-by-not-showing-up, is more common than success.

Willie the Duck

2018-12-20, 02:15 PM

No, Im saying a Sandbox without a plot is boring and meaningless.

Its' the Fallout 76 of Fallouts (namely once you've completed the Story line, and are just wandering about triggering random encounters for loot drops).

There has to be a plot. Some kind of story or reason beyond 'go there, kill things. take their stuff.'

Okay, communication problems, not conflicting definitions. The ideal behind the sandbox style of gaming is that the PCs decide what they want to do, go out and attempt to do it, and the immediate vicinity reacts to their actions and then they react to it. It isn't that plot cannot happen, it is merely that it is emergent from the actions of the players upon the world they inhabit. Plot exists, it is simply not the teleological plot that prepared modules and the like provide.

Dark Schneider

2018-12-21, 03:54 AM

Ah yes, I forgot. The wonderful utility of being able to face-tank traps. Of course the fighter is good for something.

Good thing that there's no moon druids or wizards with shield out there who are even better at damage absorption. Good thing that the best trap disarmer is a 1/3 caster, the arcane trickster.

As I detailed in my earlier post, fighters and monks can, like sorcerers and warlocks, build into out-of-combat utility with some utility cost.

Rogues are the only noncaster who has significant out-of-combat utility. Some fighters can get skulker or prodigy and get a few tricks, but that means sacrificing a significant amount of combat power, and at the end of the day, having skulker does not even remotely compare with everything that a ritual caster brings to the table.

Everything else that noncasters get is pretty minimal, being related to things like traps and running really fast.

I'm not ignoring resource consumption. That's why I'm talking so much about ritual casting and cantrips. It doesn't require resources. Concentration is mostly irrelevant out of combat.

Well, opportunity cost.

Really I have a tough time calling a shadow monk a non-caster.

The issue being brought up in the OP is that if you want to play Bob the Sword-Guy-Who-Isn't-A-Caster, and you don't want to sit around like a lump out of combat, your options are basically:

Rogue
Fighter with prodigy.

You see? The problem is when want to have a fighter, the class focused in fighting, getting all the fighting feats, be the king of the mountain in combat, and also want to be nice out of combat. No one can have everything.
Even that character has its use, with incredible Athletics, jump, bash, lift, row, swim... but if you want a full-combat fighter, and notice the name, what did you expected?

Shadow Monks are non-casters, most are skills mainly. It does not follow the rules of magic. Also get immunity to poison, or all languages.

Well the Arcane Trickster has its advantages, but the Thief in the other hand is better climbing (permanent), or can use any item.

You get Ritualist feat and you are not like a Wizard, sure!, if with a feat you are the same, but using d10 HP instead d6, and so many other things... Where is the feat to convert the Wizard into a Fighter with a spellbook? You can get the +2HP/lvl feat, but your hit die is d6, not d10 or even d8, and you don't get martial weapons or any other thing.

You are using Fighter and Barbarian as base of the argue, but those classes are fully combat oriented, so are not a good starting point.

The problem is when looking at "there are few possibilities", or Rogue, or Fighter, or... D&D is a game based on classes and archetypes, that is unavoidable, the degree of detail you are looking for could not be easy to get.
Anyway, do not get the simply names, and focus more on "what each one can do". Then, as mentioned, you can mold you character enough. Feats and multiclass allow a good degree of customization. Can get Fighter, then some lvl of Rogue to get Expertise and other things. And you will say, "it is Rogue again", it is Rogue because it needs to have a name, in D&D doesn't exist the concept of zero-template character. But you only get a character, that is good incombat, but also focused some of his learning in out of combat stuff.

And again, do not put labels with names, it is D&D, so it is made to be easy with clear names. What you have to do is get all that and fit into yours. You can get many kind of characters. But a STR 20 pure Fighter/Barbarian with all feats combat focused...well, it is so clear. Think on how many things a Gladiator would do.

In an ideal world, I would want everyone to have some capacity to contribute in a non-combat environment, but in practice if you're in a party of five or so, and you specced into a mostly-for-combat build, you likely won't have anything to do between fights other than normal diceless interactions.

Its a bit annoying for my party's barbarian if there's a session without much combat. I'd like to see some features that boost the Barbarian's ability to intimidate people, or the fighter's ability to direct troops.

I do think that the Barbarian and fighter are a little undertuned, particularly considering a featless, magic item-less game, and that's why I'd be Okay with them getting a free out-of-combat ribbon ability. I'd be a little more cautious doing so for the paladin, because the paladin already has so much going on.

You can, they need Intimidation and Persuasion skills proficiency.

I don't really think you're listening.

I run a game where the fact that it takes three months to get somewhere as opposed to 60 seconds is going to be the difference between success or failure.

I ALSO run a game where failure, including failure-by-not-showing-up, is more common than success.
For what you only need 13 levels of pure caster, get the spell, and cast the only one you have until next long rest. Travelling by the other way can be done at level 1. In those 13 levels, you lose: many HP, proficiencies, abilities, ASI, and etc. that other non-caster classes get. Depending the class, it can get utility or combat, but for a combat class is the normal, and in any case could use any of those extra ASI to get Skilled feat, getting 3 extra valuable proficiencies over the caster.

The problem could be your characters composition and the usage. Have your barbarian Intimidation proficiency?, have the Fighter Persuasion (by background or Skilled feat)?, if not, why not? If they want to do that kind of stuff out of combat.

In my group, the Fighter intimidates people, repairs and makes with smithing, the shadow monk disguises the group and cheats the people (Deception), with new features that are to come. I said the Fighter if he wanted to get some new skills by feats, as the Fighter gets so many ASI, and it is thinking about it. He is looking that maxing STR could not be the best option, a + or - 1 does not changes so much the game mechanics, so getting something more of utility could be convenient. It will be not fully-hyper-mega-maxed for combat, no STR 20!, well, can't pretend to have everything. And the monk is thinking about getting Skilled to complete his full freelance character, including Survival (for getting food by its own), and other 2.

Max_Killjoy

2018-12-21, 07:55 AM

Malifice

2018-12-21, 08:27 AM

I run a game where failure, including failure-by-not-showing-up, is more common than success.

Sounds like fun.

HappyDaze

2018-12-21, 08:34 AM

So the character was raised from early childhood to be nothing but a warrior, denied access to all other interests, never trained to maintain any gear or engage in any art or debate or anything? No hobbies, no poetry, no conversation, nothing?

Of course! That's why such dysfunctional people go off and become adventurers. Where else can they find non-stop opportunities for killing?

strangebloke

2018-12-21, 10:10 AM

Okay, communication problems, not conflicting definitions. The ideal behind the sandbox style of gaming is that the PCs decide what they want to do, go out and attempt to do it, and the immediate vicinity reacts to their actions and then they react to it. It isn't that plot cannot happen, it is merely that it is emergent from the actions of the players upon the world they inhabit. Plot exists, it is simply not the teleological plot that prepared modules and the like provide.
There's also the emergent plot, where stuff is happening all across the world and the PCs start out not really having a clear picture of it. Like, there can be an invasion from hell without the PCs personally having a chance to stop the ritual.

It's really just a setting where the world doesn't revolve around them, and IMO its very liberating.

Sounds like fun.
Aye, most my players like it.

If you're presented with three options of who to save, and you pick one, obviously it hurts to not be able to save two of them. But from a fiction perspective, it makes that choice more interesting.

langal

2018-12-21, 11:05 AM

From what I see on these forums, a good chunk of Fighters are probably optimized for DPR with 8's in Int/Wis/Charisma and maybe even Strength with all ASI's spent on combat feats or bumping combat attributes. They even optimize their choice of race for max theoretical DPR. Can't expect to be well-rounded if you're optimized for DPR.

Willie the Duck

2018-12-21, 11:06 AM

I'd question the idea that any character should ever be a "purely combat" character.

So the character was raised from early childhood to be nothing but a warrior, denied access to all other interests, never trained to maintain any gear or engage in any art or debate or anything? No hobbies, no poetry, no conversation, nothing?

Let's be clear. We are talking about abilities with rules-associated mechanics. There is no craft:poem skill or profession: artist skills like there were in 3e so that you don't have to weigh the decision between another combat perk and hobby skills.

Sounds like fun.

It seems rather like you are going out of your way to miss the values and advantages of sandbox gaming.

Max_Killjoy

2018-12-21, 11:23 AM

Let's be clear. We are talking about abilities with rules-associated mechanics. There is no craft:poem skill or profession: artist skills like there were in 3e so that you don't have to weigh the decision between another combat perk and hobby skills.

A character who is 100% combat....

No Stealth, no Investigation, no conversational/interpersonal Skills, no Tool Proficiencies, nothing tied to maintaining his own gear?

No Arcana, no History, no Medicine, no Nature, no Performance, no Religion, no Survival?

Willie the Duck

2018-12-21, 11:43 AM

A character who is 100% combat....

No Stealth, no Investigation, no conversational/interpersonal Skills, no Tool Proficiencies, nothing tied to maintaining his own gear?

No Arcana, no History, no Medicine, no Nature, no Performance, no Religion, no Survival?

Okay, are you asking me if that's what we are talking about or not? I'm not clear. That would be hard to do, but theoretically possible. But that is not the same as "denied access to all other interests, never trained to maintain any gear or engage in any art or debate or anything? No hobbies, no poetry, no conversation, nothing?" The rules do not put a mechanism in place for the existence/nonexistence of a character so devoid. There is not poetry or hobby proficiencies, and deliberately so (so far as I can tell).

Max_Killjoy

2018-12-21, 11:55 AM

Okay, are you asking me if that's what we are talking about or not? I'm not clear. That would be hard to do, but theoretically possible. But that is not the same as "denied access to all other interests, never trained to maintain any gear or engage in any art or debate or anything? No hobbies, no poetry, no conversation, nothing?" The rules do not put a mechanism in place for the existence/nonexistence of a character so devoid. There is not poetry or hobby proficiencies, and deliberately so (so far as I can tell).

What I'm saying is, a 100% combat character would have nothing that's useful or interesting or character-illuminating -- outside of hitting, damaging, and killing/breaking/subduing enemies and stuff.

A character who would be the equivalent of a non-sentient construct that can be counted on to bash the enemy and not bash friends, and that's about it -- that's a 100% combat, 0% non-combat character.

This is why if I were running 5e, I'd give out an extra open Skill to every character at creation to compensate, but tell every player that their character needs to have SOMETHING on their character sheet that's not related to adventuring or combat. The character who writes poetry doesn't have to take a level in Bard, but they can take Performance and play it as their poetry writing. The character who reads a lot can take History. The wizard who was a farm boy before discovering his talents and going off to apprentice can take Animal Handling. The devout character can take Religion. The Fighter who comes from a family of Sorcerers can take Arcane. Whatever. But SOMETHING, anything, to show me as the DM that the character had and has an existence outside of bashing, blasting, or bonking monsters and villains.

And no, the Backgrounds don't always cover this.

And no, I don't care about "but that's the X's job" based on Class.

If a player wanted a hard-core killer who spent every moment killing monsters, thinking about killing monsters, and/or preparing/training to kill monsters, then they can come to me with a good sales pitch on why this person is a monomaniac.

Willie the Duck

2018-12-21, 12:22 PM

What I'm saying is, a 100% combat character would have nothing that's useful or interesting or character-illuminating -- outside of hitting, damaging, and killing/breaking/subduing enemies and stuff.
A character who would be the equivalent of a non-sentient construct that can be counted on to bash the enemy and not bash friends, and that's about it -- that's a 100% combat, 0% non-combat character.

Okay. I think I got what you are discussing, I'm not sure about anyone else.
My position is that the rule structure is agnostic on the existence of such an individual. Characters can only be built up to 100% combat--as it pertains to the rule structures. If you choose to make your character with 100% combat focused character-build bits and bobs as a non-sentient construct enemy-hitting-machine or as a complicated warrior poet with an accounting degree and hopes and fears and reads bedtime stories to his kids in funny voices, they are both things you can declare your character to be.

This is why if I were running 5e, I'd give out an extra open Skill to every character at creation to compensate, but tell every player that their character needs to have SOMETHING on their character sheet that's not related to adventuring or combat. The character who writes poetry doesn't have to take a level in Bard, but they can take Performance and play it as their poetry writing. The character who reads a lot can take History. The wizard who was a farm boy before discovering his talents and going off to apprentice can take Animal Handling. Whatever. But SOMETHING, anything, to show me as the DM that the character had and has an existence outside of bashing, blasting, or bonking monsters and villains.

And I, otoh, am glad that the designers decided to move that back behind the build-option wall. That way these 'SOMETHING's do not have to compete with things you choose to make your character better at adventuring. We had entirely too much of that in 2e -- a complicated non-weapon proficiency system where you could make your character be good at calligraphy or flower arranging... or you could use those same resources to find one more combat edge to give the character.

I my my most recent 5e campaign. I had a Minotaur Eldritch Knight with a soldier background, who was a JAG lawyer-type who aspired to make a fortune and then settle down to become a quiet country lawyer and write his memoirs to be included among his favorite autobiographies. And the thing was he looked mechanically identical to a non-sentient hitting machine. He was a lawyer and nonfiction buff simply by us declaring it!

And no, the Backgrounds don't always cover this.

If a player wanted a hard-core killer who spent every moment killing monsters, thinking about killing monsters, and/or preparing to train monsters, then they can come to me with a good sales pitch on why this person is a monomaniac.

I played bitd when a lot of gaming was dungeon-crawling with 'characters' who were played as basically a board-game piece. Still, even then most people gave their 'guys' personalities. I don't really think there are that many people interested in such a character as you describe.