Being useless in combat is a personal choice that can absolutely be avoided without hampering your ability to be a skillmonkey. You won’t be obliterating the enemy en masse, but that’s what the casters are for.
Play a Thief rogue and have a blast with fast hands when initiative is rolled, or be almost any bard and hand out bardic inspiration while you stand as a mild speedbump of meat between the wizard and the enemy.
Or maybe chat with your DM about game expectations prior to playing? I know it’s an impossible ask for the internet at large.
Absolutely, there should be some level of “okay who stands in front of the skeletons, who fireballs the skeletons, who puts the fighter back together after they get fireball’d too, and who stops the whole party from getting killed by a trap before they even reach the battle”. If you’re gasp optimizing, you might even tailor your skillmonkey around the gaps in your party’s abilities - you probably don’t need the world’s best arcana checks with a wizard in the party, but it would be nice to grab face skills if you don’t have any other charismatic fellows around.
That is a lot more optimization than I’m used to. In my group people just come up with characters they want to play and the GM works with that.
Mind you, we do discuss what kind of game we’re playing so we don’t end up with four pure noncombatants doing a dungeon crawl. But ending up with four wizards? Yeah, that might happen or even be encouraged.
I really don’t wanna have to discuss who has to change their character concept because we need a healer or our party composition won’t be optimal.
The idea that players all make their characters in isolation and just show up on session 0 with them sounds like such a recipe for disaster. I know it can work sometimes, much like “just grab four things from the fridge and throw them into the soup” can work sometimes. But sometimes you get like gummy bear pizza bites with shrimp and mayo topping.
I think a lot of games that came after D&D figured out solutions to common problems, but D&D insists on staying kind of archaic.
Yeah ime players tell the gm what they’ve decided to play when they know and the understanding is they pick something that works with everything else. Or we all decide what we’re playing collaboratively, that way if we’re all squishy controllers at least it’s on purpose
I don’t hate D&D, but I did notice how much harder combat gets from DM’s side to prepare, and also how much more bored of it the players are. My players started doing everythign to spend more sessions on their own shenanigans, character moments, roleplay and NPC interactions. The thing is we love our campaign and characters, but are too high level to switch systems. So we’re taking break to play short Mage: the Ascension campaign.
I am now learnign two different new systems, Mage and WFRP, pray for me.
My personal favorite aspect with respect to combat is, “I look around, what objects and furniture are in the room?” Then proceed to use that stuff in combat. Long rug? I’ll attempt to trip the opponent by pulling it up. Chandelier? Yeah I’ll throw a hand axe and try to break that chain. Some DMs thrive off of it, some are put off.
Ooh, or my other trope: be a cleric with heavy armor and a shield. On your first turn in combat, walk out in front of everyone, cast Shield of Faith, and take the Dodge action. As a free action, yell “come at me, fucknuts!” If you can pick up the Shield spell, you’re mostly invulnerable, and it’s pretty much viable at level 1.
You are aware that most of DnDs mechanics are focused on simulating fights? If you do not like that, you are maybe playing the wrong system. Beyond that, how are you totally useless in combat? All classes get combat-abilities in one way or another and are designed to be at least moderately useful.
deleted by creator
Being useless in combat is a personal choice that can absolutely be avoided without hampering your ability to be a skillmonkey. You won’t be obliterating the enemy en masse, but that’s what the casters are for.
Play a Thief rogue and have a blast with fast hands when initiative is rolled, or be almost any bard and hand out bardic inspiration while you stand as a mild speedbump of meat between the wizard and the enemy.
Or maybe chat with your DM about game expectations prior to playing? I know it’s an impossible ask for the internet at large.
Chat with the whole party. Some of them might not be happy with you avoiding all the combat.
Absolutely, there should be some level of “okay who stands in front of the skeletons, who fireballs the skeletons, who puts the fighter back together after they get fireball’d too, and who stops the whole party from getting killed by a trap before they even reach the battle”. If you’re gasp optimizing, you might even tailor your skillmonkey around the gaps in your party’s abilities - you probably don’t need the world’s best arcana checks with a wizard in the party, but it would be nice to grab face skills if you don’t have any other charismatic fellows around.
That is a lot more optimization than I’m used to. In my group people just come up with characters they want to play and the GM works with that.
Mind you, we do discuss what kind of game we’re playing so we don’t end up with four pure noncombatants doing a dungeon crawl. But ending up with four wizards? Yeah, that might happen or even be encouraged.
I really don’t wanna have to discuss who has to change their character concept because we need a healer or our party composition won’t be optimal.
The idea that players all make their characters in isolation and just show up on session 0 with them sounds like such a recipe for disaster. I know it can work sometimes, much like “just grab four things from the fridge and throw them into the soup” can work sometimes. But sometimes you get like gummy bear pizza bites with shrimp and mayo topping.
I think a lot of games that came after D&D figured out solutions to common problems, but D&D insists on staying kind of archaic.
Yeah ime players tell the gm what they’ve decided to play when they know and the understanding is they pick something that works with everything else. Or we all decide what we’re playing collaboratively, that way if we’re all squishy controllers at least it’s on purpose
True in pathfinder, not so true in DnD 5ed
One of the reasons I despair D&D is the most popular RPG. It’s almost all combat, and not even great combat at that.
I don’t hate D&D, but I did notice how much harder combat gets from DM’s side to prepare, and also how much more bored of it the players are. My players started doing everythign to spend more sessions on their own shenanigans, character moments, roleplay and NPC interactions. The thing is we love our campaign and characters, but are too high level to switch systems. So we’re taking break to play short Mage: the Ascension campaign.
I am now learnign two different new systems, Mage and WFRP, pray for me.
My personal favorite aspect with respect to combat is, “I look around, what objects and furniture are in the room?” Then proceed to use that stuff in combat. Long rug? I’ll attempt to trip the opponent by pulling it up. Chandelier? Yeah I’ll throw a hand axe and try to break that chain. Some DMs thrive off of it, some are put off.
Ooh, or my other trope: be a cleric with heavy armor and a shield. On your first turn in combat, walk out in front of everyone, cast Shield of Faith, and take the Dodge action. As a free action, yell “come at me, fucknuts!” If you can pick up the Shield spell, you’re mostly invulnerable, and it’s pretty much viable at level 1.
You are my favourite kind of player.
You are aware that most of DnDs mechanics are focused on simulating fights? If you do not like that, you are maybe playing the wrong system. Beyond that, how are you totally useless in combat? All classes get combat-abilities in one way or another and are designed to be at least moderately useful.
deleted by creator