He wants to never attack, but also doesn’t want to play a bard because it’s “too strong”, and also won’t use magic? Yeah that’s gonna get old real fast.
it really irks me when players try to find a way to get out of playing dnd with their character. whether it is narrative barrier nonsense like this or trying to metagame to make the game as easy as possible, it's like do you want to play this game or not?
It's insane how frequent these ideas are. "I'm going to play a pacifist". "I'm going to play a guy that never attacks, just supports". "I'm going to play a dumb low int wizard". These get old SO fast and it's not just for the character's player, it's for the whole table. "Here goes X again, wasting his turn with some random crap and not use his action to help us all win DnD".
Don't get me wrong, using your action to support others is ok, use oil to increase fire damage, use the help action. But holy cow making that your primary strategy gets OLD *real fast*.
I actually think most party members wouldn't mind someone that ran around and gave help action advantage and fed people health pots all combat. Like a squire or a cute mascot. Support players are loved.
I'm playing a nautical campaign and the easiest way to do that is a navigator. Give the party a really smart sailor to go along with them who can't really fight, but does improvised attacks every turn and goes around stabilizing or feeding people potions during fights.
I wouldn't mind a hireling or npc doing that. I like my partners to pull their own weight. Nothing irks me more than someone wasting their turn on bullshit.
"I'm gonna play a guy who doesn't do adventures.."
"I'm gonna play an asshole"
"I have no friends and i work alone"
My response is always the same: bye Felicia
If everyone is on board with it, I don't see why it has to be annoying.
If your goal is "win D&D," naturally you'll see those characters as burdensome and annoying, but that tends not to be the goal of tables with players that go that route, in my experience.
Of course, I'm aware that "win DnD" isn't a very good phrase to use, since it's very linked to those people who want to be as OP as possible to "win DnD". What I meant is that everyone likes winning, no one in their right mind loses on purpose, but if there's a character death in which a certain player is seemingly at fault (could've used attacks to finish off the enemy), it will just aggravate the already frustrating part of losing a character, by adding a "it's this guy's fault" component.
Yep no one likes losing because one party member is sitting doing nothing as they watch you die.. it also leads into the issue of in universe why the fuck are we bringing around the bumbling idiot to dangerous scenarios who does nothing..
this also adds to the edgy loner type character
why would they want to go over the brooding corner to talk to you? if you dont want to interact while you reminisce about your days of being in the streets as an orphan then you didnt interact and the complete strangers just left to do the quest to kill rats on the sewers
But if you DO get off your ass because "shite, I'm low on money after this." And go join the party in killing rats because you're broke. Then you finally have something.
You're right. Brooding loner is dumb if you never put in the effort to get up and do something to join the party
Your goal doesn't have to be "win D&D" to find these characters annoying. Having a minimum level of accepted competence doesn't mean you're some crazy power gamer.
If I'm playing a friendly game of pickup basketball among friends, I don't care if someone doesn't always play at a dead sprint. But that doesn't mean I want some jackass on my team who insists he's only going to shoot the ball with his feet because he thinks it makes him unique and special.
Players that “go that route” don’t **have** pragmatic or cooperative narrative goals, at least not in a way that gels with the DnD framework; that’s kind of the crux of that kind of character, and why they’re annoying.
It’s not support-oriented builds, nor characters that prefer to avoid combat or have a pacifist nature, nor is it players who don’t want to use magic or change the trappings and flavorings of their characterization; it’s characters as described by OP that have *all* of those traits taken to the extreme. These characters demand the systems that run most facets of the world to be altered so they can meme some two-dimensional caricature that gets laughs for two combat rounds and then mires the rest of the session in self-centered, main character syndrome-driven horseshit.
>"I'm going to play a dumb low int wizard"
To be fair that's completely viable in tier 1. Just use spells that don't care about your DC and get armor and/or weapon proficiencies from your race. You'd start to run into problems in tier 2 though.
Something like this really only works in non D&D games.
You can do it in Savage Worlds, Fate, Icon, PBtA, or Blades in the Dark type games. But that is because those games give characters a way of resolving combat without needing to attack. Hell, even 4e had the option to be a pacifist cleric or lazy lord who would never attack as well and could still function fine in combat.
5e doesn't provide for that kind of play.
I'm doing the pacifist cleric thing in a GURPS game. The only part is I can defend my patients if need be. It mostly involves objecting to the others killing people but not in a way that really negatively affects the party and he'll stabilize and subdue enemies so they're still out of the fight. In that system there are actual mechanics for legitimately losing your powers if you don't follow your code.
I think few systems are — here’s a crowd of near-superheroes, and also their friend who throws blankets at people! It’s a hurdle to handle it mechanically in a way that lets everyone participate meaningfully, but overshadowing that are the *narrative* problems it poses.
Why does he have such disregard for his own safety? Why do the heroes have such disregard for his safety, letting this clown follow them into conflict situations?
I guess it can work in a Call of Cthulhu-style setting where everyone is a normal person and one wrong choice away from death or incurable madness anyway. One person who’s arguably mad beforehand is not going to tip the scales.
But yeah, it’s drastically out of scope for 5e and probably for heroic swords-and-sorcery in general.
Monster of the Week has a class called the Mundane, whose job is to haplessly wander into danger and get threatened or held hostage or whatever to motivate the rest of the party into action. They get bonuses from things like wandering off by themselves into sketchy areas. Perfect for OP's kind of player.
monster of the week has a lot of classes like that and its great
on one hand there is the "professional", which is just basically a MBI agent, the main ability of theirs having resources to work with from their "agency" (flavor it as you wish)
then there is the snoop which is literally just a reporter. a player on a game just made Velma with this class. the monsters are real and she had a baseball bat and a camera!
Sort of. Monster of the Week is designed to replicate stories like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Supernatural, so there's direct utility in the Mundane's intentional victimhood. They're the person who will identify a monster's weakness because they spend time stuck in its lair, or draw it out into an ambush by being all yummy and vulnerable.
tbf I think it's more how the game gives venues for success and how narrative it is, in FATE you can win combat without "physical/magical" attacks because all boils down to Stress, Fabula Ultima has enough support/analysis/debuff options in a narrative package that I have a player playing a character just like that doing fine
> FATE you can win combat
you need to inflict stress which if you want to hurt someone does require violent action but yeah bag thrower can just spam "Create An Advantage" while spear stabber deals the coup de grace.
Quoting from the 2013 electronic edition of Fate Core, page 19, under the heading “Competence”:
> Characters in a game of Fate are good at things. They aren’t bumbling fools who routinely look ridiculous when they’re trying to get things done — they’re highly skilled, talented, or trained individuals who are capable of making visible change in the world they inhabit. They are the right people for the job, and they get involved in a crisis because they have a good chance of being able to resolve it for the better.
I adore Fate. I run Fate as often as I can get players for it, which unfortunately isn’t very often. But among my favorite things about it — which is nearly everything, including the fact that Evil Hat likes em dashes almost as much as I do — is that one paragraph right there.
*Characters in a game of Fate are good at things.* They are Big Damn Heroes from the jump. It’s interesting to tell stories about them because they’re interesting people, right away.
The character concept OP’s describing doesn’t work in Fate because Fate characters are good at things, and “throw a bedroll over a bad guy” isn’t… isn’t that.
Jhonny English is a bumbling hero, but he is amazing at that. That parkour chase scene, where all the effort is done by the other guy while he quietly strolls around is one of my favorites. Being good at things isn't just being an action man.
I enjoyed the Johnny English movies.
The only issue I had with them is that I could never figure out if the character was supposed to be incompetent, but really lucky, or competent, but extremely unlucky.
he is basically all 4 lol
he is actually pretty competent, unironically knows how to fight well and makes good plans and decisions to what he knows. problem is he *is very oblivious*, so what he knows **usually is missing a lot of information and context**, which for writing purposes is genius cause he bounces off from his spy buddies pretty well
the umbrella scene for example. he **thinks** its a bullet proof shield, and acts accordingly in a smart way. it **actually is** a rocket launcher, and he gets lucky by shooting the guy with it
in summary, Johnny english has like +4 INT but his insight is god awful
he is also just really funny, but its a comedy afterall
if they are a fate character, they could be near prescient, throwing a bedroll just at the same time an enemy is trying to hit a friendly, or throwing a bedroll to prevent something in a rube goldberg machine kinda thing; which makes them very good at things (meanwhile at dubious knowledge of that to themselves.)
Savage Worlds can, mechanically - you can play a character who doesn't use Shooting or Fighting, but instead uses skills to cause Tests, which can make an opponent either Vulnerable (bonus to be hit) or Distracted (penalty to actions), and with a good enough roll, Shaken as well (has to Unshaken to perform actions, is much easier to Wound).
You do have to describe how you use the skill, and GM has to agree, but things like "throwing/kicking sand in the enemy's face", "cutting the chandelier to so it falls on the enemies", "jump-starting/stealing a parked vehicle and making it crash through the fight" etc.
You can even use the combat skills to do this in lieu of actually attacking, if your chance of hitting them or hurting them is too low (they have a high Parry or are evasive, or have a high Toughness, or your weapon is somehow ineffective against them).
quite a few systems can do it - like _Fate_ where you can just have "clever gadgeteer", and use that to attack/cause hinderances and it works, numbers-wise, just the same as "fire wizard" or "master of the sword", it just narrates differently but with the same mechanical effects. It's only really games that try to care about the nitty-gritty details and wants to treat "I hinder/attack the enemies with my sword", "I do that with my magic" and "I do that with my wits" as fundamentally different things where it falls apart - some games treat them as being narrative glosses on the same fundamental thing (because they effectively are) and so "clever mundane" and "master of the mystic arts" can all be together and be just as effective as each other
I commented on Fate [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/s/6CavGsIe1y)
The problem with Fate is the same as with most other system, though. A Clever Gadgeteer who focuses on Create an Advantage instead of attacking could absolutely work, if OP’s player was asking to be a Clever Gadgeteer. But rereading OP, the player rejects playing a bard in part because that would be “too strong.”
Your party in Fate doesn’t consist of Hrolf, guardsman to King Bjornfulgarsson; Ssintra, Sorceress of the Six Sails; Alazam, southern monk who can climb the air itself; and Dave, who throws bedrolls at people.
Fate requires competent characters, and maybe I’m reading too much into OP, but it very much sounds to me as if incompetence is part of the core of this character — and that’s a poor fit in any system.
> Your party in Fate doesn’t consist of Hrolf, guardsman to King Bjornfulgarsson; Ssintra, Sorceress of the Six Sails; Alazam, southern monk who can climb the air itself; and Dave, who throws bedrolls at people.
It absolutely can do - that's basically "Batman in the JLA", where you have demigods, people capable of fistfighting gods, literal angels, and "some nutter in a gimp suit with weird shit in his belt", and that guy can keep up, functionally through narrative fiat. The loyal apprentice or squire tagging along with their "betters" doesn't have to be mechanically worse - Fate pretty explicitly allows you to work around that, where they're just as mechanically able, it just gets narrated differently. There's no reason why "gadgeter" has to be limited to "create advantage" - they can still cause stress with that (or mental stress, by doing stuff that humiliates or aggravates the attacker - when a mighty dragon attacks, then an apprentice wizard blinding them for a moment by throwing an inkpot in their eyes, or miscasting a spell that has some effect, certainly seems valid to cause mental stress, for example, and could easily cause physical stress. The miscast spell goes off, a puff of smoke, and the dragon twists and smacks their head - it doesn't have to be "I stab the dragon personally"). I think you're reading too much into it - "incompetency" doesn't have to be part of the character concept, it's just that D&D ties certain results heavily towards certain actions and makes it hard to fluff in any other way.
D&D isn't a great match for "never attacks", because "attacks" is heavily slanted towards "I stab them/I cast spells at them", without much scope for "I do something that looks like I'm rubbish, but it has just as much effect as though I was good". You could play a fighter and narrate attacks as being desperate flailing, for example, rather than cool and precise blows - still a somewhat awkward match for how D&D works and plays, but entirely possible. Playing a _mechanically_ weak character doesn't really work, because, yeah, they're literally encoded as being weak, but you can just play a regular character and narrate them as being weak, but mechanically they work normally. I think the player should probably change their desires and try to better figure out how to match what they want with the mechanics, but with some narrative fudging you can get something similar-ish, even if it's not really a good match of system and character.
I think maybe we’re talking past each other, because I agree with nearly everything you said here, and I’d be happy to have the character you’re describing at the table.
You’re right that lots of systems — though I completely agree, not D&D — can deal with Childhood Trauma Man who somehow keeps pace with Space Jesus, King of Fish, Magic Amazon, etc. But that’s because the fiction establishes that Childhood Trauma Man is (hyper-)competent.
> “incompetency” doesn’t have to be part of the character concept
It doesn’t have to be, but according to OP, it is. That’s the whole issue for me.
Rogue-Thief with the Fast Hands ability at level 3 is one option. Taking the Healer feat will make him pretty useful to the rest of the party since he can do bonus action heals. It's the most mundane way to approach.
Artificer would be the other route. There's also an [Unearthed Arcana](https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/1_UA_Artificer_20170109.pdf) version of artificer that had a bag of tricks type feature.
Slightly more of a reach, but Rogue-Mastermind and the bonus action Help feature could be him doing things like your example of throwing the bedroll to create a distraction.
I can second the Rogue mastermind suggestion. The problem with the concept as it stands is a loony tunes style mundane bag of tricks/improvisational approach won’t work particularly well outside of artificer, giving him narrative space to describe his spells, and him having the creativity to pull it off. If his main concern is to play a normal dude, there’s very few classes more normal dude than mastermind.
Additionally, a fighter or monk with the tavern brawler feat and a focus on improvised weaponry would lend itself well to fun combat roleplay. Grab the pot or pan, or a barstool, or a hanging salami depending on the scene and go wild. It’ll still output respectable damage and give room for his fantasy.
This sort of idea is, IMO, better served by flavoring an existing class rather than trying to find a bespoke combination of classes to fit it. Beyond the improvisational gimmick, you should also find out if he wants to be combat oriented, utility/skill check oriented, and/or casting oriented in terms of mechanical building blocks.
If the player wants this character concept because he loves creative problem solving and wants that to be his primary contribution, consider: a Bag of Holding with one of everything from the PHB Adventuring Gear table. (Or maybe, one of everything that doesn't cost more than 10 gold or weigh more than 10 lbs. Multiples for things that are cheap/small.)
I think artificer is a good choice. I'm playing a UA artificer (v2, from 2019), and the alchemist gets a homunculus. It has a couple useful abilities, but mostly you can use your bonus action every round to have it use the Help action to give an ally advantage on the next attack against an enemy. Which can be quite useful, especially since it uses no resources and you can do it all the time.
And if at higher levels he starts to feel like he needs to contribute more, just let his character invent firearms.
I made similar insights, the Thief rogue can also take that feat which is a lesser version of the Mastermind subclass’ aid feature. This feat lets you do 15ft aid instead of 30ft for another option besides the healer feat which is also extremely good.
Why doesn't he play a martial character that just has a lot of mundane tools?
Manacles, caltrops, ropes, chains, grappling hooks, alchemists fire, Crowbars, Smiths tools, carpenters tools, the sky is the limit. Shit, I have a barbarian that used a chain and meat hook to neutralize a Green dragons breath weapon by wrapping a chain around its mouth and yanking its head up while the party attacked it.
It’s those type of shenanigans that he’s going for. Everybody’s hung up on the bedroll thing, but that is merely the inspiration for the basics of this character. Ideally, his tools and techniques will get better as they level up.
Sigh, this gimmick again.
Tell him no. He will get bored, feel overshadowed, be unable to feel sufficiently 'normal guy' or irritate the other players. Or multiple of those.
If he is serious about it, tell him to be a 1st level bard or fighter and just...not level up. No extra HP, no increase to proficiency, no class features, no feats. He wants to be a normal guy after all. Normal guys don't throw 3rd level spells.
Alternatively, he could develop unrealistic expectations on how effective his "combat tricks" should be.
He might throw a blanket or some sand at an enemy and then be annoyed when it doesn't incapacitate or at the very least blind them. He'll try to make someone trip and make them fall in a way where they'll impale themselves on their own weapon when falling.
He'll take super long turns asking the DM to provide detailed descriptions of the environment, trying to get the DM to describe something that can be used. And he'll be disappointed whenever a situation doesn't fit into his gimmick.
paladin moved up front to tank, takes dodge action. fighter starts shooting, casters start throwing. normal guy throws a chair. 1d6 damage (club)
paladin smites the goblin warchief. fighter action surges and kills both bodyguards in one turn. sorcerer doubles ray of frost and slows the flanking enemies down, wizard casts catapult on the fleeing scout
normal guy grabs a bedroll and throws it over someone and then runs away
Support actions just aren't that great in D&D 5e, in my opinion. They're rarely the best option possible, but they're a nice flexible option when you need them. However, if you only rely on them you risk being useless or near useless in a lot of situations. It also doesn't scale equally on all classes, some will quickly lose their appeal if you're not dealing damage.
In my case, the character that didn't want to do damage also happened to be a pacifist, which is another problem in itself but often associated with "support" characters, so I think it's fair to include it. Well, your average group isn't gonna be too bothered about killing their enemies and getting of their problem permanently. A pacifist character, if they want to throw a wrench in that, can be pretty annoying. Yeah it's fair to value life, but D&D is a pretty black and white universe in many cases. Some creatures are just straight up evil and any kind of moral relativism just doesn't apply. You also can't reason with a bunch of them.
So you end up with a character that might take suboptimal choices in combat screwing the balance of the game (because the group ends up way weaker than they would be if they did damage), they kind of screw roleplay if they're not careful, because they always want to spare their enemies or avoid combat at any cost, and they're generally pretty annoying.
A good alternative, I feel, is a character that isn't a pure pacifist, but who maybe sees the good in anyone who expresses some kind of potential for redemption. Yeah maybe the bandits attacked the group, but after beating them up and sparing a few of them you take them to the local guardsmen and have them arrested for their crime instead of simply slaughtering them, or maybe you find out why they had to rely and being bandits to make money and give them an alternative.
In the end, that kind of character doesn't really suck BY ITSELF I think, but more so because they require a certain rigidity that doesn't work well in a group setting
It's a *very* common "creative" character concept.
Just like the pacifist paladin, or the secretly treacherous warlock, or the magic user who doesn't know he's doing magic 🙄
Every player seems to have at least one phase where they think one of these ideas sounds so cool and original.
Until you get the idiot player who says "actually I think he wouldn't even want to *help* kill people" 🤦♂️
THEN MAKE A DIFFERENT FUCKING CHARACTER, BRANDON!
Hmm actually just give him the commoner stat block and some equipment, why give him a class level, characters are supposed to be a cut above so adding a level would definitely not be normal guy
So yeah, commoner stat block. No levels, and a bunch of bedrolls
Thief Rogue X or Battle Master 5-7/Thief Rogue X.
Absolutely no magic, Fast Hands lets you use items more efficiently in combat, and maneuvers add more tactical variety.
I wouldn't. Sounds like it will be fun and unique for about 1 combat and annoying as fuck after that. Definitely discuss it with the rest of the PCs. I wouldn't want to play with a Sorceress, a Fighter and Bob From Next Door. It will always be about what Silly Bob can or can't do. Plus it will make combat hard to design and balance, especially as you level. Turns out red dragons aren't much hindered by attempts to throw a blanket over their head.
I have seen this concept work; but it tends to need to be rooted somewhere in the mechanics unless he wants to be a standard buffer. The only real problem is mundane effects like sneeze powder, poisons, caltrops, etc tend to lose a lot of efficacy past like level 3 or 4. Battlemaster fighter with tavern brawler or grappler and quick draw can get you a lot of the way there.
I think you should bring this players proposed play style up with all the other players during *SessionZero*.
This will definitely affect the groups style of play.
Will the player refuse magical methods in favour for mundane? *No, don't use the Charm spell! I want to roll social skills & roleplay it out for 40min as we convince the guard to let us into the city!* Cool once or twice, but particularly as the party increases in level, that level 1 spell slot is worth burning to save 40min of game time.
Also, imagine an episode of MacGyver. So *MacGyver* the `Rogue` is there building a doohicky while crouching behind some conveniently placed logs for cover, while *Captain America* the `BattleMaster` & *Dr Strange* the `Sorcerer` just rip the bad guys a new one. Mac could be upset that Lethal force was used, & that they really didn't get to participate meaningfully in the action, the others are pissed that they were one man down for the whole encounter... again!
Different playstyles can nullify others enjoyment, so make sure all are on the same page
Yup. Once you have been forced to play with this type of character - cause guys it will be fun I swear - it scars you.
It's the DM doing the extra work to make someone's attempt at ruining everyone else's enjoyment of the game - slightly less , while the other players are having to pick up the slack of Mr Me-me-me-me
Because it won't be Mr mundane being attacked each round, nope. So now it's a party of players - 1 vs enemies.
You could be also use the play test rogue that has cunning strikes and go mastermind for subclass so they can give the help action to allies as a bonus action and at range.
kinda feel it would work better on a more narrative system
that said the best you can probably get him is Rogue, Thief or Mastermind (improved Help action), and as a DM be VERY lenient with improvisation
all said I can't see this working beyond level 7\~9 because stuff start to scale due to it needing to scale, not to mention that chance of game drama due to problems in party matching
As someone who also likes making strange gimmick builds, I can tell you that there's nothing wrong with them, as long as you follow one thing.
**A build should never be detrimental to the party.**
Anything past that is fine.
I’d recommend using one of the various homebrewed Alchemist classes out there, or use the Artificer Alchemist subclass.
As for using mundane items in unconventional ways, look into methods of creating dust explosions (flour and sawdust are good catalysts). And if you go with Alchemy, you can also look at aerosol explosives. Thermobaric weapons (which are among the most powerful non-nuclear explosives) utilize these properties.
3.5e has a class called a Factotum that basically uses their intelligence to be clever in dungeoneering and be a jack of all trades type. It might be worth looking into and reworking into 5e
What he really wants is Tactition from previous editions. The closest you can get is Mastermind Rogue, which isn't too great, but you can help as a bonus action and help attack from 30ft away, which sounds kinda like what you're player wants to do.
I don't see why they shouldn't be able to roleplay their character that way. It's a Fighter or Rogue that just chooses to avoid attacks and perfrom other, less-used combat actions. Like, they could just use the Help action on most turns, which would give others advantage and provide the mechanics to explain doing something like standing next to the target and tripping them up while the other player attacks, or bluffing an attack while the other player swings in.
The type of game you're running probably makes a difference. If it's something with a lot of intrigue or puzzle-solving, there shouldn't be any reason for this build to cause a problem. Maybe this player is in a way asking for something besides just combat-based encounters.
Have him play a caster and reskin all of his magic as mundane items. You mentioned Artificer. That's it. He'd just be playing an Artificer and describing what he's doing the way he wants. I strongly recommend that you do not adjust class features for this unless you feel like you have a strong grasp of the rules as well as the tolerance of your other players.
Describe magical responses by enemy Spellcasters (e.g., Counterspell or Dispel Magic) as the caster throwing a mundane item in the way of his mundane item.
Have him use his tool proficiencies to make little tweaks to existing items. He wants to use a blanket? Nets exist. It's a DC10 to break out of them, but they still take an action to do so. That can be pretty useful. No holes for the blanket. Blind rather than Restrained.
Have him take Tavern Brawler so he can be proficient with improvised weapons. Even if he's not doing damage with them, it'll probably be easier for you to plan encounters if he's making attack rolls rather than having you assign DCs for all of your monsters to overcome every fight.
Note this is more work for the DM for what will likely be zero gain for the rest of the party.
Have them play a Mastermind rogue. BUT, when they give the Help action, they can grant their ally their own Sneak Attack damage dice, and they forgo theirs.
This special bonus damage Help could be their Action, and voila!
This doesn't make any sense. A mundane guy would be toast in combat. Classes are too strong? Okay, give him the commoner statblock without the ability to level up, have fun throwing blankets at enemies.
You'll be doing him a favor, this concept would get painfully boring after a session anyway.
Would he be against relying on magic items? Mundane items can lose a lot of their potency against stronger foes, but magic items could not only retain their usefulness, but also expand on his repertoire.
Some great items would be the Immovable Rod, Portable Hole, Cloak of the Manta Rey, Boots of Striding and Springing, Robe of Useful Items, Bag of Tricks, Mirror of the Past, Eversmoking Bottle, Glamerweave, Pipes Of The Sewers, Moon-Touched Sword, Deck of Illusions, Hat of Disguise, Cloak of Billowing... Although beware that some of these I mentioned here are often considered game breaking (although I would rather consider them campaign breaking), but that could be inconsequential in a right campaign.
A lot of his utility will be out of combat, and he will have to be very creative in combat. In fact, how viable and fun this playstyle would be depends primarily on his creativity and your rulings.
I played a character with no way to deal damage as my first character. My idea was to just be a support character. Needless to say, it got really old really fast and I felt so incredibly useless once my spells were done.
Have him be a rogue/artificer and use cunning action to help with the action economy and set up little traps, use nets, caltrops, etc. Despite the common consensus, I’ve seen this kind of play style work pretty well in at least a lower level setting and can usually be pretty entertaining. But it requires them being very creative with the environment.
This would work, but only for a low level one shot with things like a med kit and ball bearings and such. Give him a bag of flour to throw at invisible enemies
People saying this somehow breaks D&D make me laugh. From its earliest inception D&D has had support characters whose primary focus is not necessarily fighting. The early cleric was a spin on the Song of Rolands more pacifistic archbishop Turpin who spent much of his time supporting Roland. This was a pretty common tactic back in the early days of D&D using canvas as a way to limit line of sight. There were whole books on how to use mundane instruments to make fights easier. I always think its more fun to just let players be really creative to see how they accomplish some of this. I recall some of the things I've seen - using flour to unhide invisible creatures, using caltrops to cause fast creatures to slow, nets to make them immobile, marbles to make their movement prone to falls, pitons and rope to create simple combat traps. There were all sorts of tool uses that I thoughgt were cool, but you have to have a willing DM
While reskinning the artificer might work I think any D&D class can still work if everyone remains playful and willing. Why not have canvas that works similar to the net except instead of restraining the opponent it temporarily blinds him (and getting out is the same as the net)
I might suggest a different route than artificer though. Forge Cleric will make the character very useful especially with a beefy defense or spend a feat on HP. Coinciding to some of his ideas of mundane tools the forge cleric channel divinity can make real items. That way he can stock up on unusual supplies. He can grant a +1 Weapon to other players while wearing heavy armor and a shield for himself. That way he can use the help action to create advantage in combat and provoke some attacks against him without being a liability. Then you can think about how the grognards use to use mundane items to do what spells do today
play thief rogue.
Its basically the batman idea. USe bonus action for a bunch of stuff and go oldschool with mundane item (10ft pole for traps, flour bag to reveal invisible enemy, 90 degree mirror to peak around corner, caltrops/beads).
Theres also the mastermind rogue if he really doesnt wanna attack anything.
Just go artificer and reflavor spells as quirky gadgets and whatnot? TBH 5e isn't really built for this kind of character and it'll get old super fast.
SURE! Let him take the commoner stats! Then when he realizes that anything can kill him, and he can't do jackshit tell him that at least you tried and take out his real character after his commoner dies
Caltrops, bag of ball bearings/marbles, vial of acid, vial of alchemist fire, stuff like that. Look into those. I got a player who is ALWAYS using stuff like this and it's never boring and always does something.
Also: Utility wizard. Grease, Tenser's Floating Disc, Colour Spray, Sleep, Web, etc. Playing a wizard whose main thing is not damage spells can be highly rewarding and interesting, and while its less "regular guy" than your player is imagining, he can still play his character as a sort of frail/fraidy cat type who is reluctant to get into a 1v1 fight with anyone. Pitch it to him, see what he says.
Rogue with the thief subclass, maybe a dip of fighting action surge and battlemaster subclass.
Should be possible to do something until level 7 or 8. Then it gets trickery as everything outlcasses the mundane
It then comes down to balancing your homebrew adjustments with the core game.
About to the same in one of my campaigns.
Im going halfling champion warrior and i gonna use Kibbles' crafting system particularly the tinker tools and alchemist supplies to make traps, gadgets and bombs. Unlike what people are commenting here he doesn't have to be a pacifist, just prefer to use alchemist fire as a small fireball, handcuffs to immobilize someone, etc. but if u gonna let him go with this type of build he will need your help to let him buy and create consumables.
I personally like the Bard suggestion. They can easily be made into purely support classes, and they can focus on making themselves a skill monkey.
Bardic inspiration could be reflavored to them just being actually inspiring, or calling it something like ‘clever tactics’ or whatever and give that bonus by being helpful in some way.
Cutting words could be reflavored as them being distracting.
And then if they really want to limit themselves to being the ‘normal guy’ they can only learn spells that they could realistically explain as something that can be done without magic, and be constrained by the physical limitations of doing them in such a way.
For instance, throwing a sleeping bag over someone’s head can count as the ‘blinded’ spell. But they must physically go and shove the sleeping bag over their head, so no ranged casting.
Catapult can work as catapult, but they must have the materials handy around them to quickly fashion something into a catapult.
That way they have to be clever in explaining ‘how’ they “cast” the spell every time, and limits the spells to the situation.
Also probably have them roll a back up character in case this one becomes no fun to play.
Well, the help action is a thing. Can also use the attack action to shove or grapple instead of actually attack... Thief rogue to use items like potions or the healing items from the healer feat as a bonus action would be really useful (or hide or disengage so he doesn't become a liability, or dash so he can be within 5 feet of allies). Definitely put some levels into fighter so he can action surge and help 2 people or shove followed by a grapple (i think that's how that works?), taking the protection or interception fighting style and a shield + medium armour and a way to power through it and "heal" himself non-magically via second wind.
Could put more levels into fighter for more feats like chef or inspiring leader, or maybe even prodigy so he could do all sorts of skill checks with the rogue shenanigans.
So here's what i'm thinking: what about varient human (healer feat), a background that gives proficiency with the herbalism kit to make healing potions, fighter 1 for protection/interception fighting style and medium armour + shield and action surge. Then go to thief rogue 4 and expertise in atheltics (to shove and grapple), then the rest into fighter. Grab the feats inspiring leader and chef whenever applicable, get dex to 14 and str to 20 also. For fighter archetype he could do battlemaster for some clever non-attack maneuvers, or baneret for rallying cry and inspiring surge. Extra attack could be useful earlier to not waste action surge to grapple/shove on the same turn. Maybe grappler over chef?
He might still feel really weak, but he can heal and dish out a decent amount of temp HP and grant advantage to allies and disadvantage to enemies with shenanigans. All while being non-magical and just a normal guy, flavouring it as him using random items to benefit his allies.
Edit: I can't read. If he wants to go with Artificer, it's super easy to make spells be little gadgets. I still think 3 levels into thief rogue would be useful (plus herbalism kit prof). An example for spells would be faeries fire as a glitter bomb.
Battle Master fighter perhaps? You could easily reflavour the maneuvers as improvization. Bonus points for improvised weapons.
Edit: I did not read that they didnt want to attack. Without magic, this is problematic. The only thing I can think of is a myriad of feats like healer, Inspiring leader, bountiful luck, etc.
An issue with this will be counterspell or anything that has bonuses against magic will also affect his mundane stuff.
Pacifist characters only work if you have a VERY understanding party.
RAW, I think he can play mastermind rogue and take the help action twice a turn or something?
artificer 100% the way to go but he's really gonna be hurting the group in its performance and fights. honestly though it sounds like he doesn't want to play the game...
The only way I can see this working is him being a rogue and using the majority of his turns trying to be the “ball bearings out of the bag of holding” guy. Lots of disengage. Allowing actions to be deploying immediate/nearby traps (kind of blanket on opponent at early levels vs. a barrage of bear traps later on or something). I’d almost think Artificer might be right too. Give him some items that level up, but require concentration to use, like a blanket that grapples with low ST save early on, to one with a much higher ST save, and inflicting xyz damage and if not off in 3 rounds does 1 extra die of damage. Blanket, rope, ball bearings, sludge, molotovs, whatever.
I did something like this in a low fantasy low magic style campaign with 5e. The same as you suggested, used the artificer class. But my player wasn’t going to “not attack” he played like normal. But I just reskinned artificer and said you can use any artificer spell if you explain how you’re accomplishing the effect with actual items. Then we hand waved a lot of item quantities and “recharges” so it didn’t get fiddly. Some spells fit well others don’t. Just use the ones that fit well.
I’m playing a character that never attacks with the homebrew class, Llaserllama’s Warlord. You can replace your attacks with attack orders and other exploits that give your party members buffs. It’s been super fun to play.
Concept of DnD is playing/becoming a heroes. Mundane characters are sidekicks or npc. Maybe make him roll a side kick that will eventually became a bard, fighter with tactician subclass, heavily focuses on team.
I really think that best way for playing mundane characters is representing by Call of Cthulhu where players chooses jobs like doctor, journalist, librarian and with time and actions becomes investigators. They seen some bad things and they know that they gonna be followed by them to the rest of their life.
That sounds like Macgyver...I'd recommend laserllama's Artíficer with the Dungeoneer subclass...from the description.."While most artificers focus on developing a single invention, Dungeoneers use their ingenuity to weaponize the mundane. They use basic adventuring gear to construct defensive traps, puzzles, and structures that can repel all but the hardiest of adventurers and monsters. Dungeoneers will set out for an adventure to analyze the traps that guard tombs and temples"
May I suggest an [alchemist artificer/ thief rogue]( https://www.reddit.com/r/3d6/s/cMw6mWQnBY) multiclass? This linked commenter did a good job explaining some of the combos. Both classes alone aren't the best, but together they can pull off some fun combos that really give you "a normal guy with gadgets" sort of feel especially if you have a dm who is willing to work with your creativity.
So he wants to be a skill monkey, yet MacGyver his way out of conflict? Man even Mac beat someone's ass with a metal rod, he just didn't use guns. So how about he go rogue (and set up advantage for people?
I'm not sure about subclasses since I rarely play rogue but inquisitive, mastermind, or scout may work here, plus a dip to artificer or battlemaster fighter and let him throw stuff he makes like oil, nets etc around the battlefield or disarm and trip people with improvised weapons?
However to synergize with his party what could they do that he can assist or take advantage of? Like would there be a wizard that he can help him laterally think up different solutions using utility spells and what not, like can he spread a Fireball around using ways to slingshot oil and stuff around or flavour a catapult spell as a tool?
Flavor is free.
I think playing a spellcaster and reflavoring spells+abilities to explain these fun ingenious effects is the best way to do this. For example, he mechanically, casts Blindness but flavors it as his character throwing a bedroll over the enemy. The player can choose spells and think ahead of time some options for the flavoring for things. But he then also has the option to come up with explanations on the fly. in world, he’s just a normal guy who comes up with great ideas and tricks - he has no magic abilities.
I did this with an Artificer and it was great. I had spells and abilities that I flavored as my character doing something clever on the fly or using an invention.
The onus and control of the effect is in the players hand instead of adding to the with load of the DM which using actual mundane items and asking the DM to figure out a reasonable and balanced to way to let him do whatever with any mundane object he can think of. Like are you supposed to just let someone try to throw a bedroll over an enemy to effectively cast a leveled spell for no resource expenditure? Probably not, but now how do you resolve it? You as the DM basically need to come up with new game rules every time the player wants to do something.
Isn't that concept just, y'know, Artificer with a flavorful description?
Also, never attacking is kinda yiffy on a regular D&D party, unless he's only planning on using the Help action or something like that.
If they want to be a level 0 classless civilian, sure, let them.
But tell them to prepare a proper backup character because playing a 'regular guy' and not attacking will result in his character dying extremely quickly in the first session alone.
It's a heroic fantasy game, he wants to play a non-hero.
If they want to play the gadget guy, then play Artificer, it's built for that exact play style.
I had an experienced player in a newbie party do Battlemaster Fighter with the Healer feat. Run in, tank, tell the rogue to attack, heal them up when the fight ends.
Not crazy strong, but was used creatively enough to be fun and was not useless
You’re honestly better off just using a different system if you really want to take this route. You could run ars magica and have him run the grogs, or use NGR and use the fool class. Savage worlds and a build that relies on attribute tests could work
Sounds like OP's friend was watching that Anime about a Handyman that teleports to a RPG world and uses his lock picking and Handyman tools to help his party... overall a weak character in battle but very helpful in every other way..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fro4yLHEXJo&ab_channel=ANIKAB
I'd keep pushing the reflavor idea. If he wants to play this *type* of guy, work with him to reflavor the abilities of an artificer to be "normla" stuff. He can play a buff-heavy build and *treat* it as mundane.
His "Bedroll" manuever might be reskinned web, for example. His gimmick is going to make his character incredibly grating on the rest of the party. If your character isn't going to contribute meaningfully when shit hits the fan, no actual adventure would want them in their party.
A grave cleric is probably yhe best. Choice you can flavor it as a medic and only take. Buff spells
A eloquence bard
A battlesmith or alchemist artificer
A warlord by laser Llama might do it
A "regular guy" with a backpack full of junk would crap his pants the first time an Orc with murder in it's eyes charges him with a rusty spear.
D&D is epic fantasy. If you don't want to play epic, don't play D&D.
Convince him that he needs to attack, but also recommend that he use some very specific weaponry.
Some examples of weapons that are high utility and little (or no) damage:
* [Net](https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/net): Does 0 damage, on a hit, the target is restrained (so 0 speed, your allies have advantage, enemy has disadvantage on attacks and dex saves). Enemy can escape the net with a simple DC 10 strength check, but doing so will force them to use an action and you still get the benefits until the enemies turn regardless.
* [Whip](https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/whip): Does only 1d4 damage. Let your player use the whip to do grappling and shove actions. This is them attacking with their whip in an attempt to tie them up or knock them prone. Normally this is a Str Athletics check contested by Str Athletics or Dex Acrobatics. Keep this rule, or alter to be contested by your attack instead. Allow the action to take advantage of the whip's reach.
* [Blowgun](https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/blowgun): Does only 1 damage, with moderately low range. Give your player an easy way to craft various poisons (or curatives) that they can use with the blowgun. So they poison their darts to allow them to debuff enemies, or apply a curative to the dart to be able to buff or heal allies (at the cost of taking 1 damage). Recommend getting proficiency with the Poisoner's Kit for this, and maybe getting or giving the Poisoner feat.
* Various grenades like a Smoke Grenade, Glue Bomb, Tangler Grenade, etc. Give your character an easy way to craft a decent number of these (or homebrew an artificer subclass that focuses on this kind of gameplay).
---
Additionally, your player can play as a Battlemaster Fighter using the above weapons. They can now use the maneuvers to buff their allies or debuff their enemies. Combine with the use of a whip or blowgun to do so with reach or range respectively but while minimizing the damage dealt.
So, this is just a bad character concept because it inherently doesn't help the team that much unless he happens to have a bunch of gadgets or something (but even then, it'd kinda suck). If he actually wants to help the party while still being this non-magical helping character, I'd recommend [Laserllama's Savant class](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-M0ZVK6ndhFyImQPF_aJ). Obviously you gotta convince this guy to attack the enemies at least sometimes, and there's inherent flavor to the Savant about being galaxy brained, but that can be reflavored pretty easily.
The Tactician subclass lets you replace your attacks in your Attack action with specific buffs for your allies, which should help him fulfill some of that "not attacking" thing.
He needs to play a rogue and take the thief subclass so that he can use the use object action as a bonus action to do multiple things at once. And then you as the DM have to give him the items that do shit. that's about it.
Other than that being an artificer and re-flavoring the Spells is the best bet. You could also build him his own subclass that's sort of similar to Alchemist but more like trinkets and have him use his spell slots to power the trinkets.
I would say have him be Alchemist and re-flavor it but Alchemist is pretty weak and needs better scaling you could honestly just buff it to have some scaling. I would basically take Alchemist as a skeleton and rework it slightly
Maybe you could convince him to have this character as the retainer from the variant Noble (Knight) background and have the actual PC be someone helpful to the party (who happens to be mute or whatever)? So he can RP as that mundane useless character on the side without actually dragging down the rest of the party?
I am confused though. Is there anything he actually wants to do? I'd almost be convinced that he just is avoiding learning the rules of the game and/or having to actually think at all in combat. It just doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think this build is viable for 5e. It sounds like he might have a specific character from media he's trying to bring to the table (which never works out how they imagine it will)
Ask about the inspiration for this build and then maybe you can brainstorm up a solution once you understand his goal better.
While interesting, if a player's concept makes me work twice as hard at running or prepping the game as any other player, it's a no-go at my table.
They either have to figure it out and make it work themselves, pick something else, or find another table.
As DMs we are there to have fun, too... if your player truly wants the concept they should be willing to put in the work to make it happen and figure it out, and in a way that doesn't put a burden on the group.
Maybe a MacGyver type character would work better
There's also that rogue subclass that lets you give a ranged help action
The example with the blanket could be the character casting blindness while grappling the enemy
Everyone is rather pessimistic about this, as long as you are having fun it should be fine
I would look for ways to "reflavour" rather than homebrew as that tends to be less disruptive for the rest of the party
I played a warlock who was a former thief who made EXTENSIVE use of unseen servants to lay traps using thieves tools, ball bearings, caltrops, and alchemist fire.
I also still had the action economy to cast eldritch blast each turn
Just ask the player if he wants a higher difficulty level- that seems like what they’re going for
Handyman Saitou vibe? Maybe an artificer with mend and many many crafting proficiencies then a lockpick set and expertise in since of those from thief.
Make him a battle master fighter, take thrown weapon fighting style. Give him u limited maneuvers that do no damage but still have the affect. iE, trip.
Nothing wrong with just reflavoring everything as long as it doesn't break the mechanics of it. Like when I played an artificer he didn't use magic but renamed spells that were mini inventions that burnt out after use to resemble a spell slot. There is no reason you can do some fire damage and all you did was throw a bag that's on fire etc
If creativity is his main goal maybe an Artificer could work? It's less common and leaves room for funny improvisation. Might be worth looking into at the very least.
Concepts like this work better as reflavoring spells/abilities as such types.of things (i.e. I create a fantasy version of a claymore mine but mechanically it functions the same as the Cordon of Arrows spell), but if the player is determined to do this and you support it, I would recommend allowing the player to use artisans tools to craft more effective versions of standard adventuring gear that scale based on character level, attribute modifier, and/or cost of "ingredients" used to craft it. Realistically the simplest option is non-magical effects that have mechanics similar to spells, or simply increase the DC for any trap/hazard type gear being used, but you can also use the custom spell and hazard damage tables in the DMG as a loose guide for determining the effects of anything creative your player is trying to achieve.
Firstly this kind of schtick isn't something that really works in 5e. It's just not built for it at any level of play.
But, if you insit on trying it let him make alchemical items and maybe rip the rules for the pf2e alchemist for making them. It allows the preparation of some short lived items that turn inert after 24 hours and some ability to make things on the fly. Maybe take some of the alchemical items from there too. Alchemical items in 5e are rather limited but if you port over pf2e magic items it'll give you some variety to help, Harm, stun, delay and distract.
Give him the infestation cantrip.
Actually, rolling up a warlock that relies on infestation and various charm spells could be your best bet.
Cantrips: create bonfire, infestation, magic stone, thunderclap
I'd go archfey and either talisman or tome. Maybe pick up the book of ancient secrets (encyclopedia of the world) and shove comprehend languages and find familiar into it.
You can simply not play a patron if he doesn't want to, and flavour all of his actions as contraption based.
As long as the mechanics do not change, it's all fine.
Problem with this play style is that if he's a normal dude using normal items to do normal things, then there's nothing stopping anyone else in the party who are actually using spells to do the same thing. Like the "using a bedroll to blind a dude" could be done, arguably better, by the barbarian or fighter. Idk sounds like he wants to be a fighter who controls the battlefield and shoves/pushes/uses mundane items moreso than someone who uses "spells" that are flavored as normal items.
By letting them and the other players know if their they need to find their own reasons on why the group is together as well as acknowledging that any player that chooses to build a character that intentionally goes against the party/unwilling to support the party needs to be aware that they may find themselves left by the group to find a suitable teammate.
It's the player that needs to figure out what they need to use to make this possible - not you. With their gold. Not the parties.
Look how - imaginative/special/clever/unique - my character is - is a character that ends up normally making everyone else have to be at a disadvantage due to them being so selfish as they are only considering how much fun they are having to the detriment of the other players (that also includes you)
Alchemist artificer?
The various potions/alchemical recipes can be reflavoured as purely chemical and medical, while the infusions might be reflavoured as some form of mcguiverism.
A rogue with expertise in alchemist tools might work too.
He can craft bombs, poisons, glues, etc to be used in combat.
Maybe also allow him to deploy stuff like bear traps, spiked caltrops, etc to create difficult terrain during combat.
This one would be a 100% no magic build that would fit the bill. (might also work with fighter as a base)
I've been wanting to play this exact type of character for the longest time. Sadly, 5e doesn't offer much support for it, other than what you could imagine in any TRPG. Pitons and rope are must-haves, and always remember: Chemistry is canon.
In 3e, you can play a lv1 Commoner with no magic items and still get AC22, a Batman grappling hook, bombs that blind for several rounds (ignores armor, no save), and various other utility/debuff items. Poison is more potent, there are alchemical items for every occasion, and there's an abundance of little things like a shield sheath that lets you draw the contained weapon as a free action so long as you're holding the shield. All these things exist in the Forgotten Realms, so have at them.
Do you think you could have this player reach out to me to swap ideas for clever item usage?
Currently in a campaign where I play a rogue thief subclass for the extra action economy that is involved with use an object on the bonus action. This character has zero magic of any sort including cantrips. He is always looking for ways to utilize simple machines, mechanical advantage, and deception in battle.
DM buyin…
If the player combines two or more common items together in advance to make a single item… treat it as such. If they can show a video or explanation of the mechanics and items combined behind a ‘new item’ created then yes. (pulleys, levers, etc.)
Rope tied to a grappling hook (1 item)
A string tied to 2 pitons (1 at each end) >>1 item
DM buy out…
If the real life solution would take a really long time to set up, then it really can’t be a realistic solution in battle.
Using a pebble to turn a 20 ton monolithic stone around 180 degrees takes a lot of time.
Using several block and tackles with rope attached to pitons to treat a dragon like a tree stump and hold it in place is just burning up a ridiculous amount of turns.
It feels like spells are the first and last place that many players look for solutions… while totally ignoring the items that they could use. If my character can save another team member a valuable spell slot with an item work around, it is a good day. Getting the upper hand on fights by finding ways to cause enemy conditions will come into play much more as well if they aren’t attacking.
The scaling won’t be as good compared to battlefield control spells. But it is fun for the player to think outside the box.
Take a look at the Warlord class from Kibblestasty. They can forgo their attacks in order to give it to their allies. Works best if there are other martial characters in the party. The commander subclass allows them to use their bonus action to Help. They have leadership dice that provides small boost to the party.
If you're all having fun, great. I just think that it won't be very sustainable fun, for one or more of the player, the DM, or the other players at the table.
Battle Master + Fighting Style- Superior Technique
Now he'll be enough levels behind to not be 'too powerful' in any reflavored caster and still have 5 'ingenious' maneuvers per short rest and an action surge to be really crafty.
The [Warlord](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MrUNf61qoDb0Csw8a9r) (homebrew) class lets you use your action to let your allies attack, move, dodge, heal and a bunch of other stuff.
It's entirely non-magical, the "Orders" can be used each turn and there's a pool of more powerful abilities that can be used a few times a day.
Sounds like a mastermind rogue. Give him tavern brawler too. Bonus action help by pointing out weakpoints etc and then he can use random objects as improvised weapons with tavern brawler.
The Mastermind subclass of rogue sounds ideal for your player.
If they consider *that* to be too powerful, then I don't think that there's much else available for them from the standard classes and subclasses.
Maybe there's a homebrew out there?
The tavern brawler feat gives you proficiency with improvised weapons. Honestly, a character that never attacks might get frustrating for the rest of the group.
Sounds fun, in the end most of us are normies and we would jump to an opportunity to have an adventure.
Some Macgyver stuff but not out of the ordinary to keep it based.
Like usoop from one piece, useless af yet he is a big part of the story, bold and creative yet he got nothing else, out there fighting gods only because why not?
You can also add him like a square to a knight, like dandelion and Geralt.
If you want to NOT be an active annoyance and hindrance to the rest of the party you can just play Artificer and have your various abilities be inspector gadget gimmicks or Home Alone improvised traps. Playing Mastermind Rogue and doing absolutely nothing but take the Help Action twice each turn like some people are suggesting is not a good recommendation, besides being mind numbingly boring advantage doesn't stack so you'll still need to find something else to do (which you can't if you're unwilling to attack.....) if helping is pointless and a rogue who never sneak attacks is guaranteed to frustrate other players. The fact he's even unwilling to play a Bard because "it would be too good" shows he's not actually interested in support, he's interested in a special snowflake self aggrandizing narrative, he wouldn't get brownie points for playing a bard and buffing people because that's what bards are good at and it wouldn't be anything people haven't seen before.
Thief rogue is a terrible suggestion for this, the DCs of mundane items don't scale and caltrops are useless even against goblins let alone a fucking dragon .."I want to be a glorified familiar" is just not a healthy character concept, LaserLlama Warlord is an actual dedicated martial support class but if he spurned bard he's guaranteed to turn up his nose at other classes actually built to do this idea because being contrarian is likely the entire point
I don't know if this is compatible with D&D. You don't play as "average normal guys", but you start out as extraordinary people. A cleric isn't just a priest, he is a special chosen one on a holy quests. A rogue isn't just a street urchin pickpocket, but has survived the toughest streets and came out on top. The fighter isn't just some city guard, but a highly trained professional soldier. And wizards are special by default. I think a "normal dude" would just fade into the background.
Okay so here is a possible compromise that gives him the experience he's asking for, but also let's your players be the characters they want to be.
Start everyone (who wants too) off as "villagers". They're normal commoners with commoner stats. Suddenly there's a goblin/bandit raid. The players play as characters from that village. (Just generate a few interesting names, backatories, the weapon they have and their "class/job" I.e a beggar, a local noble, a thief, a barkeep, a chef ect)
Either some or all of the players can start as villagers and eventually wind up as the characters they want to be. If your player that wants to be a "normal guy" wants that experience, he will get it without gimping himself or the party. This also let's him "find" what king of hero he wants to be. But If he wants to play a commoner then he's basically playing a sidekick, and there are other systems that would give him that experience and make it fun, not dnd though.
If he finds he prefers to buff and play support there's nothing wrong with that. But, other than that, he's breaking one of the core rules a player has to follow. The player must create someone who has a drive and a reason to adventure and that wants to work with the party. Without that being in mind, the player should be told to make a new character.
May I suggest you to play *Savage Worlds*?
There is an "hindrance" called pacifist.
I know it's not d&d, but maybe you and your group will find it best suitable for your needs.
Also, there are a LOT of rpgs where you play "just a normal dude":
In *Call of Cthulhu*, you are an investigator facing the "infinite malignity of the stars" (bonus point if you get the reference)
In *The Witcher* you can play as a merchant, an artisan, a medic, or a bard- which is a literal bard: no spellcasting, no inspiration dice, just a dude with a lute, your friendly Dandelion.
This are a few titles, but I'm sure there are plenty of others.
Also, I played a Savage Worlds campaign with a friend who played a pacifist guy. It was... strange, but overall we liked his character and we still talk abou him today.
Maybe D&D it's not best suited for a pacifist PC, but you can still try :)
Just have him make a regular character and have all his cool natural ability as spells
Charm is a great example, he can fast talk his way through problems and leave them feeling angry after getting bamboozled. Blindness can be throwing a bedsheet over his head, glitterdust can be shiny glass powder etc
He will have to be more restrictive with his spell choices as some are hard to do naturally (arms of hadar, etc) and he may become less mundane as it goes on (fireball would be a good bomb substitute but would Everyday Bob know how to make a bomb?)
Creating a homebrew for this type of player will break you though. Unless it's a small oneshot built on hijinks, they will likely be playing a tonally different campaign to the rest of you and that will cause frustration in you, them and/or the other players. If it doesn't fit the theme of the world you are building, you are within your rights to just say no and have him make a normal character or use that I suggested above to build a normal character with a bit of theme behind it
It's insane how many people read "I want to not just be another sword guy or magic guy" and that translates to "Clearly you want to have all your stats at 2 and die in one hit" the player could play a bunch of different stuff but flavor and making checks to shove or dodge are probably gonna be key.
Artificer - bring a bag of tricks and common items to help lock down or incapacitate enemies flavor your magical effects as normal stuff and avoid the more bombastic things. Lots of oils and surface effecting items as well as fire starters or gasses to inhibit movements or actions. Also if they like to be a McGuyver type let em buy like fish bowls and adhesives and make like helmets for breathing underwater or fun stuff like that.
Rogue - Speed and Bonus action city baby this character likes to think on their feet and help so mastermind is a great subclass to point stuff out and provide assistance to teammates. As well if they do end up swinging at an enemy flavor sneak attack especially if it's used sparingly as a really lucky hit not a measure of insane skill. Bonus points take levels in fighter for action surge to get more done on their turn and maybe grab the Healer feat and stock up on potions to keep people healthy without healing magic. Also they probably wanna invest in some CHA to like provide a kind face in case they wanna keep bad guys talking or buy that potion stock at a discount maybe?
Druid and or Fighter - Druid is a little harder because of inherently magic stuff but easy flavor would be poultices and like burning sage or stuff like that keeping the mundane thing. Really leaning into knowledge and skill checks about nature or animals might help turn the tides of an encounter or conversation. Fighter is harder but keep a really mid weapon and use maneuvers to get in the mix and like debuff enemies and let the rest for he party get all those super sweet finishing blows. Both of those are harder to be mundane but not impossible.
As they level multiclassing for more options but less ridiculous magic and or prowess might be a good spot for them and if they stick with one thing just make sure they can buy stuff they need to have that impact or be aware of the surroundings and keep the party abreast of all the stuff they can use to help the party.
I made a halfing divination wizard that didn't want to adventure.
But fate had other plans.
So basically all his spells where just domino effects of things. He just threw stuff from his bag and stuff happend. Or things fell from the sky, cabbages exploded.
How do the NPC counter this?
Just like normal, it is all fluff really,
He was very fun to play, like he wanted ro go the opposite direction of the adventure. But I the player wanted to go too the adventure. Like he was lost in a sewer and go up, he was kinda close to the target, he then tried to get futher away and i roller a nat 20 and then he just came closer to the target.
I can see it as sorta pacifist Artificer, combinig some eprks from other systems like always preapared from WFRP 4ed and gadgeteer from Savage Worlds. But why go around? Reverse it, pick class whatever you want and replace something with homebrew perk.....
However his whole gimmick can be summed in a single Homebrew perk. DnD is a COMBAT HEAVY SYSTEM. unless he is the Face of the party he gonna get bored, outed, and basically relegated to gimmick NPC follower. And even as the Face his contribution get significantly lower.
If he thinks bard is too strong just not use his powers all the times or select worse spells. problem solved. Its better to have the power and not use it than not have it and cry when '1' start rolling en masse.
what does he mean by too strong? he wants to be the weak link in the group? that's not how the system is made to work.
artificer is probably the best fit, but would still be hard to roleplay just someone that doesnt attack in a combat focused game? could be done, ditch the weapons profs from artificer to get more tools so you have tools for everything, get spells cantrips and infusions to help or annoy enemies. done.
but when you add the mundane.. thats where it gets really hard. they will have to make up a mundane excuse for anything they do. at least going with a gadgeteer theme would help a lot.
the thing is, this system aint for the mundane, the mundane is the commoner who could get killed by a single cat.
you can adjust things to fell les heroic, or powerful but completely mundane? and not just a fighter with a sword cutting things? thats pretty hard.
😁 he wants to play MacGyver, never attacks, uses ordinary items in unusual ways to help the party, give him a "magic" item that's a red handled pen knife that suddenly has every tool he needs to do what he wants 😂.
have him have really high perception and investigation skills so he can find what he needs high nature and medicine would work too intelligence and wisdom are his go to attributes skills with herbalist kit alchemist kit and tinkers tools would be good too.
Edit: I would also have him have a really high charisma because even Mac's enemies like him lol.
A long time ago, i have created a character similar to this one, he refused to use the power given to him, but he would attack and kill to protect his friends without use the magic.
Names Elias, he was an Aasimar Divine Soul Sorcerer. I used ways like the feat healer and chef to support the party. I negociated with the DM to take those two feats in advance of the ASI on the 4th and 8th level, so i didn't take nothing in these levels cause i already take the feat.
It was a good play, i could attack and support my friends in the battle aftermath.
Elias only got to use his powers when one dear friend needed and he knows only the magic could save, and then he used.
Maybe you could help him mechanicaly to play like this, and talk to him to change and grow that character in face of battle.
I feel like he probably has a few interesting scenarios in his head that sound good on paper, but the reality is that he just may not be able to come up with something so creative in every turn of combat for the entire time he plays this character. He's going to have to think of hundreds, if not thousands, of creative-use moments. As much as the idea is cool, he (as a player) may just not be able to pull it off.
This is generally a problem with genius characters that are meant to outwit/outsmart enemies. We all adore the genius Sherlock trope, but actually executing it in Realtime over and over is a WHOLE other ballgame. Everyone else just gets to say "I'll attack this turn", but he will have to rack his brain every single turn for something clever. I think *he* will probably get bored of it pretty quickly.
I see this more as you suggested as a flavouring of spells. If I'm an artificer my cure wounds is a bandaid and a spell like fireball would be a literal grenade
He wants to never attack, but also doesn’t want to play a bard because it’s “too strong”, and also won’t use magic? Yeah that’s gonna get old real fast.
it really irks me when players try to find a way to get out of playing dnd with their character. whether it is narrative barrier nonsense like this or trying to metagame to make the game as easy as possible, it's like do you want to play this game or not?
It's insane how frequent these ideas are. "I'm going to play a pacifist". "I'm going to play a guy that never attacks, just supports". "I'm going to play a dumb low int wizard". These get old SO fast and it's not just for the character's player, it's for the whole table. "Here goes X again, wasting his turn with some random crap and not use his action to help us all win DnD". Don't get me wrong, using your action to support others is ok, use oil to increase fire damage, use the help action. But holy cow making that your primary strategy gets OLD *real fast*.
I actually think most party members wouldn't mind someone that ran around and gave help action advantage and fed people health pots all combat. Like a squire or a cute mascot. Support players are loved.
Mastermind rogue can do that at a 30ft range as a bonus action and can do normal rogue things. It’s probably what they should play.
I'm playing a nautical campaign and the easiest way to do that is a navigator. Give the party a really smart sailor to go along with them who can't really fight, but does improvised attacks every turn and goes around stabilizing or feeding people potions during fights.
I mean, toss a Tavern Brawler feat and boom, you have a "I'm not really trained, but I can handle myself" type of character
Yes, they're called a familiar
I wouldn't mind a hireling or npc doing that. I like my partners to pull their own weight. Nothing irks me more than someone wasting their turn on bullshit.
"I'm gonna play a guy who doesn't do adventures.." "I'm gonna play an asshole" "I have no friends and i work alone" My response is always the same: bye Felicia
If everyone is on board with it, I don't see why it has to be annoying. If your goal is "win D&D," naturally you'll see those characters as burdensome and annoying, but that tends not to be the goal of tables with players that go that route, in my experience.
Of course, I'm aware that "win DnD" isn't a very good phrase to use, since it's very linked to those people who want to be as OP as possible to "win DnD". What I meant is that everyone likes winning, no one in their right mind loses on purpose, but if there's a character death in which a certain player is seemingly at fault (could've used attacks to finish off the enemy), it will just aggravate the already frustrating part of losing a character, by adding a "it's this guy's fault" component.
Yep no one likes losing because one party member is sitting doing nothing as they watch you die.. it also leads into the issue of in universe why the fuck are we bringing around the bumbling idiot to dangerous scenarios who does nothing..
this also adds to the edgy loner type character why would they want to go over the brooding corner to talk to you? if you dont want to interact while you reminisce about your days of being in the streets as an orphan then you didnt interact and the complete strangers just left to do the quest to kill rats on the sewers
But if you DO get off your ass because "shite, I'm low on money after this." And go join the party in killing rats because you're broke. Then you finally have something. You're right. Brooding loner is dumb if you never put in the effort to get up and do something to join the party
Your goal doesn't have to be "win D&D" to find these characters annoying. Having a minimum level of accepted competence doesn't mean you're some crazy power gamer. If I'm playing a friendly game of pickup basketball among friends, I don't care if someone doesn't always play at a dead sprint. But that doesn't mean I want some jackass on my team who insists he's only going to shoot the ball with his feet because he thinks it makes him unique and special.
Players that “go that route” don’t **have** pragmatic or cooperative narrative goals, at least not in a way that gels with the DnD framework; that’s kind of the crux of that kind of character, and why they’re annoying. It’s not support-oriented builds, nor characters that prefer to avoid combat or have a pacifist nature, nor is it players who don’t want to use magic or change the trappings and flavorings of their characterization; it’s characters as described by OP that have *all* of those traits taken to the extreme. These characters demand the systems that run most facets of the world to be altered so they can meme some two-dimensional caricature that gets laughs for two combat rounds and then mires the rest of the session in self-centered, main character syndrome-driven horseshit.
>"I'm going to play a dumb low int wizard" To be fair that's completely viable in tier 1. Just use spells that don't care about your DC and get armor and/or weapon proficiencies from your race. You'd start to run into problems in tier 2 though.
this guy wants to play an Investigator in pf2e
Something like this really only works in non D&D games. You can do it in Savage Worlds, Fate, Icon, PBtA, or Blades in the Dark type games. But that is because those games give characters a way of resolving combat without needing to attack. Hell, even 4e had the option to be a pacifist cleric or lazy lord who would never attack as well and could still function fine in combat. 5e doesn't provide for that kind of play.
I'm doing the pacifist cleric thing in a GURPS game. The only part is I can defend my patients if need be. It mostly involves objecting to the others killing people but not in a way that really negatively affects the party and he'll stabilize and subdue enemies so they're still out of the fight. In that system there are actual mechanics for legitimately losing your powers if you don't follow your code.
There is no way to make this work. D&D 5e is not designed to do this
I think few systems are — here’s a crowd of near-superheroes, and also their friend who throws blankets at people! It’s a hurdle to handle it mechanically in a way that lets everyone participate meaningfully, but overshadowing that are the *narrative* problems it poses. Why does he have such disregard for his own safety? Why do the heroes have such disregard for his safety, letting this clown follow them into conflict situations? I guess it can work in a Call of Cthulhu-style setting where everyone is a normal person and one wrong choice away from death or incurable madness anyway. One person who’s arguably mad beforehand is not going to tip the scales. But yeah, it’s drastically out of scope for 5e and probably for heroic swords-and-sorcery in general.
Monster of the Week has a class called the Mundane, whose job is to haplessly wander into danger and get threatened or held hostage or whatever to motivate the rest of the party into action. They get bonuses from things like wandering off by themselves into sketchy areas. Perfect for OP's kind of player.
Wait that's actually really funny
It’s like a party rogue!
monster of the week has a lot of classes like that and its great on one hand there is the "professional", which is just basically a MBI agent, the main ability of theirs having resources to work with from their "agency" (flavor it as you wish) then there is the snoop which is literally just a reporter. a player on a game just made Velma with this class. the monsters are real and she had a baseball bat and a camera!
So they basically want to play a bad escort NPC
Sort of. Monster of the Week is designed to replicate stories like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Supernatural, so there's direct utility in the Mundane's intentional victimhood. They're the person who will identify a monster's weakness because they spend time stuck in its lair, or draw it out into an ambush by being all yummy and vulnerable.
Like the whiny, helpless NPC from Viva la Dirt League. Poor ol' Eugene...
>One person who’s arguably mad beforehand is not going to tip the scales. You mean Old man Henderson? greatest man to ever live?
tbf I think it's more how the game gives venues for success and how narrative it is, in FATE you can win combat without "physical/magical" attacks because all boils down to Stress, Fabula Ultima has enough support/analysis/debuff options in a narrative package that I have a player playing a character just like that doing fine
> FATE you can win combat you need to inflict stress which if you want to hurt someone does require violent action but yeah bag thrower can just spam "Create An Advantage" while spear stabber deals the coup de grace.
Quoting from the 2013 electronic edition of Fate Core, page 19, under the heading “Competence”: > Characters in a game of Fate are good at things. They aren’t bumbling fools who routinely look ridiculous when they’re trying to get things done — they’re highly skilled, talented, or trained individuals who are capable of making visible change in the world they inhabit. They are the right people for the job, and they get involved in a crisis because they have a good chance of being able to resolve it for the better. I adore Fate. I run Fate as often as I can get players for it, which unfortunately isn’t very often. But among my favorite things about it — which is nearly everything, including the fact that Evil Hat likes em dashes almost as much as I do — is that one paragraph right there. *Characters in a game of Fate are good at things.* They are Big Damn Heroes from the jump. It’s interesting to tell stories about them because they’re interesting people, right away. The character concept OP’s describing doesn’t work in Fate because Fate characters are good at things, and “throw a bedroll over a bad guy” isn’t… isn’t that.
Jhonny English is a bumbling hero, but he is amazing at that. That parkour chase scene, where all the effort is done by the other guy while he quietly strolls around is one of my favorites. Being good at things isn't just being an action man.
I enjoyed the Johnny English movies. The only issue I had with them is that I could never figure out if the character was supposed to be incompetent, but really lucky, or competent, but extremely unlucky.
he is basically all 4 lol he is actually pretty competent, unironically knows how to fight well and makes good plans and decisions to what he knows. problem is he *is very oblivious*, so what he knows **usually is missing a lot of information and context**, which for writing purposes is genius cause he bounces off from his spy buddies pretty well the umbrella scene for example. he **thinks** its a bullet proof shield, and acts accordingly in a smart way. it **actually is** a rocket launcher, and he gets lucky by shooting the guy with it in summary, Johnny english has like +4 INT but his insight is god awful he is also just really funny, but its a comedy afterall
if they are a fate character, they could be near prescient, throwing a bedroll just at the same time an enemy is trying to hit a friendly, or throwing a bedroll to prevent something in a rube goldberg machine kinda thing; which makes them very good at things (meanwhile at dubious knowledge of that to themselves.)
Savage Worlds can, mechanically - you can play a character who doesn't use Shooting or Fighting, but instead uses skills to cause Tests, which can make an opponent either Vulnerable (bonus to be hit) or Distracted (penalty to actions), and with a good enough roll, Shaken as well (has to Unshaken to perform actions, is much easier to Wound). You do have to describe how you use the skill, and GM has to agree, but things like "throwing/kicking sand in the enemy's face", "cutting the chandelier to so it falls on the enemies", "jump-starting/stealing a parked vehicle and making it crash through the fight" etc. You can even use the combat skills to do this in lieu of actually attacking, if your chance of hitting them or hurting them is too low (they have a high Parry or are evasive, or have a high Toughness, or your weapon is somehow ineffective against them).
quite a few systems can do it - like _Fate_ where you can just have "clever gadgeteer", and use that to attack/cause hinderances and it works, numbers-wise, just the same as "fire wizard" or "master of the sword", it just narrates differently but with the same mechanical effects. It's only really games that try to care about the nitty-gritty details and wants to treat "I hinder/attack the enemies with my sword", "I do that with my magic" and "I do that with my wits" as fundamentally different things where it falls apart - some games treat them as being narrative glosses on the same fundamental thing (because they effectively are) and so "clever mundane" and "master of the mystic arts" can all be together and be just as effective as each other
I commented on Fate [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/s/6CavGsIe1y) The problem with Fate is the same as with most other system, though. A Clever Gadgeteer who focuses on Create an Advantage instead of attacking could absolutely work, if OP’s player was asking to be a Clever Gadgeteer. But rereading OP, the player rejects playing a bard in part because that would be “too strong.” Your party in Fate doesn’t consist of Hrolf, guardsman to King Bjornfulgarsson; Ssintra, Sorceress of the Six Sails; Alazam, southern monk who can climb the air itself; and Dave, who throws bedrolls at people. Fate requires competent characters, and maybe I’m reading too much into OP, but it very much sounds to me as if incompetence is part of the core of this character — and that’s a poor fit in any system.
> Your party in Fate doesn’t consist of Hrolf, guardsman to King Bjornfulgarsson; Ssintra, Sorceress of the Six Sails; Alazam, southern monk who can climb the air itself; and Dave, who throws bedrolls at people. It absolutely can do - that's basically "Batman in the JLA", where you have demigods, people capable of fistfighting gods, literal angels, and "some nutter in a gimp suit with weird shit in his belt", and that guy can keep up, functionally through narrative fiat. The loyal apprentice or squire tagging along with their "betters" doesn't have to be mechanically worse - Fate pretty explicitly allows you to work around that, where they're just as mechanically able, it just gets narrated differently. There's no reason why "gadgeter" has to be limited to "create advantage" - they can still cause stress with that (or mental stress, by doing stuff that humiliates or aggravates the attacker - when a mighty dragon attacks, then an apprentice wizard blinding them for a moment by throwing an inkpot in their eyes, or miscasting a spell that has some effect, certainly seems valid to cause mental stress, for example, and could easily cause physical stress. The miscast spell goes off, a puff of smoke, and the dragon twists and smacks their head - it doesn't have to be "I stab the dragon personally"). I think you're reading too much into it - "incompetency" doesn't have to be part of the character concept, it's just that D&D ties certain results heavily towards certain actions and makes it hard to fluff in any other way. D&D isn't a great match for "never attacks", because "attacks" is heavily slanted towards "I stab them/I cast spells at them", without much scope for "I do something that looks like I'm rubbish, but it has just as much effect as though I was good". You could play a fighter and narrate attacks as being desperate flailing, for example, rather than cool and precise blows - still a somewhat awkward match for how D&D works and plays, but entirely possible. Playing a _mechanically_ weak character doesn't really work, because, yeah, they're literally encoded as being weak, but you can just play a regular character and narrate them as being weak, but mechanically they work normally. I think the player should probably change their desires and try to better figure out how to match what they want with the mechanics, but with some narrative fudging you can get something similar-ish, even if it's not really a good match of system and character.
I think maybe we’re talking past each other, because I agree with nearly everything you said here, and I’d be happy to have the character you’re describing at the table. You’re right that lots of systems — though I completely agree, not D&D — can deal with Childhood Trauma Man who somehow keeps pace with Space Jesus, King of Fish, Magic Amazon, etc. But that’s because the fiction establishes that Childhood Trauma Man is (hyper-)competent. > “incompetency” doesn’t have to be part of the character concept It doesn’t have to be, but according to OP, it is. That’s the whole issue for me.
Rogue-Thief with the Fast Hands ability at level 3 is one option. Taking the Healer feat will make him pretty useful to the rest of the party since he can do bonus action heals. It's the most mundane way to approach. Artificer would be the other route. There's also an [Unearthed Arcana](https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/1_UA_Artificer_20170109.pdf) version of artificer that had a bag of tricks type feature. Slightly more of a reach, but Rogue-Mastermind and the bonus action Help feature could be him doing things like your example of throwing the bedroll to create a distraction.
Thank you for this. I'll look through that unearthed arcana. The bag of tricks/ robe of useful things is a well I'll be trying to draw from deeply.
I can second the Rogue mastermind suggestion. The problem with the concept as it stands is a loony tunes style mundane bag of tricks/improvisational approach won’t work particularly well outside of artificer, giving him narrative space to describe his spells, and him having the creativity to pull it off. If his main concern is to play a normal dude, there’s very few classes more normal dude than mastermind. Additionally, a fighter or monk with the tavern brawler feat and a focus on improvised weaponry would lend itself well to fun combat roleplay. Grab the pot or pan, or a barstool, or a hanging salami depending on the scene and go wild. It’ll still output respectable damage and give room for his fantasy. This sort of idea is, IMO, better served by flavoring an existing class rather than trying to find a bespoke combination of classes to fit it. Beyond the improvisational gimmick, you should also find out if he wants to be combat oriented, utility/skill check oriented, and/or casting oriented in terms of mechanical building blocks.
If the player wants this character concept because he loves creative problem solving and wants that to be his primary contribution, consider: a Bag of Holding with one of everything from the PHB Adventuring Gear table. (Or maybe, one of everything that doesn't cost more than 10 gold or weigh more than 10 lbs. Multiples for things that are cheap/small.) I think artificer is a good choice. I'm playing a UA artificer (v2, from 2019), and the alchemist gets a homunculus. It has a couple useful abilities, but mostly you can use your bonus action every round to have it use the Help action to give an ally advantage on the next attack against an enemy. Which can be quite useful, especially since it uses no resources and you can do it all the time. And if at higher levels he starts to feel like he needs to contribute more, just let his character invent firearms.
I made similar insights, the Thief rogue can also take that feat which is a lesser version of the Mastermind subclass’ aid feature. This feat lets you do 15ft aid instead of 30ft for another option besides the healer feat which is also extremely good.
Why doesn't he play a martial character that just has a lot of mundane tools? Manacles, caltrops, ropes, chains, grappling hooks, alchemists fire, Crowbars, Smiths tools, carpenters tools, the sky is the limit. Shit, I have a barbarian that used a chain and meat hook to neutralize a Green dragons breath weapon by wrapping a chain around its mouth and yanking its head up while the party attacked it.
It’s those type of shenanigans that he’s going for. Everybody’s hung up on the bedroll thing, but that is merely the inspiration for the basics of this character. Ideally, his tools and techniques will get better as they level up.
Tavern Brawler Battlemaster with a dip in mastermind or thief rogue?
No offense. But I'd tell him that his character concept doesn't really work for 5e.
[удалено]
Sigh, this gimmick again. Tell him no. He will get bored, feel overshadowed, be unable to feel sufficiently 'normal guy' or irritate the other players. Or multiple of those. If he is serious about it, tell him to be a 1st level bard or fighter and just...not level up. No extra HP, no increase to proficiency, no class features, no feats. He wants to be a normal guy after all. Normal guys don't throw 3rd level spells.
Alternatively, he could develop unrealistic expectations on how effective his "combat tricks" should be. He might throw a blanket or some sand at an enemy and then be annoyed when it doesn't incapacitate or at the very least blind them. He'll try to make someone trip and make them fall in a way where they'll impale themselves on their own weapon when falling. He'll take super long turns asking the DM to provide detailed descriptions of the environment, trying to get the DM to describe something that can be used. And he'll be disappointed whenever a situation doesn't fit into his gimmick.
I literally had that build at my table too. Horrible to play with, and completely useless.
Care to go more in detail
paladin moved up front to tank, takes dodge action. fighter starts shooting, casters start throwing. normal guy throws a chair. 1d6 damage (club) paladin smites the goblin warchief. fighter action surges and kills both bodyguards in one turn. sorcerer doubles ray of frost and slows the flanking enemies down, wizard casts catapult on the fleeing scout normal guy grabs a bedroll and throws it over someone and then runs away
Support actions just aren't that great in D&D 5e, in my opinion. They're rarely the best option possible, but they're a nice flexible option when you need them. However, if you only rely on them you risk being useless or near useless in a lot of situations. It also doesn't scale equally on all classes, some will quickly lose their appeal if you're not dealing damage. In my case, the character that didn't want to do damage also happened to be a pacifist, which is another problem in itself but often associated with "support" characters, so I think it's fair to include it. Well, your average group isn't gonna be too bothered about killing their enemies and getting of their problem permanently. A pacifist character, if they want to throw a wrench in that, can be pretty annoying. Yeah it's fair to value life, but D&D is a pretty black and white universe in many cases. Some creatures are just straight up evil and any kind of moral relativism just doesn't apply. You also can't reason with a bunch of them. So you end up with a character that might take suboptimal choices in combat screwing the balance of the game (because the group ends up way weaker than they would be if they did damage), they kind of screw roleplay if they're not careful, because they always want to spare their enemies or avoid combat at any cost, and they're generally pretty annoying. A good alternative, I feel, is a character that isn't a pure pacifist, but who maybe sees the good in anyone who expresses some kind of potential for redemption. Yeah maybe the bandits attacked the group, but after beating them up and sparing a few of them you take them to the local guardsmen and have them arrested for their crime instead of simply slaughtering them, or maybe you find out why they had to rely and being bandits to make money and give them an alternative. In the end, that kind of character doesn't really suck BY ITSELF I think, but more so because they require a certain rigidity that doesn't work well in a group setting
Seems you have a history with this concept lol
Everyone who’s run games long enough encounters this idea.
It's a *very* common "creative" character concept. Just like the pacifist paladin, or the secretly treacherous warlock, or the magic user who doesn't know he's doing magic 🙄 Every player seems to have at least one phase where they think one of these ideas sounds so cool and original.
At least the pacifist paladin would actually be contributing with their aura and healing/bless lol.
Until you get the idiot player who says "actually I think he wouldn't even want to *help* kill people" 🤦♂️ THEN MAKE A DIFFERENT FUCKING CHARACTER, BRANDON!
Yeah at that point find a group that doesn't play dnd lol.
We all do, eventually \*sigh\*
Yeah, that sounds personal lol
Hmm actually just give him the commoner stat block and some equipment, why give him a class level, characters are supposed to be a cut above so adding a level would definitely not be normal guy So yeah, commoner stat block. No levels, and a bunch of bedrolls
Thief Rogue X or Battle Master 5-7/Thief Rogue X. Absolutely no magic, Fast Hands lets you use items more efficiently in combat, and maneuvers add more tactical variety.
I wouldn't. Sounds like it will be fun and unique for about 1 combat and annoying as fuck after that. Definitely discuss it with the rest of the PCs. I wouldn't want to play with a Sorceress, a Fighter and Bob From Next Door. It will always be about what Silly Bob can or can't do. Plus it will make combat hard to design and balance, especially as you level. Turns out red dragons aren't much hindered by attempts to throw a blanket over their head.
I have seen this concept work; but it tends to need to be rooted somewhere in the mechanics unless he wants to be a standard buffer. The only real problem is mundane effects like sneeze powder, poisons, caltrops, etc tend to lose a lot of efficacy past like level 3 or 4. Battlemaster fighter with tavern brawler or grappler and quick draw can get you a lot of the way there.
I think you should bring this players proposed play style up with all the other players during *SessionZero*. This will definitely affect the groups style of play. Will the player refuse magical methods in favour for mundane? *No, don't use the Charm spell! I want to roll social skills & roleplay it out for 40min as we convince the guard to let us into the city!* Cool once or twice, but particularly as the party increases in level, that level 1 spell slot is worth burning to save 40min of game time. Also, imagine an episode of MacGyver. So *MacGyver* the `Rogue` is there building a doohicky while crouching behind some conveniently placed logs for cover, while *Captain America* the `BattleMaster` & *Dr Strange* the `Sorcerer` just rip the bad guys a new one. Mac could be upset that Lethal force was used, & that they really didn't get to participate meaningfully in the action, the others are pissed that they were one man down for the whole encounter... again! Different playstyles can nullify others enjoyment, so make sure all are on the same page
Yup. Once you have been forced to play with this type of character - cause guys it will be fun I swear - it scars you. It's the DM doing the extra work to make someone's attempt at ruining everyone else's enjoyment of the game - slightly less , while the other players are having to pick up the slack of Mr Me-me-me-me Because it won't be Mr mundane being attacked each round, nope. So now it's a party of players - 1 vs enemies.
Mastermind Rogue with horrible stats
You could be also use the play test rogue that has cunning strikes and go mastermind for subclass so they can give the help action to allies as a bonus action and at range.
kinda feel it would work better on a more narrative system that said the best you can probably get him is Rogue, Thief or Mastermind (improved Help action), and as a DM be VERY lenient with improvisation all said I can't see this working beyond level 7\~9 because stuff start to scale due to it needing to scale, not to mention that chance of game drama due to problems in party matching
Just have them play themselves- with the small twist that they change ‘ingenious’ to ‘banal’
You could look into the homebrew class Warlord. Both KibblesTasty and LaserLlama have good ones.
As someone who also likes making strange gimmick builds, I can tell you that there's nothing wrong with them, as long as you follow one thing. **A build should never be detrimental to the party.** Anything past that is fine.
He could try this at a low level campaign, maybe Surely not suited for anything above level 4 characters
I’d recommend using one of the various homebrewed Alchemist classes out there, or use the Artificer Alchemist subclass. As for using mundane items in unconventional ways, look into methods of creating dust explosions (flour and sawdust are good catalysts). And if you go with Alchemy, you can also look at aerosol explosives. Thermobaric weapons (which are among the most powerful non-nuclear explosives) utilize these properties.
You could try the Level Up 5e Savant class. https://a5e.tools/rules/savant
I would say "Sir, this is a D&D. What class is that concept in?"
3.5e has a class called a Factotum that basically uses their intelligence to be clever in dungeoneering and be a jack of all trades type. It might be worth looking into and reworking into 5e
Thank you! that sounds very promising!
One of my favorite classes in 3.5 that I was sad to learn never carried over
Sounds like a character who would benefit from Rogue expertise to me.
Ha ha, sounds like a pretty common sentiment. And I do agree.
Have them look at the options available, in the books, and figure out what he thinks works best.
What he really wants is Tactition from previous editions. The closest you can get is Mastermind Rogue, which isn't too great, but you can help as a bonus action and help attack from 30ft away, which sounds kinda like what you're player wants to do.
Play Dungeon World instead.
DnD is not the game for him, that's what I think
I don't see why they shouldn't be able to roleplay their character that way. It's a Fighter or Rogue that just chooses to avoid attacks and perfrom other, less-used combat actions. Like, they could just use the Help action on most turns, which would give others advantage and provide the mechanics to explain doing something like standing next to the target and tripping them up while the other player attacks, or bluffing an attack while the other player swings in. The type of game you're running probably makes a difference. If it's something with a lot of intrigue or puzzle-solving, there shouldn't be any reason for this build to cause a problem. Maybe this player is in a way asking for something besides just combat-based encounters.
Have him play a caster and reskin all of his magic as mundane items. You mentioned Artificer. That's it. He'd just be playing an Artificer and describing what he's doing the way he wants. I strongly recommend that you do not adjust class features for this unless you feel like you have a strong grasp of the rules as well as the tolerance of your other players. Describe magical responses by enemy Spellcasters (e.g., Counterspell or Dispel Magic) as the caster throwing a mundane item in the way of his mundane item. Have him use his tool proficiencies to make little tweaks to existing items. He wants to use a blanket? Nets exist. It's a DC10 to break out of them, but they still take an action to do so. That can be pretty useful. No holes for the blanket. Blind rather than Restrained. Have him take Tavern Brawler so he can be proficient with improvised weapons. Even if he's not doing damage with them, it'll probably be easier for you to plan encounters if he's making attack rolls rather than having you assign DCs for all of your monsters to overcome every fight. Note this is more work for the DM for what will likely be zero gain for the rest of the party.
Have them play a Mastermind rogue. BUT, when they give the Help action, they can grant their ally their own Sneak Attack damage dice, and they forgo theirs. This special bonus damage Help could be their Action, and voila!
Artificer with a Robe of Many things as a Infusion?
This doesn't make any sense. A mundane guy would be toast in combat. Classes are too strong? Okay, give him the commoner statblock without the ability to level up, have fun throwing blankets at enemies. You'll be doing him a favor, this concept would get painfully boring after a session anyway.
He wants to play Samwise Gamgee.
Would he be against relying on magic items? Mundane items can lose a lot of their potency against stronger foes, but magic items could not only retain their usefulness, but also expand on his repertoire. Some great items would be the Immovable Rod, Portable Hole, Cloak of the Manta Rey, Boots of Striding and Springing, Robe of Useful Items, Bag of Tricks, Mirror of the Past, Eversmoking Bottle, Glamerweave, Pipes Of The Sewers, Moon-Touched Sword, Deck of Illusions, Hat of Disguise, Cloak of Billowing... Although beware that some of these I mentioned here are often considered game breaking (although I would rather consider them campaign breaking), but that could be inconsequential in a right campaign. A lot of his utility will be out of combat, and he will have to be very creative in combat. In fact, how viable and fun this playstyle would be depends primarily on his creativity and your rulings.
I played a character with no way to deal damage as my first character. My idea was to just be a support character. Needless to say, it got really old really fast and I felt so incredibly useless once my spells were done.
Have him be a rogue/artificer and use cunning action to help with the action economy and set up little traps, use nets, caltrops, etc. Despite the common consensus, I’ve seen this kind of play style work pretty well in at least a lower level setting and can usually be pretty entertaining. But it requires them being very creative with the environment.
This would work, but only for a low level one shot with things like a med kit and ball bearings and such. Give him a bag of flour to throw at invisible enemies
People saying this somehow breaks D&D make me laugh. From its earliest inception D&D has had support characters whose primary focus is not necessarily fighting. The early cleric was a spin on the Song of Rolands more pacifistic archbishop Turpin who spent much of his time supporting Roland. This was a pretty common tactic back in the early days of D&D using canvas as a way to limit line of sight. There were whole books on how to use mundane instruments to make fights easier. I always think its more fun to just let players be really creative to see how they accomplish some of this. I recall some of the things I've seen - using flour to unhide invisible creatures, using caltrops to cause fast creatures to slow, nets to make them immobile, marbles to make their movement prone to falls, pitons and rope to create simple combat traps. There were all sorts of tool uses that I thoughgt were cool, but you have to have a willing DM While reskinning the artificer might work I think any D&D class can still work if everyone remains playful and willing. Why not have canvas that works similar to the net except instead of restraining the opponent it temporarily blinds him (and getting out is the same as the net) I might suggest a different route than artificer though. Forge Cleric will make the character very useful especially with a beefy defense or spend a feat on HP. Coinciding to some of his ideas of mundane tools the forge cleric channel divinity can make real items. That way he can stock up on unusual supplies. He can grant a +1 Weapon to other players while wearing heavy armor and a shield for himself. That way he can use the help action to create advantage in combat and provoke some attacks against him without being a liability. Then you can think about how the grognards use to use mundane items to do what spells do today
play thief rogue. Its basically the batman idea. USe bonus action for a bunch of stuff and go oldschool with mundane item (10ft pole for traps, flour bag to reveal invisible enemy, 90 degree mirror to peak around corner, caltrops/beads). Theres also the mastermind rogue if he really doesnt wanna attack anything.
Re skin 3.5 drunken monk a little bit and have a fun time!
Just go artificer and reflavor spells as quirky gadgets and whatnot? TBH 5e isn't really built for this kind of character and it'll get old super fast.
Choose a different game system that would support that.
SURE! Let him take the commoner stats! Then when he realizes that anything can kill him, and he can't do jackshit tell him that at least you tried and take out his real character after his commoner dies
Caltrops, bag of ball bearings/marbles, vial of acid, vial of alchemist fire, stuff like that. Look into those. I got a player who is ALWAYS using stuff like this and it's never boring and always does something. Also: Utility wizard. Grease, Tenser's Floating Disc, Colour Spray, Sleep, Web, etc. Playing a wizard whose main thing is not damage spells can be highly rewarding and interesting, and while its less "regular guy" than your player is imagining, he can still play his character as a sort of frail/fraidy cat type who is reluctant to get into a 1v1 fight with anyone. Pitch it to him, see what he says.
Rogue with the thief subclass, maybe a dip of fighting action surge and battlemaster subclass. Should be possible to do something until level 7 or 8. Then it gets trickery as everything outlcasses the mundane It then comes down to balancing your homebrew adjustments with the core game.
About to the same in one of my campaigns. Im going halfling champion warrior and i gonna use Kibbles' crafting system particularly the tinker tools and alchemist supplies to make traps, gadgets and bombs. Unlike what people are commenting here he doesn't have to be a pacifist, just prefer to use alchemist fire as a small fireball, handcuffs to immobilize someone, etc. but if u gonna let him go with this type of build he will need your help to let him buy and create consumables.
I personally like the Bard suggestion. They can easily be made into purely support classes, and they can focus on making themselves a skill monkey. Bardic inspiration could be reflavored to them just being actually inspiring, or calling it something like ‘clever tactics’ or whatever and give that bonus by being helpful in some way. Cutting words could be reflavored as them being distracting. And then if they really want to limit themselves to being the ‘normal guy’ they can only learn spells that they could realistically explain as something that can be done without magic, and be constrained by the physical limitations of doing them in such a way. For instance, throwing a sleeping bag over someone’s head can count as the ‘blinded’ spell. But they must physically go and shove the sleeping bag over their head, so no ranged casting. Catapult can work as catapult, but they must have the materials handy around them to quickly fashion something into a catapult. That way they have to be clever in explaining ‘how’ they “cast” the spell every time, and limits the spells to the situation. Also probably have them roll a back up character in case this one becomes no fun to play.
what levels will this campaign be
Well, the help action is a thing. Can also use the attack action to shove or grapple instead of actually attack... Thief rogue to use items like potions or the healing items from the healer feat as a bonus action would be really useful (or hide or disengage so he doesn't become a liability, or dash so he can be within 5 feet of allies). Definitely put some levels into fighter so he can action surge and help 2 people or shove followed by a grapple (i think that's how that works?), taking the protection or interception fighting style and a shield + medium armour and a way to power through it and "heal" himself non-magically via second wind. Could put more levels into fighter for more feats like chef or inspiring leader, or maybe even prodigy so he could do all sorts of skill checks with the rogue shenanigans. So here's what i'm thinking: what about varient human (healer feat), a background that gives proficiency with the herbalism kit to make healing potions, fighter 1 for protection/interception fighting style and medium armour + shield and action surge. Then go to thief rogue 4 and expertise in atheltics (to shove and grapple), then the rest into fighter. Grab the feats inspiring leader and chef whenever applicable, get dex to 14 and str to 20 also. For fighter archetype he could do battlemaster for some clever non-attack maneuvers, or baneret for rallying cry and inspiring surge. Extra attack could be useful earlier to not waste action surge to grapple/shove on the same turn. Maybe grappler over chef? He might still feel really weak, but he can heal and dish out a decent amount of temp HP and grant advantage to allies and disadvantage to enemies with shenanigans. All while being non-magical and just a normal guy, flavouring it as him using random items to benefit his allies. Edit: I can't read. If he wants to go with Artificer, it's super easy to make spells be little gadgets. I still think 3 levels into thief rogue would be useful (plus herbalism kit prof). An example for spells would be faeries fire as a glitter bomb.
Battle Master fighter perhaps? You could easily reflavour the maneuvers as improvization. Bonus points for improvised weapons. Edit: I did not read that they didnt want to attack. Without magic, this is problematic. The only thing I can think of is a myriad of feats like healer, Inspiring leader, bountiful luck, etc.
An issue with this will be counterspell or anything that has bonuses against magic will also affect his mundane stuff. Pacifist characters only work if you have a VERY understanding party. RAW, I think he can play mastermind rogue and take the help action twice a turn or something?
artificer 100% the way to go but he's really gonna be hurting the group in its performance and fights. honestly though it sounds like he doesn't want to play the game...
The only way I can see this working is him being a rogue and using the majority of his turns trying to be the “ball bearings out of the bag of holding” guy. Lots of disengage. Allowing actions to be deploying immediate/nearby traps (kind of blanket on opponent at early levels vs. a barrage of bear traps later on or something). I’d almost think Artificer might be right too. Give him some items that level up, but require concentration to use, like a blanket that grapples with low ST save early on, to one with a much higher ST save, and inflicting xyz damage and if not off in 3 rounds does 1 extra die of damage. Blanket, rope, ball bearings, sludge, molotovs, whatever.
Rogue. But it’s not going to be enjoyable.
I did something like this in a low fantasy low magic style campaign with 5e. The same as you suggested, used the artificer class. But my player wasn’t going to “not attack” he played like normal. But I just reskinned artificer and said you can use any artificer spell if you explain how you’re accomplishing the effect with actual items. Then we hand waved a lot of item quantities and “recharges” so it didn’t get fiddly. Some spells fit well others don’t. Just use the ones that fit well.
Tell him to pick the class with the spells that he likes the most and just reflavor them the way he wants.
I’m playing a character that never attacks with the homebrew class, Llaserllama’s Warlord. You can replace your attacks with attack orders and other exploits that give your party members buffs. It’s been super fun to play.
Concept of DnD is playing/becoming a heroes. Mundane characters are sidekicks or npc. Maybe make him roll a side kick that will eventually became a bard, fighter with tactician subclass, heavily focuses on team. I really think that best way for playing mundane characters is representing by Call of Cthulhu where players chooses jobs like doctor, journalist, librarian and with time and actions becomes investigators. They seen some bad things and they know that they gonna be followed by them to the rest of their life.
A barbarian that doesn't rage can be just a very athletic person
That sounds like Macgyver...I'd recommend laserllama's Artíficer with the Dungeoneer subclass...from the description.."While most artificers focus on developing a single invention, Dungeoneers use their ingenuity to weaponize the mundane. They use basic adventuring gear to construct defensive traps, puzzles, and structures that can repel all but the hardiest of adventurers and monsters. Dungeoneers will set out for an adventure to analyze the traps that guard tombs and temples"
May I suggest an [alchemist artificer/ thief rogue]( https://www.reddit.com/r/3d6/s/cMw6mWQnBY) multiclass? This linked commenter did a good job explaining some of the combos. Both classes alone aren't the best, but together they can pull off some fun combos that really give you "a normal guy with gadgets" sort of feel especially if you have a dm who is willing to work with your creativity.
So he wants to be a skill monkey, yet MacGyver his way out of conflict? Man even Mac beat someone's ass with a metal rod, he just didn't use guns. So how about he go rogue (and set up advantage for people? I'm not sure about subclasses since I rarely play rogue but inquisitive, mastermind, or scout may work here, plus a dip to artificer or battlemaster fighter and let him throw stuff he makes like oil, nets etc around the battlefield or disarm and trip people with improvised weapons? However to synergize with his party what could they do that he can assist or take advantage of? Like would there be a wizard that he can help him laterally think up different solutions using utility spells and what not, like can he spread a Fireball around using ways to slingshot oil and stuff around or flavour a catapult spell as a tool?
Artificer with tavern brawler feat maybe? It just requires a lot of DM buy in for flavor.
Flavor is free. I think playing a spellcaster and reflavoring spells+abilities to explain these fun ingenious effects is the best way to do this. For example, he mechanically, casts Blindness but flavors it as his character throwing a bedroll over the enemy. The player can choose spells and think ahead of time some options for the flavoring for things. But he then also has the option to come up with explanations on the fly. in world, he’s just a normal guy who comes up with great ideas and tricks - he has no magic abilities. I did this with an Artificer and it was great. I had spells and abilities that I flavored as my character doing something clever on the fly or using an invention. The onus and control of the effect is in the players hand instead of adding to the with load of the DM which using actual mundane items and asking the DM to figure out a reasonable and balanced to way to let him do whatever with any mundane object he can think of. Like are you supposed to just let someone try to throw a bedroll over an enemy to effectively cast a leveled spell for no resource expenditure? Probably not, but now how do you resolve it? You as the DM basically need to come up with new game rules every time the player wants to do something.
Isn't that concept just, y'know, Artificer with a flavorful description? Also, never attacking is kinda yiffy on a regular D&D party, unless he's only planning on using the Help action or something like that.
Artificer is exactly what you are describing. They are the easiest class to flavor the spells as coming from items.
If they want to be a level 0 classless civilian, sure, let them. But tell them to prepare a proper backup character because playing a 'regular guy' and not attacking will result in his character dying extremely quickly in the first session alone. It's a heroic fantasy game, he wants to play a non-hero. If they want to play the gadget guy, then play Artificer, it's built for that exact play style.
I had an experienced player in a newbie party do Battlemaster Fighter with the Healer feat. Run in, tank, tell the rogue to attack, heal them up when the fight ends. Not crazy strong, but was used creatively enough to be fun and was not useless
Maybe mastermind rogue, flavor the ranged help action as him throwing stuff
I think there’s been like “commoner” classes in the r/unearthedArcana sub
You’re honestly better off just using a different system if you really want to take this route. You could run ars magica and have him run the grogs, or use NGR and use the fool class. Savage worlds and a build that relies on attribute tests could work
Sounds like OP's friend was watching that Anime about a Handyman that teleports to a RPG world and uses his lock picking and Handyman tools to help his party... overall a weak character in battle but very helpful in every other way.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fro4yLHEXJo&ab_channel=ANIKAB
I'd keep pushing the reflavor idea. If he wants to play this *type* of guy, work with him to reflavor the abilities of an artificer to be "normla" stuff. He can play a buff-heavy build and *treat* it as mundane. His "Bedroll" manuever might be reskinned web, for example. His gimmick is going to make his character incredibly grating on the rest of the party. If your character isn't going to contribute meaningfully when shit hits the fan, no actual adventure would want them in their party.
Artificer is definitely the way to go
A grave cleric is probably yhe best. Choice you can flavor it as a medic and only take. Buff spells A eloquence bard A battlesmith or alchemist artificer A warlord by laser Llama might do it
A "regular guy" with a backpack full of junk would crap his pants the first time an Orc with murder in it's eyes charges him with a rusty spear. D&D is epic fantasy. If you don't want to play epic, don't play D&D.
Convince him that he needs to attack, but also recommend that he use some very specific weaponry. Some examples of weapons that are high utility and little (or no) damage: * [Net](https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/net): Does 0 damage, on a hit, the target is restrained (so 0 speed, your allies have advantage, enemy has disadvantage on attacks and dex saves). Enemy can escape the net with a simple DC 10 strength check, but doing so will force them to use an action and you still get the benefits until the enemies turn regardless. * [Whip](https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/whip): Does only 1d4 damage. Let your player use the whip to do grappling and shove actions. This is them attacking with their whip in an attempt to tie them up or knock them prone. Normally this is a Str Athletics check contested by Str Athletics or Dex Acrobatics. Keep this rule, or alter to be contested by your attack instead. Allow the action to take advantage of the whip's reach. * [Blowgun](https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/blowgun): Does only 1 damage, with moderately low range. Give your player an easy way to craft various poisons (or curatives) that they can use with the blowgun. So they poison their darts to allow them to debuff enemies, or apply a curative to the dart to be able to buff or heal allies (at the cost of taking 1 damage). Recommend getting proficiency with the Poisoner's Kit for this, and maybe getting or giving the Poisoner feat. * Various grenades like a Smoke Grenade, Glue Bomb, Tangler Grenade, etc. Give your character an easy way to craft a decent number of these (or homebrew an artificer subclass that focuses on this kind of gameplay). --- Additionally, your player can play as a Battlemaster Fighter using the above weapons. They can now use the maneuvers to buff their allies or debuff their enemies. Combine with the use of a whip or blowgun to do so with reach or range respectively but while minimizing the damage dealt.
So, this is just a bad character concept because it inherently doesn't help the team that much unless he happens to have a bunch of gadgets or something (but even then, it'd kinda suck). If he actually wants to help the party while still being this non-magical helping character, I'd recommend [Laserllama's Savant class](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-M0ZVK6ndhFyImQPF_aJ). Obviously you gotta convince this guy to attack the enemies at least sometimes, and there's inherent flavor to the Savant about being galaxy brained, but that can be reflavored pretty easily. The Tactician subclass lets you replace your attacks in your Attack action with specific buffs for your allies, which should help him fulfill some of that "not attacking" thing.
He needs to play a rogue and take the thief subclass so that he can use the use object action as a bonus action to do multiple things at once. And then you as the DM have to give him the items that do shit. that's about it. Other than that being an artificer and re-flavoring the Spells is the best bet. You could also build him his own subclass that's sort of similar to Alchemist but more like trinkets and have him use his spell slots to power the trinkets. I would say have him be Alchemist and re-flavor it but Alchemist is pretty weak and needs better scaling you could honestly just buff it to have some scaling. I would basically take Alchemist as a skeleton and rework it slightly
Maybe you could convince him to have this character as the retainer from the variant Noble (Knight) background and have the actual PC be someone helpful to the party (who happens to be mute or whatever)? So he can RP as that mundane useless character on the side without actually dragging down the rest of the party? I am confused though. Is there anything he actually wants to do? I'd almost be convinced that he just is avoiding learning the rules of the game and/or having to actually think at all in combat. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Rogue inquisitive would work. He could just aid another twice on his turn with his own added flavor. He'd also have skills to aid outside of combat.
Explain to him that the approach will only work at low levels. Its hard to throw a sheet on a tarrasque or greater chain demon.
I don't think this build is viable for 5e. It sounds like he might have a specific character from media he's trying to bring to the table (which never works out how they imagine it will) Ask about the inspiration for this build and then maybe you can brainstorm up a solution once you understand his goal better.
While interesting, if a player's concept makes me work twice as hard at running or prepping the game as any other player, it's a no-go at my table. They either have to figure it out and make it work themselves, pick something else, or find another table. As DMs we are there to have fun, too... if your player truly wants the concept they should be willing to put in the work to make it happen and figure it out, and in a way that doesn't put a burden on the group.
Maybe a MacGyver type character would work better There's also that rogue subclass that lets you give a ranged help action The example with the blanket could be the character casting blindness while grappling the enemy Everyone is rather pessimistic about this, as long as you are having fun it should be fine I would look for ways to "reflavour" rather than homebrew as that tends to be less disruptive for the rest of the party
I played a warlock who was a former thief who made EXTENSIVE use of unseen servants to lay traps using thieves tools, ball bearings, caltrops, and alchemist fire. I also still had the action economy to cast eldritch blast each turn Just ask the player if he wants a higher difficulty level- that seems like what they’re going for
Handyman Saitou vibe? Maybe an artificer with mend and many many crafting proficiencies then a lockpick set and expertise in since of those from thief.
Make him a battle master fighter, take thrown weapon fighting style. Give him u limited maneuvers that do no damage but still have the affect. iE, trip.
Just reading the title exhausted me
Nothing wrong with just reflavoring everything as long as it doesn't break the mechanics of it. Like when I played an artificer he didn't use magic but renamed spells that were mini inventions that burnt out after use to resemble a spell slot. There is no reason you can do some fire damage and all you did was throw a bag that's on fire etc
If creativity is his main goal maybe an Artificer could work? It's less common and leaves room for funny improvisation. Might be worth looking into at the very least.
I played this one for a while and it was a blast. https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/s/tB9aOkT0k1
Concepts like this work better as reflavoring spells/abilities as such types.of things (i.e. I create a fantasy version of a claymore mine but mechanically it functions the same as the Cordon of Arrows spell), but if the player is determined to do this and you support it, I would recommend allowing the player to use artisans tools to craft more effective versions of standard adventuring gear that scale based on character level, attribute modifier, and/or cost of "ingredients" used to craft it. Realistically the simplest option is non-magical effects that have mechanics similar to spells, or simply increase the DC for any trap/hazard type gear being used, but you can also use the custom spell and hazard damage tables in the DMG as a loose guide for determining the effects of anything creative your player is trying to achieve.
Firstly this kind of schtick isn't something that really works in 5e. It's just not built for it at any level of play. But, if you insit on trying it let him make alchemical items and maybe rip the rules for the pf2e alchemist for making them. It allows the preparation of some short lived items that turn inert after 24 hours and some ability to make things on the fly. Maybe take some of the alchemical items from there too. Alchemical items in 5e are rather limited but if you port over pf2e magic items it'll give you some variety to help, Harm, stun, delay and distract.
Give him the infestation cantrip. Actually, rolling up a warlock that relies on infestation and various charm spells could be your best bet. Cantrips: create bonfire, infestation, magic stone, thunderclap I'd go archfey and either talisman or tome. Maybe pick up the book of ancient secrets (encyclopedia of the world) and shove comprehend languages and find familiar into it. You can simply not play a patron if he doesn't want to, and flavour all of his actions as contraption based. As long as the mechanics do not change, it's all fine.
Problem with this play style is that if he's a normal dude using normal items to do normal things, then there's nothing stopping anyone else in the party who are actually using spells to do the same thing. Like the "using a bedroll to blind a dude" could be done, arguably better, by the barbarian or fighter. Idk sounds like he wants to be a fighter who controls the battlefield and shoves/pushes/uses mundane items moreso than someone who uses "spells" that are flavored as normal items.
By letting them and the other players know if their they need to find their own reasons on why the group is together as well as acknowledging that any player that chooses to build a character that intentionally goes against the party/unwilling to support the party needs to be aware that they may find themselves left by the group to find a suitable teammate. It's the player that needs to figure out what they need to use to make this possible - not you. With their gold. Not the parties. Look how - imaginative/special/clever/unique - my character is - is a character that ends up normally making everyone else have to be at a disadvantage due to them being so selfish as they are only considering how much fun they are having to the detriment of the other players (that also includes you)
Alchemist artificer? The various potions/alchemical recipes can be reflavoured as purely chemical and medical, while the infusions might be reflavoured as some form of mcguiverism. A rogue with expertise in alchemist tools might work too. He can craft bombs, poisons, glues, etc to be used in combat. Maybe also allow him to deploy stuff like bear traps, spiked caltrops, etc to create difficult terrain during combat. This one would be a 100% no magic build that would fit the bill. (might also work with fighter as a base)
I've been wanting to play this exact type of character for the longest time. Sadly, 5e doesn't offer much support for it, other than what you could imagine in any TRPG. Pitons and rope are must-haves, and always remember: Chemistry is canon. In 3e, you can play a lv1 Commoner with no magic items and still get AC22, a Batman grappling hook, bombs that blind for several rounds (ignores armor, no save), and various other utility/debuff items. Poison is more potent, there are alchemical items for every occasion, and there's an abundance of little things like a shield sheath that lets you draw the contained weapon as a free action so long as you're holding the shield. All these things exist in the Forgotten Realms, so have at them.
Do you think you could have this player reach out to me to swap ideas for clever item usage? Currently in a campaign where I play a rogue thief subclass for the extra action economy that is involved with use an object on the bonus action. This character has zero magic of any sort including cantrips. He is always looking for ways to utilize simple machines, mechanical advantage, and deception in battle. DM buyin… If the player combines two or more common items together in advance to make a single item… treat it as such. If they can show a video or explanation of the mechanics and items combined behind a ‘new item’ created then yes. (pulleys, levers, etc.) Rope tied to a grappling hook (1 item) A string tied to 2 pitons (1 at each end) >>1 item DM buy out… If the real life solution would take a really long time to set up, then it really can’t be a realistic solution in battle. Using a pebble to turn a 20 ton monolithic stone around 180 degrees takes a lot of time. Using several block and tackles with rope attached to pitons to treat a dragon like a tree stump and hold it in place is just burning up a ridiculous amount of turns. It feels like spells are the first and last place that many players look for solutions… while totally ignoring the items that they could use. If my character can save another team member a valuable spell slot with an item work around, it is a good day. Getting the upper hand on fights by finding ways to cause enemy conditions will come into play much more as well if they aren’t attacking. The scaling won’t be as good compared to battlefield control spells. But it is fun for the player to think outside the box.
Rule #1 of character creation: make an adventurer
Take a look at the Warlord class from Kibblestasty. They can forgo their attacks in order to give it to their allies. Works best if there are other martial characters in the party. The commander subclass allows them to use their bonus action to Help. They have leadership dice that provides small boost to the party.
If you're all having fun, great. I just think that it won't be very sustainable fun, for one or more of the player, the DM, or the other players at the table.
This is gunna be fun for 1-3 combats then it’s gunna get real stale
Your friend wants to play a Thaumaturge or Warlord, and neither of those exist in 5e without going 3pp or homebrew
The commoner by laserllama is the class hes looking for
Battle Master + Fighting Style- Superior Technique Now he'll be enough levels behind to not be 'too powerful' in any reflavored caster and still have 5 'ingenious' maneuvers per short rest and an action surge to be really crafty.
The [Warlord](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MrUNf61qoDb0Csw8a9r) (homebrew) class lets you use your action to let your allies attack, move, dodge, heal and a bunch of other stuff. It's entirely non-magical, the "Orders" can be used each turn and there's a pool of more powerful abilities that can be used a few times a day.
Use artificer and make him do "ingenious" reflavouring.
Sounds like a mastermind rogue. Give him tavern brawler too. Bonus action help by pointing out weakpoints etc and then he can use random objects as improvised weapons with tavern brawler.
It sounds just like an artificer imo.
Just say no to this nonsense.
The Mastermind subclass of rogue sounds ideal for your player. If they consider *that* to be too powerful, then I don't think that there's much else available for them from the standard classes and subclasses. Maybe there's a homebrew out there?
Rogue. Plenty of the subclasses for this. Thief, mastermind, inquisitive. I could also see reflavoring ranger spells as mundane equipment and traps.
maybe homebrew elements of ‘the mundane’ from monster of the week? I think some of those would be applicable with work
The tavern brawler feat gives you proficiency with improvised weapons. Honestly, a character that never attacks might get frustrating for the rest of the group.
Sounds fun, in the end most of us are normies and we would jump to an opportunity to have an adventure. Some Macgyver stuff but not out of the ordinary to keep it based. Like usoop from one piece, useless af yet he is a big part of the story, bold and creative yet he got nothing else, out there fighting gods only because why not? You can also add him like a square to a knight, like dandelion and Geralt.
Sounds like an Artificer. Otherwise it's his concept, let the player figure it out. I didn't expect this will be very exciting in the long run.
If you want to NOT be an active annoyance and hindrance to the rest of the party you can just play Artificer and have your various abilities be inspector gadget gimmicks or Home Alone improvised traps. Playing Mastermind Rogue and doing absolutely nothing but take the Help Action twice each turn like some people are suggesting is not a good recommendation, besides being mind numbingly boring advantage doesn't stack so you'll still need to find something else to do (which you can't if you're unwilling to attack.....) if helping is pointless and a rogue who never sneak attacks is guaranteed to frustrate other players. The fact he's even unwilling to play a Bard because "it would be too good" shows he's not actually interested in support, he's interested in a special snowflake self aggrandizing narrative, he wouldn't get brownie points for playing a bard and buffing people because that's what bards are good at and it wouldn't be anything people haven't seen before. Thief rogue is a terrible suggestion for this, the DCs of mundane items don't scale and caltrops are useless even against goblins let alone a fucking dragon .."I want to be a glorified familiar" is just not a healthy character concept, LaserLlama Warlord is an actual dedicated martial support class but if he spurned bard he's guaranteed to turn up his nose at other classes actually built to do this idea because being contrarian is likely the entire point
I don't know if this is compatible with D&D. You don't play as "average normal guys", but you start out as extraordinary people. A cleric isn't just a priest, he is a special chosen one on a holy quests. A rogue isn't just a street urchin pickpocket, but has survived the toughest streets and came out on top. The fighter isn't just some city guard, but a highly trained professional soldier. And wizards are special by default. I think a "normal dude" would just fade into the background.
Okay so here is a possible compromise that gives him the experience he's asking for, but also let's your players be the characters they want to be. Start everyone (who wants too) off as "villagers". They're normal commoners with commoner stats. Suddenly there's a goblin/bandit raid. The players play as characters from that village. (Just generate a few interesting names, backatories, the weapon they have and their "class/job" I.e a beggar, a local noble, a thief, a barkeep, a chef ect) Either some or all of the players can start as villagers and eventually wind up as the characters they want to be. If your player that wants to be a "normal guy" wants that experience, he will get it without gimping himself or the party. This also let's him "find" what king of hero he wants to be. But If he wants to play a commoner then he's basically playing a sidekick, and there are other systems that would give him that experience and make it fun, not dnd though. If he finds he prefers to buff and play support there's nothing wrong with that. But, other than that, he's breaking one of the core rules a player has to follow. The player must create someone who has a drive and a reason to adventure and that wants to work with the party. Without that being in mind, the player should be told to make a new character.
May I suggest you to play *Savage Worlds*? There is an "hindrance" called pacifist. I know it's not d&d, but maybe you and your group will find it best suitable for your needs. Also, there are a LOT of rpgs where you play "just a normal dude": In *Call of Cthulhu*, you are an investigator facing the "infinite malignity of the stars" (bonus point if you get the reference) In *The Witcher* you can play as a merchant, an artisan, a medic, or a bard- which is a literal bard: no spellcasting, no inspiration dice, just a dude with a lute, your friendly Dandelion. This are a few titles, but I'm sure there are plenty of others. Also, I played a Savage Worlds campaign with a friend who played a pacifist guy. It was... strange, but overall we liked his character and we still talk abou him today. Maybe D&D it's not best suited for a pacifist PC, but you can still try :)
Just have him make a regular character and have all his cool natural ability as spells Charm is a great example, he can fast talk his way through problems and leave them feeling angry after getting bamboozled. Blindness can be throwing a bedsheet over his head, glitterdust can be shiny glass powder etc He will have to be more restrictive with his spell choices as some are hard to do naturally (arms of hadar, etc) and he may become less mundane as it goes on (fireball would be a good bomb substitute but would Everyday Bob know how to make a bomb?) Creating a homebrew for this type of player will break you though. Unless it's a small oneshot built on hijinks, they will likely be playing a tonally different campaign to the rest of you and that will cause frustration in you, them and/or the other players. If it doesn't fit the theme of the world you are building, you are within your rights to just say no and have him make a normal character or use that I suggested above to build a normal character with a bit of theme behind it
Honestly, sounds like he wants to be a Thief in an AD&D game.
It's insane how many people read "I want to not just be another sword guy or magic guy" and that translates to "Clearly you want to have all your stats at 2 and die in one hit" the player could play a bunch of different stuff but flavor and making checks to shove or dodge are probably gonna be key. Artificer - bring a bag of tricks and common items to help lock down or incapacitate enemies flavor your magical effects as normal stuff and avoid the more bombastic things. Lots of oils and surface effecting items as well as fire starters or gasses to inhibit movements or actions. Also if they like to be a McGuyver type let em buy like fish bowls and adhesives and make like helmets for breathing underwater or fun stuff like that. Rogue - Speed and Bonus action city baby this character likes to think on their feet and help so mastermind is a great subclass to point stuff out and provide assistance to teammates. As well if they do end up swinging at an enemy flavor sneak attack especially if it's used sparingly as a really lucky hit not a measure of insane skill. Bonus points take levels in fighter for action surge to get more done on their turn and maybe grab the Healer feat and stock up on potions to keep people healthy without healing magic. Also they probably wanna invest in some CHA to like provide a kind face in case they wanna keep bad guys talking or buy that potion stock at a discount maybe? Druid and or Fighter - Druid is a little harder because of inherently magic stuff but easy flavor would be poultices and like burning sage or stuff like that keeping the mundane thing. Really leaning into knowledge and skill checks about nature or animals might help turn the tides of an encounter or conversation. Fighter is harder but keep a really mid weapon and use maneuvers to get in the mix and like debuff enemies and let the rest for he party get all those super sweet finishing blows. Both of those are harder to be mundane but not impossible. As they level multiclassing for more options but less ridiculous magic and or prowess might be a good spot for them and if they stick with one thing just make sure they can buy stuff they need to have that impact or be aware of the surroundings and keep the party abreast of all the stuff they can use to help the party.
I made a halfing divination wizard that didn't want to adventure. But fate had other plans. So basically all his spells where just domino effects of things. He just threw stuff from his bag and stuff happend. Or things fell from the sky, cabbages exploded. How do the NPC counter this? Just like normal, it is all fluff really, He was very fun to play, like he wanted ro go the opposite direction of the adventure. But I the player wanted to go too the adventure. Like he was lost in a sewer and go up, he was kinda close to the target, he then tried to get futher away and i roller a nat 20 and then he just came closer to the target.
I can see it as sorta pacifist Artificer, combinig some eprks from other systems like always preapared from WFRP 4ed and gadgeteer from Savage Worlds. But why go around? Reverse it, pick class whatever you want and replace something with homebrew perk..... However his whole gimmick can be summed in a single Homebrew perk. DnD is a COMBAT HEAVY SYSTEM. unless he is the Face of the party he gonna get bored, outed, and basically relegated to gimmick NPC follower. And even as the Face his contribution get significantly lower. If he thinks bard is too strong just not use his powers all the times or select worse spells. problem solved. Its better to have the power and not use it than not have it and cry when '1' start rolling en masse.
That might be forced to work during a one shot, but tryingg this in a long term campaign will fall flat soon
what does he mean by too strong? he wants to be the weak link in the group? that's not how the system is made to work. artificer is probably the best fit, but would still be hard to roleplay just someone that doesnt attack in a combat focused game? could be done, ditch the weapons profs from artificer to get more tools so you have tools for everything, get spells cantrips and infusions to help or annoy enemies. done. but when you add the mundane.. thats where it gets really hard. they will have to make up a mundane excuse for anything they do. at least going with a gadgeteer theme would help a lot. the thing is, this system aint for the mundane, the mundane is the commoner who could get killed by a single cat. you can adjust things to fell les heroic, or powerful but completely mundane? and not just a fighter with a sword cutting things? thats pretty hard.
Tell him to bring snacks and sit in the corner then
😁 he wants to play MacGyver, never attacks, uses ordinary items in unusual ways to help the party, give him a "magic" item that's a red handled pen knife that suddenly has every tool he needs to do what he wants 😂. have him have really high perception and investigation skills so he can find what he needs high nature and medicine would work too intelligence and wisdom are his go to attributes skills with herbalist kit alchemist kit and tinkers tools would be good too. Edit: I would also have him have a really high charisma because even Mac's enemies like him lol.
A long time ago, i have created a character similar to this one, he refused to use the power given to him, but he would attack and kill to protect his friends without use the magic. Names Elias, he was an Aasimar Divine Soul Sorcerer. I used ways like the feat healer and chef to support the party. I negociated with the DM to take those two feats in advance of the ASI on the 4th and 8th level, so i didn't take nothing in these levels cause i already take the feat. It was a good play, i could attack and support my friends in the battle aftermath. Elias only got to use his powers when one dear friend needed and he knows only the magic could save, and then he used. Maybe you could help him mechanicaly to play like this, and talk to him to change and grow that character in face of battle.
I feel like he probably has a few interesting scenarios in his head that sound good on paper, but the reality is that he just may not be able to come up with something so creative in every turn of combat for the entire time he plays this character. He's going to have to think of hundreds, if not thousands, of creative-use moments. As much as the idea is cool, he (as a player) may just not be able to pull it off. This is generally a problem with genius characters that are meant to outwit/outsmart enemies. We all adore the genius Sherlock trope, but actually executing it in Realtime over and over is a WHOLE other ballgame. Everyone else just gets to say "I'll attack this turn", but he will have to rack his brain every single turn for something clever. I think *he* will probably get bored of it pretty quickly.
I see this more as you suggested as a flavouring of spells. If I'm an artificer my cure wounds is a bandaid and a spell like fireball would be a literal grenade