His question was functionally impossible to answer due to how incredibly vague it was; Like no class is inherently an "RP class" since RP is something you do as a player via the way in which you present your character and interact with the world around you.
That isn't something you can modify via dice rolls.
His question was functionally impossible to answer due to how incredibly vague it was; Like no class is inherently an "RP class" since RP is something you do as a player via the way in which you present your character and interact with the world around you.
That isn't something you can modify via dice rolls.
And yet I was able to answer it. A subsequent post clarified that the question was intended to include the build of the character. I answered with that in mind.
And then you wanted to argue.
Ok....sure. On the surface your point seems self evident. A ranger with a 6 intelligence, 7 Charisma and a favored foe of goblins will roleplay "well" by being distrustful and antagonistic of any goblin NPCs the party encounters. While being respectful to dryads. That's all that's needed. But that's obviously not what the OP was asking about.
To set up the premise of my answer, in my never humble opinion Role Play and Roll Play are not always separate. Say a party has a half orc Paladin who consistently rolls a nat 1 on his every attempt to force open a door. Then there's a half elf Rogue who consistently rolls a nat 20 on her every attempt to force open a door. The Roll Play dictates that the Role Play is the Paladin hates doors for making him feel inferior while the Rogue is confident when she approaches them. Meanwhile the party's gnome Wizard consistently rolls nat 20s on his attempts to intimidate their enemies. Guess who ends up having the biggest attitude?
Let's examine this part of your post... "in which you present your character and interact with the world around you." Charisma is the score used to influence the world and bend it to the will of the character. So those who are "best" at it are the ones with high Charisma... Bards, Paladins, Sorcerers and Warlocks. Of those four, Bards are the ones that get Expertise. So let's say the gnome Wizard is level 6 and has a 13 Charisma and proficiency with Intimidation. The Wizard nat 20s, for a total of 24. It's good but there are still two DC levels that it fails on. Now we introduce a Bard who is also level 6, has a 20 Charisma and expertise with Intimidation. She rolls a 17 for a total of 28. It succeeds on all but the Nearly Impossible (30) Difficulty Challenge. If the Bard does roll a nat 20 then it's a 30 and succeeds on all DC checks. Thus the Bard's build is the best for role play in the sense that it has the greatest chance of success for all DCs involving other creatures.
Of course, none of that is necessary for Role Playing, it's just the answer to the question (as I interpreted it) that was asked. The Paladin should have the "best" chance to force open doors with his 20 Strength and proficiency in Athletics. The Rogue with her 10 Strength and no proficiency in Athletics shouldn't succeed more than the Paladin. And that arrogant little Wizard shouldn't come across as being the size of an Ogre in the eyes of their enemies. But the Dice decided differently. So now the Wizard is tanking the bugbears, the Paladin is stuck on the outside of a locked stone door on the other side of the room and the Rogue is slaughtering everything because sure, her subclass is Thief but she kicked open the stone door, never misses with her attacks and can't roll less than a 5 on each of her Sneak Attack damage dice.
His question was functionally impossible to answer due to how incredibly vague it was; Like no class is inherently an "RP class" since RP is something you do as a player via the way in which you present your character and interact with the world around you.
That isn't something you can modify via dice rolls.
And yet I was able to answer it. A subsequent post clarified that the question was intended to include the build of the character. I answered with that in mind. [/quote]
And then you wanted to argue.
Ok....sure. On the surface your point seems self evident. A ranger with a 6 intelligence, 7 Charisma and a favored foe of goblins will roleplay "well" by being distrustful and antagonistic of any goblin NPCs the party encounters. While being respectful to dryads. That's all that's needed. But that's obviously not what the OP was asking about.
To set up the premise of my answer, in my never humble opinion Role Play and Roll Play are not always separate. Say a party has a half orc Paladin who consistently rolls a nat 1 on his every attempt to force open a door. Then there's a half elf Rogue who consistently rolls a nat 20 on her every attempt to force open a door. The Roll Play dictates that the Role Play is the Paladin hates doors for making him feel inferior while the Rogue is confident when she approaches them. Meanwhile the party's gnome Wizard consistently rolls nat 20s on his attempts to intimidate their enemies. Guess who ends up having the biggest attitude?
Let's examine this part of your post... "in which you present your character and interact with the world around you." Charisma is the score used to influence the world and bend it to the will of the character. So those who are "best" at it are the ones with high Charisma... Bards, Paladins, Sorcerers and Warlocks. Of those four, Bards are the ones that get Expertise. So let's say the gnome Wizard is level 6 and has a 13 Charisma and proficiency with Intimidation. The Wizard nat 20s, for a total of 24. It's good but there are still two DC levels that it fails on. Now we introduce a Bard who is also level 6, has a 20 Charisma and expertise with Intimidation. She rolls a 17 for a total of 28. It succeeds on all but the Nearly Impossible (30) Difficulty Challenge. If the Bard does roll a nat 20 then it's a 30 and succeeds on all DC checks. Thus the Bard's build is the best for role play in the sense that it has the greatest chance of success for all DCs involving other creatures.
Of course, none of that is necessary for Role Playing, it's just the answer to the question (as I interpreted it) that was asked. The Paladin should have the "best" chance to force open doors with his 20 Strength and proficiency in Athletics. The Rogue with her 10 Strength and no proficiency in Athletics shouldn't succeed more than the Paladin. And that arrogant little Wizard shouldn't come across as being the size of an Ogre in the eyes of their enemies. But the Dice decided differently. So now the Wizard is tanking the bugbears, the Paladin is stuck on the outside of a locked stone door on the other side of the room and the Rogue is slaughtering everything because sure, her subclass is Thief but she kicked open the stone door, never misses with her attacks and can't roll less than a 5 on each of her Sneak Attack damage dice.
You are trying so damn hard here it's not even funny.
RP isn't your charisma score. It isn't the Skills or abilities that your character are able to perform at varying levels of skill. It isn't even success or failure.
Role Play is the ability to present your character to the world around you and interact with it in a way that is internally consistent with the knowledge and values the character has. This is entirely a case of player performance which is almost entirely removed from the character's stats.
Further regarding failure and roleplay this leads into interesting and fun role playing opportunities for the player; Do they simply avoid the activity that caused the failure? Do they seek some way to circumvent the circumstances that put them in that predicament? Maybe seek equipment that will give them better opportunities in the future? Talk to the other character who succeeded to see what they did differently? Like I would argue that failure can be even more interesting as a player then success because it provides us with so many more opportunities to grow, change and evolve the narrative that we're building with our characters.
The Best class for RP is the one not being utilized by the party from a skills perspective. Let's say I join a party that is Fighter, cleric, bard. They have the Strength and wisdom and charisma skills covered so I will be either a wizard or artificer to cover the intelligence skills or a dexterity based character and cover those skills.
Now, I is my job to RP those skills when they come up over the other players. For instance anything magical shows up or history/lore stuff, I push to the front and take the spotlight. Same with sneaky, acrobatic, sealing whatever dex stuff. That is what the party was missing.
The Best class for RP is the one not being utilized by the party from a skills perspective. Let's say I join a party that is Fighter, cleric, bard. They have the Strength and wisdom and charisma skills covered so I will be either a wizard or artificer to cover the intelligence skills or a dexterity based character and cover those skills.
Now, I is my job to RP those skills when they come up over the other players. For instance anything magical shows up or history/lore stuff, I push to the front and take the spotlight. Same with sneaky, acrobatic, sealing whatever dex stuff. That is what the party was missing.
You're conflating party composition with Roleplay.
The OP’s question can be read in two different ways—“which class is best for roleplaying” and “which class gives the best roleplay-specific tools.” A lot of the bickering on this thread comes from folks choosing to answer one of those, then talking past one another rather than realise you are talking about different things. The fact that some of you made this environment so hostile that the OP wants the entire thread expunged is, a bit sad
OP, taking a mulligan on the thread—pretty much everyone here is correct in how they answered, just from different perspectives.
It is absolutely correct that every class can be “the best” at roleplay, since roleplay is a player skill, of a character skill. A player who is good at roleplaying can turn any class into a roleplay-heavy class.
It is absolutely correct that charisma characters, particularly bards, and something like a rogue which gets expertise and lots of skills, have the most dialog-based roleplay specific skills. Much of roleplay with NPCs is going to involve charisma checks and insight checks, so classes which are good at those things will have a leg up. After all, you could be a great role player as a player… but if the dice hate you and your modifiers are low, that rousing speech might not pursuance anyone.
It is absolutely correct that you don’t have to have face skills to roleplay well. “I smash the table” from a Barbarian can be good roleplaying—it will be a different type of roleplaying than your typical face, but it is roleplaying nonetheless.
It is absolutely correct that playing something different from the other members of your party is a major boon to roleplaying. Then you have a specialised role in your party—something they need, and something to give the party a reason to interact with you, bargain with you, and otherwise connect with you over. Diverse party roles can bring folks together and give them a reason to roleplay in a way “eh, Sneaky Rogue doesn’t want to do X, good thing I have Sneaky Ranger to turn to instead.”
All told, there are lots of correct paths to making a good roleplay character. Do what works for you and what works for your party, and just try to have some fun. And don’t let the folks who are bickering get you down—your thread asked a fair question, and it wasn’t fair of them to ruin your enjoyment.
So Putting aside how I did in fact attempt to get the OP to clarify what they meant with their topic (IE were they looking for a good "face" type character), I'd Like to take a moment to step back and examine what exactly Role Play *is*.
At it's core, Roleplay is the narrative agency that we as players are allowed to express through our characters in the story; it is every action, comment, expression, belief and value that we can offer up as part of the weave of the collective story that the participants in the game are able to put forward and as such anything that the players do (as long as it isn't being actively detrimental to the progression of narrative) can be good roleplay with the level of quality being related to the relative emotional response from other players. This is something that exists outside of the realm of stats, abilities, dice rolls and often codified lore native to the setting.
This fact is true across every system that you might come across, whether that be Dungeons and Dragons, Teenagers from outer space, GURPS, Iron Claw, Ninja's and Superspies, Earthdawn, Rogue Trader, Pathfinder or even F.A.T.A.L.
To consign this to something as base as stats or party composition Is like describing the various collection of organs and their functions when asked "Who is Gary Gygax"; You're not wrong for describing the mechanics but it fundamentally misses the existance of the soul.
So Putting aside how I did in fact attempt to get the OP to clarify what they meant with their topic (IE were they looking for a good "face" type character), I'd Like to take a moment to step back and examine what exactly Role Play *is*.
At it's core, Roleplay is the narrative agency that we as players are allowed to express through our characters in the story; it is every action, comment, expression, belief and value that we can offer up as part of the weave of the collective story that the participants in the game are able to put forward and as such anything that the players do (as long as it isn't being actively detrimental to the progression of narrative) can be good roleplay with the level of quality being related to the relative emotional response from other players. This is something that exists outside of the realm of stats, abilities, dice rolls and often codified lore native to the setting.
This fact is true across every system that you might come across, whether that be Dungeons and Dragons, Teenagers from outer space, GURPS, Iron Claw, Ninja's and Superspies, Earthdawn, Rogue Trader, Pathfinder or even F.A.T.A.L.
To consign this to something as base as stats or party composition Is like describing the various collection of organs and their functions when asked "Who is Gary Gygax"; You're not wrong for describing the mechanics but it fundamentally misses the existance of the soul.
Sigh. Doubling down on your gatekeeping is not a good look. As I have already said, you are right, from one perspective. But you are so aggressively ignoring other perspectives that it is clear you have “Other perspectives are wrong, even the people who say ‘I am right, but others might be right too’ are wrong because they’re implying I am not perfect” vibes.
Here is the reality, there are many, many ways to play D&D. And while there are many ways to roleplay in D&D, certain things—such as taking skills that help with your dialogue (potentially using mechanics to help make up for lack of roleplay skill) or taking something that give you a unique role in the game—can improve one’s roleplay experience.
You made some good, useful points… and then ruined any possible value you brought to this thread by being standoffish, by gatekeeping, and by dumping this thread into a vat of unnecessary toxicity. Next time, I implore you, please focus on actually helping the OP—not focus on pretending you are right and you alone are right
It's not gatekeeping. It's getting people to look beyond numbers and stats so that they can see that the game can be so much more then just a routine in optimizing probability outcomes for maximized returns.
Ironically, one of the best examinations on this was in the first set of Rick and Morty comics that they did as a tie in with D&D; Rick takes Morty on a giant trip through the various editions of D&D wherein he consistently looks for the most optimized and efficient route to the end of the adventure, but it's ironically when they enter 5th edition that rick and his family go on an adventure that they're able to enjoy while they are frequently playing "sub optimal" race/class combo's that result in them having the deepest and most touching adventure, to the point where Rick is in tears over the death of summers character and everyone having to tell him that it's ok, because it's just a game.
As an aside Caerwyn, while you do make some useful points, it would behoove you to note that I wasn't even the first person in this thread making the point that mechanics =/= roleplay and that if you beleve that my behavior is somehow beyond the accepted values of the forum then you are more then welcome to report me to a mod as opposed to trying this lecturing act.
So Putting aside how I did in fact attempt to get the OP to clarify what they meant with their topic (IE were they looking for a good "face" type character), I'd Like to take a moment to step back and examine what exactly Role Play *is*.
At it's core, Roleplay is the narrative agency that we as players are allowed to express through our characters in the story; it is every action, comment, expression, belief and value that we can offer up as part of the weave of the collective story that the participants in the game are able to put forward and as such anything that the players do (as long as it isn't being actively detrimental to the progression of narrative) can be good roleplay with the level of quality being related to the relative emotional response from other players. This is something that exists outside of the realm of stats, abilities, dice rolls and often codified lore native to the setting.
This fact is true across every system that you might come across, whether that be Dungeons and Dragons, Teenagers from outer space, GURPS, Iron Claw, Ninja's and Superspies, Earthdawn, Rogue Trader, Pathfinder or even F.A.T.A.L.
To consign this to something as base as stats or party composition Is like describing the various collection of organs and their functions when asked "Who is Gary Gygax"; You're not wrong for describing the mechanics but it fundamentally misses the existance of the soul.
Sigh. Doubling down on your gatekeeping is not a good look. As I have already said, you are right, from one perspective. But you are so aggressively ignoring other perspectives that it is clear you have “Other perspectives are wrong, even the people who say ‘I am right, but others might be right too’ are wrong because they’re implying I am not perfect” vibes.
Here is the reality, there are many, many ways to play D&D. And while there are many ways to roleplay in D&D, certain things—such as taking skills that help with your dialogue (potentially using mechanics to help make up for lack of roleplay skill) or taking something that give you a unique role in the game—can improve one’s roleplay experience.
You made some good, useful points… and then ruined any possible value you brought to this thread by being standoffish, by gatekeeping, and by dumping this thread into a vat of unnecessary toxicity. Next time, I implore you, please focus on actually helping the OP—not focus on pretending you are right and you alone are right
I don’t think it’s toxic to point out that role play is an activity that occurs completely outside the confines of D&D or any other system. Any time you’re pretending to be someone other than yourself, you are roleplaying. Children often do it without any codified rules: cowboys and Indians, or cops and robbers, or playing school before they are of age. Drama club? Role play. Couples therapy? Role play. I would even contend that learning basic human empathy requires roleplay because it’s rooted in imagining how you would feel if you were in another person’s situation.
How is helping people to understand that roleplay is a thing that people do all the time, something that does not require any specific rule or mechanic in D&D, gatekeeping? If anything, I think it would be encouraging for people to hear that what they’re fretting over is a skill they have already been practicing for years and years; they just need to apply it rather than having to learn something new and intimidating from scratch.
It's not gatekeeping. It's getting people to look beyond numbers and stats so that they can see that the game can be so much more then just a routine in optimizing probability outcomes for maximized returns.
Ironically, one of the best examinations on this was in the first set of Rick and Morty comics that they did as a tie in with D&D; Rick takes Morty on a giant trip through the various editions of D&D wherein he consistently looks for the most optimized and efficient route to the end of the adventure, but it's ironically when they enter 5th edition that rick and his family go on an adventure that they're able to enjoy while they are frequently playing "sub optimal" race/class combo's that result in them having the deepest and most touching adventure, to the point where Rick is in tears over the death of summers character and everyone having to tell him that it's ok, because it's just a game.
As an aside Caerwyn, while you do make some useful points, it would behoove you to note that I wasn't even the first person in this thread making the point that mechanics =/= roleplay and that if you beleve that my behavior is somehow beyond the accepted values of the forum then you are more then welcome to report me to a mod as opposed to trying this lecturing act.
But you’re not even attempting to answer OP’s question (although granted the question was incredibly vague and OP did absolutely nothing to clarify). No one is disagreeing with your definition of roleplay, but it does nothing to answer the question of “which class is best for RP?”
You can’t fault others for trying though. Some think classes that get lots of skills and expertise like bards and rogues are the best for RP. I think it’s any class that can competently cover a group of skills the party would otherwise perform poorly at. That gives you a whole void of RP to fill.
Roleplay is completely separate from mechanics, and so no class is particularly better for roleplay. I think we have consensus on this.
However, mechanics can provide hooks to direct or prompt roleplay for those who might benefit from such things. Some traits are like neon arrows pointing at how they should be (but don't have to be) roleplayed, like Favored Terrain or Rage or Eloquence Bard's Silver Tongue. Other things like Action Surge or Sneak Attack - while they can and are roleplayed by some - can easily just kind of be brushed aside as combat mechanics that you don't spend much time on because you feel pressured to finish your turn and keep the action going.
Likewise, while I'm sure there's someone out there who has thoroughly roleplayed their feat choice of Great Weapon Master, you could make a pretty good argument that a feat like Chef has more out-of-the-box roleplay hooks. Some elements just take less effort to roleplay because they are essentially spelled out for you, or they have a lot of associations with narrative elements that everyone is familiar with.
Although I feel strongly that you can roleplay the heck out of any build, I do think some builds and mechanics provide more obvious roleplay hooks that may encourage newer players (or new-to-rp players, or players who simply don't want to think about it too hard) to roleplay more.
I was just wondering what ya'll thought the best classes would be purely by RP potential..
To answer your question honestly: The class you want to play the most.
To answer the question I think you’re trying to ask: It depends, what’s “fun RP” mean to you? If you mean social encounters and interacting with NPCs then Bard or Warlock. If you mean just about anything else then possibly one of the other classes. For example, I love being the guy who’s always got something for that, no matter what “that” is, so I love Artificers (and Bards & Warlocks). A good friend of mine likes playing them dumb and brawny, so he loves Barbarians and Fighters. For another friend of mine who’s an outdoorsy type it’s all Druids & Rangers for her. Another friend is really into MMA, so he plays more Monks than anything else. So again I’ll ask you, what’s fun RP mean to you?
Short answer: there is none. Some classes have more backstory, but there really is no best role-playing class. It depends on what you plan for you character in the future.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: “Who’s your patron?”
Warlock: “Ummm”
DM: “Hurry Up”
Warlock: “yOu”
*All other players look at each other with utter fear*
__________________________________________________________________________________ Check out my homebrew: My Homebrew
I was just wondering what ya'll thought the best classes would be purely by RP potential..
To answer your question honestly: The class you want to play the most.
To answer the question I think you’re trying to ask: It depends, what’s “fun RP” mean to you? If you mean social encounters and interacting with NPCs then Bard or Warlock. If you mean just about anything else then possibly one of the other classes. For example, I love being the guy who’s always got something for that, no matter what “that” is, so I love Artificers (and Bards & Warlocks). A good friend of mine likes playing them dumb and brawny, so he loves Barbarians and Fighters. For another friend of mine who’s an outdoorsy type it’s all Druids & Rangers for her. Another friend is really into MMA, so he plays more Monks than anything else. So again I’ll ask you, what’s fun RP mean to you?
Perfect answer. I have seen players pick 'RP classes' classes to 'fill the gap' in the team and it was a miserable experience for everyone because their heart wasn't in it and it showed. Even a halfway decent DM is going to adjust any campaign to fit the party's needs. I have never even heard of a DM in real life who will say "Sucks that you TPKd for insulting the king by forgetting to walk into the chamber on your hands and knees. Should have rolled a bard."
I was just wondering what ya'll thought the best classes would be purely by RP potential..
To answer your question honestly: The class you want to play the most.
To answer the question I think you’re trying to ask: It depends, what’s “fun RP” mean to you? If you mean social encounters and interacting with NPCs then Bard or Warlock. If you mean just about anything else then possibly one of the other classes. For example, I love being the guy who’s always got something for that, no matter what “that” is, so I love Artificers (and Bards & Warlocks). A good friend of mine likes playing them dumb and brawny, so he loves Barbarians and Fighters. For another friend of mine who’s an outdoorsy type it’s all Druids & Rangers for her. Another friend is really into MMA, so he plays more Monks than anything else. So again I’ll ask you, what’s fun RP mean to you?
Perfect answer. I have seen players pick 'RP classes' classes to 'fill the gap' in the team and it was a miserable experience for everyone because their heart wasn't in it and it showed. Even a halfway decent DM is going to adjust any campaign to fit the party's needs. I have never even heard of a DM in real life who will say "Sucks that you TPKd for insulting the king by forgetting to walk into the chamber on your hands and knees. Should have rolled a bard."
One thought building on the above - there are plenty of times competent DMs might punish your party for not having a role covered. For example, in the example of insulting the king, you absolutely might be thrown in jail, or have to fight your way out of the city, or be exiled, etc.
That is one of the fun aspects of roleplaying games! Realising you do not have the right tool for a specific option and having to figure out what to do with the tools you do have—or face consequences—is one of the things that sets D&D apart.
I think the more important side of “do something that meshes with your party” is not ensuring all your bases are covered, but ensuring you do not step on anyone’s toes. Having gaps is good, and should not be too debilitating if the DM is halfway decent. Having two players in the exact same role can lead to “feel bad” moments since then neither player will really get to shine in their own unique way.
I was just wondering what ya'll thought the best classes would be purely by RP potential..
To answer your question honestly: The class you want to play the most.
To answer the question I think you’re trying to ask: It depends, what’s “fun RP” mean to you? If you mean social encounters and interacting with NPCs then Bard or Warlock. If you mean just about anything else then possibly one of the other classes. For example, I love being the guy who’s always got something for that, no matter what “that” is, so I love Artificers (and Bards & Warlocks). A good friend of mine likes playing them dumb and brawny, so he loves Barbarians and Fighters. For another friend of mine who’s an outdoorsy type it’s all Druids & Rangers for her. Another friend is really into MMA, so he plays more Monks than anything else. So again I’ll ask you, what’s fun RP mean to you?
Perfect answer. I have seen players pick 'RP classes' classes to 'fill the gap' in the team and it was a miserable experience for everyone because their heart wasn't in it and it showed. Even a halfway decent DM is going to adjust any campaign to fit the party's needs. I have never even heard of a DM in real life who will say "Sucks that you TPKd for insulting the king by forgetting to walk into the chamber on your hands and knees. Should have rolled a bard."
One thought building on the above - there are plenty of times competent DMs might punish your party for not having a role covered. For example, in the example of insulting the king, you absolutely might be thrown in jail, or have to fight your way out of the city, or be exiled, etc.
That is one of the fun aspects of roleplaying games! Realising you do not have the right tool for a specific option and having to figure out what to do with the tools you do have—or face consequences—is one of the things that sets D&D apart.
I think the more important side of “do something that meshes with your party” is not ensuring all your bases are covered, but ensuring you do not step on anyone’s toes. Having gaps is good, and should not be too debilitating if the DM is halfway decent. Having two players in the exact same role can lead to “feel bad” moments since then neither player will really get to shine in their own unique way.
Yes, very true. I have presented challenges to the party based on what they don't have. One of my tables does not have a dedicated healer or a strong face. Everyone wanted to be the 'killerest killer that ever killed'. Sometimes I lean into that, but sometimes I give them challenges that would have been easy had they had a bard. Every encounter I give is one meant for them to survive either by working through it, around it, or escaping it, but some are easier than others based on the party build.
I also agree on stepping on each other's toes. Everyone in the party described are uber badasses, but they all have their specialization to make them unique in some way. It is pretty important to keeping them engaged, I think.
His question was functionally impossible to answer due to how incredibly vague it was; Like no class is inherently an "RP class" since RP is something you do as a player via the way in which you present your character and interact with the world around you.
That isn't something you can modify via dice rolls.
And yet I was able to answer it. A subsequent post clarified that the question was intended to include the build of the character. I answered with that in mind.
And then you wanted to argue.
Ok....sure. On the surface your point seems self evident. A ranger with a 6 intelligence, 7 Charisma and a favored foe of goblins will roleplay "well" by being distrustful and antagonistic of any goblin NPCs the party encounters. While being respectful to dryads. That's all that's needed. But that's obviously not what the OP was asking about.
To set up the premise of my answer, in my never humble opinion Role Play and Roll Play are not always separate. Say a party has a half orc Paladin who consistently rolls a nat 1 on his every attempt to force open a door. Then there's a half elf Rogue who consistently rolls a nat 20 on her every attempt to force open a door. The Roll Play dictates that the Role Play is the Paladin hates doors for making him feel inferior while the Rogue is confident when she approaches them. Meanwhile the party's gnome Wizard consistently rolls nat 20s on his attempts to intimidate their enemies. Guess who ends up having the biggest attitude?
Let's examine this part of your post... "in which you present your character and interact with the world around you." Charisma is the score used to influence the world and bend it to the will of the character. So those who are "best" at it are the ones with high Charisma... Bards, Paladins, Sorcerers and Warlocks. Of those four, Bards are the ones that get Expertise. So let's say the gnome Wizard is level 6 and has a 13 Charisma and proficiency with Intimidation. The Wizard nat 20s, for a total of 24. It's good but there are still two DC levels that it fails on. Now we introduce a Bard who is also level 6, has a 20 Charisma and expertise with Intimidation. She rolls a 17 for a total of 28. It succeeds on all but the Nearly Impossible (30) Difficulty Challenge. If the Bard does roll a nat 20 then it's a 30 and succeeds on all DC checks. Thus the Bard's build is the best for role play in the sense that it has the greatest chance of success for all DCs involving other creatures.
Of course, none of that is necessary for Role Playing, it's just the answer to the question (as I interpreted it) that was asked. The Paladin should have the "best" chance to force open doors with his 20 Strength and proficiency in Athletics. The Rogue with her 10 Strength and no proficiency in Athletics shouldn't succeed more than the Paladin. And that arrogant little Wizard shouldn't come across as being the size of an Ogre in the eyes of their enemies. But the Dice decided differently. So now the Wizard is tanking the bugbears, the Paladin is stuck on the outside of a locked stone door on the other side of the room and the Rogue is slaughtering everything because sure, her subclass is Thief but she kicked open the stone door, never misses with her attacks and can't roll less than a 5 on each of her Sneak Attack damage dice.
You are trying so damn hard here it's not even funny.
RP isn't your charisma score. It isn't the Skills or abilities that your character are able to perform at varying levels of skill. It isn't even success or failure.
Role Play is the ability to present your character to the world around you and interact with it in a way that is internally consistent with the knowledge and values the character has. This is entirely a case of player performance which is almost entirely removed from the character's stats.
Further regarding failure and roleplay this leads into interesting and fun role playing opportunities for the player; Do they simply avoid the activity that caused the failure? Do they seek some way to circumvent the circumstances that put them in that predicament? Maybe seek equipment that will give them better opportunities in the future? Talk to the other character who succeeded to see what they did differently? Like I would argue that failure can be even more interesting as a player then success because it provides us with so many more opportunities to grow, change and evolve the narrative that we're building with our characters.
The Best class for RP is the one not being utilized by the party from a skills perspective. Let's say I join a party that is Fighter, cleric, bard. They have the Strength and wisdom and charisma skills covered so I will be either a wizard or artificer to cover the intelligence skills or a dexterity based character and cover those skills.
Now, I is my job to RP those skills when they come up over the other players. For instance anything magical shows up or history/lore stuff, I push to the front and take the spotlight. Same with sneaky, acrobatic, sealing whatever dex stuff. That is what the party was missing.
You're conflating party composition with Roleplay.
The OP’s question can be read in two different ways—“which class is best for roleplaying” and “which class gives the best roleplay-specific tools.” A lot of the bickering on this thread comes from folks choosing to answer one of those, then talking past one another rather than realise you are talking about different things. The fact that some of you made this environment so hostile that the OP wants the entire thread expunged is, a bit sad
OP, taking a mulligan on the thread—pretty much everyone here is correct in how they answered, just from different perspectives.
It is absolutely correct that every class can be “the best” at roleplay, since roleplay is a player skill, of a character skill. A player who is good at roleplaying can turn any class into a roleplay-heavy class.
It is absolutely correct that charisma characters, particularly bards, and something like a rogue which gets expertise and lots of skills, have the most dialog-based roleplay specific skills. Much of roleplay with NPCs is going to involve charisma checks and insight checks, so classes which are good at those things will have a leg up. After all, you could be a great role player as a player… but if the dice hate you and your modifiers are low, that rousing speech might not pursuance anyone.
It is absolutely correct that you don’t have to have face skills to roleplay well. “I smash the table” from a Barbarian can be good roleplaying—it will be a different type of roleplaying than your typical face, but it is roleplaying nonetheless.
It is absolutely correct that playing something different from the other members of your party is a major boon to roleplaying. Then you have a specialised role in your party—something they need, and something to give the party a reason to interact with you, bargain with you, and otherwise connect with you over. Diverse party roles can bring folks together and give them a reason to roleplay in a way “eh, Sneaky Rogue doesn’t want to do X, good thing I have Sneaky Ranger to turn to instead.”
All told, there are lots of correct paths to making a good roleplay character. Do what works for you and what works for your party, and just try to have some fun. And don’t let the folks who are bickering get you down—your thread asked a fair question, and it wasn’t fair of them to ruin your enjoyment.
A charisma class. They let you build situations.
"Big sword, bigger brain"
-BigBrainGoblin
So Putting aside how I did in fact attempt to get the OP to clarify what they meant with their topic (IE were they looking for a good "face" type character), I'd Like to take a moment to step back and examine what exactly Role Play *is*.
At it's core, Roleplay is the narrative agency that we as players are allowed to express through our characters in the story; it is every action, comment, expression, belief and value that we can offer up as part of the weave of the collective story that the participants in the game are able to put forward and as such anything that the players do (as long as it isn't being actively detrimental to the progression of narrative) can be good roleplay with the level of quality being related to the relative emotional response from other players. This is something that exists outside of the realm of stats, abilities, dice rolls and often codified lore native to the setting.
This fact is true across every system that you might come across, whether that be Dungeons and Dragons, Teenagers from outer space, GURPS, Iron Claw, Ninja's and Superspies, Earthdawn, Rogue Trader, Pathfinder or even F.A.T.A.L.
To consign this to something as base as stats or party composition Is like describing the various collection of organs and their functions when asked "Who is Gary Gygax"; You're not wrong for describing the mechanics but it fundamentally misses the existance of the soul.
Sigh. Doubling down on your gatekeeping is not a good look. As I have already said, you are right, from one perspective. But you are so aggressively ignoring other perspectives that it is clear you have “Other perspectives are wrong, even the people who say ‘I am right, but others might be right too’ are wrong because they’re implying I am not perfect” vibes.
Here is the reality, there are many, many ways to play D&D. And while there are many ways to roleplay in D&D, certain things—such as taking skills that help with your dialogue (potentially using mechanics to help make up for lack of roleplay skill) or taking something that give you a unique role in the game—can improve one’s roleplay experience.
You made some good, useful points… and then ruined any possible value you brought to this thread by being standoffish, by gatekeeping, and by dumping this thread into a vat of unnecessary toxicity. Next time, I implore you, please focus on actually helping the OP—not focus on pretending you are right and you alone are right
It's not gatekeeping. It's getting people to look beyond numbers and stats so that they can see that the game can be so much more then just a routine in optimizing probability outcomes for maximized returns.
Ironically, one of the best examinations on this was in the first set of Rick and Morty comics that they did as a tie in with D&D; Rick takes Morty on a giant trip through the various editions of D&D wherein he consistently looks for the most optimized and efficient route to the end of the adventure, but it's ironically when they enter 5th edition that rick and his family go on an adventure that they're able to enjoy while they are frequently playing "sub optimal" race/class combo's that result in them having the deepest and most touching adventure, to the point where Rick is in tears over the death of summers character and everyone having to tell him that it's ok, because it's just a game.
As an aside Caerwyn, while you do make some useful points, it would behoove you to note that I wasn't even the first person in this thread making the point that mechanics =/= roleplay and that if you beleve that my behavior is somehow beyond the accepted values of the forum then you are more then welcome to report me to a mod as opposed to trying this lecturing act.
I don’t think it’s toxic to point out that role play is an activity that occurs completely outside the confines of D&D or any other system. Any time you’re pretending to be someone other than yourself, you are roleplaying. Children often do it without any codified rules: cowboys and Indians, or cops and robbers, or playing school before they are of age. Drama club? Role play. Couples therapy? Role play. I would even contend that learning basic human empathy requires roleplay because it’s rooted in imagining how you would feel if you were in another person’s situation.
How is helping people to understand that roleplay is a thing that people do all the time, something that does not require any specific rule or mechanic in D&D, gatekeeping? If anything, I think it would be encouraging for people to hear that what they’re fretting over is a skill they have already been practicing for years and years; they just need to apply it rather than having to learn something new and intimidating from scratch.
This guy gets it.
But you’re not even attempting to answer OP’s question (although granted the question was incredibly vague and OP did absolutely nothing to clarify). No one is disagreeing with your definition of roleplay, but it does nothing to answer the question of “which class is best for RP?”
You can’t fault others for trying though. Some think classes that get lots of skills and expertise like bards and rogues are the best for RP. I think it’s any class that can competently cover a group of skills the party would otherwise perform poorly at. That gives you a whole void of RP to fill.
Roleplay is completely separate from mechanics, and so no class is particularly better for roleplay. I think we have consensus on this.
However, mechanics can provide hooks to direct or prompt roleplay for those who might benefit from such things. Some traits are like neon arrows pointing at how they should be (but don't have to be) roleplayed, like Favored Terrain or Rage or Eloquence Bard's Silver Tongue. Other things like Action Surge or Sneak Attack - while they can and are roleplayed by some - can easily just kind of be brushed aside as combat mechanics that you don't spend much time on because you feel pressured to finish your turn and keep the action going.
Likewise, while I'm sure there's someone out there who has thoroughly roleplayed their feat choice of Great Weapon Master, you could make a pretty good argument that a feat like Chef has more out-of-the-box roleplay hooks. Some elements just take less effort to roleplay because they are essentially spelled out for you, or they have a lot of associations with narrative elements that everyone is familiar with.
Although I feel strongly that you can roleplay the heck out of any build, I do think some builds and mechanics provide more obvious roleplay hooks that may encourage newer players (or new-to-rp players, or players who simply don't want to think about it too hard) to roleplay more.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
if you mean with background and stuff ranger works great with motivation and experience and so
To answer your question honestly: The class you want to play the most.
To answer the question I think you’re trying to ask: It depends, what’s “fun RP” mean to you? If you mean social encounters and interacting with NPCs then Bard or Warlock. If you mean just about anything else then possibly one of the other classes. For example, I love being the guy who’s always got something for that, no matter what “that” is, so I love Artificers (and Bards & Warlocks). A good friend of mine likes playing them dumb and brawny, so he loves Barbarians and Fighters. For another friend of mine who’s an outdoorsy type it’s all Druids & Rangers for her. Another friend is really into MMA, so he plays more Monks than anything else. So again I’ll ask you, what’s fun RP mean to you?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Short answer: there is none. Some classes have more backstory, but there really is no best role-playing class. It depends on what you plan for you character in the future.
DM: “Who’s your patron?”
Warlock: “Ummm”
DM: “Hurry Up”
Warlock: “yOu”
*All other players look at each other with utter fear*
__________________________________________________________________________________
Check out my homebrew: My Homebrew
Perfect answer. I have seen players pick 'RP classes' classes to 'fill the gap' in the team and it was a miserable experience for everyone because their heart wasn't in it and it showed. Even a halfway decent DM is going to adjust any campaign to fit the party's needs. I have never even heard of a DM in real life who will say "Sucks that you TPKd for insulting the king by forgetting to walk into the chamber on your hands and knees. Should have rolled a bard."
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
One thought building on the above - there are plenty of times competent DMs might punish your party for not having a role covered. For example, in the example of insulting the king, you absolutely might be thrown in jail, or have to fight your way out of the city, or be exiled, etc.
That is one of the fun aspects of roleplaying games! Realising you do not have the right tool for a specific option and having to figure out what to do with the tools you do have—or face consequences—is one of the things that sets D&D apart.
I think the more important side of “do something that meshes with your party” is not ensuring all your bases are covered, but ensuring you do not step on anyone’s toes. Having gaps is good, and should not be too debilitating if the DM is halfway decent. Having two players in the exact same role can lead to “feel bad” moments since then neither player will really get to shine in their own unique way.
Yes, very true. I have presented challenges to the party based on what they don't have. One of my tables does not have a dedicated healer or a strong face. Everyone wanted to be the 'killerest killer that ever killed'. Sometimes I lean into that, but sometimes I give them challenges that would have been easy had they had a bard. Every encounter I give is one meant for them to survive either by working through it, around it, or escaping it, but some are easier than others based on the party build.
I also agree on stepping on each other's toes. Everyone in the party described are uber badasses, but they all have their specialization to make them unique in some way. It is pretty important to keeping them engaged, I think.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing