I find purely non-combat roles frustrating, especially faces.
It's not that I necessarily think it's a bad thing to have a party member that acts as a face. It's just that when they focus on it more or less exclusively, players tend to try and use it in a gamebreaking way to get the best deal. And that's not taking into account how many players are not as charismatic as they put in their character sheet, so they're not giving any reasons to justify why the king should give them a larger payment for the job they're doing, or why the wizard should give up a few artifacts.
At least if they're a paladin or a sorcerer or something along those lines, it's not a problem. Then they're a party member with high charisma and the ability to focus on it to a slight degree, but not to an amount that would be ridiculous. And that also means they're far more useful in combat situations.
>>47341708
Ok.
>>47341708
That's why they should have a role in battle.
Take bards. They are the less combat-focus classes of all (especially if you're going at it in the claissical way or with core only), but their buff make them still relevant. And sometimes vital.
Then, it depends of the party, as always. But the face should, most of the time, fill the gap that the other players couldn't.
So yeah, there shouldn't be pure non combat roles.
System like Shadowrun gives you enough space to do so.
>>47341783
And at least in Shadowrun, a face is really critical for setting up jobs. I'd question if you'd want to make a PC a face, especially since you probably won't also bring them on runs, but at least you can't deny their importance.
But to take one recent example of Pathfinder for me, I had a player who made a halfling rogue that, thanks to a good roll and bonuses, ended up having 18 charisma. And he almost instantly tried to set himself up as the boss of the party, even making contracts with the 'employees' under him. It was arguable if he ever used his charismatic powers for the party's benefit, and he never actually acted as a rogue - sneaking, trapfinding, that sort of thing.
>>47341708
Have you tried not playing D&D?
>>47341708
4e D&D handles this so that it is a non-issue.
>>47341708
It is mostly because I am the least autistic person out of the group I play with, but I typically make my character the Face of the group. I know this is kind of a non-answer, but how the talky character is played is really dependent on the party and mission. Here are some examples from games I've played in the past, ranging from mostly shooty and a little talky, to full on pacifist.
Most recently I played a bard who was the captain of a mercenary company. I managed my spells and skills so that I really had about a 50/50 mix of combat and diplomacy. My own combat ability was a bit lacking, so I used spells and abilities to either buff my party members or mind-control my enemies. Outside of combat I did bard things and schmoozed my way into contracts for out company to get fat bags of gold.
In a Shadowrun game I made an elf Face that had a bunch of fake identities and lots of deception so that I could make deals with Mr. Johnson and infiltrate corps if espionage was necessary. I wasn't too heavily invested though. I could talk pretty, but when the chips hit the table I was right behind our street samurai spraying three round bursts.
In an L5R game I made an aging Crane Sugenja that was completely non-combative and a full pacifist. We were in a shit hole trying to build up a town from nothing, and had to deal with bandits and other clans all the time. Obviously I spent most of the time using diplomacy to establish the new town and gain the group allies in the area. In combat I had absolutely no damaging abilities at all, but between healing, disabling enemies, and buffing allies I was arguably more useful that about half of the group who could never seem to hit anything.
Either way, being completely non-combative does not mean you are completely combat ineffective. You just need to be a little more creative.
And also try not playing DnD.
Have you tried not playing the D&D and instead playing something other than D&D?
>>47341783
5e bards can be great in combat, give them a bow and they're straight up better rangers
>>47341912
>Implying a rogue's job isn't to max out UMD and become a wizard
>>47346803
Well, most things with a bow are straight up better rangers. Like a fighter with a background or trained skill related to anything wilderness.
