D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Corpsetaker]

Question for those who played 1st and 2nd edition.

What did your fighter's do out of combat?

 

[Imaro]

Well, they might. If the campaign doesn't use feats or the player of the fighter doesn't take any - but feats are also supposed to be a big deal for the fighter. Then again, if you're using random stats, any character might have higher or lower stats than typical. Instead of a 14, at high level? That +2 isn't exactly a game-changer.

But if feats are involved then the fighter has other (probably better) options available to gain non-combat competency... So either way it works out for him. I'd also argue that with a limit of 20 in any stat and bounded accuracy... +2 is a substantial bonus.

No, they're not. Quite the opposite, the limited-use or other 'cost' associated with the spell justifies it being vastly superior to the skill. Skills are already the fall-back. If a task is important and immediate, and you can do it much better via a limited resource like a spell or item, you expend the resource. Skills are used when no other, better resource is applicable, or when the task is less critical and you can try the skill first or try it repeatedly.

Ok, putting aside the fact that were speaking of a "limited" resource (thus it may not be available)... the logic that it is a given that if a task is important and immediate, and you can do it much better via said "limited" resource, like a spell (which is not always the case either)... then you will choose the spell is flawed. It's a white room generalization that doesn't account for the numerous variables that are usually part of an encounter...

 

[Tony Vargas]

the logic that it is a given that if a task is important and immediate, and you can do it much better via said "limited" resource, like a spell, then you will choose the spell is flawed. It's a white room generalization that doesn't account for the numerous variables that are usually part of an encounter..

Quite the opposite. The game is all about managing resources. If you have resources to manage and make decisions about them, you're just playing the game. The more important a challenge is, the more sense it makes to expend a scarce resource to meet it, and the greater the glory for doing so successfully. The less important a challenge, the more sense it makes to try to resolve it with an unlimited resource, to conserve the resources of the characters who actually matter to the success of the party.

That's a generalization, but it's not 'white room,' it's based on the expectation that challenges will vary widely, from critical to trivial, and across all sorts of situations. Being able to automatically overcome one challenge (a ranger tracking, for instance), is really nice, when it comes up. Being able to overcome a wide range of important challenges, if you've managed your resources well, is much better. Only being able to resolve trivial challenges (that anyone else could handle about as well) is a lot less significant.

Question for those who played 1st and 2nd edition.

What did your fighter's do out of combat?

Oh, Bend Bars, Lift Gates, Open Doors, carry stuff, break stuff, manhandle prisoners...

... and then whatever else you could sell the DM on. There were no rules for skills to speak of in 1e (beyond Thieves' 'Special' Abilities), and after that initial reaction adjustment, your character, itself, had no bearing on what we've lately started calling 'interaction.' So if you had your DM's ear, your fighter could do a lot of talking for the party, being as shrewd a negotiator or diplomat as your DM perceived you to be, personally. Similarly, if you could describe his actions in enough convincing detail that your DM bought the idea that your medieval fighting man could build a fire, solve a puzzle, make gun powder, or whatever, bingo, you could.

Of course, if you weren't inclined (or able) to snow your DM consistently, you just sat around well someone else did so, waiting for the next fight to start.

As the game added more explicit skills (starting with the 'Survival Guides' in 1e) and better character-based resolution systems - and gave the fighter access to precious few of them - that all shifted, of course...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

IMO, it is strictly better if there are at least two ways to mechanically represent the fluff of a given character concept, and those mechanics are distinct, and both well made. I strongly believe in being able to mechanically represent minor flavor distinctions, whenever possible.

These sentences are at odds with each other. If there's a minor flavor distinction, and it uses different mechanics to represent those differences, then you still have exactly one way to represent any given thing. It might become more difficult for anyone to distinguish between them, but the difference is real and it is there. And at that point, I would probably say that the game has gotten too granular, and it doesn't really add anything to have more options that are very similar to old options, but I'm not strictly opposed to it. It's unnecessary complexity, rather than problematic.

This is completely different from changing the flavor of a mechanic. If you have one thing that is mechanically represented one way, but then someone else can have that one thing and have it mechanically represented in a different way, then that's a huge problem because you can no longer use the fluff of that thing to determine its mechanical representation. If a greatsword is 2d6 and a greataxe is 1d12, but someone wants to use a greataxe that does 2d6, then that's a problem.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Oh, Bend Bars, Lift Gates, Open Doors, carry stuff, break stuff, manhandle prisoners...

... and then whatever else you could sell the DM on. There were no rules for skills to speak of in 1e (beyond Thieves' 'Special' Abilities), and after that initial reaction adjustment, your character, itself, had no bearing on what we've lately started calling 'interaction.' So if you had your DM's ear, your fighter could do a lot of talking for the party, being as shrewd a negotiator or diplomat as your DM perceived you to be, personally. Similarly, if you could describe his actions in enough convincing detail that your DM bought the idea that your medieval fighting man could build a fire, solve a puzzle, make gun powder, or whatever, bingo, you could.

Of course, if you weren't inclined (or able) to snow your DM consistently, you just sat around well someone else did so, waiting for the next fight to start.

As the game added more explicit skills (starting with the 'Survival Guides' in 1e) and better character-based resolution systems - and gave the fighter access to precious few of them - that all shifted, of course...

You improvised like I did.

I also chose the fighter because I wanted to, well you know, fight.

So what's the problem with using what mechanics we have now as well as a little improvisation? Also, why did you choose a fighter in 5th edition if you wanted to be the "out of combat" leader? Why didn't you multiclass or play another character entirely?

I'm not directing it at you, just "you" in general.

 

[nightspaladin]

You improvised like I did.

I also chose the fighter because I wanted to, well you know, fight.

So what's the problem with using what mechanics we have now as well as a little improvisation? Also, why did you choose a fighter in 5th edition if you wanted to be the "out of combat" leader? Why didn't you multiclass or play another character entirely?

I'm not directing it at you, just "you" in general.

Because there are plenty of charatcer types that require both being the leader of a party or society or men in general and the combat leader. Any general or heroic fighter of old was often the charismatic leader or rallier of people. Are you suggesting that if I want to be a weapon combat machine AND be party face, I need to look at another class? That's madness

The problem with improvisation is that if it is the only recourse then your characters, in the fiction, are only as good as the acting abilities of the player playing them. Often people want to play "fantasy" to be a fantasy of what they are not. If improv is all there is mechanically, then no one sitting around the table should ever play a carouselling bard, or a pious devout knight, considering the general anti-social nerdery that is our hobby. Same is true for any of the high stats. There are many bright intelligent players playing D&D, but few of them are super genius level IQ or gandhi level sages. Yet if we have to improv as our primary resolution we better be both of those, or else playing an 18 int or wis character is a waste.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Because there are plenty of charatcer types that require both being the leader of a party or society or men in general and the combat leader. Any general or heroic fighter of old was often the charismatic leader or rallier of people. Are you suggesting that if I want to be a weapon combat machine AND be party face, I need to look at another class? That's madness

The problem with improvisation is that if it is the only recourse then your characters, in the fiction, are only as good as the acting abilities of the player playing them. Often people want to play "fantasy" to be a fantasy of what they are not. If improv is all there is mechanically, then no one sitting around the table should ever play a carouselling bard, or a pious devout knight, considering the general anti-social nerdery that is our hobby. Same is true for any of the high stats. There are many bright intelligent players playing D&D, but few of them are super genius level IQ or gandhi level sages. Yet if we have to improv as our primary resolution we better be both of those, or else playing an 18 int or wis character is a waste.

You don't have to look at another class but there are some here who feel that the fighter needs more out of combat abilities. Any fighter in 5th edition can focus a bit on Charisma. What's wrong with being a Half-elf fighter and choosing Persuasion as one of your skills? I mean with a 12 cha (+1) and prof (+2) at 1st level gives you a +3 on Persuasion. That would be enough to hit a reasonable DC to rally forth the people.

If you want lots of little bits and pieces then multiclass.

 

[tyrlaan]

If 5e supports three pillars of game play, all classes should feel like they were built with this tenet in mind.

Skill use, feats (optional), and a possible +2 bonus on skills over others does not feel like a class built with this tenet.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There are many bright intelligent players playing D&D, but few of them are super genius level IQ or gandhi level sages.

Eh, you'd be surprised. Having an Int score of 18 means you're one-in-216, or about the top half a percentage of the population.

If there are five people who play D&D in a room that contains 216 people as a representative sample of the population, what's the chance that the smartest person in the room is one of the five players? It's not just a straight math problem, because there's also a correlation; D&D tends to attract players who are of above-average intelligence.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You improvised like I did.

"Improvised" is putting a nice spin on it, but, yes, in the olden days if you wanted to do much of anything other than hit things, use a special ability, or cast spells, you were prettymuch going to have to talk the DM into it, somehow.

Also, why did you choose a fighter in 5th edition if you wanted to be the "out of combat" leader? Why didn't you multiclass or play another character entirely?

I'm not directing it at you, just "you" in general.

I've been running 5e, myself, not playing it. I do wonder, sometimes, why players choose the classes they do, when it seems like they'd really have more fun with something else.

The Fighter does seem like the only option for certain archetypes. Your basic fantasy hero is probably going to be a fighter. If you're not casting spells, and not a Conan-clone barbarian, but still tough in a fight, that's about what's left.

Thing is, your typical hero, even if he doesn't cast spells or have some sort of supernatural powers or mcguffin, tends to be really good at anything he turns his hand to. He won't just be tough in a fight, he'll be rallying the people, sneaking into heavily guarded dungeons to rescue the princess, scouting about in the woods, retrieving an artifact from a fiendishly trap-infested tomb, and so forth. So taking Fighter is just setting yourself up for disappointment. (Taking rogue will get you the ability to do some of those things, but you won't be tough in a fight, anymore, needing to be a sneaky back-stabber, instead - not too heroic.)

D&D also has an odd history of painting the fighter as a natural leader. 1e, with it's level titles drawn from military and noble rank, topping out at 'Lord,' and letting the fighter build a stronghold and attract followers, created that impression, and 3.x came right out and said that fighters are often party leaders, even if they're not at all qualified to be the party 'face.' Yet, D&D has never made the fighter a good leader, or even a leader at all, in any sense (even 4e, which gave the fighter more 'nice things' than any other edition, passed the 'leader' schtick to the Warlord).

There's just a lot of disconnects among D&D mechanics, D&D traditions, and the broader genre of fantasy (film/fiction/literature/myth/legend) that inspired it. And, non-casters in general and fighters in particular tend to fall through the cracks.