D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Ashkelon]

To your first question, no of course not. This isn't a binary system; there's plenty of room to avoid homogeneity unless we're visiting strawman town.

As far as minimums... let's look at what we have...

Barbarian - Pretty slim pickings, but... Totem warrior path is chock full of exploration pillary goodness - rituals, wolf totem, eagle totem.
Bard - I think we're good here, but for completeness... Expertise, jack of all trades, countercharm (since charm will more likely be in a social encounter), spells
Cleric - Heartily covered through spells, but also the Knowledge domain, and to a lesser extent nature and trickery domains
Druid - Again spells covers this, but we can add wild shape here too
Monk - Pretty sparse here too... All languages is nice, but at 13th level. Way of Shadow gets a little bit and of Elements to a lesser extent
Paladin - Spells
Ranger - Favored enemy, natural explorer, spells
Rogue - Expertise, reliable talent, light sprinkling in thief and assassin, or go whole hog with spells from arcane trickster
Sorcerer - Spells
Warlock - Spells, invocations
Wizard - Spells

Fighter ....Remarkable athlete (a half bonus to athletics) OR student of war (proficiency in one artisan tool) OR go eldritch knight for spells

I actually had trouble writing that last line without adding sad commentary. It's kind of embarrassing actually, how completely gypped they are unless they play wizard wanna-be. Monk is probably biting at the fighter's heels for last, and some barbarians, but the fighter wins this contest that no one want's to win.

As you can see it runs the gamut. I'd personally say barbarian is about as low as it should go, but YMMV. At least the barbarian feels like the 3 pillars were taken into account when building the class.

Exactly. The fighter, barbarian, and monk are all extremely lacking in utility outside of the combat pillar. It doesn't help that the fighter and barbarian's primary contribution to the exploration pillar is outdone by low level spells (everything you can do with Strength checks can be replicated with greater effeciency with low level spells like spider climb and jump). Hell, even your typical Strength check is rarely a timed issue, so can be repeated by a 10 Strength wizard until success is achieved, even for DC 20 checks.

 

[Imaro]

Hell, even your typical Strength check is rarely a timed issue, so can be repeated by a 10 Strength wizard until success is achieved, even for DC 20 checks.

Unless of course there are consequences to failure (falling when you climb, drowning when you swim, etc.)... and if there aren't time constraints or consequences to failure... why is the DM making you roll and/or expend resources?

 

[tyrlaan]

Why not? I mean skills give one the ability to affect non-combat pillars... the higher your bonus is the more likely you are to succeed... thus I'm not following the logic that they aren't support for non-combat pillars. Could you elaborate?

Wait what is "fightery"?? I would think having a multitude of feats is fightery, thus whatever extra feats are chosen... are "fightery". I mean I feel like you're really stretching here. So now it's not about whether the class was designed with non-combat capability in mind... it's about whether said non-combat competency feels fightery?? I mean what abilities (outside of fighting) would be distinctly fightery?

I guess we’re even then, since I feel like you’re stretching too (to be candid with you, your argument style is very frustrating because I feel like you assume I’m talking BS before trying to understand something – with that in mind, please realize I have no ulterior motives or hidden agendas here, I’m just trying to call it like I see it)

I feel inventing a word “fighter-y” did the job, but for examples… wild shape is “druid-y”, favored enemy is “ranger-y”, etc.

With that sorted, I don’t think it’s unrealistic to expect non-combat abilities flavored for each class to exist, especially since the precedent is clearly set with other classes. Feats are not “fighter-y”, getting extra feats is fightery. If I pick up linguist does the feat suddenly get instilled with fighter flavor? What if a druid picks up the feat, does it suddenly become druid themed? Of course not. And before it’s said, yes you can weave a tale to make it flavored for a fighter, but that’s what you do for any other class.

But beyond all of this, if you fundamentally disagree that throwing a +2 bonus at someone over 20 levels or letting them pick up a couple extra feats from the generic pool is lame support of non-combat pillars, I really can’t take this conversation any further with you.

I know exactly what you said and I have addressed exactly that point in our discussion... the fighter has access to ways to increase his non-combat abilities, thus I'm not understanding how one could assume the 3 pillars weren't considered in designing the class? Now if he was stuck without the ability to gain spells... pick extra feats outside of combat and/or have enough ability increases to step outside just physical capabilities I would agree with you... but the fighter class was created with all of these ways to gain non-combat competency.

Your prior comments implied you didn’t get my stance on this, so it seemed worth reiterating. I don’t however, know how to re-explain my position that the fighter feels like the tenet of the 3 pillars was not embraced during its design. I don’t know how boost your stats, pick up some feats, or be another class (wizard) doesn’t sound like “afterthought” to you.

I didn't say that, but the fighter is way more than just effective in combat... in fact effective is what all the classes are in combat, at least as far as I've seen... But to address what I actually posted...if you want to be optimized (top tier) in combat you should suffer somewhere else...

You said: “He should be in a better place by default than the fighter... especially since the fighter is more competent in combat than he is...”
I said: “So if you are effective in combat you must be ineffective in the other pillars?”

Unless we’re picking nits with word choice, I’m not exactly clear how I misinterpreted your original statement.

Personally I disagree with a need for combat and non-combat to be balanced like ends of a teeter-totter. That path leads to bored players when you’re playing in the pillars in which they have nothing to do. It’s one thing when it’s a result of a conscious choice on the part of the player. It’s another when it’s because the system gives you limited and uninspired options (or impressive jumping skills).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Well, first, I have no problem with changing the flavor of a mechanic. If it creates two ways of doing the same thing, I'm fine with that.

But it also seemed like you were saying that it's not ok to have multiple ways to represent a character. If you can use two classes or subclasses, and have the mechanical representation of the character be different while only minor changes to fluff are being represented in the difference, I would say that's two mechanical ways to represent the same fluff.

Either way, I also don't have a problem with things like the 4e/essentials duplications, where you literally have classes made to be a different mechanical way to represent the same exact character. Different people like different kinds of mechanics, and I love a game that presents options for multiple ways of handling a thing. 5e's strongest feature, IMO, is that it has different levels of complexity within many classes. I think it should have made at least one super simple and one more complex subclass for every single class, honestly. And if they were to release a base class for one of the subclasses, like an eldritch knight class or an assassin class, I would celebrate that, because it would give me and my players more options for building characters.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

D&D tends to attract players who are of above-average intelligence.

Until someone does some proper research on the topic, this seems to be pretty much just a thing that's easy for us to believe because we are in the community, with no actual evidence to back it up.

So far as I can tell, DnD attracts people of various types, but with no strong correlation between the hobby and any given level of intelligence.

 

[Ashkelon]

Unless of course there are consequences to failure (falling when you climb, drowning when you swim, etc.)... and if there aren't time constraints or consequences to failure... why is the DM making you roll and/or expend resources?

Sure, the failure exists for those actions, which is why the spells win out again. Jump, spider climb, etc all can never fail. Either you are faced with an athletics related challenge that is so hard that attempting it is risky, and you are better off using a spell, or you face one that is so easy that there is no point in even having training in athletics. Either way, the fighter/barbarian don't end up contributing much to the exploration pillar of the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Personally I disagree with a need for combat and non-combat to be balanced like ends of a teeter-totter. That path leads to bored players when you’re playing in the pillars in which they have nothing to do. It’s one thing when it’s a result of a conscious choice on the part of the player. It’s another when it’s because the system gives you limited and uninspired options (or impressive jumping skills).

That was a big part of how classic D&D was balanced, and 5e actively emulates that, seeking to 'balance' classes by having a given class or character outshine the others some minority of the time based on the situation. The DM is expected - if it matters to his group, that is - to engineer situations to make sure everyone gets their moment in the sun.

You may not like that, and I don't disagree with that opinion, myself, but it is a legitimate way of letting everyone at the table have a shot at having some fun with the game, and it's a DM-empowering way of doing so that doesn't put a lot of burden on the design phase or raise barriers against house rules. All in keeping with 5e's goals and philosophy.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sure, the failure exists for those actions, which is why the spells win out again. Jump, spider climb, etc all can never fail. Either you are faced with an athletics related challenge that is so hard that attempting it is risky, and you are better off using a spell, or you face one that is so easy that there is no point in even having training in athletics. Either way, the fighter/barbarian don't end up contributing much to the exploration pillar of the game.

Counterspell, Dispel Magic. I can't imagine anyone ever bothering to counterspell Jump but I can imagine someone dispelling a Spider Climb with rather spectacular results. Same thing if the Spider Climb guy takes damage and loses his concentration. That can't happen with skills.

 

[Ashkelon]

Counterspell, Dispel Magic. I can't imagine anyone ever bothering to counterspell Jump but I can imagine someone dispelling a Spider Climb with rather spectacular results. Same thing if the Spider Climb guy takes damage and loses his concentration. That can't happen with skills.

Umm, you do realize this is a discussion of non-combat utility. Bringing combat situations into this has no relevance (well other than to point out that the spellcasters can perform feats of athletics in combat better than the purely martial characters).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Umm, you do realize this is a discussion of non-combat utility. Bringing combat situations into this has no relevance (well other than to point out that the spellcasters can perform feats of athletics in combat better than the purely martial characters).

Whoops, sorry, I had lost track of the context. Carry on then.