D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Corpsetaker]

What exactly can't you do outside of combat with the fighter, barbarian, monk etc.....?

Please explain to me in games terms what the problem is and don't tell me they are lacking in that piller because right now all classes function just fine in all pillers, they just aren't all equal and that is by design.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Spells run out... skills don't. Concentration causes spells to be burned faster when completing different but multiple actions to overcome a challenge... You can take damage outside of combat when exploring which forces concentration checks...

 

[Sacrosanct]

Spells run out... skills don't. Concentration causes spells to be burned faster when completing different but multiple actions to overcome a challenge... You can take damage outside of combat when exploring which forces concentration checks...

Not to mention you have to a) have that spell in your book, and b) have that spell prepped.

I swear, 90% of those types of arguments always fail to take those things into account, and assume that wizards have all the spells in the book available all the time.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

Well then, I suppose it's a good thing that the exploration and interaction pillars can be done by role-playing, and aren't mandatory reliant on a mechanic, like combat is.

I mean, whenever I hear these statements that X class can't do anything outside of combat because they don't have a specific power written down on a character sheet compared to another player who does, I die a little inside. You know what "RPG" stands for, right? Specifically the first two letters? It's not like us players who played fighters for decades before 3e came along just sat there and did nothing if there wasn't combat going on.

 

[tyrlaan]

Well then, I suppose it's a good thing that the exploration and interaction pillars can be done by role-playing, and aren't mandatory reliant on a mechanic, like combat is.

I mean, whenever I hear these statements that X class can't do anything outside of combat because they don't have a specific power written down on a character sheet compared to another player who does, I die a little inside. You know what "RPG" stands for, right? Specifically the first two letters? It's not like us players who played fighters for decades before 3e came along just sat there and did nothing if there wasn't combat going on.

Please return with something more constructive and less snark-infested if you wish to seriously discuss.

 

[Imaro]

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)

If I automatically assumed you were talking BS I wouldn't engage with you. That said, I am honestly looking to be convinced, especially since my play experience over 8 levels doesn't support your conclusion, that the fighter is woefully inadequate in the other 2 pillars. I've offered up builds and details on how the fighter's in my experience have stayed relevant in the non-combat pillars across 8 levels... Perhaps this will change as we play at higher levels but then I've also been told most people don't play beyond 12...

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

The problem is classes like ranger and druid are auto-associated by consensus with things like nature, survival, animals, etc. A fighter on the other hand is either associated with fighting or there isn't a real consensus...

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.

It's not sorted, because you still haven't told me what fightery implies... A Paladin is a martial-esque character that has strong traditional flavor outside of "fighting", a rogue is another martial character that has strong traditional flavor outside of combat... by default the fighter is supposed to be a more generic and generalized warrior, his flavor is a master of combat... the minute you give him specifically flavored non-combat abilities you take that general nature and by implication flexibility away.

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 guess it can't go further... because I have run and played in games with fighters in them and they weren't lame outside of combat.

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.

It sounds like they are keeping the more general nature of the fighter and allowing you to pick what he is outside of combat... as opposed to pigeonholing him into a particular sub-archetype.

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.

Ineffective has a different meaning than less effective...

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).

IME if a player in 5e literally has nothing to do in the non-combat pillars regardless of his class choice, it's because of a conscious choice on the part of the player.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Please return with something more constructive and less snark-infested if you wish to seriously discuss.

So something more constructive than "fighters can't do anything out of combat"?



it goes both ways. You may think my response is nothing but snark, but do you know how often that claim gets thrown out there and it's a horrible one? It's only true if you ignore what the game is actually about. It's not called a "role-playing" game on accident. And I'm pretty confident that most players don't play the game only through the lens of modifiers and mechanics only; that they also view the game through a role-playing lens that has nothing to do with a particular modifier or power.

So yeah, when I hear people say that fighters can't do anything out of combat or are subpar compared to other classes out of combat, that's always an argument that's either:

* disingenuous
* ignores the role-playing aspect of the role-playing game (which I find extremely odd)
* ignores literally decades of D&D where players did in fact contribute long before there was a specific power/ability that told them they could
* or assumes that the other classes always have the right power/spell/ability available all the time in every situation (which never actually happens in actual game play).
* reliant on metagaming that discourages actual role-playing (which is the worst offender of this list, IMO. Telling someone they shouldn't attempt something because another player has a higher modifier for example).

 

[Corpsetaker]

*taps finger*

I'm waiting.........

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not to mention you have to a) have that spell in your book, and b) have that spell prepped.

I swear, 90% of those types of arguments always fail to take those things into account, and assume that wizards have all the spells in the book available all the time.

Actually that's a huge part of it. 5e, like Classic versions of D&D is very much a resource-management game. If you're not managing a scarce, important, resource, you're barely playing the game at all. 5e goes pretty far in recognizing that, and gives every class and almost every sub-class some such resource management. Even the Champion & Battlemaster have some short-rest-recharge resources to manage. Thing is, they're strictly combat resources.

It's not that any can't contribute at all in each pillar, it's that there's a few sub-classes that don't contribute meaningfully - that, in essence, aren't playing the game in those pillars.

Well then, I suppose it's a good thing that the exploration and interaction pillars can be done by role-playing, and aren't mandatory reliant on a mechanic, like combat is.

That would be a bad thing, if it were true, because it would mean the game was failing to represent the character's abilities in exploration & interaction.

When you resort to use the players 'RP' as a resolution mechanism, you lose all connection to the character, itself. It's not you playing a character negotiating with bandits or exploring a ruin, it's /you/ hypothetically negotiating with bandits or exploring a ruin, yourself. Which is just lame.

Fortunately, the game does give you stats and proficiencies so you and the DM have some guide of how your character performs in those pillars, at a base-line, before any resources are expended. And, really, there's not a whole lot to choose among classes at that base-line. Some have certain skills in-class, others more or more useful skills. Two classes have Expertise. A few have situational special abilities. That's about it until you get into managing expendable resources.

As has been pointed out up-thread, the bottom-of-the-barrel performance with any check has been raised (the DC bar lowered in 5e) to the point that any character can some base-line contribution, barely differentiable from any other character some fraction of the time (unless you look at the natural d20 roll). What that means is that any given check might be delivered on by any given character based on the relative die rolls. That doesn't mean much, but much has been made of it up thread.

Where things get interesting, where you actually start making a contribution and genuinely playing the game, is when you contribute something more than your luck with a d20 - when you decide whether & how to use a managed resource.

 

[Sacrosanct]

When you resort to use the players 'RP' as a resolution mechanism, you lose all connection to the character, itself. It's not you playing a character negotiating with bandits or exploring a ruin, it's /you/ hypothetically negotiating with bandits or exploring a ruin, yourself. Which is just lame.

I strongly disagree. Otherwise you might as well just get rid of all IC interaction and just go to "My PC attempts X. Here's my roll."

And that, IMO is what is lame. It takes all the flavor and soul out of "role-playing" and turns it into nothing more than "roll playing". Obviously YMMV.