D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Imaro]

This. The fighter doesn't need to be better than anyone else in general, outside of combat, but should definitely have some distinct options that you have to be a fighter to use. Making the fighter competitive with a couple other classes in some facet of exploration would make the fighter not feel like they are designed for combat only. Sure, they can do stuff out of combat, but that just isn't the point.
Every class has baseline competence in most types of activities, because the numerical band of competence just isn't that wide in 5e. IMO, each class needs to be able to stand out some amount of the time in at least two pillars. Sure, the monk will be able to jump further and run faster than anyone else, but the ideas you posit for the fighter, and/or perhaps some benefit against fatigue, etc would help a lot, without taking anything away from any other class.

The problem is the fighter does have distinct abilities that help him stand out in both the combat and the exploration pillar... prime example... ability to re-roll any type of saving throw... who else has that as an ability? Remarkable athlete... who else has that as an ability? Action surge, who else has that as an ability? The problem is that even though various posters have shown how these abilities can be used in the exploration pillar... they're (for some unexplained reason) deemed unacceptable...

Edit: And this is ignoring things like a fighter's naturally high hit point total, physical stat synergy, and so on...

 

[Imaro]

Never been caught in a blizzard? Never been caught in a landslide? Never had a bridge collapse? Never been in a sinking ship and drowning?

Apparently he's never played in Dark Sun before either...go figure.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not even counting the fighter only abilities that boost skill success, a fighter has one extra feat at typical playing levels than other PCs. That means they do have a distinct option that other classes don't. All else being equal, a fighter with that extra feat can (out of combat impacts):

athlete: climbing not halved, better jumping
actor: adv on CHA checks and voice mimicry
dungeon delver: adv on perception and investigation for secret doors, adv on ST vs traps, resistance to traps, search for traps at a normal pace
Healer: healing PCs once per short rest. Which is a lot if you have all day to rest
Keen Mind: always know true north, accurately recall anything you saw or heard within past month (this one is HUGE, especially in interaction)
Linguist: in addition to additional languages, can create cyphers
Lucky: essentially give yourself advantage on ability checks
Magic Initiate: take your pick of a plethora of useful level 1 non-combat spells
Mobile: increased movement rate
Observant: read lips, +5 bonus to passive percpetion and passive investigation
Resilient: gain prof in saving throws
ritual caster: benefits are obvious
Skilled: 3 or tools are now proficient
Skulker: dim light doesn't impose disadvantage

Before someone says, "But every class gets those", let me remind you that is is above and beyond what every class gets because the fighter gets extra feats.

So when people say that "fighter's can't" or "fighters don't have", that's objectively not true. They can. If you chose not to, then that's on your choices, not on the fighter class. One of the reasons I really like 5e, by the way. I was able to take my multiclassed F/T halfling from 1e and make him just a straight fighter with a criminal background and skulker and dungeon delver feat

 

[Sacrosanct]

Imagine a high level commoner .

Again, stopped reading right here. There are no high level commoners because commoners don't have levels.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've been stewing on this for a while, and I still don't know the best way to articulate it. But here goes anyway.

If you're expecting 5e to have every PC as good as every other PC in every pillar, then you'll be disappointed. It doesn't do that, and has been designed to specifically not do that.

That's a good way to articulate it. The issue with the fighter, for instance, is very real. It's just also intentional.

5e seems to be designed to have it as a team sport, so-to-speak, as the default mode of play.

4e was designed that way. You had positions (formal Roles) on the team and everything, characters where all on the field at once, all contributing, and even synergized a little. 3.5 had the idea of iconic class roles, that "a fighter" was a necessary part of the team, for instance, but that a Barabarian or Paladin could fill in for one, an idea that was preceded/suggested in 2e with the 4 class groups, and in 1e with the way sub-classes were grouped under the Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User and Thief. 3.5 also added the idea of a '5th wheel' class (Monk or Bard) that couldn't quite fill in for an iconic role, but could be nice to have when the other roles were filled.
5e is more like an all-star exhibition of different sports. Each character does his thing really well, when it's his turn to go out and show off, it's up to the choreographer to decide the order the go out in and the relative time spent on each. There are no formal or even iconic roles and there aren't 4 class groups or 4 primary classes with a few sub-classes each that can maybe fill in for eachother - there are a dozen classes and 38 sub-classes, and most get to be happily unique in some way. In some cases, one class can replace another - a Barbarian or Paladin could stand in for a fighter pretty well. In others, it's not so clear - can a Bard replace a Cleric or a Warlock a Wizard? - maybe, sorta. Then there's classes that seem to be able to fill in anywhere: a Druid could assume a melee form and fill in for a front-liner, cast offensive spells like a wizard, heal like a cleric, or assume a small/inconspicuous form and scout around like a rogue. Maybe that last isn't as bad as it was in 3e, but it's still there.

What 5e does do, and does very well between skills, backgrounds, feats, and bounded accuracy, is give players a lot of choice.

Not so much, no. It doesn't hold a candle to 3.x/Pathfinder in that regard, for instance. Bounded Accuracy, for instance, shifts the effect of investing in a skill 'against type' from 3.x "it doesn't matter because the specialist is /soooo/ much better than you" to Bounded Accuracy "it doesn't matter because you already had a shot anyway, and so does everyone else."

Rogues and Bards have a little more choice because they can take Expertise in /anything/, though, which is kinda fun for them.

You can choose to be good at pretty much everything but not be super good at one thing. Or you can choose to be super good at one thing, but not super good at everything else.

Bounded Accuracy means you can't really choose to be super-good at anything (again, unless you get Expertise). You can be pretty good, or not so bad as to be hopeless, or just OK.

If you're looking to be super good at everything, or to have no other PC better than you in any of the pillars? 5e is not for you.

With big enough gap in system mastery between you and the next guy, you could probably pull it off. It'd involve some near-prescience and tight resource management. Or, of course, just getting the DM on your side.

That's not an attack on your senses or players who prefer that. It's simply stating how I feel the game was designed.

Nod. While 5e tried as much as possible to be 'all D&Ds to all D&Ders,' it prioritized capturing the classic feel of D&D over that inclusiveness, so there were, ultimately, more than a few styles that aren't supported by the game. It is, though, DM-empowering enough that any DM determined to could make it support any style he wanted it to.

Upthread I read someone say, "why bother bringing the fighter along then". Well, the game assumes that at some point you'll be doing what the fighter does better than everyone else.

Yeah, well, that's where it starts to fall apart. The fighter is really, really combat focused, he doesn't have a single class feature that isn't useable in combat, and vanishingly few and minor features that are expressly useable out of combat. But what it gets for that focus is an AC maybe a point higher than the next character who's player really cared about AC, not-quite-as-high hps as the Barbarian, and DPR that's consistently high, but that some classes are competitive with, and just about any other class can reach at least some of the time.

And I will fully admit my biases when I say that I think it's a huge mistake and goes against the spirit of the game to either have the impression or to try to argue the impression that unless you are the best at something in your group, you shouldn't be doing it. This is a feeling I get a lot whenever I hear people imply or infer that PC X shouldn't attempt task A because PC Y is better. Or that PC X can't do tasks A, B, or C because they are specialized in only task D.

Sure, when it comes to skill checks or killing a monster, thanks to Bounded Accuracy, anyone and everyone can & should pile on. But when it comes to what each character brings to the party (npi), the fighter could be judged wanting. A fighter brings DPR, which every class also brings to varying degrees, personal durability, which some classes meet or beat, and nothing else, which every other class beats.

5e gives you the choice to build a fighter who is very competent in all three pillars.

The fighter is hardwired to be at it's most competent in the Combat Pillar, and, within that pillar, at single-target DPR via multiple attacks. There's just no way around it. Multiple attacks are effective for generation DPR in D&D, to the point of being problematic, and they're non-negotiable.

You can build a fighter who is really not that bad in the other two pillars, because any warm body (straight 10 stats, no proficiencies) is, thanks to Bounded Accuracy, really not that bad at any check, and checks apply in all pillars. In fact, you can't avoid doing that with any class, it's the base-line. Backgrounds will make you competent at another couple skills and maybe the perk will come up once in a while. But, again, that's just part of the base-line, every PC has their Background.

But to really put that 'very' in front of competent, you need to have something more than an ordinary skill check to contribute - Expertise, or a special ability, or an applicable limited resource, or whatever.


But, as we established, above, that's all intentional.
It's not, "wow, WotC really screwed up designing 5e because the fighter is a lame all-combat beatstick,"
it's "wow, WotC did an exemplary job designing 5e, because it feels just like classic D&D, when the fighter was a bad-ass all-combat beatstick."

What it comes down to is that, in 5e, if you want a certain kind of play experience, you are limited to certain archetypes, and if you want to avoid a certain kind of play experience, you must, obviously, avoid certain archetypes.

 

[Imaro]

Not even counting the fighter only abilities that boost skill success, a fighter has one extra feat at typical playing levels than other PCs. That means they do have a distinct option that other classes don't. All else being equal, a fighter with that extra feat can (out of combat impacts):

athlete: climbing not halved, better jumping
actor: adv on CHA checks and voice mimicry
dungeon delver: adv on perception and investigation for secret doors, adv on ST vs traps, resistance to traps, search for traps at a normal pace
Healer: healing PCs once per short rest. Which is a lot if you have all day to rest
Keen Mind: always know true north, accurately recall anything you saw or heard within past month (this one is HUGE, especially in interaction)
Linguist: in addition to additional languages, can create cyphers
Lucky: essentially give yourself advantage on ability checks
Magic Initiate: take your pick of a plethora of useful level 1 non-combat spells
Mobile: increased movement rate
Observant: read lips, +5 bonus to passive percpetion and passive investigation
Resilient: gain prof in saving throws
ritual caster: benefits are obvious
Skilled: 3 or tools are now proficient
Skulker: dim light doesn't impose disadvantage

Before someone says, "But every class gets those", let me remind you that is is above and beyond what every class gets because the fighter gets extra feats.

So when people say that "fighter's can't" or "fighters don't have", that's objectively not true. They can. If you chose not to, then that's on your choices, not on the fighter class. One of the reasons I really like 5e, by the way. I was able to take my multiclassed F/T halfling from 1e and make him just a straight fighter with a criminal background and skulker and dungeon delver feat

An extra feat can make a human a top tier pick for optimization in nearly any class... but suddenly becomes worthless when someone with fighter written on their sheet under class gets the same benefit... who would have thought it...

 

[Ashkelon]

The problem is the fighter does have distinct abilities that help him stand out in both the combat and the exploration pillar... prime example... ability to re-roll any type of saving throw... who else has that as an ability? Remarkable athlete... who else has that as an ability? Action surge, who else has that as an ability? The problem is that even though various posters have shown how these abilities can be used in the exploration pillar... they're (for some unexplained reason) deemed unacceptable...

Because they don't actually do anything unique?

Seriously, all using indomitable does is give you another chance to save. That isn't a unique capability, everyone already gets to make a save anyway. Besides, some classes get advantage on certain saves all the time, bonuses to their and their allies saving throws, or healing to replace HP lost by failed saves. On top of that indomitable is generally more useful in combat, so wasting it on a trap is usually a poor choice.

Note:even when talking about the non-combat capabilities of the classes, nobody brings up barbarians advantage on dex saves, paladins bonus to all saves, rogues uncanny dodge, paladins lay-on hands, druids wild shape HP buffer, etc. That is because those defensive features don't actually help solve any sort of exploration related task. They provide a defensive boost when you fail to overcome an obstacle. That is very different than being able to actually contribute to the success of a non-combat challenge.


Remarkable athlete doesn't do all that much, Before level 17 it is a +2 to your untrained skill checks. Woohoo. Now you fail 10% less often. It never actually makes you competent. Besides, again, rolling ability checks is something anyone can do. A small bonus to those definitely isn't unique.

Second wind suffers the same problem as indomitable, ie it is far more powerful when used in combat that outside of it. In fact, is there ever a situation outside of combat where it is worth using?

Basically, all your examples are not only not unique, but also tend to be wasting powerful combat oriented features outside of combat. Not only that, they don't actually show how the fighter can contribute the success of a non-combat challenge in a way that is better than any other random PC with a decent Strength and training in Athletics.

 

[Mistwell]

Any way you look at it, the fighter has more options for out of combat things than a lot of people seem to think it has. They get more ability increases/feats than any other class. If you don't allow feats in your game, the ability increases directly translate into better skill checks and ability checks, which absolutely play a LARGE role in out of combat challenges. If you do include feats, the feats with non-combat application are plenty, and several have been noted in this thread. How is that not a built-in non-combat benefit for the Fighter? How is that not better than a commoner?

What's weird is I think people are penalizing the fighter for giving the player CHOICES for those class abilities. If they had simply removed some of the extra feats and forced it to be one of the feats with lots of non-combat application, I doubt people would be complaining. But because a particular player could CHOOSE to not take one of those feats if they don't want to, somehow this is a knock on the fighter? If those extra feats were instead simply replaced with the text of Alertness, Lucky and Dungeon Delver, would people be complaining?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Because they don't actually do anything unique?
.

What other classes have indomitable, remarkable athlete, or action surge? Or are you using a different definition of unique than the rest of us?

"not as good as I like" =/= "not unique", just an FYI

 

[Sacrosanct]

Any way you look at it, the fighter has more options for out of combat things than a lot of people seem to think it has. They get more ability increases/feats than any other class. If you don't allow feats in your game, the ability increases directly translate into better skill checks and ability checks, which absolutely play a LARGE role in out of combat challenges. If you do include feats, the feats with non-combat application are plenty, and several have been noted in this thread. How is that not a built-in non-combat benefit for the Fighter? How is that not better than a commoner?

What's weird is I think people are penalizing the fighter for giving the player CHOICES for those class abilities. If they had simply removed some of the extra feats and forced it to be one of the feats with lots of non-combat application, I doubt people would be complaining. But because a particular player could CHOOSE to not take one of those feats if they don't want to, somehow this is a knock on the fighter?

Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing. It's almost like people would prefer:

"As a fighter, choose another subclass. If you chose the treasure hunter subclass, at level X get teh dungeon delver feat. AT level Y, get the skulker feat."


But because they just give you extra feats to do with what you want, it's being treated like you don't get anything at all. Which is weird.