D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[spinozajack]

I think this is a great point. 5e is definitely not rules-lite, but it is rules-vague. Part of trying to appeal to all players, I guess.

Rules-light vs rules-heavy is not really the point, although 5e is definitely lighter than 3e and 4e. You can play 5e perfectly well using the basic D&D rules. Try that with 3e or 4e, even using a character builder will take a new player probably an entire session just to make a character. Even levelling up our characters using a builder, in 4e, took our group half a session, sometimes more. It was awful. Pouring through endless powers, deciding what to retrain, what to keep, what works with what. It was a nightmare of complexity. 3e was just as bad. I loathed the skill system, especially at level 1. It was like doing homework, not fun at all.

What does matter is, in a typical session, how often is the action or flow interrupted by having to look something up?

Freeform and rules-light goes hand in hand with "rulings not rules", trusting the DM more to handle edge cases than trying to enumerate every possibility which is futile anyway. Looking up the edge cases in 3e and 4e was a real time sink. Even in 1e and 2e, you had all kinds of weird subsystems and tables for every possibility which definitely got in the way sometimes.

I'm frankly rather shocked that anyone would even consider 5e rules heavy. The rules get out of the way of the action, that's why combat is so fast. Despite it being fast, my character can do more with less. I can pick up two swords and swing them both if I want to, I don't need Twin Strike or have to take about three feats before it's even mathematically viable.

I can do something reasonable at any time during my turn, even while moving. I can attack monsters when I want to as part of my move, before it, after it, without special powers (4e) or feats (3e) that allow me to do that. It's more versatile and runs faster, because it relies more on natural language than game jargon. Game jargon and keyword heavy rules are definitely heavier and harder to learn and harder to master. Everyone I've played 5e with, whether they liked 2e, 3e, or 4e more, said the game runs better and faster, and appreciates fast and easy all encompassing rules like advantage disadvantage instead of tons of tiny like bonuses or penalties that people often forget, or having to rummage through 4000 feats or powers to make a character. Or having to ask "why is a fighter always considered a defender? huh?"

Removing the minor action from 4th edition also sped up combat. Less rules, less complexity. You have an action and a move. maybe you have a bonus action, if you have something specific that grants it to you. But that's still way simpler than everyone having one and trying to figure out what to do with it each round. Minor actions were awful. Bonus actions takes into account decision paralysis that adding more stuff to do each round created.

Why is the game telling me how to act and what to do in a roleplaying game? (pre-defined roles).

5e's design is simple, elegant, straightforward, clean, fast-running, easy to understand and even easy to master. Yet still more powerful, more versatile, respects all three pillars of the game, respects that different people don't want overly complex characters each time. If you ask most 4e fans, they would never have included the Champion or anything like it. Even the designers of the game were surprised at the feedback that said people wanted some options for the simple fighter who mostly just attacks (when he wants) and hits hard, or simpler blaster wizard.

Rules vagueness is a plus, because no rules system can account for all posibilities of actions in a setting. Putting that responsibility squarely back in the hands of DMs is what makes the game run fast and true. Many people don't want to scratch their heads and wonder how you can prone a snake or a giant ooze. Any time a game rule gets in the way of logic or common sense, it should be summarily ignored or dismissed by a sensible DM for that scenario.

The fact that 5th edition only has one page of errata (needing at most two, even if they included forum feedback on the balance problems with some feats or spells) after being out over a year is clear proof that the rules are lighter.

Complex rules are heavier. Simple rules are lighter. Simple is achieved in this case in a combination of avoiding game jargon and relying on natural language and the intelligence of the human players to adjudicate the rules, rather than the absurd reliance on overly complex rules that try to account for every possibility. They even removed more causes of AoOs in 5th edition. Those alone were an unending nightmare in 3rd edition, that led to static combats and tons of table arguments and rules lookups.

5th edition is probably the simplest D&D ever, although I haven't re-read the original Basic 1st ed in a while, and have no interest in doing that. Big feats getting doled out more rarely instead of microfeats and feat chains is also a huge complexity reducing move.

5th edition is the best D&D, despite its flaws. Most of which are easily fixable through tweaking certain feats or spells, or banning certain class features.

 

[Erechel]

Tony, as I said earlier, Cunning Action is a combat-action feature only. Action Surge don't, hence his utility outside combat. Indomitable too, as you can make several Saving Throws non related to combat but to exhaustion, obstacles in your way, or whatever. Situations where cast a spell is difficulty or impossible. I use a lot of ST outside combat to resolve several situations, as to resist being drugged, for example, but also to be knocked prone and lifted by strong waters, heavy winds, slippery grounds. And in chases, as I stated, there are several complications that use saving throws. I cannot say how many times the fighter has saved the day outside combat in my sessions.

As for RA, as I said, is actually a lot useful in improvisation. You can achieve things that others simply can't, like Imaro said. Of course, proficiency is better, and expertise too... at specific. At general, you are above the average at every task. You are not the baseliner. You are not the absolutely best (AKA: you have not expertise) at anything, you are good at everything (and better than all classes when it comes to non skill covered checks, like the escaping the ropes or breaking barred doors: there is no such thing as an Escape Artist feat or feature, nor Door Smasher, although it could be done).

Superior Strenght/Speed is given via ASI/feat.

 

[spinozajack]

RA is inferior to actual proficiency, which is available to all. Most fighters are going to be proficient in some physical skills, anyway, rendering RA moot. The fact that it's the Champion's only thing outside of combat is a clear illustration of how profoundly lack-luster a sub-class it is for anything but DPR.

It's not at all lackluster in what it's supposed to be, a straightforward class to play where the mechanics of combat don't make the player throw their hands up and ask "can't we just play an AD&D instead?"

Remember, massive amounts of playtest feedback told the designers that the champion wasn't only something they should have (simple fighter), but that substantial portions wanted.

Plus the fact that you can customize your character, then multiclass afterwards if you want, pick what kind of attacks, weapons, fighting styles, makes me wonder if you recognize that it is in fact your opinion of what a good fighter looks like, which is the fringe.

I don't want fighters with a million little bits. I can do more with a 5e champion in a typical round than I can using a 4th edition one. For once, I can attack multiple times, in between moves. I can pick up two weapons if I want to, and attack with each one (no training necessary). I can pull out my sword with my attack action, I can be in the top tier of damage potential of the game just by picking a single feat.

Consider that for one second. In 3e or 4e, can you even imagine anyone saying, take this one feat and you have close to the best DPR potential in the game? Or even not pick a feat at all, and boost just your strength! that works really well too. No system mastery necessary.

A game rules system requiring system mastery is something feedback told the designers they didn't want out of 5th edition.

I wouldn't pick an evoker to be a damage dealer in 5th ed, I would pick a champion, and be pretty well off compared to any of the more complex classes. They playtested this game extensively, as did hundreds of thousands of people, who came to the same conclusion. The champion fighter works well, and does what it's supposed to do.

Simple is sometimes beautiful. This is one example of that. The champion is both simpler, and a more fun fighter than a 4e fighter for most people who wanted a simple one that's focused on offense. (by 5e champion damage-focused design and feedback which asserts that fact).

Most people prefer playing strikers to "defenders", but you could easily be defender-ish if you want, take protection style, sentinel, polearm master.

There is literally nothing stopping you from modifying your champion PC to add complexity later on. You can multiclass easily to pick up some spells for utility or rogue abilities like cunning action.

In 4e, you got one level of complexity, and that was that. You dealt with it. One size fits all mentality. One true way. No, one size does not fit all. Some people want simpler classes to play, without daily "powers" or weird stuff like marking which most people I know hated. I know the majority of gamers out there also hated it because it's mostly gone in 5th edition, and wizards publically vetted all the game choices they made when deciding what should be in Basic D&D and what should be in the DMG as an optional rule. Even the idea of Basic D&D is sustained by public feedback desirous of a simple core game that works well and isn't hampered by baggage and too much jargon, endless confusion power selection and feat selection, power gaming builds, and the rest. A champion works well in not only basic D&D, but full D&D alongside all the other more complex choices. That's a good game design right there. Being able to play the game without feats and maintain class balance between casters and fighters? Great. Flexible.

I think Wizards totally messed up with the 4th edition fighter, they didn't even consider asking themselves as they were designing it (obviously) what did people want out of a fighter class? They rammed it through then tried to rectify their mistake in Essentials by releasing a simple striker fighter but by then it was way too late. Their earlier one-complexity-rules all, one-true-way-to-play-a-fighter (defend other players) is a big part of what did them in. Plus tons of nonsensical powers that nobody could understand how they even worked without magic. I avoided fighters for that reason. I wanted a heavily armored PC focused on damage. So I played a ranger and took heavy armor feats. It was just sad that I had to do that. It showed they didn't even consider for a second that people who wanted to play fighters or even paladins might want to be tanky and DPR-focused at the same time, not designed around filling a defender role that the majority did not want to play.

When I disagree with the way a game element works in 5e, I acknowledge that it's probably because my opinion is a minority view on a topic. I wonder if you'll ever recognize your own inability to see the champion as invalidating your own biases being correct. It's subjective, and it's ok to disagree with the majority. Doesn't make you right or wrong. It just means you got overruled.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's not at all lackluster in what it's supposed to be, a straightforward class to play where the mechanics of combat don't make the player throw their hands up and ask "can't we just play an AD&D instead?"

The 5e and AD&D fighters are pretty similar, in that both do a lot of damage in combat (AD&D with a correct choice or two, 5e fighters almost inevitably), and have little to do outside combat, yes. That's the point being made, that the 5e fighter contributes almost exclusively in combat, and is lackluster in the other two Pillars, trivial bonuses like RA notwithstanding.

When I disagree with the way a game element works in 5e, I acknowledge that it's probably because my opinion is a minority view on a topic. It's subjective, and it's ok to disagree with the majority. Doesn't make you right or wrong. It just means you got overruled.

That, however, is less in keeping with 5e design goals. It was meant to be a more inclusive game, not a majority-rules, lowest-common-denominator one. So you should really be looking at some of the other options presented, including the relative acceptability of house-ruling, when you find the default version of a game element doesn't fit your needs, rather than to just throw up you hands and conclude you don't deserve it, because you're a 'minority.'

Cunning Action is a combat-action feature only. Action Surge don't, hence his utility outside combat.

Really, they both are. Both give actions on your turn. Turns only happen in combat. That's actually how I'd be inclined to rule, myself, both because it makes sense, and because it discourages 'wasting' the latter (it's much more valuable in combat, where the fighter's actions are higher-value due to multiple attacks) or spamming the former. But, for sake of argument, if you can shoehorn one into non-combat, by rolling initiative and calling out turns, you can do the other, because you've essentially made a time-important non-combat challenge a 'combat.' Similarly, Haste is likely to be cast only in combat, because it's such a valuable spell, but it can certainly be used out of combat.

As for RA, as I said, is actually a lot useful in improvisation. You can achieve things that others simply can't

It's strictly inferior to proficiency (or any stacking bonus), and vastly inferior to Expertise. Where the DM rules /no/ proficiency can apply to a physical check, it's a bit more relevant, but at +1 to 3 over 20 levels, it doesn't stack up that well, even compared to a +1d4 bonus from Bless or the Guidance cantrip.

 

[Erechel]

Really, they both are. Both give actions on your turn. Turns only happen in combat. That's actually how I'd be inclined to rule, myself, both because it makes sense, and because it discourages 'wasting' the latter or spamming the former. But, for sake of argument, if you can shoehorn one into non-combat, by rolling initiative and calling out turns, you can do the other, because you've essentially made a time-important non-combat challenge a 'combat.' Similarly, Haste is likely to be cast only in combat, because it's such a valuable spell, but it can certainly be used out of combat.

This is simply not true. Rounds and turns are a measure of time, and they are accounted in whenever time is a crucial factor. And RAW, cunning action is combat . And at this time, we are arguing for the sake of arguing, and I'm tiring of it.

Cunning action is clearly stated as a combat feature. Action Surge don't. Chases aren't combat either, although they can end in one. Chases are measured in turns (please, look at the DMG, for Gygax's sake), and you can model every timeframed event by turns and rounds.

We both recognize that proficiency and expertise are better than RA at a given task, but proficiency is a scarce resource, and expertise is scarcer. You fail to recognize that your argument (the bottomline champion) is flawed, because you aren't a bottomliner, and you aren't average. You are above average in general skill tasks (hence, superior to whom hasn't nor proficency nor expertise, nor RA), and you are superior to everyone else in every check not made by actual skills, which covers actually a broad spectrum. And that said, because BA, a +2 is a huge step in this edition, although insignificant in prior ones.

Also, Spinozajack has a clue of the niche fulfilled by the champion class. A combat specialist, not a out of combat expert (a statement that I've already made). But he is not worthless outside combat. And also (and this is rarely taken account yet), this edition has three axis to take account a character: Class, Race and Background. You aren't defined only by your class.

 

[spinozajack]

The 5e and AD&D fighters are pretty similar, in that both do a lot of damage in combat (AD&D with a correct choice or two, 5e fighters almost inevitably), and have little to do outside combat, yes. That's the point being made, that the 5e fighter contributes almost exclusively in combat, and is lackluster in the other two Pillars, trivial bonuses like RA notwithstanding.

Any champion can learn to ride a horse as part of his background, or know how to use thieves' tools to pick a lock, has decent strength or dex to climb hills or avoid traps, build a fortified defense, smash open a blocked door, lots of HP and AC to delve first down that dark corridor. All those things are part of exploration pillar, with mechanics to support him doing just that.

What you are lamenting, if I'm understanding your point correctly, is that the champion doesn't have any magic or skill expertise, and that's no fair. He can pick literally any proficiency he wants at level 1 through a background choice. If he wants to learn to fly, then yes, he has to multiclass to wizard or other class with access to a fly spell. Or just one step over in the fighter list, the Eldritch Knight is right there.

And there is literally no reason why the Champion in shining armor can't be the party face, and inspire troops to follow him into battle, or convince the king to let him lead the defense of the castle, or borrow a magic artifact to slaw the lich in the basement, as part of the social pillar. He has access to every skill he wants to, and if he wants to do stuff like charm person, multiclassing is just one step away. Unlike in AD&D, he's not stuck playing a fighter forever either. It's so, so easy to multiclass as a fighter, you just need 13 strength or dex and whatever 13 in the other classes' prime stats to do it. And that makes sense too.

Don't buy that you need spells or magic or supernatural abilities added to a fighter to contribute to non-combat pillar. Not for one second. A wizard in 5th edition can't even fly for that long anyway, and might even want to cast his Fly spell on the fighter because, hey, why should I risk my own hide by flying into that pit over there when this guy in the armor can do it for me? Plus if I take damage I fall? No thanks! It's team work. If your fighter is feeling small because he can't do magic, it is trivial to add that to your character. But many don't, because fighters fight, and can do plenty out of combat. It's just the stuff they do out of combat isn't magical. And that's great too. I don't want every class to have access to magic.

Your entire thesis seems to be to be based on jealousy of what magic can accomplish out of combat, instead of realizing that fighters also have parties which work together, and can easily chug a potion of Fly or ring of invisibility, or use their platemail of etherealness to do incredible things on their own. And what D&D game has no magic items for the front line fighter? I don't buy the assumption that magic items aren't assumed. Specific ones aren't assumed. But magic items in general are part of every adventure's treasures, and those will benefit the fighter usually the most, and aid them in not just the combat pillar, but the other ones.

Who would you rather be when fighting a dragon? A fighter who drank a fly potion or has fly cast on him? Or a wizard who is going to be mincemeat if he does it himself. The game is designed to be collaborative. You can't look at the champion's skills in a vaccuum. There are magic items, and casters around. Magic will benefit the fighter. The fighter can and will be contributing a lot towards all pillars, even without mechanics or magic specifically enhancing those areas.

I've convinced way more NPCs to do my bidding through a convincing argument than a charm spell, which often backfires. People tend to believe the honest looking guy in the shiny armor, who speaks clearly and boldly. If anything, it's magical that you can charm someone with your wits and speech often better than you can with magic. And you can do it all day long, without running out of slots. The wizard should also being doing that, and keeping charm person in his back pocket for when there is no other choice but to use it. That's when the wizard gets to shine! Why take that away from them? Spotlight sharing, man!

I roll a "disbelieve illusion" check on your claim that the champion needs any special mechanics or rules to contribute to non-combat pillars. I think your criticisms fundamentally misunderstand the point of the inclusion of a non-magical fighting man in Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Also, Spinozajack has a clue of the niche fulfilled by the champion class. A combat specialist, not a out of combat expert.

That's the point. A trivial bonus to some checks that's strictly inferior to most other bonuses that get handed out and re-purposing a potent in-combat ability as a marginal out-of-combat one don't change that niche.

But he is not worthless outside combat.

Bounded Accuracy keeps anyone from being entirely worthless where checks are concerned. The fighter has less to contribute out of combat than any other class, but, no, he's not worthless. It's very hard for anyone to be worthless under BA, a lucky roll, and you can always score higher than someone much better than you. Even the maxed out dude with expertise (+17) can roll 1, and you can roll a 20.

(And, not to pile on RA, but the fighter with his +1 or +2 or maybe even at very high level, +3 from RA, and his maybe, at low level, briefly net +1 from his 6th level ASI, doesn't have to roll much worse than the next untrained guy for that feature to be rendered moot. So the Champion rolls +6 when the Barbarian rolls +4, that's going to matter maybe one time in 10. So the same Bounded Accuracy & d20 randomness that keeps the fighter from being worthless, keeps RA from being worthwhile.)

And also (and this is rarely taken account yet), this edition has three axis to take account a character: Class, Race and Background. You aren't defined only by your class.

When evaluating class, race & background don't come into it.

 

[spinozajack]

Tony, I'm pretty glad we're not actually arguing about how 5th edition should be designed (too late for that), because sorry dude, you just don't get it.

People wanted a non-magical fighter again, and they overruled the 4e mentality of the non-traditional magic Martial Power source. It's gone.

 

[spinozajack]

When evaluating class, race & background don't come into it.

Goalposts? Moved.

No clearer sign of a lost argument. Background is effectively part of every class. Common sense, yo!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You are forgetting that Strenght also handles the amount of weight you are capable to lift. It is a convention, true, but it is a non-check restrainer.

And, from 4th edition PHB, p. 222:
"Multiply your Strength score by 10. That’s the weight, in pounds, that you can carry around without penalty. This amount of weight is considered a normal load.

Double that number (Strength × 20). That’s the maximum weight you can lift off the ground. If you try to carry that weight, though, you’re slowed. Carrying such a load requires both hands, so you’re not particularly effective while you’re doing so. This amount of weight is considered a heavy load.

Five times your normal load (Strength × 50) is the most weight you can push or drag along the ground. You’re slowed if you try to push or drag more weight than you can carry without penalty, and you can’t push or drag such a heavy load over difficult terrain. This amount of weight is referred to as your maximum drag load."

So, if you are ruling that your fighter can lift a mountain in 4th edition, you also are tweaking the rules. And it circunscribes to the very same problem: the moderately strong wizard can lift the mountain if the fighter can, given the checks made.

Sure, but that only covers what you can carry, its deliberately vague about what you can lift and there are for instance many examples of powers and skill uses where defined boundaries are exceeded in specific ways.

The core point still stands, in 4e you can do this, in 5e it wouldn't just mean 30th level Wizards might have a chance to do the same, it would mean peasants might do the same!

In point of fact though a 30th level Fighter with 30 STR in 4e (probable) has a +10 differential with a STR 10 30th level wizard, BEFORE anything else is factored in. If the DC is hard level 30 (DC 42), then the 30th level wizard can't pass it, unless he's got 7 additional points of STR bonus, which is pretty unlikely. The fighter himself is getting a +25, so even HE needs additional help to succeed often. He could of course be wearing a Belt of Giant Strength, using an Elixir, subject to one of various powers, or have a reroll, a feat bonus, etc. So chances are if it really comes down to it, he can probably push it over the top, but it won't be easy. The wizard, even with all those advantages might only barely succeed, and would be unlikely to try.