D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Imaro]

Yes. A character with a bonus can hit a DC of 21 that a character without a bonus can't, as Imaro pointed out:

But, a character with no bonus can also do as well or beat a character with maxed stat bonus and proficiency at +11, because (again) 5e met the Bounded Accuracy design goal. A d20 can overwhelm a +11. Mr. +11 rolls a 3, scores a 14, and fails a DC 15. Mr. +0 rolls a 16 and succeeds. Mr. 0 has saved the day, where Mr. 11 has failed. Que spotlight.

That's the basis for the idea that most characters can participate or even contribute in most out of combat checks, most of the time. And that, in turn, is the basis for the Fighter being able to do much of anything out of combat, at all. That even though other characters may have proficiency or other stacking bonuses, those bonuses can be overwhelmed by a bit of d20 luck.

What you are stating here is not the same as this...

No, I don't understand. The critical problem here in the 5e setup is the small growth in bonuses means you can't differentiate between heroes and ordinary people in terms of abilities and skills. The game simply cannot do it. No amount of picking different DCs will change that unless you start picking them purely on fictional grounds and ignoring mechanics.

or this...

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Tony, I'm pretty glad we're not actually arguing about how 5th edition should be designed

I didn't think we were. I thought we were discussing 5e, specifically the capabilities of the fighter class, at least, in this particular strand of the conversation.

But 5e did have goals, and it did meet quite a few of them.

Inclusiveness was one. You seem to think that it failed - and to be delighted by that. I disagree on both counts.

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

The Martial source was not magical. That has, indeed, been softened in 5e, where both the Fighter and Rogue can /actually cast spells/. Again, that's a matter of inclusion, and giving more options (Fighters can be simple DPR machines, slightly more sophisticated and manage CS contribution to DPR, or provide DPR enhanced with spells). 5e is not some tyranny of the majority providing only one way to play.

Goalposts? Moved.

Yes, Erechel tried to move the goalposts by bringing background & race into a comparison of class.

Background is effectively part of every class.

Any background can be taken by any class. It is irrelevant in comparing classes. Same with Race.

I think your criticisms fundamentally misunderstand the point of the inclusion of a non-magical fighting man in Dungeons and Dragons.

I'd like to think it was to represent non-magic-using archetypes from genre. And, I'm confident that's at least part of it. However, it seems obvious that it also serves as a base-line against which magic can shine and seem 'really magical' in it's superiority. I think the latter is unnecessarily clumsy and has too often resulted in class imbalances. But that's not really relevant, since class balance was not one of those 5e design goals, so expecting it would be unreasonable.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Right, and the issue is, to be clear, not that the fighter is in some way inferior, it is that the fighter is in no way unique. There isn't anything that fighters get in terms of an actual capability to do something in the narrative fiction, that every other class cannot possibly do also. A wizard can climb, hide, jump, escape, and even swing a sword. There is in fact not one single general thing that a fighter can do that entirely transcends what a wizard can try to do. He may be poor at some of these things (maybe not too), and he might not be able to try exactly the same mechanical thing in every detail (he can't make multiple attacks, but he can surely swing a sword).

Yet, fictionally, the wizard is far beyond the fighter. He can do things that the fighter, assuming he doesn't become an EK, simply cannot even try. MANY of those things, many spells, can allow him without any sort of check to do things a fighter cannot try at all, like fly or walk invisibly through a crowded room.

I don't know that there's ultimately a 'fix' for this, except to get some spell casting if you want, but the argument is that at least one edition, 4e, DID allow somewhat more, that its fighters were a bit more 'mythic'. ONE reason for this, baseline performance for highest level 4e PCs was a lot more fantastic. This meant that perhaps the fighter wasn't doing a lot that was super unique, but he was far less outclassed. He was like the Motorcycle Bandit vs the Pixie Summoner instead of BMX Bandit vs Angel Summoner. I thought it worked out a little better overall.

That being said, you do have the choice in 5e to be an EK or MC into wizard, or whatever. I do sometimes wish there was some more 'fightery' magic though.

 

[Erechel]

And you keep ignoring that mister Hobo McTen really can't overtake anything hard because their skill set does not avail it, as Imaro stated. He only has a 5% chance to make something hard, and none to accomplish something in between hard and Very Hard, and that advantage/disadvantage only keeps true the average, and it isn't the equivalent to a +5 (as many said), because with advantage, aid or Guidance spell he basically is stuck on the possibility of achieving a hard task, but not a very hard task.
And you keep ignoring that there are the same rules, and the only change is the probability (an it isn't even that) because the scores are flatter. The peasant also can lift a mountain in 4th edition, if this is the keypoint: he also has the same vague limits than the fighter. Only that he can't be subject to a skill check, so the peasant can lift mountains every ing time the fighter can, by your perspective -it takes only permission from the DM, the very same way that the peasant in 5th edition. And you keep ignoring that it isn't a fail of design to give Mr. Average a slight possibility to be the hero that saves the day, it's the objective of the edition, but this is mediated by the DM. In fact, your complain is mostly about "why everyone else don't suck as much as before. I want to everyone sucks but me", and not "I can make anything I want".

 

[Tony Vargas]

---Quote (Originally by Tony Vargas)---
But, a character with no bonus can also do as well or beat a character with maxed stat bonus and proficiency at +11, because (again) 5e met the Bounded Accuracy design goal. A d20 can overwhelm a +11. Mr. +11 rolls a 3, scores a 14, and fails a DC 15. Mr. +0 rolls a 16 and succeeds. Mr. 0 has saved the day, where Mr. 11 has failed. Que spotlight.

That's the basis for the idea that most characters can participate or even contribute in most out of combat checks, most of the time. And that, in turn, is the basis for the Fighter being able to do much of anything out of combat, at all. That even though other characters may have proficiency or other stacking bonuses, those bonuses can be overwhelmed by a bit of d20 luck.
---End Quote---
What you are stating here is not the same as this...


---Quote (Originally by AbdulAlhazred)---
The critical problem here in the 5e setup is the small growth in bonuses means you can't differentiate between heroes and ordinary people in terms of abilities and skills. The game simply cannot do it. No amount of picking different DCs will change that unless you start picking them purely on fictional grounds and ignoring mechanics.
---End Quote---

True enough, AFAICT, since I can't read Abdul's mind to be certain what he meant.
Not relevant, but true. It doesn't exactly contradict it, though. In both cases, it's a matter of Bounded Accuracy. In my case, a feature - non-specialist characters can remain somewhat relevant when making checks. In his a perceived bug - characters aren't numerically superior enough to ordinary folk to be 'heroic.'

or this...

---Quote (Originally by Tony Vargas)---
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.
---End Quote---

In this case, though, I do know what I was talking about.
Being able to perform as well as good-stat, proficient character anywhere from a quarter, to perhaps as little as a 10th of the time, is I think, "really not that bad." You might as well try any reasonable task, unless there's a severe enough penalty for failure, or it can only be done by one person at a time.

Now, if you want to disagree, I'd understand. "Really not that bad" is really not that precise.

Right, and the issue is, to be clear, not that the fighter is in some way inferior, it is that the fighter is in no way unique.

I'd say general out-of-combat inferiority is part of it.

There isn't anything that fighters get in terms of an actual capability to do something in the narrative fiction, that every other class cannot possibly do also. A wizard can climb, hide, jump, escape, and even swing a sword. There is in fact not one single general thing that a fighter can do that entirely transcends what a wizard can try to do. He may be poor at some of these things (maybe not too), and he might not be able to try exactly the same mechanical thing in every detail (he can't make multiple attacks, but he can surely swing a sword).

Yet, fictionally, the wizard is far beyond the fighter. He can do things that the fighter, assuming he doesn't become an EK, simply cannot even try. MANY of those things, many spells, can allow him without any sort of check to do things a fighter cannot try at all, like fly or walk invisibly through a crowded room.

Sounds kinda inferior.

I don't know that there's ultimately a 'fix' for this, except to get some spell casting if you want, but the argument is that at least one edition

Not the part of the argument I'd prefer to get into. But, as to a 'fix,' there's all sorts of possibilities.

From the player side, very simply, don't play a fighter if it doesn't do enough to keep you entertained.

From the DM side, the possibilities are endless: You could re-write the fighter class, or the skill system.
You could also just arbitrarily rule the fighter succeeds much of the time.
You could hammer the limits faced by casters - for instance, by forcing 'long' adventuring days.
You could (and, generally, IMHO, should) keep challenges highly varied - it keeps the game 'fresh,' makes it harder for prepped casters to anticipate the best spells for the day, and forces players to mix up their tactics.

He was like the Motorcycle Bandit vs the Pixie Summoner instead of BMX Bandit vs Angel Summoner. I thought it worked out a little better overall.

Pixie summoning is still, like, totally broken. Little buggers have no ethical restraints, y'know.

That being said, you do have the choice in 5e to be an EK or MC into wizard, or whatever. I do sometimes wish there was some more 'fightery' magic though.

You can take your fighter EK for arcane magic, or play a Paladin for a divine-magic-using knightly fighter, or a ranger for a nature-magic woodsy one. There's no Fighter-Sorcerer or Fighter-Warlock (Hexblade!), but there's always MCing if your DM uses it. I think bringing in magic as the solution to magic being too good is certainly a viable option.

I do sometimes wish there was some more 'fightery' magic though.

I'm afraid to ask, but what would that be? Up until the 5e EK (the 3.5 EK was a PrC, the 4e EK was a Theme), the fighter class, itself, never cast spells. What would 'fightery magic' be that isn't covered by the EK?

 

[Imaro]

You are clearly missing my point. We know that in 4e a level 10 medium DC is 18, but what FICTIONALLY does that represent? There are SOME conventions, an 18 represents a running broad jump of about 15' IIRC, a 20 will let you break through a barred wooden door, and a 26 is required to break through a wooden wall. So we DO have a bit of a baseline, what the authors envisaged, but we have a lot of freedom. The most capable 'ordinary human' might have a +4 Ability Bonus, and maybe a Skill Bonus of +5 if the feat uses a skill they are trained in (on the assumption that ordinary people even get +5 trained bonuses, 4e doesn't apply character rules to NPCS). So, a strong non-leveled NPC might achieve checks up to say 29 at the most extreme. He might break a barred door, or crash through the wall of a village house, or jump over a 20' wide chasm, in the default setting.

So, assuming we don't want to radically amplify the abilities of low level non-adventurers, we'd probably rescale things in a bit of an exponential fashion. a check result of 30 is the top of realistic human potential, a 35 is quite a bit beyond it, a 40 might be 'less than godlike' and a 45 might represent moving a mountain. This is quite a bit beyond what the default fiction envisages, but because there's a large scale difference in the numbers that heroic/paragon/epic PCs can achieve its quite possible to radically rescale the fiction attached to the different numbers. You simply cannot do that in 5e. If the hardest attainable DCs are super fantastic things, then low level characters will be achieve them. Not often, but if even one guard captain can say throw a giant, its going to be a pretty odd setting...

Honestly I was missing your point before (But then I also think you were missing mine around play procedures, advice etc. in 4e)... but everything you stated here about 5e is wrong... there are DC's in 5e that a normal person... even one at peak ability (+4) cannot achieve. Joe schmoe average 10 ablity cannot get a higher than a 20 (so he fails most DC's in the Hard range +... peak ability man +4 can't hit over a 24... so Very Hard + is off limits to him in D&D 5e... yet all of those are attainable by a "hero" depending on Prof bonus and attribute.

D&D is a level-based game, that's the whole core conceit is that as you level up you scale up in power. I don't think this is something I invented for rhetorical reasons. Its so core to D&D that I would dare say that a game where you use some other scaling system ISN'T D&D AT ALL. In a much more fundamental way than people said that about 4e! I don't think its 5e either TBH. I mean I can do anything I want if I just homebrew my own system. Heck, I was already lambasted once on this thread today for even making a contrast with my own homebrew. I think you need stronger arguments.

Really... there was a time some monsters scaled by hit die... some would argue hit die size for classes scales by class... so no everything hasn't always scaled based on level. The point is you're assuming that's the way things must scale and it's not.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And you keep ignoring that mister Hobo McTen really can't overtake anything hard because their skill set does not avail it, as Imaro stated. He only has a 5% chance to make something hard, and none to accomplish something in between hard and Very Hard, and that advantage/disadvantage only keeps true the average, and it isn't the equivalent to a +5 (as many said), because with advantage, aid or Guidance spell he basically is stuck on the possibility of achieving a hard task, but not a very hard task.
And you keep ignoring that there are the same rules, and the only change is the probability (an it isn't even that) because the scores are flatter. The peasant also can lift a mountain in 4th edition, if this is the keypoint: he also has the same vague limits than the fighter. Only that he can't be subject to a skill check, so the peasant can lift mountains every ing time the fighter can, by your perspective -it takes only permission from the DM, the very same way that the peasant in 5th edition. And you keep ignoring that it isn't a fail of design to give Mr. Average a slight possibility to be the hero that saves the day, it's the objective of the edition, but this is mediated by the DM. In fact, your complain is mostly about "why everyone else don't suck as much as before. I want to everyone sucks but me", and not "I can make anything I want".

First I never talked about "Mr Hobo McTen", you guys made that up. I talked about a high stat ordinary person, who has at least a +4 (possibly a +5) stat bonus. I'll assume that 'ordinary people' have nothing like a proficiency bonus, but that's not established, and presumably if an NPC '0 level' human had one it would be +2, right?

Anyway, the point is you can certainly achieve a 24 as a basic human. Making the same assumptions in 4e yields the same results, except that a 24 is a hard level 5 DC in 4e. So the limit of hard checks a normal 4e human can make is level 5. In 5e its hard to say what it is, its a 'hard check' for what its worth. Now you can make 'lifting a mountain' etc however hard you want, DC 30 whatever. There's just not a huge amount of room there between 'maybe a peasant can do it' and 'pretty much nobody can do it at all' (DC 30 being almost the limit of what you can do on an ability check).

So, all the hyperbole about "Mr McTen" aside, there's a very narrow range in 5e such that if you need to push something off the top of the range for low level or even ordinary people you have to almost push it off the range for even 20th level PCs. That's the downside of BA. You guys don't seem to be able to acknowledge ANY downside, but that doesn't make it go away. This effect does put a hard limitation on the range of fiction you can attach to the check system in 5e.

Its fine if you don't care about any of this, but trying to argue that it doesn't exist is just plain silly.

 

[Imaro]

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.

How is the fighter getting a 30 in strength? You get a +1 on 8 increases over 30 levels... even starting with a 20 the max he could get is a 28... am I missing something?

 

[Imaro]

True enough, AFAICT, since I can't read Abdul's mind to be certain what he meant.
Not relevant, but true. It doesn't exactly contradict it, though. In both cases, it's a matter of Bounded Accuracy. In my case, a feature - non-specialist characters can remain somewhat relevant when making checks. In his a perceived bug - characters aren't numerically superior enough to ordinary folk to be 'heroic.'

In this case, though, I do know what I was talking about.
Being able to perform as well as good-stat, proficient character anywhere from a quarter, to perhaps as little as a 10th of the time, is I think, "really not that bad." You might as well try any reasonable task, unless there's a severe enough penalty for failure, or it can only be done by one person at a time.

I'm not talking about what you meant, if that's the case you can say... oops my bad I misstated what I was actually trying to say earlier in the thread... but subtly shifting what your assertions were and then pretending that it's not relevant (because you were wrong) is shifting the goalposts big time...

Also I never said it contradicted it... saying something is blue and that it has color doesn't contradict each other either but if that something you called blue is purple... your first statement is still wrong.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm afraid to ask, but what would that be? Up until the 5e EK (the 3.5 EK was a PrC, the 4e EK was a Theme), the fighter class, itself, never cast spells. What would 'fightery magic' be that isn't covered by the EK?

Well, I would think maybe a character with more of a repertoire of self-targeting buffs. Its hard to be sure which spells fall into the EK's usual repertoire given the lack of an index of spell schools, but IIRC most of the good self-buffs are transmutations. You CAN get some of those, and I guess with the way spell slots work you could always burn all your casting chances on them, but the wizard list isn't really the best one for such spells.

So, maybe I'd like to see a more tailored list, with Haste, Strength, Stone Skin, etc sort of stuff on it (again, the EK does get some of these). Really, the EK is NOT bad, and I have always said that I think 5e covers the majority of archetypes in a more convenient way than pretty much any other edition.

Honestly, my big beef with it is it just doesn't do the particular style of game that 4e was especially good at all that well, and that's the type we seem to play these days.