D&D 5E Classes that Suck

[Micah Sweet]

It makes sense to me to! I just think it's not very friendly to casual players, people less confident in their math skills, and people less confident in their rules skills. And the complication is basically that the character sheet makes it easy to not really think about your proficiency bonus as a thing in and of itself, especially if some person or some website helps you fill it out. Basically I end up explaining what numbers to use each time we do a variant ability skill check, which is fine by me, but keeps it very much as a once in a while thing.

Definitely depends on your players. All of my skill changes were in direct response se to player requests, so fortunately for me I don't have that problem.

 

[Minigiant]

It makes sense to me to! I just think it's not very friendly to casual players, people less confident in their math skills, and people less confident in their rules skills. And the complication is basically that the character sheet makes it easy to not really think about your proficiency bonus as a thing in and of itself, especially if some person or some website helps you fill it out. Basically I end up explaining what numbers to use each time we do a variant ability skill check, which is fine by me, but keeps it very much as a once in a while thing.

I think some of that is presentation.

If you look at a D&D beyond char sheet, the ability mods are prominent, the skills have abilities associated to them, and tools are hidden away in a menu,
If Strength looked like this:

STRENGTH 14 (+2)[+4 if proficient]
Maybe new or shyer players would get understand a system where ability and skill/tool are not tied together.

But that's beyond the point of classes sucking themselves and more that the system and presentation accidentally hurts certain classes.

 

[Undrave]

I regularly use different stats associated with skills if it makes more sense to me. The classic is Strength for Intimidation, but I also allow Intelligence for Medicine. Admittedly, the character sheet doesn't help make this clear.

I think it's a big failing of the rules that it's just a small aside instead of a core feature. The skills, for exemple, are all detailed in the section of the book relating to their default ability instead of being explained in their own section.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I think it's a big failing of the rules that it's just a small aside instead of a core feature. The skills, for exemple, are all detailed in the section of the book relating to their default ability instead of being explained in their own section.

Yeah, this whole argument could've been stopped by a much louder disclaimer/sidebar saying that you can mix and match skills and ability scores fairly freely if you feel it makes sense.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I think it's a big failing of the rules that it's just a small aside instead of a core feature. The skills, for exemple, are all detailed in the section of the book relating to their default ability instead of being explained in their own section.

I think that was intentional. They didn't want to spend a lot of page space enumerating exactly how to use each skill because that goes against the core concept they're trying to communicate that the DM should just pick an ability, pick a DC, and have the player roll.

 

[Undrave]

Yeah, this whole argument could've been stopped by a much louder disclaimer/sidebar saying that you can mix and match skills and ability scores fairly freely if you feel it makes sense.

Feels like they weren't willing to fully commit to the idea, for fear of pissing of the grognards o something.

 

[Undrave]

I think that was intentional. They didn't want to spend a lot of page space enumerating exactly how to use each skill because that goes against the core concept they're trying to communicate that the DM should just pick an ability, pick a DC, and have the player roll.

They didn't need to change anything page-space wise. You just place all the sub-headers about skills under a single 'skills' eader and then keep the rest of the Ability score descriptions under their header. It's literally a single additional header.

The reality is that nobody plays it the way we're supposed to. Everybody say "Can I roll Persuasion" and the DM goes "Ok." and nobody ever goes "I want to convince the NPC to let us help""Alright, make a Charisma Persuasion roll for me."

NO ONE. Because we've spent too much time on the old way in the previous edition and this one barely made any effort to teach its new paradigm.

 

[Minigiant]

I think that was intentional. They didn't want to spend a lot of page space enumerating exactly how to use each skill because that goes against the core concept they're trying to communicate that the DM should just pick an ability, pick a DC, and have the player roll.

Well they could have put the skills under the ability scores but reused skills

1. Strength
   1. Athletics
   2. Intimidation
2. Dexterity
   1. Acrobatics
   2. Performance
   3. Sleight of Hand
   4. Stealth
3. Constitution
   1. Acrobatics
   2. Athletics
   3. Perception
4. Intelligence
   1. Arcana
   2. History
   3. Investigation
   4. Medicine
   5. Nature
   6. Religion
5. Wisdom
   1. Animal Handling
   2. Insight
   3. Investigation
   4. Medicine
   5. Perception
   6. Survival
6. Charisma
   1. Deception
   2. Intimidation
   3. Performance
   4. Persuasion

Incomplete but that's the premise...

 

[Asisreo]

I think it's a big failing of the rules that it's just a small aside instead of a core feature. The skills, for exemple, are all detailed in the section of the book relating to their default ability instead of being explained in their own section.

I think it would certainly help and I'd love to see it as you described, but I don't think it's necessary to fulfill the need to be involved while a social encounter is happening.

You've most likely seen it in action, but it flows so naturally that it may not have been apparent. When a player hears something suspicious from the info source, even if the bard is talking, the high wis(insight) player will say "I make an insight check!" Because being aware of lies, while not explicitly charisma-based, is part of having effective conversations. Calling someone out in a lie is an effective way to change the course of the conversation. Even if you don't call them out, even if you're character never talked, your character was still involved by keeping aware of lies.

Likewise, even strength, dexterity, and constitution can be used to be involved in conversations without outright speaking. It's one thing to intimidate someone, it's another to outright break their weapons over your knee. You can use your dexterity to sneak around or steal something while they're distracted. You can use your constitution to not fall asleep when they monologue (okay, constitution is a bit hard).

Some player purposefully choose low cha characters to avoid talking, so having everyone have a feature that would require them to talk even if they don't want to to be effective probably wouldn't be fun. But there's no reason why your character is doing absolutely nothing during a social encounter unless you want them to do nothing.

 

[FrozenNorth]

And all of that stuff can be done by the paladin, or the sorcerer, or the bard, all who have potential mechanics to back them up, while the Fighter is solely at the mercy of the DM and a potential flat roll.

I agree, players play and be clever, but saying "well anyone can try to climb the mountain" kind of ignore the point of one person is likely to fall to their death, and the other has a climb speed so it is exactly the type of thing they are supposed to be doing.





But what about the people who do have the mechanics?

This is the problem. Let us say the DM lets the fighter just be charming and work the social scene, because this is a rare dice game. Then what was the use of the Bard putting their expertise in persuasion and playing a glamour bard to charm people? The fighter is doing their job, with no mechanics, so why invest in the mechanics?

It is a bit of a catch-22, either the people who invested mechanics into it feel like they wasted their time, or the people who don;t have the option to invest in mechnics feel left out.

And if it was an easy problem to solve, it wouldn't come up in every single edition of the game.



I'm curious why @Asisreo And again, if the dwarf can speak common, like most dwarves do?

Depends on the dwarf. How many people do you know that speak multiple languages? Then consider that formal schooling is not something that exists in most fantasy worlds.