D&D 5E New D&D WotC survey! On classes.

[Crimson Longinus]

Had a nice long rant about the eldritch knight in the survey, as my hatred for that thing knows no bounds.

Could we have a summary? What’s wrong with it?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Could we have a summary? What’s wrong with it?

dunno what @Frozen_Heart said but my rant is that the EK does not feel magical enough. Could do with more cantrips, and some melee attack spells that work like Booming Blade (I.E. Cast spell, make melee attack and apply effects) and Bladesinger envy. The bladesinger gets to substitute a attack for a cantrip when they get extra attack.
The EK subs all attack for a cantrip and has to spend a bonus action to get in the attack. The EK should be able to swap an attack for a cantrip once they get the Extra attack feature and still make all their extra attacks.
You can argue that this is better than the Bladesinger and I would say "fair enough, they are a fighter and should be better at melee than a wizard".
If one has balance issues about the scalable nature of the blade cantrips then make non scalable cantrips specifically for the EK, which in effect has a restricted spell list anyway.

 

[CleverNickName]

Are you familiar with Shadow of the Demon Lord by Robert Schwalb? It's an interesting glimpse into an Alternative 5e.

I'm not familiar...I'll see if I can track it down at the library.

And this is exactly why my main trope as a poster here on EN World is always talking about why this focus on the miniatures board game that so many people have is inevitably resulting in a detriment to their own enjoyment. And if they could only come at the game much more focused on the narrative (with combat mechanics just being one smaller facet of their PC) they'd be much happier. But it requires them to literally change how they think.

...

Which is why I think everyone would be a heck of a lot happier if they just stopped worrying about the board game and how well they can do "in combat" and instead just created the characters they wanted purely from a narrative perspective and then played into that narrative when combat started. Because then you could play your cool Monk concept that wasn't just focused on the end-all-and-be-all of white room DPR. Or you could play a Beastmaster Ranger and enjoy the roleplaying that comes with a favored pet, knowing that the DM wasn't going to intentionally gun straight for the animal because it was the "optimal combat choice" for them to make. Or you could play any one of the various subclasses in the game because their stories were really cool, even though they weren't "as good" in combat as another.

Unfortunately, I know quite well I'm barking at the moon when I say all this though.

Yep. There are (at least) two types of gamers: those who want to play a combat simulation wargame, and those who want to play a cooperative storytelling game. Certain classes lend themselves better to certain styles of play, and can feel really out-of-place in the game. I think the Bard is one such character class: great for storytelling, and less so for a combat boardgame.

 

[Yaarel]

And this is exactly why my main trope as a poster here on EN World is always talking about why this focus on the miniatures board game that so many people have is inevitably resulting in a detriment to their own enjoyment. And if they could only come at the game much more focused on the narrative (with combat mechanics just being one smaller facet of their PC) they'd be much happier. But it requires them to literally change how they think.

But the fact is that if people keep coming up with the same "build" for any one class... it's because they have decided that there's only one way the game mechanics should be run to have a "good" or "standard" character. As @Scribe says, the game has been "solved" for a good many characters and classes. I mean heck... four years ago all the talk was about how it seemed every melee player was going Great Weapon Master and every ranged player went Sharpshooter all the time, because those feats were "solved" and made for the most DPR. And DMs were getting justifiably bored with all their players playing these mechanical characters. But I would of course then say that if these players felt like playing these "solved" mechanics was the only way to play... it said a lot about how those DMs were running their games and what THEIR focus was on. And that they might have needed to change how they ran their games to convince their players that these cookie-cutter builds weren't actually necessary.

Which is why I think everyone would be a heck of a lot happier if they just stopped worrying about the board game and how well they can do "in combat" and instead just created the characters they wanted purely from a narrative perspective and then played into that narrative when combat started. Because then you could play your cool Monk concept that wasn't just focused on the end-all-and-be-all of white room DPR. Or you could play a Beastmaster Ranger and enjoy the roleplaying that comes with a favored pet, knowing that the DM wasn't going to intentionally gun straight for the animal because it was the "optimal combat choice" for them to make. Or you could play any one of the various subclasses in the game because their stories were really cool, even though they weren't "as good" in combat as another.

Unfortunately, I know quite well I'm barking at the moon when I say all this though.

I feel the "solution" for fun gaming, is for designers to strive for equally balanced options. If one option is underpowered then make it more powerful or else relocate it to a lower level where it becomes competitive with other options there. And if one option is overpowered then make it less powerful or else relocate it to a higher level where it becomes more comparable with other options there. By balancing options, "choices" actually become choices.

Then playstyles that pay attention to the math can get past it and explore the narrative aspects of D&D.

And playstyles that pay attention to the narrative can get past it and enjoy the wargame aspects of D&D. Because, the choices that they made for flavor reasons are also mechanically solid, and will be viable in the combat arena to puzzle thru the clever tactics there.

Balancing options "solves" every aspect of D&D.

 

[Undrave]

And if they could only come at the game much more focused on the narrative (with combat mechanics just being one smaller facet of their PC) they'd be much happier.

But I'm perfectly happy when I don't suck at combat. It's YOU who would be happier if the other players thought that way.

I'm sorry but I can't accept that sucking at combat resolution is somehow, inherently, necessary for me to not only have fun, but to also have narrative fun. There's no reason I need to sacrifice my damage output to have fun in other aspect of the game, it's a false dichotomy that the game stupidly propagate, if you ask me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the Bard is one such character class: great for storytelling, and less so for a combat boardgame.

The other one that I think is great for storytelling and roleplaying is the Warlock-- it has flavor and story built in it up the wazoo.

But then every time someone says "So my Sorlock uses--" my heart dies a little. Because they appear to be wiping away the entire flavor of the Warlock class and multiclassing it purely to bind its mechanical expression to the Sorcerer for more power in combat. And for that I just can't help but shake my head.

Now sure... there might be one or two of those players who actually have built out their backstory to explain why this character who has ingrained sorcerous magic felt the need to then bargain for more and different magic from some extraplanar creature... but the way any of these CHA-based multiclasses get talked about sure doesn't seem like story was at the forefront of their minds. The way these Sorlocks and Pallocks and Bardadins and Sorcedins and Bardlockadins are talked about, it almost always seems to be about the "synergy" of multiple CHA classes all working together for combat optimizism... and not for any sense of story. If story was actually important, we'd hear just as much talk about wizard/warlock multiclass characters as we do sorcerer/warlock ones (since they both make little sense)... but that has never been the case.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But I'm perfectly happy when I don't suck at combat. It's YOU who would be happier if the other players thought that way.

I'm sorry but I can't accept that sucking at combat resolution is somehow, inherently, necessary for me to not only have fun, but to also have narrative fun. There's no reason I need to sacrifice my damage output to have fun in other aspect of the game, it's a false dichotomy that the game stupidly propagate, if you ask me.

So ... here's the thing, from my P.O.V.

Take the following two premises as true (you don't have to, but let's work this out):

1. D&D consists of more than combat.
2. Things that happen out of combat can be done better, or worse, through abilities/spells/stuff.

If you do agree with that, then I think that the following is also true:

A. You can have characters that are better out of combat, and character that are better in combat; OR
B. You can have characters that are all good at combat, but then they should also be similar at "the other stuff."

I'm not advocating for any position here, BTW. Just noting that if you accept that D&D has more than combat, it should be possible to have characters that excel at non-combat things.

 

[Gladius Legis]

dunno what @Frozen_Heart said but my rant is that the EK does not feel magical enough. Could do with more cantrips, and some melee attack spells that work like Booming Blade (I.E. Cast spell, make melee attack and apply effects) and Bladesinger envy. The bladesinger gets to substitute a attack for a cantrip when they get extra attack.
The EK subs all attack for a cantrip and has to spend a bonus action to get in the attack. The EK should be able to swap an attack for a cantrip once they get the Extra attack feature and still make all their extra attacks.
You can argue that this is better than the Bladesinger and I would say "fair enough, they are a fighter and should be better at melee than a wizard".
If one has balance issues about the scalable nature of the blade cantrips then make non scalable cantrips specifically for the EK, which in effect has a restricted spell list anyway.

I made that exact suggestion for the Eldritch Knight in the survey. And for the Valor Bard as well.

 

[Gladius Legis]

The one truly worthless subclass is the PHB Beastmaster Ranger. The problem here is that your animal companion, being a melee combatant with the hit points and AC of a wizard is so fragile you feel as if you've saddled the party with an escort mission. The half is Four Elements Monk - they are a very weak and anti-synergystic subclass of a fairly weak base class.

I'd add the Assassin Rogue to this list. If you don't beat enemy initiative, you are literally a Rogue with no subclass. And in a typical campaign and a typical party you'll never be able to set up the auto-crit everyone drools over when they first read it.

 

[ReshiIRE]

The other one that I think is great for storytelling and roleplaying is the Warlock-- it has flavor and story built in it up the wazoo.

But then every time someone says "So my Sorlock uses--" my heart dies a little. Because they appear to be wiping away the entire flavor of the Warlock class and multiclassing it purely to bind its mechanical expression to the Sorcerer for more power in combat. And for that I just can't help but shake my head.

While I do lack practical experience in 5e, the more I read the more I think that either 5e should not have had multiclassing as a rule (until later on) or that Warlocks should have been Intelligence only; would have made Intelligence more desirable, would have kept Warlock theming more consistent (it makes a lot more sense for a Wizard and Warlock to be a combined 'thing' or character), etc.

Certainly if I were to play a Hexblade or such it would be a full Hexblade, and honestly I'd rather play a Sorcadin or a Bardadin (or even a Bardorer?) for thematic (and role) reasons.