D&D 5E Behind the design of 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons: Well my impression as least.

[I'm A Banana]

If you have three people playing rogues, they will tend to overlap abilities quite a lot. If the players are not careful to really differentiate their characters, it will be difficult for individuals to really shine, and there will be many things they collectively won't be able to handle.

I don't think that bears out. Not every rogue is created equal -- different ability scores, different equipment, different subclasses, different backgrounds...there's a LOT of variety even if some of those things are the same in several party members. And there's no reason that this group couldn't go on any adventure that anyone else could go on. They might need to play it a bit different (a little more spy-bluff-sneakaport than kick-in-the-door), but there's no limit on their adventuring potential.

Yeah, they don't have a dedicated healer, or a dedicated defender, but you don't need a dedicated healer or defender to play a game of 5e. A couple of healing potions and a reasonable sense of when you need to rest and when to retreat, and you'll be fine. You might have to be cautious, but being cautious is the name of the rogue's game anyway.

You could do the same thing in 4e, of course, the design just wasn't pointed in that direction. A party of rogues would be a bit more homogenous and a bit less well-rounded than a party of rogues is in 5e.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

As I understand it, the facts are these:

1. 5E was designed to encourage (but not force) characters with different skill sets to work together to overcome problems. The fighter/MU/cleric/thief party is considered the classic array. These types of groups have their origins in the Fellowship of the Ring, the Dirty Dozen, and a host of other examples in which individual members of a team bring a unique specialization or focus.

2. Synergies between certain classes and abilities are intended. This has become a major part of the game from the 3E era onward and many players enjoy finding and exploiting them. However, 5E seeks to minimize the broad disparity between using these synergies and not to curb system mastery requirements and allow new, casual or preoccupied players a greater degree of effectiveness in relation to uber-optimizers. System mastery and careful coordination remains a factor but, hopefully, not an overwhelming one.

3. Not all areas of expertise are created equal. This is one of the most contentious parts of the game and class balance. Confusing the issue is the influence of individual DMs and campaigns. Trapfinding might be an essential skill in a campaign with a lot of traps or useless in a campaign based around intrigue or wilderness exploration. Broad areas of expertise, such as combat or general perception, tend to have far more relevancy than narrow areas (trapfinding, turn undead). Spellcasting classes, which can often swap out areas of expertise by simply choosing different spells, will almost always find ways to be relevant.

In all of this the question becomes: Should the game encourage or force players to choose different areas of expertise or should the players play what they want? Should an adventure writer assume the party will have a wizard or rogue? Can a party of all fighters or all bards be effective and different enough?

I'm of the opinion that the players should always play what they want and that the rules system and adventure design should support that without the DM needing to make special arrangements to allow the party a chance at success. I like flexibility in my characters, character classes and adventure design. I don't want one class to have a monopoly on essential skills and I don't want to force parties into tackling a challenge with a certain skill.

Trapped-Corridor Example: If the party has a rogue they can disarm the trap. If they have a lot of combat skill they might choose to fight the bugbears on the alternate path instead. If they have a lot of hit points or healing they might just suffer damage from the trap. If they are sneaky they might sneak past the bugbears. If they are persuasive they might bluff their way past. If they're perceptive they might find the secret door that leads to another alternate path. The point is to never force encounters or challenges on the players and then force them to overcome it using a specific method.

Tangent on Damage: Damage dealing, since it was brought up, is a core competency skill for many classes. Thus it does have an impact on class balance. Not all classes need to have high damage output to contribute but all classes must be able to contribute to be effective. The actual numbers and analysis (e.g., "A fighter needs to have a 50% greater DPR than a wizard to be effective.") are important from a game design standpoint and to theory-crafters that enjoy delving into such matters, but don't concern the majority of players. If you're playing a fighter and don't feel you're dealing enough damage, you can look for ways to boost it or talk to your DM about the problem. For 5E, if enough players complain in WotC surveys that a class is too weak, they may do something about it.

 

[Li Shenron]

The way the game plays should be your information. If you play the game and your contributions are weaker than other party members because defeating the BBEG is the goal of the quest, you are not contributing much at all. That is why damage balance is necessary. So you don't have to be concerned about your contribution because it is roughly equal.

Explain how your contribution isn't measured in damage? If you're doing very little damage to the dragon your party is fighting, how are you contributing to a victory? Spending your action providing advantage to the fighter so he can do good damage?

That's a huge tunnel vision, in my humble opinion.

First of all, for me a game of D&D has never been primarily about combat. For my tastes, it is primarly about exploration, with combat being one possible type of the hazards of exploration.

Second, if damage is the only measure of contribution in combat, that makes combat utterly boring. How about distracting, entangling, tripping, disarming, blocking, disappearing from sight, stunning, causing confusion, blinding, pinning an arm or a leg, unbalancing, leading into a trap or hazard, poisoning, deceiving with an illusion, intimidating, charming, using telepathy, flooding the area, starting a fire, throwinf a net, dropping caltrops... or spraying with pepper?

Third, I don't mind if one character dominates combat. That sucks only if "combat IS the game", in which case I am just not interested in the game period.

Fourth, the game I want to play is actually much better if someone is indeed better at combat than others, while others are better at something else. This increases diversity and therefore makes the game a lot more complex and therefore interesting, because you'll never know how things will unfold in the party dynamics, who will take what roles or solve the day sometimes. "Everyone equally good at everything" is the death of diversity IMHO, the antithesis of a game which I call a roleplay game because everyone has a different role.

Most times players want to play a game of combat, and then I am ok to run a game like that, fine. But I wouldn't spend my money on a game built around that idea.

 

[the Jester]

Celtavian, I couldn't disagree with you more. Many groups have been able to do just fine without dedicated healers and without the DM needing to tone down anything. Also, maximizing damage is not the best option in every case as is often argued.

Me, for one!

The closest thing to a dedicated healer that has consistently been in my 5e game is a vengeance paladin.

 

[Derren]

That's a huge tunnel vision, in my humble opinion.

First of all, for me a game of D&D has never been primarily about combat. For my tastes, it is primarly about exploration, with combat being one possible type of the hazards of exploration.

But when you look at the rules of any D&D edition, including 5E with its (previously) heavily advertised pillars you will notice that the non combat parts, including exploration, of them are woefully underdeveloped or in some editions non-existing. It is safe to say that D&D is designed for and around combat which also means the "value" of a PC is measured in combat ability. You can of course play the game differently but you must be aware that you are trying to do things with the system that it is not designed to do and you would likely be better off using a different system.

 

[Umbran]

Remind me again what is wrong with overlap?

Spotlight sharing becomes more difficult if all the PCs have basically the same shtick. If everyone is the same, someone (perhaps the one with the weakest stats), ends up asking, "Why am *I* here, when the others can do what I can do just as well or better?"

If you have a party of rogues why aren't you all sneaking, backstabbing, taking turns disarming traps etc.... This isn't the edition about having your niche and you are the only one who can shine in it. From the sounds of it, you are still holding on to a 4th edition type of mentality.

Except that I have not and do not play a lot of 4e. It is by no means my favorite game. During the 4e era, I've been running a Classic Deadlands game - which has nowhere near the niche protection or role structure of 4e.

So, really, no. I am not holding on to a 4e mentality. Be careful that you don't pigeonhole people when you don't really know what they play, or why.

 

[Li Shenron]

If you have three people playing rogues, they will tend to overlap abilities quite a lot. If the players are not careful to really differentiate their characters, it will be difficult for individuals to really shine, and there will be many things they collectively won't be able to handle. This game is such that they may be able to sufficiently differentiate themselves within the same class, but they will still probably have to put some thought to it.

This happens a bit to other characters as well, but it's true that Rogues are probably more subjective to this problem. The reason IMO is in the nature of the iconic Rogue abilities, because they are typically employed in success/failure scenarios, e.g. do you find the trap or not? Do you disable the trap or not? Do you unlock the door or not? Two Rogues with the same abilities cannot really stack them, if the first disables the trap, the second has nothing to do. Instead, two Clerics will both heal, two Fighters will both strike, two Wizards will both cast useful spells. The fact that two Rogues together have higher chances does not deliver the same feeling IMO, they won't normally achieve a better outcome.

That said, later editions also suffered from a general cultural problem which is the fact that players pretend from the game that if they play a certain class they should have ALL the iconic abilities of that class. That's why for example the number of skills per character increased across editions and/or multiple skills were merged (actual numbers don't matter much, what matters is that players wanted e.g. their Rogues to be good at everything that a Rogue might be good at, and complained that the blanket was always too short). The downside of a system that gives too much to a single character, is that characters overlap more.

 

[Sailor Moon]

This happens a bit to other characters as well, but it's true that Rogues are probably more subjective to this problem. The reason IMO is in the nature of the iconic Rogue abilities, because they are typically employed in success/failure scenarios, e.g. do you find the trap or not? Do you disable the trap or not? Do you unlock the door or not? Two Rogues with the same abilities cannot really stack them, if the first disables the trap, the second has nothing to do. Instead, two Clerics will both heal, two Fighters will both strike, two Wizards will both cast useful spells. The fact that two Rogues together have higher chances does not deliver the same feeling IMO, they won't normally achieve a better outcome.

That said, later editions also suffered from a general cultural problem which is the fact that players pretend from the game that if they play a certain class they should have ALL the iconic abilities of that class. That's why for example the number of skills per character increased across editions and/or multiple skills were merged (actual numbers don't matter much, what matters is that players wanted e.g. their Rogues to be good at everything that a Rogue might be good at, and complained that the blanket was always too short). The downside of a system that gives too much to a single character, is that characters overlap more.

The thing I will say about this is more often than not there isn't one lock during a whole campaign to unlock. Two rogues can easily work together as scouts, they can each handle traps and unlocking doors, and they can both jump into combat do damage.

Someone remind again why multiple rogues can't work in a party?

 

[Umbran]

I don't think that bears out. Not every rogue is created equal -- different ability scores, different equipment, different subclasses, different backgrounds...there's a LOT of variety even if some of those things are the same in several party members.

I think you missed where I said that in 5e they probably can do it. But, you actually need to think about it, and coordinate a bit between players, or there can be issues. It is very easy for them to be pretty much boilerplate.

And there's no reason that this group couldn't go on any adventure that anyone else could go on. They might need to play it a bit different (a little more spy-bluff-sneakaport than kick-in-the-door), but there's no limit on their adventuring potential.

I think that a great many adventures designed for the "classic 4" will give them significant issues. Not impossible, but issues - lack of magic, especially, as many adventure writers will assume certain magics will be available to the party at a given level, and these guys will be bereft of such. Switch it up, and make it a party of all wizards, and their ability to not take enemies toe-to-toe on occasion will give them problems, as a certain amount of that will be assumed by designers.

 

[guachi]

They're good for Barbarians, Paladins, and Fighters with consistent access to a bless spell.

A higher hit chance, like from bless, pushes the AC range where having Sharpshooter/GWF is worse higher. That is, if Sharpshooter is worse from AC 17-25 then with Bless it might be worse from 19-27, or something. Eventually, the higher hit chance pushes the AC range so high that it's not particularly relevant.

But, like I said, Sharpshooter is good for fighters basically at every level from 5 on because of your higher number of attacks. I haven't specifically looked at GWF but I'd suspect it'd be similar, especially if you could boost your to-hit chances. So, yeah, I agree with you.

The other parts of Sharpshooter, excepting the to-hit/damage modifiers can be useful all by themselves. A Rogue, who might never use the damage boost would love it if he could fire at long range without disadvantage. Because if he's hidden, he then gets advantage and can Sneak Attack. If he's an Assassin, he can Assassinate. On the other hand, you may never be in a campaign where you will be assassinating people at 1/10 of a mile.