D&D 5E Classes that Suck

[Undrave]

I suppose this really depends. IME a DM should only be calling for a roll if there is a consequence for failure. If it is simply moving the story along, there shouldn't be any rolls IMO.

If there are consequences, and you are non-proficient with a CHA 10, why is your character making those rolls? Unless your PC is the only one there who can even speak, someone who is better at it should be doing it.

Now, can your STR 10 Wizard open an unlocked door to move into the next room? Of course, and no roll should be needed. But does your STR 10 Wizard try to break open doors? No. Because your STR 18 Barbarian is better at it. Your wizard opening an unlocked door is your CHA 10 PC moving the story along, the wizard trying to break a door down is when your CHA 10 PC should be making a roll.

If your DM is making you roll for things you really shouldn't need to roll for, I would certainly point that out, but otherwise if you want your PC to participate more when consequences are an issue, build your PC accordingly.

Basically "Shut up and sit down, the CHA casters are talking" right?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Basically "Shut up and sit down, the CHA casters are talking" right?

Nope. No more than "Stop running into the door, you scrawny little spell-slinger, let the STR warrior do it."

If you want the player to represent the CHA of the character instead of relying on dice rolls when failure has a consequence, remove the ability score from the game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Maybe. Maybe the fighter can't convince the dwarf to drink the ale. Oh well, we tried. There must be some other way to get that info, though, let's look around.

Maybe the fighter can convince the dwarf. The cleric wants to cast his spells so the fighter and cleric goes off and comes back with the buffs. Maybe the dwarf doesn't even know. Maybe the fighter is too proud to accept the buff. Maybe the fighter is a dwarf himself.

Maybe the fighter can offer a bribe and assures the dwarf the other two won't be in their way. Maybe that fails. It's the nature of the game. We don't play the game to never lose. It's fine to want to maximize success, but the game isn't about never failing.

Sometimes, nothing you try works. Now what? Well, we keep playing. Because there's still much to do.

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 I want to make it clear that if a DM isn't on the player's side, the campaign and group is going to struggle alot. They'll want to change characters or they'll check out during big moments or they'll not show up as often. That's what really sucks. It doesn't matter if the book gives martial classes every social and utility ability in the world. I mean, it would matter but it wouldn't change the fact that the DM isn't compatible. Eventually, the books will end their guidance and the DM has to step in and say something. The DM is probably the sole decider on whether you enjoy your game or not. The mechanics matter, please don't get me wrong, but the way the mechanics are implemented will always be up to the DM.

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 suppose this really depends. IME a DM should only be calling for a roll if there is a consequence for failure. If it is simply moving the story along, there shouldn't be any rolls IMO.

If there are consequences, and you are non-proficient with a CHA 10, why is your character making those rolls? Unless your PC is the only one there who can even speak, someone who is better at it should be doing it.

Now, can your STR 10 Wizard open an unlocked door to move into the next room? Of course, and no roll should be needed. But does your STR 10 Wizard try to break open doors? No. Because your STR 18 Barbarian is better at it. Your wizard opening an unlocked door is your CHA 10 PC moving the story along, the wizard trying to break a door down is when your CHA 10 PC should be making a roll.

If your DM is making you roll for things you really shouldn't need to roll for, I would certainly point that out, but otherwise if you want your PC to participate more when consequences are an issue, build your PC accordingly.

I'm curious why @Asisreo liked your comment when this goes exactly against what they were saying. The bolded part is exactly what we are saying, and exactly what he pushed back against.

And there were consequences. Failing the mission. The scenario I am thinking of in particular involved us sneaking into a party. We split the group, half going in the front and half going in the back. I was in the back group with a disguise as a chef, which my character was a chef, carrying supplies for the kitchen.... and I failed the roll because I had a +0 mod. And that would mean an alarm would be raised, and we couldn't get in, and we would fail the mission, because we were actually meant to do the more important part.

So the DM had to give me retroactive advantage (play by post game, so the other players with me hadn't spoken up for the help action and he had an NPC do it) to barely pass... and I promptly did the exact same thing five minutes later when we encountered a second set of security.


And the thing that was making the whole situation worse, was that we knew we could fight and win. We could have slaughtered everyone in that building and gotten what we needed, because we are decently high level and we were at full strength, but we had been specifically ordered not to fight anyone.


But, to your point that if I want to be involved in the consequential social scenes, I should build for that, there is a problem. Most classes don't get anything to help with that.

Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Druid, and Monk get nothing to really affect social scenes. Wizards only get by because charm person and other obvious magics, but they usually can't do anything either. That is half of the classes. And, if they aren't viable for building to be involved in both combat and social situations, well, we just end up building more Paladins, Warlocks, Bards and Rogues who can do 2/3rds of the game instead of 1/3rd

Unless the Bard speaks Dwarvish or has Comprehend Languages as a spell known, he might be just as useless as the Fighter in that situation. The Dwarf Ranger would be the principal interlocutor in that case, even if he has an 8 Charisma

And again, if the dwarf can speak common, like most dwarves do?

 

[FarBeyondC]

And there were consequences. Failing the mission. The scenario I am thinking of in particular involved us sneaking into a party. We split the group, half going in the front and half going in the back. I was in the back group with a disguise as a chef, which my character was a chef, carrying supplies for the kitchen.... and I failed the roll because I had a +0 mod. And that would mean an alarm would be raised, and we couldn't get in, and we would fail the mission, because we were actually meant to do the more important part.

So the DM had to give me retroactive advantage (play by post game, so the other players with me hadn't spoken up for the help action and he had an NPC do it) to barely pass... and I promptly did the exact same thing five minutes later when we encountered a second set of security.

Why was there even a roll for a chef pretending to be a chef? Like, did the DM think your character was a crappy chef or something? Were you pretending to be a specific chef with particular mannerisms - which doesn't really fit with carrying supplies for the kitchen (at least, I can't imagine a chef with memorable enough mannerisms to be noticed also being unimportant enough to be doing grunt work)?

 

[DND_Reborn]

And there were consequences. Failing the mission. The scenario I am thinking of in particular involved us sneaking into a party. We split the group, half going in the front and half going in the back. I was in the back group with a disguise as a chef, which my character was a chef, carrying supplies for the kitchen.... and I failed the roll because I had a +0 mod. And that would mean an alarm would be raised, and we couldn't get in, and we would fail the mission, because we were actually meant to do the more important part.

So the DM had to give me retroactive advantage (play by post game, so the other players with me hadn't spoken up for the help action and he had an NPC do it) to barely pass... and I promptly did the exact same thing five minutes later when we encountered a second set of security.


And the thing that was making the whole situation worse, was that we knew we could fight and win. We could have slaughtered everyone in that building and gotten what we needed, because we are decently high level and we were at full strength, but we had been specifically ordered not to fight anyone.

As to your particular scenario, as your DM I would have given you advantage on the check if your background had anything do to with being a chef and you were disguised as one. Also, who disguised you? The DC for the Wisdom (Insight) should have been their ability check when disguising you (or it should have been a factor). Not being there, I can speak precisely as to it all, but it sounds like a roll was asked for that probably wasn't warranted?

But, to your point that if I want to be involved in the consequential social scenes, I should build for that, there is a problem. Most classes don't get anything to help with that.

Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Druid, and Monk get nothing to really affect social scenes. Wizards only get by because charm person and other obvious magics, but they usually can't do anything either. That is half of the classes. And, if they aren't viable for building to be involved in both combat and social situations, well, we just end up building more Paladins, Warlocks, Bards and Rogues who can do 2/3rds of the game instead of 1/3rd

Every class you list has the opportunity via CHA and background to select proficiencies that will affect social interactions if they choose to. There was a thread a short while ago precisely about Fighters not being good in social settings, and that is patently incorrect IF you want to contribute that way.

I made a half-elf level 1 Fighter with proficiency in all the CHA skills with CHA 16 to prove it.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice if they had something to help with social aspects of the game, but they can be as good as any other PC (sans expertise, of course...) if you want them to be. A fighter with CHA 16 and proficiency in persuasion and intimidation would make an excellent leader for instance. With two additional ASIs, a fighter could also choose more skills and a feat to complement the build if they wanted, such as Actor for instance.

At any rate, your point is well taken, but I think a lot has to do with the DM's judgement as to when a check is called for, how you want your PC to contribute to the game, etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In the game Samurai Shodown there are a couple of characters with animal companions: one with a hawk and another with a wolf. The animal companions were at most times considered part of the background, until the character used them as part of a special attack, which might have some kind of supernatural kick to it, like gliding a short distance by grabbing on to the hawk or sending the dog at your foe like a projectile. I wonder if animal companions might be better served this way... most of the time occupying the same square as the PC like a familiar, only emerging to do various (possibly magical) tricks. The only time the companion's stats would come into play is when it left the PC's square for whatever reason, much like a familiar.

Loved Samurai Shodown! My favorite fighting game back in the day.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, a couple things that have come to mind from the last few pages of this thread.

• Bards in a psuedo-pre-industrial society should be much more well respected than some of y'all seem to think. I don't think most of us really appreciate just how important music is to the human condition, or how important lore-keepers and story-tellers are to societies without printing presses or recording devices.
• Putting Ability Scores first and above skills was a mistake. It limits characters. Instead, skills should be what you are doing, while Ability Scores are how you are doing it.
  • You don't make a Charisma Check with Persuasion, you Persuade the guard to let you through. Depending on the situation and the characters involved, you might easily rely on your Strength, Charisma, Wisdom, or even Dexterity, Constitution, or Intelligence.
  • Sure, Charisma will be the most common AS to be used with Persuasion, but a Wizard can convince a librarian using Intelligence or outwit a guard using Int with Deception.
  • Yes, this is an option in the DMG, but by making it the default PHB way that ability/skill checks work, you increase the degree to which people can just make the character they imagine, and be able to interact with the world in a way that makes sense to them, while avoiding the whole thing where the Bard is always the best person to talk to any NPC ever.
• The Bard archetype has badly lost the plot in dnd, and would be better off by getting back to the importance of lore-keeping and story-telling, and the viscerally important and ubiquitous role that song plays in the lives of pre-recorded-music culture. (Seriously, look up work songs. If you don't think the Bard can make you a better Blacksmith, you don't know enough about history.)
  • Bards should be just as much a skill monkey as the rogue, but they should specialize in making everyone else better at skill use, with a side specialisation in impressing and influencing groups of people and important figures like kings and lords. Not sure how to do that last part without something like Audience rules, though.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

• Putting Ability Scores first and above skills was a mistake. It limits characters. Instead, skills should be what you are doing, while Ability Scores are how you are doing it.
  • You don't make a Charisma Check with Persuasion, you Persuade the guard to let you through. Depending on the situation and the characters involved, you might easily rely on your Strength, Charisma, Wisdom, or even Dexterity, Constitution, or Intelligence.
  • Sure, Charisma will be the most common AS to be used with Persuasion, but a Wizard can convince a librarian using Intelligence or outwit a guard using Int with Deception.
  • Yes, this is an option in the DMG, but by making it the default PHB way that ability/skill checks work, you increase the degree to which people can just make the character they imagine, and be able to interact with the world in a way that makes sense to them, while avoiding the whole thing where the Bard is always the best person to talk to any NPC ever.

Frankly, I think the current approach is just hard-baked into D&D culture since 3E. It actually is similar to what you describe -- whatever the 5E PHB says, I very seldom see anyone at the table say "Can I make a Charisma check with Persuasion?", they always say "Can I use Persuasion?" And yeah, flexing the required ability score is cool, but there's a huge obstacle to running the game that way: the character sheet. Your character sheet says "Persuasion +7", and this is a combination of your Charisma score and your proficiency bonus (or skill ranks, or whatever), so you can just grab the number and add it to your d20 without thinking about it. Making an Intelligence + Persuasion check requires extra math. Even if you redo the character sheet layout so the "Persuasion" entry is score-agnostic, it still would require extra math. And yeah, to some of us, the thought of grabbing two numbers and adding them together might not exactly be daunting, but other players do struggle with keeping track of that stuff and would rather just take the number and roll the die.

So a lot of the time what I do in circumstances like the librarian conversation is leave the characters' numbers alone but make the Persuasion DC 10 for the wizard and 15 for the bard.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, a couple things that have come to mind from the last few pages of this thread.

• Bards in a psuedo-pre-industrial society should be much more well respected than some of y'all seem to think. I don't think most of us really appreciate just how important music is to the human condition, or how important lore-keepers and story-tellers are to societies without printing presses or recording devices.
• Putting Ability Scores first and above skills was a mistake. It limits characters. Instead, skills should be what you are doing, while Ability Scores are how you are doing it.
  • You don't make a Charisma Check with Persuasion, you Persuade the guard to let you through. Depending on the situation and the characters involved, you might easily rely on your Strength, Charisma, Wisdom, or even Dexterity, Constitution, or Intelligence.
  • Sure, Charisma will be the most common AS to be used with Persuasion, but a Wizard can convince a librarian using Intelligence or outwit a guard using Int with Deception.
  • Yes, this is an option in the DMG, but by making it the default PHB way that ability/skill checks work, you increase the degree to which people can just make the character they imagine, and be able to interact with the world in a way that makes sense to them, while avoiding the whole thing where the Bard is always the best person to talk to any NPC ever.
• The Bard archetype has badly lost the plot in dnd, and would be better off by getting back to the importance of lore-keeping and story-telling, and the viscerally important and ubiquitous role that song plays in the lives of pre-recorded-music culture. (Seriously, look up work songs. If you don't think the Bard can make you a better Blacksmith, you don't know enough about history.)
  • Bards should be just as much a skill monkey as the rogue, but they should specialize in making everyone else better at skill use, with a side specialisation in impressing and influencing groups of people and important figures like kings and lords. Not sure how to do that last part without something like Audience rules, though.

There are some pretty solid audience rules in Adventures in Middle Earth. Or you could go directly to the source and use The One Ring. Either way, it would be a good inspiration for either a home game or possibly Level Up.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Making an Intelligence + Persuasion check requires extra math.

A completely insignificant amount of math. You just list the skills you're trained in or have double proficiency in or whatever with the bonuses, next to the list of ability scores. Seriously, everyone can handle adding 3 and 4 together. We do it every time we roll damage.