D&D 5E Classes that Suck

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

The barrier is not so much the elementary addition per se as it is the finding two different numbers in different places on a character sheet full of numbers. And it's not necessarily a total game-stopper. But if for every skill check a less systemically-agile player has to take twenty seconds to figure this out instead of five seconds to find one number, multiplied by dozens of skill checks a session, it adds up. And sometimes it can take longer than twenty seconds. I've seen it. And sure, we could question these players' intelligence or insist they should learn the game better, but not everybody lives and breathes this stuff the way we crazy EnWorld members do.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

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.

Well There would be natural Ability+Skill combinations that come up 80-90% of the time. The issue is
The issue is that the game does not encourage other Ability+Skill combos as default.

90% of the time Intimidation is with Charisma. The game should suggest as default that PCs and NPCs might use Strength or Intelligence in special cases.

The other issue is the language system D&D uses for simplicity's sake. By having language simply on and off, it allows a high skill or CHA PC to handle every discussion as Common is so common.
If there were levels of fluency, perhaps the human fighter might be not penalized for talking becuase he's native in Common as a human while the elf sorcerer only has elementary fluency in Common as an elf.

In the classic human cleric, elf wizard, halfling rogue, dwarf fighte party, the human should be talking to the human king and the elf to the fey queen.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The barrier is not so much the elementary addition per se as it is the finding two different numbers in different places on a character sheet full of numbers. And it's not necessarily a total game-stopper. But if for every skill check a less systemically-agile player has to take twenty seconds to figure this out instead of five seconds to find one number, multiplied by dozens of skill checks a session, it adds up. And sometimes it can take longer than twenty seconds. I've seen it. And sure, we could question these players' intelligence or insist they should learn the game better, but not everybody lives and breathes this stuff the way we crazy EnWorld members do.

Again, you can literally design the character sheet to make that easier.

You could put a bubble next to each ability score with what the total bonus is with; Proficiency, Half-Proficiency, and Double Proficiency. If that doesn't test well, there are literally dozens of other ways to organize things.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Again, you can literally design the character sheet to make that easier.

You could put a bubble next to each ability score with what the total bonus is with; Proficiency, Half-Proficiency, and Double Proficiency. If that doesn't test well, there are literally dozens of other ways to organize things.

What you're describing sounds basically like 5E's core conceptualization of ability checks. But (at least the way I interpret it) this idea kind of got overridden in practice by lingering 3E/PF sensibilities, and character sheets have been designed accordingly.

I'm not trying to shoot down your idea outright. I'm commenting on the effect of inertia in explaining why this game is played the way it is.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Well There would be natural Ability+Skill combinations that come up 80-90% of the time. The issue is
The issue is that the game does not encourage other Ability+Skill combos as default.

90% of the time Intimidation is with Charisma. The game should suggest as default that PCs and NPCs might use Strength or Intelligence in special cases.

The other issue is the language system D&D uses for simplicity's sake. By having language simply on and off, it allows a high skill or CHA PC to handle every discussion as Common is so common.
If there were levels of fluency, perhaps the human fighter might be not penalized for talking becuase he's native in Common as a human while the elf sorcerer only has elementary fluency in Common as an elf.

In the classic human cleric, elf wizard, halfling rogue, dwarf fighte party, the human should be talking to the human king and the elf to the fey queen.

I already mentioned altering the DC based on context. Another useful tool in the toolbox is flat-out changing the results of success and failure. If Brad Pitt and Neil deGrasse Tyson walk into a university physics department together, they're going to get different results if Pitt does the talking than if Tyson does the talking regardless of how well Pitt can lay on the charm.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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)?

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?

You both hit on a point, but you are looking at this in terms of "what went wrong" instead of thinking about it like this.

It was a DM call. And as the player, unless I wanted to argue that I shouldn't even have to make a check at all, I had to abide by the DMs call.

Right, Wrong, or Left it doesn't matter. The system leaves this up to the DM, and I as a player either have to follow the DM, or try and game the DM instead of the system. And since DMs are variable, we end up in this situation. Where someone says you can use Strength to Intimidate, or Intelligence to Deceive. Another says that this plan wouldn't even require a roll and would auto-succeed, still another calls for a charisma check, or in a fourth variation it auto-fails.

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.

I would also point out, that a lot of this evolves. In another game, I built a bounty hunter ranger. I was expecting from the campaign description a game about going into the woods and hunting monsters.

Instead we have been involved in the politics of the city, the politics of a fey court, and my character has been getting more and more involved because two people are playing very gullible people, and the others are playing people who don't care.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Right, Wrong, or Left it doesn't matter. The system leaves this up to the DM, and I as a player either have to follow the DM, or try and game the DM instead of the system. And since DMs are variable, we end up in this situation. Where someone says you can use Strength to Intimidate, or Intelligence to Deceive. Another says that this plan wouldn't even require a roll and would auto-succeed, still another calls for a charisma check, or in a fourth variation it auto-fails.

Of course, but this is stuff you just go with during the session and discuss with the DM afterwards. If they are going to make players roll for things the players don't feel is needed, you talk it out (as you know) and try to make the best compromise.

On other points, each new DM is a bit different and now you are aware of the situation, I would simply address it in session 0.

I would also point out, that a lot of this evolves. In another game, I built a bounty hunter ranger. I was expecting from the campaign description a game about going into the woods and hunting monsters.

Instead we have been involved in the politics of the city, the politics of a fey court, and my character has been getting more and more involved because two people are playing very gullible people, and the others are playing people who don't care.

All I can say to this is either play the PC you want to play (don't worry about the campaign description--personally I never give anything like this to my players). If the game quickly (hopefully) evolves into something you weren't expecting, most DMs IME will allow you to make changes to your PCs over the first few levels or so. Finally, your PC is not locked into things, especially if you multiclass. Can your bounty hunter ranger become a bounty hunter rogue of example?

Also, if some of the players don't care as much, it sounds to me like maybe the DM needs to start creating adventures that will be more engaging for everyone? Again, there's a LOT I don't know just what is going on, so I apologize if I am mistaken and maybe misunderstanding.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

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 option isn't just in the DMG, it is on page 175 of the PHB. This is less a rules issue than it is a "how character sheets are set up" issue and a "what the average player can (or will) wrap their head around" issue.

Basically the normal character sheet teaches people to 100% associate each skill with 1 ability and think of the combined bonus as the skill. It's handy for learning a workable version of the system, but fundamentally it isn't the rules as written or the rules as intended. It's the rules as played.

Tool Proficiencies have avoided this on character sheets, with no primary associated ability bias encouraged, no combined bonus written down. Just the pure, satisfying, add the appropriate ability and your proficiency bonus. The result is that tables are often confused about what to do with tool proficiencies.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The option isn't just in the DMG, it is on page 175 of the PHB. This is less a rules issue than it is a "how character sheets are set up" issue and a "what the average player can (or will) wrap their head around" issue.

Basically the normal character sheet teaches people to 100% associate each skill with 1 ability and think of the combined bonus as the skill. It's handy for learning a workable version of the system, but fundamentally it isn't the rules as written or the rules as intended. It's the rules as played.

Tool Proficiencies have avoided this on character sheets, with no primary associated ability bias encouraged, no combined bonus written down. Just the pure, satisfying, add the appropriate ability and your proficiency bonus. The result is that tables are often confused about what to do with tool proficiencies.

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.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

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.

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.