D&D 5E Classes that Suck

[Chaosmancer]

But I seriously, in my time playing 5e, have never come across anyone that didn't speak up if their character had direct ties to the events happening, even when their CHA was 8. How do people have fun if they're so worried about failure? Failure's a part of the game that adds to the story. If the guard won't let you in, sneak in. Or knock the guard out. Or never even go inside. It's not that big of a deal to fail in my games.

And that might be the difference.

I'm often in games where no one has any "direct ties" to the events. The DM has the party need something, and failure to get it means we fail the mission and people die, or we don't get paid, or whatever fail condition the DM comes up with.

And if they want it to be social instead of us just killing the person and taking their stuff, they set it up so that torturing, killing, ect is a pointless endeavor.

Had a recent game where we needed intel from a necromancer. Guy wanted to cut a deal, but the Oathbreaker and the Barbarian didn't like the deal, so they dropped him to zero hp, then had the paladin bring him back to 1. Guy refused to change the deal. So they did it again. And again. And again. And again.

Paladin used up about 20 points of lay on hands before they finally stopped and agreed with the rest of the party that we just needed to take the frickin deal and stop torturing the NPC, that the barbarian had started the fight with anyways, so we could get the information and just move on.

Could we have just killed him? Sure, DM was fine with that. Just would have wasted our last three sessions tracking down clues and made it impossible for us to find what we were looking for. He'd just mark the sub-quest as failed and we would move on to the next.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The game is not balanced around having a number of options. You have infinite options. It's just that you're holding yourself back if you don't use them. If you're getting bored by letting the bard talk, then you do it. Let the dice fall as they may and allow yourself to fail. Failing a check is not losing the game, it's a part of the game. Intimidate the guard, punch him in the face, get arrested, find your way out. If that's not how you want to go about it, bribe them, have them take the money and refuse, accuse the guard of taking bribes.

And yes, everyone has access to backgrounds. But everyone has access to classes in the exact same way. One choice that sticks with you. Saying that both the bard and barbarian chose charlatan as a background and now has similar backgrounds features is the same as saying that both the charlatan and soldier characters both took bard and now have the same class features.

Fundamentally, any permanent feature at character creation can be said to be un-interchangeable and therefore unique.

If you really want to lean into being the charismatic face of the party, be a bard. It's just another piece of character creation. If you want to be a strong man with an axe that can also be persuasive, be a barbarian and take proficiency in persuasion. Even if it isn't at the level of bard, you still have a means to succeed reliably. Take artisan as your background. Only another artisan can ever have the feature of Guild Membership. Which is just the same as saying only a bard can have bardic inspiration, except you could multiclass as a bard. If you need magic, take the V.human charm person magic initiate. Need expertise? Grab prodigy. Now you have a place on your team.

More than that, we've just been assuming there's even a bard on the team with access to charm person or other enchantment spells. If the party is running from levels 3-10 and consists of a fighter, cleric, and wizard that didn't choose to take enchantment spells and/or dumped CHA, it seems the party's face is up for grabs. There's no guarantee that there will be a bard in the party so just taking proficiency might be enough to be the highest persuasion in the group. And that's all that matters, isn't it? There's no point being saddened by a character that doesn't even exist.

But I seriously, in my time playing 5e, have never come across anyone that didn't speak up if their character had direct ties to the events happening, even when their CHA was 8. How do people have fun if they're so worried about failure? Failure's a part of the game that adds to the story. If the guard won't let you in, sneak in. Or knock the guard out. Or never even go inside. It's not that big of a deal to fail in my games.

I haven't played or run a game without a bard in several years, not since people realized how awesome 5e made them. You can get insane bonuses to your social skills with ease, putting you far ahead of most others. It becomes difficult to justify putting another character out there when you have that on your team.

 

[Ashrym]

First, you seem to make a lot of assumptions about how things will work. Like saying that prof+mod is going to be enough, so you don't need expertise, which makes me wonder what you think the point of expertise is?

Those aren't my assumptions. Those are the assumptions given in the game where easy is described as 10 DC, moderate is described as 15 DC, and hard is described as 20 DC.

A +9 bonus from a combination of ability score and proficiency is plenty, and very high looking through the MM or adventure books.

The base mechanic is d20 plus ability modifier getting back to the premise that checks are inclusive for any PC to use.

Expertise is the exception, not the expectation, because it's a class feature rarely given out. It can be used for even higher DC's that rarely occur or offset lack of an ability modifier.

Just because expertise can exist doesn't increase DC's. Flat DC's almost never exceed 20 and opposed checks usually don't include proficiency let alone expertise.

It's the overkill/overhead principle applied to ability checks. It doesn't matter how much a PC exceeds 15 DC checks.

Or, you mentioned that fighter's have strength and equipment. I'm not sure what you are imagining, but Strength pretty much never comes up outside of combat in my experience unless it is breaking doors or you are doing menial labor. Neither of which is really a social encounter. As for equipment... anybody can buy equipment. If that is a metric of measurement it goes equally to every class.

Strength and athletics were meant to be applied to exploration checks. You rarely climb or open stuck doors? Jumping? Swimming? Breaking objects?

Applying strength to intimidation under alternate ability scores would apply to social, however.

If the PC isn't using strength that's on the player for not trying actions that would use it and/or the DM for not applying it. 5e is very open-ended in that aspect. Granted, that has it's the end drawbacks but it's limited more by imagination than hard lists.

Equipment would be climbing kits, crowbars, and vials of acid as examples. Other classes using them too is irrelevant. It's an option fighters have. Options only for fighters would be moving the goal posts from having options to having exclusive options.

Social equipment includes gaming kits, musical instruments, and other artisan tools. These are ways in to build contacts for those favor checks or directly curry friendly attitudes.

Secondly, DnD has a problem with omni-competent characters. As in, it is nearly impossible to build one without rolling. A fighter needs Strength to wear heavy armor, they generally want high con to survive in a fight, they want Dex for initiative, stealth and saves, they want Wisdom for perception and saves. And to get a 16 CHA with point buy means it is likely one of your highest scores.

Yes. 16 strength or dexterity, 16 charisma, 14 constitution, and 12 wisdom. Or take the 14 Charisma instead and add an ASI later.

That's a half-elf so easy enough for point buy and extra skill proficiencies.

I don't need strength and dexterity on most typical fighter builds. Either / or works.

Combat is 1/3 of the game, and everyone can and does participate in it. There is no class that is actively bad at combat if you put your primary score as your highest.

How does that assertion demonstrate a fighter is bad at combat by learning social abilities?

A 14 or 16 charisma does not preclude strength or dexterity.

Exploration is 1/3 of the game, and it can be tackled with items, clever plans, and multiple scores. Strength and Con can actually be very useful here. There are spells designed for this. And generally, everyone participates on generally equal footing.

So being on equal footing means fighters aren't struggling here either.

Social is 1/3 of the game, and you have to actively invest in it. Specifically in Charisma and the associated skills, as well as Insight. No other skills, items, tools, or anything else really applies without GM Fiat. Even spells are of extremely limited use. And if you don't invest in it, you don't participate.

Then invest in it.

The issue here is roleplaying is active participation while those skills are the mechanical support that impacts that participation. It's not a lack of participation but a perception of a lack of support.

It's not "DM fiat", however. 5e's system is open-ended and that requires DM ruling. Let me I said above, good in some ways and not others.

There is no way to not participate in combat or exploration. "There is a chasm stretching in front of you, how do you get across" affects the entire party. Even if they don't have the solution, they have to think about how they are getting across and are engaged. Just Social is opt-in. If you do not specifically build to include it, usually at the detriment of other things you want to accomplish, then you just do not engage with a third of the game.

It is weird when you look at it like that. As essentially an optional part of the game, and when you are building your character you have no idea if it will be included or how you might end up interacting with it. I know there are likely to be hidden enemies, or clues. So Perception and Wisdom are needed. I know there are going to be times when we need to be fast or sneaky, so Dexterity and stealth are needed. Constitution keeps me alive.

But I don't know how important Charisma, persuasion, deception and intimidation will be. They can range from non-factors to vitally important. And simply talking to your DM won't tell you much, because the game can veer into needing social skills very quickly and with little warning. And you only get to build your character once.

The bolded part is where I think you are making a mistake. Those are predominantly initiated by an action of the PC. I take actions based on what I expect from my characters. A DM would have to take direct control of my character to somehow prevent that.

It doesn't matter if what I do automatically succeeds, or fails, or requires a check. I build to my concept and play to that concept.

If social abilities aren't prominent then session 0 should let's me know anyway. It's moot if I don't have to take abilities I won't need or use anyway.

 

[Ashrym]

Can we acknowledge for a second that Intimidation is the worst social skill to have?

/Signed

I'll jump on that wagon. The best benefit is it's easier to class a different ability modifier than deception or persuasion.

I haven't played or run a game without a bard in several years, not since people realized how awesome 5e made them. You can get insane bonuses to your social skills with ease, putting you far ahead of most others. It becomes difficult to justify putting another character out there when you have that on your team.

Until eloquence came out I would have still called rogue on that. Reliable talent is that useful when checks are rolled.

Try using a bard to soak up damage like a barbarian though. ;-)

 

[Micah Sweet]

/Signed

I'll jump on that wagon. The best benefit is it's easier to class a different ability modifier than deception or persuasion.



Until eloquence came out I would have still called rogue on that. Reliable talent is that useful when checks are rolled.

Try using a bard to soak up damage like a barbarian though. ;-)

My players include a bard and a barbarian, both ultra-optimized for their roles. I can't anything past them!

 

[Chaosmancer]

Those aren't my assumptions. Those are the assumptions given in the game where easy is described as 10 DC, moderate is described as 15 DC, and hard is described as 20 DC.

A +9 bonus from a combination of ability score and proficiency is plenty, and very high looking through the MM or adventure books.

The base mechanic is d20 plus ability modifier getting back to the premise that checks are inclusive for any PC to use.

Expertise is the exception, not the expectation, because it's a class feature rarely given out. It can be used for even higher DC's that rarely occur or offset lack of an ability modifier.

Just because expertise can exist doesn't increase DC's. Flat DC's almost never exceed 20 and opposed checks usually don't include proficiency let alone expertise.

It's the overkill/overhead principle applied to ability checks. It doesn't matter how much a PC exceeds 15 DC checks.

But you don't get a +9 until either level 9 (if you have a +5 mod) or level 13 (if you have a +4)

So, you are talking about the game being half over by that point, if not almost 3/4's over. Most PCs are only getting a +5 to +7 to their best skills for most of the game. Meaning at best, with your best abilities, you have a 65% chance of succeeding a DC 15 check. That is hardly reliable.

Strength and athletics were meant to be applied to exploration checks. You rarely climb or open stuck doors? Jumping? Swimming? Breaking objects?

Swimming and Climbing do not require checks except in extraordinary circumstances. They simply count as costing double your movement.

pg 182 "Each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain) when you’re climbing, swimming, or crawling. You ignore this extra cost if you have a climbing speed and use it to climb, or a swimming speed and use it to swim. At the DM’s option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check. Similarly, gaining any distance in rough water might require a successful Strength (Athletics) check."

Same with jumping, if you have the clearance to move forward at least 10 ft, you automatically jump a distance equal to your strenth mod with no check. Meaning a 10 strength is enough to clear a 10 ft gap. High jumping allows you to jump 3+mod+1.5 time height (By putting your hands above your head, and therefore grabbing a ledge to pull yourself up, which would be climbing) meaning your average 5.5 ft person can reach an 11 ft high ledge with ease, and no check.

And when it comes to forcing open doors or breaking objects, there is usually no penalty to failing. I usually have to ask other DMs to stop just having us fail, because we simply roll again, and again and again until we succeed.


So, yes, the strength athletics rolls rarely come up at the table. We rarely encounter slick, sheer walls that are more than 10 ft tall or rough water to swim through, we rarely encounter gaps of 15 ft or more (and there is usually one strength character to clear that gap).


If you are using different rules, I could see it coming up more often for you. I have encountered DMs who insist on making us roll to climb cliffs, ropes, or trees, or jump even small 5 ft gaps. None of which is required by the rules as written.

Equipment would be climbing kits, crowbars, and vials of acid as examples. Other classes using them too is irrelevant. It's an option fighters have. Options only for fighters would be moving the goal posts from having options to having exclusive options.

Social equipment includes gaming kits, musical instruments, and other artisan tools. These are ways in to build contacts for those favor checks or directly curry friendly attitudes.

It isn't irrelevant though.

"We need to get this lock off, fast!"

"Don't worry I have a vial of acid to eat through the lock."

Which class had it? The wizard? The Fighter? The Warlock? The Artificer? Anybody could have that.

In one of my games, my rogue (who has a climbing speed) and the Monk (who doesn't need them) are just about to go shopping for Climbing Kits to give to our Sorcerer, Cleric, and Paladin. They will work the same for the sorcerer as they do the Paladin.


So, saying fighters can buy acid or buy a climbing kit is like saying Fighters can take Perception as a skill proficiency. So can literally anybody else. So if anybody can do it, what about that makes the fighter contribute to the party?

Yes. 16 strength or dexterity, 16 charisma, 14 constitution, and 12 wisdom. Or take the 14 Charisma instead and add an ASI later.

That's a half-elf so easy enough for point buy and extra skill proficiencies.

I don't need strength and dexterity on most typical fighter builds. Either / or works.

So, a specific race option, okay. Can't do that with most racial options though.

Also, don't forget that having a strength lower than 15 grants you a penalty on using Plate Armor, lowering your potential AC by a point unless you take a feat to compensate.

You can compensate, but it is just one more thing you have to do to keep up with expectations.

How does that assertion demonstrate a fighter is bad at combat by learning social abilities?

A 14 or 16 charisma does not preclude strength or dexterity.

So being on equal footing means fighters aren't struggling here either.

Then invest in it.

Well, a 14 means that their skill bonus is a +4, meaning that they have a 45% chance of success against DC 15.

Also, it does end up making it harder to invest in Constitution, Strength (for armor), Dexteritiy (for initiative and saves), and Wisdom (for spotting ambushes or lies)

So, investing has a cost. Sometimes to abilities that effect combat.

And combat is guaranteed to happen, while social aspects and rolls aren't.

The bolded part is where I think you are making a mistake. Those are predominantly initiated by an action of the PC. I take actions based on what I expect from my characters. A DM would have to take direct control of my character to somehow prevent that.

It doesn't matter if what I do automatically succeeds, or fails, or requires a check. I build to my concept and play to that concept.

If social abilities aren't prominent then session 0 should let's me know anyway. It's moot if I don't have to take abilities I won't need or use anyway.

sigh

Look, different tables have different expectations man. I literally can phrase it no other way, or explain it any other way.

We played the dungeon of the Mad Mage for a about a half dozen sessions. We never had a single encounter that required any persuasion or any other social check. There was a revenant, he said he wanted vengeance for the people who betrayed him. We said yes, and every encounter that didn't start with "monsters attack you" was "the revenant screams and gouges out the eyes of their target"

Taking any social abilities would have been a complete and total waste. But even the DM wouldn't have been able to tell us that, because if we had said no to the revenant, or we had encountered the other people first, then they could have come into play.


Another game, same group, actually literally the next game, was billed as a monster hunting game. Abotu two sessions in we got embroiled in poltical intrigue up to our eyeballs and needed a plethora of social skills to keep up with the plot. Again, no way of knowing, because the DM was very much a "I let your actions determine the plot" and by choosing to care about the city under siege, we got involved in fey politics.


So yes, I get that "the PC's actions determine what the PC does" but I can't choose to talk to people if no people are presented to talk to. I can't choose to roll skills, if everyone just gives us what we want, because the DM wants to get us out of the town already and into the dungeon, where those skills won't matter.

And if I end up in a game where those skills do matter, where social interaction is highly important... then I'm playing a charisma class that gets benefits and bonuses to explicitly that thing.

 

[Ancalagon]

There aren't a lot of builds in 5e like that, though. In 3e contributions could be miniscule by comparison. In 5e you're still going to be in the ballpark. If that difference matters to you, your choices will be more limited. For myself, I love Rangers and I'm not going to avoid playing one in 5e or feel bad about the damage I do as a Ranger. I'm still going to have a blast.

Exactly. And if you play "combat as war" (vs combat as sport), the utility of the ranger is immense.

 

[Ancalagon]

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.

Completely insignificant for you, and pretty insignificant for me, yes. But I have seen more than one player struggle with this. Not everyone can do basic math easily. The odds of having at least one player with this problem are significant.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Completely insignificant for you, and pretty insignificant for me, yes. But I have seen more than one player struggle with this. Not everyone can do basic math easily. The odds of having at least one player with this problem are significant.

So, as I said already, you just put the "with proficiency" "with Expertise" numbers next to the ability score. Then, once the Ability Score/Skill combination is chosen, you just add that singular number to the d20 roll.

It's just moving where the math is, rather than adding any.