False truisms in 5th edition

[CapnZapp]

There are several areas of the game where the designers seem to merely coast on the collective wisdom of us gamers, than actually making sure the respective "truth" is actually true.

Disclaimer: Do note that in games that aren't actually challenging, none of this matters. So if you aren't playing in a campaign where the difficulty actually rewards optimal builds, this thread isn't for you.

Here are a few examples, and you can fill in with your own.

---

"When you play a martial, choosing a slow build is just as viable as choosing a fast one."​

FALSE: 5E does not actually reward build choices that result in a slow character to nearly the extent needed to counteract the immense tactical benefit of choosing a fast character. (In other words, Speed is too cheap)

"Choosing a melee build is just as viable as choosing a ranged one."​

FALSE: 5E does not actually reward build choices that result in a character with no reach/range to nearly the extent needed to counteract the immense tactical benefit of choosing a character with 60 ft range or more. (In other words, Range is too cheap)

For Rogues this is doubly true. The game does not provide a single compelling reason why you should risk your frail ass in close combat when all your abilities work just as well from 30 feet away. Better in fact, since hiding is much easier at range.

Taken together, it isn't even funny how much better a fast ranged character is than a slow melee one. (Reasons why this is so? Too numerous to enumerate, but it does begin somewhere with the decision to elevate Dexterity to god stat, and with the simple truth that the overwhelming majority of Monster Manual critters are very simplistic, with few ways to attack characters that outrun them).

"Choosing a melee build is just as viable without feats as with them."​

FALSE: Please. Without feats, melee/Strength is plain broken/useless. Rogues, Warlocks etc provide BETTER DPR at range than a feat-less melee bruiser. So the party is much better off staying mobile and never actually allowing the monsters to close in.

(That's actually true with feats as well, but I digress)

"Choosing to play a Rogue is just as viable with feats as without them."​

FALSE: Nope. Not even close. Without feats, the sneak attack of Rogues is actually quite decent. But there is no feat that doubles sneak damage, as there are feats to double fighter damage. Q.E.D.

(Don't tell me you're not playing a Rogue for its DPR. If you do, my answer is "then you're fine with a featless game, and I'll play a Rogue".)

"Choosing the wizard class is the best choice for an arcane caster."​

FALSE: In actual fact, 5E has done away with almost every reason to choose the Wizard, compared to editions of old. (I'm not necessarily saying this is bad, just that it is)

In the beginning, of course, the Wizard was the only class with access to arcane spells. Then it was the only class with flexible access to all the arcane spells. But now? Adventures no longer assume a wizard or even wizard-like character in parties. The era of Monte Cook is over: no longer do scenarios come to a screeching halt when the party is unable to cast a particular high-level spell.

(Clerics and Druids don't have access to these formerly "arcane" spells. Sorcerers and Warlocks might have them on their spell lists, but can never afford to pick spells they aren't using all the time. That leaves Lore Bards.)

That the Wizard is simply LFQWBBQ better than anyone else is a truism that refuses to go away. But in 5E, it simply doesn't have the power. And its flexibility (that is no longer a must) comes at a very high cost. Sure there exists a very small selection of awesome school powers, but other than that? Besides, official adventures hand out very few spellbooks, and then seldom at low levels, so apart from the high levels few play at, is its flexibility even a real thing?

Playing a Wizard is fun, don't get me wrong. Compared to the drawbacks of the class design of the Sorcerer, for instance: to spamming the same spells over and over again, choosing the same old red draconic Sorcerer again and again. But is it actually good? The jury is out on that one.

 

[5ekyu]

There are several areas of the game where the designers seem to merely coast on the collective wisdom of us gamers, than actually making sure the respective "truth" is actually true.

Disclaimer: Do note that in games that aren't actually challenging, none of this matters. So if you aren't playing in a campaign where the difficulty actually rewards optimal builds, this thread isn't for you.

Here are a few examples, and you can fill in with your own.

---

"When you play a martial, choosing a slow build is just as viable as choosing a fast one."​

FALSE: 5E does not actually reward build choices that result in a slow character to nearly the extent needed to counteract the immense tactical benefit of choosing a fast character. (In other words, Speed is too cheap)

"Choosing a melee build is just as viable as choosing a ranged one."​

FALSE: 5E does not actually reward build choices that result in a character with no reach/range to nearly the extent needed to counteract the immense tactical benefit of choosing a character with 60 ft range or more. (In other words, Range is too cheap)

For Rogues this is doubly true. The game does not provide a single compelling reason why you should risk your frail ass in close combat when all your abilities work just as well from 30 feet away. Better in fact, since hiding is much easier at range.

Taken together, it isn't even funny how much better a fast ranged character is than a slow melee one. (Reasons why this is so? Too numerous to enumerate, but it does begin somewhere with the decision to elevate Dexterity to god stat, and with the simple truth that the overwhelming majority of Monster Manual critters are very simplistic, with few ways to attack characters that outrun them).

"Choosing a melee build is just as viable without feats as with them."​

FALSE: Please. Without feats, melee/Strength is plain broken/useless. Rogues, Warlocks etc provide BETTER DPR at range than a feat-less melee bruiser. So the party is much better off staying mobile and never actually allowing the monsters to close in.

(That's actually true with feats as well, but I digress)

"Choosing to play a Rogue is just as viable with feats as without them."​

FALSE: Nope. Not even close. Without feats, the sneak attack of Rogues is actually quite decent. But there is no feat that doubles sneak damage, as there are feats to double fighter damage. Q.E.D.

(Don't tell me you're not playing a Rogue for its DPR. If you do, my answer is "then you're fine with a featless game, and I'll play a Rogue".)

"Choosing the wizard class is the best choice for an arcane caster."​

FALSE: In actual fact, 5E has done away with almost every reason to choose the Wizard, compared to editions of old. (I'm not necessarily saying this is bad, just that it is)

In the beginning, of course, the Wizard was the only class with access to arcane spells. Then it was the only class with flexible access to all the arcane spells. But now? Adventures no longer assume a wizard or even wizard-like character in parties. The era of Monte Cook is over: no longer do scenarios come to a screeching halt when the party is unable to cast a particular high-level spell.

(Clerics and Druids don't have access to these formerly "arcane" spells. Sorcerers and Warlocks might have them on their spell lists, but can never afford to pick spells they aren't using all the time. That leaves Lore Bards.)

That the Wizard is simply LFQWBBQ better than anyone else is a truism that refuses to go away. But in 5E, it simply doesn't have the power. And its flexibility (that is no longer a must) comes at a very high cost. Sure there exists a very small selection of awesome school powers, but other than that? Besides, official adventures hand out very few spellbooks, and then seldom at low levels, so apart from the high levels few play at, is its flexibility even a real thing?

Playing a Wizard is fun, don't get me wrong. Compared to the drawbacks of the class design of the Sorcerer, for instance: to spamming the same spells over and over again, choosing the same old red draconic Sorcerer again and again. But is it actually good? The jury is out on that one.

Uhhh... can you point to where the designers or anyone exposed these truths? Many of them I have not seen pushed.

Are these just idea you create in order to then seem to refute?

Also, frankly, these seem more than not to have done imagined, limited set of challenge types and keys to victory in mind. Many wont seem to have any validity across a variety of non-white room envounters.

So, hey, fantastic post! But I am not sure what it was meant to show.

 

[Zardnaar]

Your Rogue one is completely wrong BTW, the smart Rogue gets their ass into melee. ASAP. This is because.

1. Dual wielding doubles your chance of landing a sneak attack.
2. You often suck up a -2 penalty to hit do to cover or people in the way.
3. Splashing a level of fighter gives you dex to damage in your off hand- which doubles your damage.
4. At level 6+ you want to get hit and take half damage. Reduces the overall incoming damage, assuming you have healing available.
5. Ranged magic weapons are rarer than melee.
6. You can ready an action for an ally to get close to enable a sneak attack.

By all means go ranged IF.

1. You can't melee.
2. You are low on hit points.
3. You are an assassin with the cross bow expert feat.

I do remember your Rogue thread where one of your players played one like a moron and wondered why they sucked and you refused any suggestions to not suck. The problem there is the nut on the keyboard.

Rogues are still good in a featless game, you probaly want 20 dex ASAP, a fighter type feat is often better than say 18 or 20 strength ASAP.

You're kinda right about dex based melee in a featless game.

Warlocks don't beat fighters for damage except in a featless and no MC game. With Feats and MCing its close, Sorlock wins at higher levels, Feats but no MCing the Fighter still wins. The multiclass fighter/Warlock tends to beat both though- fighter1/Fiendpact XYZ is very very good tank and at range. Warlocks are also squishy with a few exceptions.

Wizards are decent but take a but to come online which usually means the charisma based spellcasters often look better or are dealing more DPR at lower levels. Even something as simple as a Lore Bard getting hex+eldritch blast tends to make the Wizard cry and charisma saves>intelligence saves and usually skill checks. I suspect most games don't reach the higher levels where the wizard tends to shine more along with the champion fighter.

Theres not much you can do to min/max a wizard or abuse them though except spell selection. They don't have the synergy the charisma based classes do.

5E is a bit over the place with classes and subclasses and when and where the spotlight falls. Chamion Fighter vs Battlemaster for example. An level 2 Moon Druids.

 

[S'mon]

I don't recall seeing the designers make any claims about balance.

AFAICS ranged is better than melee in 5e (if you're not a melee class like Barbarian & Paladin), but less so than in 3e & 4e. The main advantage of being a melee PC is that you get to block melee monster access to your squishy ranged-attack fellow PCs.

Being a melee Rogue in 5e feels less suicidal than in 3e or 4e. Bonus Action Disengage means you don't have to stick around for reprisals if you don't want to. But the game still favours archer Rogues.

Wizards seem well balanced with other caster types in 5e; probably better than Sorcerer at least the way I've seen them played, but no longer obviously superior to other classes. I see people play Wizard, Warlock, Bard and (occasionally) Sorcerer, and they all contribute & have fun.

 

[Pauln6]

Imaginative DMs can set up encounters that vary so that no single form of combat dominates every time. Ranged has its advantages but your enemies are going to have ranged attacks too. Ammo can be an issue, especially if you rule that a single character can only carry a single quiver (they are really bulky). If you get caught in melee, you are going to be stuck without your shield and with a one-handed weapon unless you drop your bow. A rival can pick up your bow as a free object interaction too.

I think these falsehoods might have a grain of truth but their effects in game are fairly limited. Not every pc is meant to be the best in every scenario, so vary your scenarios.

 

[Hussar]

You can talk all you like about how your ranged builds are so much better, but without a melee build in there taking the beating, you warlocks and rogues get smooshed.

IOW it’s all about party synergy. Stop trying to look at groups individually and it makes a lot more sense.

Or to put it another way, sure my forge priest does far less dpr than the rest of the group. But without the support and healing I provide, the group would be dead.

So, who’s the star?

 

[Krachek]

“If you do less damage compare to others players you can’t have fun.”

FALSE DnD is much more than damage and combat efficiency.

 

[Remathilis]

Here's a truism: "any analysis of D&D that rates things by dps inherently misses the point."

 

[Krachek]

The featless and MCless game is pretty balanced.
At level 11
Fighter 39
Quicken firebolt for fire dragon sorcerer 43
Eldritch blast and hex 42
Rogue rapier and sneak 30.5

Feats and MC can produce some aberration.
Add +30 to fighter damage,
Double warlock damage for 84,
And so on.
These bonus damage are just for fun. They are not intended to balanced anything.

If a table need a more restrained damage output, simply remove the famous -5/+10 feats,
And remove MC for warlock, sorcerer and paladin.
These simple adjustments will shut down most obvious damage combo.

 

[Satyrn]

I don't recall seeing the designers make any claims about balance.

It'd be real weird if they had made these claims, or had tried to make these truisms true. Especially the one about wizards being the best arcane caster. Though, I would be rather amused if Meals did say that: "Sure we made the bard, the sorcerer and warlock for you, we've included them in the game right alongside the wizard, but they suck. Play a wizard. Trust me. Choosing the wizard class is the best choice for an arcane caster."