D&D 5E Less about the numbers and more about the concept: Judging classes in 5th edition.

[Tony Vargas]

... mindset where it was more about the math than the concept.

Until 5e, the WotC era was more player-focused than the TSR era of the game. There were more player-facing options, and less built-in DM latitude. That created a strong focus on the statistics that defined & differentiated a character (or build), like BAB or DPR or save DCs or skill ranks that could be optimized to create huge advantages within a specialty, but also left a great deal of room to customize characters to a given concept.

The optimization ('math') mindset peaked late in 3.5, with the Class Tiers, and 5e continues to reduce the emphasis on that side of the game, retaining even advancement in skills and attacks/DCs, and bringing the gross numbers down under Bounded Accuracy so that advancement is constrained to a narrow range of numbers. At the same time, though, it's reduced concept-based customizability. Instead, concepts are covered by take-it-or-leave-it Classes, Races, and, to a lesser extent, Backgrounds.

Inevitably, though, some simple quantitative comparisons - most notably DPR - get made, simply because they are so very easy to do. But that's always been the case, even if we called it 'average damage' back in the day instead of DPR.

when a system is designed around a certain perception of them is it right to judge them based around the math and say a particular class needs to be changed just because it doesn't meet that criteria?

Yes. For one thing, there's no indication that 5e, with the prominent goal of Bounded Accuracy, somewhat consistent DPR scaling across classes, elaborate CR calculations, and the like, was in any way ignoring 'the math.'

Nobody said anything about balance.

Ironically, including the guy you replied to. Yours is the first mention of the word.

This is about judging classes based on the math.

The title seems to imply it's about /not/ judging classes by the math, but instead judging them on concept.

And, it would be interesting to evaluate classes on the concepts they try to cover, and how well they model them...

...(even if the latter might require some math!)



IMHO, the three stand-out examples of classes with concept issues are the Ranger, Sorcerer, and Fighter.

The Ranger has gone through repeated re-builds and re-imaginings, and there's still no clear consensus I can see on what it's really supposed to be. It was clearly inspired by LotR's Aragorn, then twisted around by Drizzt, with a side of Grizzly Adams. So, no, not that coherent. With fighters well-able to handle archery and TWFing, and the Outlander background readily available, it seems the concept of 'wilderness warrior' is handled - better than a lot of other fightery concepts, really.

Sorcerer. Wow, were to start. The most specific dictionary definition of 'sorcery' I could find in a few seconds was: " the use of power gained from the assistance or control of evil spirits especially for divining." (Ironically, a lot of RL words for magical practices focus on divining, because, well, unlike conjuring bolts of lightning, you can guess about the future and be right some of the time.) So, of course, D&D has the Warlock make pacts for supernatural power, and makes Sorcerers users of in-born magic. S'Okay. Then, to back that up, they get a small spell list than wizards, fewer spells known than any other full caster, and metamagic. And, only two sub-classes.

Fighter: The fighter has always suffered from being the mundane, everyman, class. Any concept that /doesn't/ call for a supernatural powers - or, arbitrarily, thieving skills - gets dumped on the fighter. As a result, the fighter has to stand in for most heroic archetypes of myth/legend/literature, and prettymuch all of those from history. It's support to cover all that? A d10 HD, plenty of armor & weapon proficiencies (though only one of the former and a handfull of the latter will be optimal for a given fighter), the game's worst skill list, and, most significantly, high DPR via multi-attacking.

 

[steeldragons]

Fighter: I am the guy who fights. I like doing things with my muscles, weapons and armor use, and hitting people often and hard regardless of the type of weapon or fighting style I employ...because I'm the fighter. Options: "Simple -roll it n' let's play- fighter guy," "Slightly more mechanically complex fighter," and/or "Slightly more mechanically complex than that because we added magic into the mix."

Judgement - Good concept for a basic class. Necessary concept for a fantasy rpg of any degree of magical-ness. Suitable degrees of mechanical complexity for options. Casts a very wide net for potential character archetypes. Class is Fully and well executed to its concept.

Paladin: I am the guy who fights...for some kind of cause...maybe an ideal...possibly a god...and I have an oath. I have a bevy of magical powers that are granted/evoked from me because...I take my "oath" very seriously? Or maybe, used to be, it was from my deity of Order and [now, also, "or"] Good. I'm supposed to be a shining example of the forces of Good and Justice and Order...a warrior...but not a priest...or maybe a priest...of a sort...but not a War Cleric or a run-of-the-mill chivalric knight...I'm an extra special divinely magical (but don't need to make an oath to a deity anymore!) "knight" kinda guy...maybe.

Judgement: Interesting enough concept for an "advanced" [i.e. "niche" concept] class. Not at all necessary to a fantasy rpg and redundant with a variety of other archetypes. Despite its very specific archetype, the class is rather ill-defined and seems to attempt to execute a very specific character to simultaneously be somehow available anyone believing in anything. Class is unnecessary and redundant and poorly executed for what it alleges to be...which it doesn't even seem to know anymore.

No time to get into more, but this is a good start.

 

[cooperjer]

Another way to look at the math and how well a class plays or how fun a class may be is to look at the resources available to the class. Does a wizard or sorcerer have enough spell slots? Does the sorcerer know enough spells? Can the fighter use their battlemaster ability enough times per day to have fun playing the class? Is shape shifting twice per day really that fun to play? Does the barbarian feel enough like a "barbarian" with only 3 rages?

I feel more design work is needed on the wild mage sorcerer to ensure it's fun to play. My wild mage sorcerer player and I have been looking at what modifications can be made to allow short rests to be useful to the class. The player also started playing the class with the expectation that it could cast more spells than a wizard in a day, based on 3ed play. We're looking at ways to make that happen to ensure the class is meeting here expectations, and is fun to play and fun to play with by other players.

I feel the assassin class is missing a lot of potential. It seems like the class is limited in capability such that it's not compatible with a dungeon crawl such as PotA.

I feel the barbarian might be too good at heavy hitting, because I hear feed back often that the barbarian is the top damage dealer and is the best at soaking damage. It's fun to play, but I'm getting feedback that it's not fun to play with.

A lot of it comes to player perception and expectations. Are they perceiving what they expect?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If the math doesn't support the concept, then the concept is a lie. Math is what governs the underlying reality, and if you disagree with the math, then you are wrong. It is as true of the game world as it is of the real world, except the math governing the game world is significantly more transparent.

If your concept is that you are good at sneaking, but the numbers don't support that, then you aren't actually good at sneaking. You might think you are, but you're wrong.

 

[Pauln6]

Nobody wants to be useless in combat but in 5e it seems quite hard to do that. It is possible to be a glass cannon but that just means you need to be creative. Concept first for me every time. Determine weaknesses through play and try to plug gaps with feats or magic as you go.

 

[Eubani]

OK here is one major judgement on the martial Vs magic axis on class ability. Hitting things can only do HP damage and only magic can cause status effects because weapons hits don't ever stun or slow a person down or make them bleed. Which also leads to the idea that fighter must always be the simple class which makes a statement about what the designers think about Fighter players. Lastly the Fighter sacrifices all social and exploration ability to be "The Best" at fighting. Newsflash the fighter isn't the best at most level and at the points where it does it is by so small an amount it doesn't matter. Before anyone says but but but backgrounds I have 2 things to say 1, we are talking about class and 2. who else gets backgrounds....oh yes everyone.

 

[Rhenny]

So far, I've played a rogue, battlemaster fighter, barbarian, an evoker wizard, a bladesinger, a tempest cleric, a war cleric, a sun cleric. They've all felt different and all seemed to have a powerful concept that has contributed to my playing experience. Rarely if ever have I felt that another PC in the group overshadowed me or "stole my thunder," and I've always been able to contribute in a variety of situations whether it be combat, interaction or exploration.

Most of the times, to me at least, PC envy comes when a DM favors one player among others in the group, or when a particular player does not play as a team member, or the statistics for the one player are substantially better than the others.

Bounded accuracy and less +1, +2 to hit, etc. type feats (and magic items) have helped 5e keep PCs in check and seem to help foreground character concept and "feel". In fact, for the most part, I find that it is the math type feats that cause the most problems with player concept and PC equivalency (i.e., sharpshooter, heavy armor master DR reduction, etc.).

 

[Imaro]

OK here is one major judgement on the martial Vs magic axis on class ability. Hitting things can only do HP damage and only magic can cause status effects because weapons hits don't ever stun or slow a person down or make them bleed. Which also leads to the idea that fighter must always be the simple class which makes a statement about what the designers think about Fighter players. Lastly the Fighter sacrifices all social and exploration ability to be "The Best" at fighting. Newsflash the fighter isn't the best at most level and at the points where it does it is by so small an amount it doesn't matter. Before anyone says but but but backgrounds I have 2 things to say 1, we are talking about class and 2. who else gets backgrounds....oh yes everyone.

Uhm... Battlemasters can inflict conditions with their maneuvers.

 

[clutchbone]

Hitting things can only do HP damage and only magic can cause status effects because weapons hits don't ever stun or slow a person down or make them bleed. Which also leads to the idea that fighter must always be the simple class which makes a statement about what the designers think about Fighter players. Lastly the Fighter sacrifices all social and exploration ability to be "The Best" at fighting. Newsflash the fighter isn't the best at most level and at the points where it does it is by so small an amount it doesn't matter. Before anyone says but but but backgrounds I have 2 things to say 1, we are talking about class and 2. who else gets backgrounds....oh yes everyone.

Battlemaster can disarm, frighten, push, prone, etc. Eldritch Knights can buff, dispel, make walls, etc. Even a Champion with 14 Wis can be your exploration person if she's trained in perception and survival (fighter skills). Also, go tell an open palm monk that only magic can cause status effects, see what happens.

You're right, every class gets backgrounds. Do you know why? So that any class can be good at social or exploration (or whatever) with two relevant skills and/or a relevant feature. Refusing to consider backgrounds is silly when their entire intention is to add flexibility to your class choice. Let's take that Champion I mentioned; add the outlander feature and she's now an exploration savant.

And lastly, "only" doing HP damage in fact causes the best status effect... death.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Uhm... Battlemasters can inflict conditions with their maneuvers.

Not to mention, NO ONE else gets two extra feats, which means that the fighter can use those feats no one else gets to make them extremely skilled at exploration (or interaction) pillars if the player chooses. And even if the fighter chooses those feats for out of combat abilities, it doesn't take away from their role at being the best at mundane combat.

Two extra feats is a hard baked in class feature. I really wish people would stop ignoring that because it runs opposed to their biased arguments. Just because they give a choice of what to do with them, rather than force you by instead saying something like, "At 6th level, gain the (ability that mimics a feat)", doesn't mean it doesn't matter. In fact, I like the choice, because choices are generally better.