D&D 5E Out of Combat Utility Analysis

[TerraDave]

Having started a thread that emphasizes the potential for utility casting...I can't 100 percent disagree with this.

But I can still disagree like 60 percent.

From my own in play experience, skills still count, for a lot. Much more then in your math. Maybe it depend on how you DM things, but I can't imagine the 2-4 sessions that make up a level without lot of key skill checks, and this can hold into pretty high levels. (Even in our last, epic, 4E session, we had one crucial, encounter changing, athletics check improvised by the players, and a few other key ones). And spells are precious things. (And rituals take time). I do see them used out of combat, but they won't be the only thing out of combat.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Having started a thread that emphasizes the potential for utility casting...I can't 100 percent disagree with this.

But I can still disagree like 60 percent.

From my own in play experience, skills still count, for a lot. Much more then in your math. Maybe it depend on how you DM things, but I can't imagine the 2-4 sessions that make up a level without lot of key skill checks, and this can hold into pretty high levels. (Even in our last, epic, 4E session, we had one crucial, encounter changing, athletics check improvised by the players, and a few other key ones). And spells are precious things. (And rituals take time). I do see them used out of combat, but they won't be the only thing out of combat.

They do count a lot. As I illustrated, though, casters are broadly ALSO better at those, on the whole, than non-casters (Rogues not so much, but they're way worse at skills than in earlier playtests), because their stats synergise with more skills (including very powerful ones!), and they get just as many.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Having started a thread that emphasizes the potential for utility casting...I can't 100 percent disagree with this.

But I can still disagree like 60 percent.

From my own in play experience, skills still count, for a lot. Much more then in your math. Maybe it depend on how you DM things, but I can't imagine the 2-4 sessions that make up a level without lot of key skill checks, and this can hold into pretty high levels. (Even in our last, epic, 4E session, we had one crucial, encounter changing, athletics check improvised by the players, and a few other key ones). And spells are precious things. (And rituals take time). I do see them used out of combat, but they won't be the only thing out of combat.

I think you are right. The OP has, in my opinion, overstated the value of spells/rituals and understated the value of skills. The calculations are also done at level 20, if they had been done at level 1, the story would have been quite different. How "broken" this is really relies on what level range you are playing. Personally, I enjoy level 3-7 the most. In that range the "problem" is much less pronounced

Anyway, it's what I more or less assume from D&D. You don't pick a fighter for his out-of-combat utility. If you want to play a tough in-your-face type of character, but with utility, you will probably end up doing some multiclassing. Will have to wait for the PHB to get this.

4e reduced this "broken-ness", but it also made the game much duller in many players opinion. That 5e hasn't gone the same route is something I applaud. D&D isn't a competition, it's a team game and usually, the different characters help each other out a lot.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

4e reduced this "broken-ness", but it also made the game much duller in many players opinion. That 5e hasn't gone the same route is something I applaud. D&D isn't a competition, it's a team game and usually, the different characters help each other out a lot.

Please explain how 4E "reduced this broken-ness"?

As I explained above, it did not. Nor did it "make the game much duller". Because it did not reduce this broken-ness all that much.

The team game things seems fundamentally intellectually dishonest, because a Wizard (super-utility-man) gets good performance in combat as WELL as the other pillars, but a Fighter (super-combat-man, according to you), gets crap performance in the other pillars. Why isn't the Wizard gimped in combat? By your logic, he should be. It's a team game!

 

[TerraDave]

They do count a lot. As I illustrated, though, casters are broadly ALSO better at those, on the whole, than non-casters (Rogues not so much, but they're way worse at skills than in earlier playtests), because their stats synergise with more skills (including very powerful ones!), and they get just as many.

Without speculating on what might be in the PHB, as that way lies madness, and seeing that the rogue has some key skills and skill advantages, lets just focus on the fighter.

At least the fighter gets the background. So does everybody else, but it can be a key point of diversifying his skills. Beyond that, his core areas--breaking stuff, jumping and climbing, maybe animal handling and intimidating, are things that come up and that you don't necessarily want to spend a spell on. Finally, there are rules for fatigue and exhaustion, and again this is an area where the fighter could do well.

I am not saying "parity". And I don't really know how high levels will play. But the niche is there.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Beyond that, his core areas--breaking stuff, jumping and climbing, maybe animal handling and intimidating, are things that come up and that you don't necessarily want to spend a spell on. Finally, there are rules for fatigue and exhaustion, and again this is an area where the fighter could do well.

I am not saying "parity". And I don't really know how high levels will play. But the niche is there.

The niche is there but there's little or no mechanical support that I'm seeing, when there could have been tons. There are no rules for fatigue (yet) and exhaustion seems fantastically unlikely to actually come into play more than once in a blue moon and sub-level-10, and further, if any party member gets much of it, you're all kinda stuffed anyway.

Cantrips deal with "things that come up and that you don't necessarily want to spend a spell on" extremely well in many cases.

 

[TwoSix]

Obviously, the only solution is more tests of the player's skills and less of the character's! Stop looking at that character sheet! Solve some puzzles! Thoroughly search that environment!

 

[Capricia]

Obviously, the only solution is more tests of the player's skills and less of the character's! Stop looking at that character sheet! Solve some puzzles! Thoroughly search that environment!

Imagine if this was the attitude of any other hobby.

Basketball, "Sure, the ref gave the other team a an extra 40 points at the start and sure, they get to use their hands and you can't. But c'mon champs, get out their and sink some baskets! Use your head!"

NASCAR, "Sure everyone else is in a high-powered metal cage of rocket-fast death and you're in a bicycle. But they don't get helmets and their cars run on gas. You can pedal all day!"

Politics, "Sure, the dictator has already arrested people on the suspicion of voting for you and sure they shot your running mate. But stop looking at the polls! Shake some hands! Thoroughly kiss those babies!"

 

[Manbearcat]

Please explain how 4E "reduced this broken-ness"?

I'll take a stab.

Unified, non-combat conflict resolution. The Skill Challenge with its subjective, scene/narrative relevant DCs (rather than world relevant). More than anything, they did it by moving success or failure in the resolution of nonviolent conflicts to discrete scenes. With respect to its potency to move units in resolving conflicts, that, in and of itself, made a deployed skill achieve relative parity with a spell or ritual (or money spent, or healing surges sacrificed).

Of course, there are other component cogs that play into that and stand on their own. One of them you mentioned (Athletics):

- A broad (not quite open but extraordinarily broad) descriptor skill system that provides hefty packets of player fiat with each chosen skill.

- The Group Check as conflict resolution. Another discrete form of conflict resolution. The most widely used Group Checks are Athletics, Endurance, Perception, Stealth.

- A multiclass feat system that is usually always worth it to take one (and they deliver skills).

- A Ritual system open to everybody who wants to invest.

- Amazing Skill Powers that are available to anyone who wants to invest.

- Heroes of the Feywild made Cantrips (including the extremely powerful "sub Arcana for < >" line) available to everyone with a few feats invested.


As for the Fighter himself goes:

- Athletics is an amazing skill with probably unparalleled bang for buck. You could make a case for it actually being the most widely applicable skill in the game. Conflict for conflict, it might be more "deployable" than any other skill in the fiction-first facilitation of a successful scene. Its rarely a reach, with respect to the fictional positioning, to use it, and the Fighter has ability in Athletics in spades. Further, there are some great skill powers (I'm looking at you Mighty Sprint) that are awesome in both combat and noncombat. It also works as your Escape Grab ability. It is one of the few skills regularly used in Group Checks (of which the Fighter comes near to auto-passing, thus immensely helping the group).

- Endurance is underrated. Its much more applicable than several other skills in a number of fantasy tropes as conflict resolution. Fighter again serves as anchor for the Endurance Group check.

Third skill for the Fighter is any number of very good skills. All that said, I would still give every class in 4e four skills. I suspect they went with the LOLFIGHTERYOUONLY3 for silly (and obviously incoherent given the ruleset) legacy purposes. Inexplicable. Regardeless, even with those 3 skills they do just fine in my experience, and I've GMed wizards with uber powerful daily utilities, rituals, and "sub Arcana for < >" cantrips. Those wizards are serious business, to be sure. But the two Fighters I've GMed have been no slouches. I'm currently GMing a single player PBP here and the player of this Fighter is doing fantastically in noncombat conflict resolution (Exploration and Social). Manning the ship by herself. And she's cleaning up combat. This is someone who has played a Druid from 1-30 so she's familiar with noncombat potency. She's quite pleased with how things have progressed with this Fighter.

The biggest problem is the one at the top of my post. Conflict Resolution versus Task Resolution. Mundanes with a more narrow skill system, with less broad functionality in class overall, with objective DCs (that follow the world of process sim rather than following the narrative relevance of the scene) flat out cannot compete with the utility of a broad descriptor, win by fiat, spellcasting system underwritten by an OMGBUTMAGIC gaming culture (which is assimilated in its GMing ethos). It just can't. More than anything, I knew that model at the core of noncombat conflict resolution for 5e was its death knell for me ever running it.

 

[MoonSong]

Just as a point of order, I find it completely idiotic that spellcasters, especially Wizards, who have supposedly devoted so much learning to their craft, get the exact same number of skills, as, say Fighters, and only two less than Rogues. I think one easy semi-fix would be to simply give all non-full casters a couple of extra skills. It's particularly a bad problem given INT and WIS support 5 Skills each - so even if you aren't Proficient, you've got a big bonus to important skills just for being a Wizard, Cleric or Druid (CHA is next with 4 - and is, surprise-surprise, associated with the other "full caster" classes - Bard, SORCERER, and Warlock).

You forgot one.