D&D 5E Out of Combat Utility Analysis

[Dausuul]

...only a little bit less effective offensive abilities.

Dealing less than half of fighter damage output starting at level 5 is "only a little bit" less effective?

 

[bert1000]

We'll see when we get the PHB, but so far I don't get what the designers are doing. They've called out the 3 pillars as being important and then don't provide all classes features to contribute to the pillars.

I agree with a poster that said that skills alone can probably work if the non combat resolution system is dramatic/narrative (e.g. FATE) but that is not what we have with D&D.

Would it really have been that hard to come up with some cool stuff (outside of skills) for the fighter, rogue, etc. that would help address impact on the non combat pillars? This would have been a really cool addition to D&D that would have gotten me really excited about 5e. You could have even done this completely within the scope of keeping fighters fairly "mundane" vs. "fantastic". Then added the fantastic stuff as options in the DMG.

For fighters:

1st level: you pick a magic ancestral weapon that grows in power as you level. Magic weapon has some non combat effecting magic associated with it. (bit of a cop out. magic but still not a magical fighter)

3rd level: you reputation is such that you can recruit 1d4 local warriors after 1d4 days of recruiting. They will adventure at your side for 1d4 days. You can make a charisma check DC X once a week to reuse this ability.

5th level: you stance and posture is such that anyone can tell your skill as a warrior. Those with respect for martial prowess are automatically impressed and treat you well. Add some mechanics and make sure to note when people have this disposition in adventures. Kind of like TOR.

9th level: you have befriended a wizard of X level. The wizard lives at your base or his home if you have no base. He will provide services to you as a good friend, but will not go adventuring with you. (kind of a cop out again giving the fighter access to magic but it stays within "mundane" and fits with a lot of fantasy tropes)

etc.

You would obviously want multiple choices per level so someone who wanted to play a loner didn't have to pick up the henchman ones, etc.

These aren't very good examples but I came up with them in 3 minutes. What could you come up with in 2 years of development?

 

[Dausuul]

We'll see when we get the PHB, but so far I don't get what the designers are doing. They've called out the 3 pillars as being important and then don't provide all classes features to contribute to the pillars.

I agree with a poster that said that skills alone can probably work if the non combat resolution system is dramatic/narrative (e.g. FATE) but that is not what we have with D&D.

Would it really have been that hard to come up with some cool stuff (outside of skills) for the fighter, rogue, etc. that would help address impact on the non combat pillars? This would have been a really cool addition to D&D that would have gotten me really excited about 5e. You could have even done this completely within the scope of keeping fighters fairly "mundane" vs. "fantastic". Then added the fantastic stuff as options in the DMG.

For fighters:

1st level: you pick a magic ancestral weapon that grows in power as you level. Magic weapon has some non combat effecting magic associated with it. (bit of a cop out. magic but still not a magical fighter)

3rd level: you reputation is such that you can recruit 1d4 local warriors after 1d4 days of recruiting. They will adventure at your side for 1d4 days. You can make a charisma check DC X once a week to reuse this ability.

5th level: you stance and posture is such that anyone can tell your skill as a warrior. Those with respect for martial prowess are automatically impressed and treat you well. Add some mechanics and make sure to note when people have this disposition in adventures. Kind of like TOR.

9th level: you have befriended a wizard of X level. The wizard lives at your base or his home if you have no base. He will provide services to you as a good friend, but will not go adventuring with you. (kind of a cop out again giving the fighter access to magic but it stays within "mundane" and fits with a lot of fantasy tropes)

etc.

You would obviously want multiple choices per level so someone who wanted to play a loner didn't have to pick up the henchman ones, etc.

These aren't very good examples but I came up with them in 3 minutes. What could you come up with in 2 years of development?

Those are great ideas, but they don't really jibe with the idea of the Basic Fighter. The BF is aimed at the type of player who just wants to kill stuff.

If we don't have options like this in the Player's Handbook, I will join you in wondering what the designers were thinking, but for Basic D&D, what we have makes sense.

 

[Cyberen]

Better off with a second Cleric ?
Nope.
The 3e Cleric can buff himself into Codzilla. The 5e Cleric just can't :
* different spell selection
* good buffs require Concentration
* Concentration requires the caster to stay out of melee
* mediocre dpr means the group is less efficient, and the monsters can safely ignore the Cleric to focus on the squishies, whereas the Fighter tends to focus aggro on himself
* athletics is a required skill for the party
* proficiency in Con saves (+ advantage later) means the Fighter is, among the Basic classes, the only one member of the party who can reliably withstand qome effects. Not having someone proficient in Con saves means an increased chance for TPK.
I think Basic does a pretty good job in presenting a well rounded party of 4. The 5th man is questionnable, but I am pretty sure the Fighter is a solid choice.

 

[Quickleaf]

Just had a thought for higher level rogues. What if they didn't have to declare a specific place in the marching order? They were just assumed to be wherever they wanted to/ it was most advantageous to? Sort of a Schroedinger's Rogue? Would need some balancing/tweaking, but could add some extra oomph to their exploration capacity...

 

[keterys]

Dealing less than half of fighter damage output starting at level 5 is "only a little bit" less effective?

Except against undead. Fighter loses there. You also seem to be undervaluing divine strike and sacred flame.

And, again, it's worth note that this is without considering the cleric's entire pyramid of spellcasting (factor in a single combat spell per combat, say).

I think the more telling factor is that this is the life cleric, focused on healing, and not the combat/war cleric.

Short answer: Yeah, pretty much.

It's also a real no brainer from 1st through 4th

 

[Sadras]

I support more out of combat utility for the fighter (and the rogue) because it is more fun.

I do to.

Lordship (9th level): Gain followers, a stronghold, and a fancy title to go with it. This would obviously need a module in the DMG supporting it.
[sblock=Rationale]It is an iconic feature of older editions of D&D for fighters to get something special at name level. It reinforces that the fighter is tied to the politics of the campaign world. It allows followers to be used in lots of out of combat ways. It also might allow for variants (more design space) such as a "knight errant" who forsakes their lands and title.

I like it but the obvious question would be, and I'm sure you expected this, is why shouldn't anyone gain this?

Just had a thought for higher level rogues. What if they didn't have to declare a specific place in the marching order? They were just assumed to be wherever they wanted to/ it was most advantageous to? Sort of a Schroedinger's Rogue? Would need some balancing/tweaking, but could add some extra oomph to their exploration capacity...

This is cute

.... I just know, from my last seven months playing the game, that at least our reality couldn't be farther from that.

Exactly, which is why I suggested in one of my replies to him that he actually test out his theories first through play and assess if his assumptions are accurate with discussion from the fighter player and the group. I have a suspicion the OP has not actually play-tested what he has concluded to exist.

In other news, I'm on the defense (I guess kinda...) of 5e versus a fellow 4e advocate and 5e pseudo-detractor! I hope people are bearing witness!

I noticed. We are looking for recruits!

 

[Manbearcat]

I noticed. We are looking for recruits!

Sorry, I'm tapped out

Regardless of how Concentration works out, regardless of how the saving throw proficiency system works out, regardless of Fighters having a good Con bonus and ST proficiency, regardless of Athletics, regardless of a wee bit more HP and higher HD, my final analysis is going to be what I said above:

Mundane, even if relatively broad and at-will, skills (underwritten by a BUTMUNDANE gaming culture) working in a task resolution system cannot compete with the outright problem-solving, scene-reframing/transitioning capacity-by-fiat intrinsic to an open-descriptor, even if limited-use, spellcasting system (underwritten by a BUTMAGIC gaming culture). Unify the two in a discrete conflict resolution system and there will be some measure of parity. Without it there is just no way.

So, in summation:

- Unified conflict resolution

or

- Nerf the hell out of spells or codify/limit their scope

or

- Open up the fiat ability of spellcasting to everyone by giving mundanes abilities like @Quickleaf 's Schrodinger's Rogue above.

Or. Live with the consequences of inferior mundane characters. The problem is that several folks would rather live with inferior mundane characters than implement any of the above problem-solvers.

 

[Quickleaf]

Or. Live with the consequences of inferior mundane characters. The problem is that several folks would rather live with inferior mundane characters than implement any of the above problem-solvers.

The litmus test for me will be if at any point my fighter PC feels like he's a lowly grog for a Mighty Wizard in Ars Magica, then the design went horribly wrong.

I think there's a happy middle ground...a bit of your B (spellcaster nerfing) has happened in 5th edition. If they did a bit of your C (scene reframing mundane abilities), then D (living with utility imbalance between spellcasters and mundanes) would be more appealing, or at least less glaringly obvious. In my mind it's a matter of degree.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

The problem is that several folks would rather live with inferior mundane characters than implement any of the above problem-solvers.

I'd like to point that this is a specific D&D thing. I don't know if I'd be glad playing mage sidekick anywhere else, but there's something about D&D (I'll call it "The First Great Law of D&D" ) that says that it's more important for it to have a certain feel than to be a well-designed and balanced game.

That said, to this date, 5E is certainly the most successful experiment in regard to well-designed and balanced that don't fail to "feel like D&D". The D&D team certainly deserves congratulations for that.