D&D 5E PC Exceptionalism

[Cap'n Kobold]

By the way, you can pick up those narrative powers you’re talking about by roleplaying and exploring the game world.

In the same way that any other class can? But instead of being one of your options, its your only option?

Sure the wizard can cast wild spells, but anyone not a wizard is likely going to be afraid of them. Do whatever they can to get the wizard to go the hell away as quickly as possible. The fighter is going to be more approachable to average people. Guards and soldiers will talk to them and open up more. You can describe your moves and attacks in interesting ways. Interact with the environment. You can use things like cinematic advantage instead if boring flanking. The casters run out if spells, the martial classes don’t run out if muscle.

If you play video game style and questgivers are able to identify character class by sight, I can see how that might work.
Otherwise how is the person a character is talking to who acts the same, dresses the same, and says the same things going to react differently?
A wizard can have the same number of skills, tools, and the same background as the fighter. They don't run out of knowledge any more than the martials run out of muscle. They can interact with their environment in the same way mundanely.
However they can also interact with the environment in a much more powerful fashion. They can describe their spells in interesting ways.

Once again: The core of the issue is not just "spells are more powerful than skills". It is that spells and skills are much better than just skills.

That’s the kind of failure of imagination I was talking about. If the best you can do is “well, the fighter can’t teleport, so they suck” then you’re never going to see anything else. If the only thing that matters is pure white-room theorycrafting damage then certain classes, feats, and builds will always just win. That completely misses the entire point of the game. Exploring a fun fantasy world with your friends and telling cool stories. Don’t treat D&D like a video game and it won’t play like a video game.

But sure, if “that’s why we invented the five-minute work day” and “it’s just exploration and RP, they don’t matter. Only combat and damage matters” are your responses, then I don’t know what to tell you. You’re probably playing the wrong game with the wrong people.

Given that that was the point that ehren37 was making, I'm not sure quite where these statements come from. They were specifically pointing this out.

 

[ph0rk]

I think in these circumstances the group charisma checks are a good call. Instead of it being all or nothing with the bard, everyone present makes a roll and if half succeed everyone succeeds.

Not a bad idea, of course, like most solutions to this they're somewhat buried in the DMG, and not really a thing players can ask for.

In the particular case I'm talking about, the Bard player had no interest in intimidation and their character may not even have had proficiency in it. It was simply that they thought they had control over the social pillar. I've seen similar things where rogue or ranger players assume they are primary in the exploration pillar (different players, different games, but I see it often enough). And, again, it's backed up by the rules in many cases because those classes do get good tools to excel in that pillar (that doesn't mean every rogue or ranger builds that way, or even has an investigation check better than +1).

So, I guess the fact that many players come to the game with the idea that some PCs are exceptional with respect to other PCs in various aspects of the game is an issue (and, like I said, an issue perpetuated by rules that can sometimes work that way).

I think PCs exceptional relative to other PCs is a larger issue than PCs exceptional relative to NPCs.

 

[TheSword]

Not a bad idea, of course, like most solutions to this they're somewhat buried in the DMG, and not really a thing players can ask for.

In the particular case I'm talking about, the Bard player had no interest in intimidation and their character may not even have had proficiency in it. It was simply that they thought they had control over the social pillar. I've seen similar things where rogue or ranger players assume they are primary in the exploration pillar (different players, different games, but I see it often enough). And, again, it's backed up by the rules in many cases because those classes do get good tools to excel in that pillar (that doesn't mean every rogue or ranger builds that way, or even has an investigation check better than +1).

So, I guess the fact that many players come to the game with the idea that some PCs are exceptional with respect to other PCs in various aspects of the game is an issue (and, like I said, an issue perpetuated by rules that can sometimes work that way).

I think PCs exceptional relative to other PCs is a larger issue than PCs exceptional relative to NPCs.

One thing I love about 5e is that with even a little investment a fighter can be within 1 or 2 points of a bard at persuasion and still make a good show of it. Stick a feat in and they can be better. This gives a lot of flexibility.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Simple. I run a rather low-power game, for the most part. The amount of "WHOA!!!" whiz-bang stuff depends on the setting and edition. But, as 5e is the current iteration, I'll comment on that.

My 5e "setting" is called "Genericka"; yes, it's supposed to be 'generic'...basically, core PHB/MM/DMG and that's it. It's also a "sandbox world", meaning I don't have any huge world-history or anything like that; in fact, I don't even have a world map. My current "campaign map" consists of slightly more than this map from Dyson's site: ( [Labyrinth Lord] Challenge of the Frog Idol ). A handful of his other maps round out one or two towns and dungeons/ruins. That campaign is still going even though we haven't played in just over a year. Stupid pandemic!

Anyway, in Genericka...most NPC's are NOT-CLASSED IN ANY WAY! Meaning 95%+ of the population have no special skills/abilities and tend to have HP's in the 2 to 6 range. The "professional types" that would find themselves in danger... bodyguards, guardsmen, soldiers, etc ...those folks might have some more "special" capabilities and HP's. Still, they aren't much past level 3 to 5 (equivalent). Those who can cast magic are "focused" on a specific 'thing'...I don't give them "levels of Cleric" or "levels of Warlock", for example. They get 'built' with whatever I deem cool to get their theme across. So the Old Woman Apothecary might just be an old woman with 2 hp, but have a special ability of "Can Concoct Various Non-Magical Potions" that let her make Healing Draughts, Burn-Paste Salve, and Sleeping Tinctures that act similar to 'magic' but don't actually do anything magic...and have side-effects (re: healing heals HP's, but you will have scars... sleeping aids will let you sleep, but might give you a Fatigue Level or two for the next day, etc).

Bottom line...if you are a 3rd level, fledgling Eldritch Knight, you are quite special; you have multiple times the typical HP's of presents and even guards/militia, your stats are likely better to begin with, and you can cast ACTUAL magic spells. A 3rd level Eldritch Knight versus a guy with 8 to 12 in all his stats, AC 13 and 5hp's is...well..."unbalanced". Get a group of a half-dozen 3rd level PC's, all with capabilities ranging from Cure spells, Rage, Inspiring Word, Ki powers, blasts of magical fire, and critical hits from the shadows...and you have a 6-pack of PC's that could quite easily decimate a small village all on their own. In minutes. Now make them 10th level? Fugeddaboudit! It'd be like a mercenary group with access to nukes.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[ph0rk]

One thing I love about 5e is that with even a little investment a fighter can be within 1 or 2 points of a bard at persuasion and still make a good show of it. Stick a feat in and they can be better. This gives a lot of flexibility.

They can be pretty good with a feat, that's true - and a much better situation than 3/3.5e. They have a hard time competing with class features (beyond just expertise), and of course charisma is a primary stat for bards.

Chances are at least at some tables a Bard will forego intimidation in the first place. Of course, with jack of all trades, even a bard that skips it will be on par with a fighter with proficiency (or better) for some time. An 18 Cha bard with no proficiency is still managing a check of +5 at level 2; a fighter is only matching that with a rather heavy investment in charisma.

 

[TheSword]

They can be pretty good with a feat, that's true - and a much better situation than 3/3.5e. They have a hard time competing with class features (beyond just expertise), and of course charisma is a primary stat for bards.

Chances are at least at some tables a Bard will forego intimidation in the first place. Of course, with jack of all trades, even a bard that skips it will be on par with a fighter with proficiency (or better) for some time. An 18 Cha bard with no proficiency is still managing a check of +5 at level 2; a fighter is only matching that with a rather heavy investment in charisma.

I usually see bards as a bit MAD unless they plan on just spell casting but let’s assume they have Cha 18 at level 6 for a +7 to persuasion if proficient.

A level 6 Cha 13 fighter who takes Skill Expert feat for +1 Cha now has +8 to the check and is slightly better than the bard.

Now sure the bard can also specialise in persuasion and use their own expertise in that to get back to a +10 score though now. But a fighter with minimal stat investment and a single feat (of which they get plenty) can go toe to toe with an average bard at persuasion skill checks. That’s a nice thought. Bards no longer automatically have the right to dominate every conversation (even if you think they did in the first place).

 

[ph0rk]

(of which they get plenty)

they get two more feats than the bard, and the first of those doesn't show up until level 6, at which point the bard can do things like take a dead person's face or learn two spells from any list, or gain a minimum roll on charisma checks of 10 or cast Command where charmed creatures autofail their save.

And the bard already has two doses of expertise at this point, too.


If the Bard happens to want to do the same sort of thing the fighter does and builds for it, the Bard will be better, with fewer resources invested, too.

A Bard that doesn't care about intimidation will likely manage a check of +5 at level 6, and the fighter can surpass this with feat investment. A bard that does care? The fighter will be behind because they won't have the charisma, nor will they have many synergistic class features.

 

[TheSword]

they get two more feats than the bard, and the first of those doesn't show up until level 6, at which point the bard can do things like take a dead person's face or learn two spells from any list, or gain a minimum roll on charisma checks of 10 or cast Command where charmed creatures autofail their save.

And the bard already has two doses of expertise at this point, too.


If the Bard happens to want to do the same sort of thing the fighter does and builds for it, the Bard will be better, with fewer resources invested, too.

Ok. I’ll agree to disagree. I think you’re arguing across me. I’m not saying a specialist bard can’t be better at persuasion checks than a fighter. I’m saying a fighter can creature a character with minimal investment that can be satisfying and successful in areas a bard would normally dominate. Being able to imitate a person face or take 10 on a check doesn’t change that.

 

[ph0rk]

Ok. I’ll agree to disagree. I think you’re arguing across me. I’m not saying a specialist bard can’t be better at persuasion checks than a fighter. I’m saying a fighter can creature a character with minimal investment that can be satisfying and successful in areas a bard would normally dominate. Being able to imitate a person face or take 10 on a check doesn’t change that.

I'm with you but for the minimal investment part. A feat (even a half feat) is not a minimal investment, fighters don't have infinite feats. Additionally, Skill Expert can only be taken once, and if they use the double prof bonus on intimidation they can't use it for investigation, perception, or athletics. They might have access to Prodigy, but now we are using two feats, and that is a rather high investment early game.

And, even with that investment a Bard can and will still dominate in that arena simply because they have a better check and class features that support it. In a scenario where there is no bard or the bard doesn't care about that particular style of social stuff, awesome. In a scenario where the bard wants to do the same stuff? Problems, because the bard will aways be better at it.

I can easily see a bard going for a cha of 20 by level 4, which means an intimidation check of +11 if they want it at level 6. Even with Skill Expert, the fighter can't touch that, and that's before spells and class features (other than expertise) come into play.

It's akin to a dex fighter with the criminal background and thieve's tools. No rogue? Awesome, at least someone can open locks. With a rogue that took expertise in thieve's tools? Not as awesome.

 

[Maxperson]

If the power imbalance between characters in the same campaigns
is as great as that between Captain Marvel and Daredevil, it is natural for the player of the Daredevil to get bored as their contributions to many challenges are negligible. Further, it takes a great deal of work on the part of the DM to make special stories for the Daredevil character not seem patronizing.

It would be better if such a power disparity wasn't possible between player characters.

Having played in that sort of game, I can say that this is entirely dependent on perspective. If you think you aren't going to have fun, you won't. If you don't care about the guy with more power and ignore him, you can go out and do what you're going to do, impacting the world significantly. You don't need to be the most powerful to do so.

Going back to the superhero example, the Avengers has everything from Thor and Hulk to Black Widow and Hawkeye. The latter to contribute a great deal, sometimes even saving the former, because they are still exceptional.

My fun isn't dependent on everyone being at the same power level. I don't allow it to be.