D&D 5E (2024) The 4 Classes I Would Not Play 1-20 In 5.5

[AlViking]

Guidance at low levels.

Functionally its skill expertise in all trained skills and proficiency in all spells. Kinda/sorta.

Guidance is handy but it just adds 1d4 to a check. Not sure what it replaces a rogues jack of all trades thing.

 

[Zardnaar]

Zardnaar's analyses tend to be very focused on combat capability (not just whiteroom DPR, broader than that) rather than utility and flexibility, so definitely bear that in mind when reading them. I don't think that makes them valueless at all, but anyone's analysis is going to come from a specific place, and it's good to know what that place is.


A typical example might be some kind of infiltration into a fortress or castle in order to scout or take something or be in position to do something (like drop the drawbridge and sabotage the ).

A Rogue attempting this is going to, depending on what exactly is happening, and depending on the DM, be likely to be making an from a few to potentially dozens of checks, whether they're Stealth, Athletics, Deception (potentially with a bonus from the Disguise Kit though it's unclear if that really works in 2024, it'd be a cruel DM who didn't allow it), Persuasion, Slight of Hand, Thieves’ Tools, etc. etc.

Because of the way D&D works, every one of those is a binary pass/fail. Now it's often up to the DM to interpret that, but my long experience in D&D is that easily 90% of DMs read a fail as a total failure, like you fail at Deception, the guard doesn't just become suspicious or decide to come with you, they immediately draw on you and you're in combat. Perhaps that's a DMing issue but it's incredibly common one. Climbing and Stealth check fails can be particularly bad. A kind DM or one who doesn't want to make people rely on magic might allows you to get away with a very few checks, but again, a lot of DMs will be asking for multiple climb checks to climb a single wall (certainly if it's tall enough that you can't scale it in one round - and I've also seen a lot of DMs object when they find out exactly how fast PCs can technically climb in 5E), and god knows how many Stealth checks to sneak around.

Casters using spells like Fly, Spider Climb, Invisibility, Mage Hand, Transmute Rock and so on can often just skip to the end point of these plans, or skip like, 80% of the checks involved. There can be synergy, where spells are cast for the Rogue's benefit, but my experience is that you're lucky if the Rogue doesn't just feel like beneficiary of the caster.

Arcane Trickster isn't really an option, it doesn't offer much because its spells are so low-level, and imo suggesting it isn't very helpful, because the Rogue typically wants to be a Rogue, not a really bad Sorcerer about 1/3rd of their level. They do get invisible Mage Hand at least!

I feel like from how you're discussing this, you're looking at this from a "single-player" perspective, where you're in charge of all the characters, and those characters operate in perfect harmony and people always pursue the most resource-efficient solution (rather than the one that sounds like it's going to work best). But that's not how most D&D groups operate.

As for "not preparing and casting other spells", sure but that's rarely an issue. Sorcerers/Bards/Warlocks cause less of a problem because they have fixed spells and can't change them frequently, but if they did pick a spell that's good for this, they're more likely to want to use it.

More combats objective. This spell deals xyz damage erg its better than this spell that deals ABC.

I doline teamwork as well but it's party composition and player depending.

I'm the guy who said that the best 5.5 meta is the spellcasters focus on controlling and let the martials deal with things.

Alot here still think its 3.5 and aren't actually playing 5.5. And fireballs a great spells (lol).

Two of us have played above level 10 and a third seems to be noticing similar things eg the new champions really good.

 

[ECMO3]

I would only play a Wizard in D&D if I got a promise from the DM that I could regularly find new spells, even if just scrolls or through downtime. Without that guarantee, I’d pick something else for sure.

Even if you can find them, finding time to put them into your book can be difficult in some campaigns.

 

[Zardnaar]

Even if you can find them, finding time to put them into your book can be difficult in some campaigns.

When we played CoS we had a lot of cash compared to most 5E games.

And nothing to spend it on.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Meanwhile if a DM hard nerfs rogues skills, there's no guarantee they won't do the same with spells.

Oh there is though.

And this is something I've seen reliably across virtually every DM I've ever played D&D with, and the same occurs in actual plays I read/watch/listen to as well. D&D DMs reliably treat spells far better than skills in practice - simply because the utility ones don't involve rolls for the most part (a rare exception being Disguise Self).

You're saying "hard nerfs" like it's a conscious decision, but it isn't, it's an unconscious behaviour, where some DMs just ask for really high numbers of rolls, sometimes not really following guidance, often acting more like this was 3E (which had some very bad guidance and ideas on rolls, it seems like the designers didn't understand that compound rolls were more likely to result in failure than a single roll, even with a penalty - Take 10 and Take 20 mitigated some of that but acted more to hide a fundamental problem), often asking for multiple rolls to achieve one single thing. You literally can't do that with utility spells.

Sure some of the same DMs might get into discussions about the limits of spells, but they're usually pretty well outlined by the rules, and the DMs tend to abide by those. If a spell has a 10 minute duration, the DM isn't going to suddenly insist it has a 1 minute one. But he may well call for six rolls where one would have done, and not even consider whether he was doing something wrong. And perhaps even be upset in some way if it was suggested he maybe should have called for fewer rolls.

But this goes back to the assumptions that the caster has exactly the right spell prepared, spell slots to cast it and also has other spells to make every other class obsolete. In practice it's just not something that I see.

For sure I don't see anything as extreme as "making every other class obsolete". But what I have seen is a lot of times where it was the case that it was simply better to use a spell in some dramatic and important situation, because the spell just short-circuited the problem. It's weirdly interesting to me that Shadowrun, of all damn games, managed to balance this - perhaps because of the modern technology involved, but I think in large part because spells have a cost which isn't just a slot, and can go wrong (most require a roll to cast IIRC), and "enemy casters" have like an entire suite of abilities there and are expected to be around, where that's never quite been the case in D&D. You can have a Mage there who is dedicated to doing sort of "breaking and entering" role, but you do need to dedicate yourself to it and you won't be flatly better, just situationally.

Only if there's a time constraint, in my experience. Otherwise, you try the free resource (rogue skill check) first.

Yeah I think that's often true. Time or risk - like if you're going to cause a massive alert if you nearly get caught (Rogues usually pretty good at getting away, one of the few classes that is), then it's often spell time.

Also, sometimes the spell has its own cost. If you're talking about the difference between Thieves' Tools and knock, for example, a Thieves' Tools check doesn't alert the entire dungeon to what you're doing.

Yes! I love Knock because of that. That's good design! There's a real trade-off. It's not "just better". It causes a huge damn problem! It's interesting to work around!

 

[AlViking]

Oh there is though.

And this is something I've seen reliably across virtually every DM I've ever played D&D with, and the same occurs in actual plays I read/watch/listen to as well. D&D DMs reliably treat spells far better than skills in practice - simply because the utility ones don't involve rolls for the most part (a rare exception being Disguise Self).

You're saying "hard nerfs" like it's a conscious decision, but it isn't, it's an unconscious behaviour, where some DMs just ask for really high numbers of rolls, sometimes not really following guidance, often acting more like this was 3E (which had some very bad guidance and ideas on rolls, it seems like the designers didn't understand that compound rolls were more likely to result in failure than a single roll, even with a penalty - Take 10 and Take 20 mitigated some of that but acted more to hide a fundamental problem), often asking for multiple rolls to achieve one single thing. You literally can't do that with utility spells.

Sure some of the same DMs might get into discussions about the limits of spells, but they're usually pretty well outlined by the rules, and the DMs tend to abide by those. If a spell has a 10 minute duration, the DM isn't going to suddenly insist it has a 1 minute one. But he may well call for six rolls where one would have done, and not even consider whether he was doing something wrong. And perhaps even be upset in some way if it was suggested he maybe should have called for fewer rolls.


For sure I don't see anything as extreme as "making every other class obsolete". But what I have seen is a lot of times where it was the case that it was simply better to use a spell in some dramatic and important situation, because the spell just short-circuited the problem. It's weirdly interesting to me that Shadowrun, of all damn games, managed to balance this - perhaps because of the modern technology involved, but I think in large part because spells have a cost which isn't just a slot, and can go wrong (most require a roll to cast IIRC), and "enemy casters" have like an entire suite of abilities there and are expected to be around, where that's never quite been the case in D&D. You can have a Mage there who is dedicated to doing sort of "breaking and entering" role, but you do need to dedicate yourself to it and you won't be flatly better, just situationally.

Every once in a while I've seen a caster save the day or bypass some threat. But it's not nearly as often as some people seem to claim. Meanwhile I've also seen clever play, a good persuasion check or just a smart approach also bypass threats. A caster regularly pulling an "We win" card out of their posterior just doesn't happen in any game I play. If they are, the DM figures out ways to counter it. The different classes have different strengths and weaknesses and many are not as flashy but still have a dramatic impact.

 

[Bravesteel25]

3. Rogue. Good at skills. New fighters and Bards hell even start clerics/druids/warlocks step on the rogues toes to much. Espicially at lower levels. Haven't been seeing to many rogues rolled up even in 5.0 last one was around Covid. They're the Gnomes of 5E.

Can you give some more detail on this?

 

[Zardnaar]

Can you give some more detail on this?

New fighters ability can sub for rogue if its clutch.

Druids and clerics and some Warlocks have access to guidance.

Bards have expertise.

 

[Mort]

Every once in a while I've seen a caster save the day or bypass some threat. But it's not nearly as often as some people seem to claim. Meanwhile I've also seen clever play, a good persuasion check or just a smart approach also bypass threats. A caster regularly pulling an "We win" card out of their posterior just doesn't happen in any game I play. If they are, the DM figures out ways to counter it. The different classes have different strengths and weaknesses and many are not as flashy but still have a dramatic impact.

It was MUCH more pronounced in 3e thanks to cheap scrolls and the spell system in general.

It's lessened in 5e, but if the DM doesn't control the pace of play (as in lets the party rests whenever they want, consequence free) then I've still seen it happen.

It also depends on how permissive the DM is with spells vs. skills. I've seen quite a few DMs give the stink eye to skill use (for example, imposing disadvantage left and right when they feel a roll should be "difficult") while giving magic a near total pass. It should really be the reverse, but I rarely see that.

 

[Remathilis]

The Four classes I would not play 1-20 in 5.5

1. Fighter
2. Wizard
3. Cleric
4. Rogue.