Not really. I've built test characters of just about every class and that pretty much described all of them, though some tended to focus more on control than damage for offense like the Wizard. I'm not really impressed with the mechanics for tank-style characters or healer/support in 5E, and I don't play characters who focus on non-combat activities at the expense of combat in any role playing system.
Creating test characters and running them through BS white room scenarios isn't playing the game. No matter how a character is designed, every situation that arises in actual play has the potential to be different in some way. I suggest actually playing more and theory crafting less.
I've never had to change how I play, and am not inclined to start. I also think the the game is designed against me or in conflict with me. It's more of a letdown situation. D&D is still a fighting game, especially organized play, 5E is just a somewhat less interesting fighting game.
Its the people that make a social game such as D&D interesting. Boring people-boring game. 4E wasn't exactly my cup of tea mechanically but I had a blast playing a bugbear fighter in my buddy's campaign. No system is perfect, especially for everyone. In an organized play setting, the system is what it is. Make the best of it that you can or do something else.
I wasn't talking about the class in general, just my approach to it. The Barbarian I built had 16 Con, 14 Dex at level 1 and I had no intention ever of improving his defenses, going for max offense instead. Wearing medium armor(after I can afford it) and no shield, not being bear totem, and granting the enemy advantage to attack me at every opportunity, I'm really not that sturdy, not so I can soak 3+ enemies turn after turn.
The barbarian is not a glass cannon class. You made deliberate choices to make it so. Optimization is all about what works, so maybe playing a bit to learn the system better would give you a better handle on what works and what doesn't.
Surrender, man. It's impossible to discuss on 5e in this forum. Too many fanboys that refuse to see your arguments and live in their magical past of 1-2e.
I'm gonna have to go Die Hard on this one. If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem. Stop being part of the problem and put the other guy back on.
I agree that a DM who runs his game should be up front about the type of game he will run, but I don't agree that 5e D&D is a heavily combat focused game out of the box. Only 10 pages of the players handbook are about combat. Sure, many of the spells are about combat, but many others are utility and non-combat spells, which is the same for feats and classes/races in general. Much more of the book focuses on non-combat actions and the entire idea of playing the role of an imaginary character.
Sure, original D&D was born from tactical war gaming, but very quickly Gygax and Arneson started to veer away from that direction. The game became a roleplaying game rather than a combat simulation, and that has crossed all editions. The direction that 5e took, has D&D veering even more away from combat, so I do see how combat centric players (including casualoblivion, the op) have a valid gripe against it. Comparing 4e players handbook with 5e will show how much less combat centric 5e is. In 4e, most of the powers (which take up a huge percentage of the book) are combat based. If combat is the name of the game, 4e is probably much better served to scratch that itch. 5e makes combat a part of the game, but not necessarily the focus.
In a way, I am a little disappointed that 5e does not provide the option to become more like 4e (although I don't necessarily want to play D&D that way). I understand why WotC did what they did when they created 5e, and I feel like they are appealing to a wider audience now, but they did pretty much shut out the most hard-core combat simulationists/tacticians. Moving forward, those who are in that camp will need to adapt or just play 4e (or other games that are more simulationist/tactical). I'm really interested to see how casualoblivion approaches his experience with 5e.
The type of game that you can run with 5E can vary greatly. As far as the rules are concerned, the game is largely combat focused. Mainly because of all the detail that went into figuring XP for combat encounters and the hand waving advice to treat non-combat encounters as combat. Non-combat play doesn't need many rules but a more neutral approach to awarding XP other than defeating encounters would go a long way towards balancing all three pillars.
Of course the real proof is in the adventure material. A good adventure will not assume that any scenario will be engaged in a particular way. Ideally there should be multiple approaches to most situations with some approaches being more effective in certain situations than others.
The existence of trap options imho is really lame. If we all agree that being a monk that has forsworn all use of weapons is a cool concept (and it is, and it's a pretty common archetype in fiction), it should be just as mechanically supported/effective as 'being a wizard'
Any reasonable character people turn up with should be fully playable. Just give the guy who just uses his fists whatever bonuses he's missing out on. No reason to gimp the dude in support of his cool concept.
I hate it when people say 'choosing mechanically sub-optimal choices is an example good RP' No it's not! Those two things shouldn't even be related.
Things must have meaning, else why have them.
I don't want to use weapons, I just want to do damage as if I were using them.
I don't want to wear armor. I want the freedom and mobility of being unencumbered but I want the same protection.
I don't want to ride a horse, I just want to move as fast as one.
You know what? PC's sent to the 9 hells also want ice water.
The monk class happens to get ALL of that, just not every bit of it at level 1. Monks are masters of unarmed martial arts. This takes time and patience. Want to do more damage RIGHT NOW? Use a weapon.
I would also like to point out that a vow is meaningless if there are no actual consequences to keeping it. Its like taking a vow of poverty then spending every copper on gear upgrades- your vow is meaningless.
Here's my problem. I play TTRPGs to both kick butt and roleplay, or specifically to roleplay buttkickers(Samuel L. Jackson style, for example). If I only wanted to kick butt, I'd play Final Fantasy instead. What makes me want more player control as opposed to DM control isn't so much esoteric theories or roleplaying philosophy, but practical concerns. In order to roleplay a butt kicker, I need to be able to take actions with confidence. The less control and less transparency I have as a player, the less I can act with confidence, which either knocks me out of character or paralyzes me to the point of inaction.
Those who are afraid to do unless they are guaranteed to succeed aren't butt kickers. Butt kickers take the risks that the meek are afraid to try.
This week I played in an AL game with a new (for me) DM. He did a great job and I had a lot of fun, but at once point I had used my movement to get next to a rogue who had already been wounded by a ghast, so that I could use Sentinel the next time the ghast attacked her. The DM rolled "Insight" for the ghast and it turned to attack me instead.
Now...how exactly would the ghast know I have this "Sentinel" ability? Metagaming aside, I hadn't actually used it (or indeed even made an attack) in that fight up to that point. I think the DM was just figuring, "This fight is going to be over too fast if the paladin gets to Divine Smite as a reaction, and then gets another DS on his turn..."
So, in effect, he was neutralizing my powergaming for the sake of the story. And I have to admit I was disappointed I didn't get to WTFPWN the ghast. (He hit me, I failed Con saving throw and was paralyzed.)
Is that a table you'd want to play at? Would you have argued with the DM? Not return the next week? Or would you think, "That's cool...I trust the DM to keep us on the edge of our seats and tell a good story."
I would say that for the ghast to make this assessment would require its action for the round. Getting to make this insight as a free action is kind of crappy. In that case I would push for PCs being able to look for hidden opponents in combat without requiring an action either.
I prefer a game in which, once a check is framed, if the player succeeds then his/her intent is realised. Another way of putting this would be - action resolution is binding on all participants, not just an input into the GM's ulimately unilateral decision-making about the content of the fiction.
This is something I can agree with. Once the odds are determined and the dice are rolled, the result should be accepted by all. The DM is responsible for determining IF a roll is called for, and assigning the difficulty of such a roll. Once put in the hands of fate let the dice fall where they may.
