What 5e got wrong

[Tony Vargas]

I love the Warlock model. I'll be honest, I wish all of the caster classes had been built similarly to the Warlock chassis. I think it would be a great model for a Warblade/Swordsage type class as well.

Obviously, that would have failed to properly evoke the feel of past editions, a big 5e goal. Maybe there could have been a module to help convert neo-Vancian to short-rest/Warlock-style progression, similar to the spell point system? Though, obviously, it'd have to be more involved.

Heh. Taking the idea seriously for a sec, I think the main hurdle would be 5e's insistence on narrative coherence - there'd have to be some reason that they can only do it X/day, for instance

You mean like why the non-magical Berserker can only Rage n/day? No, there's really not much of a hurdle, there.

Pathfinder has a large number of X/day abilities on non-magical classes, with nary a peep of a hint of damage to anyone's verisimilitude. Presentation, presentation, presentation, I think.

I don't think it's 'presentation,' no. There are other, more meaningful, differences. For instance, how many of those non-magical PF classes with X/day abilities are Tier 1? It's easy to ignore a non-magical X/day or n/rest ability when it doesn't do much, and the class that has it is still being consistently overshadowed. Once the ability is spectacular or even merely useful and the class more nearly balanced, it gets noticed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I love the Warlock model. I'll be honest, I wish all of the caster classes had been built similarly to the Warlock chassis. I think it would be a great model for a Warblade/Swordsage type class as well.

I'm a little over-cautions about applying the Warlock model to every friggin' thing, but I think that if you want a martial system that mirrors spellcasting closely, that would not be a bad starting point.

Low-magic in the sense of low-magic-items, certainly, and even low-magic in the sense of no-full-caster PCs (you loose half the PC options, but you still have Paladins to offer some support, and a range of other contributions from the remaining half-casters, and the technically magical Monk). It's not exactly necessary for an FRPG to handle a complete lack of magic, certainly - except that 5e is trying to broaden the range of playstyles it supports to at least encompass those past editions did, and low-/no-magic is one of 'em.

I think it's even fine to do a party limited to only the Barbarian (Berserker), Fighter (Champion), Fighter (Battle Master), Rogue (Thief), and Rogue (Assassin). It's a narrow suite of options, but a party made of those five characters would, I believe, handle the challenges 5e throws at it just fine. A combination of fast combat, an emphasis on managing the context for an encounter (ambushes, scouts, etc.), the common availability of Healing Potions, and the suite of combat options available to all characters make this a very viable party.

The 5e PH offers 0 non-magical classes, and 5 non-magical sub-classes out of 38. All 5 of those sub-classes are DPR-focused ('Strikers'), they are virtually choiceless compared to the unprecedented flexibility of the neo-Vancian caster classes. The 4e PH offered 4 non-magical classes out of 8, and 8 non-magical builds out of 18, covering 3 out of 4 roles (the most dispensable role, Controller, being the one left out). All 8 classes were robustly balanced and only the Wizard had a little more choice/flexibility than the others. It's hard to characterize that as anything but 'better.' Indeed, even if you would say 'did it better,' you'd be guilty of a profound understatement.

I think you under-estimate the "builds" of 5e.

I also think you put too much emphasis on combat roles. There is no critical need in 5e for a class or a character to be a "leader" or a "controller" or a "defender" (or a "striker!"). Party balance doesn't rely on having individual characters dedicated to these positions. While each class or subclass might have a role it fires "best" on, there's no need to particularly orient your character to that role, and there's no requirement to ignore the other roles in favor of just one. Indeed, over-specialized characters don't often fare particularly well in 5e's more dynamic/swingy atmosphere. From round-to-round, you might play your Assassin Rogue as a leader (drops a healing potion, use a healer's kit, uses the Help action), a striker (ambush with sneak attacks!), a defender (get in the doorway and Dodge), or a controller (use an attack to shove prone, drop a vial of alchemist's fire, etc). Given that combat is brief in 5e, any given round might be best addressed by doing any of the above, and with Bounded Accuracy, your ability to do these things is solid, even if you aren't specialized.

The fact that a Champion Fighter's class features help her deal buttloads of damage in no way stops that Champion Fighter from doing other things.

Which isn't to say that more diversity wouldn't be appreciated, just that it's not necessary. There's nothing 5e is missing when it comes to a non-magical party, nothing that prevents it from realizing that reality. That adequacy is just that - adequacy. There's plenty of room to dive more deeply. But there's nothing missing.

The fact that 5e manages to allow for any character to adequately cover any combat role in a typical 5e combat (short as they are) is part of why I think 5e does this better. Rather than specifying that it's Class X's job to heal and Class Y's job to deal damage, they leave the decision as a tactical one for the individual player on each of the PC's turns - does your party need healing? Do you need to take out an enemy quick? Do you need to protect a vulnerable party member? How do you do that in the moment? Did you come prepared? Can you risk doing something you're maybe not the best at for a round or two?

More than once in a 5e game, I've uttered the term "Tankmage," when a character with d6 HD who hasn't been hit as much as the main melee machines takes over for a round or two on one of the fronts. 5e is set up well to allow moments like that to happen. If that happened in a 4e game, it would've been bad news, a sign of the defenders or controllers not "doing their job," not something that a Striker would have cause to worry about or think about doing themselves (and not something that, in a 10-round 4e combat, the striker would really be able to keep up for long enough to matter much anyway).

I like that 5e makes elements like that systemic, so that emergent gameplay is that players ask themselves "I know I'm a thief, but maybe I need to be protecting our Paladin's back more than stabbing this round? Maybe? Can I?" That immediately trumps 4e's "roles" system, and gives me gameplay I value much more.

While five character class options (each with probably 2-3 build options apiece, depending), there's not a lot of diversity out of the gate. And that's something that I think should be remedied (and given the battlerager and the banneret and the mastermind and the swashbuckler, it's something that it seems like WotC is paying attention to). But I think it would be missing some of 5e's most remarkable design elements to characterize the out-of-the-box capability of 5e doing a non-magical party as inadequate. It's rather amazing what putting healing potions on the equipment list can do in a world of 3-round combats.

 

[TwoSix]

The fact that 5e manages to allow for any character to adequately cover any combat role in a typical 5e combat (short as they are) is part of why I think 5e does this better. Rather than specifying that it's Class X's job to heal and Class Y's job to deal damage, they leave the decision as a tactical one for the individual player on each of the PC's turns - does your party need healing? Do you need to take out an enemy quick? Do you need to protect a vulnerable party member? How do you do that in the moment? Did you come prepared? Can you risk doing something you're maybe not the best at for a round or two?

Don't forget feats. Healer + Inspiring Leader is far more mitigation than a Life Cleric can pump out until mid-to-high levels, and Sentinel makes any character with decent AC into a passable ground controller. Not the vortex of pain that a 4e Fighter was, but it'll stop a monster from getting to the squishes for a round or two, which is more than enough when fights only last from 3-5 rounds.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think it's even fine to do a party limited to only the Barbarian (Berserker), Fighter (Champion), Fighter (Battle Master), Rogue (Thief), and Rogue (Assassin). It's a narrow suite of options, but a party made of those five characters would, I believe, handle the challenges 5e throws at it just fine.

It could handle straightforward combat challenges, as long as they face no set-backs, and whatever challenges can be answered by a high-DC skill check in whichever skills the Rogues have Expertise in.

A combination of fast combat, an emphasis on managing the context for an encounter (ambushes, scouts, etc.), and the suite of combat options available to all characters make this a very viable party.

It could be effective for a while: it has lots of DPR and some exploration skills. So it could prowl around, getting surprise, winning quick victories, and evading contact once out of HD - for a while. But they couldn't cope well with even seemingly small setbacks, like being surprised instead of gaining surprised, or a few good rolls dropping one or two of them unexpectedly and a fight dragging out as a result. So not really viable. The DM could avoid those sorts of things by narrowoing the scope of the campaign and nature of the challenges enough, of course, that's always an option, no matter the party.

the common availability of Healing Potions,

Obviously not applicable in a no-magic game.

I think you under-estimate the "builds" of 5e.

There just not a lot of customizeability or flexibility in the 5 PH non-magical sub-classes ('builds'). You have two very combat-focused tough multi-attack-DPR 'builds,' two opportunisti-SA-DPR skill specialist builds, and one daily-Rage-DPR tough slightly-wildernessy 'build.'

I also think you put too much emphasis on roles. There is no critical need in 5e for a class or a character to be a "leader" or a "controller" or a "defender" (or a "striker!"). Party balance doesn't rely on having individual characters dedicated to these positions.

Sure, 'Role' and 'build' are defunct terms, and party 'balance' is subtler/more-DM-involved, maybe even as much art as science. But there are contributions that every party needs, and they're spread out over the classes. DPR is one of those contributions. Exceptional checks in a skill specialty or few are another. And those are all the significant contributions the few non-magical sub-classes have to offer. But, there are more contributions needed, more than just the absence of the other 3 non-Striker 'Roles' would imply.

The fact that a Champion Fighter's class features help her deal buttloads of damage in no way stops that Champion Fighter from doing other things.

The inability to do other things well enough to be useful or viable doing them is what stops her. In theory, that's some sort of balance or differentiation. You can hit things really hard and stack up crazy DPR, therefore you don't have to be able to do anything else, others will cover those functions.

Which isn't to say that more diversity wouldn't be appreciated, just that it's not necessary. There's nothing 5e is missing when it comes to a non-magical party, nothing that prevents it from realizing that reality. That adequacy is just that - adequacy. There's plenty of room to dive more deeply. But there's nothing missing.

There is obviously a great deal missing when it comes to non-magical options. Non-magical classes, for instance. All the important functions a party needs apart from DPR and Expertise. In-play flexibility. Mechanical coverage of non-caster character concepts (RP coverage being trivial, you can RP any concept, even if the game offered only one class). Whether what's missing is 'necessary' or what little there is 'adequate,' can be chalked up to opinion or PoV or context.

But, I think we can agree that 4 non-magical classes is more than 0, 8 builds out of 18 more than 5 out of 38, and 3 out of 4 formal roles more coverage than 2 out of 6* or 9 or however many sorts of definable contributions may be present/needful in 5e.

The fact that 5e manages to allow for any character to adequately cover any combat role in a typical 5e combat (short as they are) is part of why I think 5e does this better. Rather than specifying that it's Class X's job to heal and Class Y's job to deal damage, they leave the decision as a tactical one for the individual player on each of the PC's turns - does your party need healing? Do you need to take out an enemy quick? Do you need to protect a vulnerable party member? How do you do that in the moment? Did you come prepared? Can you risk doing something you're maybe not the best at for a round or two?

More than once in a 5e game, I've uttered the term "Tankthief," when a character with d6 HD who hasn't been hit as much as the main melee machines takes over for a round or two on one of the fronts.

Y'mean the d8 HD Rogue when you say 'thief?' Actually, it's funny that one thing 5e did map almost precisely from 4e was the relative hp/level of the classes d10/6, d8/5, d6/4. CON bonuses throw it off completely, but the base is there, no more d4 HD classes, rogue & bard 'promoted' to d8.

5e is set up well to allow moments like that to happen. If that happened in a 4e game, it would've been bad news, a sign of the defenders or controllers not "doing their job,"

No, 4e did not assume that having a Defender meant no one else ever got attacked. In fact, if that happened, they were 'doing their job too well,' since other classes did have hps & Surge resources for a reason. Not that 5e's relative lack of 'defender' mechanics is all that relevant: the all-non-magical PH-only party doesn't lack defenderish capacity to any greater degree than the party pulling from the whole PH, nor even the all-magical PH-only part.

But I think it would be missing some of 5e's most remarkable design elements to characterize the out-of-the-box capability of 5e doing a non-magical party as inadequate. It's rather amazing what putting healing potions on the equipment list can do in a world of 3-round combats.

If you need healing potions to pull of a no-magic setting, the system has failed to support that style of campaign. And if the game can only handle 3-round combats, it's failed to support a range of playstyles. I'll accept that 5e hasn't yet succeeded in the former, but hold out hope that it's only a matter of time. The latter, however, I don't think should be the case, 5e is heavily tuned towards fast combat, but the DM is sufficiently empowered to construct and manage the flow of more challenging combats to allow them to go more than 3 rounds without the whole thing completely falling apart (though, doing so without in-combat healing available to the party would be too much to ask).


Here's a thought experiment on 'adequacy.'

If the PH had an equal number of magic- and non-magic-using sub-classes, would the magical side be 'adequate.'

Let's get even more specific. To match the 5 non-magical sub-classes (Berserker, Champion, Battlemaster, Assassin & Thief), we'll posit these 5 magical sub-classes: Totem Barbarian, Eldtrich Knight, Arcane Trickster, Hunter & Beastmaster.

That 'adequately' cover everything you'd like to do with magical PCs?

 

[Awesome Adam]

Why should D&D well support a play style that will fully ignores half the classes and all of the magic items that are part of the core D&D experience ?

You are trying to impose huge limitations on a game that wasn't designed to accommodate them, and then complaining that it doesn't leave you many options that fit your narrow requirements.

 

[OldSkoolRPG]

I don't think it's 'presentation,' no. There are other, more meaningful, differences. For instance, how many of those non-magical PF classes with X/day abilities are Tier 1? It's easy to ignore a non-magical X/day or n/rest ability when it doesn't do much, and the class that has it is still being consistently overshadowed. Once the ability is spectacular or even merely useful and the class more nearly balanced, it gets noticed.

Barbarian's get Rage, Swashbuckler gets Charmed Life, Brawler gets Knockout. All three are definitely Tier 1 classes and all of those abilities are non-magical x/day. Rage is one of if not the most single most powerful x/day abilities there is and it is non-magical.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Don't forget feats. Healer + Inspiring Leader is far more mitigation than a Life Cleric can pump out until mid-to-high levels, and Sentinel makes any character with decent AC into a passable ground controller. Not the vortex of pain that a 4e Fighter was, but it'll stop a monster from getting to the squishes for a round or two, which is more than enough when fights only last from 3-5 rounds.

Yeah, I minimized them because they're strictly "optional," but if you opt-in, there's even more support for non-casters.

But they couldn't cope well with even seemingly small setbacks, like being surprised instead of gaining surprised, or a few good rolls dropping one or two of them unexpectedly and a fight dragging out as a result. So not really viable.

I don't agree. I think they could cope well with being surprised or having a few PC's drop. That's what short rests are for! (and minimizing the chance that this would happen is what you have two rogues for! ) They've also got some of the highest AC's and HP totals in the game and the potential for amazing Dex bonuses, mitigating the effects of surprise. The party would need to be comfortable with falling back and playing cautiously when they stumble, and smart strategy would go a long way, but they could take a few flubs on the chin and be fine.

(healing potions are) Obviously not applicable in a no-magic game.

I'd dispute this point. Healing potions can be made with herbalism kits and are on the standard equipment list. They're no more necessarily "magical" than antitoxins.

The inability to do other things well enough to be useful or viable doing them is what stops her.

It would if she could do no other things well enough to be useful or viable, but 5e is designed so that every character can be useful and viable in any role (even if it's a bare minimum provided by an item or an action in combat). Bounded accuracy follows through with 4e's philosophy of having broadly competent characters that almost always have some chance to succeed on what they try to do and they don't need to constantly chase an escalating target number to do that.

The latter, however, I don't think should be the case, 5e is heavily tuned towards fast combat, but the DM is sufficiently empowered to construct and manage the flow of more challenging combats to allow them to go more than 3 rounds without the whole thing completely falling apart (though, doing so without in-combat healing available to the party would be too much to ask).

It's the latter bit that is the important one. 5e is designed so that in-combat healing isn't a vital element, and quick combats are part of that design. Slower combats make in-combat healing more important - and even there, an herbalism kit and some healing potions sets you up to adequately restore actions to downed characters (which is the ultimate purpose of in-combat healing).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Barbarian's get Rage, Swashbuckler gets Charmed Life, Brawler gets Knockout. All three are definitely Tier 1 classes and all of those abilities are non-magical x/day. Rage is one of if not the most single most powerful x/day abilities there is and it is non-magical.

One really good - even broken - ability doesn't make you Tier 1. It buys your way into Tier 4, Tier 3 if you're not otherwise deficient.

But, if it's not that such powers fly under the radar, why is Pathfinder not being regularly attacked for such 'narrative incoherence' or whatever neologism is being trumpeted atm to make non-magical x/day abilities sound unacceptable?

Why should D&D well support a play style that will fully ignores half the classes and all of the magic items that are part of the core D&D experience ?

Same reason it should support such oddities as CaW or dungeon-crawls or whatever: some past edition or other supported it (and/or fans of that edition at least /tried/ to use it that way).

Low-magic, and even no-magic campaigns have been attempted more or less from the beginning, even if they haven't often been workable.

I don't agree. I think they could cope well with being surprised or having a few PC's drop. That's what short rests are for! (and minimizing the chance that this would happen is what you have two rogues for!

I'm sure I could imagine ways they might, too. But, lack of in-combat healing to stand up a fallen PC, for instance, can turn an ordinary combat into a 'death spiral,' as loss of the PC shifts the numeric advantage to the enemy, leading to another dropped PC, further stacking the odds against them.

It's really just like the all-striker delves of early 4e, or the Nova tactics of 3.0 - it works well as long as it works, but when it doesn't, it's disastrous.

I'd dispute this point. Healing potions can be made with herbalism kits and are on the standard equipment list. They're no more necessarily "magical" than antitoxins.

That's probably an acceptable 're-skinning' of the traditional healing potion (or maybe projecting the traditionally magical healing potion of all prior eds on 5e was a little unconscious re-skinning on my part).

It would if she could do no other things well enough to be useful or viable, but 5e is designed so that every character can be useful and viable in any role

No, it didn't. Checks, sure. Other contributions, not even close.

5e is designed so that in-combat healing isn't a vital element, and quick combats are part of that design.

Yes, quick combats are part of the design, but no, in-combat healing is as vital as ever, because quick combats can go wrong quickly, and you need to be able to recover from that just as quickly.

And, while in-combat healing is perhaps the most obvious contribution such a party would be lacking, it's far from the only one.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'll concentrate on the points where we disagree below, but I think we agree more than we disagree.

...
But, lack of in-combat healing to stand up a fallen PC, for instance, can turn an ordinary combat into a 'death spiral,' as loss of the PC shifts the numeric advantage to the enemy, leading to another dropped PC, further stacking the odds against them.
...
Yes, quick combats are part of the design, but no, in-combat healing is as vital as ever, because quick combats can go wrong quickly, and you need to be able to recover from that just as quickly.

And, while in-combat healing is perhaps the most obvious contribution such a party would be lacking, it's far from the only one.

Just thinking through this thought experiment: the Fighter/Fighter/Rogue/Rogue/Barbarian party with no in-combat healing (though we both agree that healing potions are something a non-magical party might still be comfortable with). They get ambushed by a Medium-difficulty encounter. The enemy uses fairly optimal tactics, and so they render a lightly-armored rogue PC unconscious in the first round (possibly the thief, since the assassin's combat abilities are mostly overcome by getting ambushed in the first place). Most encounters, they won't be able to drop more than one PC, even during a well-coordinated surprise round. Even at Hard, or Deadly, knocking out two PC's (three of whom have HP's well into the double digits from 1st level) would be a very exceptionally auspicious start!

The rest of the party goes nova and ends the combat after 1-2 rounds. 3 if the party whiffs a lot. You might get another PC dropping, especially if they didn't start the combat fully healed, but the party will likely emerge victorious even with their unconscious allies. The nova potential FAR outweighs the death-spiral, and can even be applied defensively (of of the fighters Action Surges to take the Dodge action, for instance), negating hits that would otherwise happen.

It takes a downed PC ~6 rounds to be fully dead on average, so there's little chance of permanent death (not impossible, just not "average").

Afterwards, the party retreats and takes a Short Rest.

I can see a few ways this can go south, but mostly it would rely on low-level characters and really, REALLY bad luck. These ways would affect a party with a cleric in it equally - the cleric is the one made unconscious during that surprise round with fairly optimal tactics.

Yeah, if the entire party is ambushed three times between rests by Deadly encounters and enemies who concentrate on killing unconscious characters, they won't make it, but neither would a party WITH a dedicated healer.

 

[OldSkoolRPG]

One really good - even broken - ability doesn't make you Tier 1. It buys your way into Tier 4, Tier 3 if you're not otherwise deficient.

But, if it's not that such powers fly under the radar, why is Pathfinder not being regularly attacked for such 'narrative incoherence' or whatever neologism is being trumpeted atm to make non-magical x/day abilities sound unacceptable?

If you reread my post which you quoted I never said those abilities made those classes Tier 1. I pointed out that they are Tier 1 and have those abilities.

As for "narrative incoherence" I have no idea what you are talking about. I was just pointing out that such powers definitely do not fly under the radar in PF.