D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[doctorbadwolf]

There's no issue, as long as every character is distinct in both mechanical representation as well as the in-game reality corresponding to those mechanics.

It's perfectly fine, for example, to have a nature-cleric right alongside a druid. There just needs to be some objectively identifiable in-game reason for why they have different powers, and why the druid can't wear metal. You should never have a choice about which mechanics to fit to the character. You should be able to tell your DM all about your character's backstory, and your DM should be able to tell you 100%, without a doubt, whether that's a druid or a nature-cleric.

I think I might understand your general outlook slightly more now, but mostly because of that last line. You seem to be operating under the impression that the player's input regarding the character should mostly just be the concept, and the DM and the mechanics of the game should do the rest, where I believe strongly that the character should be as much the exclusive territory of the player as is practically possible, within whatever campaign restrictions exist for a given game.

Right now, the Ancients Paladin and the Ranger can both be used to represent nature revering protectors, whose devotion is rewarded with magical power. They both have a lot of potential out of combat utility, and can bring some serious hurt to their enemies. But they are mechanically distinct, because there are just naturally multiple ways to represent that character. And of course the Cleric is just a slightly more priestly Paladin, and I've always thought it should be more priestly in order to better distinguish it from the Paladin, and also because the priest who just isn't going to kill anyone, ever, and has never worn armor or swung a weapon is kinda harder than it ought to be to represeent well in the game.

But the other thing is, the mindset that values fewer options and as little overlap as possible leads to things like the druid never getting made, because there's a nature cleric. And that's a bad thing, because the druid better represents the concept than the cleric does, even though the nature cleric can represent the character fairly adequately.
But when you refuse to have overlap, or have multiple ways to represent a single concept, you miss out on the benefits of tailor made mechanics, which are great. In the end, I just think that the issues you raise are just vastly less important than players having solid representation of their characters, with mechanics that aren't being jury rigged, or reflavored, or whatever in order to pretty much represent the character.

When there are only three classes, yeah, there's never any doubt where a ranger sits (except that there will be, because some people think it's a fighter and others think it's a rogue, so, hey, maybe only two classes, eh?), but the ranger also isn't going to be terrible well represented, unless each class is complex enough that it might as well be a framework in which multiple classes exist.

And as we see with the 5e design and some of it's subclasses, some concepts end up as watered down versions of themselves because a subclass can't replace class features from the base class, and some concepts work best with mechanics that should be the central feature of a character. Of course that could be fixed by making subclasses a bigger percentage of the class than they generally are, but that's a whole other discussion.

IDK, this got ranty. Sorry. I guess I just disagree with your stance so fundamentally, and...just in every facet of it, that it's hard for me to even grok it very well.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think I might understand your general outlook slightly more now, but mostly because of that last line. You seem to be operating under the impression that the player's input regarding the character should mostly just be the concept, and the DM and the mechanics of the game should do the rest, where I believe strongly that the character should be as much the exclusive territory of the player as is practically possible, within whatever campaign restrictions exist for a given game.

Maybe I gave a bad example. Your class should be obvious to anyone who has read the rule book, not just the DM.

And I agree that the player should be free to make whatever character he or she wants, within the restrictions of the game, but I'm also saying that fluff is immutably linked with crunch. That is one of the major restrictions which exist for any given game. You can decide whatever fluff you want, and take the crunch which is the one true way of representing that fluff, or you could pick the crunch you want and work backward to figure out the fluff that gets you there.

The only thing the player can't do is to decide which fluff corresponds to which crunch. That's the job of the system. That's the reason we even have a system. The best the player can do, if no suitable class is available (on grounds of crunch or fluff), is to petition the DM to change the system. If you really want to use the druid mechanics, but the fluff says that druids are all wild hermits and you wanted to play a city rat, then the DM has the power to say that druidic magic can be taught in schools, even in big cities.

Remember, though, the DM has put a lot of work into building a campaign world that is both interesting and internally consistent. Some DMs might invite their players to help develop the campaign world, deciding how the world actually works, but that's the exception rather than the rule. And in the end, you still need to develop an objective in-game reason for why druids operate differently from nature-clerics, even if it's just the difference between which schools they attended.

Right now, the Ancients Paladin and the Ranger can both be used to represent nature revering protectors, whose devotion is rewarded with magical power.

Do rangers gain magical powers through devotion? Or do they gain spells because they just understand nature that well? And some of their spells replicate combat tricks, although they do so in an overtly magical way. I would almost consider the ranger to be a variant of sorcerer, in that regard. In any case, they don't gain their powers through devotion to a higher power; they don't have a code which, if willingly violated, may cause them to lose their magic.

There's definite gray area, granted, but they seem distinct enough to me. They're at least as distinct as the wizard and the sorcerer.

But the other thing is, the mindset that values fewer options and as little overlap as possible leads to things like the druid never getting made, because there's a nature cleric.

Back in the day, the druid was invented because the cleric was the cleric of light and healing. The druid was an example of how you could modify the priest class, to cover a distinctly different concept. That edition (AD&D 2E) spent a lot of effort in showing different ways that the DM could create variations within the priest class, but it wasn't until 3.0 that the druid and the nature cleric appeared together. I consider that to be one of the mistakes of 3E; they should have either expanded the other domains out into full classes, or gotten rid of the druid.

Notably, they (more-or-less) fixed this in 4E, since the cleric went back to the light and healing concept. They could have continued with that distinction, in 5E, but I think they wanted to appeal back to the 3E crowd :-/

 

[Imaro]

Not necessarily. It would be completely possible to bring the Fighter up to (roughly) the level of the Paladin or Rogue without having to rebalance everything. I'm not trying to champion for Fighters being the best at everything. I just feel that they really can't meaningfully contribute to non-combat stuff via specifically Fighter-derived features. Hence why I have difficulty accepting the Eldritch Knight as "giving the Fighter utility." It does so by using features that explicitly *aren't* derived from the Fighter class (rather, from the Wizard class).

I find it interesting that you compare the fighter to a partial caster class (the paladin) but have difficulty accepting a fighter partial caster as valid...

Anyway... one of the most powerful Fighter-derived features are bonus feats (which for some reason are often ignored in conversations around the out of combat utility of fighters)... I believe the fighter gets two more feats than every other class in the game... which means he can either go the route of increasing ability scores outside of Str/Dex & Con making him more capable of non-combat stuff in a general sense or if he wants to have specific non-combat abilities select feats such as...

Athlete
Actor
Dungeon Delver
Healer
Inspiring Leader
Keen Mind
Linguist
Lucky
Magic Initiate
Mobile
Observant
Ritual Caster
Skilled
Skulker

All of which are applicable to non-combat situations... IMO, the 5e fighter is, especially compared to past editions and relative to the other classes in 5e, capable of having a decent to nice range of non-combat stuff... but it's player choice as opposed to hard coded in the class. If a player uses his regular feats and bonus feats to focus entirely on combat abilities... he can't then turn around and complain about the fighter lacking non-combat utility.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yep. My halfling skulker fighter does just as must contributing out of combat as in it. And even if he didn't have that feat it's not like I wouldn't keep playing his personality. Been doing that since day 1. Part of role-playing, in my opinion anyway, is to role-play that personality all the time. Not, "I'm a boisterous rowdy warrior who loves to make his presence known. But only in combat. Out of combat I'm as timid as a mouse and won't say anything or attempt to try anything."

It bothers me that it seems so many people get caught up in modifiers, and if you don't have the best modifier at something, that means you shouldn't roleplay your PC and sit aside while someone else does it. I'm not the best shooter in basketball, but I'm gonna take shots. I'm not the best engineer type out of my friends, but that doesn't stop me from building things. I'm not the most well-spoken of our group, but that doesn't stop me from speaking up. Etc, etc. Why should my PC be any different. IMO, metagaming is generally not a good thing. And it certainly isn't when it hampers someone from roleplaying.

 

[cmad1977]

Yep. My halfling skulker fighter does just as must contributing out of combat as in it. And even if he didn't have that feat it's not like I wouldn't keep playing his personality. Been doing that since day 1. Part of role-playing, in my opinion anyway, is to role-play that personality all the time. Not, "I'm a boisterous rowdy warrior who loves to make his presence known. But only in combat. Out of combat I'm as timid as a mouse and won't say anything or attempt to try anything."

It bothers me that it seems so many people get caught up in modifiers, and if you don't have the best modifier at something, that means you shouldn't roleplay your PC and sit aside while someone else does it. I'm not the best shooter in basketball, but I'm gonna take shots. I'm not the best engineer type out of my friends, but that doesn't stop me from building things. I'm not the most well-spoken of our group, but that doesn't stop me from speaking up. Etc, etc. Why should my PC be any different. IMO, metagaming is generally not a good thing. And it certainly isn't when it hampers someone from roleplaying.

This is wrong. You must only do that which your character is best at. Fighter can only fight. Never ever use skills or role play! It isn't optimal.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I find it interesting that you compare the fighter to a partial caster class (the paladin) but have difficulty accepting a fighter partial caster as valid...

How much does the Paladin need to change its fundamental archetype in order to cast spells?

How much does the Fighter need to change its fundamental archetype in order to cast spells?

Aping a slice of the core mechanic of an entirely different class is fundamentally different from *always* having a particular mechanic. I'd also like to add that I don't like spellcasting Paladins, and prefer that their non-spell, but still supernatural, resources be up to the task of making them unique and exciting in every aspect of play.

Anyway... one of the most powerful Fighter-derived features are bonus feats (which for some reason are often ignored in conversations around the out of combat utility of fighters)...

(1) Feats are not a core part of the game. There are lots, and lots, of DMs on this very forum who talk about how glad they are that they can kick feats to the curb. Thus, I never, EVER assume that feats are part of the game.
(2) Same logic I applied to ASIs applies to feats. That is, yes, you get two more as a Fighter. You'll be one ahead at level 6, and only reach your second "extra" at level 13. Thus, *most* Fighters won't actually see that second extra ASI/feat slot (per WotC's own admission that most campaigns don't make it to the teens).
(3) Let's be real here: with the Fighter's dependence on stats for combat, unless someone is massively dedicated to their non-combat stuff, the first two ASIs are going to boost Strength or Dex to 20 (because +5 attack, and damage on every hit, is amazing when you roll lots of attacks...which Fighters do). So most Fighters, that get to choose feats at all (and don't play variant Humans) probably won't see this benefit until pretty late in their careers--given that, if you pick up a feat at level 6, you'll only have it for ~60% of a typical character's lifespan (presuming most campaigns stop in the 11-12 range, which is slightly beyond what Mearls pegged it at, when explaining the weirdness of the XP to gain level 11).
(4) Feats are fixed. Every caster class--even those with limited spells known--has mechanics for getting around that, to one degree or another (the Wizard, of course, is a standout for having no hard limit to spells known, if they can find scrolls.) Even the Warlock, with the most limited of limited spells, has invocations as a unique (and very important) class feature. The flexibility applies to rituals, too, since those can be cast repeatedly (with time being the only RAW constraint). Feats essentially never get better with time, whereas many spells and rituals do, even if they are fixed.

It's not just "for some reason." There's a very good reason to treat "You can get bonus feats!" with a chary eye.

I believe the fighter gets two more feats than every other class in the game... which means he can either go the route of increasing ability scores outside of Str/Dex & Con making him more capable of non-combat stuff in a general sense or if he wants to have specific non-combat abilities select feats such as...
<listsnip>
All of which are applicable to non-combat situations... IMO, the 5e fighter is, especially compared to past editions and relative to the other classes in 5e, capable of having a decent to nice range of non-combat stuff... but it's player choice as opposed to hard coded in the class. If a player uses his regular feats and bonus feats to focus entirely on combat abilities... he can't then turn around and complain about the fighter lacking non-combat utility.

I never said the Fighter wasn't better off, when compared to 3e. Not once. I even explicitly called out that 5e has one important improvement over 4e, in that Fighters are no longer inexplicably one skill short of everyone else. But, again, the "better does not mean good" argument applies to Fighters just as much as it applies to full-casters. Compared to 3e, the Fighter is better--a lot better, even. Compared to 4e, the Fighter is better in certain ways and worse in others (feats being both hard to justify and much, much rarer in 5e doesn't help at all--everyone gets 5 feats normally over 20 levels instead of 12 in 4e--and another 6 before 4e wraps up).

But, yet again, the Fighter brings essentially nothing to the table of its own mechanics, whenever you're not stabbing things in the face. It either has to steal mechanics from another class (Eldritch Knight), buy "generic" utility things at the expense of expected progression (burning ASIs for feats, at least prior to level 8), or...nothing, because there's nothing else you can do. Everyone else gets hard-coded utility stuff that isn't dependent on the DM to even be possible (not even getting to whether DM perspective makes it worthwhile or worthless). Even the Barbarian, who really scrapes the bottom of the barrel for utility mechanics, has substantial stuff to it. Only the Fighter has to opt into having stuff to do out of combat. I find that awful. I don't even especially LIKE playing Fighters (I'm a Paladin and Sorcerer fan), and I *still* think that's major BS.

 

[Imaro]

How much does the Paladin need to change its fundamental archetype in order to cast spells?

How much does the Fighter need to change its fundamental archetype in order to cast spells?

Aping a slice of the core mechanic of an entirely different class is fundamentally different from *always* having a particular mechanic. I'd also like to add that I don't like spellcasting Paladins, and prefer that their non-spell, but still supernatural, resources be up to the task of making them unique and exciting in every aspect of play.

What is the fundamental paladin archetype? Is it a spellcaster or just a warrior dedicated to a "holy" cause? I honestly couldn't say for certain. I think the problem may be that your definition of the fighter archetype is too narrow if it doesn't allow for a warrior who enhances his battle prowess through mystical means... that's a pretty common fighter archetype, especially in this day and age.

(1) Feats are not a core part of the game. There are lots, and lots, of DMs on this very forum who talk about how glad they are that they can kick feats to the curb. Thus, I never, EVER assume that feats are part of the game.

I didn't assume they were either... I stated if they aren't used then the fighter gets better at non-combat stuff in a general sense by increasing his abilities, and thus his chances for performing ability/skill checks outside of combat.

(2) Same logic I applied to ASIs applies to feats. That is, yes, you get two more as a Fighter. You'll be one ahead at level 6, and only reach your second "extra" at level 13. Thus, *most* Fighters won't actually see that second extra ASI/feat slot (per WotC's own admission that most campaigns don't make it to the teens).

I thought the assertion was that most campaigns make it into the mid-teens (be nice if you could provide a quote or citation for this statement). We can debate about what a hypothetical "most" players will see with the fighter class or we can discuss the actual class as it is in the rule books and what it offers... one makes assumptions that should probably be backed up the other doesn't... so unless you can provide evidence for the assertion I'm going to stick to discussing the class as a whole, not a subset of it's levels.

(3) Let's be real here: with the Fighter's dependence on stats for combat, unless someone is massively dedicated to their non-combat stuff, the first two ASIs are going to boost Strength or Dex to 20 (because +5 attack, and damage on every hit, is amazing when you roll lots of attacks...which Fighters do). So most Fighters, that get to choose feats at all (and don't play variant Humans) probably won't see this benefit until pretty late in their careers--given that, if you pick up a feat at level 6, you'll only have it for ~60% of a typical character's lifespan (presuming most campaigns stop in the 11-12 range, which is slightly beyond what Mearls pegged it at, when explaining the weirdness of the XP to gain level 11).

So again we see the issue of I want to be a god of combat and have a ton of non-combat stuff as well... something has to be given up in one area to gain in the other... if you're not willing to sacrifice some combat ability, especially with bounded accuracy making extreme optimization less necessary then yeah you're getting exactly the type of character you want to play... a combat character. So again, don't make these choices then whine that there isn't any non-combat stuff for your fighter to do.

(4) Feats are fixed. Every caster class--even those with limited spells known--has mechanics for getting around that, to one degree or another (the Wizard, of course, is a standout for having no hard limit to spells known, if they can find scrolls.) Even the Warlock, with the most limited of limited spells, has invocations as a unique (and very important) class feature. The flexibility applies to rituals, too, since those can be cast repeatedly (with time being the only RAW constraint). Feats essentially never get better with time, whereas many spells and rituals do, even if they are fixed.

Of the non-combat feats I listed which ones should scale? I'm asking because of a few factors...
1. Unlike most spells they are always "on" no duration, no concentration, no chance to be disrupted, dispelled, etc.

2. Many give abilities that can't scale because they are peak abilities... ex. Alert: can't be surprised while you are conscious... how do you scale this? Make it work when he's unconscious as well?
Or Keen Mind... Always know which way is north, always know the number of hours left before sunrise and sunset, and can accurately recall anything you've seen or heard in the last month. How do you scale those abilities?

3. Many give advantage/disadvantage to something which again either is or isn't... there's no scaling with it.

4. Many incorporate an ability/skill check (which scales if you are proficient in it because of proficiency bonus.) or use level as a determiner.

I'd say the healer feat could possibly scale better but in a general sense I'm not seeing scaling as an issue with the non-combat feats.

It's not just "for some reason." There's a very good reason to treat "You can get bonus feats!" with a chary eye.

With the power of feats in 5e I disagree... this might be a hold over from previous editions where feats really weren't that powerful but in 5e 2 extra feats is huge with the amount of non-combat stuff it can allow you to do.

I never said the Fighter wasn't better off, when compared to 3e. Not once. I even explicitly called out that 5e has one important improvement over 4e, in that Fighters are no longer inexplicably one skill short of everyone else. But, again, the "better does not mean good" argument applies to Fighters just as much as it applies to full-casters. Compared to 3e, the Fighter is better--a lot better, even. Compared to 4e, the Fighter is better in certain ways and worse in others (feats being both hard to justify and much, much rarer in 5e doesn't help at all--everyone gets 5 feats normally over 20 levels instead of 12 in 4e--and another 6 before 4e wraps up).

Again... have you actually looked at how powerful feats are in 5e? Trying to compare feats in 3e/4e vs. feats in 5e just isn't an apples to apples comparison. I honestly think the 5e fighter is better than both the 3e fighter and the 4e fighter when it comes to non-combat ability... equal number of skills... able to pick two with no restrictions from the entire list through backgrounds, for the price of one feat can become widely capable in a non-combat area and is top tier in combat.

But, yet again, the Fighter brings essentially nothing to the table of its own mechanics, whenever you're not stabbing things in the face. It either has to steal mechanics from another class (Eldritch Knight), buy "generic" utility things at the expense of expected progression (burning ASIs for feats, at least prior to level 8), or...nothing, because there's nothing else you can do. Everyone else gets hard-coded utility stuff that isn't dependent on the DM to even be possible (not even getting to whether DM perspective makes it worthwhile or worthless). Even the Barbarian, who really scrapes the bottom of the barrel for utility mechanics, has substantial stuff to it. Only the Fighter has to opt into having stuff to do out of combat. I find that awful. I don't even especially LIKE playing Fighters (I'm a Paladin and Sorcerer fan), and I *still* think that's major BS.

I don't know how many times I can say this... Bonus Feats/ Ability improvements are a fighter class feature and can easily be used to make a fighter more non-combat capable... if the player wants him to be. What hasn't taken place is the fighter being the best combatant (how many attacks per action does he top out at again?) and having a plethora of built in non-combat abilities. You can... not like the fact that you have to give up some combat prowess in order to gain some non-combat functionality, but in the end you can't claim the fighter has no recourse for getting non-combat functionality.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I never said the Fighter wasn't better off, when compared to 3e.

Well, I'll say it. The 3e fighter may have been easily overshadowed by Tier 1 classes, but that was a problem with the broken classes, not the fighter. It was capable in combat and highly customizeable, really interesting builds were possible, as were very high DPR ones.

In 5e, the fighter is a lot less customizeable, some of that only with an optional rule in place, and the high DPR is a given.

Only if you consider the fighter's only function to be DPR, is the 5e fighter better off than the 3e or 4e fighter - about on par with the 2e double-specialized fighter.

But, yet again, the Fighter brings essentially nothing to the table of its own mechanics, whenever you're not stabbing things in the face. It either has to steal mechanics from another class (Eldritch Knight), buy "generic" utility things at the expense of expected progression (burning ASIs for feats, at least prior to level 8), or...nothing, because there's nothing else you can do.

I think part of the idea is that backgrounds are there to provide a little depth or variation to any class, however specialized that class may be. That backgrounds are there for everyone, even the most versatile classes renders that idea moot, if you look at it in terms of class balance. If, OTOH, you just look at it in terms of participation, having something from your background is still haveing something, even if other characters have it, too, in addition to getting a great deal more from their classes.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Only if you consider the fighter's only function to be DPR, is the 5e fighter better off than the 3e or 4e fighter - about on par with the 2e double-specialized fighter.

I wouldn't go that far.

Fighters in 5E are much better at mundane skills than they were in earlier editons, because DCs are lower and most checks are within the scope of the die for most characters. Every class is better at mundane skills than they were in earlier editions. The only comparison is if you happened to roll extremely well for your stats in 2E, and you were using the non-weapon proficiency rules. But regardless of how you built a fighter in 3E, and how much combat power you sacrificed for utility, you were never going to be good at picking locks or disabling traps (until late 3.5, when there were enough feats that you could sacrifice a huge chunk of your combat power into gaining new class skills and gaining enough skill points to keep those maxed out).

In 5E, a Fighter with the appropriate background can - by virtue of mere proficiency and high base stats - succeed on most skill checks (within the scope of that background) most of the time. And if the Fighter doesn't have higher stats, because you're using the optional rule for feats, then the Fighter can pick up two or three utility feats without needing to sacrifice the combat power associated with maxing out a secondary ability score.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In 5E, a Fighter with the appropriate background can - by virtue of mere proficiency and high base stats - succeed on most skill checks (within the scope of that background) most of the time. And if the Fighter doesn't have higher stats, because you're using the optional rule for feats, then the Fighter can pick up two or three utility feats without needing to sacrifice the combat power associated with maxing out a secondary ability score.

You can even be pretty decent at skills with proficiency and NO high stats, if the situation is favorable. A Dex 10 fighter with Stealth proficiency can take off his armor and sneak around in the dark at +3 or +4, which is good enough to reliably sneak past human guards in the dark (passive perception at disadvantage = 5). In the light, while wearing his heavy armor, he'd have maybe a 40 to 50% chance of succeeding anyway--he's not a ghost, but he's competent, and sneaking is worth trying.