D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[The Crimson Binome]

Thing is, your typical hero, even if he doesn't cast spells or have some sort of supernatural powers or mcguffin, tends to be really good at anything he turns his hand to. He won't just be tough in a fight, he'll be rallying the people, sneaking into heavily guarded dungeons to rescue the princess, scouting about in the woods, retrieving an artifact from a fiendishly trap-infested tomb, and so forth.

The typical hero is a power-trip wish-fulfillment mary-sue type, who is awesome at everything and has no discernible weakness. Conan, Elric, and Drizzt all fall into this category. In game terms, this usually means that they have ridiculously good stats and they are bordering on epic level. They stand out because they're better than everyone else around them, which doesn't work in a game setting where you have between two and six co-protagonists, or when the DM is forcing you into level-appropriate encounters.

D&D also has an odd history of painting the fighter as a natural leader. 1e, with it's level titles drawn from military and noble rank, topping out at 'Lord,' and letting the fighter build a stronghold and attract followers, created that impression, and 3.x came right out and said that fighters are often party leaders, even if they're not at all qualified to be the party 'face.'

In older parlance, 'leader' can mean just that - the one in front, whom everyone follows behind. In combat, the fighter would lead the charge. And it made sense, given the mechanics, because the fighter had the most HP and the best AC.

If your thief wants to go off in that other direction, then it's going to be incredibly dangerous without the fighter there to protect you. So the fighter did make a pretty good leader, although translating that into 4E would make it a Defender role instead of the Leader role. (Although exceptions exist, you wouldn't generally want the Leader to lead in 4E; they were often better off leading from behind.)

 

[Imaro]

If 5e supports three pillars of game play, all classes should feel like they were built with this tenet in mind.

Skill use, feats (optional), and a possible +2 bonus on skills over others does not feel like a class built with this tenet.

So everyone should have the exact same level of proficiency in all 3 pillars? If so, that seems like exactly the type of homogeneity I'm glad 5e avoids. If not... what would be the minimum for a class to have been built with this tenet in mind?

 

[Ashkelon]

So everyone should have the exact same level of proficiency in all 3 pillars? If so, that seems like exactly the type of homogeneity I'm glad 5e avoids. If not... what would be the minimum for a class to have been built with this tenet in mind?

You do realize that there is a big difference between all classes being able to meaningfully contribute in every pillar, and all classes being equally capable of every aspect of each pillar, don't you?

It is possible to have classes be competent in each pillar to varying degrees, but still have individual strengths and weaknesses within each of the pillars.

 

[Imaro]

Because there are plenty of charatcer types that require both being the leader of a party or society or men in general and the combat leader. Any general or heroic fighter of old was often the charismatic leader or rallier of people. Are you suggesting that if I want to be a weapon combat machine AND be party face, I need to look at another class? That's madness.

I'd suggest taking Intimidation as a class skill... select the right background (one that grants persuasion or possibly performance depending on how you want to influence your men)...prioritize Charisma...and you sacrifice a few combat feats for some non-combat feats... Skilled (if you want more social skills)/Lucky (use these to give your self advantage on social skills 3x a day along with other things)/Inspiring Leader (boost your men's morale through THP)... or if feats aren't allowed boost your Charisma. Also go Battlemaster and take maneuvers that have synergy with leading men... like Commander's Strike & Distracting Strike. You can lead on and off the battlefield as a fighter and with no magic...

I mean IMO, what you're basically saying is that you'd rather be an Odysseus-esque archetype then an Achilles-esque one... and no you don't have to pick another class to accomplish that... but let's be real, Odyssesus is not going to take Achilles in a straight up fight.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If 5e supports three pillars of game play, all classes should feel like they were built with this tenet in mind.

Skill use, feats (optional), and a possible +2 bonus on skills over others does not feel like a class built with this tenet.

Thank you. You have said in two sentences what I tried to say in several poly-paragraph posts.

Eh, you'd be surprised. Having an Int score of 18 means you're one-in-216, or about the top half a percentage of the population.

If there are five people who play D&D in a room that contains 216 people as a representative sample of the population, what's the chance that the smartest person in the room is one of the five players? It's not just a straight math problem, because there's also a correlation; D&D tends to attract players who are of above-average intelligence.

Well, it's impossible for us to judge exactly how much different the D&D-playing population is from the overall one, since we know nothing about its relative distribution of intelligences, but we can get that overall population estimate. For a group of exactly five people, the expected number of people with "one in 216" intelligence is 0.023, meaning about 2% of groups of that size have such a person in them (which makes sense, because 100 five-person groups is 500 people, which is more than double 216). If we set our sights just a wee bit lower at 16-or-better, and use 4d6 drop lowest instead of straight 3d6, the odds improve to approximately 0.65 people per group on average.

"Improvised" is putting a nice spin on it, but, yes, in the olden days if you wanted to do much of anything other than hit things, use a special ability, or cast spells, you were prettymuch going to have to talk the DM into it, somehow.

Having played several sessions of B/X now, I can agree with this. I "improvised" a bit myself, which is to say I floated trial balloons, gauged my DM's response, pressed for better benefit, hedged, and otherwise played a game entirely unrelated to the tomb-raiding, bandit-slaying, mummy-angering one occupying our head-space. I, and the others, played a secondary but concurrent game of investigating, managing, and massaging the DM's perspective of what was going on. I tended to do less of it than my fellow-players, partially because they were all old friends whereas I was a newcomer, partially because *that* kind of improv often leaves a bad taste in my mouth (since, as noted, I'm not really "playing D&D" anymore so much as "playing the DM, who happens to be the *arbitrator* of the D&D.")

Thing is, your typical hero, even if he doesn't cast spells or have some sort of supernatural powers or mcguffin, tends to be really good at anything he turns his hand to. He won't just be tough in a fight, he'll be rallying the people, sneaking into heavily guarded dungeons to rescue the princess, scouting about in the woods, retrieving an artifact from a fiendishly trap-infested tomb, and so forth. So taking Fighter is just setting yourself up for disappointment. (Taking rogue will get you the ability to do some of those things, but you won't be tough in a fight, anymore, needing to be a sneaky back-stabber, instead - not too heroic.)

And this is a big part of why heroes-in-fiction are usually not very good fits for heroes-in-games, except as loose conceptual archetypes to emulate (on the order of "employs martial prowess" or "casts spells through consummate erudition"). Heroes-in-fiction have all sorts of abilities and associations that either don't, won't, or can't apply to heroes-in-games.

D&D also has an odd history of painting the fighter as a natural leader. 1e, with it's level titles drawn from military and noble rank, topping out at 'Lord,' and letting the fighter build a stronghold and attract followers, created that impression, and 3.x came right out and said that fighters are often party leaders, even if they're not at all qualified to be the party 'face.' Yet, D&D has never made the fighter a good leader, or even a leader at all, in any sense (even 4e, which gave the fighter more 'nice things' than any other edition, passed the 'leader' schtick to the Warlord).

Yeah...this has definitely been an issue. I do think 4e did a decent job of highlighting that "person who makes decisions for the party," "person who interacts with NPCs," and "person who coordinates battle" do not need to be the same person, even though all of them can be called "the party leader."

There's just a lot of disconnects among D&D mechanics, D&D traditions, and the broader genre of fantasy (film/fiction/literature/myth/legend) that inspired it. And, non-casters in general and fighters in particular tend to fall through the cracks.

Unfortunately, due to the carte blanche nature of D&D magic, this is almost certainly unavoidable. For some, it's even become the "cononut shell sound" of TTRPGs: *not* having magic that can do everything and martials that fall through the cracks (an apt phrase) is grounds for mutiny. Only indie games can violate this sacred covenant and not get royally wrecked, it seems, and it leaves me very, very sad.

 

[Imaro]

You do realize that there is a big difference between all classes being able to meaningfully contribute in every pillar, and all classes being equally capable of every aspect of each pillar, don't you?

It is possible to have classes be competent in each pillar to varying degrees, but still have individual strengths and weaknesses within each of the pillars.

I never said it wasn't... in fact I think that's exactly what 5e did. But if you tell me that one particular class in the PHB wasn't designed at all with the tenets of the 3 pillars in mind... well we need to set a baseline on how you come to that conclusion. I don't think anyone has said the fighter can't interact at all with any 1 of the 3 pillars... so then I have to assume you're saying his ability to do so is inadequate for 1 or more pillars, at that point how do we define adequate? So I ask is adequate everyone contributing equally in every pillar (that's arguably equal and fair) or, if not what is your definition of adequate? re-read what I posted.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The typical hero is a power-trip wish-fulfillment mary-sue type, who is awesome at everything and has no discernible weakness.

That's pushing it a bit. The broad competence typically displayed by heroes in genre is hardly on the same level of 'wish fulfillment' as powered super-heroes or the reality-bending of magic-wielders - or the D&D casters that over-deliver on the corresponding archetypes.

Conan, Elric, and Drizzt all fall into this category. In game terms, this usually means that they have ridiculously good stats and they are bordering on epic level.

You often get that when trying to model them in game, but it's really just illustrating the issue. A D&D character isn't going to be able to stack up against everything Conan routinely does without having a lot of levels, probably in at least two classes, but, with Epic levels. It's overkilling levels to make up for the failure of classes to model the basics.

They stand out because they're better than everyone else around them, which doesn't work in a game setting where you have between two and six co-protagonists, or when the DM is forcing you into level-appropriate encounters.

Very often the traditional hero isn't absolutely better than everyone around them, but often better rounded than the more specialized supporting cast.

It's true that Fellowship type arrangements are the exception in fantasy, though. Even so, you don't see the kind of outright over-specialization you do in D&D, even in something like LotR.

As far as keeping a handful of players all engaged, giving each one a dedicated specialist who only gets to participate fully a fraction of the time may not be the best way. Not that that's what D&D does, exactly. Some classes are a lot narrower in their abilities than others.

In older parlance, 'leader' can mean just that - the one in front, who everyone follows behind. In combat, the fighter would lead the charge. And it made sense, given the mechanics, because the fighter had the most HP and the best AC.

Heh. Conflate the expandability of 'taking point' with leadership. Nice save.

(Although exceptions exist, you wouldn't generally want the Leader to lead in 4E; they were often better off leading from behind.)

Some leaders, like a WIS-based Cleric or crossbow-wielding Artificer, sure. Warlords, Ardents, Battle Clerics, and others, though, could be very good lead-from-the-front types. In addition to actually leading in more senses than just taking point.

You do realize that there is a big difference between all classes being able to meaningfully contribute in every pillar, and all classes being equally capable of every aspect of each pillar, don't you?

It is possible to have classes be competent in each pillar to varying degrees, but still have individual strengths and weaknesses within each of the pillars.

It's not that impossible to keep classes differentiated while also keeping them contributing. The key is to avoid making their talents too narrow. When the Thief wasn't good for much beyond Finding Traps, it was a pretty sad class. 3.0 expanded backstab into SA and it became more capable of contributing in combat. 4e & 5e made SA dependable and generally effective enough for the Rogue to be fully-contributing in combat, while still being very capable in exploration and potentially able to do a little in interaction, as well. 4e 'roles' divided up combat functions into broad specialties, with synergy amongst them, so it was able to make each class fully contributing in combat. Tier 1 caster classes in 3.x could absolutely dominate any pillar, and 5e's full casters aren't any less versatile. Yet, in all those cases, the classes remained quite distinct. Spell lists, powers, class features, source, special abilities, etc... there's a wealth of ways to differentiate classes without making them so different in versatility and effectiveness that they shake out into Optimization Tiers, or end up useful in only one of the Pillars.

 

[tyrlaan]

So everyone should have the exact same level of proficiency in all 3 pillars? If so, that seems like exactly the type of homogeneity I'm glad 5e avoids. If not... what would be the minimum for a class to have been built with this tenet in mind?

To your first question, no of course not. This isn't a binary system; there's plenty of room to avoid homogeneity unless we're visiting strawman town.

As far as minimums... let's look at what we have...

Barbarian - Pretty slim pickings, but... Totem warrior path is chock full of exploration pillary goodness - rituals, wolf totem, eagle totem.
Bard - I think we're good here, but for completeness... Expertise, jack of all trades, countercharm (since charm will more likely be in a social encounter), spells
Cleric - Heartily covered through spells, but also the Knowledge domain, and to a lesser extent nature and trickery domains
Druid - Again spells covers this, but we can add wild shape here too
Monk - Pretty sparse here too... All languages is nice, but at 13th level. Way of Shadow gets a little bit and of Elements to a lesser extent
Paladin - Spells
Ranger - Favored enemy, natural explorer, spells
Rogue - Expertise, reliable talent, light sprinkling in thief and assassin, or go whole hog with spells from arcane trickster
Sorcerer - Spells
Warlock - Spells, invocations
Wizard - Spells

Fighter ....Remarkable athlete (a half bonus to athletics) OR student of war (proficiency in one artisan tool) OR go eldritch knight for spells

I actually had trouble writing that last line without adding sad commentary. It's kind of embarrassing actually, how completely gypped they are unless they play wizard wanna-be. Monk is probably biting at the fighter's heels for last, and some barbarians, but the fighter wins this contest that no one want's to win.

As you can see it runs the gamut. I'd personally say barbarian is about as low as it should go, but YMMV. At least the barbarian feels like the 3 pillars were taken into account when building the class.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@tyrlaan has the right of it, as far as I see things. The (Totem) Barbarian and Elemental/Shadow Monk strike me as good (sub)classes designed with "everyone participates in all the pillars." They still feel a little too low, but I am more than willing to accept that my standards might be too high (especially given the "increased floor" type benefit from skills). Certainly I feel like, even with the rituals granted to the Barb, it's pretty damn slim pickings for the "socialization" pillar--it's long been a beef of mine that Barbarians (and Fighters) are at extreme risk of being the Big Dumb Oaf whenever socialization is the name of the game.

To bring the Barb up to the level where I'd be happy, you'd only need to add one or MAYBE two small things. Frex, benefits to intimidation (you're a scary outsider), insight (your connection to the spirits, or your instinctive appraisal of others, makes it hard to pull a fast one on you), or maybe even diplomacy (as an outsider, other outsiders understand and empathize with you--you speak the "language" of those who struggle daily for survival) would all be highly thematic, and could be minor but useful. Since the Berserker Barb is almost totally combat, maybe add in a minor exploration-related ability too, like being able to hunt up food and potable water to feed yourself, plus a number of people equal to your Proficiency. Simple, minor, but in a tight spot or where food becomes important (for the party members themselves, or for others!) it could be valuable.

Similarly, I can't help but think a Way of Shadow Monk should have some ability with either telling or detecting lies (or both), simply because "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? THE SHADOW knows." And the Way of the Elements Monk could EASILY ape stuff from Avatar: the Last Airbender, or at least find some inspiration there. Open Hand is harder, but I'm sure the designers could come up with something. With being explicitly magical ("the magic of Ki"), it should not be hard to find ways that the Monk could do cool, useful, and largely combat-useless things.

In fact, here's a nice, simple way to put it: Y'know those "ribbon" abilities the designers mentioned in UA? That's the kind of thing I'd like to see a lot more of. I think everything should have "ribbons." I especially think that more classes should have socialization- and exploration-related ribbons, akin to the "control the direction of the wind" Storm Sorcerer ability: something super useful in the right circumstances, but often just flavorful. (I really wish the 5e Dragonborn had gotten more "ribbons"--I wouldn't be nearly so PO'd about them if they had.)

That said though, Tyrlaan, you technically aren't quite accurate about Remarkable Athlete. Loath as I am to say anything positive about it, it is not just "athletics." It's all physical ability checks--regardless of whether they can get proficiency normally--that you aren't already proficient in. Unfortunately, this means the biggest benefit is Initiative. The Fighter is almost guaranteed to have one of Athletics or Acrobatics, given that those are skills on their class list. Technically speaking, RA also benefits any attempt at a "nonstandard" Skill use--for example, wanting to roll a Strength (Intimidation) check would technically allow a Fighter that isn't proficient in Intimidation to get half-proficiency on it, if the DM allowed such a check, though this is forging into a pretty serious grey area. (That is, AFAICT the books neither support nor refute the possibility of using "off stats" for a particular skill.)

 

[Imaro]

To your first question, no of course not. This isn't a binary system; there's plenty of room to avoid homogeneity unless we're visiting strawman town.

As far as minimums... let's look at what we have...

Barbarian - Pretty slim pickings, but... Totem warrior path is chock full of exploration pillary goodness - rituals, wolf totem, eagle totem.
Bard - I think we're good here, but for completeness... Expertise, jack of all trades, countercharm (since charm will more likely be in a social encounter), spells
Cleric - Heartily covered through spells, but also the Knowledge domain, and to a lesser extent nature and trickery domains
Druid - Again spells covers this, but we can add wild shape here too
Monk - Pretty sparse here too... All languages is nice, but at 13th level. Way of Shadow gets a little bit and of Elements to a lesser extent
Paladin - Spells
Ranger - Favored enemy, natural explorer, spells
Rogue - Expertise, reliable talent, light sprinkling in thief and assassin, or go whole hog with spells from arcane trickster
Sorcerer - Spells
Warlock - Spells, invocations
Wizard - Spells

Fighter ....Remarkable athlete (a half bonus to athletics) OR student of war (proficiency in one artisan tool) OR go eldritch knight for spells

I actually had trouble writing that last line without adding sad commentary. It's kind of embarrassing actually, how completely gypped they are unless they play wizard wanna-be. Monk is probably biting at the fighter's heels for last, and some barbarians, but the fighter wins this contest that no one want's to win.

As you can see it runs the gamut. I'd personally say barbarian is about as low as it should go, but YMMV. At least the barbarian feels like the 3 pillars were taken into account when building the class.

And where do the Fighter's bonus feats fit in here? They are a fighter class feature and can be used to increase non-combat abilities... and thus any fair comparison should be taking them into consideration...

EDIT: I'll also note that a large part of non-combat effectiveness in the martial classes is attributed to spells... yet for some reason the fighter's spell casting subclass isn't a valid option, but a spell casting rogue is... go figure.