D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[tyrlaan]

@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.

Oh beware the path of the social pillar; it gets a lot uglier a lot faster across many of the classes if you look only for evidence of the social pillar.

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.

To be honest, I didn't mention feats (or skills) because I thought we were past this part of the debate.

Feats don't belong on this list because everyone can get them (or not if they aren't used in your game) and the fighter gets only 2 more of them over the course of all 20 levels. If you generously decide an average campaign ends by 12th level, they have 1 more feat than other classes.

I get the considerable power of feats in 5e, but I wouldn't be comfortable hanging my hat on one feat as the defining characteristic of non-combat pillar support for the class. That's kind of like putting a single leaf of lettuce on a steak and saying it's a salad.

And if you aren't using feats, the alternate argument that +2 to some skills (or if we're talking about realistic campaign length, maybe +1) through ASI choices covers the non-combat pillars is similarly weak.

Basically, here's the argument that feats or ASIs cover the non-combat pillars for the fighter... "Fighter, do everything you can to excel at fighting first, and when you get tired of that, we have other stuff out there. Of course by the time you check them out your fellow players will have been playing in those sandboxes for a lot of time already. Oh, and we built them some cool things they already have and only they can get, but hey why don't you dig around in this toychest and pick up something anyone else could take out of the toychest too."

Now, some players may not follow this path, and look for non-combat stuff first, but I think we can agree it's the minority. There is combat in the game after all and there is nothing wrong with seeking combat features as a priority. Unfortunately other classes deliver non-combat pillar support into the hands of the player, while the fighter has to go forage for it.

You are right about the rogue though, it's spellcasting should be discounted as much as the fighters. Note, however, that taking it away still leaves it in a noticeably better place than fighter.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't believe the minority thinks about flavour first.
The fighter has a lot going for him. The first few levels are also covered by background. And last but not least: your job description is fighter. So you really should be good doing that. And yes, he is very good. Even when taking non combat stuff first.

 

[Imaro]

To be honest, I didn't mention feats (or skills) because I thought we were past this part of the debate.

Feats don't belong on this list because everyone can get them (or not if they aren't used in your game) and the fighter gets only 2 more of them over the course of all 20 levels. If you generously decide an average campaign ends by 12th level, they have 1 more feat than other classes.

Everyone doesn't get bonus feats though... that is specifically a fighter class ability and thus should be included in this discussion. I'm also leery of the whole "not past 12th level argument" (especially since my group is at 8th level and still going strong). I asked for a citation or quote to back this up but never received one... do you have some kind of evidence for this?

The other issue is that if this is the case then it also reduces the abilities of all the classes since they too wouldn't receive any abilities above 12th level.

I get the considerable power of feats in 5e, but I wouldn't be comfortable hanging my hat on one feat as the defining characteristic of non-combat pillar support for the class. That's kind of like putting a single leaf of lettuce on a steak and saying it's a salad.

IMO, the fact that a singular feat usually grants multiple abilities which can be applied in multiple ways makes this analogy, at least from my perspective, problematic and arguably not accurate at all...

And if you aren't using feats, the alternate argument that +2 to some skills (or if we're talking about realistic campaign length, maybe +1) through ASI choices covers the non-combat pillars is similarly weak.

Why would it be +1 at lower levels? You get to raise an attribute by 2 so it would be either +2 to a broad group of skills at lower levels... and +2/+2 to two broad groups or +4 to one broad groups at higher levels (at least according to the way you choose to play the game (not going past 12th level/not choosing non-combat stuff as a priority to combat feats there are of course other options, like +2/+2 or +4 at lower levels for those who want them). I guess it could be a +1 if the stat is odd but that has nothing to do with levels...

Basically, here's the argument that feats or ASIs cover the non-combat pillars for the fighter... "Fighter, do everything you can to excel at fighting first, and when you get tired of that, we have other stuff out there. Of course by the time you check them out your fellow players will have been playing in those sandboxes for a lot of time already. Oh, and we built them some cool things they already have and only they can get, but hey why don't you dig around in this toychest and pick up something anyone else could take out of the toychest too."

So is the issue that a player gets the flexibility to choose whether he wants to focus on non-combat, combat or balance them out? If you want to be in the thick of non-combat take the non-combat feats early... if you want a fighter who just "fights" then devote yourself to combat... what I don't get is why the choice is a bad thing...it effectively lets people choose the type of fighter they want... and let's be honest, even without devoting all of his lower feats to combat, the fighter is still going to be a top tier combatant...

Now, some players may not follow this path, and look for non-combat stuff first, but I think we can agree it's the minority. There is combat in the game after all and there is nothing wrong with seeking combat features as a priority. Unfortunately other classes deliver non-combat pillar support into the hands of the player, while the fighter has to go forage for it.

I don't agree it's the minority, I don't know and I don't think it matters for a general discussion of the fighter's non-combat abilities... since I think players who want their fighter to participate in the social and exploration pillars more than they already can will choose to use their bonus feats to allow them to do that...

This is why I keep bringing up the whole "do all things great" question... the fighter is already heads above the other classes in combat prowess so he doesn't have to devote as much to that area, feat or stat wise to contribute effectively (if he chooses to devote resources to combat then he becomes even better at it but he can easily contribute at a relevant level without devoting all of his feats to the combat pillar). Those classes with non-combat pillar support don't get that for free... they aren't as competent as the fighter in combat. I personally feel like if there's any one class that should have the option to be devoted solely to combat it's the fighter... it's what he does... but to claim the fighter doesn't have the option through class features to be competent in the non-combat pillars is just wrong. You may not like how it's implemented... but that in no way means it isn't there.

You are right about the rogue though, it's spellcasting should be discounted as much as the fighters. Note, however, that taking it away still leaves it in a noticeably better place than fighter.

He should be in a better place by default than the fighter... especially since the fighter is more competent in combat than he is...

 

[Werebat]

Guys, I... Look, this was just a joke post. It was a troll. OK? I was just looking for a reaction from some hotheads, that's all. But you've all gone and ruined it by turning it into a serious discussion. Just... stop it, OK? It's over twenty pages long now. Come on. Enough is enough.

 

[Remathilis]

Guys, I... Look, this was just a joke post. It was a troll. OK? I was just looking for a reaction from some hotheads, that's all. But you've all gone and ruined it by turning it into a serious discussion. Just... stop it, OK? It's over twenty pages long now. Come on. Enough is enough.

Don't throw bombs if you don't want things to blow up.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Don't throw bombs if you don't want things to blow up.

You do realize that Werebat is trolling again in #204? He's hardly ever serious about anything.

 

[Remathilis]

You do realize that Werebat is trolling again in #204? He's hardly ever serious about anything.

My point still stands

 

[tyrlaan]

<snip> Feats and ASI counter argument</snip>

I don't agree it's the minority, I don't know and I don't think it matters for a general discussion of the fighter's non-combat abilities... since I think players who want their fighter to participate in the social and exploration pillars more than they already can will choose to use their bonus feats to allow them to do that...

Fair point, and I agree minority/vs majority of what people do is not really a factor in this discussion anyway.

What is relevant though is that a +2 to some skills isn't really support of non-combat pillars.

What is relevant is that 2 extra feats can be powerful and effective BUT they can be completely off limits for a game and anyone can get them, so there's nothing "fighter-y" about them at all.

So we are still in a place where other classes get their own toys, but the fighter has to use the community toychest.

I personally feel like if there's any one class that should have the option to be devoted solely to combat it's the fighter... it's what he does... but to claim the fighter doesn't have the option through class features to be competent in the non-combat pillars is just wrong. You may not like how it's implemented... but that in no way means it isn't there.

I haven't said that a fighter has no option to get some non-combat pillar stuff, please don't stretch my words into hyperbole. I have said that the class in no way feels that the 3 pillar tenet was used to design the class however. There's a difference between no option, lame options, and good options. So yes, I'm precisely saying that I don't like how it's implemented.

He should be in a better place by default than the fighter... especially since the fighter is more competent in combat than he is...

So if you are effective in combat you must be ineffective in the other pillars?

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.)

One of the perks of 'rulings not rules' is that you can stretch a point when interpreting an under-performing or under-utilized ability like that. You might have to stretch something as unremarkable as Remarkable Athlete out of all proportion to render it meaningful, but you /can/.

Oh beware the path of the social pillar; it gets a lot uglier a lot faster across many of the classes if you look only for evidence of the social pillar.

And, one of the downsides of rulings not rules is that it makes it far too easy to reduce the interaction pillar to player-as-resolution-system.

Now, some players may not follow this path, and look for non-combat stuff first, but I think we can agree it's the minority.

Doesn't really matter. A fighter trying to leverage his one extra ASI at low level for non-combat still only gets a +1 to rolls with one stat. That's still trivial, whether lots of players do it or relatively few.

You are right about the rogue though, it's spellcasting should be discounted as much as the fighters. Note, however, that taking it away still leaves it in a noticeably better place than fighter.

Agreed.

 

[Imaro]

Fair point, and I agree minority/vs majority of what people do is not really a factor in this discussion anyway.

What is relevant though is that a +2 to some skills isn't really support of non-combat pillars.

Why not? I mean skills give one the ability to affect non-combat pillars... the higher your bonus is the more likely you are to succeed... thus I'm not following the logic that they aren't support for non-combat pillars. Could you elaborate?

What is relevant is that 2 extra feats can be powerful and effective BUT they can be completely off limits for a game and anyone can get them, so there's nothing "fighter-y" about them at all.

Wait what is "fightery"?? I would think having a multitude of feats is fightery, thus whatever extra feats are chosen... are "fightery". I mean I feel like you're really stretching here. So now it's not about whether the class was designed with non-combat capability in mind... it's about whether said non-combat competency feels fightery?? I mean what abilities (outside of fighting) would be distinctly fightery?

So we are still in a place where other classes get their own toys, but the fighter has to use the community toychest.

The difference is the fighter gets to pick and play with more toys...

I haven't said that a fighter has no option to get some non-combat pillar stuff, please don't stretch my words into hyperbole. I have said that the class in no way feels that the 3 pillar tenet was used to design the class however. There's a difference between no option, lame options, and good options. So yes, I'm precisely saying that I don't like how it's implemented.

I know exactly what you said and I have addressed exactly that point in our discussion... the fighter has access to ways to increase his non-combat abilities, thus I'm not understanding how one could assume the 3 pillars weren't considered in designing the class? Now if he was stuck without the ability to gain spells... pick extra feats outside of combat and/or have enough ability increases to step outside just physical capabilities I would agree with you... but the fighter class was created with all of these ways to gain non-combat competency.

So if you are effective in combat you must be ineffective in the other pillars?

I didn't say that, but the fighter is way more than just effective in combat... in fact effective is what all the classes are in combat, at least as far as I've seen... But to address what I actually posted...if you want to be optimized (top tier) in combat you should suffer somewhere else...