D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[DMCF]

My Monster Manual started (rapidly) falling apart at last Wednesday's group. I've had it since February? Less than 6 months and it does get used but not that heavily.

 

[Imaro]

When people say that fighters can't do anything out of combat, or that a caster will always do better than a non caster, it relies on the assumption that the caster will always have the right spell ready, all the time. No one actually has to come out and specifically say that; it's inferred by the argument that is being made because otherwise there is no way that argument could work.

Apparently... all casters have the exact spell to overcome any particular obstacle or challenge at the exact moment they need it... Thus making the fighter class as a whole unnecessary outside of combat... of course if you have the exact spell to overcome any particular obstacle at hand any time you need it... well that kinda (theoretically at least) obviates the need for all other classes outside of combat... Of course this hasn't been my experience at all in actual play.

 

[Ashkelon]

I think the root of the problem is that fighter's cant do anything outside of combat that other PCs couldn't already do.

A war cleric with 14 Strength and guidance is just as capable at overcoming Strength related tasks as a 20 Strength fighter without using a single spell slot.

A valor bard with expertise in Strength is better than the fighter at such tasks without relying on his spells..

A moon druid can turn into forms that are far more capable of overcoming physical challenges (stronger, faster, flight, etc) without relying on spells.

Even the wizard has access to rituals like find familiar (can fly, help, etc), unseen servant, tensers disk, and other spells that are more valuable to exploration without requiring a spell slot to be spent.

Warlocks have invocations like at-will jump or levitate.

And so on. Most classes have a variety of ways to contribute to exploration without using their spells that rival the basic skill checks the fighter has.

Because of bounded accuracy, even a 14 Strength PC isn't significantly behind the fighter in terms of capability in the field of STR based exploration.

On the other hand, the spellcaster might also have access to some low level spells that completely bypass an athletics check with 100% chance of success.

So what does the fighter contribute that any other 14 Strength PC can't contribute nearly equally well in a non-combat situatution. Never mind the fact that the other PC probably also possesses exploration related abilities that are far more potent and useful than the fighter.

 

[Imaro]

I think the root of the problem is that fighter's cant do anything other PCs couldn't already do.

A war cleric with 14 Strength and guidance is just as capable at overcoming Strength related tasks as a 20 Strength fighter without using a single spell slot.

A valor bard with expertise in Strength is better than the fighter at such tasks without relying on his spells..

A moon druid can turn into forms that are far more capable of overcoming physical challenges (stronger, faster, flight, etc) without relying on spells.

Even the wizard has access to rituals like find familiar (can fly, help, etc), unseen servant, tensers disk, and other spells that are more valuable to exploration without requiring a spell slot to be spent.

Warlocks have invocations like at-will jump or levitate.

And so on. Most classes have a variety of ways to contribute to exploration without using their spells that rival the basic skill checks the fighter has.

Because of bounded accuracy, even a 14 Strength PC isn't significantly behind the fighter in terms of capability in the field of STR based exploration.

On the other hand, the spellcaster might also have access to some low level spells that completely bypass an athletics check with 100% chance of success.

So what does the fighter contribute that any other 14 Strength PC can't contribute nearly equally well. Never mind the fact that the other PC probably also possesses exploration related abilities that are far more potent and useful than the fighter.

So we've gone from they don't have anything to do in non-combat situations... to they don't have fightery things to do in non-combat... to they don't have unique things (well except for Action Surge, Remarkable Athlete, Second Wind and Indomitable) to do in non-combat situations... and this is all ignoring the fact that they are top tier combatants as well... what was the issue again??

 

[Celtavian]

Rogues don't generally have expertise in Athletics, though, since Strength is a dump stat for them. In the off chance that you did have such a character, then you might get past the obstacle without difficulty, but the bad guy can't account for such ridiculously unlikely events.

And I have no idea how the NPC is supposed to create a lasting anti-magic field, but it shows up enough in published modules for it to be one of the go-to solutions for these types of situations. Or if not permanent, then make a contingent Dispel on anyone in that area. Or animate zombie birds to break your concentration. However you do it, though, it has to be cheaper than building an entire gate out of adamantium.

Why wouldn't a rogue take expertise in Athletics? Makes Climb, Jump, and Swim easier. Stealth, Perception, Athletics, and Investigation/Acrobatics as the fourth is what I usually take.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When people say that fighters can't do anything out of combat, or that a caster will always do better than a non caster, it relies on the assumption that the caster will always have the right spell ready, all the time. No one actually has to come out and specifically say that; it's inferred by the argument that is being made because otherwise there is no way that argument could work.

Obviously it's absurd to say that the fighter can't do anything at all out of combat. For instance, he might guard a doorway while the thief works on a chest, or hold a torch so the wizard can decipher some runes on the wall. Similarly, the idea that a caster will always do better than the fighter is a degree of absolute prognostication that can't ever be true. Afterall, a wizard might lose his spellbook or his voice or something, and do far worse than any fighter until he gets it back. Or a caster might be killed by kobold sling-bullets at 1st level and never raised, thus radically under-performing relative to the fighter at higher level.

Rather, the sense of the complaints you hear is that the fighter has no abilities that allow him to contribute out of combat to the extent or with the significance that other classes have the potential to do. Which is kinda verbose and clumsy, and still not so perfectly complete and precise a statement of the obvious that one couldn't try to punch some holes in it by willfully misreading and rephrasing it to imply some absurd unrelated claim.

I think the root of the problem is that fighter's cant do anything other PCs couldn't already do.

There is a base-line of things that just anyone can do in 5e, and bounded accuracy makes that baseline non-trivial. Making an ability check or an attack roll, for instance, are things literally anyone can do. You don't need even one level in a class or any proficiencies to make an ability check. Even if you're a 1/8th CR Kobold making a STR check, you'll hit a DC of 15 once in a while.

Fighters are better at attacking (with weapons, without any other special advantage or resource expended) than most other characters and monsters of the same level. Not much better at making an attack roll, but with proficiency in more weapons, combat style, and the ability to make multiple attacks, well, it adds up to some pretty competitive, high-availability, single-target DPR. The fighter thus contributes in combat in a way that no other class can consistently exceed, and most can meat or beat only some of the time. Of course, other classes can make contributions in combat beyond DPR, but the fighter's contribution in the combat pillar is pretty secure.

And that's about it.

Out of combat the fighter can, like everyone else including the 1/8th CR kobold, make any given check the DM calls for with, probably, some chance of success due to Bounded Accuracy. Rogues & Bards can make checks that others couldn't hope to, once Expertise widens the gap enough, Rogues also have Cunning Action, Rangers can track automatically, and I'm sure there's a few other tricks like that out there, but it's rare that anyone can routinely/automatically (without expending some limited resource) make a check that another can't hope to.

So, for any class who doesn't have Expertise or some special auto-check ability, contributing meaningfully, above the bounded-accuracy-ability-check baseline, means expending a limited resource of some kind. Most classes have a non-trivial number of those, typically spells (30 of 38 sub-classes are casters), but also things like Ki points or whatever. Such abilities are often useful in any pillar, depending upon the choices made and how they're managed.

Fighters have two such abilities: Second Wind, which restores hps, thus has non-combat utility in, say, recovering from the consequences of a fall or triggering a trap or something, and Action Surge, which allows an extra action or two between Short Rests (very potent in combat, when the fighter's action can be a flurry of attacks, less so out of combat, when it's going to be some baseline ability check, movement or other action anyone could do - and which doesn't exactly stack up well compared to the Rogue's similar in out-of-combat uses, but 1/round, at-will Cunning Action).

And you have to wonder, if most classes can at least be competitive with the Fighter's DPR some fraction of the time, would it really have been so bad if the Fighter could, some fraction of the time, rival what other classes could do out of combat?

It certainly wouldn't have evoked that classic D&D feel, though.

 

[Imaro]

Why wouldn't a rogue take expertise in Athletics? Makes Climb, Jump, and Swim easier. Stealth, Perception, Athletics, and Investigation/Acrobatics as the fourth is what I usually take.

Well Str usually is a dump stat so the expertise doesn't help as much as it does with skill proficiencies that already have a mid to high ability bonus in them (making good even better).

 

[Ashkelon]

So we've gone from they don't have anything to do in non-combat situations... to they don't have fightery things to do in non-combat... to they don't have unique things (well except for Action Surge, Remarkable Athlete, Second Wind and Indomitable) to do in non-combat situations... and this is all ignoring the fact that they are top tier combatants as well... what was the issue again??

I never said the fighter didn't have anything to do outside of combat. I have said that their contribution to exploration is replicated by basically every other class to such an extent that their is no need to bring a fighter along. They don't meaningfully contribute outside of combat. I also said they don't bring anything unique to the table in non-combat situations.

Even the abilities that are supposed to help outside of combat really don't do all that much. For example, remarkable athlete is a minor bonus to a few untrained skills and a slightly increased jump distance; hardly remarkable.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why wouldn't a rogue take expertise in Athletics? Makes Climb, Jump, and Swim easier. Stealth, Perception, Athletics, and Investigation/Acrobatics as the fourth is what I usually take.

Rogues don't usually have high Strength, and they would get more mileage out of taking Expertise in skills that are keyed off their high stats - usually Dex, Int, Wis/Cha in that order. After all, the Fighter (or Barbarian) can probably handle any Athletics check that might come up.

I note that you're missing thieves' tools from your list. It's probably something that would vary from table to table, but traps and locks are always a big part of my games, so thieves' tools rank right up there with Stealth and Perception in competing for Expertise slots.

 

[Imaro]

Even the abilities that are supposed to help outside of combat really don't do all that much. For example, remarkable athlete is a minor bonus to a few untrained skills and a slightly increased jump distance; hardly remarkable.

Actually it's a bonus to any check (not just those with a proficiency which does make it kinda remarkable)... The funny thing is it's an equal to and eventually larger bonus (on average) than guidance and no other class can do it... yet guidance is lauded as good and remarkable athlete isn't...

EDIT: Sometimes I get the impression that people aren't taking bounded accuracy into consideration and thus are looking for these huge bonuses... when 5e just doesn't work like that.