D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Sacrosanct]

I've been stewing on this for a while, and I still don't know the best way to articulate it. But here goes anyway.

If you're expecting 5e to have every PC as good as every other PC in every pillar, then you'll be disappointed. It doesn't do that, and has been designed to specifically not do that. 5e seems to be designed to have it as a team sport, so-to-speak, as the default mode of play.

What 5e does do, and does very well between skills, backgrounds, feats, and bounded accuracy, is give players a lot of choice. You can choose to be good at pretty much everything but not be super good at one thing. Or you can choose to be super good at one thing, but not super good at everything else. If you're looking to be super good at everything, or to have no other PC better than you in any of the pillars? 5e is not for you. That's not an attack on your senses or players who prefer that. It's simply stating how I feel the game was designed. I also think 5e is designed under the assumption that you will encounter all three pillars in the average game. Upthread I read someone say, "why bother bringing the fighter along then". Well, the game assumes that at some point you'll be doing what the fighter does better than everyone else.

And I will fully admit my biases when I say that I think it's a huge mistake and goes against the spirit of the game to either have the impression or to try to argue the impression that unless you are the best at something in your group, you shouldn't be doing it. This is a feeling I get a lot whenever I hear people imply or infer that PC X shouldn't attempt task A because PC Y is better. Or that PC X can't do tasks A, B, or C because they are specialized in only task D.

Being competent at something =/= having the highest possible mechanical bonus.

So basically, in the context of this discussion, the fighter might not be as good at exploration as another class, particularly at higher levels. But that doesn't mean the fighter isn't competent at those tasks and/or shouldn't be attempting them. 5e gives you the choice to build a fighter who is very competent in all three pillars.

 

[Ashkelon]

nobody is asking for all classes to be good at all pillars. All we are talking about is what can the fighter actually contribute outside of combat.

The answer is, not surprisingly, nothing more than a commoner could already accomplish.

I know some classes will have to be at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to exploration or social situations. I just wish the fighter had something unique or meaningful to contribute to those situations.

There really isn't any time where a party will face a non combat challenge and say "man I wish we had a fighter who could help take care of this". Everything the fighter does outside of combat can be replicated by pretty much any other class in the game, sometimes remarkably better than the fighter could ever hope to.

It would be cool if the fighter (and other similarly lacking classes) had moments to truly shine outside of combat. It wouldn't even take much. Here are some ideas for mid level non combat abilities for fighters and other Strength based PCs:

Getting expertise in athletics or treating a roll of 9 or less as a 10 for Athletics checks would be fitting and flavorful.
Doubling the damage they deal to objects and structures is another such ability that could work.
Flat out giving them a climb and swim speed so they don't need to make athletics checks to do those tasks would work too.
Doubling their jumping distance so they could make amazing leaps would be cool.
Doubling their carrying capacity so they can move large terrain would be amazing.

Instead, the fighter is basically limited to tasks anyone else can accomplish already.

 

[Sacrosanct]

nobody is asking for all classes to be good at all pillars. All we are talking about is what can the fighter actually contribute outside of combat.

The answer is, not surprisingly, nothing more than a commoner could already accomplish..

I'll admit. I stopped reading right here. Why? Because it's exactly what I was just talking about. For one, it's objectively untrue. Secondly, it's nothing but hyperbole. And thirdly, it fits right in with assuming "not the best" = "not competent", which I just got done saying isn't true. A fighter can be TONS more competent than a commoner, but because they might not have the best modifiers/powers/spells compared to another class, then they are just the same as a lowly commoner?

This is why it's impossible to have intellectually honest conversations some times.

 

[Ashkelon]

I'll admit. I stopped reading right here. Why? Because it's exactly what I was just talking about. For one, it's objectively untrue. Secondly, it's nothing but hyperbole. And thirdly, it fits right in with assuming "not the best" = "not competent", which I just got done saying isn't true. A fighter can be TONS more competent than a commoner, but because they might not have the best modifiers/powers/spells compared to another class, then they are just the same as a lowly commoner?

This is why it's impossible to have intellectually honest conversations some times.

How is it dishonest? What is a single non combat task a fighter can accomplish that a commoner could not. Sure, the fighter might have slightly higher check bonus, but even a commoner can eventually accomplish a DC 20 task. Hell, if the commoner has the same proficiency bonus and the same ability bonus, he accomplishes task just as well as the fighter.

Finally, you are putting words in my mouth (surprise surprise). Where did I say "not the best" = "not competent". Where did i say the fighter needed to be the best in order to contribute uniquely or meaningfully to a non combat encounter. I am merely pointing out that a commoner is just as capable of non combat activities as a fighter. The fighter can definitely contribute, he just is usually going to be the worst one for the job.

 

[Sacrosanct]

How is it dishonest? What is a single non combat task a fighter can accomplish that a commoner could not. Sure, the fighter might have slightly higher check bonus, but even a commoner can eventually accomplish a DC 20 task. Hell, if the commoner has the same proficiency bonus and the same ability bonus, he accomplishes task just as well as the fighter.

Finally, you are putting words in my mouth (surprise surprise). Where did I say "not the best" = "not competent". Where did i say the fighter needed to be the best in order to contribute uniquely or meaningfully to a non combat encounter. I am merely pointing out that a commoner is just as capable of non combat activities as a fighter. The fighter can definitely contribute, he just is usually going to be the worst one for the job.

* Ability scores are not the same for commoners than PCs. Ability scores reflect the time and training it took for that PC to make it in that class. An average score is 8-10 for people. That's what a commoner is going to have. If they are good, they might have one slightly higher
* commoners don't get prof bonuses because only classes do
* commoners don't get any class abilities that can be used to increase skill checks
* about the only thing a commoner gets is a background, which only give proficiency in that skill.
* so a commoner who is skilled is only going to get a +0 or +1 bonus total, depending on if they are one of the really rare ones to have an ability modifier higher than most everyone else. A fighter is going to have higher ability modifiers, an additional prof bonus, and class abilities to boost the checks up even further. I.e. a huge difference over a commoner.

So when you say what you said, it's basically the same argument, "If they aren't the best or as good as everyone else, they aren't competent" because you compared them to be the exact same as someone who is exponentially less skilled than what fighters actually are. When you compare them to someone who isn't competent, or just barely competent, that's what your statement implies. I also said "it fits right in with", NOT that you literally said those words. THat's not putting words in your mouth.

 

[Mistwell]

Because honestly I never see it happen. Odd bits of damage yes, not massive HP loss to multiple characters.

Never been caught in a blizzard? Never been caught in a landslide? Never had a bridge collapse? Never been in a sinking ship and drowning?

 

[Mistwell]

Really... Alertness, Dungeon Delver, Keen Mind, Lucky, Skilled... are all great feats for someone with feats to spare.

Lucky and Alertness are top feats, even without feats to spare. Our human druid just took Lucky at level 1, and she'd have taken it at level 4 if she wasn't human.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

nobody is asking for all classes to be good at all pillars. All we are talking about is what can the fighter actually contribute outside of combat.

The answer is, not surprisingly, nothing more than a commoner could already accomplish.

I know some classes will have to be at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to exploration or social situations. I just wish the fighter had something unique or meaningful to contribute to those situations.

There really isn't any time where a party will face a non combat challenge and say "man I wish we had a fighter who could help take care of this". Everything the fighter does outside of combat can be replicated by pretty much any other class in the game, sometimes remarkably better than the fighter could ever hope to.

It would be cool if the fighter (and other similarly lacking classes) had moments to truly shine outside of combat. It wouldn't even take much. Here are some ideas for mid level non combat abilities for fighters and other Strength based PCs:

Getting expertise in athletics or treating a roll of 9 or less as a 10 for Athletics checks would be fitting and flavorful.
Doubling the damage they deal to objects and structures is another such ability that could work.
Flat out giving them a climb and swim speed so they don't need to make athletics checks to do those tasks would work too.
Doubling their jumping distance so they could make amazing leaps would be cool.
Doubling their carrying capacity so they can move large terrain would be amazing.

Instead, the fighter is basically limited to tasks anyone else can accomplish already.

This. The fighter doesn't need to be better than anyone else in general, outside of combat, but should definitely have some distinct options that you have to be a fighter to use. Making the fighter competitive with a couple other classes in some facet of exploration would make the fighter not feel like they are designed for combat only. Sure, they can do stuff out of combat, but that just isn't the point.
Every class has baseline competence in most types of activities, because the numerical band of competence just isn't that wide in 5e. IMO, each class needs to be able to stand out some amount of the time in at least two pillars. Sure, the monk will be able to jump further and run faster than anyone else, but the ideas you posit for the fighter, and/or perhaps some benefit against fatigue, etc would help a lot, without taking anything away from any other class.

 

[Ashkelon]

* Ability scores are not the same for commoners than PCs. Ability scores reflect the time and training it took for that PC to make it in that class. An average score is 8-10 for people. That's what a commoner is going to have. If they are good, they might have one slightly higher
* commoners don't get prof bonuses because only classes do
* commoners don't get any class abilities that can be used to increase skill checks
* about the only thing a commoner gets is a background, which only give proficiency in that skill.
* so a commoner who is skilled is only going to get a +0 or +1 bonus total, depending on if they are one of the really rare ones to have an ability modifier higher than most everyone else. A fighter is going to have higher ability modifiers, an additional prof bonus, and class abilities to boost the checks up even further. I.e. a huge difference over a commoner.

So when you say what you said, it's basically the same argument, "If they aren't the best or as good as everyone else, they aren't competent" because you compared them to be the exact same as someone who is exponentially less skilled than what fighters actually are. When you compare them to someone who isn't competent, or just barely competent, that's what your statement implies. I also said "it fits right in with", NOT that you literally said those words. THat's not putting words in your mouth.

Imagine a high level commoner with training in athletics and a high strength score. It has exact same contribution to STR related challenges as the fighter, right? That is what I meant by the commoner having the same contribution as a fighter. That is the problem with the fighter, anyone with a decent strength and training in Athletics can be basically as good as the fighter at STR related challenges, but they also have things like spells, rituals, expertise, reliable talent, or non combat class features that make them better overall.

I'm not asking for a fighter to be the absolute best at athletics related tasks. That will usually fall to someone with expertise and/or magic.

What I want is for STR based PCs to have some unique non-combat capabilities. Right now, when you have a 40 ft chasm, you will need a spellcaster. When you have an unclimbable wall of force, you will need a spellcaster. When a 5 ton boulder bars your way, you will need a spellcaster.

It would be cool if such challenges could be surmounted by the martial characters (without expending spell resources). Those abilities are thematically fitting for mid to high level warriors in myth and fantasy. They give such warriors interesting ways to interact with exploration challenges. They also give something unique to the STR based PCs outside of combat.

 

[Imaro]

* Ability scores are not the same for commoners than PCs. Ability scores reflect the time and training it took for that PC to make it in that class. An average score is 8-10 for people. That's what a commoner is going to have. If they are good, they might have one slightly higher
* commoners don't get prof bonuses because only classes do
* commoners don't get any class abilities that can be used to increase skill checks
* about the only thing a commoner gets is a background, which only give proficiency in that skill.
* so a commoner who is skilled is only going to get a +0 or +1 bonus total, depending on if they are one of the really rare ones to have an ability modifier higher than most everyone else. A fighter is going to have higher ability modifiers, an additional prof bonus, and class abilities to boost the checks up even further. I.e. a huge difference over a commoner.

So when you say what you said, it's basically the same argument, "If they aren't the best or as good as everyone else, they aren't competent" because you compared them to be the exact same as someone who is exponentially less skilled than what fighters actually are. When you compare them to someone who isn't competent, or just barely competent, that's what your statement implies. I also said "it fits right in with", NOT that you literally said those words. THat's not putting words in your mouth.

The goalposts have been slipping and sliding throughout this entire conversation... from fighters can't do anything outside of combat... to fighter's are incompetent in non-combat situations... to fighters don't have fightery things (which no one has still given a concrete example of) to do outside of combat... to they aren't better at this specific thing than another class in non-combat... and now to they're not more skilled than a commoner outside of combat... and each time these claims are refuted the rebuttal is either... nuh-uhn that doesn't count or... the goalposts slide somewhere else.