D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[FormerlyHemlock]

I mean, yes, if you set your standard as "the stuff a Druid or Tome-Warlock can do," then the differences between the Fighter and...well, pretty much *anyone* else, even *Rogues,* are small. But that's like Einstein or Marilyn vos Savant as your intelligence standard and wondering why you can't really distinguish between someone with a mild learning disability and someone with exactly median intelligence. Don't get me wrong, I think *everyone* should have as much flavorful, interesting, flexible utility potential as the Druid or Tome-Warlock does. Instead of defining the Tome-Warlock as 1, and therefore needing to describe the Fighter as (say) 0.001, isn't it easier to say the Fighter has 1 (smallest whole-number amount) and the Warlock has 1000? The Paladin might still only be 15 or 20, but it certainly seems like a lot more to compare 1 to 20 as opposed to comparing 0.020 to 0.001.

To me it looks more like the difference between 10 and 20 than 1 and 20. Of course, unlike you I see Eldritch Knights as a perfectly legitimate fighter archtype which ought not to be excluded from discussion. They have all the important features of a fighter: weapons-reliance, action surge, 4 attacks per round capstone, Indomitable, extra feats... Eldritch Knights are the best kind of fighters. I see them as basically Pandion Knights.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Can you please explain how you came to this belief? I literally just can't fathom it, in any way. It's like someone is telling me that gravity is a repulsive force, and photons make things darker.

The point of D&D (or any other such traditional RPG) - the whole reason we even have numbers for anything, instead of pure role-playing - is that it lets us determine the outcome of any narrative situation, without bias. You take the actors and actions from the narrative, convert those over to game mechanics, resolve the game mechanics, and then translate those back into a narrative resolution.

In order for this system to work at all, there must be consensus about how to convert the narrative into game mechanics. That's step one. We all need to agree that Drizzt converts over as a multiclass barbarian/ranger (or whatever). If there are different ways that we could convert the character, due to ambiguity between classes, then the resolution of any actions for that character are going to depend on an out-of-game factor (how we choose to convert him) rather than flowing causally from the in-game reality.

And of course, it's ridiculous to assert that the narrative outcome of an in-game action could possibly depend on out-of-game criteria. If we were going to do that, we could just cut to the chase and make up our own resolution, instead of futzing around with dice.

 

[Bacon Bits]

But...what?

The Bard is the Renaissance Man of DnD, not some amateur dilettante. The defining feature of that archetype is the ability to be an expert in multiple, diverse and distinct subjects simultaneously.
And the Bard has always included the mastery of lore as part of the class concept. The Wizard may be the master of Arcane Lore, but no one has a more comprehensive, encyclopedic pool of knowledge on matters mundane, arcane and otherwise, as the Bard.

No. The Bard has always included lore for legends, legendary persons, and magic items. General knowledge has not been their realm of study at all.

The 1E Bard has a chance "of knowing something about a legendary person, place or thing or of knowing what a particular magic item is. The latter ability is limited to weapons, armor, potions, scrolls, and those items of magical nature which the bard can employ or which bear magical inscriptions[.]" It has a 50% chance of success at name level.

In 2e, the chance of knowing something about legendary people was removed completely (or emulated through the ability to just cast legend lore, which, of course, Wizards can do earlier), and the item knowledge was changed to be item history and item nature only. It explicitly did not reveal any information about a magic item's abilities. It had a 5% chance of success per level, again giving you about 50% chance of success at name level.

In 3.x, bardic knowledge is explicitly limited to "local notable people, legendary items, or noteworthy places". Additionally, while the DCs mirror those of Knowledge checks, the ability is level + Int mod (a secondary stat), meaning it's got an inherent -3 penalty to the check. Furthermore, you're explicitly barred from Take 10, as "this sort of knowledge is essentially random."

The Bard is only a master of legends, history, rumor, and storytelling. It was 5e that changed this flavor, granting skill Expertise and bonus skill proficiencies (for College of Lore) when, historically, Bards have exactly been the dilettante for anything other than music and performance. It wasn't until 3.5 that Bards got enough skill points to even think about putting skill points in more than one Knowledge skill.

Wizards, on the other hand, focus their lives on study. Yes, mostly study of Arcane Lore, but that art is the most useful for learning about other facts. In previous editions, Wizards not only had the spells which could best acquire knowledge, they had the Intelligence necessary to more regularly make Int checks. In 3e, they had enough Int to get skill points to invest into Knowledge skills.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In 2e, the chance of knowing something about legendary people was removed completely (or emulated through the ability to just cast legend lore, which, of course, Wizards can do earlier), and the item knowledge was changed to be item history and item nature only. It explicitly did not reveal any information about a magic item's abilities. It had a 5% chance of success per level, again giving you about 50% chance of success at name level.

Actually, in 2nd edition, the bard still had a "5% chance per experience level to identify the general purpose and function of any magical item. The bard need not handle the item but must examine it closely. Even if successful, the exact function of the item is not revealed, only its general nature." It then gives an example of what a bard might know about a cursed Sword +1. "This sword was used by the evil warrior Lurdas. I wouldn't touch it if I were you!"

No Legend Lore required.

 

[Sacrosanct]

IME, YMMV, etc, etc

The bard has always been that class you played when you wanted to be a jack of all trades. You wanted to be effective in a fight if you had to, to be able to cast some spells when you needed to, and you could be a thief-lite when called upon. But you were never as good as a dedicated fighter, caster, or thief. As mentioned, knowledge as focused around legends, magic, and performance. You didn't ask the bard what herbs made X poultice, you asked the druid. You didn't ask the bard how to maintain your weapons and armor effectively, you asked the fighter. You didn't ask the bard which items went into that potion or what things were rare spell components, you asked the magic user.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Actually, in 2nd edition, the bard still had a "5% chance per experience level to identify the general purpose and function of any magical item. The bard need not handle the item but must examine it closely. Even if successful, the exact function of the item is not revealed, only its general nature." It then gives an example of what a bard might know about a cursed Sword +1. "This sword was used by the evil warrior Lurdas. I wouldn't touch it if I were you!"

No Legend Lore required.

Not really. The spell legend lore works on persons and places as well as items. 2e Bards only have Item Knowledge. It doesn't work on people or places. 1e Bards could use their ability on persons and places. Hence, the class relies on legend lore for abilities it had in 1e.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To me it looks more like the difference between 10 and 20 than 1 and 20. Of course, unlike you I see Eldritch Knights as a perfectly legitimate fighter archtype which ought not to be excluded from discussion. They have all the important features of a fighter: weapons-reliance, action surge, 4 attacks per round capstone, Indomitable, extra feats... Eldritch Knights are the best kind of fighters. I see them as basically Pandion Knights.

That's fine. There's still a painfully sharp divide between what you can do *if* you choose EK, and what you can do if you don't choose it. Even the EK isn't particularly great in my humble opinion, mostly because of its limited spell list, but it can pick up enough to be competent. Certainly enough to be on par with any variant of Paladin, regardless of whether you set the standard at bare-minimum or absolute-maximum.

Maybe a better way of saying this: *yet again,* and I say this *even of 4e* which I am openly and unabashedly a fan of, going for a purely martial archetype results in having seriously curtailed participation in any pillar that isn't Stab Things With The Pointy End(/Smash Things With The Blunt End/Cut Things With The Sharp Side). The only way for a Fighter to get *anything* like Wizard-type utility...is to become half-Wizard. That's sh*tty. It elevates some preferences above others: if your preferences are "playing a Fighter" and "having lots to do regardless of the challenge you face," but do not include "cast spells," you're pretty much hosed. And yes, that is a pretty substantial fraction of the fanbase.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The point of D&D (or any other such traditional RPG) - the whole reason we even have numbers for anything, instead of pure role-playing - is that it lets us determine the outcome of any narrative situation, without bias.

Ideally, sure. A game's system should be clear, balanced, and playable enough to function that way most of the time. D&D has rarely delivered on that, though. It has a long tradition of falling back on player knowledge and DM judgement. 5e consciously embraces that tradition.

And of course, it's ridiculous to assert that the narrative outcome of an in-game action could possibly depend on out-of-game criteria. If we were going to do that, we could just cut to the chase and make up our own resolution, instead of futzing around with dice.

It's inappropriate for the reason you give, I agree - but it's not ridiculous, if only because it was done that way for so long. In early D&D, there was no skill system. If you wanted your character to do much of anything besides make an attack roll or cast a spell, you described what you did. If you wanted to build a fire, you better know, personally, how to start a fire (and the DM had better agree with you on that point). It didn't matter if your character was a citified Theif who'd never started a campfire in his life, or a 10th level Ranger, his basic survival skills depended on the DM's opinion of the knowledge displayed by the player.

That's arguably a horrible way to run a game, but it was the reality we dealt with for a long time, and 5e is too committed to evoking the feel of those days to entirely reject such player-as-resolution-system solutions.

Maybe a better way of saying this: *yet again,* and I say this *even of 4e* which I am openly and unabashedly a fan of, going for a purely martial archetype results in having seriously curtailed participation in any pillar that isn't Stab Things With The Pointy End(/Smash Things With The Blunt End/Cut Things With The Sharp Side). The only way for a Fighter to get *anything* like Wizard-type utility...is to become half-Wizard. That's sh*tty. It elevates some preferences above others: if your preferences are "playing a Fighter" and "having lots to do regardless of the challenge you face," but do not include "cast spells," you're pretty much hosed. And yes, that is a pretty substantial fraction of the fanbase.

It is a perennial and egregious failing of D&D, yes. But, 5e, with it's strong emphasis on capturing the classic feel of the game, and at least nominal inclusiveness towards all editions and styles, made it an edition that could not possibly have tackled that issue. Doing so is just far outside it's stated goals. That it made it worse than it's been since 1999 can't even be held against it. D&D has a long tradition of caster supremacy and martial inferiority: 5e couldn't have reached it's goals without embracing that.

 

[Parmandur]

I find it fascinating that in the same thread we have people complaining about caster supra.cy, and they casters are no fun to play because NERF. Seems they hit the balance well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I find it fascinating that in the same thread we have people complaining about caster supra.cy, and they casters are no fun to play because NERF. Seems they hit the balance well.

It all depends on what you compare it to. If you compare casters to 3.x/Pathfinder, sure, they're 'nerfed' in that there are fewer broken spells and spell-combos, damage scales by slot level instead of caster level, and they have fewer slots at high level (OTOH, casters picked up at-will cantrips that do scale with level, MC caster levels stack, and save DCs scale with character level, not spell slot level, so there's some improvements balancing out the 'nerf'). Conversely, if you compare casters in 5e to the balanced classes in 4e, sure, it's an unmistakable return to "caster supremacy" (though, really, as in 2e, 5e casters are 'just' supremely versatile, while fighters are roughly viable DPR machines).

Think of it as a continuum:

Caster Supremacy < Ars Magicka < 3.5 < Pathfinder < 5e < 2e < 1e < 0D&D < Basic D&D < 13A < 4e < Class Balance > C&S > DragonQuest > Iron Heroes > > > > Caster Inferiority.

All versions of D&D, even the best-balanced, are tilted in the favor of casters. That's just part of what makes 'em D&D. 5e, firmly trying to /be/ D&D in the classic sense, embraces that.