D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Imaro]

1: Do any of the citations you gave mention a "turn" in a non-combat context? Some do mention rounds; that's worth noting. But turns? I'm not seeing it. Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but it seems important.

I think you're being more than a little pedantic since it clearly references the combat chapter for an explanation of a round, thus I would assume all of the rules for a round their also apply to non-combat rounds... otherwise why direct readers there?

2: As I explicitly said, it doesn't speak either way. Technically speaking, neither of us is right or wrong, because the book does not speak on it. I'd genuinely like to know what the WotC people think.

It directs the reader to chapter 9 for the rules on rounds... it doesn't tell the reader pick and choose what rules concerning rounds you want to use (which is perfectly reasonable in any particular game but then we're in house ruling territory).

3: *facepalm* Yes, because "walking around" is an out-of-combat utility thing. I'll grant you the Search thing. That certainly weakens my case.

Wait... so your characters don't chase people, run from people, swim, climb, etc. because that's all movement and in my game it factors pretty heavily in the exploration pillar...

Now, how do you respond to the "I can search the room AND disarm this complex trap AT THE SAME TIME" problem? Because *that* to me is pretty conclusive justification for it NOT working outside of combat. Doing two attacks, or attacking *and* running the hell away, in a few seconds? That makes sense. Being able to perform two complex, long-duration tasks "at the same time" does not make sense.

I'm not sure what you mean here... a complex trap could possibly be jammed just by inserting a piece of metal or wood into one of it's gears (literally 3 seconds to do)... and heroes in fiction do stuff like that all the time... Now we're getting into the fiction surrounding the mechanics and that's going to be so variable as to be impossible to nail down conclusively.

You've made some good points. I'm not nearly as certain of my position as I was before. But I'm still stuck on the "I can bandage my buddy's wounds AND walk across this tightrope AT THE SAME TIME" thing.

So you want fighter non-combat ability that is on par with magic... but you also want him to stay in the realm of the mundane of our world. I explain Action Surge as the fighter having trained and honed his body and mind to react more quickly, push it's strength beyond normal limits and even instinctively perform tasks faster than most normal men can. But that's me.

Edit: And I'll note, the "at the same time" thing is...really kind of the whole point. Like, if it's not simultaneous, why even bother? It would be expending a precious and important resource to do exactly what you would already do, that is, do two tasks in sequence. If ability checks count as actions (which Search would imply), this leads to either a painfully unrealistic scenario, or a use of dubious or even negative "benefit."

Well one example is that even if it's not simultaneous it still makes you able, in short bursts, to run faster, swim quicker, climb faster, etc. than almost any other humanoid whose not a fighter. This allows you to overcome hazards quicker than others. It also is useful when time is of the essence for certain tasks... you need to both get to your buddy and patch him up before he fails that last death save... I mean how it's used is really up to the player, like any other resource the player controls.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What exactly can't you do outside of combat with the fighter, barbarian, monk etc.....?

Please explain to me in games terms what the problem is and don't tell me they are lacking in that piller because right now all classes function just fine in all pillers, they just aren't all equal and that is by design.

FWIW, I think most melee machines are pretty well-suited to the exploration pillar. Even without skills, they have naturally high STR or DEX and CON, and when you want to climb a wall or sneak past the goblins or swim the river, that is the useful thing. Spells are a fairly scarce resource that, in a resource-management metagame like 5e's adventuring day, are often better used for things that can't be done with an ability check, and the things that must be done that can't be done with an ability check are pretty unusual. So it is our fighter who climbs the wall or jumps the pit or swims the river, rope in hand. While the rogue is best at sneaking, any melee warrior is second-best, ESPECIALLY if they're Dex-focused. Activating a trap is typically a DEX save to avoid, and even if they're hit, they have the HPs to spend on it.

That's simply with ability scores and bounded accuracy and maybe some skill sauce on top. That's nice - they'll even steal the thunder from exploration-focused classes once in a while.

Interaction they're a little less out-of-the-box suited for, but putting CHA as your tertiary ability score and picking up a CHA skill with your background means you can certainly do well at it, even if you aren't at the top of the game. Thankfully, with Bounded Accuracy, being at the very top of the game isn't required to contribute - hitting a DC 15 is basically accomplishing the same thing across all 20 levels, and it's accomplishing quite a bit. It doesn't require much investment to do that.

I think some of you are basically theorycrafting and not actually looking at the rules of the game because a lot of what I am reading is just plain false.

Yeah, I think a lot of theorycraft forgets that bounded accuracy and resource management are A Thing in 5e, because in 4e and 3e these were very much Not Really A Thing.

 

[Sacrosanct]

FWIW, I think most melee machines are pretty well-suited to the exploration pillar. Even without skills, they have naturally high STR or DEX and CON, and when you want to climb a wall or sneak past the goblins or swim the river, that is the useful thing. Spells are a fairly scarce resource that, in a resource-management metagame like 5e's adventuring day, are often better used for things that can't be done with an ability check, and the things that must be done that can't be done with an ability check are pretty unusual. So it is our fighter who climbs the wall or jumps the pit or swims the river, rope in hand. While the rogue is best at sneaking, any melee warrior is second-best, ESPECIALLY if they're Dex-focused. Activating a trap is typically a DEX save to avoid, and even if they're hit, they have the HPs to spend on it. .

I agree with pretty much everything here. Only a minor difference in that I've found that shadow monks almost as good as rogues for sneaking, but that's sort of pedantic and doesn't take away from your point. Resource management is huge, and is the first thing to get ignored in these types of discussions. A player can prepare as best of what they know for what they may face, but there is no way a player will know everything and always have the perfect spell prep'd, and even if they do, they might not have any slots for it. Wizards only get 6 spells in their spellbook, and then are dependent on finding scrolls from there on out. There is no guarantee they will even find the spell. The DM is the only one who really knows everything the PCs will face, and even then that's not set in stone. Players rarely follow the script, so-to-speak, so as a DM I'm constantly adjusting scenarios to react to how the PCs acted.

 

[Dausuul]

Wizards only get 6 spells in their spellbook, and then are dependent on finding scrolls from there on out.

No, they're not. A wizard gets 2 new spells each time he or she gains a level.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No, they're not. A wizard gets 2 new spells each time he or she gains a level.

You're right, I must have been thinking of something else. But either way, I think the overall point still stands. When you hit level 3 and get those two spells, what are you going to choose? Odds are, you won't have the perfect spell prep'd for every scenario, which is a baseline assumption in many of these arguments. For instance, unless my character concept is rogue-like anyway, the two spells I choose at level 3 won't be knock and invisibility. They'll be something else.

 

[Ashkelon]

FWIW, I think most melee machines are pretty well-suited to the exploration pillar. Even without skills, they have naturally high STR or DEX and CON, and when you want to climb a wall or sneak past the goblins or swim the river, that is the useful thing. Spells are a fairly scarce resource that, in a resource-management metagame like 5e's adventuring day, are often better used for things that can't be done with an ability check, and the things that must be done that can't be done with an ability check are pretty unusual. So it is our fighter who climbs the wall or jumps the pit or swims the river, rope in hand. While the rogue is best at sneaking, any melee warrior is second-best, ESPECIALLY if they're Dex-focused. Activating a trap is typically a DEX save to avoid, and even if they're hit, they have the HPs to spend on it.

That's simply with ability scores and bounded accuracy and maybe some skill sauce on top. That's nice - they'll even steal the thunder from exploration-focused classes once in a while.

Interaction they're a little less out-of-the-box suited for, but putting CHA as your tertiary ability score and picking up a CHA skill with your background means you can certainly do well at it, even if you aren't at the top of the game. Thankfully, with Bounded Accuracy, being at the very top of the game isn't required to contribute - hitting a DC 15 is basically accomplishing the same thing across all 20 levels, and it's accomplishing quite a bit. It doesn't require much investment to do that.


Yeah, I think a lot of theorycraft forgets that bounded accuracy and resource management are A Thing in 5e, because in 4e and 3e these were very much Not Really A Thing.

I don't believe this is true. For example a 20 strength PC will definitely climb or swim better than s 10 Strength one, but how often is that needed? And how often are the consequences of failure sever enough to where that matters. Let's say you have a DC 15 Strength check that is needed. If there is no significant consequence of failure, the 10 Strength wizard can climb it eventually just fine. If there is a major consequence of failure, the 20 Strength fighter still has almost a 50% chance to fail. The spell aster on the other hand could bypass the challenge with one of their lowest level spells, an insignificant resource by mid levels.

In most games I have been in with exploration, the Str based warriors aren't really needed. A cleric with guidance of a bard can be nearly as capable as they are, without the need for even using a spell slot. Hell, the bard with expertise in athletics is often times better. Most STR related challenges are either repeatable (ie bashing down a door), or suffer no significant consequence of failure. This means STR tends to be the least useful attribute for exploration. The few times where the consequence of failure is meaningful, such as needing to climb a 100 ft wall and failure results in falling taking 10d6 damage, it is usually just better to bypass the challenge with a spell than to risk failure.

 

[Imaro]

Action surge is dwarfed in utility by cunning action, especially for thieves

Funny... action surge seems much more versatile.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't believe this is true. For example a 20 strength PC will definitely climb or swim better than s 10 Strength one, but how often is that needed?

IMXP, whenever there's a body of water that needs crossin'. This can originate from interesting battle terrain (you're on one side of the river, the archers are on the other!), or in an abstract exploration sense (there's a river you need to cross to make it to the other side of this hex) or in a more "encounter moment" exploration sense (you've come across a river with the bridge washed out, what do you do?) or even from player decisions (...you know, we heard rumors about trolls on that bridge...can we just ford the river instead?). Also popular on board ships, like with pirate encounters or sahagin fights.

And how often are the consequences of failure sever enough to where that matters.

I've seen character die from failed skill checks like that. Hell, I've visited death on PC's that can't swim before. Bypassing HP is often one of the quickest and most effective ways to kiss a PC goodbye, and drowning in most rulesets ignores your HP total and goes straight for "you're dying."

Let's say you have a DC 15 Strength check that is needed. If there is no significant consequence of failure, the 10 Strength wizard can climb it eventually just fine.

Aye, but if there's no significant consequence of failure, why the heck are we even rolling for it? "After a few minutes, you manage to wade through the hip-deep water and you're on the other side. Wizard stumbles a little bit halfway through and Fighter grabs his arm to steady him." It's not an obstacle at that point, it's just flavor text.

If there is a major consequence of failure, the 20 Strength fighter still has almost a 50% chance to fail. The spell aster on the other hand could bypass the challenge with one of their lowest level spells, an insignificant resource by mid levels.

You can't just dismiss resource management at any level in 5e. In my actual experience:

• In character creation and spell selection, a caster might not grab that spell. This happens more often than theorycraft would often realize - misty step and fly and the like are 50% of your spell choice for a level. Simply not having that spell in your spellbook - because you're an abjurer, or because you're damage-focused, or because you focus on rituals or whatever - is more often the case than not.
• In the case that the caster knows the precise correct spell, it is not a foregone conclusion that spending the slot on it is going to be worth it. Even low-level slots are a valuable resource at all levels in any game that follows the encounter guidelines. Casting that is one less invisibility, one less fireball - that's not always a tradeoff that a caster is willing to make.
• If the caster has the correct spell and wants to use it, they are spending a limited resource to remove an obstacle for themselves. This is fine. Intentional, even. The fighter will shine in the next fight against 40 goblins in a room when the caster doesn't have a fireball.
• On the Str-based Fighter's side, I'm not sure why the STR 20 Fighter hasn't taken Athletics or isn't a Champion (most people choose skills that augment their high ability scores)...but putting that aside for the moment (maybe he's a dwarf who is afraid of water!), even if they have no proficiency whatsoever, that 50% chance is the best chance in the party. And he's also got the best chance to secure the rope on the other side (for instance, if the "river" is water down a dungeon corridor, so there's not a convenient tree to tie off to on the other side), making it more party-friendly. Why would the caster blow a spell slot when Beefy McMightythews can swim the churning water and strap down the other side?
• A mid-level party in general is not challenged significantly by a river (a typical STR 20 Fighter who was level 12 and had proficiency would turn that raging rapid into a perfunctory "don't mess it up" skill check), so even if it was dismissively cheap to overcome the river (maybe a warlock!), it'd be a little like trying to challenge the party with a bugbear - yeah, they're going to trounce it, it might cost them a bit to do so.

In most games I have been in with exploration, the Str based warriors aren't really needed. A cleric with guidance of a bard can be nearly as capable as they are, without the need for even using a spell slot. Hell, the bard with expertise in athletics is often times better. Most STR related challenges are either repeatable (ie bashing down a door), or suffer no significant consequence of failure. This means STR tends to be the least useful attribute for exploration. The few times where the consequence of failure is meaningful, such as needing to climb a 100 ft wall and failure results in falling taking 10d6 damage, it is usually just better to bypass the challenge with a spell than to risk failure.

If you're facing frequent checks that entail no significant consequence of failure, that's yer problem. DMG pg. 237: "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure," provided with a pretty thorough account of how to determine if that's the case and when to allow auto-success on multiple checks.

Yeah, if ability score checks are perfunctory in your games, you're not going to get a lot of mileage out of high or low ability scores and you're going to lean much harder on class features and the like, but that's flagrantly ignoring a pretty significant chunk of the game. If it's not meaningful to have a STR 20 vs. a STR 18 vs. a STR 10, there's a series of house rules that are likely in order (like perhaps, auto-assigning bonuses and having FATE-like traits that you put on your character rather than assigning ability score numbers).

 

[Ashkelon]

IMXP, whenever there's a body of water that needs crossin'. This can originate from interesting battle terrain (you're on one side of the river, the archers are on the other!), or in an abstract exploration sense (there's a river you need to cross to make it to the other side of this hex) or in a more "encounter moment" exploration sense (you've come across a river with the bridge washed out, what do you do?) or even from player decisions (...you know, we heard rumors about trolls on that bridge...can we just ford the river instead?). Also popular on board ships, like with pirate encounters or sahagin fights.



I've seen character die from failed skill checks like that. Hell, I've visited death on PC's that can't swim before. Bypassing HP is often one of the quickest and most effective ways to kiss a PC goodbye, and drowning in most rulesets ignores your HP total and goes straight for "you're dying."



Aye, but if there's no significant consequence of failure, why the heck are we even rolling for it? "After a few minutes, you manage to wade through the hip-deep water and you're on the other side. Wizard stumbles a little bit halfway through and Fighter grabs his arm to steady him." It's not an obstacle at that point, it's just flavor text.




You can't just dismiss resource management at any level in 5e. In my actual experience:

• In character creation and spell selection, a caster might not grab that spell. This happens more often than theorycraft would often realize - misty step and fly and the like are 50% of your spell choice for a level. Simply not having that spell in your spellbook - because you're an abjurer, or because you're damage-focused, or because you focus on rituals or whatever - is more often the case than not.
• In the case that the caster knows the precise correct spell, it is not a foregone conclusion that spending the slot on it is going to be worth it. Even low-level slots are a valuable resource at all levels in any game that follows the encounter guidelines. Casting that is one less invisibility, one less fireball - that's not always a tradeoff that a caster is willing to make.
• If the caster has the correct spell and wants to use it, they are spending a limited resource to remove an obstacle for themselves. This is fine. Intentional, even. The fighter will shine in the next fight against 40 goblins in a room when the caster doesn't have a fireball.
• On the Str-based Fighter's side, I'm not sure why the STR 20 Fighter hasn't taken Athletics or isn't a Champion (most people choose skills that augment their high ability scores)...but putting that aside for the moment (maybe he's a dwarf who is afraid of water!), even if they have no proficiency whatsoever, that 50% chance is the best chance in the party. And he's also got the best chance to secure the rope on the other side (for instance, if the "river" is water down a dungeon corridor, so there's not a convenient tree to tie off to on the other side), making it more party-friendly. Why would the caster blow a spell slot when Beefy McMightythews can swim the churning water and strap down the other side?
• A mid-level party in general is not challenged significantly by a river (a typical STR 20 Fighter who was level 12 and had proficiency would turn that raging rapid into a perfunctory "don't mess it up" skill check), so even if it was dismissively cheap to overcome the river (maybe a warlock!), it'd be a little like trying to challenge the party with a bugbear - yeah, they're going to trounce it, it might cost them a bit to do so.

If you're facing frequent checks that entail no significant consequence of failure, that's yer problem. DMG pg. 237: "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure," provided with a pretty thorough account of how to determine if that's the case and when to allow auto-success on multiple checks.

Yeah, if ability score checks are perfunctory in your games, you're not going to get a lot of mileage out of high or low ability scores and you're going to lean much harder on class features and the like, but that's flagrantly ignoring a pretty significant chunk of the game. If it's not meaningful to have a STR 20 vs. a STR 18 vs. a STR 10, there's a series of house rules that are likely in order (like perhaps, auto-assigning bonuses and having FATE-like traits that you put on your character rather than assigning ability score numbers).

I hear what you are saying, but your arguments counteract eachother. For example, lets say you have a Strength based challenge where the 20 Strength fighter needs to roll an 11+ to overcome it. If he fails, he dies. The 10 wizard who happens to be trained in athletics could attempt this, but he only succeeds on a 16+. Now, clearly the fighter is better at overcoming this obstacle, but is a 50% chance of dying even worth attempting such a task. Hell, even if the fighter succeeded on a 6+, I wouldn't risk taking a 25% chance of instant death.

Now the wizard could just cast a level 1 or 2 spell (jump, spider climb, misty step, levitate, or tensers disk can bypass most STR based hazards just fine) and have no chance of death. So in this scenario, it is better for the wizard to use one of his low level slots. Especially given that at levels 5+, a cantrip will tend to do about as much damage as a level 1 spell. By level 5+, the wizard should easily be capable of preparing at least 2 exploration utility spells.

Now of course, if there is no major consequence of failure, then it doesn't matter that the fighter succeeds 50% of the time and the wizard only 25% of the time (or 75% and 50%). Because without consequence of failure, you can simply repeat the task.

So again, when there are major consequences, it is better to let the caster use a low level spell. When there are no consequences, having a high strength doesn't matter. That is my biggest problem with Strength checks in exploration; there is no real middle ground where having a high Strength is needed or even preferred.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Action Surge, technically speaking, does not explicitly state that it can only be used in combat. It does, however, say "on your turn." "Turns" are explicitly defined as being part of combat--I have not been able to find a reference to non-combat "turns" in the PHB. This is something I'd consider a pretty severely grey area

Which is virtually a non-issue in 5e. The DM will rule the way he'll rule and that's that. A decent DM that's at all aware of any issue with a given PC having 'nothing to do' out of combat is going to try to set up things to get him involved. That'll include ruling in favor of using a primarily combat resource out of combat, and engineering challenges and situations where being able to do things like climb another 15' in a specific six-second interval is useful, important and splotlight worthy.'

In this case, Action Surge seems inappropriate for out-of-combat use both from fluff and crunch: the crunch modifies the nature of a turn rather than the nature of things your character can do, and the fluff is pretty clear that it's a purely physical, and very brief, thing ("you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment") rather than a "you can do two things simultaneously regardless of their complexity or duration."

True, but what little a fighter can do out of combat is limited to purely physical, probably fairly brief things, like lifting/throwing/breaking things, or making a difficult jump or climb or whatever.

I don't believe this is true. For example a 20 strength PC will definitely climb or swim better than s 10 Strength one, but how often is that needed? And how often are the consequences of failure sever enough to where that matters.

That's an issue, yes. If a party needs to get past a sheer drop, the whole party needs to do it. The highest STR, trained-in-athletics guy might go first and tie off a rope so everyone else can make the climb easily. Unless he's attacked or there's a more-dangerous-than-it-seems part of the climb that constitutes a trap, though, it's not a terribly dramatic task. Absolute case, he takes a little falling damage on a failed attempt or two.

In most games I have been in with exploration, the Str based warriors aren't really needed. A cleric with guidance of a bard can be nearly as capable as they are, without the need for even using a spell slot. Hell, the bard with expertise in athletics is often times better. Most STR related challenges are either repeatable (ie bashing down a door), or suffer no significant consequence of failure. This means STR tends to be the least useful attribute for exploration.

CHA seems pretty superfluous in most exploration. But, yes, the kinds of things STR accomplishes are often the kind of things that can be accomplished with repeated attempts, more elaborate tool use, or whatever - so adding time pressure and consequences could help. Getting a door open, no big deal. Getting a door open so you can escape the rapidly-flooding chamber, a little more meaningful...

The few times where the consequence of failure is meaningful, such as needing to climb a 100 ft wall and failure results in falling taking 10d6 damage, it is usually just better to bypass the challenge with a spell than to risk failure.

Probably true, though it's never certain with a resource-management question. You can't dismiss resource management because, really, it's the central mechanism of play, D&D has always been a resource-management game (as well as an RPG, wargame, treasure-hunting game, etc). So, the main argument for using a spell to avoid the fighter risking a high-damage fall is avoiding using the spells it'd take to heal him...