• The window for editing your posts has been extended from 48 hours to about two weeks or so. Please report any problems with this in Trouble Tickets.

[5E] Un-hate my hate of classes

Eklev

Registered User
Validated User
I tend to feel that part of the problem is fundamental to class-based systems and can't ever be fully avoided, but the best solution within that framework, and the D&D version specifically, IMO is actually to reduce the ability of casters to autosolve problems outside their 'niche' as it were. Basically, if the spell doesn't automatically work, there's a chance the caster blows it the same as there's a chance the rogue fails a lockpicking roll or a fighter fails a leadership roll, and now the caster is on a more equal footing. I can't think offhand of a good implementation of that in D&D, but probably someone could, especially someone who knew the new editions better than I do.
Many rituals in 4e (meaning, much of utility and restoration magic) rely on a skill check rather than automatically doing something, or increase benefits with a higher result. For example, removing a disease with the proper ritual involves a Heal skill check, and a bad result could even kill the recipient.
 

Shade the Lost

Registered User
Validated User
I would expect the DM not to create edge care situations that exclude characters in party by requiring magical solutions when not all characters have magical abilities or gear necessary to overcome obstacles.

Paladins can do some things out of combat a fighter can't, but there are very few things outside of combat that require magic and most of them require specific spells that not all casters have access to so unless the DM is terrible a fighter is always able to contribute.
This feels rather close to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, as it is saying that no proper DM will ever design scenarios that a clever player can solve with magic more reliably/faster than a fighter's paltry skills can. Especially in 5e, where luck of the dice easily and vastly overrides the mod to a roll, thanks to the small numbers. "Okay, we can let the fighter try Investigate with his +1 mod... or we can burn a spell on this." Not really a difficult choice in most cases. Maybe he's got a +2, or is even proficient, but unless he's pretty high level, that's not going to make a big difference.

Once again, the fighter class design (in particular, and D&D class design in general) is schizophrenic as hell. The "bash it with a club" class designed for newbies is the one that is most valuable in combat, and the most useless outside of combat... but a sizable majority of D&D players I've run into feel that anyone who likes combat isn't a fan of "real D&D," and that combat should be over in 5 minutes tops so you can get back to the real game. That is, you've got the "designated newbie class" designed to be useful for the activity most tables want to avoid if at all possible, and which is easily the least useful in any other context. It's hard to convince someone to stop hating classes when you have such a poster child class for why classes can be absolute shit.

Basically, to me, the fighter class is designed to be the best at fighting (and nothing else) and the rest of the system works to teach you that fighting is a mistake or a punishment for a mistake/bad rolling. (Look at how much advice for the introductory levels centers around "yeah, they're fragile. That's on purpose to teach them to run away/negotiate if at all possible unless they're ambushing from a position of strength.") Look at how often discussion online talks about "putting in fights for the people who want to bash monsters" as if it's an onerous chore that is only in there to placate the people who Do It Wrong, but are friends and so ought to have at least a tiny concession made for them.
 

Dalillama

Registered User
Validated User
. but a sizable majority of D&D players I've run into feel that anyone who likes combat isn't a fan of "real D&D," and that combat should be over in 5 minutes tops so you can get back to the real game.
...
What the hell do these people think 'real' D&D is, and where did they get such an absurd idea of it? From day one, D&D has been about holes in the ground (i.e. Dungeons) full of treasure-bearing monsters (e.g. Dragons), and to a lesser extent about buildings and wildernesses full of monsters which may or may not bear treasure, and building armies to squabble with neighbours. Murderhobo parties are pretty much an exclusive creation of D&D, and a legacy that's persisted through every edition.
 

Shade the Lost

Registered User
Validated User
...
What the hell do these people think 'real' D&D is, and where did they get such an absurd idea of it? From day one, D&D has been about holes in the ground (i.e. Dungeons) full of treasure-bearing monsters (e.g. Dragons), and to a lesser extent about buildings and wildernesses full of monsters which may or may not bear treasure, and building armies to squabble with neighbours. Murderhobo parties are pretty much an exclusive creation of D&D, and a legacy that's persisted through every edition.
In my experience? Talking to, well, everything, including bribing some groups to help you kill others before you betray the first group now that they're worn down. They tend to be the same people that praise "roleplaying over rollplaying" unironically. There's also overlap with the people who think fights are for suckers, especially fair fights, and that it's better to acquire the treasure via theft or extremely lopsided ambush, or even poison in the middle of the night if they can manage it.

To some extent? People who prefer playing characters who are far more pragmatic than heroic.
 

Shade the Lost

Registered User
Validated User
Not sure why you quoted me when you are responding to something completely different.
I would expect the DM not to create edge case situations that exclude characters in party by requiring magical solutions when not all characters have magical abilities or gear necessary to overcome obstacles.

Paladins can do some things out of combat a fighter can't, but there are very few things outside of combat that require magic and most of them require specific spells that not all casters have access to so unless the DM is terrible a fighter is always able to contribute.
(bold mine for the parts that particularly seemed relevant.)

You seem to be stating that only a terrible DM ever creates situations where a fighter is incapable of contributing.
 

Siphonaptera

up to no good
Banned
Validated User
(bold mine for the parts that particularly seemed relevant.)

You seem to be stating that only a terrible DM ever creates situations where a fighter is incapable of contributing.
Yes, I was saying that creating situations that can only be resolved by specific class abilities is terrible DMing. Your post was about whether it magic might be easier and some other irrelevant topics.
 

SuperG

Active member
Validated User
Yes, I was saying that creating situations that can only be resolved by specific class abilities is terrible DMing. Your post was about whether it magic might be easier and some other irrelevant topics.
What does the DM have to do with it?

*Players* decide what their goals are. If the players want to rescue all the prisoners without risking vicious stabbings from their captors, the *players* will be the ones looking at their available assets to make a plan.

And odds are good that when you do so, the fighter will be a useless load that will do nothing other than suck up spells from actually-useful-outside-combat-characters.

Now if you want to claim that it is the job of a good DM to veto player plans that don't let the Fighter contribute...

Yeah.
 

macd21

Registered User
Validated User
Yes, I was saying that creating situations that can only be resolved by specific class abilities is terrible DMing. Your post was about whether it magic might be easier and some other irrelevant topics.
The DM isn’t creatino problems that can only be solved with specific class abilities. The DM is creating problems that can be solved with a whole range of class abilities, abilities that (odds are) the fighter doesn’t have, or that someone else can do better.
 

Shade the Lost

Registered User
Validated User
Yes, I was saying that creating situations that can only be resolved by specific class abilities is terrible DMing. Your post was about whether it magic might be easier and some other irrelevant topics.
It happens all the time, though, with this spell or that spell being needed. Unless you're saying that it's terrible DMing to include, say, any monster that can petrify, paralyze, or level drain. Or encounters that rely on the fighter being able to fly to reach his opponent, or... well, the list goes on. I've been trying to think of a case where the party might say "Boy, it sure was awesome we've got a Fighter with us," where the Fighter specifically is the key, and not "high strength character" or "character good at physical damage." I'm also trying to think of situations where being relied on to "tote that barge, lift that bale" as your primary contribution to an adventure isn't extremely demeaning, and... I'm having a tough time. Especially when I leave out combat situations, where at least they have Action Surge to have a chance at being a tide-turner if the dice smile on them.
 
Top Bottom