Something about artificers just doesn't really click for me personally. It's hard to put my finger on exactly. There are some interesting ideas there like infusions, but I think them being so subclass dependent for identity might be part of the issue for me. And then some of the cool ideas not seeming quite as gripping as I'd like. Interesting bits that just don't seem to coalesce into a whole package that draws me in.
But I've also never actually played one, so I'm hesitant to label anything I haven't actually played as my least favorite. It feels like reviewing a movie based on its synopsis instead of the experience of watching it.
Why is the artificer so unpopular? I love artificers. Least favorite are monks because a) boring flavor-wise. So they're just an orientalist martial artist? Bawring and out of place in the generic western fantasy of D&D and b) mechanics-wise unexceptional. Martial arts die could be better spent on fighters or rogues and I don't really like the whole Ki thing.
I think it's combination of several attempts to make the class, low amount of support for the class (including not being in the SRD), and analysis paralysis with the infusion choices.
I enjoy them as well but I've been disappointed by Armorer and the lack of class specific spells.
I don’t think most of the subclasses don’t get enough to justify being only a half caster. They are neither a martial class, nor a full caster. Two exceptions: Battle Smith. And the Artillerist if you (specifically) use only the Defensive Cannon. Spamming temp hit points is very powerful.
Least favorite are monks because a) boring flavor-wise. So they're just an orientalist martial artist? Bawring and out of place in the generic western fantasy of D&D and b) mechanics-wise unexceptional. Martial arts die could be better spent on fighters or rogues and I don't really like the whole Ki thing.
On monks, I disagree with point A but agree with B. Monks are magical martial artists that harness the magical energy of the universe and use it to fuel there attacks.
The concept for monks are really cool, but yeah, the mechanical execution is terrible.
Something about artificers just doesn't really click for me personally. It's hard to put my finger on exactly. There are some interesting ideas there like infusions, but I think them being so subclass dependent for identity might be part of the issue for me. And then some of the cool ideas not seeming quite as gripping as I'd like. Interesting bits that just don't seem to coalesce into a whole package that draws me in.
But I've also never actually played one, so I'm hesitant to label anything I haven't actually played as my least favorite. It feels like reviewing a movie based on its synopsis instead of the experience of watching it.
Conceptually being a toy tinkerer is neat, but as for playing one it’s not for me. Mechanically I just envision actions in combat, and blah. Every other class in the game is either a full caster or a martial class. The Artificer is neither, with the exception of the Battle Smith. It’s a relatively weak martial + half caster, which, together is intriguing enough for me to give it a try at some point. The Armorer does not quite get there for me, since feat selection to increase your damage are lacking.
I don't think you can really claim that D&D is "generic Western fantasy." It's been a wacky mishmash of disparate inspirations since the very beginning. The Monk isn't any more out of place than the Barbarian, or the Wizard -- yes, really. D&D's Wizards are WEIRD.
The thing that always trips me up about the Monk is that all its moves are, in my mind anyway, conceptualized around hand-to-hand combat against humanoids, and that's simply not how D&D combat plays out a lot of the time. You're fighting oozes and wolves and stuff. I'm not really trying to karate chop a wolf, when I make a Monk. That's not what I'm thinking about for the character concept. But it's what I'm going to be doing.
Why is the artificer so unpopular? I love artificers. Least favorite are monks because a) boring flavor-wise. So they're just an orientalist martial artist? Bawring and out of place in the generic western fantasy of D&D and b) mechanics-wise unexceptional. Martial arts die could be better spent on fighters or rogues and I don't really like the whole Ki thing.
I genuinely don't understand it, either. They're probably among my top 5 favorite classes. But I also live for support/control characters and couldn't care less about damage. I'm a Bard main, and though their melee subs are fine, neither of them are really standouts, so I appreciate some of what Artificer offers in that area.
Something about artificers just doesn't really click for me personally. It's hard to put my finger on exactly. There are some interesting ideas there like infusions, but I think them being so subclass dependent for identity might be part of the issue for me. And then some of the cool ideas not seeming quite as gripping as I'd like. Interesting bits that just don't seem to coalesce into a whole package that draws me in.
But I've also never actually played one, so I'm hesitant to label anything I haven't actually played as my least favorite. It feels like reviewing a movie based on its synopsis instead of the experience of watching it.
Conceptually being a toy tinkerer is neat, but as for playing one it’s not for me. Mechanically I just envision actions in combat, and blah. Every other class in the game is either a full caster or a martial class. The Artificer is neither, with the exception of the Battle Smith. It’s a relatively weak martial + half caster, which, together is intriguing enough for me to give it a try at some point. The Armorer does not quite get there for me, since feat selection to increase your damage are lacking.
Battle Smiths are really quite capable, it's just not that easy to see on paper and you need to leverage your features. Homunculus + Spell Storing Item gets you 10 free second-level spells that you can cast without using any of your own actions. In play, throwing around 10 extra Shatters or Webs every day becomes quite impactful. Arcane Jolt is another sleeper, potentially adding 20d6 extra damage per day with the added flexibility of using it for healing instead. The defender and homunculus provide small but consistent damage with minimal impact on your action economy. As someone who has DMed for a Battle Smith, the defender itself really is quite annoying and provides significant defensive benefits.
I've never played a high-level Artillerist, but their features are likewise tuned up beyond what any other class normally gets. They were doing the Twilight Cleric thing before Twilight Clerics existed. Armorer does fall off although it can be a competent tank/rogue substitute depending on which way you go, and we don't talk about Alchemists. Over all, I think Artificer is actually pretty mechanically balanced for such a radical departure from the other classes. I always assumed it was the flavor that put people off.
Artificiers have the most limited mechanical support of any class in the game, lean on a system some players and GMs are inherently wary of (magic items and magic item 'crafting' even though they don't really craft), have a reputation (deserved or not is irrelevant) for being both weak, complicated, and kind of gimmicky at the same time. They also are the only post-core class in the game, which is a strike against it inherently for some players regardless of merits, and don't lean into a "classic" fantasy trope as easily as their core counterparts.
There's also apparently a contingent of people who have decided to heavily reflavor the Artificer to turn it into a steampunk inventor... and then get really mad about their own flavor because they hate steampunk??????????????? Don't really get the last one at all.
Something about artificers just doesn't really click for me personally. It's hard to put my finger on exactly. There are some interesting ideas there like infusions, but I think them being so subclass dependent for identity might be part of the issue for me. And then some of the cool ideas not seeming quite as gripping as I'd like. Interesting bits that just don't seem to coalesce into a whole package that draws me in.
But I've also never actually played one, so I'm hesitant to label anything I haven't actually played as my least favorite. It feels like reviewing a movie based on its synopsis instead of the experience of watching it.
Conceptually being a toy tinkerer is neat, but as for playing one it’s not for me. Mechanically I just envision actions in combat, and blah. Every other class in the game is either a full caster or a martial class. The Artificer is neither, with the exception of the Battle Smith. It’s a relatively weak martial + half caster, which, together is intriguing enough for me to give it a try at some point. The Armorer does not quite get there for me, since feat selection to increase your damage are lacking.
The more I read comments like these and read or watch optimization material, the more I think...playing the game with feats seems to just breed dissatisfaction. I know loads of people who don't play with feats or multiclassing, and they just generally seem happier with the game.
I've never played a high-level Artillerist, but their features are likewise tuned up beyond what any other class normally gets. They were doing the Twilight Cleric thing before Twilight Clerics existed. Armorer does fall off although it can be a competent tank/rogue substitute depending on which way you go, and we don't talk about Alchemists. Over all, I think Artificer is actually pretty mechanically balanced for such a radical departure from the other classes. I always assumed it was the flavor that put people off.
I played a single-classed Vedalken Artillerist in a 20th-level one-shot and I absolutely destroyed that fight. I did very little damage, but I also wasn't trying to. What I did do was ensure that my party stayed alive, and worked great there. I also never took a single hit. Between all the infusions and a small handful of magic items, my standing AC was at like 27 or something, and the cannons only boosted that further. Didn't lose a single hit point, just kept everyone else going and the monsters controlled. Grease basically never stops being good.
Something about artificers just doesn't really click for me personally. It's hard to put my finger on exactly. There are some interesting ideas there like infusions, but I think them being so subclass dependent for identity might be part of the issue for me. And then some of the cool ideas not seeming quite as gripping as I'd like. Interesting bits that just don't seem to coalesce into a whole package that draws me in.
But I've also never actually played one, so I'm hesitant to label anything I haven't actually played as my least favorite. It feels like reviewing a movie based on its synopsis instead of the experience of watching it.
Conceptually being a toy tinkerer is neat, but as for playing one it’s not for me. Mechanically I just envision actions in combat, and blah. Every other class in the game is either a full caster or a martial class. The Artificer is neither, with the exception of the Battle Smith. It’s a relatively weak martial + half caster, which, together is intriguing enough for me to give it a try at some point. The Armorer does not quite get there for me, since feat selection to increase your damage are lacking.
The more I read comments like these and read or watch optimization material, the more I think...playing the game with feats seems to just breed dissatisfaction. I know loads of people who don't play with feats or multiclassing, and they just generally seem happier with the game.
Probably a factor in why they're optional rules.
How do you go from a particular class not being my cup of tea, to me being unhappy?
Because when people discuss favorite or least favorite classes, it usually ends up going to a place of "strongest/weakest" as much as anything, and a regular complaint I hear about classes I enjoy the most (bard, monk, rogue, artificer, etc) is that there's no feat support. Generally meaning (or outright stating) to increase damage.
And you may not come off particularly unhappy, but I see people elsewhere get, like...vehement about how bad certain classes are. For a myriad of reasons, but "lack of feat support" comes up frequently. And even in discussions of "so overpowered it becomes bad" sort of situations, people get equally riled up. But their arguments always center around overpowered feats or multiclass combos.
Basically, I almost never see anyone get real cranky about D&D without also mentioning those two variant rules.
Because when people discuss favorite or least favorite classes, it usually ends up going to a place of "strongest/weakest" as much as anything, and a regular complaint I hear about classes I enjoy the most (bard, monk, rogue, artificer, etc) is that there's no feat support. Generally meaning (or outright stating) to increase damage.
And you may not come off particularly unhappy, but I see people elsewhere get, like...vehement about how bad certain classes are. For a myriad of reasons, but "lack of feat support" comes up frequently. And even in discussions of "so overpowered it becomes bad" sort of situations, people get equally riled up. But their arguments always center around overpowered feats or multiclass combos.
Basically, I almost never see anyone get real cranky about D&D without also mentioning those two variant rules.
That just means different people have different priorities than you. Also, if you take away feats all that will do is shift the power curve where feat dependent classes (mainly martials) will be nerfed. If I ever played a game that said "no feats or multi-class" I'll just end up playing a Beast Barbarian, or Clockwork Sorcerer, or other options that are far less feat dependent. Try to hamstring an optimizer and we're just going to optimize within the new parameters.
Because when people discuss favorite or least favorite classes, it usually ends up going to a place of "strongest/weakest" as much as anything, and a regular complaint I hear about classes I enjoy the most (bard, monk, rogue, artificer, etc) is that there's no feat support. Generally meaning (or outright stating) to increase damage.
And you may not come off particularly unhappy, but I see people elsewhere get, like...vehement about how bad certain classes are. For a myriad of reasons, but "lack of feat support" comes up frequently. And even in discussions of "so overpowered it becomes bad" sort of situations, people get equally riled up. But their arguments always center around overpowered feats or multiclass combos.
Basically, I almost never see anyone get real cranky about D&D without also mentioning those two variant rules.
Sadly, many campaigns have a split between 'we do lots of damage' and 'we do everything else.' Because of the way that stats work, the combat-related stats have almost zero impact outside of combat. Your Strength doesn't add to your Intimidation skill unless the DM says it does.
We had an incident where the big Barbarian ran into a bar and ordered everyone outside to help with something. Nobody moved because the Barb had a Cha of 11 and a mediocre roll. Seconds later, the Halfling Bard jumps up on a table and threatens to kill everyone if they didn't get outside NOW. Yep...the higher Cha, Expertise in Intimidation AND the Inspiration die gave them a result of over 20.
This means that in many circumstances, players have to pick between being good in combat or being good outside of it. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but you don't see many Bards with Great Weapon Master either. I firmly believe that GWM and Sharpshooter are OP and while I don't ban them at my table, I try to assess the character to see what ELSE they can do. I don't mind players running one-trick ponies but I don't want them coming back to me later and saying they're bored.
Because when people discuss favorite or least favorite classes, it usually ends up going to a place of "strongest/weakest" as much as anything, and a regular complaint I hear about classes I enjoy the most (bard, monk, rogue, artificer, etc) is that there's no feat support. Generally meaning (or outright stating) to increase damage.
And you may not come off particularly unhappy, but I see people elsewhere get, like...vehement about how bad certain classes are. For a myriad of reasons, but "lack of feat support" comes up frequently. And even in discussions of "so overpowered it becomes bad" sort of situations, people get equally riled up. But their arguments always center around overpowered feats or multiclass combos.
Basically, I almost never see anyone get real cranky about D&D without also mentioning those two variant rules.
Sadly, many campaigns have a split between 'we do lots of damage' and 'we do everything else.' Because of the way that stats work, the combat-related stats have almost zero impact outside of combat. Your Strength doesn't add to your Intimidation skill unless the DM says it does.
We had an incident where the big Barbarian ran into a bar and ordered everyone outside to help with something. Nobody moved because the Barb had a Cha of 11 and a mediocre roll. Seconds later, the Halfling Bard jumps up on a table and threatens to kill everyone if they didn't get outside NOW. Yep...the higher Cha, Expertise in Intimidation AND the Inspiration die gave them a result of over 20.
This means that in many circumstances, players have to pick between being good in combat or being good outside of it. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but you don't see many Bards with Great Weapon Master either. I firmly believe that GWM and Sharpshooter are OP and while I don't ban them at my table, I try to assess the character to see what ELSE they can do. I don't mind players running one-trick ponies but I don't want them coming back to me later and saying they're bored.
Using unconventional ability scores for checks is actually part of the core rules, and in my opinion it's under utilized. If I'm the DM and Barbarian does some kind of show of strength, like flinging a table across the room, I would let him do a Strength Intimidation Check. As a player I'm guessing most DM's will allow things like that. As players and DM's, we just forget you can do things like that.
Another example, a character is drunk as hell and needs to act sober. "Give me a Constitution Performance check."
Because when people discuss favorite or least favorite classes, it usually ends up going to a place of "strongest/weakest" as much as anything, and a regular complaint I hear about classes I enjoy the most (bard, monk, rogue, artificer, etc) is that there's no feat support. Generally meaning (or outright stating) to increase damage.
And you may not come off particularly unhappy, but I see people elsewhere get, like...vehement about how bad certain classes are. For a myriad of reasons, but "lack of feat support" comes up frequently. And even in discussions of "so overpowered it becomes bad" sort of situations, people get equally riled up. But their arguments always center around overpowered feats or multiclass combos.
Basically, I almost never see anyone get real cranky about D&D without also mentioning those two variant rules.
That just means different people have different priorities than you. Also, if you take away feats all that will do is shift the power curve where feat dependent classes (mainly martials) will be nerfed. If I ever played a game that said "no feats or multi-class" I'll just end up playing a Beast Barbarian, or Clockwork Sorcerer, or other options that are far less feat dependent. Try to hamstring an optimizer and we're just going to optimize within the new parameters.
Here's the thing, though...I don't even buy that martials are feat-dependent. I've been playing and running for years, across all tiers, and I've never seen anyone take one of the big power feats (CE/GWM/PAM/SS/etc) or multiclass, and I've also never seen anyone get "left behind," despite neither of those rules being banned. It's a very niche problem for a very small minority of players, mostly optimization-centric ones. WotC's own surveys and data bear that out. Hardly any 5e players use feats or multiclassing, and they don't complain. It's very specific to a very small subset of the overall player base...they're just the most vocal. So much so that the entire online discussion of the game is driven by them.
And, honestly...every optimizer I've ever really spent any time talking to about the game seems to actively dislike it more often than not, and complain more than have fun. But that's anecdotal and purely based on my interactions. But it just...seems like the added stuff and the drive to be the best tends to foster dissatisfaction.
Using unconventional ability scores for checks is actually part of the core rules, and in my opinion it's under utilized.
Yeah, the Barbarian/Bard example is just bad DMing. Alternate skill checks are part of the game, and anyone who isn't using them is running on autopilot rather than engaging with the game in front of them.
Because when people discuss favorite or least favorite classes, it usually ends up going to a place of "strongest/weakest" as much as anything, and a regular complaint I hear about classes I enjoy the most (bard, monk, rogue, artificer, etc) is that there's no feat support. Generally meaning (or outright stating) to increase damage.
And you may not come off particularly unhappy, but I see people elsewhere get, like...vehement about how bad certain classes are. For a myriad of reasons, but "lack of feat support" comes up frequently. And even in discussions of "so overpowered it becomes bad" sort of situations, people get equally riled up. But their arguments always center around overpowered feats or multiclass combos.
Basically, I almost never see anyone get real cranky about D&D without also mentioning those two variant rules.
That just means different people have different priorities than you. Also, if you take away feats all that will do is shift the power curve where feat dependent classes (mainly martials) will be nerfed. If I ever played a game that said "no feats or multi-class" I'll just end up playing a Beast Barbarian, or Clockwork Sorcerer, or other options that are far less feat dependent. Try to hamstring an optimizer and we're just going to optimize within the new parameters.
Here's the thing, though...I don't even buy that martials are feat-dependent. I've been playing and running for years, across all tiers, and I've never seen anyone take one of the big power feats (CE/GWM/PAM/SS/etc) or multiclass, and I've also never seen anyone get "left behind," despite neither of those rules being banned. It's a very niche problem for a very small minority of players, mostly optimization-centric ones. WotC's own surveys and data bear that out. Hardly any 5e players use feats or multiclassing, and they don't complain. It's very specific to a very small subset of the overall player base...they're just the most vocal. So much so that the entire online discussion of the game is driven by them.
And, honestly...every optimizer I've ever really spent any time talking to about the game seems to actively dislike it more often than not, and complain more than have fun. But that's anecdotal and purely based on my interactions. But it just...seems like the added stuff and the drive to be the best tends to foster dissatisfaction.
By feat dependent I mean there is a substantial difference between their power levels with feats versus without. Unquestionably it is the case for most martial classes that feats make a huge difference.
Sure, you can play without them. It really doesn’t matter how weak or strong the party is, you can just adjust the enemies accordingly.
Please show me the data that hardly any players use feats. Also, most surveys that are not scientific are riddled with problems, such as sampling bias.
Please show me the data that hardly any players use feats. Also, most surveys that are not scientific are riddled with problems, such as sampling bias.
I don't personally have the data itself, I don't even know if it's been released publicly. However, WotC (or at least Crawford) has said more than once over the years that this is what they've found in analyzing their own game. They probably know better than hobbyists. It's why they are and will likely remain mostly (Strixhaven and recent UA are indicating some potential changes there) optional.
And again...I've played in several games where feats weren't "banned," just...nobody cared.
Please show me the data that hardly any players use feats. Also, most surveys that are not scientific are riddled with problems, such as sampling bias.
I don't personally have the data itself, I don't even know if it's been released publicly. However, WotC (or at least Crawford) has said more than once over the years that this is what they've found in analyzing their own game. They probably know better than hobbyists. It's why they are and will likely remain mostly (Strixhaven and recent UA are indicating some potential changes there) optional.
And again...I've played in several games where feats weren't "banned," just...nobody cared.
That's odd, I've always found that lot's of people use feats.They're an integral part of the game and many different classes and builds rely upon them heavily.
Removing feats would be massively complicated and would completely change the game. Yes, 5e works without them, but it would really need a lot of remodeling to other elements of the game if feats were removed.
Something about artificers just doesn't really click for me personally. It's hard to put my finger on exactly. There are some interesting ideas there like infusions, but I think them being so subclass dependent for identity might be part of the issue for me. And then some of the cool ideas not seeming quite as gripping as I'd like. Interesting bits that just don't seem to coalesce into a whole package that draws me in.
But I've also never actually played one, so I'm hesitant to label anything I haven't actually played as my least favorite. It feels like reviewing a movie based on its synopsis instead of the experience of watching it.
I don’t think most of the subclasses don’t get enough to justify being only a half caster. They are neither a martial class, nor a full caster. Two exceptions: Battle Smith. And the Artillerist if you (specifically) use only the Defensive Cannon. Spamming temp hit points is very powerful.
On monks, I disagree with point A but agree with B. Monks are magical martial artists that harness the magical energy of the universe and use it to fuel there attacks.
The concept for monks are really cool, but yeah, the mechanical execution is terrible.
I honestly don't know, I guess for the reasons that SeanJP and OptimusGrimus gave?
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Conceptually being a toy tinkerer is neat, but as for playing one it’s not for me. Mechanically I just envision actions in combat, and blah. Every other class in the game is either a full caster or a martial class. The Artificer is neither, with the exception of the Battle Smith. It’s a relatively weak martial + half caster, which, together is intriguing enough for me to give it a try at some point. The Armorer does not quite get there for me, since feat selection to increase your damage are lacking.
I don't think you can really claim that D&D is "generic Western fantasy." It's been a wacky mishmash of disparate inspirations since the very beginning. The Monk isn't any more out of place than the Barbarian, or the Wizard -- yes, really. D&D's Wizards are WEIRD.
The thing that always trips me up about the Monk is that all its moves are, in my mind anyway, conceptualized around hand-to-hand combat against humanoids, and that's simply not how D&D combat plays out a lot of the time. You're fighting oozes and wolves and stuff. I'm not really trying to karate chop a wolf, when I make a Monk. That's not what I'm thinking about for the character concept. But it's what I'm going to be doing.
I genuinely don't understand it, either. They're probably among my top 5 favorite classes. But I also live for support/control characters and couldn't care less about damage. I'm a Bard main, and though their melee subs are fine, neither of them are really standouts, so I appreciate some of what Artificer offers in that area.
Battle Smiths are really quite capable, it's just not that easy to see on paper and you need to leverage your features. Homunculus + Spell Storing Item gets you 10 free second-level spells that you can cast without using any of your own actions. In play, throwing around 10 extra Shatters or Webs every day becomes quite impactful. Arcane Jolt is another sleeper, potentially adding 20d6 extra damage per day with the added flexibility of using it for healing instead. The defender and homunculus provide small but consistent damage with minimal impact on your action economy. As someone who has DMed for a Battle Smith, the defender itself really is quite annoying and provides significant defensive benefits.
I've never played a high-level Artillerist, but their features are likewise tuned up beyond what any other class normally gets. They were doing the Twilight Cleric thing before Twilight Clerics existed. Armorer does fall off although it can be a competent tank/rogue substitute depending on which way you go, and we don't talk about Alchemists. Over all, I think Artificer is actually pretty mechanically balanced for such a radical departure from the other classes. I always assumed it was the flavor that put people off.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Artificiers have the most limited mechanical support of any class in the game, lean on a system some players and GMs are inherently wary of (magic items and magic item 'crafting' even though they don't really craft), have a reputation (deserved or not is irrelevant) for being both weak, complicated, and kind of gimmicky at the same time. They also are the only post-core class in the game, which is a strike against it inherently for some players regardless of merits, and don't lean into a "classic" fantasy trope as easily as their core counterparts.
There's also apparently a contingent of people who have decided to heavily reflavor the Artificer to turn it into a steampunk inventor... and then get really mad about their own flavor because they hate steampunk??????????????? Don't really get the last one at all.
The more I read comments like these and read or watch optimization material, the more I think...playing the game with feats seems to just breed dissatisfaction. I know loads of people who don't play with feats or multiclassing, and they just generally seem happier with the game.
Probably a factor in why they're optional rules.
I played a single-classed Vedalken Artillerist in a 20th-level one-shot and I absolutely destroyed that fight. I did very little damage, but I also wasn't trying to. What I did do was ensure that my party stayed alive, and worked great there. I also never took a single hit. Between all the infusions and a small handful of magic items, my standing AC was at like 27 or something, and the cannons only boosted that further. Didn't lose a single hit point, just kept everyone else going and the monsters controlled. Grease basically never stops being good.
How do you go from a particular class not being my cup of tea, to me being unhappy?
Because when people discuss favorite or least favorite classes, it usually ends up going to a place of "strongest/weakest" as much as anything, and a regular complaint I hear about classes I enjoy the most (bard, monk, rogue, artificer, etc) is that there's no feat support. Generally meaning (or outright stating) to increase damage.
And you may not come off particularly unhappy, but I see people elsewhere get, like...vehement about how bad certain classes are. For a myriad of reasons, but "lack of feat support" comes up frequently. And even in discussions of "so overpowered it becomes bad" sort of situations, people get equally riled up. But their arguments always center around overpowered feats or multiclass combos.
Basically, I almost never see anyone get real cranky about D&D without also mentioning those two variant rules.
That just means different people have different priorities than you. Also, if you take away feats all that will do is shift the power curve where feat dependent classes (mainly martials) will be nerfed. If I ever played a game that said "no feats or multi-class" I'll just end up playing a Beast Barbarian, or Clockwork Sorcerer, or other options that are far less feat dependent. Try to hamstring an optimizer and we're just going to optimize within the new parameters.
Sadly, many campaigns have a split between 'we do lots of damage' and 'we do everything else.' Because of the way that stats work, the combat-related stats have almost zero impact outside of combat. Your Strength doesn't add to your Intimidation skill unless the DM says it does.
We had an incident where the big Barbarian ran into a bar and ordered everyone outside to help with something. Nobody moved because the Barb had a Cha of 11 and a mediocre roll. Seconds later, the Halfling Bard jumps up on a table and threatens to kill everyone if they didn't get outside NOW. Yep...the higher Cha, Expertise in Intimidation AND the Inspiration die gave them a result of over 20.
This means that in many circumstances, players have to pick between being good in combat or being good outside of it. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but you don't see many Bards with Great Weapon Master either. I firmly believe that GWM and Sharpshooter are OP and while I don't ban them at my table, I try to assess the character to see what ELSE they can do. I don't mind players running one-trick ponies but I don't want them coming back to me later and saying they're bored.
Using unconventional ability scores for checks is actually part of the core rules, and in my opinion it's under utilized. If I'm the DM and Barbarian does some kind of show of strength, like flinging a table across the room, I would let him do a Strength Intimidation Check. As a player I'm guessing most DM's will allow things like that. As players and DM's, we just forget you can do things like that.
Another example, a character is drunk as hell and needs to act sober. "Give me a Constitution Performance check."
Here's the thing, though...I don't even buy that martials are feat-dependent. I've been playing and running for years, across all tiers, and I've never seen anyone take one of the big power feats (CE/GWM/PAM/SS/etc) or multiclass, and I've also never seen anyone get "left behind," despite neither of those rules being banned. It's a very niche problem for a very small minority of players, mostly optimization-centric ones. WotC's own surveys and data bear that out. Hardly any 5e players use feats or multiclassing, and they don't complain. It's very specific to a very small subset of the overall player base...they're just the most vocal. So much so that the entire online discussion of the game is driven by them.
And, honestly...every optimizer I've ever really spent any time talking to about the game seems to actively dislike it more often than not, and complain more than have fun. But that's anecdotal and purely based on my interactions. But it just...seems like the added stuff and the drive to be the best tends to foster dissatisfaction.
Yeah, the Barbarian/Bard example is just bad DMing. Alternate skill checks are part of the game, and anyone who isn't using them is running on autopilot rather than engaging with the game in front of them.
By feat dependent I mean there is a substantial difference between their power levels with feats versus without. Unquestionably it is the case for most martial classes that feats make a huge difference.
Sure, you can play without them. It really doesn’t matter how weak or strong the party is, you can just adjust the enemies accordingly.
Please show me the data that hardly any players use feats. Also, most surveys that are not scientific are riddled with problems, such as sampling bias.
I don't personally have the data itself, I don't even know if it's been released publicly. However, WotC (or at least Crawford) has said more than once over the years that this is what they've found in analyzing their own game. They probably know better than hobbyists. It's why they are and will likely remain mostly (Strixhaven and recent UA are indicating some potential changes there) optional.
And again...I've played in several games where feats weren't "banned," just...nobody cared.
That's odd, I've always found that lot's of people use feats.They're an integral part of the game and many different classes and builds rely upon them heavily.
Removing feats would be massively complicated and would completely change the game. Yes, 5e works without them, but it would really need a lot of remodeling to other elements of the game if feats were removed.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.