They are just singing healers now, they lost a lot of utility and damage spells. Lore bard is trash now with no extra magical secrets. You get 1 reaction per round and everyone in your party is going to expect you to save it to heal them. Combined with the fact that bards are counterspell or silvery barbs(cutting words as well for Lore) junkies in most cases, you have so many things competing for your reaction. Magical secrets at 11th and 15th level(was 10th, 14th, and 18th), jack of all trades at 5th level(was 2nd), restricted spell list(they lost access to a lot of spells), Font of Inspiration at 7th level(was 5th). It's just a huge nerf all the way around honestly. Top tier class for almost any playstyle reduced to social interaction and healer.
So spells like Haste, Dissonant Whispers, Hideous Laughter, Sleep (at lower levels), Polymorph, Detect Magic, Blink, Thunderwave (which is now Transmutation), Fly, etc, don't exist now or something?
And they still have Silvery Barbs, assuming you're allowed to still use that with the playtest at your table.
Also they're prepared casters now, so you don't even have the reasoning that they have limited spell selections, since you can prepare these each day.
That is pretty much all damage control. Fly is pretty useless due to its inexplicably low 10 min duration.
Not that bards were known for DPS before, mind.... And now, they can trade out their magical secret spells daily.
They are definitely better off now.
This is the first time I have ever seen someone call Fly useless, not gonna lie.
Also I can't tell if "That is pretty much all damage control" is supposed to be a counterargument or not, because that doesn't really go against my point that Bards are still good at contributing to combat.
Rangers needed the buff compared to phb ranger. The feats restricted to warrior group were mostly fighting styles, which were already restricted to 3 classes anyway. But the power level is a legitimate concern, though maybe less extreme than you say.
That is the perception by the community, despite the fact that current DPS builds almost always take 3 levels of Gloomstalker Ranger. But this is largely because the community for some reason thinks that Ranger should be a DPS class, despite the fact that it gets a ton of utility in addition to martial abilities. The current One D&D Ranger is very overtuned and makes all other Dex-based martials obsolete since they get great skills, great spells, and great damage.
The counter to that (and this applies to Rogues as well), is that a lot of DM's bypass or otherwise avoid playing to skill based challenges on the grounds they should be player challenges and see rolling to solve puzzles as some sort of sleeze or something.
That isn't a problem in the design of the classes though, that's a problem with some DMs. The game is designed around using 3 pillars equally : social, skills, combat. Obviously any DM that ignores one of these pillars will make classes that specialize in the pillar feel worthless -> it sucks to be a barbarian in a game with no combat, a bard in a game with no NPCs to interact with, or a druid in a game entirely within a city. This is why session 0s are so important!
Sorry, but I would say that D&D has issues in all three areas and that is related to class design.
Social encounters can suck if you don't have charisma or expertise in relevant skills, nature can suck if you don't have wisdom or expertise in relevant skills and combat can suck if your participation in it is irrelevant with what you bring to the table. Given the only class that can really fulfill all of these is Bard, it shows there are some base mechanical issues with the game and that class design itself is part of that.
The flip side to this is that each area gives characters spot light, Bards, Paladins, Warlocks and Sorcerers can do well in social encounters, Druids and Rangers can do well in nature while combat, is combat... the game doesn't really give other classes the same type of highlights to balance it out, Rogues perhaps via their thieves' cant can get some social moments but your run of the mill fighter? Perhaps monk can rarely get some based on their discipline/archetype but realistically in most social encounters we know which classes shine.
In one campaign, where I am playing a Goblin Cleric, I took telepathic feat, so I could add a tool to my toolkit for social interactions which gives me something I can do, else wise a cleric, a person you'd think would normally be quiet outspoken is actually mute compared to their Paladin brothers since a Paladin is just more adapt at social encounters due to their higher charisma.
And that everybody should play bard, isn't a solution to that.
Social encounters can suck if you don't have charisma or expertise in relevant skills, nature can suck if you don't have wisdom or expertise in relevant skills and combat can suck if your participation in it is irrelevant with what you bring to the table. Given the only class that can really fulfill all of these is Bard, it shows there are some base mechanical issues with the game and that class design itself is part of that.
That isn't a problem that is intentional! If everyone is good at everything then whichever player is the most assertive or has the most initiative will utterly dominate the game in every aspect. That is BAD! Different classes excelling at different parts of the game promotes teamwork within a party and gives every player a time where they are the star that the rest of the party looks to in order to solve a problem.
Social encounters can suck if you don't have charisma or expertise in relevant skills, nature can suck if you don't have wisdom or expertise in relevant skills and combat can suck if your participation in it is irrelevant with what you bring to the table. Given the only class that can really fulfill all of these is Bard, it shows there are some base mechanical issues with the game and that class design itself is part of that.
That isn't a problem that is intentional! If everyone is good at everything then whichever player is the most assertive or has the most initiative will utterly dominate the game in every aspect. That is BAD! Different classes excelling at different parts of the game promotes teamwork within a party and gives every player a time where they are the star that the rest of the party looks to in order to solve a problem.
Sorry but this is nonsense.
Different classes excelling at different parts of the game promotes one player dominating an entire encounter. This is the opposite of teamwork. What promotes teamwork is different classes serving different necessary functions within each pillar of play. The only thing rogues contribute to a combat is damage. They should be good at it. But they're still contributing more to a combat than most fighters contribute to social encounters. Where is the teamwork in the fighter sitting around doing nothing for an hour while the bard gladhands with the prince? This is the big problem with how little mechanical support there is for anything outside of combat.
Just as a point of interest, with 12 classes, the emphasis by JC that there will be 48 sub-classes, would tend to imply they plan to give us 4 sub-classes per class.
Anyone think there's any reason they wouldn't opt for that form of symmetry? And if so, what does that mean?
Just as a point of interest, with 12 classes, the emphasis by JC that there will be 48 sub-classes, would tend to imply they plan to give us 4 sub-classes per class.
Anyone think there's any reason they wouldn't opt for that form of symmetry? And if so, what does that mean?
I don't expect them to opt for symmetry, I expect all existing PHB subclasses to be reprinted along with a couple adds. Looking at the PHB, current counts are: barbarian 2, bard 2, cleric 7, druid 2, fighter 3, monk 3, paladin 3, ranger 2, rogue 3, sorcerer 2, warlock 3, wizard 8, total 40, so they only need 8 new subclasses. Probably make sure every class has at least 3 (would bump total to 45) and then three at random. If they actually decided to go for 4 subs per class, they'd have to remove some wizard and cleric options.
Just as a point of interest, with 12 classes, the emphasis by JC that there will be 48 sub-classes, would tend to imply they plan to give us 4 sub-classes per class.
Anyone think there's any reason they wouldn't opt for that form of symmetry? And if so, what does that mean?
I don't expect them to opt for symmetry, I expect all existing PHB subclasses to be reprinted along with a couple adds. Looking at the PHB, current counts are: barbarian 2, bard 2, cleric 7, druid 2, fighter 3, monk 3, paladin 3, ranger 2, rogue 3, sorcerer 2, warlock 3, wizard 8, total 40, so they only need 8 new subclasses. Probably make sure every class has at least 3 (would bump total to 45) and then three at random. If they actually decided to go for 4 subs per class, they'd have to remove some wizard and cleric options.
Ya exactly this. Probably 8 wizard, 8 cleric, the other 10 will be 3, but 2 will have 4..... which will they be? My money is on sorc is one of them.
Just as a point of interest, with 12 classes, the emphasis by JC that there will be 48 sub-classes, would tend to imply they plan to give us 4 sub-classes per class.
Anyone think there's any reason they wouldn't opt for that form of symmetry? And if so, what does that mean?
I don't expect them to opt for symmetry, I expect all existing PHB subclasses to be reprinted along with a couple adds. Looking at the PHB, current counts are: barbarian 2, bard 2, cleric 7, druid 2, fighter 3, monk 3, paladin 3, ranger 2, rogue 3, sorcerer 2, warlock 3, wizard 8, total 40, so they only need 8 new subclasses. Probably make sure every class has at least 3 (would bump total to 45) and then three at random. If they actually decided to go for 4 subs per class, they'd have to remove some wizard and cleric options.
I would LOVE for them to remove some wizard and cleric options. Make domain (and domain spells) separate from subclass. Do the same for wizards' school specializations.
Just as a point of interest, with 12 classes, the emphasis by JC that there will be 48 sub-classes, would tend to imply they plan to give us 4 sub-classes per class.
Anyone think there's any reason they wouldn't opt for that form of symmetry? And if so, what does that mean?
I don't expect them to opt for symmetry, I expect all existing PHB subclasses to be reprinted along with a couple adds. Looking at the PHB, current counts are: barbarian 2, bard 2, cleric 7, druid 2, fighter 3, monk 3, paladin 3, ranger 2, rogue 3, sorcerer 2, warlock 3, wizard 8, total 40, so they only need 8 new subclasses. Probably make sure every class has at least 3 (would bump total to 45) and then three at random. If they actually decided to go for 4 subs per class, they'd have to remove some wizard and cleric options.
Ya exactly this. Probably 8 wizard, 8 cleric, the other 10 will be 3, but 2 will have 4..... which will they be? My money is on sorc is one of them.
I'm betting Druid is getting some extra subclasses b/c Circle of the Land is such garbage they'll probably revamp it and split it into a couple different subclasses. What I expect/hope to see: Barbarian - Beserker (revamped), Totem, Ancestral Guardian Bard - Lore, Valor-Swords hybrid, Glamour Cleric - PHB standards Druid - Moon (with some kind of Tasha-esque scaling of Combat Wildshape), 3x subclasses that used to be Land Fighter - Champion (with some new features), Battlemaster (heavily trimmed maneuvers with PB dice/SR and only "on a hit" abilities), Eldritch Knight Monk - Shadow, Open Hand, Kensei [all heavily redesigned] Paladin - Devotion, Vengeance, Glory, Ancients Ranger - Hunter, Beastmaster, redesigned Horizon Walker -esque new subclass Rogue - Thief, Assassin, Swashbuckler, Arcane Trickster Sorcerer - Dragon Soul, Wild Magic, Divine Soul Warlock - Fiend, Fey, GOO Wizard - PHB standards
Just as a point of interest, with 12 classes, the emphasis by JC that there will be 48 sub-classes, would tend to imply they plan to give us 4 sub-classes per class.
Anyone think there's any reason they wouldn't opt for that form of symmetry? And if so, what does that mean?
I don't expect them to opt for symmetry, I expect all existing PHB subclasses to be reprinted along with a couple adds. Looking at the PHB, current counts are: barbarian 2, bard 2, cleric 7, druid 2, fighter 3, monk 3, paladin 3, ranger 2, rogue 3, sorcerer 2, warlock 3, wizard 8, total 40, so they only need 8 new subclasses. Probably make sure every class has at least 3 (would bump total to 45) and then three at random. If they actually decided to go for 4 subs per class, they'd have to remove some wizard and cleric options.
Those other 4 Subs could be Alchemist, Battle Smith, Artillerist and Armorer.
Social encounters can suck if you don't have charisma or expertise in relevant skills, nature can suck if you don't have wisdom or expertise in relevant skills and combat can suck if your participation in it is irrelevant with what you bring to the table. Given the only class that can really fulfill all of these is Bard, it shows there are some base mechanical issues with the game and that class design itself is part of that.
That isn't a problem that is intentional! If everyone is good at everything then whichever player is the most assertive or has the most initiative will utterly dominate the game in every aspect. That is BAD! Different classes excelling at different parts of the game promotes teamwork within a party and gives every player a time where they are the star that the rest of the party looks to in order to solve a problem.
If you look at what I said in the second paragraph beyond this, I highlight just how problematic this actually is, fighters have near nothing to contribute outside of combat. There is a Fundamental problem for example with Monk, who are mediocre at fighting, they might have some wisdom but are going to be more dex & con based and while having no charisma either. And how does it promote teamwork when every social encounter, every animal interaction, you need to sit back and just let the Charisma or Wisdom characters take care of it? Most of it can be done away by decent DMing, but that is reliant on the DM and different DMs are more capable than others for fixing a base issue with in how social encounters and other such encounters actually work. Fundamentally most systems outside of combat actually don't help to promote team work, and the only reason parties don't split up is encase they find a random encounters, which can effect some parties so badly they don't split up in towns for downtime.
Having time to shine is one thing, but that isn't really helped by the 5E mechanics, unless the character is generally Charisma or Wisdom based, and it's not even like there aren't some easy fixes to some of these. Performance should have been dexterity based, even if it involves music, playing music involves far more dexterity than charisma, intimidation should have been strength based but again is oddly charisma based. A barbarian can't intimidate a group of aggressive goblins to run away or give up, yet a bard can, it's really all over the place.
Another way it can be fixed is that if say a fighter is trying to convince a noble to give them access to a prisoner in the dungeon below the keep, a charisma character can give use the help action to not only grant access but also lends the fighter their higher skill for the skill check, that would be actual team work, instead that -1 to Charisma is never going to convince a noble but the Paladin with +4 in charisma and +3 proficiency bonus to persuasion might, more so if they additionally cast guidance for an extra 1d4.
If you look at what I said in the second paragraph beyond this, I highlight just how problematic this actually is, fighters have near nothing to contribute outside of combat. There is a Fundamental problem for example with Monk, who are mediocre at fighting, they might have some wisdom but are going to be more dex & con based and while having no charisma either. And how does it promote teamwork when every social encounter, every animal interaction, you need to sit back and just let the Charisma or Wisdom characters take care of it?
Skill challenges in 4th edition were a valiant attempt at solving this though as actually played it tended towards "find an excuse to use my highest skill".
Having time to shine is one thing, but that isn't really helped by the 5E mechanics, unless the character is generally Charisma or Wisdom based, and it's not even like there aren't some easy fixes to some of these. Performance should have been dexterity based, even if it involves music, playing music involves far more dexterity than charisma, intimidation should have been strength based but again is oddly charisma based. A barbarian can't intimidate a group of aggressive goblins to run away or give up, yet a bard can, it's really all over the place.
I've wondered if skills should have two stats at default that feed them, one physical, one mental. Have a general concept that str/chr, con/wis, dex/int match up with maybe a few exceptions here and there. It might not make a ton of sense in all cases but part if that is in how you write what a stat represents. They are already broad concepts because in reality someone with fast hands can have crap balance, so expanding the idea beyond where they are isn't absurd.
Regarding skill use, what I would love to see is skills separated from ability scores.
The most well known is likely the Athletics/Acrobatics issue. I have had so many new players get these confused, and with good reason. A single Athletics skill should be enough, and the stat you use depends on what you are trying to do. From jumping across a chasm (strength), crossing a narrow beam (dexterity), swim a very long distance (constitution), and even find good handholds to help your friends climb up a cliff (intelligence).
And as R3sistance pointed out, there are issues with many other skills as well. Bending a steel bar while looking menacing could easily be a Strength (Intimidation) check, while the classic "This is a nice dungeon you got here, it would be a shame it something were to happen to it." would be Charisma.
A potential argument against this is that players would try to always use their best ability. However, given the goal of getting all characters more involved in different situations, this is a benefit. In addition, nothing will always be applicable to every situation.
Regarding skill use, what I would love to see is skills separated from ability scores.
The most well known is likely the Athletics/Acrobatics issue. I have had so many new players get these confused, and with good reason. A single Athletics skill should be enough, and the stat you use depends on what you are trying to do. From jumping across a chasm (strength), crossing a narrow beam (dexterity), swim a very long distance (constitution), and even find good handholds to help your friends climb up a cliff (intelligence).
And as R3sistance pointed out, there are issues with many other skills as well. Bending a steel bar while looking menacing could easily be a Strength (Intimidation) check, while the classic "This is a nice dungeon you got here, it would be a shame it something were to happen to it." would be Charisma.
A potential argument against this is that players would try to always use their best ability. However, given the goal of getting all characters more involved in different situations, this is a benefit. In addition, nothing will always be applicable to every situation.
Even the it would be a shame if something happened to your shop I can still see as strength for intimidate, as whether it believable or not is in some way based on what you are capable of. Bigger people intimidate many of those around them by merely existing.
The reason I am not a fan of the any stat can do it method is it is too reliant on a good DM. Hard code it but give exception room for a DM, but make the hard coded have built in 2 stat options.
Not directly related but I want them to go back to the 3 save system with 2 a option of one of two stats there as well. The more saves you can target the better spell casters are.
Regarding skill use, what I would love to see is skills separated from ability scores.
The most well known is likely the Athletics/Acrobatics issue. I have had so many new players get these confused, and with good reason. A single Athletics skill should be enough, and the stat you use depends on what you are trying to do. From jumping across a chasm (strength), crossing a narrow beam (dexterity), swim a very long distance (constitution), and even find good handholds to help your friends climb up a cliff (intelligence).
And as R3sistance pointed out, there are issues with many other skills as well. Bending a steel bar while looking menacing could easily be a Strength (Intimidation) check, while the classic "This is a nice dungeon you got here, it would be a shame it something were to happen to it." would be Charisma.
A potential argument against this is that players would try to always use their best ability. However, given the goal of getting all characters more involved in different situations, this is a benefit. In addition, nothing will always be applicable to every situation.
Even the it would be a shame if something happened to your shop I can still see as strength for intimidate, as whether it believable or not is in some way based on what you are capable of. Bigger people intimidate many of those around them by merely existing.
The reason I am not a fan of the any stat can do it method is it is too reliant on a good DM. Hard code it but give exception room for a DM, but make the hard coded have built in 2 stat options.
Not directly related but I want them to go back to the 3 save system with 2 a option of one of two stats there as well. The more saves you can target the better spell casters are.
I really disagree with the strength (Intimidation). I think intimidating someone while bending a steel bar is all about the looking menacing part, which is charisma and I think there are many huge buffoons that don't intimidate anyone and would have a hard time if they tried. Brian Baumgartner (Kevin from office space) or Al Roker in his early days were both big guys, but I don't see them intimidating anyone.
I do agree on some others (like athletics), but it is hard for me to see using another skill on intimidate or most of the charisma skills for that matter.
The “charisma problem” is both a player problem and a DM problem ( that I am guilty of as well). Players hold back allowing the highest charisma character to make rolls and the DM allows it. Think about a real version of the same types of encounter. In the real world in a short “meet and greet” that exact thing is what would occur with little real discussion and some platitudes from both sides. Later at a larger event the high charisma might well have a chance to talk to the king more in private but all team members would be interacting with courtiers and able to make their varied attempts to promote the party’s agenda making their own charisma checks. The problem is we ( as DMs) typically do only the first and not the second. Often we do the same type of thing with nature/camping checks and other checks to speed up the game and “keep the story flowing” the problem is compounded by the fact that we don’t always have the most charismatic/ nature experienced/etc player doing the one and done so it’s more difficult. It is further compounded by the fact that we as a DM may not be that good with the skills or background knowledge to make decisions about how to run things.
Even the mental stats seem to compete with each other for certain skill sets.
Perception is the most infamous one because it tends to intrude into things you could use Investigation for, which (in many cases) makes Investigation a weaker skill, Perception (already considered one of the strongest skills in the game) an even stronger skill, and by extension Intelligence weaker as an ability score and Wisdom stronger.
Also Medicine should be a combination of Intelligence and Wisdom, since you need both medical know-how (knowledge of illnesses, anatomy, physiology, medicinal herbs, etc) and experience to be a medical specialist. Also if you want to use the skill to diagnose a disease or poison, that can be Wisdom given your intuition based on years of experience, but it also can be straight Intelligence because you know exactly what symptoms to look for.
And then there's Religion, and how that is worse with divine casters than it is with Wizards who choose to gain proficiency in the skill, because it's an Intelligence-based skill.
I'd be interested to see some numbers on that. In my experience, even a Rogue guaranteed to get two shots at Sneak Attack per round with BB/GFB on both due to warcaster might be very hard pressed to keep up with the best GWM/PAM builds. And even then the comparison is not particularly fair, because the GWM/PAM builds can pretty much generate all of their damage on their own with little risk of a dip due to circumstances, while a Rogue counting on a reaction Sneak Attack is certainly counting on some combination of either luck or assistance from their teammates.
Thank you for laying out the numbers as you see them, although you understandably have not provided much information on how you got them.
However, I think you might have sold the PAM+GWM build short. The best builds I have seen would include at least a two level dip in Barbarian for constant advantage and a little extra damage on each hit while raging as well as Great Weapon Fighting (which you may have already factored in) and the Champion's extended crit range. Assuming a split like Fighter 6/Barbarian 2, that would have a significant effect on your numbers 8th level and above. Depending on whether you have already factored it in or not, Action Surge might also improve the numbers, but of course that would be affected by how often it can be used.
Also, while I may be guilty of moving the goalposts, if you are counting a reaction attack for the Rogue build, it would seem reasonable to count one for the PAM+GWM build as well.
I'd be interested to see some numbers on that. In my experience, even a Rogue guaranteed to get two shots at Sneak Attack per round with BB/GFB on both due to warcaster might be very hard pressed to keep up with the best GWM/PAM builds. And even then the comparison is not particularly fair, because the GWM/PAM builds can pretty much generate all of their damage on their own with little risk of a dip due to circumstances, while a Rogue counting on a reaction Sneak Attack is certainly counting on some combination of either luck or assistance from their teammates.
Thank you for laying out the numbers as you see them, although you understandably have not provided much information on how you got them.
However, I think you might have sold the PAM+GWM build short. The best builds I have seen would include at least a two level dip in Barbarian for constant advantage and a little extra damage on each hit while raging as well as Great Weapon Fighting (which you may have already factored in) and the Champion's extended crit range. Assuming a split like Fighter 6/Barbarian 2, that would have a significant effect on your numbers 8th level and above. Depending on whether you have already factored it in or not, Action Surge might also improve the numbers, but of course that would be affected by how often it can be used.
Also, while I may be guilty of moving the goalposts, if you are counting a reaction attack for the Rogue build, it would seem reasonable to count one for the PAM+GWM build as well.
I basically agree with you here, the are tons of optimizer channels and the DPRs for level 8/10/15 fighter would be considered really low, the level 5 maybe not as a lot of them may have a dip that puts off the 2nd attack until level 6 or 7. And they are not using rogue sneak attacks to get there, its usually PAM/GWM or SS/xbowxpert and that is for sustained damage builds. A lot of optimizer builds get around 100DPR end game. And just from experience a straight barbarian GWM without even PAM is doing more than those 5 and 8 numbers(though that generally means they have a 20 str by 8.)
Heck in optimizer land the only time I saw someone suggest hasting a rogue was a good idea was with a off the wall phantom build at level 9+ where they went elf for elven accuracy and used steady aim to get advantage every round while keeping movement with a ritual cast phantom steed. And that was because of a combination of the improved sneak attack from phantom, and the close to 95% accuracy from triple advantage. If it made rogues that amazing in DPR compared to other optimized builds I'd think haste would be a solid option,
But at the same time I'm not sure super optimized builds are not the best metric to judge balance on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is the first time I have ever seen someone call Fly useless, not gonna lie.
Also I can't tell if "That is pretty much all damage control" is supposed to be a counterargument or not, because that doesn't really go against my point that Bards are still good at contributing to combat.
Sorry, but I would say that D&D has issues in all three areas and that is related to class design.
Social encounters can suck if you don't have charisma or expertise in relevant skills, nature can suck if you don't have wisdom or expertise in relevant skills and combat can suck if your participation in it is irrelevant with what you bring to the table. Given the only class that can really fulfill all of these is Bard, it shows there are some base mechanical issues with the game and that class design itself is part of that.
The flip side to this is that each area gives characters spot light, Bards, Paladins, Warlocks and Sorcerers can do well in social encounters, Druids and Rangers can do well in nature while combat, is combat... the game doesn't really give other classes the same type of highlights to balance it out, Rogues perhaps via their thieves' cant can get some social moments but your run of the mill fighter? Perhaps monk can rarely get some based on their discipline/archetype but realistically in most social encounters we know which classes shine.
In one campaign, where I am playing a Goblin Cleric, I took telepathic feat, so I could add a tool to my toolkit for social interactions which gives me something I can do, else wise a cleric, a person you'd think would normally be quiet outspoken is actually mute compared to their Paladin brothers since a Paladin is just more adapt at social encounters due to their higher charisma.
And that everybody should play bard, isn't a solution to that.
That isn't a problem that is intentional! If everyone is good at everything then whichever player is the most assertive or has the most initiative will utterly dominate the game in every aspect. That is BAD! Different classes excelling at different parts of the game promotes teamwork within a party and gives every player a time where they are the star that the rest of the party looks to in order to solve a problem.
Sorry but this is nonsense.
Different classes excelling at different parts of the game promotes one player dominating an entire encounter. This is the opposite of teamwork. What promotes teamwork is different classes serving different necessary functions within each pillar of play. The only thing rogues contribute to a combat is damage. They should be good at it. But they're still contributing more to a combat than most fighters contribute to social encounters. Where is the teamwork in the fighter sitting around doing nothing for an hour while the bard gladhands with the prince? This is the big problem with how little mechanical support there is for anything outside of combat.
Just as a point of interest, with 12 classes, the emphasis by JC that there will be 48 sub-classes, would tend to imply they plan to give us 4 sub-classes per class.
Anyone think there's any reason they wouldn't opt for that form of symmetry? And if so, what does that mean?
I don't expect them to opt for symmetry, I expect all existing PHB subclasses to be reprinted along with a couple adds. Looking at the PHB, current counts are: barbarian 2, bard 2, cleric 7, druid 2, fighter 3, monk 3, paladin 3, ranger 2, rogue 3, sorcerer 2, warlock 3, wizard 8, total 40, so they only need 8 new subclasses. Probably make sure every class has at least 3 (would bump total to 45) and then three at random. If they actually decided to go for 4 subs per class, they'd have to remove some wizard and cleric options.
Ya exactly this. Probably 8 wizard, 8 cleric, the other 10 will be 3, but 2 will have 4..... which will they be? My money is on sorc is one of them.
I would LOVE for them to remove some wizard and cleric options. Make domain (and domain spells) separate from subclass. Do the same for wizards' school specializations.
I'm betting Druid is getting some extra subclasses b/c Circle of the Land is such garbage they'll probably revamp it and split it into a couple different subclasses.
What I expect/hope to see:
Barbarian - Beserker (revamped), Totem, Ancestral Guardian
Bard - Lore, Valor-Swords hybrid, Glamour
Cleric - PHB standards
Druid - Moon (with some kind of Tasha-esque scaling of Combat Wildshape), 3x subclasses that used to be Land
Fighter - Champion (with some new features), Battlemaster (heavily trimmed maneuvers with PB dice/SR and only "on a hit" abilities), Eldritch Knight
Monk - Shadow, Open Hand, Kensei [all heavily redesigned]
Paladin - Devotion, Vengeance, Glory, Ancients
Ranger - Hunter, Beastmaster, redesigned Horizon Walker -esque new subclass
Rogue - Thief, Assassin, Swashbuckler, Arcane Trickster
Sorcerer - Dragon Soul, Wild Magic, Divine Soul
Warlock - Fiend, Fey, GOO
Wizard - PHB standards
Those other 4 Subs could be Alchemist, Battle Smith, Artillerist and Armorer.
Just saying
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
If you look at what I said in the second paragraph beyond this, I highlight just how problematic this actually is, fighters have near nothing to contribute outside of combat. There is a Fundamental problem for example with Monk, who are mediocre at fighting, they might have some wisdom but are going to be more dex & con based and while having no charisma either. And how does it promote teamwork when every social encounter, every animal interaction, you need to sit back and just let the Charisma or Wisdom characters take care of it? Most of it can be done away by decent DMing, but that is reliant on the DM and different DMs are more capable than others for fixing a base issue with in how social encounters and other such encounters actually work. Fundamentally most systems outside of combat actually don't help to promote team work, and the only reason parties don't split up is encase they find a random encounters, which can effect some parties so badly they don't split up in towns for downtime.
Having time to shine is one thing, but that isn't really helped by the 5E mechanics, unless the character is generally Charisma or Wisdom based, and it's not even like there aren't some easy fixes to some of these. Performance should have been dexterity based, even if it involves music, playing music involves far more dexterity than charisma, intimidation should have been strength based but again is oddly charisma based. A barbarian can't intimidate a group of aggressive goblins to run away or give up, yet a bard can, it's really all over the place.
Another way it can be fixed is that if say a fighter is trying to convince a noble to give them access to a prisoner in the dungeon below the keep, a charisma character can give use the help action to not only grant access but also lends the fighter their higher skill for the skill check, that would be actual team work, instead that -1 to Charisma is never going to convince a noble but the Paladin with +4 in charisma and +3 proficiency bonus to persuasion might, more so if they additionally cast guidance for an extra 1d4.
Skill challenges in 4th edition were a valiant attempt at solving this though as actually played it tended towards "find an excuse to use my highest skill".
I've wondered if skills should have two stats at default that feed them, one physical, one mental. Have a general concept that str/chr, con/wis, dex/int match up with maybe a few exceptions here and there. It might not make a ton of sense in all cases but part if that is in how you write what a stat represents. They are already broad concepts because in reality someone with fast hands can have crap balance, so expanding the idea beyond where they are isn't absurd.
Regarding skill use, what I would love to see is skills separated from ability scores.
The most well known is likely the Athletics/Acrobatics issue. I have had so many new players get these confused, and with good reason. A single Athletics skill should be enough, and the stat you use depends on what you are trying to do. From jumping across a chasm (strength), crossing a narrow beam (dexterity), swim a very long distance (constitution), and even find good handholds to help your friends climb up a cliff (intelligence).
And as R3sistance pointed out, there are issues with many other skills as well. Bending a steel bar while looking menacing could easily be a Strength (Intimidation) check, while the classic "This is a nice dungeon you got here, it would be a shame it something were to happen to it." would be Charisma.
A potential argument against this is that players would try to always use their best ability. However, given the goal of getting all characters more involved in different situations, this is a benefit. In addition, nothing will always be applicable to every situation.
Even the it would be a shame if something happened to your shop I can still see as strength for intimidate, as whether it believable or not is in some way based on what you are capable of. Bigger people intimidate many of those around them by merely existing.
The reason I am not a fan of the any stat can do it method is it is too reliant on a good DM. Hard code it but give exception room for a DM, but make the hard coded have built in 2 stat options.
Not directly related but I want them to go back to the 3 save system with 2 a option of one of two stats there as well. The more saves you can target the better spell casters are.
I really disagree with the strength (Intimidation). I think intimidating someone while bending a steel bar is all about the looking menacing part, which is charisma and I think there are many huge buffoons that don't intimidate anyone and would have a hard time if they tried. Brian Baumgartner (Kevin from office space) or Al Roker in his early days were both big guys, but I don't see them intimidating anyone.
I do agree on some others (like athletics), but it is hard for me to see using another skill on intimidate or most of the charisma skills for that matter.
The “charisma problem” is both a player problem and a DM problem ( that I am guilty of as well). Players hold back allowing the highest charisma character to make rolls and the DM allows it. Think about a real version of the same types of encounter. In the real world in a short “meet and greet” that exact thing is what would occur with little real discussion and some platitudes from both sides. Later at a larger event the high charisma might well have a chance to talk to the king more in private but all team members would be interacting with courtiers and able to make their varied attempts to promote the party’s agenda making their own charisma checks. The problem is we ( as DMs) typically do only the first and not the second. Often we do the same type of thing with nature/camping checks and other checks to speed up the game and “keep the story flowing” the problem is compounded by the fact that we don’t always have the most charismatic/ nature experienced/etc player doing the one and done so it’s more difficult. It is further compounded by the fact that we as a DM may not be that good with the skills or background knowledge to make decisions about how to run things.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Even the mental stats seem to compete with each other for certain skill sets.
Perception is the most infamous one because it tends to intrude into things you could use Investigation for, which (in many cases) makes Investigation a weaker skill, Perception (already considered one of the strongest skills in the game) an even stronger skill, and by extension Intelligence weaker as an ability score and Wisdom stronger.
Also Medicine should be a combination of Intelligence and Wisdom, since you need both medical know-how (knowledge of illnesses, anatomy, physiology, medicinal herbs, etc) and experience to be a medical specialist. Also if you want to use the skill to diagnose a disease or poison, that can be Wisdom given your intuition based on years of experience, but it also can be straight Intelligence because you know exactly what symptoms to look for.
And then there's Religion, and how that is worse with divine casters than it is with Wizards who choose to gain proficiency in the skill, because it's an Intelligence-based skill.
Thank you for laying out the numbers as you see them, although you understandably have not provided much information on how you got them.
However, I think you might have sold the PAM+GWM build short. The best builds I have seen would include at least a two level dip in Barbarian for constant advantage and a little extra damage on each hit while raging as well as Great Weapon Fighting (which you may have already factored in) and the Champion's extended crit range. Assuming a split like Fighter 6/Barbarian 2, that would have a significant effect on your numbers 8th level and above. Depending on whether you have already factored it in or not, Action Surge might also improve the numbers, but of course that would be affected by how often it can be used.
Also, while I may be guilty of moving the goalposts, if you are counting a reaction attack for the Rogue build, it would seem reasonable to count one for the PAM+GWM build as well.
I basically agree with you here, the are tons of optimizer channels and the DPRs for level 8/10/15 fighter would be considered really low, the level 5 maybe not as a lot of them may have a dip that puts off the 2nd attack until level 6 or 7. And they are not using rogue sneak attacks to get there, its usually PAM/GWM or SS/xbowxpert and that is for sustained damage builds. A lot of optimizer builds get around 100DPR end game. And just from experience a straight barbarian GWM without even PAM is doing more than those 5 and 8 numbers(though that generally means they have a 20 str by 8.)
Heck in optimizer land the only time I saw someone suggest hasting a rogue was a good idea was with a off the wall phantom build at level 9+ where they went elf for elven accuracy and used steady aim to get advantage every round while keeping movement with a ritual cast phantom steed. And that was because of a combination of the improved sneak attack from phantom, and the close to 95% accuracy from triple advantage. If it made rogues that amazing in DPR compared to other optimized builds I'd think haste would be a solid option,
But at the same time I'm not sure super optimized builds are not the best metric to judge balance on.