My apologies in advance for the length of this post - it grew and grew in the writing as I looked back over the thread - but there is a whole lot to respond to.
I think the analysis isn't looking at the whole picture. IMHO, one shouldn't "just compare damage/combat output". If you want to get a good feeling for class balance, you need to look at it from all "pillars" of the game (the ones listed on page 8 of the PHB).
Okay. Leaving aside the Eldritch Knight (because we're talking about non-spellcasters) let's look at what the Fighter gets that helps it in the Exploration and Social pillars:
As a Champion:
- A +1 to +3 (at level 17) bonus to Str/Dex/Con checks that you don't get proficiency in.
- This constitutes a 5% - 10% increase in your chance to succeed at a task that requires one of these checks and does not allow proficiency for 95% of your career.
- At level 17, when you reach the dizzying heights of +3 to those checks, the Bard gains access to level 9 spells. Like True Polymorph, which allows it to permanently transform into a creature whose CR is equal to or less than their level. Like, say, an Adult Red Dragon with 27 Strength, 25 Con, blindsight, darkvision, an 80ft fly speed, 256 HP, fire breath, frightful presence and so on. Or Shapechange, which lets them turn into one while keeping all their own spellcasting as well.
- The ability to Running Long Jump between 1 and 5 feet further.
- How often, in your experience, would someone find themselves glad to have this ability?
- Let's look at the ideal use case: an impassable chasm 21-25 feet across. In theory, the Fighter can leap it where nobody else could, taking a rope with him to allow his companions to cross after him. Truly a Remarkable Athlete and a valuable member of the party!
- At level 3, when the Fighter gains Remarkable Athlete, he can jump at most 20 ft (if he's a race with a +2 Str bonus). The Wizard, with 8 Strength, can cast Jump on himself and jump 24 ft - he's been able to do so from level 1.
- At level 4, the Fighter can optionally increase his strength, bringing his maximum potential jump up to 23 ft. Still short of the 8 Str Wizard with Jump, though.
- At level 6, the Fighter can increase his strength again, topping out at 20 Str and a 25 ft Running Long Jump. That's 1 foot further than the 8 Strength Wizard! Unfortunately, the Wizard started casting Fly at level 5.
As a Battle Master:
- Proficiency with one type of artisan's tools
- Anybody can gain this with a background, and Wizards honestly should. It takes a Fighter 300 days to craft a suit of Plate Armour, but a level 7 Wizard with blacksmithing proficiency can do it instantaneously using Fabricate.
- The ability to spend one minute studying a creature to determine if its Str/Dex/Con/AC/HP/level(s) are higher or lower than yours.
- What's a situation in which you have time to use this ability that you would want to? When is the information useful to know? I have played quite a lot, mostly at high levels, and our Fighters have never used this ability.
Can you explain to me how you feel these abilities are balanced against spellcasting, please?
Then, you need to take into account consequences of actions. A bard that uses up half his spells in one encounter may outshine the fighter. But what about the next one? The one after that? Or after that? Or when they are heading back to camp? Or when they are camped at night and on watch?
Firstly, in my experience, most encounters last 3 rounds. A Bard can only - even theoretically - use up half their spells in a 3 round encounter at levels 1-3. Beginning at level 15, they can cast a spell every round of 6 3-round encounters.
That's nitpicking, though, and besides the actual point, which is that you only need 1 or 2 spells in most encounters. As Capricia mentioned upthread, a Bard adds more damage to the party over the course of an encounter by landing Faerie Fire (a level 1 spell) than a Fighter does with all his attacks. And that's the case from levels 1 to 20, because Advantage scales with the party's increased damage output.
Looking at "class X can do Y, therefore Z" in a purely mathematical way is almost pointless. An RPG is not just a series of unrelated 'encounters'. In an RPG, there are thinking beings opposing the PC's. They don't just sit around waiting to be killed. If a goblin lair is assaulted, you can be your left nut that they will be prepared for the next one, taking measures to reduce the losses they just suffered.
I agree. And casters are the ones who can prepare a whole new set of spells for the next goblin lair, whereas a Fighter is stuck using the same few maneuvers - or, if he is a Champion, nothing whatsoever that's new - not just for the next goblin lair, but for his
entire adventuring career.
So, I don't put much stock in these "look at the numbers" type analysis (analysis's? analysese?) as they don't take into account the myraid of other things that are constantly going on in a well run campaign. Most certainly not past about level 8 to 10...after those levels, there is probably so much going on in the PC's lives that attempting you use a sterile, clinical "this is what the book says" comparison is a waste of time. It's the same as the old 3.x/PF argument that casters are always better than non-casters. I (and my group) have never, ever, and I mean ever seen a caster be 'overpowered' in comparison to other PC's in the group. Usefull as all get out? Hellz yeah...but that's kind of the point of magic, isn't it? I'm seeing the same arguments here; theory, but in actual play...doesn't hold up at all.
What is the highest level that you have played to, and what spells have casters in your game tended to use? Because even at level 8-10 as you mention a Wizard can be raising/controlling enough skeletons to beat the Fighter's DPR as a bonus action all day (6) with just 1 of their 16-20 spell slots, using Counterspell to shut down enemy casters, Fly to ignore enemies without ranged attacks (and passing Concentration checks to maintain it when they take damage from ranged attacks 97.8% of the time), Polymorph, Greater Invisibility, Dimension Door etc etc etc.
Out of combat, again at level 8-10, a Wizard can be casting Alarm, Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Detect Magic, Disguise Self, Silent Image, Unseen Servant, Alter Self, Arcane Lock, Darkness, Detect Thoughts, Enlarge/Reduce, Gentle Repose, Gust of Wind, Invisibility, Knock, Levitate, Locate Object, Magic Mouth, Misty Step, Rope Trick, See Invisibility, Shatter, Spider Climb, Suggestion, Fly, Gaseous Form, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Major Image, Nondetection, Phantom Steed, Remove Curse, Sending, Tongues, Water Breathing, Control Water, Fabricate, Greater Invisibility, Leomund's Secret Chest, Locate Creature, Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound, Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum and Polymorph.
A level 10 Wizard can 'only' have access to 24 of the spells above, in addition to any that he finds in the course of the campaign.
But that's a hell of a lot of extremely powerful options, and non-casters have access to 0 of them.
Just to respond to the idea that "if it's a class's job to hit stuff they should be awesome at it:" the trick is that in many campaigns, 90% of the game is either combat or free-form roleplaying. Look at the Acquisitions Inc stuff, for example: maybe two hours of roleplaying with maybe a few ability checks and cantrips sprinkled in, and then a few setpiece battles. To those groups, the champion might actually BE balanced reasonably well. If you gave him an extra 50% damage or whatever to "make up for" his relative uselessness out if combat, he would actually be massively overpowered in campaigns like that.
The Champion is functionally obsolete compared to the Battle Master. Even if you are one of the (mythical?) people who get confused by having more than one option and so use nothing but Feinting Attack, you are better at 'swing sword all day' - the Champion's entire shtick - than the Champion.
As Sacrosanct said...being able to daze, stun, etc. is still there, just not in so many hard-coded "If I do X then Y happens" parlance of 3.x/4e/PF. The 5e system is obviously focusing on using broad strokes to paint a general picture and then relying on the players and DM to give it the details. With the simplicity of the system, it makes it dirt simple for a DM to make consistent and fair rulings.
This argument would hold more water if there were not 90+ pages of discrete, hard-coded "If I do X then Y happens" spells in 5e. Including ones that daze, stun etc.
If you're looking at a system that uses broad strokes to paint a general picture and then relying on the players and DM to give it the details, you would be looking at something more like Fate.
Me? I find myself falling into the "Advantage/Disadvantage" mechanic a lot. For example, if a PC was brawling with some rakes in a seedy bar and the player says "I grab one of the mugs of ale and smack it upside his head! I want to get an advantage here because they have weapons". As a DM, I'd say "Make an attack at Disadvantage please". If the player made it..."Your mug bursts open on the side of his face, causing ale and shards of hardened clay to cascade across his face [*rolls Con save*...fails]. The rake screams in pain and grabs at his face. You have Advantage next round as he's a bit dazed".
To me, that's the beauty of 5e. Quick and easy, making on-the-fly rulings not only fair, but fun for me to DM.
Before I address this specifically, what's preventing the Wizard from saying "I rip open a bag of flour and throw it at them, then blow it up with Fire Bolt" or any similar kind of improvisation? There is just as much rules support for it.
The specific scenario you posit is an excellent example of why one class having a list of spells and another class being having the ability to do what the DM feels is fair is a bad idea.
- By taking Disadvantage on his attack, the player is far more likely to miss with it (equivalent to a -5 penalty if the roll required to hit is between 8 and 14).
- If they miss, they have taken Disadvantage for no upside.
- In a best-case scenario where they do land the attack even with Disadvantage, the bonus next round only serves to 'even' out the penalty they took last time.
- And it's always possible for the rake the player was attacking to be taken out before that player gets to act again.
If you find that a fair, fun example of the beauty of 5e - even ignoring the fact that you can do the same thing in any previous edition - I don't know what to say.
My experience is the exact opposite. White room favors the caster by exponential levels because it often assumes:
* casters have had access to the spell to begin with
"Every time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook."
* casters have the spell prepared/memorized
Yes - usually you will want to prepare your best spells.
* caster is never interrupted when attempting to cast the spell
I note that you have tried to move the goal posts since posting this by claiming that you were talking about Concentration spells breaking when a Wizard takes damage.
That's clearly not the case, as you specify 'interrupted when attempting to cast the spell' in your original post. There are no rules for this in 5e, and to me this seems to cast some doubt on whether you have the actual play experience you are professing to have.
* caster has all of the required components (as necessary)
"A component pouch is a small, watertight leather belt pouch that has compartments to hold all the material components and other special items you need to cast your spells, except for those components that have a specific cost."
* caster has full complement of spell slots available
Nope. The spells that are being talked about as overpowered are overpowered even if they're the only one you have left.
* environment/opponent is set up to have the spell work reliably (no spell resistance, etc)
Nope. There are plenty of spells that do not allow saves, (Contagion, Reverse Gravity, Forcecage etc) and even creatures with Advantage on saving throws against magical effects have weak saves that make it irrelevant. A Stone Golem can
never pass an Int or Cha save from a level-appropriate caster, has a 28% chance of making a Dex save and only a 36% chance of making a Wis save. This is a creature described as 'nearly impervious to spells'.
This is stuff that becomes obvious in actual play, but is not obvious if you have merely browsed the material available so far and decided that it feels right: "Advantage on saves against magic. That's pretty strong!"
And in my actual play experience, rarely do all of those things align. Certainly not after the first encounter. The only assumption with marital PCs is that they have a weapon handy.
And that the enemy is not immune/resistant to the type of damage that they deal, that it does not fly or burrow or turn invisible or ethereal or have a higher move speed than the Fighter etc etc.
Can you give an example from your actual play experience of a time that circumstances conspired to render a caster less useful than a Fighter, please?
You cannot allow a caster to ad hoc magical effects that may or may not be a defined spell like you can with a mundane action. Magic is rigidly defined as to what you can and can't do. Mundane actions aren't./QUOTE]
I fear you're clutching at straws, here; mundane actions are as rigidly defined as magical ones - there's just not all that much that they can do.
The rules spell out exactly how far/fast/much you can jump, run, climb, push, pull, carry, throw and shoot. They spell out how much damage you do with actual weapons, improvised weapons or your fists.
You can improvise, of course. But there's no framework for it in the rules, and there's no reason - other than attempting to balance an imbalanced ruleset - to make whatever you or your table comes up with to handle terms of improvised actions the exclusive province of non-magical characters.
Fighters get a codified set of guaranteed ways that they can increase their critical range with all weapons, increase their armor score, help a comrade get into better position in a battle, help an ally do more damage to his opponent, re-roll a saving throw you don't like, and attack multiple times. These codified abilities - which they have by default - are more versatile and more potent than the codified abilities of the wizard.
No, they're not.
In all seriousness though, I can see why you might be under that impression. I think you are confusing "more better" with "can cast spells". A spellcaster casts spells. Its kinda their schtick. You should be comparing "Cast spell" with, say, a fighters "Fighting style" (or "Maneuvers"). They are each ONE thing that can have multiple sub-abilities under it.
As with the 'all three pillars' argument I responded to up-post, you are somewhat hoist on your own petard here. If you really want to compare +1 AC or +2 to attacks with bows to "Cast spell" we can, but...
Yes, magic is powerful...it is magic, after all.
A Fighter should be powerful... it
is a 'heroic archetype in [its] own right' that 'Exists in a World of Myth, Fantasy, and Legend' and 'Is the Best at . . . Fighting!', 'the Toughest Character' and 'a one-person army' able to 'render many monsters’ attacks powerless' after all.
We were told this stuff in the Fighter Design Goals article, but unfortunately it's just not true.
But magic requires significantly more stuff to pull off. The caster has to have the spell, has to be fully able to cast it (V, S, M, etc.), has to have the time to cast it, has to have the slot to cast it, and can't get interrupted during the casting. All a fighter normally needs is a weapon, and perhaps a superiority dice. Some of the fighters stuff require rolls and chance...as do many of the casters spells (saves, weight/volume restriction, etc.).
I addressed these points up-post in my response to Sacrosanct. I find it interesting that you are talking about casters getting 'interrupted during the casting' too. How often has this happened in your actual play experience? What rules did you use for it?
Can a wizard create a magnificent mansion out of thin air? Sure! Can a fighter just...not...DIE...(keep recovering HP) when he's beat up? Sure! So "I can make a house!" vs. "I can not die!".
You're talking about Survivor, which the Fighter gains at level 18 and which allows him to regain 5 + Con HP per turn, so long as he is below half HP.
As mentioned above, a caster can permanently turn into an Adult Red Dragon at level 17. This gives him 256 HP. A level 18 Fighter with 20 Con has 202, which is 54 less than that. The Fighter would have to walk the razor's edge below half HP for 6 rounds for Survivor to become a net benefit in terms of HP. I'm leaving aside how unlikely it is that a Fighter will invest that many Ability Score Increases in Con.
Upon my first and second quick glances at some core spells, I'm not worried at ALL about this theoretical "casters are just better" thing. I've never seen it in play (yes, including 3.x/PF). The whole "concentration" mechanic makes a HUGE difference. Another thing that makes a large difference is a return to ye olden days with regards to magic items/acquirements. In 5e you can't just run down to the local magic mart and stock up on wands of magic missile or even pen scrolls upon scrolls of the same 'uber-spell'. A spellcaster in 5e is powerful and has a lot of diversity...but it won't make a lick of difference if he doesn't have companions to back him up for all the times when he doesn't have a "spell for that".
With regard to magic items, who do you feel benefits and relies upon them more; the Fighter, or the caster? (Hint: The Fighter needs a magical weapon to even begin to harm many of the monsters we've seen so far).
Your first and second quick glances at some spells. This seems to indicate that you haven't had any actual play experience, and you haven't even done anything that could be called analysis or (the dreaded) white-rooming. Is that correct? If so, why do you feel qualified to tell people sharing actual play experiences that their concerns are not valid?
