D&D 5E Class Analysis: Fighter and Bard

[sithramir]

Thank you for the write up. Sorry the thread has gone in another direction.

I think bard seems great and more in par with a lot with other classes now. DMs might need to avoid things like them getting smite spells (if it really overbalances).

I agree that fighter does seem to lack as much better umph and flavor. Perhaps a few powers from Tome of Blood could solve upper levels.

I would point out that my players loved fighters because it was simple. They didn't want more and were happy. So I think its needed to be that way and as long as they can consistently stay in the battle some like that.

I think in game play with legendary powers it will slow down casters enough to let fighters hit and tank and feel useful. Spells that "win" might be the only problem and maybe need house ruled since its too late to change now. I always liked that balors had an optional power to time stop with a wizard. Perhaps higher end monsters just need things that keep the casters busy?

 

[Jack the Lad]

If you think that's the "only argument" I had, then I'd ask you to read the thread before responding. Because earlier I quite clearly spelled out at least a half dozen other reasons why his white room scenario is a rubbish way of making an analyst. That just happened to be the first.

Just another gentle reminder that you’re the only one engaging in purely abstract white room arguments here (e.g. 'but casters won't always have access to their spells!').

I’ve given gameplay examples of many different situations in which a caster obsoletes a Fighter, and I will compile them for you here, by level:

• Level 1: Faerie Fire contributing more damage over the course of an encounter by giving the entire party Advantage than the Fighter does.
• Level 1: Jump allowing even casters with 8 or 10 strength to outjump even a Champion Fighter with Remarkable Athlete.
• Level 3: Wizards using Counterspell to shut down enemy casters entirely.
• Level 3: Wizards using Levitate to be safe from melee-only opponents.
• Level 5: Wizards using Fly to be safe from melee-only opponents and trivialise environmental barriers and challenges.
• Level 7: Fabricate obsoleting mundane crafting by instantaneously creating things it would take a Fighter 300 days to create.
• Level 7: Wizards using Animate Dead to summon skeletons that do more DPR than the Fighter and that only cost the Wizard a bonus action to command, meaning they can continue to cast alongside those attacks.
• Level 9: Fabricate serving as a way to quickly make thousands of gold per day.
• Level 9: Wall of Force allowing you to trap enemies under an inescapable barrier through which you can ping them down with cantrips at your leisure.
• Level 9: Contagion's Slimy Doom option stunning enemies (including - for instance - CR16 and CR17 dragons with Legendary Saves) for 3 rounds, guaranteed - more than enough time to kill them.
• Level 17: True Polymorph obsoleting the Fighter entirely past level 17 by allowing the Wizard to permanently turn into a CR17 Adult Red Dragon designed to be a challenging encounter for an entire party.

I've also given an example of a day's prepped spells, a way to simply and easily beat an encounter with a 'nearly impervious to spells' Stone Golem with a single spell, and a general overview of what a mid-level Wizard can do.

And quite frankly, I don't care about your anecdotal experience or a math breakdown, because that's not how the game is designed to be played.

If you refuse to accept other people's experiences as valid and you refuse to accept an analysis of the game math as valid, what's left? Seemingly only your opinion.

If you're (general you) going to make a statement that a caster is just as good as, better than, or replaces (all common arguments) mundane class X because of spells, then you have to show how that's applicable in the various scenarios that a typical character will encounter. This is only demonstrated if the caster has access to all spells all the time, and can cast them whenever he or she wants.

Yet again: no. I don't know how to explain this without repeating myself, unfortunately, but you can beat encounters with a single spell (see above) and encounters last ~3 rounds in 5e. Is it your experience that encounters take longer than this?

If you play your D&D that way, that's fine, but that's your personal style taking preference over how the game is actually set up.

Fact: Casters do not have access to every spell for each scenario. You have a limited number you choose, to last you until you can either replace them or find new ones.
Fact: Casters do not always have the slots available to cast their spells in every scenario
Fact: Casters can have their spells interrupted
Fact: Casters may not have access to all of the required components to cast the spell.

You simply cannot ignore all these things that mitigate caster power and then complain that casters are too powerful. That's a you problem, not a game problem.

You don't need every spell for each scenario. As I've said, repeatedly and with examples, it's easy to pick and prepare suite of powerful, versatile spells that will serve you well in any situation. Also, I can't help but feel that it's worth reiterating because it's rather fallen by the wayside; The Fighter has no access at all, ever, to utility effects like Knock, Fly, Disguise Self, Water Breathing, Detect Thoughts, Invisibility etc. A Wizard hypothetically unable to cast those spells is merely in the same situation that a Fighter always is.

I'll also note just how telling it is when Jack said, "do you allow your players to take a short rest after every encounter." Wait, what? Do I allow? I don't allow or disallow it, and it's not a matter of me giving permission. The players can attempt a short rest whenever they want. Doesn't mean they'll make it through one. The rest of the dungeon inhabitants don't suddenly stop moving whenever the players want to rest. That screams of player entitlement to me, if players expect to be able to rest and get back all of their resources after every battle. That's not D&D. That's arena combat. And is very much not the intent of the game design. Again, if someone wants to play that way, knock themselves out, but don't complain about the game being broken when it's you who is doing it.

My group does not take short rests after every encounter, and that's not the reason I asked if yours does. I asked because you've said that your group regularly has 5+ encounters in an adventuring day, causing casters to run out of spells.

If your players are taking damage in those encounters and they're not getting short rests between them in which to spend Hit Dice and refresh things like Second Wind and Superiority Dice, I find it extremely difficult - verging on impossible - to understand how that works. What difficulty of encounter on the experience budget table have you used most frequently?

Also, it's absolutely bizarre to say that whether your players get to rest isn't up to you. You control the monsters. You control what the party encounters and when. DMs are not binary, deterministic, mechanistic simulation engines mapping and calculating the minute-by-minute offscreen movements of every creature in a dungeon by interpreting their monster manual entries and/or rolling dice, and I find the idea both confusing and depressing.

D&D is driven by imagination. It's about the DM and the players creating an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. DMs are a game's lead storyteller and referee. They create adventures for the characters, determine the results of their actions and narrate their experiences. Because the DM can improvise to react to anything, D&D is infinitely flexible.

That is how the game is designed to be played. For you to say that what happens to your players' characters isn't up to you is inexplicable.

Again, you're missing the point. the caster doesn't have access to the spells during actual game play. No matter how many short or long rests your caster takes, if he or she hasn't learned the knock spell, they don't have access to it during actual play. Ergo, they are not as good at, nor can they replace the rogue when opening locks. Ergo, your claim is objectively false. And that's not even factoring the other mitigating factors (like not having it prepared even if they had learned it, or like not enough spell slots available even if they had prepped it, etc). That's not a strawman. It's the basis of your entire argument that casters are superior. The only way that argument works is if casters have access to all spells, all the time. Because if they don't, then you've opened the door to all these other scenarios where they aren't superior.

I'll repeat myself: I would probably learn and prepare Knock. You are the one who decided that our hypothetical Wizard should pick Flaming Sphere. Flaming Sphere is a pretty bad spell.

That said, if we had a Rogue in the party, I might decide to take another spell instead - that's just intelligent use of resources. But I could take it and obsolete the Rogue if I wanted to - or if there wasn't a Rogue in the party, which otherwise would mean the only option in terms of locked doors, manacles etc would be breaking them. Knock has a 60 ft range and a 100% success rate even against magical effects. By casting it, you can say "I unlock the door" and have that just happen. It's straight up better than needing to roll.

Those were just example spells for illustration. You're so focused on the DPR that you aren't seeing the forest through the trees. Guess what? You don't have any level 2 slots left. Do you know what that means? That means the caster isn't as good as the fighter in that scenario. That means your entire argument falls apart. If you had said, "In some very specific scenarios with specific builds with everything else aligning in the caster's favor, they are more powerful than the other classes" then I'd agree with you. But you're not arguing that. You're talking in generalities.

This is you moving the goal posts yet again. You proposed a scenario that you felt illustrated your point that Wizards do not always have the proper tools available to them - one who has picked Web and Invisibility instead of Flaming Sphere - which, as I mentioned, is actually pretty bad - as their level 2 spells and then found themselves in a fight with some Giant Spiders.

I demonstrated that by casting Burning Hands, a level 1 spell, the Wizard can still easily outperform the Fighter.

You're now claiming that even though the Wizard has outperformed the Fighter, the fact that it only did so by using a spell means that it isn't as good as the Fighter. Somehow. Again, a baffling argument.

sigh...level 1, level 10, level 20, doesn't matter. That's not the point. The point is that it is entirely possible for a caster to find themselves in a scenario where they either:

a. never learned the right spell
b. never prepped the right spell
c. don't have the slots available any more to cast the spell

Any of those three directly refute your argument.

This is a total non sequitur. Look at your points in the context of character level.

a. never learned the right spell

• A level 1 Wizard knows 6 spells. A level 20 Wizard knows 44. Do you genuinely believe that a level 20 Wizard is no more likely to have learned a spell relevant to a given situation?

b. never prepped the right spell

• A level 1 Wizard can prep 4 spells. A level 20 Wizard can prep 25. Do you genuinely believe that a level 20 Wizard is no more likely to have prepped a spell relevant to a given situation?

c. don't have the slots available any more to cast the spell

• A level 1 Wizard has 2 spell slots. A level 20 Wizard has 22, plus up to 10 from Arcane Recovery, plus a level 1 and a level 2 spell as at-wills, plus two level 3 Signature Spells. Do you genuinely believe that a level 20 Wizard is no more likely to have the slots available to cast a given spell?

Claiming that it doesn't matter whether a Wizard is level 1, 10 or 20 is completely nonsensical.

This is possibly one of the most ironic things I've heard. If you consider that good faith, then I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse. You keep saying "goal post shifting" but I haven't shifted the goal posts once. I've been consistent the entire time.

I'm sorry, but you've changed your story or claimed that you meant something else when your original meaning was clear several times over the course of this thread. The giant spiders/burning hands thing is only the latest example.

DM fiat? This has nothing to do with the DM. This has to do with:

Casters don't have every spell prepped and the slots available to cast it. Which is a requirement in order to make a blanket statement that casters are more powerful/can replace other PCs.

Those are the rules, as illustrated by things like a spell casting chart, or how many new spells you can learn every time you level up. I gave an entire list of things like this earlier. If you can't be bothered to read them, that's on you. And they have nothing to do with DM fiat.

I also mentioned this phrase: "Garbage in, garbage out." What that means is that all of his data is worthless if it fails to account for in-game factors that directly impact his data values. Things like:

* how many opponents are actually affected by an AOE spell (like burning hands), and if that puts the caster in to melee, he or she is so squishy they won't last a couple rounds. All the spell slots in the world won't help you when you're dead
* how many prepped spells never have an opportunity to be used
* how many scenarios would require a spell but it was never prepped or learned?
* does the caster have the proper components to cast the spell?
* etc, etc.
I.e., if you're ignoring the factors of actual game play, then the data analysis is about as worthless as ____ on a bull, as the phrase goes.

how many opponents are actually affected by an AOE spell

• You choose when to cast it, and I would only cast an AoE spell if I could hit at least 2 targets. I said this in the giant spiders/burning hands example.

if that puts the caster in to melee, he or she is so squishy they won't last a couple rounds

• A level 3 Wizard has 16 AC and 20 HP. A level 3 Fighter has 16 AC and 28 HP. The Fighter can take 1 more hit from a Giant Spider than the Wizard. Unless the Wizard uses Shield to negate 1 or more hits, in which case they are again ahead.

how many scenarios would require a spell but it was never prepped or learned?

• You tell me. Despite my repeated requests, you've presented a single scenario all thread, and I have proven that the Wizard still outperforms the Fighter.

Many, if not most, of caster spells can be interrupted. That's a fact. As already explained earlier. Since it is a fact, it is yet again, one factor of many, that mitigates casters being more powerful than others.

What do you mean when you say interrupted? You have answered this question in several different ways in this thread, and I would like to pin you down to one before I address it.

Not having a prepped spell means you can't cast it, which is pretty darn important if you're going to say the wizard is more powerful than another class. Having it in the spellbook means Jack and ____ if you can't cast it.

"I have WISH in my spellbook. I am sooo much powerful than any other character."
"Can you ever cast it?"
"Well....no..."

Wish is an extremely powerful spell, though your level 9 slot may be better spent on True Polymorph, Shapechange or Foresight depending on what exactly you want to accomplish.

Starting at level 17, you can cast it once a day to poach any of the 141 level 8 or lower spells not otherwise available to a Wizard with no downside whatsoever. Saying that you can never cast it is flat out false and I'm not sure what you're basing that on.

Congrats. That still doesn't mean the caster has access to every spell all the time during actual game play, which is a requirement of your argument. As I keep saying and you keep ignoring. Great job on prepping thunderwave.

Oh! Guess what! Because you prepped that spell, you didn't prep knock. Guess that means...wait for it....you're not replacing or better than the rogue. And that of course means your entire argument goes out the window. And even with thunderwave, if you have 5 combat encounters between long rests, each encounter 4 rounds long, what are you doing that makes you so much better than the fighter for the other 17 rounds? (assuming you use thunderwave for all 3 of your slots).

You don't even need Thunderwave.

A level 3 Great Weapon Fighter with a maul deals between 10.6 and 3.8 damage per attack, depending on the target's AC, which averages 7.2.
A level 3 Wizard with a longbow deals between 6.8 and 2.3 damage per attack, depending on the target's AC, which averages 4.5.

We'll be generous and assume that the Fighter can attack every round - which is by no means guaranteed in actual play.
We'll be even more generous and assume that the Wizard picked non-combat spells when he leveled up and gained access to level 2 spells.
We'll allow the players a short rest - or rather the monsters will, somehow entirely outside of the DM's control. After all, as you've told us, it's 'player entitlement' to expect rests after encounters.

If we're talking 5 encounters of 4 rounds (which also strikes me as generous - as I've said multiple times, encounters most often last 3 rounds, and last 2 rounds more often than they do 4) the Wizard is 54 damage behind on basic attacks. Each time the Wizard casts Burning Hands at 2 enemies, they can expect to do an average of 17.01 damage, which is 12.51 more than a longbow shot. Casting 6 Burning Hands over the course of this hypothetical adventuring day therefore deals an extra 75.06 damage. The Fighter can Action Surge twice for an extra 14.4 damage.

Final score after 5 encounters of 4 rounds

Wizard: 165 damage
Fighter: 158 damage

And the Wizard still has both level 2 spell slots for Knock/Invisibility, or potentially, if he had picked combat spells (e.g. Crown of Madness, Scorching Ray) for far, far more damage on top and outperform the Fighter at his own role to an even greater extent.

Stopping a caster from being able to perform any spell with a S component is interrupting that spell. As discussed earlier. If a spell as a S component, and you stop the caster from moving (there are several ways of doing this), that spell will be interrupted. That's the only reasonable interpretation of how those rules work.

You should really get out of this, "unless it's specifically covered in a rule, it can't happen." mindset. There is no way an RPG can cover every possible scenario. A lot of things would rely on common sense. If a caster can no longer perform the requirements of casting a spell, that spell is interrupted and will fail. I think that's an interpretation most people would agree on. You're looking at the game through some pretty narrow tunnel vision goggles of literalness. That seems to be a theme so far.

"None of these spells say they can be interrupted so they can't."
"um, what happens if you knock the mage out? Or paralyze them? Or kill them?"

What if you knock the Fighter out? Or paralyse them? Or kill them? Or stop them from moving? Wizards are not the only ones vulnerable to status effects.

In fact, by dint of spells like Fly, Levitate, Shield, Mirror Image etc and even simply by dint of not being on the front line, they're less vulnerable to them than a Fighter who seeks out and engages in melee combat every encounter.

 

[pemerton]

If a caster can no longer perform the requirements of casting a spell, that spell is interrupted and will fail.

Are you talking about a character readying an action to deliver a disabling attack as a reaction when a caster tries to cast a spell?

That doesn't strike me as very efficient from the point of view of the action economy - in fact, the caster who notices the readied PC can just refrain from casting a spell, and will be no worse off, because the character who readied the action didn't act.

Stopping a caster from being able to perform any spell with a S component is interrupting that spell.

Not really. It's disabling the caster, preventing him/her from casting spells. In much the same way you might disable or disarm a warrior, preventing him/her from fighting.

"None of these spells say they can be interrupted so they can't."
"um, what happens if you knock the mage out? Or paralyze them? Or kill them?"

Last I knew, all those things wil stope a fighter too. Wizards have no special vulnerability to these issues, and in fact for some of them have an advantage because they get proficiency on WIS saves.

Also, these are not forms of spell interruption. Hitting a wizards with a Sleep or Hold spell doesn't interrupt any spells. It just stops the wizard casting for the duration that the wizard can't act.

"Casters can replace or do better than any other class."
"What if they never learned the spell, or prepped the spell, or already used all their slots that would replicate the task of the class they are trying to replace?"

Well then they can't. A wizard without Knock can't open locks. So what? There's something else s/he can do that a non-casting character probably can't. [MENTION=6777377]Jack the Lad[/MENTION] gave a pretty good list upthread.

with thunderwave, if you have 5 combat encounters between long rests, each encounter 4 rounds long, what are you doing that makes you so much better than the fighter for the other 17 rounds? (assuming you use thunderwave for all 3 of your slots).

So you're talking about a 2nd level PC?

How is an encounter going to last for 5 rounds if the wizard uses Thunderwave? The DC for the CON save is 13. A monster like goblins have +0 to save, so two or three may take 2d8 damage - which is fatal for them - and those that save still take half that, which will bloody them.

For 5 PCs, 10 goblins make a Medium encounter. The wizard can easily take out 3 or 4 of them with a Thunderwave, pushing them into a pit or over a ledge. In the next round, the wizard can finish off a wounded one with a cantrip.

I'm not sure what else the wizard has to do to have had a big impact on the combat. Isn't that enough?

If the wizard memorises Sleep instead of Thunderwave, the wizard can sleep an average of 3 goblns with no save. That's also pretty good, though personally I think Thunderwave is more fun if the terrain suits it.

 

[sithramir]

I feel like counter spell will really become a big deal in a lot of battles now. Obviously not against general monsters but NPC fights. In some ways that helps the fighter. Yes he can be hit with spells but his allies can also counterspell.

Haven't played it yet but perhaps a fighter will seem more useful BC they are front line hitting while casters may be forced to do those "other" cool things like heal themselves or an Allie or counter spell or many other defensive things like cast levitate BC the group was surprised etc.

Not saying its balanced but the fighter has one job and the caster has many and a lot of situations will force the caster to not be just hitting

 

[Storminator]

Balance is good, but it's not the holy grail of game design some hold it out to be. And frankly balance of fun is far more important than balance of power.

I'm going to do a terrible job of contributing to this thread . . .

One of the things I love about 4e is the way it's enforced balance means I don't have to analyze the party's capability to make a fun encounter of whatever difficulty I like. If the party is 12th level, that's all I need to know.

In 3e days (and it looks like in 5e), I had to scour every capability of every PC to figure out how well their abilities would interact with my encounter and guess how well things would go. Or I could ignore that and risk either the TPK or the trivial boss fight.

So for me, as a DM, balance and fun go hand in hand.

PS

 

[Sacrosanct]

What if a fighter is knocked out, paralyzed or killed?
These are ultimate conditions that completely disable any character. They are therefore beyond the point. It is like saying: what if the mage doesn't show up for the adventure?

We're not talking about fighters. We're talking about ways that a caster might not be able to always cast the perfect spell, as is a requirement in the white room scenario.

I'll also note that there were many reasons and examples given of these mitigation, and only one is needed to show how white room analysis is incredibly flawed. So even if only concentration spells could be interrupted, and even if you ignored all the other reasons, that is still enough to invalidate the white room. However, since there are several factors that apply (as mentioned in the list above), it just reinforces why using white room is not only flawed, but flawed horribly.

Between ways a spell can be interrupted, the chances that the caster never learned the spell to begin with, the chances that the caster never prepped the spell to begin with, the chances that the caster doesn't have any available slots anymore, the chances that the caster doesn't have the components to cast the spell, etc, etc, and it should be abundantly clear that using a white room scenario to make an analysis to say the caster is better and/or can replace all other classes is lazy and fundamentally flawed.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Just another gentle reminder that you’re the only one engaging in purely abstract white room arguments here (e.g. 'but casters won't always have access to their spells!').

I’ve given gameplay examples of many different situations in which a caster obsoletes a Fighter, and I will compile them for you here, by level:

• Level 1: Faerie Fire contributing more damage over the course of an encounter by giving the entire party Advantage than the Fighter does.
• Level 1: Jump allowing even casters with 8 or 10 strength to outjump even a Champion Fighter with Remarkable Athlete.
• Level 3: Wizards using Counterspell to shut down enemy casters entirely.
• Level 3: Wizards using Levitate to be safe from melee-only opponents.
• Level 5: Wizards using Fly to be safe from melee-only opponents and trivialise environmental barriers and challenges.
• Level 7: Fabricate obsoleting mundane crafting by instantaneously creating things it would take a Fighter 300 days to create.
• Level 7: Wizards using Animate Dead to summon skeletons that do more DPR than the Fighter and that only cost the Wizard a bonus action to command, meaning they can continue to cast alongside those attacks.
• Level 9: Fabricate serving as a way to quickly make thousands of gold per day.
• Level 9: Wall of Force allowing you to trap enemies under an inescapable barrier through which you can ping them down with cantrips at your leisure.
• Level 9: Contagion's Slimy Doom option stunning enemies (including - for instance - CR16 and CR17 dragons with Legendary Saves) for 3 rounds, guaranteed - more than enough time to kill them.
• Level 17: True Polymorph obsoleting the Fighter entirely past level 17 by allowing the Wizard to permanently turn into a CR17 Adult Red Dragon designed to be a challenging encounter for an entire party.

.

Rather than continue giant walls of text and refute every one of your points again (no one likes walls of text), I will attempt again to illustrate the basic fundamental flaw of your thinking here with just the first part.

That whole list? It is dependent on the caster both preparing that spell ahead of time, and having the available slots to cast it. This is a very basic concept and I'm honestly struggling as to why you can't seem to understand it. It doesn't matter how many spells are in your spell book. If you can't cast them, you can't cast them and therefore they can't be used in the analysis of what the wizard can do. And that's even me giving you the benefit of the argument that the caster chose those spells to enter into his or her spellbook to begin with.

"Guys, I am super awesome! I have every spell in my spellbook."
"Great! We could really use a teleport spell right about now."
"Um...I never prepped that one..."

I am also not dismissing your specific style of game play. I'm dismissing everyone's personal style of gameplay because that's a subjective factor, and basing my argument on how the rules were actually designed to be played. I.e., 5e was not designed to give players short rests after every single encounter.

Oh, and Jack? There are 30 first level wizard spells in the PHB, not 12. So no, the chances of the wizard learning all of those is not even close. Especially since as higher level spells become available, the wizard won't be using his or her 2 spells learned per level on level 1 spells nearly as often.

How is an encounter going to last for 5 rounds if the wizard uses Thunderwave? The DC for the CON save is 13. A monster like goblins have +0 to save, so two or three may take 2d8 damage - which is fatal for them - and those that save still take half that, which will bloody them.

For 5 PCs, 10 goblins make a Medium encounter. The wizard can easily take out 3 or 4 of them with a Thunderwave, pushing them into a pit or over a ledge. In the next round, the wizard can finish off a wounded one with a cantrip.

I'm not sure what else the wizard has to do to have had a big impact on the combat. Isn't that enough?

If the wizard memorises Sleep instead of Thunderwave, the wizard can sleep an average of 3 goblns with no save. That's also pretty good, though personally I think Thunderwave is more fun if the terrain suits it.

Again, you're missing the forest through the trees. The point wasn't "how can a battle with lower level mobs last 5 rounds." The point was, "If you have 15, 20, or 30 (the number really doesn't matter as long as it's greater than the number of spell slots of the wizard), explain to me how the wizard is better than/replaces the fighter for all of those other rounds. This is a very relevant factor that you keep ignoring, and won't answer.

Since we know that the game isn't designed to do long rests (recovering all the spell slots) between each encounter (it explicitly gives guidelines on # of encounters), and the basis of your entire argument is that the caster will cast a spell to be better than/replace another class, we know that the caster will not have all of his or her spell slots available for every single round of all the encounters he or she runs into during the adventure day. You agree, yes? I.e., if the first encounter lasts 3 rounds, that's 3 spells the caster used to be better than the fighter, and 3 slots he or she won't have available for encounter #2. So on and so on. So if a caster has a total of 8 spell slots, and there ends up being 20-30 combat rounds before the next long rest spread out between a half dozen or so encounters, how is the caster being better than the other classes for the rest of the 12-22 rounds? And this is even giving you the benefit of not even considering the likelyhood that the caster would not have even used all of his or her slots on combat spells to begin with (further limiting which spells would be effective in combat).

*Edit* You know what, I'll even use your example of the sleep spell because it came up in one of my sessions last week.. The first encounter? The wizard slept* 2 giant ants out of 4 in the first encounter. That was pretty darn good, and better than any other class could do for that round. Her other slot was used on a non-combat spell earlier. For the rest of that encounter, and the four other encounters they ran into before they could rest, she was not nearly as effectual as the fighter, being resorted to mostly firebolt cantrips.

*she did not prep thunderwave because being a squishy wizard, the last thing she wanted was to put herself right in the heart of melee combat.

 

[Uskglass]

We're not talking about fighters.

As a matter of fact we are. The thread here is Class Analysis: Fighter and Bard

We're talking about ways that a caster might not be able to always cast the perfect spell, as is a requirement in the white room scenario.

And the fighter never has the perfect spell, or comparable option, white room or not.

 

[Sacrosanct]

As a matter of fact we are. The thread here is Class Analysis: Fighter and Bard

Actually, the conversation has long since shifted to the age old "casters are always better" conversation

And the fighter never has the perfect spell, or comparable option, white room or not.

So what? The claim was that casters are better/can replace the other classes. If the fighter can do more combat damage and take more damage himself without using any "magic power" than the wizard, then that's all that's needed to invalidate that claim. If the rogue can open locks better than a wizard without using any "perfect spell", that also invalidates the claim. I.e., the fighter doesn't need a perfect spell or option or a white room to prove the claim false.

 

[Andor]

Also, I can't help but feel that it's worth reiterating because it's rather fallen by the wayside; The Fighter has no access at all, ever, to utility effects like Knock, Fly, Disguise Self, Water Breathing, Detect Thoughts, Invisibility etc.

Nonsense. A Fighter, even the Champion you are fixated on, has access via a single feat to spells like Detect Magic and Water Breathing. While there are not quite as many ritual spells in 5e as I would like, the list does include some very good utility spells like Water Walking/Breathing, Detect Magic, Identify, Speak With Animals, or Leomunds Tiny Hut. If we are discussing out of combat utility the fact that they are rituals rather than instant cast spells is meaningless.

Look, to be clear, you are not wrong, and Sacrosancts position is absurd. (With apologies, but it is.) However there are other points which you yourself are steadfastly ignoring to the detriment of your credibility.

First, there are no non-caster classes in 5e. Not one. There are only some non-caster subclasses for those who do not wish to use the spell system. Yes, it's true that people without spells do not have spells. So what? They don't have them because, and only because, they didn't want them. That is not a system flaw, it is providing options to players. And yes, "I don't want that." is a valid option. Do you really think that having chosen Champion in the first place and after bypassing 19 opportunities to multi-class the player of the 20th level Fighter will be crying into his beer about how the Wizard emasculated him?

Secondly, many of your examples do not in fact invalidate the classes you claim they invalidate. If the Bards Song of Rest is contributing to the party it adds exactly as many HP to the Fighters pool as the Bards. Yes it's more healing overall, but so what? The fighter was never in that race to begin with. If Faerie fire does more in a single spell than the fighter does all combat, so what? It's using the fighter to do it (in part) and thereby stealing no ones thunder. In all seriousness when have you ever heard a front line character complain that he felt obsoleted by the bonuses provided by a support class?

The experience of play is important. White room analysis of DPR is not. If a fighter feels useless in play, that is a problem. It's not neccessarily the classes problem however, it will be a result of interaction between the DM and the Figher and Wizards players that leads to that feeling. And if it makes the fighters player unhappy he can retire his Champion and bring in an Eldritch Knight, or a Druid or a Monk.

In a white room the Champion is not the equal of the Wizard, but at the table where things are messy with cheeto dust and coffee stains, they can be equal amounts of fun to play and that's what matters.