D&D 5E Class Analysis: Fighter and Bard

[Sacrosanct]

Not being able to find or buy spells has never been a real hindrance to any spell casters i've played with in 15 years of playing. If that really is the only argument you have against his facts and graphs I am going to have to take his assertion that casters are once again firmly superior to fighters to be true. Which is a real shame after all the early feedback from Mearl's that they were not going to let that happen this time.

on another note, its disconcerting that Concentration checks can be trivialized so easily.

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You said, specifically, that the Wizard might not have had access. As in, at no point.
I said, specifically, yes they have - they've picked from the entire list of possible spells each time they gained a level, with no DM intervention or permission required. That is my point on this subject.

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).

Yet again, nope. That's a massive strawman, and you are the only one suggesting it. I've never said that casters have access to every spell all the time or anything close to it. I gave multiple examples of this in the post you're replying to, including an example day's spells prepped.

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.

Ah, level 3. Yes. That's the time when casters and non-casters are the closest together.

If you're level 3, and you haven't picked Knock, the Rogue is better at dealing with locked doors than you. I don't know why you feel that Flaming Sphere is somehow essential to fighting giant spiders, though. If you've taken Web and Invisibility, (I personally wouldn't take Web, but for the sake of argument) you can cast Burning Hands out of a level 2 slot instead, dealing an average of 10.15 damage per spider you catch in it (at least 2, preferably 3). Meanwhile, the Great Weapon Fighter is dealing 7.2 per hit.

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.

Can you give me an example at level 10+?

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 dodge, with yet more goalpost-moving as a bonus. I have acknowledged and addressed each one of your points in good faith and with examples and explanations. I've asked you simple, direct questions to try to better understand your point of view.

It seems to me that you are now refusing to engage because you have no good answers.

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.

 

[Jackal_]

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

Again, your arguments refute none of his actual data, but instead relies on what amounts to DM fiat. whether the caster is to powerful depends on if the DM gives him the spells or not? Thats what your balance amounts to. I mean really, show me something, some fighter ability or caster problem that doesn't depend on the DM to adjudicate(ala rest frequency, which effects everyone). I don't need paragraph responses, just examples or something. As i said before, is this really what your argument amounts to?

 

[pemerton]

Fact: Casters can have their spells interrupted

This isn't a fact at all. In 5e there are no interruption rules for casting spells that are reactions, standard actions or bonus actions.

There are interruption rules for Concentration spells, but not all spells with a duration require concentration (eg Foresight doesn't; Charm Person doesn't; Sleep doesn't).

Yep. 2 spells. Not every spell.

<snip>

No one is saying the caster won't cast their spells, I am saying they can't cast the perfect spell for every scenario all the time, which is a key base assumption in these types of comparison.

Are you familiar with the 5e spell prep and casting rules?

A wizard can memorise INT mod + level spells (probably 4 at 1st level, 15 at 10th level). And many of those spells can be cast in any slot, as desired by the caster at the time of casting. At 2nd level a wizard has 8 spells in his/her spell book (6 for 1st, +2 for gaining a level). The Basic Rules list 12 1st level spells. So it's not going to be hard to have Thunderwave on that list!

It's not clear to me what you envisage 10th level wizards doing with their spells.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Again, your arguments refute none of his actual data, but instead relies on what amounts to DM fiat. whether the caster is to powerful depends on if the DM gives him the spells or not? Thats what your balance amounts to. I mean really, show me something, some fighter ability or caster problem that doesn't depend on the DM to adjudicate(ala rest frequency, which effects everyone). I don't need paragraph responses, just examples or something. As i said before, is this really what your argument amounts to?

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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This isn't a fact at all. In 5e there are no interruption rules for casting spells that are reactions, standard actions or bonus actions.

There are interruption rules for Concentration spells, but not all spells with a duration require concentration (eg Foresight doesn't; Charm Person doesn't; Sleep doesn't).

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.

Are you familiar with the 5e spell prep and casting rules?

A wizard can memorise INT mod + level spells (probably 4 at 1st level, 15 at 10th level). And many of those spells can be cast in any slot, as desired by the caster at the time of casting. At 2nd level a wizard has 8 spells (6 for 1st, +2 for gaining a level). The Basic Rules list 12 1st level spells. So it's not going to be hard to have Thunderwave on that list!

It's not clear to me what you envisage 10th level wizards doing with their spells.

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..."

But anyway...

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).

 

[pemerton]

Many, if not most, of caster spells can be interrupted. That's a fact.

No it's not. It's not a fact at all.

No spell that takes a standard action, a bonus action or a reaction to cast can be interrupted during casting.

Charm Person, Sleep, True Seeing and Foresight are all good spells, with durations, that can't be interrupted.

Have you actually read the Basic D&D rules and spell lists? There are a lot of spells there, and most of them do not require concentration.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No it's not. It's not a fact at all.

No spell that takes a standard action, a bonus action or a reaction to cast can be interrupted during casting.

Charm Person, Sleep, True Seeing and Foresight are all good spells, with durations, that can't be interrupted.

Have you actually read the Basic D&D rules and spell lists? There are a lot of spells there, and most of them do not require concentration.

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?"

"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?"


You need to start thinking about how these rules interact with a typical play session, rather than a white room scenario. And while your at it, I would love it if you answered my question earlier:

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).

 

[Bluenose]

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.

So, Balance is important enough that the Fighter can't be allowed to be overpowered in combat compared to other classes, then.

Now apply that principle to other situations and other classes.

All I can say is this: If casters are so overpowered, why don't we see parties consisting of wizard, wizard, sorcerer, warlock, wizard? If the game was so bias in favor of casters, I don't think we'd see more than a handful of other classes represented in "the wild" (re: forums, game conventions, online play, personal campaign web sites, etc). But we do. We see a LOT of other classes. All over the place. Just go to Obsidian Portal and check out some personal campaigns of folks...lots of other classes represented. Lots.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

People want to play classes for all sorts of reasons, but that doesn't mean they can't recognise that wanting to be a Fighter means you're mechanically significantly inferior. And that there's no real reason for that apart from a deliberate rules decision to shaft the class on non-combat ability, while giving massive and steadily increasing breadth to casters.

Just making this up on the fly:

Killer Blow
You can perform this on a target with 1/2 of its total HP or less. As a standard action perform a single melee weapon attack against the target taking disadvantage on it. On a hit the target is slain.

This is an example of the kind of stuff you could achieve with martial abilities at high level, while remaining mechanically different from spells. It is only an example and not even a good one (I'm sure professional designers can come up with much better ideas), but it is just to show that there is space for providing martial classes with extraordinary capabilities while not overstepping into others' territories.

I would apply that to any Fighter making an attack against a humanoid opponent of five levels/HD less. There's no reason to think that increased hit points through being good at avoiding attacks means you're good at avoiding attacks from people whose skill exceeds yours massively. I could even make an argument that it should apply to other creatures as well. Other classes might get some of this, but probably at higher levels.

 

[Uskglass]

"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 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?