Just how bad is the playtest fighter? (Trigger warning: math.)

[B.T.]

There's been a significant amount of grumping from the new school segment of the D&D population that the 5e playtest fighter is awful, terrible, completely unfun, and stupid. Now while I will quickly admit that I am not entirely satisfied with the fighter thus far, I am skeptical of how terrible the fighter truly is. In fact, I wager that the playtest fighter is a strong character who does what he is designed to do--be a heavy-damage melee combatant--the best out of all the classes.

[removed sentence]. Let's discuss how the fighter differs from his 4e counterparts as a refutation for the complaints of his "awful" design before getting into the number crunching.

• NO AT-WILL ATTACKS. Horrors upon horrors, the fighter must resort to a basic attack each round. This cannot be! [removed sentence] [removed sentence] [removed sentence]

• NO ENCOUNTER/DAILIES. This isn't entirely true--at second level, you have two daily powers available--but let's discuss why this is. In 4e, encounters and dailies are primarily used to inflict status effects and extra damage. The current 5e design goals are to offer much simpler gameplay than 4e, avoiding stock effects (i.e., 2[W] + Strength + daze). Naturally, the fighter shown will be simple at first and then complexity will be layered atop this; the 5e developers have specifically said that they were designing the game this way. [removed sentence]

• CRAPPY DAMAGE. As I already said, the other aforementioned function of encounters/dailies is bonus: this is not required. Unlike in 4e, where a first-level monster might have 30 goddamn hit points, the 5e playtest indicates a significantly reduced level of HP bloat. [removed sentence]

Now, let's get into the actual math of the game.

First off, I'm going to make some assumptions about how things play out. I will ignore the fighter's slayer theme because this is available to everyone in the game (as I understand it), so it is not a class feature of the fighter. I am pretending that the average monster has AC 15 (ACs in the playtest run the gamut from about 12 to 20, with the average monster in the 14-16 range). [removed sentence] And (naturally), I am assuming average damage rolled.

Let's start with the basics.

Greataxe (+6 vs. AC), 2d6+7 damage, no advantage: 5% chance of crit (19 damage), 55% chance of 14 damage. Damage per round: 8.65.

Greataxe (+6 vs. AC), 2d6+7 damage, advantage: 9.75% chance of crit (19 damage), 74.25% chance of 14 damage. Damage per round: 12.248.

Crossbow (+4 vs. AC), 1d8+5 damage, no advantage: 5% chance of crit (13 damage), 45% chance of 9.5 damage. Damage per round: 4.925.

Crossbow (+4 vs. AC), 1d8+5 damage, advantage: 9.75% chance of crit (13 damage), 65.25% chance of 9.5 damage. Damage per round: 7.466.

Now, onto the cleric. Again, I'm taking the best of both clerics because of the crying that the cleric is overpowered.

Warhammer (+4 vs. AC), 1d10+2 damage, no advantage: 5% chance of crit (12 damage), 45% chance of 7.5 damage. Damage per round: 3.975.

Warhammer (+4 vs. AC), 1d10+2 damage, advantage: 9.75% chance of crit (12 damage), 65.25% chance of 7.5 damage. Damage per round: 6.064.

Radiant lance (+6 vs. AC), 1d8+4 damage, no advantage: 5% chance of crit (12 damage), 55% chance of 8.5 damage. Damage per round: 5.275 damage.

Radiant lance (+6 vs. AC), 1d8+4 damage, advantage: 9.75% chance of crit (12 damage), 74.25% chance of 8.5 damage. Damage per round: 7.481.

Overall, the fighter is significantly better than the cleric in the melee department (8.65 and 12.248 vs. 3.975 and 6.064), and he is slightly worse as a ranged combatant (4.925 and 7.466 vs. 5.275 and 7.481).

Let's look at the spells available to cleric--at least, the ones causing the most buttdevastation, spiritual hammer and crusader's strike.

Spiritual hammer (+6 vs. AC), 1d8 damage, no advantage: 5% chance of crit (8 damage), 55% chance of 4.5 damage. Damage per round: 2.875. (Pretty sure this one can't have advantage on it, so not going to bother.)

Crusader's strike (+4 vs. AC), 1d10+1d6+2 damage, no advantage: 5% chance of crit (18 damage), 45% chance of 11 damage. Damage per round: 5.85.

Crusader's strike (+4 vs. AC), 1d10+1d6+2 damage: 9.75% chance of crit (18 damage), 65.25% chance of 11 damage. Damage per round: 8.933.

Now, unless my math is grossly off, the average damage a cleric with crusader's strike and spiritual hammer is going to do is 8.725 vs. 8.65. Thus, assuming a cleric expends two spell slots and letting him use the best of both the Pelor and Moradin builds, a cleric outdamages a fighter by less than a whole tenth of a point of damage.

Discuss.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

hmmh, seems well balanced then...

 

[eamon]

Well, no, it's not well balanced - the fighter's way better. Which, of course, is entirely intentional since the cleric has other advantages.

Part of the issue is that the cleric has a high AC, which is probably partially just a mistake (the equipments adds up to AC 17), since a class feature granting the cleric extra AC seems unlikely.

Were the fighter built with a shield, he'd likely have the same AC, still significantly greater damage output normally, and would thus normally outclass the cleric.

(Which isn't to say everything's perfect, just that it's certainly reasonable).

 

[Andor]

The only real complaint I heard about the fighter after my playtest was that he was boring.

However the actual player of the fighter is not the one who said it.

*shrug* The fighter is just as capable of using skills and wits as any of the other characters.

The slayer theme seems effective, but it's deliberately the simplest of the themes shown. A fighter with the magic user theme and a Ray-of-frost at his disposal would be terrifying once he hits second level and can start taking multiple actions to crowd-control and attack at the same time.

My party found ray-of-frost a great way to neutralize the 'boss monsters' like the kobolds and goblin chiefs.

 

[Morrus]

Small hint. If your post includes any or all of the following phrases, you're doing it wrong:

• anal hemorrhaging
• your complaints about it are nonsensical
• whining about this is stupid
• cry me a river
• getting teary-eyed about the Holocaust of encounters/dailies is idiotic and premature.
• ing HP
• weeping and gnashing of teeth

I've edited the offending sentences out of your post. Please review EN World's reviews on appropriate language here.

It's a shame, because it's otherwise an interesting post. If only you'd posted it without littering it with profanity and insults.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Your math is not grossly off. Your math is just ... selective. Although thank you for removing the slayer theme - you're the first person I've read to defend the fighter who has actually done this.

The fighter is a strength 16 guy wielding a two handed axe. Certianly two handed). The cleric of Moradin is a strength 14 guy wielding a one handed hammer and carrying a large shield (which is why his AC is three points higher).

The fighter therefore should do more damage because he is stronger and wielding a two handed weapon against a sword and board wielder. The cleric, of course has three more points of AC.

Let's match their weapons up. Give the fighter a warhammer and board instead. He attacks at +6 (we think - no one can figure that out) doing 1d10+5 damage. The cleric meanwhile we move to strength 16, wis 14. A wisdom of 14 is enough to be a viable if not outstanding cleric.

And now we only give the cleric the long lasting buff. Crusader's Strike. Which lasts long enough you can pre-buff with it and then cut through a lot of enemies, not giving them a chance to recover or organise.

At this point the fighter is attacking at +6 and doing 1d10+5 damage with his warhammer.
While buffed, the cleric is attacking at +5 and doing 1d10+1d6+3 damage.

+1 to hit (and that unexplained) vs 1.5 damage. At expected AC that's a faint advantage to the cleric.

Match up the weapons and the strength scores and the fighter's entire damage advantage goes down the pan. While the cleric remains a cleric, able to cast spells and do things the fighter simply can't.

We've already done the math. And the fighter only appears to be ahead by things that aren't fighter-specific (strength and wielding a 2 handed weapon).

Edit: [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION], thank you. I was about to report the post for edition warring.

 

[B.T.]

I'm not really that worried about an hour-long buff, to be honest.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

With the second theme quick fix, the fighter however would be on par, as you can call the slayer theme part of the class.

Seems reasonable.

Rogue gets two backgrounds (scheme is about that), and a rogue is about skills
Fighter gets two themes (or maybe later a schemelike theme), and a fighter is about feats.

Actually I would call that good design then.

Mearls suggests taking the guardian theme, but you could as well give him the magic user theme and add magic missile. Seems like it would be fun.

 

[eamon]

At this point the fighter is doing [...] 1d10+5 damage with his warhammer.

I've been wondering how they've figured the bonuses; can you explain why you think he'd get a +5 damage bonus with a one-handed weapon?

Edit: and why does the shield explain a +3 AC bonus, in contradiction to the rule document?

 

[whydirt]

I'm not really that worried about an hour-long buff, to be honest.

Why not? That's at least long enough to last through two battles, even assuming some rest/exploration time in between.