Almost as good as the fighter

[Savage Wombat]

I believe that, in 5e, a cleric or rogue should be able to stand in the middle of melee and, without benefit of spells or class abilities, still feel like he's contributing to the fight.

In the oldest old-school D&D games, clerics and thieves were expected to do this on a regular basis. And when the fighter isn't buffed with massive damage bonuses and specialization attacks, they could do that. They weren't as good at it, but they weren't doing 4 points of damage a round while the fighter did 67.

Now I'm not saying that the cleric or rogue shouldn't need special combat abilities. But if he's in a situation where he's bereft of them, he shouldn't feel like he might as well not bother rolling to hit since he's making no difference anyway.

Anyone out there agree with this sentiment?

 

[YRUSirius]

Yup, I agree. Clerics and rogues (in this order) should be the second best guys in melee, with the fighter being the best and the wizard the last.

-YRUSirius

 

[am181d]

I believe that, in 5e, a cleric or rogue should be able to stand in the middle of melee and, without benefit of spells or class abilities, still feel like he's contributing to the fight.

Eh. I think I'd prefer a game where most classes (rogues in particular) were encouraged NOT to stand in the middle of melee.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Eh. I think I'd prefer a game where most classes (rogues in particular) were encouraged NOT to stand in the middle of melee.

Oh, I don't think they should HAVE to. But if the game intends for you to be the "second best" melee character, you should be able to do something if forced into melee. Not just "well, I do 5 points of damage on average, so with luck one the monsters will be dead in 13 rounds."

 

[WarlockLord]

Um, what?

I don't think clerics have ever been bad at melee.

Rogues are another story.

 

[Li Shenron]

IMHO in 3ed the Cleric and Rogue were definitely good enough in melee... The Rogue required more effort (but not that much) because if the player could not think of anything more than the "I attack" tactic then it was obviously weak, but already a simple tactic such as constantly re-positioning yourself to a flanking position to get sneak attack meant to improve your damage output significantly.

If anything, IMXP it is more common to hear complaint about the fighter not being enough better than the others in melee, considering that the Cleric has tons of other options from spells and Rogues have plenty of non-combat schtiks. With the 3e Fighter being almost entirely designed for combat, I would be tempted to make him even "more better" than the others.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I believe that, in 5e, a cleric or rogue should be able to stand in the middle of melee and, without benefit of spells or class abilities, still feel like he's contributing to the fight.

In the oldest old-school D&D games, clerics and thieves were expected to do this on a regular basis. And when the fighter isn't buffed with massive damage bonuses and specialization attacks, they could do that. They weren't as good at it, but they weren't doing 4 points of damage a round while the fighter did 67.

Now I'm not saying that the cleric or rogue shouldn't need special combat abilities. But if he's in a situation where he's bereft of them, he shouldn't feel like he might as well not bother rolling to hit since he's making no difference anyway.

Anyone out there agree with this sentiment?

I agree with the udea that a cleric should be able to almost replace a fighter - but only if the fighter can almost replace the cleric. And the fighter should be as able to replace the thief as the thief is the fighter.

My radical proposal is that the fighter and the rogue merge into a single class with different possible emphases. The "physical" guy getting by on strength, speed, and by physical skill. And who's picked up some thief skills, some toughness, and some other stuff. This gives the fighter something he is actually good at rather than making him into a cleric with a tiny amount of extra combat ability in exchange for that class's entire spellcasting potential.

And in 3.X the cleric can actually outlast the fighter on the front lines. The fighter gets effectively a single extra hit point per level - one cast of Cure Light Wounds closes that gap.

There should be no class that makes people wonder "Why not be [another class]?" If the fighter isn't head and shoulders the best at standing in the battle line then he needs something he is the best at. And most fictional fighters I can think of are well rounded (e.g. Conan, Fafhrd) rather than just there for the battle line.

 

[Kaodi]

One of the radical ideas I have had during this whole process so far was actually that the core classes be the fighter, rogue, paladin, and swordmage, precisely because I thought every basic class out to be able to mix it up in melee. A dungeon full of strong and deadly monsters just does not seem like a hospitable place for anyone who cannot defend themselves with blade or spear. Limiting to those four classes (or an equivalent melee caster in place of swordmage) for is still an experiment I am looking forward to trying out.

 

[Ellington]

I agree. Just like how the fighter shouldn't be completely inept in social situations or exploration.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Anyone out there agree with this sentiment?

Yes. Just so long as the fighter is almost as good at casting spells as the cleric.