D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)

[Sage Genesis]

Hey, the bear is AC 13. The fighter, at 5th level as a sword & board has somewhere on average AC 20. The fighter is going to hit the Bear on a 4 or better, whereas the bear is going to need better-than-average (14/19 without buffs) to hit. Even if they're not fighting each other, the fighter is more likely to connect and they're both going to do about 9-10 damage a round (that +1 to hit bite isn't likely to hit often). Then the fighter's got over twice the HP on the bear. In actual play, I'd expect the fighter to both destroy opponents faster and last longer.

The brown bear is really not that good of an animal companion. The ape is rather superior in every way that counts, especially because it's got a natural reach of 10' and it's Large which allows it to have a +12 grapple check. The ape has, in fact, identical BAB, strength, size, and thus grapple check of an ogre. Against lower AC opponents it will even do more damage than one. I fully expect the ape to utterly demolish this Fighter because it can just grab him by the throat from 10' away (no AoO to interrupt the grapple) and start climbing up the Empire State Building.

And this is not just limited to a straight up combat comparison either. The ape has decent perception skills, scent, and low-light vision. It has a natural climb speed that makes it a better climber than giant spiders, driders, phase spiders, or aranea (yes really).

The Druid can just kick back and sing "welcome to the jungle" as his pet ape curbstomps most opposition you might face at level 4. And again, this is one class feature of the Druid and not really the biggest one. We're not even talking about its full caster progression or (eventual) ability to turn into various kinds of monsters yet.

 

[Bluenose]

Hey, the bear is AC 13. The fighter, at 5th level as a sword & board has somewhere on average AC 20. The fighter is going to hit the Bear on a 4 or better, whereas the bear is going to need better-than-average (14/19 without buffs) to hit. Even if they're not fighting each other, the fighter is more likely to connect and they're both going to do about 9-10 damage a round (that +1 to hit bite isn't likely to hit often). Then the fighter's got over twice the HP on the bear. In actual play, I'd expect the fighter to both destroy opponents faster and last longer.

If the Fighter was as expndable as the bear, I'd regard their relative vulnerability as reasonably significant. Though I might note that the bear has two good saves to the Fighter's one, which also factors into vulnerability. Still the druid can replace the bear with 24 hours of work; the fighter can be replaced by unskilled labour in nine months, though growth and training will take several more years.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So it's OK because he didn't roll 5 18's???

OK because he doesn't have much in Str and Dex and Con for someone who faces death for a living. A tad worse than a wolf actually. And that's an "average" wolf (the level 1 wolf commoner, if you will).

he has an above average in 2 out of 3 physical stats AND an 18 cha... how is that not much better then a commoner?

He's better, just not much better.

and I have seen wolves, none of witch I would bet on one on one with a trained warrior...

Seriously?

so the wizard that can sleep an encounter is weak??? what are you talking about am I in bizaro world?

Well, let's see. Said wizard's spell is highly likely to fail. Said wizard can be felled by one nonmagical arrow from a thousand feet away before casting said spell. Said wizard can cast said spell only three or four times before being reduced to cantrips and relatively unskilled crossbow use (all of this true through most versions of D&D). So yes.

Yes the fighter can be cool if he has the right build and some team support... but then he is about as awesome as an average druid... give the druid a good build and team support and you don't need a fighter...

Have you ever seen what happens when, instead of casting the spells on himself (or in addition to doing so), the druid casts them on a well optimized fighter (/barbarian/ranger)? It seems not. Teamwork, people.

why can one class feature be gain a feat and that's it well another one can be get a second set of combat stats that gets better as you level? why isn't the 1st level feature of the druid equal to a 1st level bonus feat at 1st level?

Because druids and fighters are different?

Leadership is one of the 10 most powerful feats in the game...

Uh, unless you allow more than 10 feats.

I'm not even saying "Hey this one time this fighter wasn't as good" or as a poster here said "Snap shoting" I am talking about 12 years of patterns...

Having had 12 years of patterns, including many druids and many martial characters played alongside them, I cannot recall any case wherein the latter was not considerably better at fighting than the former and his animal combined. The usefulness of the druid is versatility (of which he has much more than any fighter), not raw combat strength.

I do remember one battle under the old 3.0 animal companion rules where one animal was the beneficiary of a sorcerer who time stopped and asked for a separate limited wish to ensure a critical on every one of the animal's attacks, which I granted. At that point, the animal is better. Short of that, the animal is unintelligent, has serious defensive limitations, lacks feats, and struggles to work with magic items (which the druid has to decide how to split between himself and his animal and of which there aren't that many that work well for either one of them). The last two PCs I had with animal companions both had them slaughtered, and I don't recall either of them contributing much more than a flanking bonus and the occasional trip or grapple.

 

[Sage Genesis]

I do remember one battle under the old 3.0 animal companion rules where one animal was the beneficiary of a sorcerer who time stopped and asked for a separate limited wish to ensure a critical on every one of the animal's attacks, which I granted. At that point, the animal is better. Short of that, the animal is unintelligent, has serious defensive limitations, lacks feats, and struggles to work with magic items (which the druid has to decide how to split between himself and his animal and of which there aren't that many that work well for either one of them). The last two PCs I had with animal companions both had them slaughtered, and I don't recall either of them contributing much more than a flanking bonus and the occasional trip or grapple.

Why on earth do you think animal companions lack feats?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Why on earth do you think animal companions lack feats?

Good grief. The PC gets bonus feats from class (at least, most of the relevant classes; fighter, ranger, monk) race (if human), and unlike the animal can qualify for feats with mental ability score prereqs (like, say, the expertise chain). Yes, animal companions get a few feats. Classed characters get more and better ones.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Good grief. The PC gets bonus feats from class (at least, most of the relevant classes; fighter, ranger, monk) race (if human), and unlike the animal can qualify for feats with mental ability score prereqs (like, say, the expertise chain). Yes, animal companions get a few feats. Classed characters get more and better ones.

Alright. I agree with you that the animal gets somewhat less feats than certain classes and lacks access to a few feats of questionable worth. But if you're upset that someone couldn't divine that meaning out of the words "lacks feats", and your phrasing of "good grief" suggests that you do, then I'd like to assure you that we're not mind-readers here and we can only respond to what you write, not what you mean.

 

[Derren]

So it's OK because he didn't roll 5 18's???

he has an above average in 2 out of 3 physical stats AND an 18 cha... how is that not much better then a commoner?

and I have seen wolves, none of witch I would bet on one on one with a trained warrior...

What trained warrior?
Your problem is that you are fixiated on combat and thus see the rogue automatically as a combat class.

You want to make a charismatic combat machine (means fighter with the same stats) but you instead make a charismatic dilletante with mediocre combat abilities and then complain that he is not a walking death machine.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What trained warrior?

the swashbuckling rogue that was drawn up not as a master of the system but by basics like a newbie... and wrong at that because 5 years of playing 4e made my memory a little off.

Your problem is that you are fixiated on combat and thus see the rogue automatically as a combat class.

no, my problem is that the game tell you that at level 1 you have 2 class features BOTH ARE COMBAT... sneak attack and Evasion. The game rules are 70% combat... and the thread is "Combat and class balance" I don't know why you are coming off as a jerk, maybe you jumped in not knowing what we were talking about, but it was combat balance....

You want to make a charismatic combat machine (means fighter with the same stats) but you instead make a charismatic dilletante with mediocre combat abilities and then complain that he is not a walking death machine.

no I made a beginner swashbuckler (Yes I could make a better one) trying to just be simple, and then the druid gets 2 class features one of witch is a walking death machine in and of itself (also not optimized)

 

[Derren]

the swashbuckling rogue that was drawn up not as a master of the system but by basics like a newbie... and wrong at that because 5 years of playing 4e made my memory a little off.

You are wong in more ways than just feats. You want to build a combat character (trained fighter) but then pick a class with only medium combat abilities. If you want to make a swashbuckler who shines in combat pick a fighter. The rogue has other advantages which you simply ignore and instead complain that he is not as good in fighting than a fighter.

no, my problem is that the game tell you that at level 1 you have 2 class features BOTH ARE COMBAT... sneak attack and Evasion. The game rules are 70% combat... and the thread is "Combat and class balance" I don't know why you are coming off as a jerk, maybe you jumped in not knowing what we were talking about, but it was combat balance....

The topic actually is not combat balance but the theory that only forum warriors, you among them, care about it and that during normal play it is a lot less of an issue.

no I made a beginner swashbuckler (Yes I could make a better one) trying to just be simple, and then the druid gets 2 class features one of witch is a walking death machine in and of itself (also not optimized)

No, you made a facemen with mediocre combat ability and then you throw a tantrum because the character is not a combat master.
Yes, the druid gets a wolf character which is good at combat. But it is also a huge pain when moving around in civilized areas. But I guess in your games that is never an issue, either because you are stuck in a dungeon or because all the disadvantages get ignored as it is "just a combat feature", right?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

OK because he doesn't have much in Str and Dex and Con for someone who faces death for a living. A tad worse than a wolf actually. And that's an "average" wolf (the level 1 wolf commoner, if you will).

so lets look at my example again: 10 Str, 14 Dex, 13 Con 15 Int, 14 Wis 18 Cha
you want to make the swashbuckler with charm and smarts what do you do with those numbers? 10,13,14,14,15,18? those are awesome stats, hell what do you do if you are stuck with 8,10,11,12,14,16 my line was a +11 mod the new one is only +5 the game suggest you only need +3 or +4

He's better, just not much better.

how do you generate stats in 3e?

Seriously?

yes humans have hunted wolves since the BCs, wolves have hunted humans never in recorded history, in fact even when wolves hunt they do so in packs...

Well, let's see. Said wizard's spell is highly likely to fail.

?? ??? why?

Said wizard can be felled by one nonmagical arrow from a thousand feet away before casting said spell.

since an arrow could do 1d8 damage and crit for 3d8 damage, then on a lucky damage roll any character not a fighter/paliden/barbarian could be felled by an arrow. and on a crit average 13-14 damage even a barbarian with a 15 con could drop to 0... so how does that mean anything?

Said wizard can cast said spell only three or four times before being reduced to cantrips and relatively unskilled crossbow use (all of this true through most versions of D&D). So yes.

yes they are god mode then escort mode... with no point of being just one of the guys I get that... but that is the 5 min work day in practice...

Have you ever seen what happens when, instead of casting the spells on himself (or in addition to doing so), the druid casts them on a well optimized fighter (/barbarian/ranger)?

yes I have, and it is pretty cool

Teamwork, people.

yes because when you play a fighter and someone else plays a cleric that can match you in combat AND heal AND cast misc spells and the 'team' asks why they want a fighter and not a second cleric it is them not being team players...

Because druids and fighters are different?

yes because one is made to be versitle and powerful and the other is made to be realistic...

Uh, unless you allow more than 10 feats.

I'm not sure where you are getting this from... lets take that rouge as an example, lets get him to level 6 (I think that is when you can take leadership) name a feat that gives better returns then grabbing a cohort of level 4? Imagine he picks up his own follower as a wizard or cleric... look at the team power grow.

Having had 12 years of patterns, including many druids and many martial characters played alongside them, I cannot recall any case wherein the latter was not considerably better at fighting than the former and his animal combined. The usefulness of the druid is versatility (of which he has much more than any fighter), not raw combat strength.

OK, then listen to this, we were in a game where we were all trying to save the world and when he hit 12th level we had just as a group made an alliance with a druid circle, so since we needed a bit more healing, I picked up leadership and a druid cohort. I picked a Dire wolf companion... the very first fight was with these 2 giants, everyone was buffing, so I cast bit of the weresomethingorother and wildshaped. the giants moved into us, and on my next turn me and the dire wolf each killed a giant.

I was shocked that a character that was made in twenty mins with 3d6 place as you get them (house rule for how to make cohorts) and was 2 levels lower then the party could do what the rest of the party could not... when the player of the party paliden pointed out the wolf did more damage then he did I asked the DM if I could swap the feat... The druid went giant hunting alone, and I picked up a less disrupteive feat.

after that the DM of that game still to this day talks about the companion of a cohort who out shined the rest of the party.

I do remember one battle under the old 3.0 animal companion rules where one animal was the beneficiary of a sorcerer who time stopped and asked for a separate limited wish to ensure a critical on every one of the animal's attacks, which I granted. At that point, the animal is better. Short of that, the animal is unintelligent, has serious defensive limitations, lacks feats, and struggles to work with magic items

I have seen animal compainions be forgotten like familiars, and I have seen them be died and ressed, and I have seen them dominate combat... I even saw a druid with a small army because he would keep one a while, then awaken it and make it just an NPC then grab another...

The last two PCs I had with animal companions both had them slaughtered, and I don't recall either of them contributing much more than a flanking bonus and the occasional trip or grapple.

Your games sound so odd to me, you have druids that have sucky animal compainions, but you think that 10,13,14,14,15,18 are bad stats... how can you have such power that those are weak AND not play up the best parts of the compainion??