D&D 5E PvP Class Comparisons

[Herschel]

Not really because the monster is still facing the party and you know it's going to attack.

 

[Argyle King]

Not really because the monster is still facing the party and you know it's going to attack.

I'd say it's significant for the DM to know that adding say a fighter template is going to adjust the difficult much differently than a different class template in spite of the rules suggesting the same level of difficulty is added.

 

[Herschel]

As DM, one adds the template in order to specifically increase damage output against the party.


In a party of five, if one PC turns (the barbarian) and drops another immediately via surprise or whatever (the wizard) it's now 3-on-1 vs. 5-on-1. And with multi-attacks vs. single attacks it's more like 3-on-2. The odds are MUCH different.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Tonight was the final session of the encounter's season for the game store I've been playing D&D 5th Edition at. During the final battle, one of the players decided to turn on the party. While the party did prevail, it did highlight some rather drastic differences in ability and damage output between a few of the classes. I'm not ready to make a specific declaration about class inequality in a Player vs Player battle because I have not seen it happen often. However, it is something that has been on my mind ever since tonight's session ended.

So, what do you think?

Have you had situations in which the PCs have come into conflict with each other? If so, did one particular class seem to have an edge over others?

General thoughts on the subject of PvP in 5th Edition?

I'm sure 5e classes are not balanced against each other for PvP. Then again, NO EDITION OF THE GAME HAS EVER BALANCED CLASSES FOR PVP.

In oD&D level 1 wizards didn't even have spells that did damage. How well do you think one would have fared against the party's fighter? Basically, the game isn't designed for PvP and the classes definitely aren't balanced for it. They never have been and I don't see why they should be. You want PvP, go play Magic.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

If you're having characters attack other characters, you're doing it wrong.

D&D is based around balance with the team against the adventure. The contribution of each character differs in its nature, but - if things go well - every player should feel their character contributed to the eventual success of the party. One of the effects of this is that characters have situational effectiveness. The cleric is better against undead. The wizard is better against goblins. The fighter is better against Golems. The thief works best from the shadows. Teamwork makes some characters work even better.

With all that complexity of character effectiveness, balancing for "simple" PvP actually detracts from the game. It restricts what you can do with class design. It restricts what you can do with the game as a whole.

What you say is wrong is purely subjective in this matter. You can't do it wrong because there is no right or wrong to play with regards to PvP.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Basically, this is how the final encounter went...

The party got to the encounter with the Ice Witch. One of the barbarians in the party felt that some of the people from the towns should be made to suffer and didn't particularly feel the Witch's plan should be stopped. He cut a deal to join her side.

I don't know exact numbers of his character, but I can say he was a mix of Barbarian and Fighter, and focused on two-weapon fighting. His style was basically to throw out as many attacks as he could and then add the rage bonus to all of them.

On the 'good' side; trying to stop the Witch, was my character (halfing rogue/monk mentioned in other threads,) a barbarian, a wizard, a fighter, and a cleric. The wizard -not surprisingly- went down very quickly. What was more surprising was that the regular barbarian also went down rather easily when engaged in a toe-to-toe fight with the traitor. While the regular barbarian was dealing far more damage when he hit, he was getting less attacks. The traitor, between having advantage via rage and a multitude of attacks from TWF had multiple rolls with which to fish for criticals; he also easily made up for his single attacks doing less damage by being able to stack his rage damage bonus on all of the attacks. After dropping both the wizard and the barbarian, the traitor then moved onto my character. The only thing which saved me was that I had a much higher AC (17) than some of the other party members in spite of the fact that I was not wearing armor due to having a high dex and a respectable wis. Really though, even with that, it was just poor rolling on the part of the traitor. I could, to some extend, match the amount of attacks he was putting out, but his damage was higher, and he was still raging and such got advantage on his attacks. In the end, I won out, but just barely, and I contribute it more to his poor rolling toward the end of the session more than anything else.

Had his rolling been marginally better, he would have very likely dropped my character. Then, at that was left was a cleric who was ill suited for melee, and the fighter who had already been badly wounded earlier in the fight. One PC would have very likely killed the rest of the party. While I understand that PvP is not a design consideration for D&D, something about that scenario still seems wrong to me. A lot of things about that scenario still seem wrong to me, and I don't believe it all boils down to "well, that guy wasn't playing D&D right."

I seem to recall reading something about a similar build, which was acknowledged to be overpowered. So with any luck it's an issue they're aware of and will address prior to publication.

It seems like a simple fix for it would be to increase the rage bonus but only allow it to apply once per round (like sneak attack).

 

[amerigoV]

I'm sure 5e classes are not balanced against each other for PvP. Then again, NO EDITION OF THE GAME HAS EVER BALANCED CLASSES FOR PVP.

In oD&D level 1 wizards didn't even have spells that did damage. How well do you think one would have fared against the party's fighter? Basically, the game isn't designed for PvP and the classes definitely aren't balanced for it. They never have been and I don't see why they should be. You want PvP, go play Magic.

I don't know OD&D, but 1e had Sleep - no save (might be random number of HD). MU was weak, but awesome for one spell

I would love it if players started pounding on each other

 

[Bradley Hindman]

To me the PvP aspect discussed in this thread is less troublesome. Instead, I am more worried about what happens when I use a group of fellow adventurers as violent opposition to the PCs. Doing so successfully shouldn't require a great amount of care and knowledge of the potential class weaknesses. This is more of a potential trouble than monsters acquiring class levels or templates, as it is expected that throwing a template on a monster requires a bit of skill because class features and monster powers can synergize.

 

[Thyrwyn]

To this day I vividly remember my first session with the group I joined in college - some of my best friends to this day. But that first session, we ran into some giants (this was AD&D). The Winged-folk Archer-Ranger downed a potion of speed, the Wizard cast Haste on him, and the Cleric cast Enlarge. 1 round and 16 shots later the Giants were dead and the the Wizard and Cleric were both casting Dispel Magic on the Winged-Folk so he couldn't turn on the party. I was shell shocked, as I had never played that way. Every single combat they had to balance doing just enough to take out the "bad guys" without leaving themselves weak enough for the rest of the party to turn on them. It was exhausting to watch.

But that was the only campaign I ever played in which PvP was commonplace.

 

[Minigiant]

Well there are many enemies who could have PC level.


I have my party in their low teens fight some hobgoblins. There was a hobgoblin fighter and a hobgoblin mage with them. The PC fighter tanked so many spells with Defy Death, Indominable, and a little luck.