D&D 5E Class Analysis: Fighter and Bard

[Psikerlord#]

This kind of analysis requires too many assumptions to be more than a very rough guidepost. Players and Dms have to balance the game at their kwn table. RPGs have always been this way. The fighter dominates combat. The bard is the most versatile class in the game. As intended. Play the one you prefer and work with yr table to keep everyone happy, bec if too many folks are unhappy you wont have a table at all.

 

[Nebulous]

What i want to know is if this perceived "problem" with the basic Fighter build, if it is generally agreed upon by many players AFTER actual consistent playthrough at higher levels....how can WotC address it? A new basic fighter build or subclass in PHB2?

 

[Uskglass]

Why am I reading them? Because I like to know how the game works. It sucks because I expected a decently balanced game and now everyone is completely destroying the game, and showing it's no better than 3.x when I had such high expectations. It's not because I don't like knowing, it's the fact that knowing makes me realize the game is just as terrible as the other ones :/ . Maybe 6th edition I guess.

I think you nailed it. The game experience from mid-level onwards is likely going to be similar to 3.x - possibly not that extreme, but close enough. Spellcasters in the hands of players who know what they are doing will dominate the game pretty much all around. Actually it's not even that: it's that they play a different game with its own rules: it's like doing sport and have a way for some of the participants to ignore gravity.
And this is the 'classic D&D feel' for you, the one that this edition is setup to recapture to bring back PF players - which is a perfectly legitimate intent by the way.
That is not to say this is 'bad' per se. It's just an approach to the game, and it is a well consolidated one too. I personally moved away from it many years ago and have no interest in going back, but luckily there are options out there.
On the plus side, magic system aside, this edition seems solid and well laid out, so it could be a good platform for further development and alternatives moving forward.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You know what you might consider doing to level the playing field a bit in the utility section? Have the fighter spend his two extra feats on Ritual Caster and Skilled. Bam, more skills than the bard (though no expertise, thanks Obama), and plenty of utility spells.

Do we have a list of what Wizard spells in 5E are rituals?

What i want to know is if this perceived "problem" with the basic Fighter build, if it is generally agreed upon by many players AFTER actual consistent playthrough at higher levels....how can WotC address it? A new basic fighter build or subclass in PHB2?

It's hard to address. One way would be to add an optional system that doesn't use existing resources, like RC-D&D-style Weapon Mastery, which helped Fighters etc. but not casters. Failing that, an "overpowered" (compared to default Fighter) subclass would be the best way.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Why am I reading them? Because I like to know how the game works. It sucks because I expected a decently balanced game and now everyone is completely destroying the game, and showing it's no better than 3.x when I had such high expectations. It's not because I don't like knowing, it's the fact that knowing makes me realize the game is just as terrible as the other ones :/ . Maybe 6th edition I guess.

Ack, sorry! I was hoping it was perversity but that's just depressing! To be fair, I don't think 5E is nearly as a bad as 3E was. It's just further away than it could have been.

 

[Uskglass]

It's hard to address. One way would be to add an optional system that doesn't use existing resources, like RC-D&D-style Weapon Mastery, which helped Fighters etc. but not casters. Failing that, an "overpowered" (compared to default Fighter) subclass would be the best way.

I would try the other way around: keep the fighter as the baseline. Provide an option to strip out the magic system entirely and replace it with an alternative one which aligns with that. The game will get a more 'low-magic' feel (something alike SW probably), but would be more consistent all around, for those who care about that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I would try the other way around: keep the fighter as the baseline. Provide an option to strip out the magic system entirely and replace it with an alternative one which aligns with that. The game will get a more 'low-magic' feel (something alike SW probably), but would be more consistent all around, for those who care about that.

Sounds like a potentially good role for a 3PP once they allow those formally.

 

[Bluenose]

Why? A lot of people view niche protection as a good thing. That's more of a subjective opinion. Especially when things like "how often can a class do X" is very relevant to the discussion because no game I've ever played takes place in a white room with a reset button after every combat.

So what's the niche that the Wizard has that doesn't have other classes in it, and what niches do they have to stay out of because the spells that let them play in it will never exist?

I think you nailed it. The game experience from mid-level onwards is likely going to be similar to 3.x - possibly not that extreme, but close enough. Spellcasters in the hands of players who know what they are doing will dominate the game pretty much all around. Actually it's not even that: it's that they play a different game with its own rules: it's like doing sport and have a way for some of the participants to ignore gravity.
And this is the 'classic D&D feel' for you, the one that this edition is setup to recapture to bring back PF players - which is a perfectly legitimate intent by the way.
That is not to say this is 'bad' per se. It's just an approach to the game, and it is a well consolidated one too. I personally moved away from it many years ago and have no interest in going back, but luckily there are options out there.
On the plus side, magic system aside, this edition seems solid and well laid out, so it could be a good platform for further development and alternatives moving forward.

You'll note that this is the desired play-style for some people. Note elsewhere in the thread where it's explicitly said that everyone has access to magic and therefore this sort of imbalance is fine. Because by the definition of the person saying it, magic is expected to be superior to not-magic. It's not supposed to improve a person to the point where they can attempt something that they otherwise couldn't do, it's required to succeed - or at least to work at the caster end, although despite the heavily nerfed nature of saving throws compared to traditional D&D, they are available.

Also, Fighters can't have nice things, because they can do them At Will and that wouldn't be fair when the casters don't get to do everything they have as At Will effects. So forget crippling people with weapons, it's hit points or nothing and dead or fully functional, except Magic! can override that the way it's supposed to.

 

[evilbob]

I'm not really sure I see the full problem here, either. 9th level spells break the game: yes. But how many games even get to 17th level? And at 20th level nearly every class is insane somehow. Druids pretty much cannot die from HP loss at that point; that's a fun one to compare.

For the sweet spot of >90% of games - levels ~3-6 - the two classes seem pretty even. Well, actually the bard seems like it couldn't quite keep up with the fighter if all it wanted to do was be a fighter. But it CAN be very effective in making the entire party better. So that seems good.

Will casters start to dominate at high levels? Yup. Is that a playstyle that a lot of people want anyway? I think so. Is that a level range very, very few people ever see? Pretty sure.

I am curious what this Indomitable feature that got nerfed was and is: can anyone paraphrase what it is now and also say what it was before?

 

[Sacrosanct]

The idea that "My character is allowed to do stuff without rolling and is generally powerful!" is mere "niche protection" is an absolutely fascinatingly bizarre one.

What I meant when I said niche protection is that a lot of people are not only OK with, but prefer a style of gaming where each class can do their own things really well, which was in contrast to the statement I quoted which said that if one class can do something cool, all classes should be able to. To me, all that is, is making every class pretty much the same with the same abilities, just with the serial numbers filed off and named something else. And I find that boring.

And often, when those types of arguments are made (the wizard can cast a spell to get past challenge X automatically, so everyone else should too), it almost always dependent on a white room scenario. I don't need to explain the numerous ways using a white room scenario is flawed to use as analysis in that way.