D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[Minigiant]

Thing is though, that math could be "hidden" from the player, and simply put into the class features or a table as a flat number.

Make the math easy. Use the resource to get 2d6 of extra damage or something. (Just an example, but whatever seems balanced.)

Still to much math for what WOTC and many wanted.

Bringing the Champion up to the Battlemaster would require inelegance or overpopower.
Bringing the Battlemaster down to the Champion would nerf them both.

Basically, if you keep the Champion as a subclass you are trying to make up 4d8 damage per rest with simple math in 1 or 2 class features.
If you make the Champion its own class, you have 20 class features.

No, that's just absurd. I get that you love class bloat, but this is not a reasonable argument for it.

Bloat is subjective.

5e held down all the weapon classes because WOTC didn't want to upside grognards by adding one extra warrior class.
But the 5e PHB has undercooked 6 full casters.

 

[pemerton]

Basically, if you keep the Champion as a subclass you are trying to make up 4d8 damage per rest with simple math in 1 or 2 class features.

An extra use of Action Surge would probably do the job, wouldn't it?

 

[Minigiant]

An extra use of Action Surge would probably do the job, wouldn't it?

No. 2.

And now you made the most OP subclass in 5e.

 

[pemerton]

No. 2.

And now you made the most OP subclass in 5e.

Well, that would make a change!

EDIT: But one use seems enough - at 5th level, you get two extra attacks with your Action Surge which presumably are 1d8+4 or so each, which is in the same general ballpark as 4d8.

 

[Minigiant]

Well, that would make a change!

EDIT: But one use seems enough - at 5th level, you get two extra attacks with your Action Surge which presumably are 1d8+4 or so each, which is in the same general ballpark as 4d8.

But at level 7 and 15, you get an extra die. And 10th and 18th, the die increases. Plus the versatility and conditions.

2 Extra attacks vs 4d8 damage is about a wash.
Same with 3 Extra Attack vs 5d10 damage.

But 4-5 effects puts the Battlemaster over.
You need more to get the Champion over.

There's no simple way to mend that gap. Easier as a new class.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

This is more-or-less 4e Essentials (vs "trad" 4e).

The issue in 4e was that the simple version ends up being a bit under-tuned. 5e is less complex overall than 4e (eg fewer status effects in combat, no martial AoEs as best I'm aware) and so getting the tuning right should be easier.

Is that really a problem? Someone who needs a "simple" class probably isn't going to notice a slight performance shortfall.

 

[James Gasik]

Is that really a problem? Someone who needs a "simple" class probably isn't going to notice a slight performance shortfall.

It sort of is. Consider that D&D is a co-op game, and everyone needs to do their part in order to achieve success in adventuring. If you have a party of four, and three guys are say, B-Tier, and one guy is a C-Tier, you might struggle as a group. And even if not, I'm sure eventually the C player is going to notice something weird is going on.

Take my current group. We have a Cleric with cursed luck (it really is, I've been starting to log his rolls to see exactly how much more he struggles than we do. And despite having the highest AC in the party, and the DM rolling openly, he gets hit a lot more than you'd expect, something else I'm compiling data on), a newbie Dex-Ranger who has been forced to dual-wield daggers since we haven't found magic short swords for him, a Bard who usually shows up well-medicated due to IRL medical issues (we really thought we were going to lose him) and generally either picks spells completely at random or tries to melee with a rapier, a Monk 5/Fighter 1/Rogue 1 (I have no idea what he's doing, but he's one of the most competent players we have), and my Wizard.

I hardly ever use raw damage spells, preferring to use mostly crowd control or just cantrips (and I'm super stingy with my spell slots to boot, having learned how to spell sling back in AD&D). I don't have a 20 Int, and I actually took the Healer Feat, lol.

And yet, last session, after I managed to completely lock down an enemy caster and defang her goons, he kind of looked at me and was like "I went down twice in this combat and I think your Wizard is the only reason I'm still alive. Why am I even here again?".

I take no pleasure from this- sure, I want to do my part, but I don't want to make other players feel insignificant. His class should give him superior damage and survivability over mine, and he's even a half caster on top of it. But because he chose a fighting style that really plateaus, has made some dubious spell choices, doesn't have the ideal weapons for his role, and has a terrible subclass, he's struggling and really shouldn't be.

Now all of his issues are correctible, he simply hadn't asked yet, and somehow when I make suggestions, people think I'm telling them how to play their character (so I don't make them unsolicited as a rule). But I think it really speaks to how one class or subclass shouldn't be worse than another. Honestly, I'd make a simple warrior class do the best damage, since that'd be really all they could do, since they're likely sacrificing versatility!

 

[FrozenNorth]

And yet, last session, after I managed to completely lock down an enemy caster and defang her goons, he kind of looked at me and was like "I went down twice in this combat and I think your Wizard is the only reason I'm still alive. Why am I even here again?".

Good point. Two campaigns ago, I was DMing a party of 4: a Bard, a Fighter, a Rogue and a Paladin. The Paladin was almost hilariously underoptimized. He had a 14 Str, 14 Dex and 14 Cha, and rather than advance any of them, choose feats, pretty randomly.

The Paladin still overshadowed the Fighter and at the end of the campaign, the Bard came up to me and said that while he loved the character, he flet he had to hold back to avoid overshadowing the other characters.

 

[ezo]

Unbalanced game play has always been an issue in D&D. Even if the classes are reasonably balanced, play style, DM style, experience as a gamer, optimization, types of encounters and challenges, etc. all play such large factors that striving for more class balance is really useless. You get as close as you think you can, and hope for the best.

There is also the issue of nova vs. sustained. Classes which nova and can choose when to do it at the opportune moment can seem like the shine more, but sustained classes which reliably get you through encounter after encounter have their place as well.

 

[ECMO3]

Unbalanced game play has always been an issue in D&D. Even if the classes are reasonably balanced, play style, DM style, experience as a gamer, optimization, types of encounters and challenges, etc.

You can add ability scores and luck to that long list.

My opinion, supported by extensive play experience, is that it is best not to strive for balance at all. Play what you want to play, let others play what they want to play. I think that works best in modern 5E and making it so you don't need specific classes (no one has to play a Cleric or a Rogue) has really opened up a lot of different playstyles.

The "why am I here" example above could be easily answered - "you tell me why are you here and why did you make the build choices you did."

I also notice the vast majority of imbalance examples are focused on combat and not all character builds are intended to excel at combat. I am playing a Glasya Tiefling Rogue 1/Bard 2 right now and she is awful in combat. She has a 19 Charisma and the only real game she has is the Dissonant Whispers spell, which is a decent spell but hit or miss and really limited uses. With a 13 Dex, she is not effective with weapons at all, her AC is 12 and her Constitution is 10. In a party of 6 (Monk, Monk, Paladin, Wizard, Rogue, me) she is a distant 6th in combat, with the Rogue being closer to the top than she is. That will improve as we gain levels and more spells of course but I never see her being a combat powerhouse. She is awesome in the social pillar though, rocking expertise in Deception, proficiency in Persuasion having Friends, Minor Illusion and Disguise self.

This is the second character I played with this group that was mediocre in combat. In a previous campaign I played a 1-12 Half Elf Scout Rogue skill monkey player with the Archeologist background. That character was better in combat, but still at the bottom of the party. He was completely dominant at the exploration pillar and really good at the social pillar.