D&D 5E A WOTC 5e Warlord That Would Be Acceptable To Skeptics

[Hussar]

It's also a sub-optimal build. Trying to build damage as a sword & board fighter is counter productive.


*The choice of 1-handed and 2-handed is much bigger for fighters. Smites don't care how big the weapon is, action surge/multi-attack does.
*Fighters are more affected by accuracy (both ways) since smites don't care. Advantage is their BFF (and disadvantage their archenemy).
*Fighter's have more to gain from magic weapons. +1 damage per hit is worth a lot more when you attack more. Again, smites don't care.
*Fighter's have more to gain from buffs. Same reasons as above. Bless, foresight, elemental weapon, crusader's mantle... smite still don't care, but the fighter will multiply any of those. Nothing in the game is as dangerous as a well buffed fighter.

But, that's my point. I'm comparing a middle of the road fighter to a middle of the road paladin and a middle of the road ranger. A sword and board fighter and paladin and a bow using ranger. All have exactly the same base damage (or within a point per hit, so, close enough). For my character to come even close to either character in damage output, I have to Action Surge at least 4 times. And note, I'm not exceeding their damage, I'm just drawing even.

So, again, how is the fighter the "combat master"? THAT was the original point being made here. If a Battle Master has to surge and blow every single superiority die on damage TWICE, just to equal a paladin's bonus damage, how is that balanced?

There's a reason fighters are Tier 2 Classes compared to the ranger or the paladin. But, if fighters are supposed to be the combat masters, shouldn't that be the other way around?

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, again, how is the fighter the "combat master"? THAT was the original point being made here. If a Battle Master has to surge and blow every single superiority die on damage TWICE, just to equal a paladin's bonus damage, how is that balanced?

That last sentence is confusing as heck to me.

If things are roughly balanced, it means they have a vague parity, that they're similar in some meaningful way. If a battle master has to spend all their resources to roughly equal a paladin spending all their resources, that is a rough parity. By the definition of "balance" I'm using, yeah, that's actually *the very definition* of balance: two characters going all out are roughly on par with each other.

If your definition of balance requires a fighter to be more significantly powerful than a paladin in order to be balanced, I can't really agree with it. That kind of thinking is what created CoDZilla. If someone has been telling you that this is how the class is intended to be, I think they're wrong.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's also a sub-optimal build. Trying to build damage as a sword & board fighter is counter productive.

*The choice of 1-handed and 2-handed is much bigger for fighters. Smites don't care how big the weapon is, action surge/multi-attack does.
*Fighters are more affected by accuracy (both ways) since smites don't care. Advantage is their BFF (and disadvantage their archenemy).
*Fighter's have more to gain from magic weapons. +1 damage per hit is worth a lot more when you attack more. Again, smites don't care.
*Fighter's have more to gain from buffs. Same reasons as above. Bless, foresight, elemental weapon, crusader's mantle... smite still don't care, but the fighter will multiply any of those. Nothing in the game is as dangerous as a well buffed fighter.

I'm not so sure that sword-and-shield has to be bad for damage, and the reason is Shield Master. As you say, fighters have a lot to gain from advantage, and the chance to get "free" advantage via Push with your bonus action. (There are some nice defensive benefits too to knocking an enemy down; you can retreat far enough to deny him an attack next turn, and the only thing he gets out of it is the chance to opportunity attack you, at disadvantage for being prone.) The extra 2 or 3 points of damage from wielding a larger weapon can in principle be made up by the advantage you get from pushing enemies prone, and when you're dealing with high-AC enemies for whom GWM is not particularly advantageous, sword-and-shield might be competitive with two-handed weapons (though Polearm Master will still be ahead).

For example, an 8th level fighter with a greatsword and Str 20 fighting a CR 5 Drow Elite Warrior (effective AC 21) will do 10.30 points of damage on average with a greatsword. With a longsword, he will do 13.04 DPR on any round when the drow is knocked down, or 8.05 when the drow is on his feet. Since he Pushes the drow down just over 60% of the time, he's averaging at least 11.44 DPR, which is more than he would be doing with a greatsword. Of course, the greatsword fighter has a spare feat that didn't go to Shield Master, so maybe he's got a compensating advantage like GWM--but GWM power attack would actually be counterproductive against the drow warrior (drops DPR to 7.30) so the only thing that could help would be the bonus action attack, which in fairness isn't bad and brings DPR up to 10.64 or so--but the sword-and-shield guy is still doing better.

I love shield bashing. 5E combat isn't all that complex but you can do a surprising amount of optimization with just the basic at-will maneuvers and a good Athletics score.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If things are roughly balanced, it means they have a vague parity, that they're similar in some meaningful way. If a battle master has to spend all their resources to roughly equal a paladin spending all their resources, that is a rough parity. By the definition of "balance" I'm using, yeah, that's actually *the very definition* of balance: two characters going all out are roughly on par with each other.

That's one kind of balance, but I don't think it's a kind 5e goes in for much (except, maybe, for that example of DPR, which is just sooo temptingly easy for obsessive fans like us to calculate). For instance, OK, that's going all-out to hurt something: Now go all-out to help a wounded friend. Not so roughly equal.

If your definition of balance requires a fighter to be more significantly powerful than a paladin in order to be balanced, I can't really agree with it. That kind of thinking is what created CoDZilla.

I don't think trying to favor the Fighter over the Paladin did that, no. If you compare potential DPR of a 3.5 Fighter and a self-buffed Cleric, they can be pretty close. Thinking that was OK might've had something to do with it.

If someone has been telling you that this is how the class is intended to be, I think they're wrong.

WotC did have this 'Fighter is best at fighting' meme going around during the playtest.