Almost as good as the fighter

[FinalSonicX]

My thought is that the Fighter and Barbarian should be the best warriors, hands down. The Paladin and Ranger can be runners up, and the Rogue sits beneath them, with most of his combat potential requiring good positioning and tactics/cleverness.

I have no issue with keeping the Rogue and Cleric capable of contributing in a fight, but I don't like the idea of somehow equating their melee capabilities with that of the Fighter's. The fighter's whole gig is to fight things, and if someone else can do the fighting itself better than him then he has no purpose. The cleric, rogue, or other classes contribute too but they do it in different ways - the cleric heals, buffs, debuffs, and can smack a few things when necessary, the rogue can position himself to do a lot of damage, take out some more protected foes, or help others gain bonuses in combat through positioning. The classes should have distinct abilities that do not step on each other's toes.

 

[Kzach]

I have no issue with keeping the Rogue and Cleric capable of contributing in a fight, but I don't like the idea of somehow equating their melee capabilities with that of the Fighter's. The fighter's whole gig is to fight things, and if someone else can do the fighting itself better than him then he has no purpose.

It's not necessarily about 'better' or even equal, it's about holding their own rather than being completely redundant.

Let's just play with a hypothetical here for a moment in order to highlight what I'm trying to say. Imagine that 'the system' has a core set of basic attacks, trip, push, pull, grapple, disarm, power attack and precision attack. Every class, no matter what their primary function, is roughly equally competent at all these attacks and do roughly the same amount of damage with them and so this then forms the baseline of competence that the combat system is balanced around.

Now everyone has something to do and they're on a roughly level playing field when doing it, irrespective of whether they use magic or swords.

But the fighter has damage reduction from his heavy armour and can maybe attack twice in a round or combine two conditions (trip + disarm for instance) in one attack or double the damage done or... do you see where this is going?

The fighter is still a much better combatant, but that doesn't leave everyone else feeling like a third-wheel just because they've run out of spells or don't want to burn them until the final boss encounter or whatever.

 

[FinalSonicX]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, Kzach, I think it's totally fair for everyone to contribute in combat more less equally. I just think that they can contribute in different ways - the wizard should probably be pretty bad at melee combat while the fighter is exceptional, and everyone else falls in the middle. So while the fighter is on the front lines fighting side by side with the other warriors and they do their own thing, the rogue is sneaking around killing dudes or doing other cool things, and the cleric is healing/buffing/debuffing. Their usefulness in combat can definitely be similar without needing to make all classes equally proficient at smacking things hard with a big stick.

They can all contribute and deal damage and stuff, they just do it in ways that are flavor-appropriate to their class choice.

 

[Minigiant]

When it comes to weapons combat, I'd put the rogue under "adventurer standard" and the cleric (in medium armor) at "adventurer standard" and the fighter above it.

Adventurer standard is the stats needed to fighter a generic thug or bandit in weapons combat.

The cleric in medium armor is even 1 on 1 with a generic foe. Heavy armor gives him a nudge over. And a combat Theme is another nudge. The combat cleric would be equivalant to fighter not in an optimal situation or build. Not too far back to be dead weight but not the natural raw powerhouse of fighter.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Clerics do ok in melee. Not as good as a fighter, but they can hold their own. The risk of sending a cleric into melee is that if he gets killed, the party may lose its best source of healing.

Rogues, on the other hand, are too squishy to be in melee for very long. Unless they manage a surprise attack, they're better off using missile weapons.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I agree with you, OP, for rogue. Not for cleric. The melee divine caster is the Paladin, screw the cleric.

I realize in older editions cleric rocked in melee and rogue was a sucky all-round combat class that couldn't even make up for it w/ spells.

That was a problem with the older editions they need to FIX. Not bring it about once again so everyone gets a bunch of warm nostalgia fuzzies about how many dead rogues their campaign's had and "lol, it's CoDzilla!"

No thank you.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I agree with you, OP, for rogue. Not for cleric. The melee divine caster is the Paladin, screw the cleric.

I realize in older editions cleric rocked in melee and rogue was a sucky all-round combat class that couldn't even make up for it w/ spells.

That was a problem with the older editions they need to FIX. Not bring it about once again so everyone gets a bunch of warm nostalgia fuzzies about how many dead rogues their campaign's had and "lol, it's CoDzilla!"

No thank you.

I'm repeating myself, but this post shows ignorance of the 1st edition rules. A 1st level rogue with no strength bonus can do up to 140 points of damage in a surprise round. No other class EVER catches up to that. That's hardly sucky. Now, in a general melee, he's not as good as the fighter or cleric, nor should he be. He's a specialist. That said, his attack bonus is generally about 2 less than the fighter due to the quicker advancement of the thief. The ONLY benefit a fighter has is a higher hit dice and more attacks at higher levels. That pales beside the thief's opening salvo.

 

[pemerton]

A 1st level rogue with no strength bonus can do up to 140 points of damage in a surprise round.

I'm just trying to do the maths here.

A 1st level AD&D thief who uses a longsword does 1d12 damage against size L targets. This is doubled when backstabbing, for an average of 13 and a maximum of 24.

During surprise, each segment permits a full round's worth of attacks. So 2 segments of surprise permit two backstabs, for damage (on two hits) of an average of 26 and a maximum of 48. The +4 to hit on those attacks will compensate - probably more than compensate - for the fighter's better STR and attack matrix.

But how are you getting to a maximum of 140 points of damage? Even with 5 segments of surprise - which can't normally be achieved (there is no rule, is there, that says a sneaking thief surprises on a 1 to 5?) - this would require a maximum of 28 damage on each attack,or a maximum of 14 before doubling. Where is the extra +2 coming from.

Here is a different comparison: at 1st level, against a L target, a fighter with a two-handed sword does 3d6 plus STR bonus - let's call it a +1 bonus, for a maximum of 19 and an average of 11.5. This is very close to the thief's backstab with maximum 24 and average of 13. With UA and weapon specialisation - +1 to hit, +2 to damage - the fighter will have a chance to hit in ordinary circumstances fairly close to that of the thief, and expected damage against L targets more or less on a par with the thief's backstab damage.

Even against a S/M target, the fighter with a two-handed sword and a +1 STR bonus will average 6.5, maximum 11, compared to a backstabing rogues average 9, maximum 16 with a longsword. UA again brings the fighter's damage output almost on par with the thief's.

At higher levels, a rogue's backstab damage will begin to outpace the fighter's ordinary damage, because the fighter is highly front-loaded (nothing down the track except magic weapon pluses and the hope for stat gains, at least until 7th level) whereas the rogue gets better backstab multipliers from 5th level (and the same weapon pluses and stat gains). But I'm having trouble working out your 1st level example. What have I missed?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I went over this in another thread, but I'm too lazy to dig it up. If a thief (or the thief's party rolls a 6 on the surprise roll and the bad guys roll a one, there are 5 segments of surprise. You get as many attacks in a surprise segment as you are normally entitled to in a round. So a thief with maximum surprise segments would get 5 attacks and 5 attacks with an offhand if fighting with two weapons. If he has a 17 dex, there is no penalty with his main hand and only a -2 with the offhand. Since he gets +4 from behind, and can;t use a shield, he may as well be dual wielding even if he has a lower dex. So, 5d8X2 + 5d6X2=140. Admittedly, that's making several assumptions - that he gains maximum surprise segments, that he hits with all attacks and rolls maximum damage. But assuming he hits with all attacks (a big assumption, I'm aware), his average damage is 80.

 

[B.T.]

Given D&D's focus on combat, every class should be able to contribute meaningfully in combat. That does not mean the following:

1. Every class does damage every round. I would very much like to see the end of buff spells keying off attacks. It really rubs me the wrong way when the cleric hits an enemy in combat and every gets a +2 bonus on attack rolls. It feels like a mechanic shoehorned into the game with fluff thrown on as a justification (especially if that fluff is "you shoot out a laser and sparkles show your allies where to attack").

Likewise, healing needs to make a return as a choice. Swift action/minor action healing is not a real choice in most circumstances, especially when you do so at range (as in 4e). Healing should be a tactical and resource-intensive option when used in combat. In the event that an allie is reduced to -1 HP, the cleric needs to ask himself whether to use his spell slot, to attack the monster, or to do something else to aid in combat.

2. Every class can wade into melee combat. Some classes should not be good at melee combat because they will die. This is a good thing. It provides additional challenges for players and DMs while differentiating what characters are good at what.

3. Every class is effective in every battle. If the wizard prepares only fireball spells and the party goes up against a red dragon and some salamanders, the wizard should not be good in that fight. It's part of the challenge of the game, it encourages tactical thinking, and it makes sense from an in-character perspective that fire demons are completely immune to fire and will trounce anyone relying on flame spells to fight them. Yes, sometimes a character's schtick needs to fail in order to teach the players to play smarter. If that means the wizard learns the hard way about the importance of spell selection, so be it.