Almost as good as the fighter

[pemerton]

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.

OK, so I was right that you were relying on 5 segments. I always thought that the segments of surpirse were capped at 2 when you roll with a 1-2 for surprise. I'll have to go back and reread the DMG.

So a thief with maximum surprise segments would get 5 attacks and 5 attacks with an offhand if fighting with two weapons.

The off-hand weapon was what I missed. I think per the DMG it has to be either a dagger or a hand-axe, so for a thief would have to be a dagger (but could be a hand-axe for the ever popular demi-human fighter/thief!).

That will certainly give you damage boosts that will keep you ahead of a fighter.

 

[Greg K]

I disagree. Clerics of martial deities or martial arts priests should be able to go toe-to-toe and be almost as good. Clerics of other deities should want to avoid melee and, in my opinion, should not be proficient in armor better than leather or cloth depending upon the deity.

 

[Kzach]

3. Every class is effective in every battle.

This may work well in your games but the reality is that most players get bored very quickly and juggling between "this player is bored for this hour whilst this player has fun" gets tiresome for the group.

Although what you propose might make 'logical' sense, it doesn't take into account the simple fact that this is a game and that everyone at the table should be enjoying themselves and not have to sacrifice that enjoyment for anyone else's benefit.

So yes, it does mean that every class should be effective in every battle and that every class should be effective in every non-combat situation.

 

[howandwhy99]

I believe that, in 5e, a cleric or rogue should be able to stand in the middle of melee and, without benefit of spells or class abilities, still feel like he's contributing to the fight.

I agree with most of the sentiment. However, while your standard cleric could stand in the middle of a melee with reasonable surety of weathering it, a standard thief is going to want to hide before attacking.

 

[outsider]

I believe that, in 5e, a cleric or rogue should be able to stand in the middle of melee and, without benefit of spells or class abilities, still feel like he's contributing to the fight.

Disagree. Rogue(or sometimes Assassin) is my favorite class, and I really don't think it should be particularly good at standing still and trading blows with the enemy. It should be a highly adept combatant when it's class abilities are used effectively(and things that completely shut out their class abilities should be extremely rare). Setting up sneak attacks/backstabs is what makes the class fun.

And if a cleric can fight decently without spells, once spells come into play it'll most likely be outfighting the fighter, which should not be happening.

These classes should be as roughly as good as the fighter when they use their class abilities/spells to the fullest.

 

[Kzach]

And if a cleric can fight decently without spells, once spells come into play it'll most likely be outfighting the fighter, which should not be happening.

Again, it doesn't have to be like that at all.

If a cleric can hold his own in melee, that doesn't mean he's going to suddenly out-do the fighter just because he uses his spells. A cleric's spells aid the party and heal. They don't HAVE to be self-buff spells. But why should a cleric ONLY be able to buff the party and not be able to contribute otherwise?

These classes should be as roughly as good as the fighter when they use their class abilities/spells to the fullest.

I disagree. That creates too large a gap between abilities and once again creates the disparity that makes games boring for large sections of a session for half the players at the table.

Think of it this way: if everyone is GOOD at combat WITHOUT using their spells/class abilities/powers, then everyone can contribute meaningfully to every combat encounter. The fighter, however, becomes AMAZING when HE uses his spells/class abilities/powers in combat because that's his thing. Every other class doesn't have to suck in combat for the fighter to excel.

 

[Dornam]

That doesn't make a lot of sense. I two PCs are "good" in combat and two are "amazing" then you could as well say that two suck and two are good.

 

[Kzach]

That doesn't make a lot of sense. I two PCs are "good" in combat and two are "amazing" then you could as well say that two suck and two are good.

Sucking equates to doing nothing other than rolling to attack, hardly ever hitting, and when you do, doing insignificant or low damage and nothing else.

But if you're doing trips, or pushes, or pulls, or other cool stuff and your damage is significant enough to make you FEEL like you're contributing, then you don't suck.

So sure, someone is better than you, but you still hold your own and don't feel like a complete gimp.

 

[Bluenose]

Again, it doesn't have to be like that at all.

If a cleric can hold his own in melee, that doesn't mean he's going to suddenly out-do the fighter just because he uses his spells. A cleric's spells aid the party and heal. They don't HAVE to be self-buff spells. But why should a cleric ONLY be able to buff the party and not be able to contribute otherwise?

I think the only way to do this is to start the cleric off a little way behind the fighter, and have them advance slower A low level cleric can then choose to buff themselves up to match up to the fighter, at the expense of having used a significant amount of their magic. A higher level cleric may have more magic to throw around, but they will struggle to match up to the fighter in combat no matter how much they use. Rather as the Cleric and Fighter worked in AD&D and BD&D.

 

[Salamandyr]

Essentially agree with OP. I think the rogue should be almost as good, in a different way, as the fighter in a straight up melee fight, while the cleric have essentially, absent spells, a baseline competence at combat.

Sort of the way I'd like to see it, the rogue is a skirmisher, who lacks access to the heavy weapons and armor of a warrior, but is equivalently trained while the cleric would lack the training and best weapons, but have the protection of heavy armor.

On a scale of

Excellent
Good
Okay
Poor

Fighter--good to excellent defenses, good to excellent accuracy, good to excellent damage, okay skills.

Rogue--poor to okay defenses, okay to good accuracy, good damage, situation-ally excellent damage, excellent skills.

Cleric--good defenses, okay accuracy, okay damage, poor to okay skills, spells

Magic User--poor defenses, poor accuracy, poor damage, poor to okay skills, SPELLS!!!