D&D 5E Class Analysis: Fighter and Bard

[yakuba]

But if you're going to make the choice one way for one class, doesn't that sort of suggest making the other one for other classes fails in any intent to have a plausible and consistent style of setting?

I tend to agree with OP that they missed the mark on equalizing the mundanes to the full casters. However, I do believe that they have created the weakest full casters in D&D at least since AD&D and possible ever. (and in my AD&D experiences groups always house ruled away most of the limits that weakened casters, especially spell recovery). In fact, if they had managed to do a better job of writing a double handful of spells and class features, I wouldn't have any complaints at all. I say this because you're quote makes it clear that you believe that imbalance was the 5e designers' intent, rather than simply a non-optimal result of an honest design process. Even if I'm critical of the final result, I am not on the '5e designers hate balance' bandwagon.

 

[Jack the Lad]

The Fighter design goals only define the fighter relative to other classes, and my point did not address that. I tend to agree with the OP on that count.

I don't see how this disagrees with any of what I said. We're told in the Fighter design goals that:

Other classes might have nifty tricks, powerful spells, and other abilities, but when it’s time to put down a monster without dying in the process, the fighter should be our best class.​

and

Too often in D&D, the high-level fighter is the flunky to a high-level wizard. It’s all too easy for combinations of spells to make the wizard a far more potent enemy or character, especially if a wizard can unleash his or her spells in rapid succession. A wizard might annihilate a small army of orcs with a volley of fireballs and cones of cold. The fighter does the same sword blow by sword blow, taking down waves of orcs each round. Balancing the classes at high levels is perhaps the highest priority for the fighter, and attaining balance is something that we must do to make D&D fit in with fantasy, myth, and legend. Even if a wizard unleashes every spell at his or her disposal at a fighter, the fighter absorbs the punishment, throws off the effects, and keeps on fighting.
​

Emphasis mine. There's no possible way of interpreting this to mean that they intended to have Wizards be as powerful as they are and Fighters be Gimli.

If we look at LotR, (briefly; I really don't want to make this about LotR. I've seen that whole thing argued out a hundred times) Gandalf does not cast spells all that often, and they are not especially powerful ones. He's not teleporting the Fellowship to Mount Doom. He's not Flying around throwing Fireballs at orcs. And even then he's often offscreen to give the martial characters a chance to shine or step in to save them. In D&D terms he's a DMPC at most, or more likely an NPC.

How is this inconsistent with what I said? The fate of the world depends on the actions of the Fellowship, and the fighters are clearly shown being far elevated from the common in their prowess, but they do not have mythic powers or strength, at no point does Gimli divert the flow of a river to clean out some stables, nor does Legolas hold his breath for 5 days.

Fantasy literature as well as our myths and legends are incredibly diverse. This creates a huge window for any game designer to designate as the max level experience.

They did not promise you Heracles in this edition.

They promised me (and everyone else) a Fighter who is balanced with the Wizard.

Being Gimli or Legolas is fine when the Wizard's spell list is Bless, Command Person, Control Smoke, Control Water, Enhance Presence, Extinguish Flame, Flash / Spark of Light, Hold Portal, Ignite Small Fire, Knock, Loud Noise, Light, Shatter and Ventriloquism.

 

[yakuba]

I don't see how this disagrees with any of what I said. We're told in the Fighter design goals that:

<snip>​

They promised me (and everyone else) a Fighter who is balanced with the Wizard.

Again, I did not make a point about balance, and tend to agree with the OP on balance. But balance doesn't require mythic fighter, it simply requires casters whose power level is commensurate with WHATEVER level of max power for the Fighter. Those are two entirely separate points.

Example. I change nothing about the fighter. There are no cantrips and casters must spend 1 hour of preparation for each level of a slot they wish to use. Now we've changed the balance, but we haven't turned the max level fighter into Heracles.

If you think that in 5e wizards aren't balanced with fighters then I have to ask you, where is the contention? Also, did I miss the part where I said that LoTR represented balance?

 

[Jack the Lad]

Again, I did not make a point about balance, and tend to agree with the OP on balance. But balance doesn't require mythic fighter, it simply requires casters whose power level is commensurate with WHATEVER level of max power for the Fighter. Those are two entirely separate points.

Example. I change nothing about the fighter. There are no cantrips and casters must spend 1 hour of preparation for each level of a slot they wish to use. Now we've changed the balance, but we haven't turned the max level fighter into Heracles.

If you think that in 5e wizards aren't balanced with fighters then I have to ask you, where is the contention? Also, did I miss the part where I said that LoTR represented balance?

I think we may be talking at cross purposes. My points are:

1. Full casters and martials are not balanced, full casters being enormously more powerful and versatile.
2. This is a bad thing.

We seem to agree on these.

3. Fighters do not live up to their promised levels of power.

We seem to disagree on this, and that's what's confusing me - the Fighter design goals article doesn't just talk about the Fighter relative to the Wizard. It also namedrops Roland and Beowulf and talks about specific deeds of theirs like killing dragons solo, tearing the arms off giants and fighting hundreds of soldiers at once.

I do agree with you, though, that the solution to the wider issue of class imbalance is not simply to try to buff Fighters up to Wizard level. I think that's probably a futile endeavour with Wizards in their current state.

 

[Bluenose]

I tend to agree with OP that they missed the mark on equalizing the mundanes to the full casters. However, I do believe that they have created the weakest full casters in D&D at least since AD&D and possible ever. (and in my AD&D experiences groups always house ruled away most of the limits that weakened casters, especially spell recovery).

I think there's no question that the Cleric is strong compared to either the 1e or the BECMI Cleric. I also think there are significant parts of the system that make 5e casters stronger than earlier ones, especially in the way saving throws work. When your spells work much more often having slightly less is hardly a problem. And of course the variety of effects obtainable through magic is significantly greater, and I don't doubt will become even more so as the edition progresses.

In fact, if they had managed to do a better job of writing a double handful of spells and class features, I wouldn't have any complaints at all. I say this because you're quote makes it clear that you believe that imbalance was the 5e designers' intent, rather than simply a non-optimal result of an honest design process. Even if I'm critical of the final result, I am not on the '5e designers hate balance' bandwagon.

Actually I think the designers intent was to make the game they were asked for. That it's given a result which has fighters that wouldn't be out of place in Lord of the Rings and casters that would be out of place in that setting is a side-effect that I dislike because of the very odd settings that result from it.

 

[yakuba]

I think there's no question that the Cleric is strong compared to either the 1e or the BECMI Cleric. I also think there are significant parts of the system that make 5e casters stronger than earlier ones, especially in the way saving throws work. When your spells work much more often having slightly less is hardly a problem. And of course the variety of effects obtainable through magic is significantly greater, and I don't doubt will become even more so as the edition progresses.

I'm not making a definitive argument (hence the 'I do believe'), but for a cleric in particular, concentration is incredibly limiting. There are only a couple of concentration free buffs you can lay out, and then it's one buff per combat (depending on saves). I disagree on saves I think the saves start out more favorably to the 5e cleric and then by 'name level' become unfavorable in comparison to AD&D monsters reach a level of impunity, both because of very high saves and the increasing prevalence of magical resistance. 5e clerics are strictly better as dpr combatants.

Actually I think the designers intent was to make the game they were asked for. That it's given a result which has fighters that wouldn't be out of place in Lord of the Rings and casters that would be out of place in that setting is a side-effect that I dislike because of the very odd settings that result from it.

Maybe. There was clearly a constituency for a non-mythic fighter. But there was never, to my recollection a 'wizards need to be more powerful' lobby. I consider myself a caster guy, and I know my response to the early playtests was that the casters seemed way overpowered and I was worried the game would be hopeless. At least to me, the dramatic reduction in slots (although they did, unfortunately, backtrack a little bit), the concentration mechanic, and the elimination of in slot spell scaling were all real and significant steps in the right direction, and indicative of a desire to get it right. I'm not satisfied with where it ended up, but I believe it was a good faith effort that fell short, rather than a non-priority.

 

[yakuba]

I think we may be talking at cross purposes. My points are:

1. Full casters and martials are not balanced, full casters being enormously more powerful and versatile.
2. This is a bad thing.

We seem to agree on these.

3. Fighters do not live up to their promised levels of power.

We seem to disagree on this, and that's what's confusing me - the Fighter design goals article doesn't just talk about the Fighter relative to the Wizard. It also namedrops Roland and Beowulf and talks about specific deeds of theirs like killing dragons solo, tearing the arms off giants and fighting hundreds of soldiers at once.

I do agree with you, though, that the solution to the wider issue of class imbalance is not simply to try to buff Fighters up to Wizard level. I think that's probably a futile endeavour with Wizards in their current state.

I think you interpreted my disagreement on 3, as a disagreement on 1 and 2. Also there is a question of conflating fighter with mundane, which, in this edition, is plainly not the case. As to the goals above, removing arms and such, we again disagree. I think a 20th level Champion can kill hundreds of level 1's (specifically between two and three hundred where missiles are not at play; missiles cut this down significantly). I accept that this is <400. Removing arms is a DC whatever strength check. I've forgotten if there was a size description of Grendel but if he's ballpark 10 ft or less, I'd totally allow it. I think the 20th level Champion can kill dragons, but definitely not an ancient Red. I think a wizard or bard can only kill a dragon because of bad writing/editing (see Polymorph among others.)

I believe the reason we see it differently is because of our differing desires. (Pardon my characterization if wrong) You would like a balanced mythic fantasy game where we work towards balance by making mundanes more mythic, a la 4e (which I enjoy). Despite my enjoyment of 4e, 5e is different to me and I'd like to get to balance by further nerfing the casters where needed. I'm happy with the non-mythic quality of 5e.

 

[LordCyler]

Ah, yep, totally right.



You are exactly right. As I said at the start, the analysis is extremely biased. In the fighter's favor. Most days aren't going to run through 16 rounds, and they aren't going to let the PCs have 3 short rests. Most bards aren't going to rely on extremely inefficient direct damage spells like Dissonant Whisper. They're going to use things like Faerie Fire that boost the damage output of every single class, which provides a 37% damage increase for the entire party for the entire combat. That's a single spell contributing as much damage to an encounter as the fighter does through the entire combat.

Song of Rest isn't something that applies to just the bard. If we had assumed that they didn't exist in a vacuum, but were together in a party of 5, Song of Rest would provide 52.5 points of healing a day, not just 10.5.

If we assume that the bard is throwing out her inspiration to the fighter and rogue during combat, it's providing a massive increase in the damage the party deals.

Now, huge difference in hp and AC? The fighter has a d10 hitdie. The bard's is d8. Gaining 1 extra hp per level is not what I would call "huge". The difference between a bard in Studded Leather and a Fighter in Full Plate with the Defense fighting style is...17 vs 19. Again, not quite dramatic enough to be what I'd call "huge".

And yes, real gameplay does reveal a lot of things. My own experiences at the table and reading through on my own are what inform me of these kinds of disparities. I think that "well you must have not played it" arguments have about as much credibility as Donanld Trump's demand to see Obama's birth certificate. It's an attack on whether someone is a "real" member of the community and a pointless distraction.

Real gameplay shows that the bard is really a fantastic support class that can be great at just about anything. And I honestly have no issue with that. The issue is that what the fighter gets--particularly what the fighter gets after level 5--quickly falls behind. Each level makes the fighter less effective relative to the threats the party might face and the scope of the stories that can be told. We were told that classes wouldn't have this problem, that the fighter--and by extension the rogue, monk, barbarian, etc--would be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with every other class, and this turned out to an empty promise. That's my view. I've shown my work, my thought process here. Bard gets this at X level, Fighter gets Y. I compare the two. My conclusion was that abilities like being able to summon down a firestorm or turn into a dragon or teleport around the world or create a clone of the fighter are all more impressive and more useful than getting a +1 bonus to your critical threat range.

You're free to disagree with me, but if you want to contribute, then show me how I'm wrong, rather than accusing me of somehow being a fake gamer.

+1 for Bardic Inspiration only being useful to others. Also, this may have been mentioned, but how can the Bard gain the effects of Song of Rest if she is performing during the short rest? This too seems only useful to others.