D&D 5E Class Analysis: Fighter and Bard

[jasin]

Isn't inspiration only usable on others?

 

[Joe Liker]

There is nothing fair about this comparison, and nothing truly analytical about these arguments. It's all math without context and side-by-side lists of things we already knew, constrained to a set of premises that don't even make sense, as the primary assumption seems to be that each character exists in a vacuum.

If you put the simplest archetype of the simplest class in the game up against what is arguably the most complex class, of course you're going to end up with a lot fewer options and a lot less versatility. You also failed to comment on the huge differences in hit points and AC, which are not negligible. If you think the bard's healing makes up for that, fine, but then you have to factor in the opportunity cost of all those utility spells since you are spending so many spell slots to heal yourself, not to mention actions.

The main thrust of this post seems to be "High-level magic sure is powerful!" But I think you might want to actually play the high-level game with the classes in question before making such sweeping assertions as you have here. Real gameplay can uncover a lot of subtleties that simply will not show up in lists of numbers and class features.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There is nothing fair about this comparison, and nothing truly analytical about these arguments. It's all math without context and side-by-side lists of things we already knew, constrained to a set of premises that don't even make sense, as the primary assumption seems to be that each character exists in a vacuum.

If you put the simplest archetype of the simplest class in the game up against what is arguably the most complex class, of course you're going to end up with a lot fewer options and a lot less versatility. You also failed to comment on the huge differences in hit points and AC, which are not negligible. If you think the bard's healing makes up for that, fine, but then you have to factor in the opportunity cost of all those utility spells since you are spending so many spell slots to heal yourself, not to mention actions.

The main thrust of this post seems to be "High-level magic sure is powerful!" But I think you might want to actually play the high-level game with the classes in question before making such sweeping assertions as you have here. Real gameplay can uncover a lot of subtleties that simply will not show up in lists of numbers and class features.

It's a perfectly fair comparison. They're two classes which exist in D&D 5E, and it is alleged that the classes in 5E are basically balanced with each other. Yet it's fairly clear that the Bard is likely to have vastly more influence on the outcome of any given situation, assuming each is a member of an adventuring party.

This whole complex vs. simple deal is a total red-herring/non-argument. It's meaningless.

Further, the whole "Well you need to play it at high level to say this!" stuff is really tiresome and unconvincing when we have people who've played it at high levels saying the exact same things (see [MENTION=6777377]Jack the Lad[/MENTION]'s posts) and, frankly, well all know how D&D works. It's very obvious that Fighters are going to slip further and further behind at high levels.

Why? A lot of people view niche protection as a good thing. That's more of a subjective opinion. Especially when things like "how often can a class do X" is very relevant to the discussion because no game I've ever played takes place in a white room with a reset button after every combat.

The idea that "My character is allowed to do stuff without rolling and is generally powerful!" is mere "niche protection" is an absolutely fascinatingly bizarre one.

 

[Capricia]

Isn't inspiration only usable on others?

Ah, yep, totally right.

There is nothing fair about this comparison, and nothing truly analytical about these arguments. It's all math without context and side-by-side lists of things we already knew, constrained to a set of premises that don't even make sense, as the primary assumption seems to be that each character exists in a vacuum.

If you put the simplest archetype of the simplest class in the game up against what is arguably the most complex class, of course you're going to end up with a lot fewer options and a lot less versatility. You also failed to comment on the huge differences in hit points and AC, which are not negligible. If you think the bard's healing makes up for that, fine, but then you have to factor in the opportunity cost of all those utility spells since you are spending so many spell slots to heal yourself, not to mention actions.

The main thrust of this post seems to be "High-level magic sure is powerful!" But I think you might want to actually play the high-level game with the classes in question before making such sweeping assertions as you have here. Real gameplay can uncover a lot of subtleties that simply will not show up in lists of numbers and class features.

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.

 

[Joe Liker]

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.

I certainly did not mean to imply you're a fake gamer; I apologize if that's the impression I gave. I'm sure you wouldn't have been able to compile the lists you did if you didn't have the experience to give you some idea of which numbers and abilities were valid.

However, I'm reasonably certain you do not have any direct experience with real gameplay involving both of these classes, especially at high level, and I maintain that any so-called analysis or comparison of the two is bound to be largely flawed until that has happened.

Likewise, I'm not in any position to give you counterexamples or hard evidence that the two classes are commensurate. First of all, that is not my position nor the point I was trying to make. And secondly, I haven't played these classes to level 20, either, so it would be jumping the gun for me to try to make this analysis.

 

[Andor]

There is an important point you ignore here. If you reach 20th level and have no mojo that was a deliberate choice on your part as a player, not a system screw job.

There are 0 classes in the game which cannot ever use magic, there are merely some subclasses which allow player who don't like magic to actively avoid it. You choose the Champion, but the Eldritch Knight was sitting right next to him. There is also the Paladin (whose spells your Bard borrowed), Ranger, Barbarian with mystic totem, and various Monk options available for players who want to hit things and have Mojo.

Oh, and multi classing.

To ignore that and focus on a class comparison that is only valid as a personal choice of someone deciding to eschew magic for whatever in or out of character reason is disingenuous at best. it's like playing in a modern era GURPs game and complaining the system is broken because your TL 2 caveman is ineffective compared to people who use guns and cars.

 

[Evenglare]

Why are you reading them, then, can you explain? It's not like this thread wasn't very clearly labelled. This sort of thing reminds me of those people who come out of horror movies complaining that it was so violent and scary and upsetting. It's like... that's the point.

Personally, I find that questionable rules-design choices are what sucks the fun out of playing for me, not just having those pointed out. It's not like I won't notice them pretty quick when playing.

Why am I reading them? Because I like to know how the game works. It sucks because I expected a decently balanced game and now everyone is completely destroying the game, and showing it's no better than 3.x when I had such high expectations. It's not because I don't like knowing, it's the fact that knowing makes me realize the game is just as terrible as the other ones :/ . Maybe 6th edition I guess.

 

[Andor]

Why am I reading them? Because I like to know how the game works. It sucks because I expected a decently balanced game and now everyone is completely destroying the game, and showing it's no better than 3.x when I had such high expectations. It's not because I don't like knowing, it's the fact that knowing makes me realize the game is just as terrible as the other ones :/ . Maybe 6th edition I guess.

I really don't think that's what this thread shows though. What it shows it that a player who correctly optimizes one of the most complex classes is generally more effective than one who picks the simplest version of the simplest class. That comes as a surprise to whom?

Balance is good, but it's not the holy grail of game design some hold it out to be. And frankly balance of fun is far more important than balance of power.

Consider Capricas point that with Faerie fire the Bard does more damage than the fighter does in the whole combat. Which is technically and statistically true. But it ignores that the actual play experience will be that the damage boost is both invisible and will actually be excersied by the very fighter whose thunder the Bard was supposedly stealing. And the rogue. So the bard can beam with pride as his friends cut down their glowing foes, but the fighter will not feel like he was left in the dust.

I think it's far too early to throw 5e under the balance bus. Let's play a few sessions first.

 

[pemerton]

What it shows it that a player who correctly optimizes one of the most complex classes is generally more effective than one who picks the simplest version of the simplest class. That comes as a surprise to whom?

I wouldn't say I'm surprised. I'm a bit disappointed, though.

The two things that stand out for me in the final design of the fighter is remarkable athlete - which seems to utterly fail to live up to its name - and the nerfing of indomitable. Pre-nerf, indomitable looked like a way to return fighters to their classic status of having the best saves at mid-to-high levels, within the stat-based save paradigm of post AD&D-editions.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I'm betting bards stealing smite wasn't fully intended. Ah well.

I do like how I can skim the op's chart and say to myself, "Hmm, fighter has better health and damage almost throughout. Looks legit," while the op's description makes it sound like the fighter is crying in the corner.

You know what you might consider doing to level the playing field a bit in the utility section? Have the fighter spend his two extra feats on Ritual Caster and Skilled. Bam, more skills than the bard (though no expertise, thanks Obama), and plenty of utility spells.

Additionally, you could consider the Battlemaster instead of the Champion, and keep up those short rests every 2-3 fights. If you're assuming 16 rounds of combat and 3 short rests a day (which I believe you said), that's a short rest every... 4 rounds? Jeez, at that rate the Battlemaster gets an extra d8 of damage every single round starting at level 3, plus additional pushing or tripping or whatever for a bit more combat utility.