D&D 5E Class Analysis: Fighter and Bard

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Just to respond to the idea that "if it's a class's job to hit stuff they should be awesome at it:" the trick is that in many campaigns, 90% of the game is either combat or free-form roleplaying. Look at the Acquisitions Inc stuff, for example: maybe two hours of roleplaying with maybe a few ability checks and cantrips sprinkled in, and then a few setpiece battles. To those groups, the champion might actually BE balanced reasonably well. If you gave him an extra 50% damage or whatever to "make up for" his relative uselessness out if combat, he would actually be massively overpowered in campaigns like that.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not really sure I see the full problem here, either. 9th level spells break the game: yes. But how many games even get to 17th level? And at 20th level nearly every class is insane somehow. Druids pretty much cannot die from HP loss at that point; that's a fun one to compare.

For the sweet spot of >90% of games - levels ~3-6 - the two classes seem pretty even.

<snip>

Will casters start to dominate at high levels? Yup. Is that a playstyle that a lot of people want anyway? I think so.

I'm not sure going till 9th level spells is necessarily the best assumption. There has been a lot of work done about how long games go, and I think they said something like less than 1% of games even get to level 16. So I'd personally cap the levels at 16, as I think that's where the Tiamat storyline ends up (The first one is 1-8, so guessing second one is 9-16).

I am someone who like to run games to high levels (my 4e campaign is currently at 27th). So for me, it is a problem if a game's playability breaks down at those levels. And it's not as if it is especially hard to design the game so as to avoid this.

So why design the game in such a way that it does? I can only assume that WotC has market research data showing that more of the potential market prefers a game in which, at high levels, spell casters dominate over non-casters in capabilities and flexibility. From my point of view, that's a pity.

Remarkable athlete is not a fighter feature thought, it's a champion feature. And again, Champion is the choice of the options/complexity averse player. Now I know that making no options "balanced" with options was an explicit design goal, but it's an impossible one.

<snip>

The only way to avoid that is to rig the game so that at best the complex character can only hope to equal the simple character. Sound like fun?

<snip>

Could Remarkable Athlete be better? Yep.

On RA, I would be inclined to start with proficiency bonus to all physical stat checks. That would give more breadth than the rogue, but less depth (because the rogue gets expertise on some of them).

On simple vs complex, I think the "rigging" that you describe is closer to the way they should be designing, at east as far as core functions are concerned. The complex character should have more breadth, perhaps, or a greater ability to respond to surprises and edge cases. But when it comes to the core business of play (which in D&D is basically fighting things, finding things and talking to people) the simple class should be competitive.

As far as the 5e fighter is concerned, ways of handling this would be (just off the top of my head) some sort of "martial supremacy" option that gives advantage on rolls in combat comparable to the Foresight spell; a "remarkable leader" option that could be taken in lieu of remarkable athelete, and allow proficiency on all CHA checks; etc.

Referrring particularly to the bard vs fighter comparison, I think the bard being better at linguistics and performance is fine. It's the abilities the bard can leverage to muscle in on the fighter's core competence (fighting) that strike me as problematic.

I hope the above makes sense.

When someone says that "if one class can do X, everyone should be able to do X", it's not unreasonable to interpret that as doing the same thing from a mechanical perspective.

I actually think that's completely unreasonable. For instance, if someone says "If one class can break the game at level 17+, every class should be able to do so" then that doesn't imply the two classes should do the same thing from a mechanical perspective. For instance, perhaps one can summon a horde of demons, and the other can lay waste to an army or storm a castle single-handedly.

if a wizard can cast a spell that bypasses AC to deal direct damage and a fighter has a maneuver that bypass AC to deal direct damage, the only real difference is the name of the spell/maneuver and fluff. To me that's boring because there's no difference between the two other than fluff. And to go back to my niche protection comment, I don't like a game where every character type is just as effective as every other one in combat, at skill challenges, etc.

In this case, presumably you think the fighter should keep the AC-bypass manoeuvre and the wizard should lose it. Otherwise you have one character (wizard) which is better than another character (fighter) both in and out of combat.

The tendency of higher-level spells to eclipse fighters in combat is part of the issue that the OP is raising, I think.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I actually think that's completely unreasonable. For instance, if someone says "If one class can break the game at level 17+, every class should be able to do so" then that doesn't imply the two classes should do the same thing from a mechanical perspective. For instance, perhaps one can summon a horde of demons, and the other can lay waste to an army or storm a castle single-handedly.

Well, in this context, "X" is a bit more tightly defined than "breaking the game". The example used was, "if one PC can bypass hp, then every class should."

In this case, presumably you think the fighter should keep the AC-bypass manoeuvre and the wizard should lose it. Otherwise you have one character (wizard) which is better than another character (fighter) both in and out of combat.

The tendency of higher-level spells to eclipse fighters in combat is part of the issue that the OP is raising, I think.

You'd be presuming incorrectly. And once again, I will point you to the flaws of using a white room scenario. You directly state that if a wizard had that ability but the fighter doesn't, then the wizard is better in and out of combat. Did you not read my posts talking about things like spell availability, interruptions, etc? These are all very important factors that need to be considered before anyone makes a claim that one class is more powerful than another. Not sure why you're ignoring them.

 

[pemerton]

The example used was, "if one PC can bypass hp, then every class should."

<snip>

You directly state that if a wizard had that ability but the fighter doesn't, then the wizard is better in and out of combat. Did you not read my posts talking about things like spell availability, interruptions, etc? These are all very important factors that need to be considered before anyone makes a claim that one class is more powerful than another. Not sure why you're ignoring them.

There is no spell interruption in 5e for spells that take a standard action to cast.

And the system of spell-memorisation means that availability is the most liberal it's been in any published version of D&D.

And the fundamental question, which [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION] has frequently asked, is this: how does it fit with either game balance or verisimilitude that the characters who are the masters of physical combat can't do anything like dazing, stunning, disabling, maiming, blinding etc (all of which happen in the real, non-magical world) while the characters that are the most versatile in the game also have all this versatility in combat?

 

[Sacrosanct]

There is no spell interruption in 5e for spells that take a standard action to cast.

And the system of spell-memorisation means that availability is the most liberal it's been in any published version of D&D.

Good thing those weren't the only two reasons, weren't they? Also, "most liberal" =/= "always available", which is a requirement for your white room scenario to have any merit. And further, spells that require concentration can be interrupted. I'm not sure how I could be any clearer here. If you're basing your analysis on the requirement that casters can cast their spells whenever they want (which is what you're doing when you're comparing straight across the board), then your entire argument is flawed from the get go. As we say in the software testing field, "garbage in, garbage out." In actual game play, all of the factors I mentioned earlier (and more) happen. Who cares what happens in a theorycrafted white room? I care about how the game actually plays out.

And the fundamental question, which [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION] has frequently asked, is this: how does it fit with either game balance or verisimilitude that the characters who are the masters of physical combat can't do anything like dazing, stunning, disabling, maiming, blinding etc (all of which happen in the real, non-magical world) while the characters that are the most versatile in the game also have all this versatility in combat?

My original reply, and the context of all of my posts, was to the statement of "if one class can do something like bypass HP, every class should." Also, another core flaw in your argument is that masters of physical combat (fighters) can't do any of those things. Even if you get past the battlemaster fighter, there's nothing stopping you from doing any of those. Even when I started way back in 1981, when fighters didn't have any of those as defined core abilities, if I wanted to stun my opponent, I said, "I try to stun the orc". The DM then just came up with a ruling that was reasonable and we moved on. Stuff like this happened all the time, so it is also fundamentally flawed to assume that unless a class has a power to perform a mundane action, they cannot take said action.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

And the fundamental question, which @Bluenose has frequently asked, is this: how does it fit with either game balance or verisimilitude that the characters who are the masters of physical combat can't do anything like dazing, stunning, disabling, maiming, blinding etc (all of which happen in the real, non-magical world) while the characters that are the most versatile in the game also have all this versatility in combat?

*snip* ...there's nothing stopping you from doing any of those. Even when I started way back in 1981, when fighters didn't have any of those as defined core abilities, if I wanted to stun my opponent, I said, "I try to stun the orc". The DM then just came up with a ruling that was reasonable and we moved on. Stuff like this happened all the time, so it is also fundamentally flawed to assume that unless a class has a power to perform a mundane action, they cannot take said action.

As Sacrosanct said...being able to daze, stun, etc. is still there, just not in so many hard-coded "If I do X then Y happens" parlance of 3.x/4e/PF. The 5e system is obviously focusing on using broad strokes to paint a general picture and then relying on the players and DM to give it the details. With the simplicity of the system, it makes it dirt simple for a DM to make consistent and fair rulings.

Me? I find myself falling into the "Advantage/Disadvantage" mechanic a lot. For example, if a PC was brawling with some rakes in a seedy bar and the player says "I grab one of the mugs of ale and smack it upside his head! I want to get an advantage here because they have weapons". As a DM, I'd say "Make an attack at Disadvantage please". If the player made it..."Your mug bursts open on the side of his face, causing ale and shards of hardened clay to cascade across his face [*rolls Con save*...fails]. The rake screams in pain and grabs at his face. You have Advantage next round as he's a bit dazed".

To me, that's the beauty of 5e. Quick and easy, making on-the-fly rulings not only fair, but fun for me to DM.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Sacrosanct]

Hiya.



As Sacrosanct said...being able to daze, stun, etc. is still there, just not in so many hard-coded "If I do X then Y happens" parlance of 3.x/4e/PF. The 5e system is obviously focusing on using broad strokes to paint a general picture and then relying on the players and DM to give it the details. With the simplicity of the system, it makes it dirt simple for a DM to make consistent and fair rulings.

Me? I find myself falling into the "Advantage/Disadvantage" mechanic a lot. For example, if a PC was brawling with some rakes in a seedy bar and the player says "I grab one of the mugs of ale and smack it upside his head! I want to get an advantage here because they have weapons". As a DM, I'd say "Make an attack at Disadvantage please". If the player made it..."Your mug bursts open on the side of his face, causing ale and shards of hardened clay to cascade across his face [*rolls Con save*...fails]. The rake screams in pain and grabs at his face. You have Advantage next round as he's a bit dazed".

To me, that's the beauty of 5e. Quick and easy, making on-the-fly rulings not only fair, but fun for me to DM.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Exactly. Speaking of which, I found myself quickly ignoring rules for cover and just used "if at 1/2 cover or more, attack at disadvantage." I know it's not as accurate as the official rules, but an example of falling into the adv/disadv rule easily for just about everything.

 

[Sanglorian]

Hiya.



As Sacrosanct said...being able to daze, stun, etc. is still there, just not in so many hard-coded "If I do X then Y happens" parlance of 3.x/4e/PF. The 5e system is obviously focusing on using broad strokes to paint a general picture and then relying on the players and DM to give it the details. With the simplicity of the system, it makes it dirt simple for a DM to make consistent and fair rulings.

Me? I find myself falling into the "Advantage/Disadvantage" mechanic a lot. For example, if a PC was brawling with some rakes in a seedy bar and the player says "I grab one of the mugs of ale and smack it upside his head! I want to get an advantage here because they have weapons". As a DM, I'd say "Make an attack at Disadvantage please". If the player made it..."Your mug bursts open on the side of his face, causing ale and shards of hardened clay to cascade across his face [*rolls Con save*...fails]. The rake screams in pain and grabs at his face. You have Advantage next round as he's a bit dazed".

To me, that's the beauty of 5e. Quick and easy, making on-the-fly rulings not only fair, but fun for me to DM.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Spellcasters get a codified set of guaranteed ways that they can daze, stun, do damage to many creatures at once, affect the wider world, create demiplanes, etc. These codified abilities - which they have by default - are both more versatile and more potent than the codified abilities of the fighter.

Yes, you can on an ad hoc basis allow the fighter to do anything - though presumably, by the same token, you can allow on an ad hoc basis a spellcaster to do anything. The fighter is dependant on the DM's approval, whereas the spellcaster's versatility and power is hardcoded into the rules.

 

[pming]

Hiya.
[MENTION=6703052]SA[/MENTION]crosanc

I know, right?! I find myself using an almost "tipping balance" sort of approach.

Example: A PC archer is being attacked by a manticore. They are in a swamp. The archer is in water and the manticore on shore. If the archer is in water up to about his mid-shin...no adjustments. Up to knees?...he doesn't get Dex to AC. Up to hips? He doesn't get Dex to AC and he's at Disadvantage. He's up to chest? He doesn't get AC, has Disadvantage, but manticore also has Disadvantage against him. Through all of that I don't have to look up range modifiers, movement penalties, cover adjustments, concealment bonus/penalties, etc...just a simple escalation of advantageous or disadvantageous factors that end up giving a simple, reliable and predictable outcome as far as a DM ruling goes.

Ahem. Sorry for the minor derail. Back to arguing about Fighter and Bard differences now...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Sacrosanct]

Spellcasters get a codified set of guaranteed ways that they can daze, stun, do damage to many creatures at once, affect the wider world, create demiplanes, etc. These codified abilities - which they have by default - are both more versatile and more potent than the codified abilities of the fighter.

A couple problems with this. First, the ways a spellcaster can do those things (through magic) are NOT guaranteed. I'm not sure why this keeps getting ignored. Does the caster even have access to that spell? Have they learned it? Prep'd it? Have enough slots to cast it? The list goes on. The second part is that even if a caster has an ability that is more potent than the fighter, the fact that they may not be able to do it at all (for aforementioned reasons) doesn't mean that the caster is overall more powerful than the fighter.

For example, as soon as a caster reaches 5th level, they can cast fireball. That spell is more powerful than any single attack by a fighter. However, because of the many requirements needed to cast it, and the limitations around casting it (again, all mentioned above), you wouldn't say that the mage is suddenly more powerful than the fighter overall. Let's say you had five encounters between long rest. Congrats, you were lucky enough to have that spell, and have it prepared, and to have a slot available. But you burned that spell on the first encounter. Is the wizard still more powerful than the fighter for the rest of the encounters?

Yes, you can on an ad hoc basis allow the fighter to do anything - though presumably, by the same token, you can allow on an ad hoc basis a spellcaster to do anything. The fighter is dependant on the DM's approval, whereas the spellcaster's versatility and power is hardcoded into the rules.

Another flawed argument. You cannot allow a caster to ad hoc magical effects that may or may not be a defined spell like you can with a mundane action. Magic is rigidly defined as to what you can and can't do. Mundane actions aren't. If you're talking about allowing casters to ad hoc mundane actions like a fighter, that's cool. Because chances are the mage doesn't have the physical attributes to be nearly as good as the fighter when coming up with an ah hoc ruling.