False truisms in 5th edition

[Satyrn]

There was a specific goal cited that the developers had, of niche protection. They succeeded at that goal, to a pretty large degree. The Fighter really is better at fighting, mathematically, than Rangers, Barbarians, Monks or Paladins, let alone single attack per action Classes. That a given Barbarian is better than a given Eldritch Knight and a given Champion in a given game does not take away from the systematic accomplishment. The Barbarian is similarly the great nova melee combatant. Push them past their rage limits, or have a flying creature, and they get in serious trouble that a Fighter doesn't need to worry about.

Is this how it actually plays out at your table? I like reading about people's experiences.D&D Anecdotes are one of the top 3 reasons why I'm here. (Dyson and Turgenev are another)

 

[Parmandur]

Is this how it actually plays out at your table? I like reading about people's experiences.D&D Anecdotes are one of the top 3 reasons why I'm here. (Dyson and Turgenev are another)

In my actual play experience, the Champion is an unstoppable killing machine, yes, and the Barbarian has some shining nova moments with resource management. Indeed, my Mountain Dwarf Champion was the single most effective PC I've ever played across multiple editions of D&D.

But these anecdotes are irrelevant to how the system is designed to work in the aggregate, as they lack the statistical relevance that WotC has with their feedback system. A given table might have the Warlock be the best performing fightign type, it doesn't mean the Warlock is the best at fighting in the system.

 

[5ekyu]

Can you come over and tell my player he's doing it wrong; that he can't have a +1 AC from the Defensive fighting style because it makes him a worse fighter than the barbarian? The player made the choices he did because he wanted to have the least possible chance of getting hit by attacks and the least possible chance of failing the majority of saving throws. He wanted maximum survivability out of his "fighter," and he should forever be ashamed.

[SBLOCK]Look, and I'm putting this out there to anyone who disagrees with me about the barbarian being a better fighter than the fighter; have your own opinion. You're absolutely welcome to it. If your opinion is borne out in your play experiences, that's great. It's not reflected in mine. I have a game where the barbarian is a better fighter than both the champion and the eldritch knight. That doesn't mean that I or my players are doing anything wrong anymore than it means my experiences invalidate yours.

To those who say that feats are the problem, not the class, you're welcome to that opinion as well. However, it's my firm belief that if I disallowed feats at my table the player of the champion would pump his ASIs into Dex & Wis to try as hard as possible to achieve the same goals he's working toward with the resilience feats. And maybe that would make him a worse fighter than the barbarian. Maybe a fighter who aims for survivability is just a bad fighter, and the player should feel bad about the character he wanted to make and play.
[/SBLOCK]

My new campaign is on track to have:
Human variant Bard Sage
Tiefling Bard "definitrly not a " Criminal
Goliath Barbarian Outlander
Lizardfolk Druid of some land Far Traveller
Water Genasi Ranger Far Traveller

It is rapidly shaping to be an awesome campaign with story and adventure opportunities aplenty tied to them both individually and as a marvelous group.

I am sure we are doing tons of stuff just plain wrong for those white room spreadsheet campaigns. "No, no, dont cast "=" at 3rd level, it will start a nested formula we wont escape from. Cast "Misty Syntax" instead. We gotta get there and close that open paren or it's all over."

Wrong... and lovin' it.

 

[Umbran]

Jester, the designers have said things very similar to that, but context is important.

And perhaps, more important, Jester, the OP hasn't responded since starting the thread, so you are unlikely to get cites or defense of the position at this point.

 

[Wiseblood]

Zap is right about range and mobility. Being superior to heavy melee. The DPR spreadsheet almost notwithstanding.

All too often the low dex paladin spends one or more rounds getting to a position. (After bringing up the rear on initiative)Then he can get his devastating smite on. Honestly I could give him a Holy avenger and not worry about him outshining anyone in DPS. Those smites are a sight to behold though. Some fights he gets to do just about nothing.

The truisms are there. Unspoken, hidden behind our collective perception and obscured by analysis.

 

[Umbran]

Zap is right about range and mobility. Being superior to heavy melee. The DPR spreadsheet almost notwithstanding.

All too often the low dex paladin spends one or more rounds getting to a position.

In open spaces, where encounter distance is long, yes. I see that all the time, as I'm playing a dwarf in heavy armor. We ahve a barbarian and a rogue, both of whom have ways to get extra movement, and i come chugging up along from behind some time later...

... until last session, when they almost died because the left me behind and didn't have line of sight on me for me to cast spells in their general vicinity. I dunno how often they'll choose to run ahead of me in the future.

But, in closer quarters - in a typical dungeon or keep or what have you, the difference often drops away, as ou may not be more han 30 feet from the bad guys when you first encounter them.

 

[Wiseblood]

Yeah, indoors they put him up front to soak damage. He’ll still go last but at least he gets to go.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There was a specific goal cited that the developers had, of niche protection. They succeeded at that goal, to a pretty large degree. The Fighter really is better at fighting, mathematically, than Rangers, Barbarians, Monks or Paladins, let alone single attack per action Classes.

Where did they state that goal? I could buy that they wanted Fighters to fight better than Rangers, since Rangers have the whole exploration schtick, but Barbarians don't have much going on for them aside from fighting.

That a given Barbarian is better than a given Eldritch Knight and a given Champion in a given game does not take away from the systematic accomplishment. The Barbarian is similarly the great nova melee combatant. Push them past their rage limits, or have a flying creature, and they get in serious trouble that a Fighter doesn't need to worry about.

I really wouldn't call "spending one use of rage, of which you have several per day" any sort of nova ability, any more than I would say a Wizard is going nova when they cast a spell in a fight. In this edition, going nova is the purview of the Paladin and Sorcerer, who manage their resources over a long rest and nevertheless have the ability to spend multiple resources per round.

 

[CapnZapp]

And perhaps, more important, Jester, the OP hasn't responded since starting the thread, so you are unlikely to get cites or defense of the position at this point.

I don't think I have to explain to a mod why I don't engage either of those two gentlemen in discussion

 

[Ash Mantle]

I know posters have been making recommendations to improve the fighter's dpr, but that's because it's the metric [MENTION=82779]MechaPilot[/MENTION] introduced.

Between the action surge, extra attacks and various things the fighter subclasses get though, fighters have a lot going for them including DPR-wise.

I suppose that's true. I mean, I've never seen the party cheer when the wizard uses a damage-less "utility" or "control" spell to make the encounter even winnable, let alone possible. /sarcasm

Oh man, your party clearly didn't have a bard in it!

A cheerleader bard archetype (who's also optimistic all the time but this could get a little grating) would be pretty rad.