How do we get from here to there?

[Manbearcat]

Part 1: Testing Intra-Class Tactical and Strategic Resources vs "Running a Game".

After running through the adventure, honestly, as a playtest it seemed mostly a waste of time, as I/we can/could easily enough extrapolate/conceptualize how the game would unfold given the mechanical resolution tools we have...and what we do not. It basically played as a cleaned up 2e game (with a more vanilla action economy), pretty close to what my 2e was by the time I finished house-ruling it. Further, so many variables are brought into a game session/campaign that are "mechanics-indifferent" (DM skill, player skill, group experience with the mechanics, group chemistry and social contract) that you can have a great game with the worst of mechanics and a horrible game with the best of mechanics. The "success/fun" of the game is driven primarily by those mechanic-neutral characteristics and thus, you've learned very little, if anything, about the set of mechanics you're playing with (specifically if you already have experience with those mechanics or mechanics like them). We had a semblance of "fun" but none of us felt it had anything to do with the system nor do we feel like we accurately "tested" it by running a game.

Given the above, I've taken to breaking apart the current iteration of playtest materials and treating it like an engineering project and testing specific moving parts. In order to determine how well archetype mapping/flavor, combat balance/tactical depth and strategic balance/depth performs we've run a large number of 3-part combat scenarios (multiple opponents, singular "boss" opponents, mix, various topography) to measure "tactical" arsenal and extra-combat scenarios (parlay with bandit-king, escape from prison while finding gear along the way, lost in the jungle, and the "infamous" stealing the idol and escaping pursuit/gorge scene) to measure "strategic" arsenal;

Tactical - Micro-resources deployable for short-term effects which impact, or outright dictate, the resolution of a singular exchange within a scene/encounter between aggressor and target (this could be an organic or inorganic target that must be overcome). This should map to archetype and be flavor-intensive relative to archetype.

Strategic - Macro-resources deployable for longer-term effects which impact, or outright dictate, the scope of a challenge (lessening it or changing the terms outright) facing the PC(s). This should map to archetype and be flavor-intensive relative to archetype.

Rather than just the "collage" of an adventure where measurables and performance can easily get lost in the mire and shuffle of an adventure (and the mechanics-neutral dynamics at the table), I think people may want to try to break apart an adventure and run specific tiered combat scenarios and extra-combat scenarios to get a sense (numbers and feel-wise) how these classes are performing within the marriage of their build-mechanics and the game's resolution mechanics when facing the constraints of a standard adventuring day or a specific trope. You guys may find that you get good, or better, information by way of this practice than through "running a game." I understand that they are now attempting to balance by way of "Adventure", but some may find this exercise useful in order to measure the classes and thus be prepared for what a specific class can bring to bear on a "per scenario basis". Given what I've seen thus far, there is a significant deficiency in several classes "tactical" arsenal (breadth and scope) or "strategic" arsenal (breadth and scope).


Part 2: The Tactical and Strategic "payload" of intra-class features, Specialties, and Background.

The Rogue, the Cleric, the Wizard all have their standard assemblage of Strategic Resources and all seem to fill their Strategic Niche;

Cleric - Communication Facilitator, Face, Leader, Seer (Creation and Divination Spells, Lore, Orisons, Rituals)

Rogue - Face, Infiltrator, Information-Gatherer, Saboteur, Spy (Knack, Scheme, Skill Mastery, Thieves Cant)

Wizard - Any strategic role that is needed and general problem solver (Cantrips, Lore, Rituals, Spells)

However, per standard D&D operating procedure, the Fighter is the only class with no strategic resources built into the class. In the Strategic Tests performed in Part 1, all classes, except for the Fighter, were able to bring to bear considerable "Class-Specific" Strategic Resorces/Features to facilitate the resolution of the varying challenges without needing to leverage their backgrounds. If the challenge is specific enough (contrived by the DM to directly leverage the Fighter's background), then the Fighter can help facilitate the resolution of the challenge. If this contrivance is not performed, you have Bob the Fighter either (i) being bored, (ii) being pouty and disrupting the game, or (iii) actively looking to pick a fight so he can deploy a resource or two (consider the immature games of our youth). I know that many feel this is "working as intended" but I'm not a fan of this design space at all as I see neither of the three as desirable. The Fighter turns into "so much luggage" until the fighting starts...in effect being tantamount to a Magic Weapon that could be stowed in a Bag of Holding and deployed once Initiative is rolled...and stowed again when the last Orc HP is eliminated. If you wish, you could couple that with a "Fighter Doll" that when you pull his string he says something sufficiently "Fightery" - "Bring me another flagon, winch", "Rawr, I'm of a mood to crack some orc skulls", "Something derogatory about the wizard."

In my perfect D&D world, all classes would have a diverse (but archetype-flavor-focused), built-in suite of Tactical and Strategic resources and the Background and Specialty "payload" would further enhance this archetype by way of diversification or specialization. Given the current playtest iteration and design scope, it seems that for the final iteration of the core game to accomplish this, one of three things will likely need to happen (or preferably all three);

1) Each Class needs more Class Features within their build framework or they need to have a diversity of features such that multiple pillars are covered.
2) The "payload" of the feat system (Specialties) needs to be amped up.
3) Background needs to deliver further "payload" or features throughout the leveling up process.


Part 3: Tactical Resources and Coherency for the 5e Fighter. "What is he trying to do" and "what are the tools by which he does it". And how about a look at Strategic Resource accompaniment? **


5e Fighter's Subtypes by way of Fighting Style:

- The "Protector/Sword and Board" Fighter seems to have coherency within the equation of "what he is trying to do (Protect Allies and Control enemies)" and "the tools by which he does it" (Active Damage Mitigation and Enemy Control...but Stand Up from Prone needs to be more punitive). This will vary with tastes but for my mileage and my players' mileage, this Fighting Style is the least boring.

- The "Duelist" is a mess. "What is he trying to do" and how is he "supposed to be trying to do it"? I have no idea because this style is the least damaging, least survivable, has no active abilities and no enemy control. Jab is underwhelming but ok (relatively useful as an opener when there is distance between forces) but it is shared with Slayer. Shift and Tumble without Enemy Control defeat the purpose of a front line combatant that interposes itself between enemies and allies and they provide no advantage within the action economy nor do they provide activatable defense or offense bonuses *.

- The "Sharpshooter/Archer" performs well at its design intent (Deal damage at a distance) but is fairly boring. You have no action denial or status effect delivery resources. As an Archer, your CS dice options are narrowed but this actually helps your role as you are primarily suited to cut down enemies before they can either react or force a melee. Leverage Deadly Strike, max out damage, rinse, repeat. Boring but effective.

- The "Great Weapon/Slayer" has coherency of role and tools. You are to be in the thick of it and interpose yourself between enemies and allies and kill enemies dead. Be aggressive, mean and tough with a high damaging weapon, heavy armor and HPs and leverage Strength and Constitution. Cleave allows you to kill two enemies per turn or kill one and take a chunk out of another. Given the lower HPs of the "minion" enemies, Glancing Blow gives you a high likelihood of killing enemies on a miss and gaining advantage within the action economy that would otherwise be lost. Jab is decent as an opener when at a distance (when your Action is taken up on a move to engage in melee or a Stunt). The Slayers suite of maneuvers all grant Action Economy Advantage (dead enemies don't have actions...2 dead enemies don't have 2 actions.) that is consistent with the flavor of the archetype (aggressive berserker cutting swaths of enemies with a single blow).

It would be nice if, beyond their suite of maneuvers, each Fighting Style granted passive bonuses/augments and/or activatable features to further focus it toward its Tactical End/Intent, thus diversifying it from the other styles while maintaining benchmark metrics (Damage Mitigation/Avoidance, Damage Output, Melee Control, Mobility).

* In 4th edition, there are 3 primary options for a "Duelist/Light-Armored/Swashbuckling" character; Scoundrel/Duelist Rogue, Fighter/Brawler, Bladesinger. "What are each of these classes/builds trying to do" in order of importance:

Scoundrel/Duelist Rogue

1) Deal extreme damage and heavy nova damage.
2) Be a survivable melee combatant that can avoid/mitigate potentially heavy damage/numbers for a significant number of rounds and consistently by way of tactical mobility.
3) Dictate battlefield through tactical mobility.

Fighter/Brawler

1) Dictate the scope of melee by protecting allies, interposing self between enemies and allies, and controlling enemies.
2) Survive all manner of enemy attacks from swarms to wizards to dragons.
3) Deal solid damage.

Bladesinger

1) Control enemies in melee and at range and dictate battlefield through tactical mobility.
1a) Deal solid damage and heavy nova damage.
1b) Be an extremely survivable melee combatant that can handle various types and numbers of enemies/attacks.

"How do each of these classes/builds accomplish what they're trying to do?" Tactically, each of these archetypes have some area of overlap, but they are quite diverse overall.

Overlap:

- Each presuppose a One Handed Weapon and nothing in the offhand as general premise.
- Each have Dexterity as either primary or secondary attribute.
- Each have static and/or active means of elevating their AC/defenses to make up for a lack of shield.

Tactical Diversity:

Scoundrel/Duelist - Classic Blade Bravo/Swashbuckler. Has passive mobility AC enhancement against Opportunity Attacks which enhances tactical mobility options allowing the Duelist to dictate the battlefield or deny action. Can then use stances to enhance damage and control enemies with opportunity attacks upon enemy engaging Duelist in melee. Uses swordplay and tactical mobility as means of gaining extreme, active AC and Reflex Defense enhancement for most of the fight and gaining Combat Advantage to deliver devastating damage.

Fighter/Brawler - Classic Improvisational Brawler. Uses grappling as means of active damage avoidance/mitigation, damage enhancement, and control/action denial of enemies through "catch 22 punishment" of marking and movement denial. Further battlefield control by using grabbed enemies to avoid opportunity attacks while moving around the battlefield.

Bladesinger - Fighter/Mage "Jediesque" Hybrid. This class is probably the closest that 4th edition has to a Defender/Controller/Striker Hybrid. It uses an assortment of Bladespells as damage enhancement, enemy control, outright action denial and to impose negatives to attack (from melee to ranged). Has near Defender level passive AC. It leverages Bladesong and Arcane Spells to severely enhance tactical mobility (which can often lead to enemy action denial), active and passive defenses, damage mitigation, damage, and control/melee punishment.

Conclusion:

As a siloed "Fighting Style, the 5e Duelist does not leverage any of the above Overlap areas nor the Tactical Diversity areas which serve to make the fighting style potent from a metric/tactical standpoint nor is the 5e version relatively compelling/fun. As a front-line melee combatant who is supposed to interpose themselves between the enemy and its allies, neither Shift nor Tumble do anything to facilitate:

- Melee Control (worse yet, without the coupling of punitive status effects on enemies it actively works against the paradigm of "Front-Line Infantry that interposes itself between enemies and allies")
- Damage Avoidance/Mitigation (you're already down a shield and gain no "activatable defenses")
- Action Denial (without the coupling of negative status effects on enemies, you gain no advantage within the Action Economy)
- Damage enhancement (you're already handicapped by way of lesser damage die and gain no bonus damage effect).

Couple Shift or Tumble with a marking mechanism, some manner of control or action denial, or an active defense/mitigation or damage enhancement, then you have something. However, as is, they are just words on a page...that provide no tactical depth or advantage...coupled with an inherent metric disadvantage (no shield bonus to AC, lesser damage die, the burden of melee responsibility so you cannot just leverage Deadly Strike repeatedly - as Archer)

** Strategic Resources of the Duelist Archetype in 4th Edition is still an albatross around the neck of the Fighter (while the Fighter has no Tactical Combat Advantage):

Scoundrel/Duelist - Has the standard Rogue suite of strategic resources (Large number of skills and high proficiency within, large number of strategic Utility Powers) to deploy as modes of operation toward the end of ambushing, infiltrating, information gathering, misinformation/misdirecting, sabotaging, socially manipulating, spying.

Fighter/Brawler - Yeah. Not much here. Enforcer and Thuggery by way of the Direct Force application of Intimidate. That's about it.

Bladesinger - Wizard Cantrips and full suite of Wizard Utility Powers. Naturally High Arcana and Religion for Rituals.

Once again, the Fighter Class has no built-in Strategic Resources within the scope of its build mechanics, while every other class has built-in Strategic Resources within the scope of their Class build-mechanics.

 

[slobo777]

I found that a bit heavy going, but overall interesting analysis. I've not thought about the material in this way, so it was worth the read to see a different angle.

It might be better as two threads. You start with approaches to playtest analysis, and end with issues around the fighter. And the post was very long.

Regarding the fighter's lack of class-specific strategic options, I have two observations:

1) Fighters are go-to class for physically-demanding exploration tasks - scale the cliff (with wizard on the back!), bash down the door, leap over rooftops. It overlaps with the rogue, but I often play a fighter and enjoy these sorts of challenges.

2) I'm not sure what kind of resources you would expect a fighter to gain so they have more to contribute mechanically to social and exploration parts of the game. Nor am I convinced that forcing them into the class with good intents of "something for everyone" would go down well with players who may be choosing the class precisely because it is simpler with less to know and track.

The premise of the fighter class doesn't really give much room to add extras, except via backgrounds and specialities. But then it doesn't make sense either to give fighters more or better backgrounds that make up the shortfall.

To be honest, I'd hold up "fighter" as a poster child for problems inherent in class-based systems.

Potentially the fighter class could absorb some cultural and role mechanics from other classes (which would become non-combat "styles" or "sub-types" of fighter, *separate* from the combat-modifying specialities):

• Warlord
• Ranger
• Paladin
• Monk
• . . . plus potentially one or two new ones designed for this purpose

. . . a lot of D&D next players are expecting to see these as separate classes though, with possibly very different mechanics to the fighter.

Perhaps one simple thing that would help players who like fighters, but want to access some of the interesting resources from these classes, is to make multi-classing into them from fighter a good option mechanically (e.g. specific combinations get nice synergy and perhaps bonus resources from class dipped into). This could be extended to multi-classing with Rogue, where there is already quite a lot of overlap.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

First, as to the narrower point (the Duelist style):

Clearly the point of the Duelist build is a combination of extra attacks and mobility. Jab gives you freedom to spend your action Hustling, Withdrawing, Dodging, or performing one of any number of improvised maneuvers (swinging from a chandelier, disarming your foe, etc) and still get in a few points of damage; Tumble gives you the ability to move through an enemy square, which as far as I can tell can't be done otherwise without a teleportation effect, and Shift lets you avoid attacks of opportunity. Once you're at level 5 with two CS dice, Shift and Tumble can be used in combination to dodge through enemy lines without even taking a hit (Tumble through an enemy's space to the other side of him, then use your action to stab and shift away).

Shift and Tumble without Enemy Control defeat the purpose of a front line combatant that interposes itself between enemies and allies

I think part of the issue is that you're projecting the Defender role onto the fighter class, where in 5e they're divorcing classes from strict roles. A Duelist fighter is a striker, not a defender; he has no particular interest in interposing himself between his enemies and allies.

As for the AC loss from lack of a shield... actually, by 8th level the Duelist can have 20 Dex and a chain shirt, which would make his AC equal to a guy in plate armor with a shield. And the Duelist style doesn't specifically require that you fight with an empty off-hand; all the maneuvers work just as well with a sword and board in plate armor, or for that matter with a greatsword. They're definitely missing a suitable Specialty for swashbucklers, but that's separate from the fighter "style" of Duelist.

I think it's fairly clever the way they've done this: fighting styles can be mixed and matched with your weapon of preference, and there are specialties to further spice up the mix. I do think they need to add more in the way of melee-focused specialties, and I think the reason they didn't in this playtest is that the newly added fighter maneuvers "ate" a lot of the specialty powers (like Slayer).

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

As to the broader point, the fighter's lack of strategic resources:

First, you're ignoring the two new classes. Warlocks have rituals, but not nearly the range of spells of either a wizard or cleric. And sorcerers have pretty much no class abilities that apply outside of combat, much like fighters.

I don't think they're going to "solve" this problem of a disparity in strategic resources (or the exploration axis or however we want to talk about "stuff that happens when nobody's rolled initiative yet"). Really, how would you? As the poster above me mentioned, why would fighters get extra backgrounds?

I think the best they can do is limit the ways in which other classes excel past the fighter. For example, I think the changes to Skill Mastery are a bad idea: if the fighter wants to be the "face" of the group, he should be able to do so with a decent Cha and an appropriate background. The rogue doesn't need to be automatically better at it even with an 8 Charisma because rogues are Just That Good.

Likewise, if and when clerics and wizards get Scry and Teleport and all the other spells that let them break the game, that will be a problem. But looking at the playtest so far, I don't see Spider Climb or Invisibility or Fly or any of the other low-level spells that threaten other classes' "turf." In fact, spells seem limited specifically to the stuff that nobody else could conceivably do: the cleric can speak with the dead, but he can't (yet) spy on the living; for that you need a sneaky rogue. Maybe this indicates that the scope of casters' dominance outside of combat is being carefully monitored.

 

[Li Shenron]

Solution at hand: let the Fighter kill the Warlord and take his stuff.

 

[slobo777]

Solution at hand: let the Fighter kill the Warlord and take his stuff.

I like that only provided it's not the only option. The warlord is very focussed on leadership, and I wouldn't want my Fighter to get that bundled in whatever.

Thinking about what I'd want from "taking other classes stuff", I guess it depends on stats - what's the secondary stat that tells me what the Fighter might be good at outside of combat:

• Con - survival, endurance. Steal from Barbarian or Ranger
• Dex - acrobatics, stealth, trickery. Steal from Rogue
• Int - tactics, teamwork. Steal from Warlord
• Wis - awareness, knowledge. Steal from Ranger or Monk
• Cha - leadership, presence. Steal from Warlord or Paladin

This is not meant to be exhaustive, nor that accurate, I just took 3 mins!

This line of thinking is probably what got me excited about boosting a Fighter's options at multi-classing for a solution to OP's issue. I see that as more in keeping with D&D's history than absorbing so much from such a range of martially-focussed classes . . .

 

[Li Shenron]

I like that only provided it's not the only option. The warlord is very focussed on leadership, and I wouldn't want my Fighter to get that bundled in whatever.

Just to clarify, I wouldn't want the Fighter class to force every fighter in having Warlord stuff.

If "bundled" means that Fighter has one or more fixed features to represent leadership then I'm against it. If "bundled" means that e.g. there exist options to express leadership using expertise dice (in place of having only fighting style's maneuvers) but this has to be chosen by each fighter on an individual basis then this could be what I mean.

 

[Yora]

This thread sounds like a job for Grover.

 

[slobo777]

Just to clarify, I wouldn't want the Fighter class to force every fighter in having Warlord stuff.

If "bundled" means that Fighter has one or more fixed features to represent leadership then I'm against it. If "bundled" means that e.g. there exist options to express leadership using expertise dice (in place of having only fighting style's maneuvers) but this has to be chosen by each fighter on an individual basis then this could be what I mean.

OK, makes sense to me. The Warlord could definitely die, same as some of the other source/role combinations that 4E needed for completeness. BTW my current 4E character is an Inspiring Warlord.

I'd still like to see a little more. Significantly, I'd like to see options that didn't present a choice between deeper combat optimisation and non-combat skills.

Same as for casters. The Sorcerer could end up in a worse situation than the fighter, in that they may well need to keep hitting "Sorcerer" buttons all the time to maintain their caster level.

There should be a price to pay for decent depth and lots of options. But the starting price need not be to knock you off the pinnacle of focussed expertise. A little breadth assumed by the character build system allows for more playing nice together.

 

[Manbearcat]

I found that a bit heavy going, but overall interesting analysis. I've not thought about the material in this way, so it was worth the read to see a different angle.

It might be better as two threads. You start with approaches to playtest analysis, and end with issues around the fighter. And the post was very long.

I'm sorry you don't like the format. I was basically advising of (i) my format to test the new materials and that it was successful in giving me desired, specific information, (ii) general resultant insight derived from the tests on strategic resource disparity and how to potentially address it, (iii) specific resultant insight derived from the tests on the tactical (in)coherency and (in)effectiveness of each of the fighter builds and how to address incoherency and ineffectiveness. I didn't feel that warranted multiple threads. Its just a thread about a different approach to testing this iteration of playtest materials and how to get to a coherent, effective product.

Regarding the fighter's lack of class-specific strategic options, I have two observations:

1) Fighters are go-to class for physically-demanding exploration tasks - scale the cliff (with wizard on the back!), bash down the door, leap over rooftops. It overlaps with the rogue, but I often play a fighter and enjoy these sorts of challenges.

2) I'm not sure what kind of resources you would expect a fighter to gain so they have more to contribute mechanically to social and exploration parts of the game. Nor am I convinced that forcing them into the class with good intents of "something for everyone" would go down well with players who may be choosing the class precisely because it is simpler with less to know and track.

The premise of the fighter class doesn't really give much room to add extras, except via backgrounds and specialities. But then it doesn't make sense either to give fighters more or better backgrounds that make up the shortfall.

I understand that there are people that believe that the Fighter shouldn't have any built-in strategic resources and that it should be purely vanilla for "starters" or people who want a "bland" class. I disagree with this design approach.

There are plenty of ways to give the Fighter strategic resources that fit with generic archetype. The generic archetype of the Fighter would be someone with some form of martial background whereby they came about their skills through an industrious, hard-working approach. It is someone who has been formally trained and likely started with other fundamental, more mundane, martial tasks to derive their physical prowess. (i) Physical laborers (of which would be predominant in the implied setting) would likely hold a Fighter in good esteem merely by way of shared experience and values. There may be a semblance of awe. (ii) A Fighter may have spent much of his life on the untamed frontier or on the borderlands. (iii) A fighter may have honed his martial background at sea in the navy or in the militia. (iv) A fighter may have grown up in the streets or as a highwayman, etc. Now these all appear to look like Backgrounds (and some are). The thing is that the Rogue, Wizard and Cleric all have built in stories that both encapsulate the marriage of their formal training and career path and give them strategic resources that reflect that formal training while still getting a background to further focus or diversify their strategic side. A Fighter could easily be granted something akin to the Rogue's Knack or a Scheme that marries their general formal training to their career/class and gives them strategic resources. Off the top of my head for i - iv:

(i) The Fighter can use his ability modifier or + 3 (whichever is higher) on skill checks and ability checks when interacting with the common man or physical laborers and can expect a small discount on most dry goods and services.

(ii) While in the wild, the Fighter's minimum roll is 10 when using a skill check or an ability check to attempt to forage/hunt for fresh water and food, find shelter against the elements, and to identify/avoid dens/barrows of deadly creatures.

(iii) The Fighter has extensive service, rank and complementary medals while serving in an acclaimed military branch or a militia. The Fighter can use his ability modifier or + 3 (whichever is higher) on skill checks and ability checks when interacting with military or militia (near or far) and can expect remedial accomodations (bunk, supplies) and possibly physical assistance from a few, free able-bodies when in dire need.

(iv) The Fighter's minimum roll is 10 when using a skill check or an ability check to attempt to discern territorial signs of gangs/bandits, when code language is used and its rough meaning, and the rank and file of agents. The Fighter can detect an ambush from a mile away and has Advantage on Initiative when gangs/bandits attempt to waylay him in a tavern, an alley, or a trade-road.


These would nto be game-breaking in any way, would mesh with the Fighter's inherent formal training and give them the ability to functionally interact in out of combat, strategic scenarios by deploying resources.

First, as to the narrower point (the Duelist style):

Clearly the point of the Duelist build is a combination of extra attacks and mobility. Jab gives you freedom to spend your action Hustling, Withdrawing, Dodging, or performing one of any number of improvised maneuvers (swinging from a chandelier, disarming your foe, etc) and still get in a few points of damage; Tumble gives you the ability to move through an enemy square, which as far as I can tell can't be done otherwise without a teleportation effect, and Shift lets you avoid attacks of opportunity. Once you're at level 5 with two CS dice, Shift and Tumble can be used in combination to dodge through enemy lines without even taking a hit (Tumble through an enemy's space to the other side of him, then use your action to stab and shift away).

I think part of the issue is that you're projecting the Defender role onto the fighter class, where in 5e they're divorcing classes from strict roles. A Duelist fighter is a striker, not a defender; he has no particular interest in interposing himself between his enemies and allies.

As for the AC loss from lack of a shield... actually, by 8th level the Duelist can have 20 Dex and a chain shirt, which would make his AC equal to a guy in plate armor with a shield. And the Duelist style doesn't specifically require that you fight with an empty off-hand; all the maneuvers work just as well with a sword and board in plate armor, or for that matter with a greatsword. They're definitely missing a suitable Specialty for swashbucklers, but that's separate from the fighter "style" of Duelist.

I think it's fairly clever the way they've done this: fighting styles can be mixed and matched with your weapon of preference, and there are specialties to further spice up the mix. I do think they need to add more in the way of melee-focused specialties, and I think the reason they didn't in this playtest is that the newly added fighter maneuvers "ate" a lot of the specialty powers (like Slayer).

- I did a series of 3 tests with 3 different rosters composed of 4, level 5, characters.

- The race of all of the "PCs" was human and the class roster was the same (Fighter/Archer, Melee Cleric of Moradin with same spell-load, Wizard with same spell-load) except I changed out a Protector, a Slayer, and a Duelist for the 4th spot. I gave all the Fighters the Toughness series of Feats.

- I repeated this series of 3 tests 5 times to get 15 total tests for each roster. The tests were as follows:

Test 1 - 8 enemies (6 "minions/mooks", 2 "standard") in a forest with blocking terrain interspersed (trees). The total number of HPs for the creatures was somewhere around 175 HPs.
Test 2 - 4 enemies (3 "standard guards" and 1 "leader") in a ruined throne room with steps (difficult terrain) a small hazard and the throne as blocking terrain. Again, the total HPs was somewhere around 175 HPs.
Test 3 - Finally I did 2 enemies (1 "boss" with 1 "standard guard") in a cave lair with a few pit hazards, stalagmites as blocking terrain and rubble as difficult terrain. The HPs here were again somewhere around 175 HPs.

- I generated a series of d20s, d12s, d10s, d8s, d6s, d4s and used them (from top to bottom) for each character and used them round to round and test to test (starting over at the beginning of each new combat).

- The HPs for the Fighters were all the same (Dex or Str primary with Con secondary). The Slayer and Duelist and Archer had the same AC (they likely wouldn't have been the same at this point...the Slayer probably should have been 1 better until a few levels where they would have evened out due to gear. However, I just went with this as it seemed reasonable enough). The Protector's AC was 2 better.

- Given that the Slayer and the Duelist both clearly fill the same niche (striker/defender hybrid) but are supposed to do it by way of different themes (berserker versus skirmisher), I wanted to see where they matched up offensively and tactically. My hypothesis was that the Slayer would out-do the Duelist by a fair margin in terms of effectiveness as the static mean damage of the Duelist is already ~ 54 % of the Slayer due to weapon dice disparity. They share "Jab" so they can both use it to gain damage on "Move", "Withdraw" and "Dodge" actions as needed. The differences are the built-in damage die, and the trade-off of shift and tumble for two extra damage options (minion stomper and straight damage additive when fighting multiple adjacent enemies and felling them), and the inherent advantage within the Action Economy that the Slayer's extra damage options should provide. Given my extensive play with how tactical mobility affects "skirmish combat" and how it must be coupled with status effects, action denial or other features to provide advantage within the Action Economy, I knew that only in the most rare of corner cases would Shift or Tumble be useful (typically with a considerable number of enemies, enemies with reach or bottleneck scenarios due to numbers or blocking terrain...which is why I used varying battlegrounds and numbers) and that that intangible bonus would not provide much tangible impact to the Action Economy equation. I knew how useful (and roughly how often it would trigger) Glancing Blow (accelerating as the number of attacks go up) would be and how useful Cleave would be (accelerating as the number of enemies or AC target to hit goes up) as a tangible benefit in the derivation of the Action Economy equation. Advantage was clearly to the Slayer in single target damage and in multi-target damage (while being roughly equal in survivability by level 7 - 8...but I provided them equal AC at level 5) and thus within the Action Economy...but by how much? I don't have the spreadsheet with me at work but I remember the percentages per combat offhand:

Combat A - Duelist damage was ~ 50 % of the Slayer's damage. Both Glancing Blow and Cleave were heavy here.
Combat B - Duelist damage was ~ 43 % of the Slayer's damage. Both Glancing Blow and Cleave were heavy here (Cleave was most potent in this scenario).
Combat C - Duelist damage was roughly 52 % of the Slayer's damage. Cleave came into play one time within the multiple scenarios of this fight due to the "brute guard" being felled by the other characters. Glancing Blow came into play multiple times here for a marginal boost.

One last thing of note. This is NET DAMAGE and not GROSS DAMAGE (damage heaped on after the target has lost all HPs was not calculated). Due to the higher max damage potential of the Slayer, the build lost a lot of top end, gross damage (and should be expected to do so in normal play when fighting a lot of low HP creatures) after felling enemies. If GROSS DAMAGE was used, the disparity would have been worse. The Action Economy advantage (driven by disparity of single target damage and multi-target damage and no functional Action Economy advantage to Tumble or Shift) of the Slayer over the Duelist was large. Fights were over a good round, and change, earlier on average.

First, you're ignoring the two new classes. Warlocks have rituals, but not nearly the range of spells of either a wizard or cleric. And sorcerers have pretty much no class abilities that apply outside of combat, much like fighters.

I did not test those classes so I only commented on what I tested. There may very well be issues there as well.