Just how bad is the playtest fighter? (Trigger warning: math.)

[jadrax]

I've been wondering how they've figured the bonuses; can you explain why you think he'd get a +5 damage bonus with a one-handed weapon?

Currently the fighter has a hidden +1 to hit, +2 to damage core ability (according to past playtesters) and a the +2/+3 to damage 'feat' listed on the sheet.

Edit: and why does the shield explain a +3 AC bonus, in contradiction to the rule document?

I'm not sure anyone knows exactly where the +1 to the clerics AC comes from, or his Shield Proficiency for that matter.

 

[Andor]

At this point the fighter is attacking at +6 and doing 1d10+5 damage with his warhammer.
While buffed, the cleric is attacking at +5 and doing 1d10+1d6+3 damage.

We've already done the math. And the fighter only appears to be ahead by things that aren't fighter-specific (strength and wielding a 2 handed weapon).

Edit: [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION], thank you. I was about to report the post for edition warring.

Actually you missed a bit.

If you'll check out my errors thread you'll see an earlier playtester explains that a fighter gets a class based +1 to hit and +2 to damage, in addition to the weapon foucs listed on the sheet. So that warhammer of his is +6 1d10+7. Therefore the Cleric can spend 1/3rd of his daily power to achieve almost parity with the fighter, for an hour.

I'm not convinced there is an imbalance. It does make me think the Fighter would be well served to drop the greataxe and grab a warhammer and shield however.

 

[Kraydak]

Actually you missed a bit.

If you'll check out my errors thread you'll see an earlier playtester explains that a fighter gets a class based +1 to hit and +2 to damage, in addition to the weapon foucs listed on the sheet. So that warhammer of his is +6 1d10+7. Therefore the Cleric can spend 1/3rd of his daily power to achieve almost parity with the fighter, for an hour.

I'm not convinced there is an imbalance. It does make me think the Fighter would be well served to drop the greataxe and grab a warhammer and shield however.

The cleric being able to achieve near parity for an hour is cripplingly bad for the Fighter. At that point, no party will take a Cleric+Fighter over Cleric+Cleric. Remember, the Fighter has 0% of the Cleric's healing, and 0% of the Cleric's out of combat utility spells. Realistically, the Fighter should be at around 200% of the Clerics's weapon offense at level 1, scaling to much higher at level cap.

In this case, ignoring the scaling issue (because we don't know how that is supposed to work), you want to increase the Fighter's base advantage from (+1/+2) to (+2/+2 and automatic advantage in combat, the latter being simpler than, but in practice very similar to 0.5 extra attacks/round).

Side note: I've *seen* that kind of relative offense in action (actually, we were probably running at around 5000% percent, but that was because the Clerics didn't even try to keep up). It works. The Clerics were still devastatingly effective in combat through the wonders of Command, Hold Person, Magic Circle 10', Prayer and, of course, healing.

 

[eamon]

The uncertainty around these numbers reminds me:

• It's way too early to worry about this
• Any issues that do remain are trivial to fix so long as they're just issues with the exact damage numbers.

So as far as I can tell, class balancing is rather premature at this point and in any case already spot on.

 

[Andor]

The cleric being able to achieve near parity for an hour is cripplingly bad for the Fighter. At that point, no party will take a Cleric+Fighter over Cleric+Cleric.

This isn't an MMORPG with 20,000 people wandering around screaming "LFG."

A fighter needs to be effective enough to be fun for the player who wants to play it, not competative enough to earn a slot in a premier raid group.

And as my group noted, we're still in alpha testing at this point. While I disagree that a fighter needs a 200% boost in effectiveness I think he probably does need a touch more, since he also needs to complete with the Rogue and his extremely generous scaling sneak attack damage.

Of course Mearls mentioned in the curretn playtesting article that they are discussing giving the fighter two themes, comparable to the rogues background + scheme, so try stacking guardian or one of the others onto him and see what you think then. That's what I'm going to offer my fighters player next week if he wants.

 

[CypherWulf]

I'm not sure anyone knows exactly where the +1 to the clerics AC comes from, or his Shield Proficiency for that matter.

It would make sense to me that the shield proficiency and the +1 ac comes from the defender theme, and it's just not listed twice for space reasons.

 

[jadrax]

I'm not convinced there is an imbalance. It does make me think the Fighter would be well served to drop the greataxe and grab a warhammer and shield however.

Yes, I really am not convinced that 2 handed weapons are very good right now compared to sword and board.

 

[TwinBahamut]

As far as I'm concerned, the fact that the Fighter isn't clearly and unquestionably miles ahead of other classes in raw power is gigantic red flag, considering that the Fighter has a severe lack of options compared to other classes. A few mild bonuses are nowhere near enough to make up for the incredible power of spellcasting. If you want the Fighter to be a remotely viable choice for a class, it needs to do a lot more than just marginally beat out other classes in a comparison of what should be the Fighter's speciality.

Also, it is certainly not too early to be talking about balance. The Fighter's lack of balance right now is more than just a problem with small numerical differences. It is a problem of the Fighter class's very concept. A class that has almost no class features or choices and is barely any better at the direct combat than any other class will never be balanced no matter what WotC does. Some things simply can't be balanced, and the disparity between the current Fighter and the current spellcasters is one of those things.

 

[Kraydak]

This isn't an MMORPG with 20,000 people wandering around screaming "LFG."

A fighter needs to be effective enough to be fun for the player who wants to play it, not competative enough to earn a slot in a premier raid group.

It is close enough. If the Fighter doesn't have a vast repertoire of out-of-combat utility, nor of in combat spell, his weapon based offense has to absolutely shine.

Think of it this way: compare 2XCleric vs Cleric+Fighter. We want Cleric+Fighter to be the better choice (maybe not by much, but still better), and accept that 2XFighter just won't work.

Then if Fighter melee=1.5XCleric melee (currently more like 1.1X), Fighter+Cleric has 25% more melee at the cost of 50% of the Cleric utility and healing. Just not worth it, even at low levels where the Cleric utility isn't that extreme.

If Fighter melee=2XCleric, that pushes it to 50% more melee at the cost of 50% of the utility and healing. That might be worth it, at low levels. At higher levels, it won't be.

This is important. It is easy to miss low on Fighters. Really really easy. Very few people complained about Fighters being overpowered in 1e, even pre-UA, and there they started at about 300% of melee-cleric melee and rapidly scaled up from there. The playtest stats suggest that WotC isn't even in the right ballpark, balance-wise.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Let's keep in mind with the math comparisons that the Cleric was changed to Wis 14 and Str 16, which I'm guessing won't often be the case. He'd potentially be hamstringing his long term spellcasting abilities (we don't know for sure if there's a limit on spells like in 3.X).

Do I think the Fighter needs to shine more based on reports? Yes. Am I worried yet? No. We're seeing the complex Cleric. Let's see the complex Fighter before we judge anything. It may be good, it may not be enough, it may need to be completely overhauled, but we just don't know yet. Make a note in the feedback that you're concerned, but no need to panic yet. Just my view, anyways. As always, play what you like