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

[Gryph]

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.

Except, for the fighter to only be 1.1X the Cleric's combat effectiveness, the cleric has to keep his Crusader Strike spell always up. With only 2 available castings that means the Cleric will not have any Utility/Healing available.

I'm not real worried that a melee built Cleric who chooses to expend all of his daily resources on melee effectiveness is unbalanced if he is roughly as good as the fighter.

 

[B.T.]

Think of it this way: if the worst balance issue of 5e is that the cleric can buff himself and be almost as good as the fighter...well, that's a sight better than any other game I've ever played.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I'm not real worried that a melee built Cleric who chooses to expend all of his daily resources on melee effectiveness is unbalanced if he is roughly as good as the fighter.

You should be.

If the Cleric can expend all of his daily resources to be roughly as good as the Fighter, then the classes are horribly, horribly imbalanced. The difference is versatility and flexibility. At present, a Cleric can choose to be almost anything, but the Fighter can only choose to fight. This means that the cleric can more easily deal with a larger variety of situations without problem, yet still deal with the situations a Fighter should be the best at just as well as a Fighter could.

What's more, if the Cleric can fight as well as a Fighter can without using up every last resource, then the Cleric is flat better than the Fighter at being a fighting class. Anything left over is pure advantage in the Cleric's favor. This means that, for example, Clerics would be much better than a Fighter on any given adventuring day that has fewer encounters than the absolute maximum. The Cleric would be better than the Fighter whenever he has a spell to spare.

Meanwhile, the Fighter would never be able to do even half of what the Cleric can. The 5E Fighter can't heal allies, turn undead, raise the dead, attack with multi-target spells, and so on. Every one of those is extremely valuable, and many are flat better than dealing damage or being able to take a few blows. Emulating a Fighter is probably one of the poorer options for the Cleric any given turn, which pretty much is another way of saying that even at his best the Fighter isn't actually making meaningful contributions to the team.

The entire situation is broken.

 

[Stalker0]

It would be interesting to take the discussion to 2nd level. Does the flexibility of two extra actions per day for the fighter help bridge the gap?

One thing I've been thinking about, why does the fighter only fight? The common sterotype is that in the 4 person party the fighter is often the leader of the group, and yet there is no mechanical justification.

Instead of having a warlord, what if fighter's could pick up warlord esque abilities for those who wanted to go some charisma. You know party inspiration, group bonuses, that kind of thing.

 

[Kraydak]

It would be interesting to take the discussion to 2nd level. Does the flexibility of two extra actions per day for the fighter help bridge the gap?

No, and it can't really be scaled up to more extra actions (Nova problems). Even 2 actions/fight would be marginal. At level 1, we need more (not too much more) than a X1.5 factor, which is why I suggested going from +1/+2 to +2/+2 and automatic advantage (the latter being a X1.5 at a 50% hit rate, while explicitly avoiding any Nova issues).

[QUOTE}
One thing I've been thinking about, why does the fighter only fight? The common sterotype is that in the 4 person party the fighter is often the leader of the group, and yet there is no mechanical justification.

Instead of having a warlord, what if fighter's could pick up warlord esque abilities for those who wanted to go some charisma. You know party inspiration, group bonuses, that kind of thing.[/QUOTE]

Yes, they need to focus heavily on giving Fighters something significant to do out of combat, and leadership is probably the easiest route to take. No, they aren't going to get to the level of flexibility that a spellcaster has without walking all over Rogues. The 3e fighter was an abomination in this regard, and hopefully they'll try and do better this time.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Meanwhile, the Fighter would never be able to do even half of what the Cleric can. The 5E Fighter can't heal allies, turn undead, raise the dead, attack with multi-target spells, and so on. Every one of those is extremely valuable, and many are flat better than dealing damage or being able to take a few blows. Emulating a Fighter is probably one of the poorer options for the Cleric any given turn, which pretty much is another way of saying that even at his best the Fighter isn't actually making meaningful contributions to the team.

The entire situation is broken.

Except, when the fighter takes the healer theme as his second one...
or even instead of the slayer...

Also, if the melee cleric expends all his resources and is still way behind the fighter, there is also a balance problem...

I would not be worried at all

(Just a reminder: the 4e strength templar build can outdamage the fighter pretty easily and have a better AC and is able to heal... and still the are balanced...)

 

[Neonchameleon]

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?

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

I'd assumed that the extra damage came from the two handed weapon multiplying strength by 1.5 (and rounding up) - otherwise as they stand two handed weapons are terrible. If it is true that the fighter gets an extra free +2

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.

This. Over at rpg.net I suggested if they want that retro feel they seem to, they take things all the way and give the fighter 2e Weapon Specialisation. This means an extra attack every two rounds.

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.

This. The fighter's abilities are all about fighting. He doesn't have the flexibility of a caster. Which means he either needs to control the battle or kick arse and take names in a way no one else can. (Counting e.g. Barbarians as Fighters). If the fighter is simple as planned and wants to hang in there with people with the flexibility of Gygaxo-Vancian casters he needs to be around the power of at least a cleric and a half in combat.

This goes double if the game is set up so you want to avoid combat. As with a dozen rats all with advantage, or dozens of kobolds with advantage.

Think of it this way: if the worst balance issue of 5e is that the cleric can buff himself and be almost as good as the fighter...well, that's a sight better than any other game I've ever played.

Really? Because 4e had better balance than that. 2e had better balance than that - for that matter so did Unearthed Arcana. The Weapon Specialist there could kick arse and take names like no other class. When the only thing you are good at is fighting then you need to be damn good at it.

And has been explained above the issue isn't that the cleric is about as good as the fighter at combat. The issue is that the Fighter, who specialises in fighting can't kick the cleric's arse up round his ears at what he is supposedly specialising in and can't even play in the same league at anything else. This isn't a failure of balance. It's a failure of fundamental concept.

 

[Gryph]

When the cleric does not spend daily resources the fighter is about 1.5X as effective in combat.

The cleric's flexibility is the reward for carrying the burden of emergency healing. Press a party so the cleric needs to reserve healing resources and see if the fighter feels worthless.

I find the notion that being the best melee combatant is worthless, unless its by a factor of 2 to 1, (to stay within site rules) puzzling.

In our playtest session, the ability of the Wizard to wipe out multiple encounters with Sleep a little more unbalanced than any perceived lacks on the fighter's part. With the 10hp cutoff (and orcs with 11hp) its obvious that it won't scale at all. Still, gonna need more Kobolds .

 

[Andor]

The issue is that the Fighter, who specialises in fighting can't kick the cleric's arse up round his ears at what he is supposedly specialising in and can't even play in the same league at anything else. This isn't a failure of balance. It's a failure of fundamental concept.

I disagree. Look at the Cleric of Moradin, what can he do? He can fight. Oh, and maybe some minor healing. But only at significant cost to his combat ability.

These are not 3e Clerics who out-mojo Wizards and out-fight fighters. The Battle Cleric fights. The Laser Cleric lases.

If the Battle Cleric can spend 1 hour a day being almost as good as a fighter, and one minute a day being just as good and nothing else then there is not a balance issue. Especially when you consider that the Battle Clerics 2nd level big gun spell boosts the fighter and not himself.

If the domains remain as narrow as they currently are, then the Clerics are not crushing the fighters hopes and dreams, they are showing him how the favor and aid of a god can make someone almost as badass as they are. But not quite.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Also, if the melee cleric expends all his resources and is still way behind the fighter, there is also a balance problem...

Oh no there isn't. Because the next day the cleric could expend all his resources on divination or healing while the fighter sits down and paints a letter D on his conical helmet. Flexibility is power.

(Just a reminder: the 4e strength templar build can outdamage the fighter pretty easily and have a better AC and is able to heal... and still the are balanced...)

An ... interesting claim to make about a class which at Heroic tier has no minor action or interrupt attacks other than Weapon of Astral Flame, and needs to scrabble around for multitarget attacks, let alone an equivalent to Rain of Blows that hits the same target three times (multiplying static damage bonusses). And yes I agree about Battle Cleric's Lore being overpowered.

But you also miss something huge about 4e. With the exception of Healing Word the fighter has as many utility powers as the cleric. The 4e cleric can't do significantly more than the fighter outside combat unless using rituals. So the in combat balance should be a whole lot closer.

Although looking at it, if the cleric of Moradin's spells are hardcoded into the rules rather than selected his only out of combat L1 spell is Command. We have a Paladin there not a Cleric. And yes, it should be much closer in that case. Restricting spell lists allows for a lot of interesting design space as 4e has shown.

It would be interesting to take the discussion to 2nd level. Does the flexibility of two extra actions per day for the fighter help bridge the gap?

One thing I've been thinking about, why does the fighter only fight? The common sterotype is that in the 4 person party the fighter is often the leader of the group, and yet there is no mechanical justification.

Instead of having a warlord, what if fighter's could pick up warlord esque abilities for those who wanted to go some charisma. You know party inspiration, group bonuses, that kind of thing.

Because of the name and the intention of being a "simple fighter"