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

[Neonchameleon]

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.

There's Command. (Let's just ignore Death Ward). But yes you have a good point. If the domains are absolutely nailed down and the war domain basically makes the cleric into a fighter-rival then they should be similar in power in combat.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

notice something?

Jumping to conclusions does not help the playtest.

On the other hand I do not disagree. Versality is power. But I really believe, the cleric is not as flexible as we may think from previous editions.
I also believe, the quick fix of giving the fighter a second theme would come in handy to make him actually flexible.

Risking to repeat myself: Imagine you add healer and magic user to the fighter as themes. At level 3 you bandage wounds, and send your familiar for scouting purposes... seems versatile enough...

 

[eamon]

There's Command. (Let's just ignore Death Ward). But yes you have a good point. If the domains are absolutely nailed down and the war domain basically makes the cleric into a fighter-rival then they should be similar in power in combat.

Right and since that's the case in the current playtest, let's not get ahead of ourselves and just assume the fighter's going to be outshined by a cleric.

Also, to make the assumption that the fighter is going to be outshone, you're necessarily extrapolating based on incomplete data, and only selectively so. You're assuming the cleric uses Strength as a primary stat; but that means his spells' combat utility will be far diminished. He'll need buffs to reach the fighters levels in combat nevertheless, so he might have utility spells left over - but he might not.

Let's look at some of the possibilities that point the other direction: As levels rise, the fighter gains almost 50% more hitpoints(!), something I don't expect the cleric to be able to achieve in any way. Fighter's Surge and Cleave are both rather powerful abilities (imagine Cleave vs. those Kobolds - 2 autokills a round), which, if the he wants to keep up, the cleric'll need to balance by finding more buffs and use his precious spell slots on them. Then, while the cleric will likely need some wisdom, the fighter might not (why does the fighter have such high wisdom?): he could conceivably have even higher physical stats; stats the cleric just can't match without completely losing the ability to attack using magic.

Based on what I can see right now, there just doesn't seem to be an easy way for the cleric to reach the fighter's fighting prowess. If he can at all, it'll be at the expense of almost all other cleric abilities and only for a short period each day. If that's the case, I can't imagine it being attractive for most parties to replace the fighter with a second cleric. It's just too risky - it's all fine and dandy that assuming everything goes right and you get the time to buff every day and are never surprised nor have random encounters that the cleric will be as effective as the fighter (which is being optimistic, given what we can see). But that's taking a big chance; because if both of your melee combatants aren't worth much when surprised, if ever you do have a random encounter or you run out of buffs you're in trouble. And for what gain? If you really care about out-of-combat utility (and again note the fighters initial superiority at that due to higher physical stats), then choose a cleric actually good at that, rather than two clerics that are almost but not quite worthless at non-buff spells.

Based on the actual characters in the playtest, the fighter outfights the cleric (which has few non-combat abilities to compensate, incidentally). Extrapolating and guessing how things will turn out as levels and with different character builds is rather premature, but even if you do there's no reason to assume it's going to change anytime soon. Finally, and critically, balance doesn't need to be perfect. It just needs to be close enough to let everyone have fun. Whether I think that the fighter is a little too powerful or you think that he's too weak, it's not going to make the game unplayable in any case.

 

[jadrax]

why does the fighter have such high wisdom?

Out of the 5 pre-gens, they made the fighter the perception king. Which is not something I have seen mentioned in many play tests.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Good question. The playtest seems to me a little weak on the interaction pillar. (And seems to construe the exploration pillar fairly narrowly. There doesn't seem to be a lot of lore, or mystery, to be uncovered in the Caves of Chaos.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

notice something?

Jumping to conclusions does not help the playtest.

On the other hand I do not disagree. Versality is power. But I really believe, the cleric is not as flexible as we may think from previous editions.
I also believe, the quick fix of giving the fighter a second theme would come in handy to make him actually flexible.

Point on all counts. At the moment the fighter is just bland and focussed.

Right and since that's the case in the current playtest, let's not get ahead of ourselves and just assume the fighter's going to be outshined by a cleric.

Also, to make the assumption that the fighter is going to be outshone, you're necessarily extrapolating based on incomplete data, and only selectively so. You're assuming the cleric uses Strength as a primary stat; but that means his spells' combat utility will be far diminished. 0He'll need buffs to reach the fighters levels in combat nevertheless, so he might have utility spells left over - but he might not.

Except he mathematically will have utility spells left over. And a buff-cleric (like the warpriest) doesn't use his spelsl for direct attackign so "spells combat utility will be far diminished" simply isn't true.

Let's look at some of the possibilities that point the other direction: As levels rise, the fighter gains almost 50% more hitpoints(!), something I don't expect the cleric to be able to achieve in any way.

Cure Light Wounds.

Fighter's Surge and Cleave are both rather powerful abilities

And Cleave comes from the theme, not from being a fighter - therefore it is completely irrelevant.

(why does the fighter have such high wisdom?): he could conceivably have even higher physical stats; stats the cleric just can't match without completely losing the ability to attack using magic.

1: The fighter needs to protect himself from mind control.
2: He's designed as the group perception king.

Based on what I can see right now, there just doesn't seem to be an easy way for the cleric to reach the fighter's fighting prowess.

Equalise strength and put up Crusader's Strike brings him close enough.

If he can at all, it'll be at the expense of almost all other cleric abilities and only for a short period each day.

For short periods of at least an hour.

If that's the case, I can't imagine it being attractive for most parties to replace the fighter with a second cleric. It's just too risky - it's all fine and dandy that assuming everything goes right and you get the time to buff every day and are never surprised nor have random encounters that the cleric will be as effective as the fighter (which is being optimistic, given what we can see).

Or your random encounters don't start with the word "CHARGE!!!"

If you really care about out-of-combat utility (and again note the fighters initial superiority at that due to higher physical stats),

Bwuh? If the fighter has higher physical stats it's by dump-statting the mental ones. And mental ones are really useful out of comabt.

 

[eamon]

Except he mathematically will have utility spells left over. And a buff-cleric (like the warpriest) doesn't use his spelsl for direct attackign so "spells combat utility will be far diminished" simply isn't true.

There's just no way you can know this. Certainly at level 1 he needs to spend 100% of his spell slots on buffs to match the fighter, and then not for a significant portion of the day. And if he uses crusader's strike and divine favor, he's not using healing word.


On the topic of something that compensates for many more hitpoints as he levels...

Cure Light Wounds.

First of all, healing after the fact is a much worse proposition than just having enough hit points to start. Secondly, CLW uses the casting stat; which this hypothetical cleric has dumped. Thirdly, it costs an action, so it's not attractive during combat. Witness 3e's healing which was generally between combats, not during. To be useful in combat, healing has to either be dramatically powerful, or not cost an action - like Healing Word, which, incidentally, doesn't use the casting stat as is and the war-cleric actually knows, unlike CLW. To compensate for the fighters hit points, he'd need to spend a significant portion of his spell slots purely on healing words; and even then this isn't a simple trade since it's after the fact (worse) and cannot be combined with other spells (bad) but can be used on others (good).

So this hypothetical cleric would need to prepare Healing Word to catch up hit-point wise, but that means cutting into precisely those combat buffs that allow him to catch up to the fighter. So you're left with a warrior that has essentially no advantages and can only hope to come even close (but not actually reach fighter levels) for 1/day. That's... not exactly overpowering.

No matter how you twist this, there's just no way you can take these characters and conclude the cleric outshines the fighter at fighting. Even with both buffs it's fairly close, and if he does that, he has no healing, worse hitpoints and the rather significant problem that he can only maintain that level for 1 minute a day with prior notice!

This issue of prior notice is fairly critical to be honest, since while it's fairly common to know enemies are nearby and thus not to be surprised, it's also fairly common not to know exactly when combat starts until initiative is rolled, by which point Divine Favor has the major downside of costing an action. Frankly, with a duration of just 1 hour, I'll bet that during the playtest many people had encounters with the cleric in which even that buff wasn't on. Because if you didn't anticipate that this combat was going to be the strong one... again, it's going to cost you an action to correct the mistake.

So, I can only wonder whether you're worried about something that just isn't in this playtest - such as worries of 3.5 with persistant spelled self buffed clerics or whatever. Based this playtest, arguing for the warcleric to be nerfed is arguing for unbalancing the game.

Frankly, I don't think I really care to much if that happens by accident or as a side-effect of simplification or whatever. But it's an odd goal to aim at.


You might argue that the slayer theme's first level ability is weak (it certain is in DPR terms), or that the cleric's Guardian Theme is better (it probably is). But that's not an issue with the class.

Most importantly: Aiming for perfect balance means making tradeoffs in terms of complexity and development time. It's attention misspent. If the imbalance is trivially fixed or particularly egregious it might be worth it - but I just can't see that here; if anything, the fighter looks too strong by comparison; certainly nothing clear enough to be problematic. I'm all for reasonable balance - but this looks more like advocating for your favorite class.

 

[jeffh]

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.

As demonstrated by such paragons of flexibility as 3E's Bard and Factotum, or by the might of 4E feats like Linguist...

Flexibility may be power, but you know what else is power? Power, in as focused a form as possible. And at least in the context of D&D, time and again, the latter has shown that it trumps the former.

I'm not worried about the Moradin cleric at all.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As demonstrated by such paragons of flexibility as 3E's Bard and Factotum, or by the might of 4E feats like Linguist...

You mean two solid tier 3 classes? That were beaten in 3.X by the tier 1s because magic in that game is so flexible it can do anything?

Flexibility may be power, but you know what else is power? Power, in as focused a form as possible. And at least in the context of D&D, time and again, the latter has shown that it trumps the former.

Which is why the sorceror, with more spells per day, is a tier behind the wizard. Or the rogue is one tier behind the bard and the fighter two. Although few would say the bard has more raw power than either. The powerful wizard builds in 3.X weren't the evokers and direct damage specialists. They were the Batman Wizard and the God Wizard - both of which specialised in having the right tool for the job - i.e. exploiting the flexibility.

 

[Bluenose]

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.

BECMI D&D with the weapon mastery rules, 4e, 1e after UA gave Weapon Specialisation, even 2e before the explosion on spell variety and without the cleric being a specialty priest or having certain kits (Okay, that last is a stretch).

Outside D&D, there's a load of games where it's even more true. Especially point buy systems, where all the points you put into being good at cleric-y stuff are points that you aren't putting into being good at hitting things or for that matter into other abilities such as being charming, understanding how to build siege machinery, wilderness survival or anything else.

Of course there are also cases where it's worse. One of my RQ characters is priest of a war god, and can cast spells on himself before kicking your ass six ways to Sunday. Or not cast the spells, and kick it five ways. Fighting is what he's about.