D&D 5E Less about the numbers and more about the concept: Judging classes in 5th edition.

[Tony Vargas]

And if we're dispensing with subjectivity how about you fill us in on this totally objective ranking system you are using...

Nothing complex, just what's actually in the PH.

Number (or absence) of dedicated out-of-combat class features, for a simple start. Then number/versatility/flexibility of any dual-use features.

The Fighter starts out with two skills from a nothing-special list, so that's a wash.
It adds bonus ASIs, which are few (two, at 6th & 14th), dual-use, chosen at level up, and can't be changed, so they rank very low on flexibility.
The Champion adds 'Remarkable' Athlete, which, if you're benefiting from it in an out-of-combat check means you don't have proficiency, and are already behind the curve.
The BM adds cute know your enemy tricks, which are little more than a ribbon.
The EK, of course, adds spellcasting, though the out of combat application waits until he grows out of the abjuration/evocation limitation - still limited as it is, pretty fantastic by fighter standards.

Now, every (sub-)class with casting but the AT (which still arguably edges out the EK's out-of-combat casting potential) beats that by light years, with casting alone, since 5e spontaneous slots are dual-use, numerous, and extremely flexible. That doesn't stop some of them from /also/ having nice non-combat features, though.

Frankly, that's more than enough for the Fighter (and probably some of the other non-casters) to clearly need a lot of work on the non-combat front, already.

The remaining comparisons among the 5 benighted non-magic-using sub-classes - we already glanced at the berserker, and it's pretty sad, too - are, of course, narrower. The rogue should come out fine, though. Expertise, alone, leaves the non-casting fighters in the dust.







(Edit: Actually, on further review, 'pretty sad' doesn't do the out-of-combat incompetence of the berserker sufficient injustice. It's on the wrong side of that crack in the sidewalk from the Fighter.
Ouch. )

 

[Xeviat]

At least the barbarian can pull "advantage on Str checks" out when needed with rage, which could be helpful in exploration scenes. Fast movement could also pop up there. Berserker has their weird intimidate thing, but it's more of a combat ability.

As for Fighter bonus feats: yes, I do use feats in my game. But the Fighter can't change them out day to day, or use to use like spell slots. When it's a choice between maxing Str/Dex and Con, I feel like I know what the Fighter is going to take. But I'd like them to be able to do a little more. I can't think of anything universal to all fighters (except for my unliked idea of having fighters get social bonuses with "normal" people), but it could definitely be tied to their subclasses. There's more room in their entry for ribbons that help make he Fighter stand out at things other than fighting. Warriors are known for more throughout cultures and myths.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Refusing to consider backgrounds is silly when their entire intention is to add flexibility to your class choice. Let's take that Champion I mentioned; add the outlander feature and she's now an exploration savant.

I'm not sure if "savant" is the correct choice of word there. Depending on level, a champion with the outlander background is very slightly less capable at Survival than the untrained cleric is.

 

[Xeviat]

I'm not sure if "savant" is the correct choice of word there. Depending on level, a champion with the outlander background is very slightly less capable at Survival than the untrained cleric is.

And a knowledge cleric could be a savant in Nature at least, plus could have he outlander background and have +4 or +5 in Survival and perception.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And a knowledge cleric could be a savant in Nature at least, plus could have he outlander background and have +4 or +5 in Survival and perception.

And even that exceptional fellow, who should be an expert in their field due to the natural synergy between their training and natural talents, is but a fool in comparison to a rogue or ranger.

It really goes to show how little the background provides in terms of utility. That +2 bonus simply does not equate to competence in any useful capacity.

 

[Tony Vargas]

At least the barbarian can pull "advantage on Str checks" out when needed with rage, which could be helpful in exploration scenes. Fast movement could also pop up there. Berserker has their weird intimidate thing, but it's more of a combat ability.

Rage is a meaningfully limited resource. Yes, it's technically dual-use, and that decision can be made in the moment rather than at level-up, so that's a plus in flexibility. But, it's so much more significant in combat, that using it out of combat is questionable. It could happen, it's not 'nothing,' but it's trivial.

Sure, fast movement is dual use and has no such issue. But, it's also pretty minor.

As for Fighter bonus feats: yes, I do use feats in my game. But the Fighter can't change them out day to day, or use to use like spell slots.

Yep, lacking in flexibility.

I can't think of anything universal to all fighters (except for my unliked idea of having fighters get social bonuses with "normal" people),

More & better skills. Expertise. And, yes, social perks do make sense.

but it could definitely be tied to their subclasses. There's more room in their entry for ribbons that help make he Fighter stand out at things other than fighting. Warriors are known for more throughout cultures and myths.

And it's not like rogues need the exploration pillar niche-protected, anymore, nor Bards social - they're both well able to contribute in combat, now. Rogue, DPR; Bard support & control.

 

[clutchbone]

And even that exceptional fellow, who should be an expert in their field due to the natural synergy between their training and natural talents, is but a fool in comparison to a rogue or ranger.

It really goes to show how little the background provides in terms of utility. That +2 bonus simply does not equate to competence in any useful capacity.

You guys are really getting hung up on comparing perfectly fine characters to perfect characters. I'm actually playing a feat-less baseline human 13th lvl champion with 14 Wis right now, and with insight, perception, my background, and role-playing, I'm more than pulling my weight out if combat. Can other characters nearly auto-succeed in scenarios where my fighter "merely" has good odds of success? Sure, but I'm still quite effective.

 

[Miladoon]

You guys are really getting hung up on comparing perfectly fine characters to perfect characters. I'm actually playing a feat-less baseline human 13th lvl champion with 14 Wis right now, and with insight, perception, my background, and role-playing, I'm more than pulling my weight out if combat. Can other characters nearly auto-succeed in scenarios where my fighter "merely" has good odds of success? Sure, but I'm still quite effective.

The only way to acceptably defeat a DC is to crush it by at least 15. Wait for ten years when the white room maths catch up. Your Champion is going to suck! Now or then, we will need for you to turn in your fun. Sorry.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You guys are really getting hung up on comparing perfectly fine characters to perfect characters. I'm actually playing a feat-less baseline human 13th lvl champion with 14 Wis right now, and with insight, perception, my background, and role-playing, I'm more than pulling my weight out if combat. Can other characters nearly auto-succeed in scenarios where my fighter "merely" has good odds of success? Sure, but I'm still quite effective.

Not to mention in addition to what you just said, but I find those types of arguments a bit disingenuous because they rarely actually happen in game play. It's all white room theory. How many rogues do you know that spend their expertise ability on something like medicine? It's always on a skill that naturally compliments a rogue function/role/ability anyway. And not only is that class the character's occupation anyway (like a person's background he's comparing the #s to), but PCs are considered exceptional. So a rogue doing rogue-like activities should be better than a PC who has a background as a street urchin. That's the whole point of what levels are for.

And as you infer, I strongly disagree with the statement that anyone not optimized is "but a fool in comparison." That's incredibly ridiculous hyperbole.

 

[Corpsetaker]

a fighter build can't 'afford' to invest in non-combat feats until it's maxxed its attack stat and acquired feats to support its style.

I don't quite understand this.

I know plenty of fighter characters who don't max their attack stats and still manage to attack and deal damage just fine, now they don't "do the max damage they could possibly do if they sunk everything in attack" but they still manage to kill things just fine.

So is a PC considered worthless if it isn't optimized?