D&D 5E Out of Combat Utility Analysis

[Dausuul]

Except against undead. Fighter loses there. You also seem to be undervaluing divine strike and sacred flame.

You're right, it's not less than half. As long as you're comparing mace-and-shield to sword-and-shield, rather than, say, greatclub to greatsword. And you make the comparison at level 8, after the cleric gets Divine Strike but before the fighter's third attack comes online. And you max out Strength instead of Wisdom.

You know what you get for all that? 56% of the fighter's damage output. Slightly more than half. I won't even bother with the calculation for sacred flame, it's strictly for laughs compared to a fighter with a longbow or javelin.

Certainly clerics win against undead, but that's one narrow category of foes.

And, again, it's worth note that this is without considering the cleric's entire pyramid of spellcasting (factor in a single combat spell per combat, say).

Are you maxing out Strength or Wisdom? You can't do both, not at level 8 anyway; it takes you till level 16 before you can get them both up to 20. If you're pumping Strength, your spells will suffer for it. If you're pumping Wisdom, your melee damage falls even further behind.

For example, say you go with a direct damage spell, one well-suited to comparison: Spiritual weapon cast in a 4th-level slot. With 16 Wisdom, that will just barely get you up to the sword-and-board fighter's damage output. Of course, you are at that point using one of your two fourth-level spells for the day. Then the fighter busts out Action Surge and blows past you again.

Plus the fighter has a whole lot more hit points than you. Hit dice aside, you're trying to pump Str and Wis on a cleric's advancement schedule; you're not going to get to touch Con for a looooong time, while the fighter can start pumping it from level 8. And the fighter gets that nice little self-heal, which refreshes every short rest and doesn't require giving up an attack action. And better initiative (Remarkable Athlete, and the fighter can spare more starting ability points for Dex--unless you wanted to give up even more Con?).

 

[Vaslov]

To the original OP I believe there is a flaw in your approach to this analysis.

Before I get to that, I have to admit I had a bit of a knee jerk reaction to it. My first though was thinking on how this couldn't be. It went along the lines of trying to address it using the same approach you suggested. It went something like

- A high level wizard cast knock. A high level fighter bashes a door down with his mighty weapon.
- A high level wizard cast teleport. A high level fighter jumps on his flying carpet/war dragon she beat into submission / into his mirror of mental prowess.
- A high level wizard nags about how "the pen is mightier than the sword". A high level warrior gives pithy Heinlein quotes like "“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”

You get the idea. It seemed off. It's the same old argument D&D players have had probably since the very first session. Just off your point. Then I started to think about how other game systems work with social combat mechanics and limited spell counts for casters. There are games that do it quite well.

That's when the flaw occurred to me. Your point system requires there to be a mechanic for a point. Sure you weight some mechanics heavier than others, but the fundamental assumption seems to be defined mechanic equals point which equals more player options/power. Only if fighter has more defined mechanical options could they possibly compete with the wizard in class power.

D&D by it's very history has always had more mechanics for casters. In fact, I would argue the rules purposely does by design. That is exactly some of the flavor the designers were going for. While it may seem counter-intuitive this is what some (not all) are looking for. We all know more spells will be added. And feats, classes and who knows what else some brilliant young designer out there has. I doubt it will ever be balanced in its count.

I am by no means trying to advocate that no other options should be there. The point is that a balance in the number of rules should not be the point. The point should be does the rules enable the game you are looking to play. Time will tell if 5e hits the mark or not. In the games I have played the rule count by class has not played a noticeable factor. YMMV.

In the mean time my fighter is going to go pick a fight with the party mage. Clearly I need to keep him in combat to make sure he doesn't get a chance to show off with all that fancy utility spell power. Damn glory hound. (in case it isn't clear this last comment is a joke).

Vaslov

 

[Bluenose]

Those are great ideas, but they don't really jibe with the idea of the Basic Fighter. The BF is aimed at the type of player who just wants to kill stuff.

If we don't have options like this in the Player's Handbook, I will join you in wondering what the designers were thinking, but for Basic D&D, what we have makes sense.

The player who just wants to kill stuff (I have one currently in my group) also doesn't want to play a character who is easily stopped from using their Kill Stuff skills by relatively minor magic. If there are low level spells that make it nearly impossible for the Fighter to 1: Save and 2: Contribute after failing, then the desire that's not being fulfilled is rather obvious.

Also, I feel obliged to point out that the Fighter certainly is very good at the Kill Stuff And Survive Fight skill. If there is no other class good enough at that then you're making the Fighter a compulsory member of the party - so much for not having a required party composition. If on the other hand there are other classes which are good enough - the Cleric or the Rogue, say - then you have to wonder whether the Fighter is superfluous especially since it's not much use at anything else.

 

[Capricia]

To the original OP I believe there is a flaw in your approach to this analysis.

Before I get to that, I have to admit I had a bit of a knee jerk reaction to it. My first though was thinking on how this couldn't be. It went along the lines of trying to address it using the same approach you suggested. It went something like

- A high level wizard cast knock. A high level fighter bashes a door down with his mighty weapon.
- A high level wizard cast teleport. A high level fighter jumps on his flying carpet/war dragon she beat into submission / into his mirror of mental prowess.
- A high level wizard nags about how "the pen is mightier than the sword". A high level warrior gives pithy Heinlein quotes like "“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”

Here's the thing. In the rules, the wizard can bash down any door the fighter can with a piece of wood. There aren't any rules for hardness or against trying again with an ability check. The only way to keep the wizard from having a flying carpet or ward dragon is gm fiat. And there's a distinct difference between telling the wizard that he isn't allowed to make strength checks or have a flying carpet and the fighter simply being unable to replicate these feats without the GM's intervention on their behalf.

You get the idea. It seemed off. It's the same old argument D&D players have had probably since the very first session. Just off your point. Then I started to think about how other game systems work with social combat mechanics and limited spell counts for casters. There are games that do it quite well.

That's when the flaw occurred to me. Your point system requires there to be a mechanic for a point. Sure you weight some mechanics heavier than others, but the fundamental assumption seems to be defined mechanic equals point which equals more player options/power. Only if fighter has more defined mechanical options could they possibly compete with the wizard in class power.

Well...yes. If the fighter doesn't have mechanical options that let it compete with the other classes...it doesn't have those mechanical options.

D&D by it's very history has always had more mechanics for casters. In fact, I would argue the rules purposely does by design. That is exactly some of the flavor the designers were going for. While it may seem counter-intuitive this is what some (not all) are looking for. We all know more spells will be added. And feats, classes and who knows what else some brilliant young designer out there has. I doubt it will ever be balanced in its count.

I am by no means trying to advocate that no other options should be there. The point is that a balance in the number of rules should not be the point. The point should be does the rules enable the game you are looking to play. Time will tell if 5e hits the mark or not. In the games I have played the rule count by class has not played a noticeable factor. YMMV.

In the mean time my fighter is going to go pick a fight with the party mage. Clearly I need to keep him in combat to make sure he doesn't get a chance to show off with all that fancy utility spell power. Damn glory hound. (in case it isn't clear this last comment is a joke).

My argument isn't really "5e isn't balanced! People shouldn't play it!" It's more "5e has some serious balance issues. The more aware of them we are of what ways it's imbalanced, the easier it is to mitigate those things".

Giving the Fighter more and more powerful magic items is actually a rule of thumb I'm going to use in an upcoming game myself, as well as some tweaking of class features to give the fighter a bit more of a niche. And with a player, I'll listen to what they want to do and work to accommodate that.

Going in willfully ignorant of the way things work is going to lead to frustration. If everyone at the table knows how it works and is super okay with the situation, that's fine too, even if the entire table is convinced that the fighters should just be a lowpower henchman. Whatever way you want to play, that's fine.

 

[Vaslov]

...

My argument isn't really "5e isn't balanced! People shouldn't play it!" It's more "5e has some serious balance issues. The more aware of them we are of what ways it's imbalanced, the easier it is to mitigate those things".....

I can agree awareness that the basic non-spell caster classes will always have less mechanical rule support is a good thing. As you suggest each group can address it in ways they see fit even it that means not at all. I still see it more as a feature of the game instead of a balance issue, but I think that is just a difference of perspective and would not add to the debate here.

Thanks for the discussion Capricia.

Vaslov

 

[Nagol]

To the original OP I believe there is a flaw in your approach to this analysis.

Before I get to that, I have to admit I had a bit of a knee jerk reaction to it. My first though was thinking on how this couldn't be. It went along the lines of trying to address it using the same approach you suggested. It went something like

- A high level wizard cast knock. A high level fighter bashes a door down with his mighty weapon.
- A high level wizard cast teleport. A high level fighter jumps on his flying carpet/war dragon she beat into submission / into his mirror of mental prowess.
- A high level wizard nags about how "the pen is mightier than the sword". A high level warrior gives pithy Heinlein quotes like "“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”

These (and henchmen/hirelings) are pretty much the balancing factors seen in 1e when they were allowed/used by DMs. They went away in 3e and weren't necessary in 4e. We'll see if they return in 5e.

You get the idea. It seemed off. It's the same old argument D&D players have had probably since the very first session. Just off your point. Then I started to think about how other game systems work with social combat mechanics and limited spell counts for casters. There are games that do it quite well.

That's when the flaw occurred to me. Your point system requires there to be a mechanic for a point. Sure you weight some mechanics heavier than others, but the fundamental assumption seems to be defined mechanic equals point which equals more player options/power. Only if fighter has more defined mechanical options could they possibly compete with the wizard in class power.

D&D by it's very history has always had more mechanics for casters. In fact, I would argue the rules purposely does by design. That is exactly some of the flavor the designers were going for. While it may seem counter-intuitive this is what some (not all) are looking for. We all know more spells will be added. And feats, classes and who knows what else some brilliant young designer out there has. I doubt it will ever be balanced in its count.

I am by no means trying to advocate that no other options should be there. The point is that a balance in the number of rules should not be the point. The point should be does the rules enable the game you are looking to play. Time will tell if 5e hits the mark or not. In the games I have played the rule count by class has not played a noticeable factor. YMMV.

In the mean time my fighter is going to go pick a fight with the party mage. Clearly I need to keep him in combat to make sure he doesn't get a chance to show off with all that fancy utility spell power. Damn glory hound. (in case it isn't clear this last comment is a joke).

Vaslov

Magic item capabilities are mechanics. Treasure placement systems and item creation are mechanics. Submission of dragons is a mechanic. Henchmen and hirelings are mechanics.

2e loosened the Wizard mechanics without any compensatory changes in the rest so non-magic-users started to drift behind.

3e changed a bunch of the compensatory mechanics such that they no longer worked in that fashion. Non-magic-using characters fell a lot behind.

4e changed character base design, allowed Ritual to be learned by all and then stripped a lot of the non-combat capability out of the game anyway (and before anyone jumps on me all I'm saying is non-surface movement, planar travel, environmental immunities, et al were heavily constrained).

5e looks like it is reverting somewhere between 1e-3e in terms of character mechanics. Information is not yet available regarding the supporting mechanics to say whether or not the non-magic using classes will receive compensatory treatment.

Yow know what's wrong with using those compensatory mechanics instead of direct class mechanics as a basis for parity? DMs who don't fully grok the purpose and rationale for the skewing that exists in the compensatory systems. This isn't a slam on DMs either -- this stuff is subtle; 2nd and 3rd order effects. Even if the compensatory systems are in place why they exist the way they do needs to be talked about.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Even if the compensatory systems are in place why they exist the way they do needs to be talked about.

Yep - the big problem is right there in Basic, with the paragraphs explaining how magic is awesome and necessary and you won't get anywhere without it!

I still don't know for the life of me why they didn't compensate with simple things like fat bonuses for non-casters - they actually nerfed Rogue bonuses! Remarkable Athlete is a joke.

 

[Dausuul]

I will actually agree that the rogue skill bonus is too low now. I liked the old +5 Expertise. The rogue is often one bad Stealth or Thieves' Tools check away from a world of hurt; they can't afford to be too much at the mercy of the d20. Reliable Talent solves the issue beautifully, but you don't get it till 11th level! Rogues got beefed-up Sneak Attack to compensate, but I'd rather have weaker SA and better skills. When I want to play a combat monkey, I make a fighter.

Regarding compensatory mechanisms: Basic is intended to be a fully functional game on its own. As such, it can't depend on optional mechanics from other books to fix balance issues. Based on my experience from the public playtest and my crunching of the numbers, I believe that it does in fact strike a reasonable balance, if you accept "combat-heavy, utility-light" as a valid form of balance.

However, if Basic does prove to have balance issues when the rubber meets the road, then those will need to be addressed within Basic, not by pointing at feats and henchmen and whatnot.

 

[Nagol]

I will actually agree that the rogue skill bonus is too low now. I liked the old +5 Expertise. The rogue is often one bad Stealth or Thieves' Tools check away from a world of hurt; they can't afford to be too much at the mercy of the d20. Reliable Talent solves the issue beautifully, but you don't get it till 11th level! Rogues got beefed-up Sneak Attack to compensate, but I'd rather have weaker SA and better skills. When I want to play a combat monkey, I make a fighter.

Regarding compensatory mechanisms: Basic is intended to be a fully functional game on its own. As such, it can't depend on optional mechanics from other books to fix balance issues. Based on my experience from the public playtest and my crunching of the numbers, I believe that it does in fact strike a reasonable balance, if you accept "combat-heavy, utility-light" as a valid form of balance.

However, if Basic does prove to have balance issues when the rubber meets the road, then those will need to be addressed within Basic, not by pointing at feats and henchmen and whatnot.

Basic looks sort-of balanced for a kick-in-the-door style campaign that features a good range of classes among the PCs. The spell list is highly constrained which helps a lot at making that balance work. Although information-gathering abilities are concentrated in the spell casters, environmental survival abilities, specialised travel, communication, and miscellaneous downtime abilities are pretty much non-existent. Further, no magic items are present to skew class ability and interaction.

We haven't seen the full Basic rules yet let alone the standard game. Monsters, magic items, and any further out-of-combat rules may alter the status-quo.

Since Basic is supposed to be an extract of the standard game, it is unlikely the classes we've seen will get substantial alteration to class abilities -- which means non-spell-casting classes are probably complete. Unfortunately, the spell-using classes will almost certainly grow in non-combat usefulness since the spell lists are pretty certain to grow.

Magic items and other rule systems can harm parity, remain neutral, or help it. Which way it goes depends on designer vision.

 

[Dausuul]

Basic looks sort-of balanced for a kick-in-the-door style campaign that features a good range of classes among the PCs. The spell list is highly constrained which helps a lot at making that balance work. Although information-gathering abilities are concentrated in the spell casters, environmental survival abilities, specialised travel, communication, and miscellaneous downtime abilities are pretty much non-existent. Further, no magic items are present to skew class ability and interaction.

We haven't seen the full Basic rules yet let alone the standard game. Monsters, magic items, and any further out-of-combat rules may alter the status-quo.

5E may change this, but in most older editions, magic items favor the noncaster. They allow access to abilities that are otherwise reserved for casters, and things like +1 weapons boost the stats of classes who rely heavily on "high numbers" (attack bonus, damage rolls, hit points, skill bonuses) to do their thing*.

As for monsters, that will indeed make a difference. Mostly it's a question of how monster saves compare to monster AC/hit points. Monsters with good saves and poor AC/hit points favor the fighter; monsters with good AC/hit points and bad saves favor the wizard, and to a lesser extent the cleric. We have a few data points, but not enough yet to judge the whole.

Since Basic is supposed to be an extract of the standard game, it is unlikely the classes we've seen will get substantial alteration to class abilities -- which means non-spell-casting classes are probably complete. Unfortunately, the spell-using classes will almost certainly grow in non-combat usefulness since the spell lists are pretty certain to grow.

Why do you expect to see more spells added to Basic, but not more class options?

[SIZE=-2]*If you think high-level 3E was a caster's paradise with magic items, try it without! The wizard loses a couple spells per day and has a few points knocked off her save DCs; annoying but tolerable. Without the full Christmas tree of magic weapons, armor, and stat boosters, the fighter deflates like a popped balloon. "Wizard's lackey and pack mule" becomes "wizard's Chia pet."[/SIZE]