DemonSlayer
Explorer
I think the druid is very strong to start with, and then needs some help at later levels. The warlock seems like it could use some love - at least some variation from EB.
D&D 5E [Poll] Are any of the base classes too weak?
- Thread starter Merudo
- Start date
That I completely agree with.
Anytime there has been a thread about what the Ranger "is," you get answers that are all over the place. It's a class that many people feel very strongly about ...
...it's just that they have divergent views on those strongly held opinions!
And those divergent views is why certain classes too this poll.
Different views mean vastly different foci and different ideas of what the measure of power is. One person focusing on Offensive Ability and another on Spell Versatility would have different opinions of the strength of the ranger or sorcerer for example.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Level 5 Half Orc Barbarian with 18 str 16 con and 14 dex
=15+7*4+3*4 =
55 hp
17 ac
3x rages per day
Assuming an enemy has +6 attack then the barbarians effective hp =
=55*2*2 = 220 Effective hp
= 4x healing effectiveness
Potential 5d12+15 hit dice of self healing in short rests
= 47.5 healing * healing effectiveness = +190 hp per day
= 410 effective hp per day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A level 5 fighter same stats using sword, shield and dueling style
=13+6*4+3*4 = 49 hp
20 AC
2nd wind 3x per day = 31.5 healing per day
140 Effective hp + 90 self healing = 230 effective hp
= 2.857 Healing effectiveness
Potential 5d10+15 hit dice of self healing in short rests
= 42.5 healing * healing effectiveness = +120 hp per day
= 350 effective hp per day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis,
Against weapon attacks the fighter can be competitive. However, the tank barbarian is strong against non-attack damage. That fighters are weak to that damage while barbarians typically aren't is a huge factor in making barbarians be overall better tanks than fighters.
I'm not sure how you are getting that fighters make better tanks...
Zardnaar
Legend
Higher AC less damage taken.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
I factored that in...
Stoutstien
lunk
That's the problem with viewing average damage as a basis of comparison for defense. Combat in DND isn't linear so in order to see it in action you actually have to run blow by blow (a lot of them if you want a overall picture).
- one flaw in your comparison is you didn't factor in reckless attack. doesn't seem like much but with that +6 you are using that EHP gets cut in 1/3.
- next problem is looking at the total EHP the classes have in a day. its nice to know but doesn't help in terms of actual ability to survive an individual encounter. so a better question is: how many rounds can each class endure and overcome X? we can use your example PCs from above and attack them with 6 bandits. if each player did nothing the barbarian would last about 7.3 rounds and the fighter would last about 8 assuming the barb is raging and the fighter doesn't use second wind. now lets fight back the fighter can make 2 attacks dealing enough damage each hit to reduce them to dead or near dead with a %80 chance to hit each one. reducing incoming damage enough each turn to end the encounter in 3 rounds taking 14 damage second wind and that's down to 4. the barb has the same chance to hit and damage done unless they RA which would end the encounter sooner but would increase damage taken. the best move would be to attack normally until 2 targets left to hit. the barb could end the fight, on average, in 4 rounds taken 12 damage.
for fun AnyDice to figure the barb real damage taken just divide by 2. the both would kill the ogre in 4 rounds
Last edited:
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
You really don't need to look round by round - at least not past the early levels. As level goes up, hp gets higher and damage per turn scales more and more by number of attacks as opposed to damage per attack. These factors actually mean that effective hp makes a statistically accurate comparison tool.
Also, the highest damage attacks you are typically going to take are from saving throw abilities - the very kind of damage sources the barbarian is much better defending against than the fighter.
No flaw. I don't have to ever use reckless attack - which means nothing is actually wrong with the comparison.
However, having an ability to toggle between high defense and high offense mode is especially important for party play. If enemies ignore me because my defense is much higher than my allies then such toggles abilities can incentivize enemies to start attacking me instead of my allies. The fact that a typical fighter doesn't have such a toggle ability is the bigger issue.
You do realize I did that to benefit the fighter. 2nd wind is a short rest ability. If we are just looking at a single encounter then a fighter only gets 1 use.
In that case your fighter at level 5 has 170 effective hp. The barbarian still has the previous computed value of 220 hp.
I get barbarian at 11.6 rounds and fighter at 9.1 rounds. I'm really starting to question your math.
Amazing. The fighter will only have a 50% chance to kill a bandit in 1 attack (He's using a longsword and a shield with the duelist fighting style). The barbarian will have a greatsword (remember no shield). The barbarian will have a 72.2% chance of killing a bandit in 1 attack.
But more importantly, why are we even comparing offense of 1 PC vs X NPCs? If we want to go down that path we have to look at Y PCs vs X NPCs which makes slight differences in the fighter and barbarians individual damages basically negligible.
But most importantly, this debate started out around who was more defensive. The offensive elements don't matter at all for this discussion. So bringing them in is just an attempt to muddy the waters. I've made no statement about a character with more offense being able to live through more in a 1 PC vs X NPC scenario. So why is this even getting brought up?
I mean if you are considering anything above +3 to be abnormally high then maybe....
1. You made no effort to compare the bear totem because you didn't include any elemental damages. Unless your conceding that the bear totem is better against anything that isn't using attack based damage?
2. Right, I'm very impressed with the battlemaster due to parry. That can knock down a lot of daily damage. In a single fight it's enough to put the fighter back on par with the barbarian. Unless you are facing non-attack damage.
3. EK is solid at defense with shield spell and absorb elements. Depends a little on how lenient the DM is with spellcasting and having both hands full. There's the warcaster feat to offset those concerns I suppose but that's a pretty big buy in. Still solid, and gets much better once you get the extra spell slots for having level 3 spells.
Frozenstep
Explorer
One thing I want to throw into the fighter vs barb argument on durability...
What I really find puts PC's down are the crits, something armor class provides no protection against. Raw hp and resistances do. And you might think crits are rare and not worth considering, but when they happen and the monster is one that gets most of their damage from dice rather then static mods, you feel it.
Not to mention sometimes you're the one being attacked at advantage. In those cases, reckless attack isn't a loss, and crits are more likely.
What I really find puts PC's down are the crits, something armor class provides no protection against. Raw hp and resistances do. And you might think crits are rare and not worth considering, but when they happen and the monster is one that gets most of their damage from dice rather then static mods, you feel it.
Not to mention sometimes you're the one being attacked at advantage. In those cases, reckless attack isn't a loss, and crits are more likely.
Similar Threads
- Poll
