D&D 5E PvP Class Comparisons

[Argyle King]

Tonight was the final session of the encounter's season for the game store I've been playing D&D 5th Edition at. During the final battle, one of the players decided to turn on the party. While the party did prevail, it did highlight some rather drastic differences in ability and damage output between a few of the classes. I'm not ready to make a specific declaration about class inequality in a Player vs Player battle because I have not seen it happen often. However, it is something that has been on my mind ever since tonight's session ended.

So, what do you think?

Have you had situations in which the PCs have come into conflict with each other? If so, did one particular class seem to have an edge over others?

General thoughts on the subject of PvP in 5th Edition?

 

[MerricB]

If you're having characters attack other characters, you're doing it wrong.

D&D is based around balance with the team against the adventure. The contribution of each character differs in its nature, but - if things go well - every player should feel their character contributed to the eventual success of the party. One of the effects of this is that characters have situational effectiveness. The cleric is better against undead. The wizard is better against goblins. The fighter is better against Golems. The thief works best from the shadows. Teamwork makes some characters work even better.

With all that complexity of character effectiveness, balancing for "simple" PvP actually detracts from the game. It restricts what you can do with class design. It restricts what you can do with the game as a whole.

 

[Argyle King]

That may be, but it doesn't change that it's how events played out. To be fair, I can't even say that the player in question was "doing it wrong" because it made perfect sense that what he wanted out of the resolution of the adventure was at odds with what the rest of the party wanted.

All I can really say is what I said in my OP; the way things turned out really highlighted how much better (or worse) some classes are when pitted against each other. It was a little surprising because I expected things to be closer considering the "bounded accuracy" idea, and the idea of allowing more styles of play within D&D 5th Edition. While I realize that PvP isn't exactly common in D&D, betrayal and party conflict are not uncommon in fiction. I'd even dare to say that the previous season's adventure (Murder In Balder's Gate) was set up in such a way that party conflict and conflicting goals were a very real possibility.

 

[Evenglare]

I've been in numerous campaigns where a player or players turn on the party. Why, again, is our way of playing make belief magic elves wrong if everyone is having fun?
And yes, everyone was having a blast.

 

[Stormonu]

MerricB has a strong point; D&D is built around party synergy and tends to pretend that PvP doesn't exist. Classes are deliberately designed so they can't "do it all" themselves. Thus, depending on the situation, one or more classes can really shine or suck in a PvP environment.

Fighters can take all comers at the drop of a hat. Rogues can excel if they get the drop on an unsuspecting PC. Clerics can drag a brawl out for ages with healing, or buff/debuff one side or the other - and fight pretty decently. Give wizards some time to prepare for betrayal and they can bring the hurt in ways no other class can. And bards ... well, they can sing about the betrayal after the whole thing is over.

From what I've seen occur in the games I've been over the years, PvP tends to be very rocket tag. The best prepared who goes off first decimates his opponent so badly they don't have a proper chance to retaliate. I can't remember any such fights even being a close match-up.

 

[Argyle King]

MerricB has a strong point; D&D is built around party synergy and tends to pretend that PvP doesn't exist. Classes are deliberately designed so they can't "do it all" themselves. Thus, depending on the situation, one or more classes can really shine or suck in a PvP environment.

Fighters can take all comers at the drop of a hat. Rogues can excel if they get the drop on an unsuspecting PC. Clerics can drag a brawl out for ages with healing, or buff/debuff one side or the other - and fight pretty decently. Give wizards some time to prepare for betrayal and they can bring the hurt in ways no other class can. And bards ... well, they can sing about the betrayal after the whole thing is over.

From what I've seen occur in the games I've been over the years, PvP tends to be very rocket tag. The best prepared who goes off first decimates his opponent so badly they don't have a proper chance to retaliate. I can't remember any such fights even being a close match-up.

I don't ignore the idea of how D&D is designed. However, it does seem strange to design the current edition that way and then offer up adventures which have the real possibility of different party members wanting to resolve things differently. In the case of this season, I think it was just an unusual string of coincidences which spiraled into what happened. However, last season with Murder At Balder's Gate had a lot of different factions, motivations, and moving pieces; having PCs at odds with each other was a very real possibility.

I think your rocket tag description fits what I've seen of 5th Edition very well in general; I just hadn't realized how much of a gap there was between some of the classes until tonight. I did try to consider the way in which D&D tends to be designed, but it still surprised me. It surprised me because I had expected things to be closer in 5th in light of what some of the design goals and ideals are; bounded accuracy in particular. It also surprised me because, up to this point, it had seemed that a wider group of playstyles was encouraged via the adventures I had played through; with some of those styles possibly containing conflict.

I'm not exactly saying poor PvP performance is bad per se; if that's against the design of the game, then so be it. I was simply very surprised at how large the gap was and how visible it was in such a situation.

 

[GX.Sigma]

What actually happened?

 

[Lokiare]

What actually happened?

{sarcasm}The Wizard had to put down the mad Fighter{/sarcasm}

 

[Herschel]

. However, last season with Murder At Balder's Gate had a lot of different factions, motivations, and moving pieces; having PCs at odds with each other was a very real possibility.

Because mature adults don't just try to kill people they disagree with. Adventurers get where they get because of the party working together (and should realize this) in a well-designed system. That means negotiating, manipulation, heck ,even trickery but the short-term gain of killing party members is not worth it in a good system because the PC needs those other guys for the next and future adventures.

 

[Sadras]

Because mature adults don't just try to kill people they disagree with. Adventurers get where they get because of the party working together (and should realize this) in a well-designed system. That means negotiating, manipulation, heck ,even trickery but the short-term gain of killing party members is not worth it in a good system because the PC needs those other guys for the next and future adventures.

So essentially in a good system PCs mustn't kill each other because they need each other in the next and future adventures? Really?