D&D 5E PvP Class Comparisons

[Gadget]

Basically, this is how the final encounter went...

The party got to the encounter with the Ice Witch. One of the barbarians in the party felt that some of the people from the towns should be made to suffer and didn't particularly feel the Witch's plan should be stopped. He cut a deal to join her side.

I don't know exact numbers of his character, but I can say he was a mix of Barbarian and Fighter, and focused on two-weapon fighting. His style was basically to throw out as many attacks as he could and then add the rage bonus to all of them.

On the 'good' side; trying to stop the Witch, was my character (halfing rogue/monk mentioned in other threads,) a barbarian, a wizard, a fighter, and a cleric. The wizard -not surprisingly- went down very quickly. What was more surprising was that the regular barbarian also went down rather easily when engaged in a toe-to-toe fight with the traitor. While the regular barbarian was dealing far more damage when he hit, he was getting less attacks. The traitor, between having advantage via rage and a multitude of attacks from TWF had multiple rolls with which to fish for criticals; he also easily made up for his single attacks doing less damage by being able to stack his rage damage bonus on all of the attacks. After dropping both the wizard and the barbarian, the traitor then moved onto my character. The only thing which saved me was that I had a much higher AC (17) than some of the other party members in spite of the fact that I was not wearing armor due to having a high dex and a respectable wis. Really though, even with that, it was just poor rolling on the part of the traitor. I could, to some extend, match the amount of attacks he was putting out, but his damage was higher, and he was still raging and such got advantage on his attacks. In the end, I won out, but just barely, and I contribute it more to his poor rolling toward the end of the session more than anything else.

Had his rolling been marginally better, he would have very likely dropped my character. Then, at that was left was a cleric who was ill suited for melee, and the fighter who had already been badly wounded earlier in the fight. One PC would have very likely killed the rest of the party. While I understand that PvP is not a design consideration for D&D, something about that scenario still seems wrong to me. A lot of things about that scenario still seem wrong to me, and I don't believe it all boils down to "well, that guy wasn't playing D&D right."

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure I would chalk this up to "Well, when you try to do PvP, that's what you get". It does seem that there is a real issue with multiple attacks here, combined with rage. I seem to remember WOTC initially undervaluing multiple attacks in the previous edition of the game as well (a certain Ranger at-will comes to mind). Am I remembering right when say that there was a discussion a while back that spoke of the broken aspects of a ftr/barb multi-class in the last play test packet?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

PvP balance should work just as well at he example below:

The PCs have to go to war with the rival kingdom, that rival kingdom hires there own adventurers... if I have a set of 5 PCs and then make up 7 NPC rivals, what happens when they clash? are some classes way better...if so there is a problem.

what if I have a monster with a dominate or charm power, is the monster a much bigger threat if he uses that power on Class A or B?

 

[Thyrwyn]

PvP balance should work just as well at he example below:

The PCs have to go to war with the rival kingdom, that rival kingdom hires there own adventurers... if I have a set of 5 PCs and then make up 7 NPC rivals, what happens when they clash? are some classes way better...if so there is a problem.

what if I have a monster with a dominate or charm power, is the monster a much bigger threat if he uses that power on Class A or B?

Good insights and reasonable questions. I don't think that anything that we have seen from D&DNext suggests that there is a clear "this class is the best/most dangerous". Note that smaller parties are always more vulnerable to charm/dominate than larger ones.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm sure 5e classes are not balanced against each other for PvP. Then again, NO EDITION OF THE GAME HAS EVER BALANCED CLASSES FOR PVP.

In oD&D level 1 wizards didn't even have spells that did damage. How well do you think one would have fared against the party's fighter? Basically, the game isn't designed for PvP and the classes definitely aren't balanced for it. They never have been and I don't see why they should be. You want PvP, go play Magic.

Again, I've acknowledge the bold part.

I even somewhat acknowledge the idea of playing a game "wrong." Some systems are designed with certain things in mind. Still...

While, I understand the idea of teamwork in D&D, and I also understand that every option is not perfectly equal. I simply found how much difference there was to be more of a variation that I feel should be in the game; especially in an edition which is claiming to be more "bounded."

Part of the problem, I admit, is that I thought something very different was meant by "Bounded Accuracy" than what WoTC means when they use the term. I had originally thought that would mean much flatter math; something more akin to what people do when they play "E6" games using the 3.5 rules, or perhaps a design which was designed to encourage breadth of play more so than D&D had in the two editions I was most familiar with (3rd and 4th.) However, I have learned I was wrong in thinking that; what "Bounded Accuracy" seems to mean is simply that there are caps being put on how far certain numbers of the game can advance, but that the game will otherwise advance the same way it has previously -for good or for ill. I've gotten over that though.

The other part of the problem I see is actually the same problem I often had with 4th Edition. Well, maybe not exactly the same, but similar enough that I think it falls into the same category. I was perfectly fine with 4E PCs and 4E monsters being built using different rules. In fact, I feel that design decision turned out pretty well. Where I found fault with that was the disparity between how 4E PCs interacted with the world versus how 4E NPCs and monsters interacted with the 4E world. I was fine with the two parts of the game being built differently; it bothered me that the two parts of the game interacted with the game world math (the 'physics engine' if you will) in vastly different ways. So, how does that relate to what is bothering me about 5th now?

I see a similar problem because I still see a disparity between how the two aspects of the game (PC vs non-PC) interact with the math which the game world is built upon. The disparity is better, but it's still there and noticeable in many circumstances. The party pretty easily crushed the Ice Witch this season; however, we struggled against one PC. Surely, there is a way to have the different parts of the game work in a more coherent manner when measured against the math which the game world is built upon. I believe there is, and I believe finding that can also allow for different classes to be built differently, but still find a way to be measured more equally against each other. I believe that because some of the other rpgs I play don't have classes at all, yet it still somehow manages to be possible in them -even with the designers needing to consider such a wide range of possibilities. With classes, and D&D style level progression, the advancement and expected numbers output of PCs is reduced to a handful of values; a more limited number of possibilities. Yet, I'm supposed to believe that it's impossible to produce what I feel would be a more coherent relationship between the parts of the D&D game? I'm not asking for perfection; I don't expect perfection, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to feel that one PC being able to nearly TPK the rest of the party on a whim is a problem with the game.

Now, that's only looking at it from my point of view. Many others who have commented have brought up other considerations which I wasn't even thinking of when I made my OP. I too thought of other things with later posts (including this one.)

-Mind Control abilities... How does this disparity play into judging appropriate encounters? As a DM, do I need to worry about the barbarian easily killing the rest of the party if he's dominated for a round or two? If I instead dominate a member of the a different class, does my monster's tactic become effectively worthless?

-Adding class abilities to a monster... Does adding a level of ______ class turn this encounter into a death sentence for some of the PCs? In contrast, is adding a level of _______ pointless?

-Can people in the game world notice the disparities? "Why would I spend X weeks learning how to be class Y when I could instead take the same amount of time to learn this other stuff which is way more effective?"


The biggest argument I keep saying against what I've posted has been "well, that's just how D&D is." Oddly, that sounds an awful lot like the argument I see in other threads for why mundane classes should play the part of the wizard's sidekick at higher levels. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I was of the impression that a new edition was supposed to improve the game. I get the idea behind keeping older ideas and trying to draw in the crowd from previous editions, but at what point does the new design begin to improve upon the game if "well, that's just how it always is" is a valid excuse for keeping what I view as...

....actually, nevermind. There are a lot of other things I was going to type, but I guess maybe I am just playing the game wrong and expecting the wrong things. It feel like no matter what I post when I say have an issue with 5th edition; no matter what it is, the answer is that I'm playing the game wrong. If that's always the answer, then I suppose I must be doing it wrong. 5th Edition is greatest rpg in the universe; if any player at any table is having a problem, they must be playing the game wrong. I found what I thought was a problem, but, in reality, I was simply playing the game wrong. I apologize.

 

[Cadence]

I'm not asking for perfection; I don't expect perfection, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to feel that one PC being able to nearly TPK the rest of the party on a whim is a problem with the game.
<snip>
-Mind Control abilities... How does this disparity play into judging appropriate encounters? As a DM, do I need to worry about the barbarian easily killing the rest of the party if he's dominated for a round or two? If I instead dominate a member of the a different class, does my monster's tactic become effectively worthless?

-Adding class abilities to a monster... Does adding a level of ______ class turn this encounter into a death sentence for some of the PCs? In contrast, is adding a level of _______ pointless?

-Can people in the game world notice the disparities? "Why would I spend X weeks learning how to be class Y when I could instead take the same amount of time to learn this other stuff which is way more effective?"

I initially agreed with the thought that the game shouldn't be designed to account for PvP conflict and of course the players should fill different roles... but these sound like some good points that I hadn't really considered on their own like this. Thanks for bringing them up.

 

[MerricB]

I initially agreed with the thought that the game shouldn't be designed to account for PvP conflict and of course the players should fill different roles... but these sound like some good points that I hadn't really considered on their own like this. Thanks for bringing them up.

My particular thought here is that I'm fine with some targets being better than others for Dominate, just as in 3E, it's better to hit the Wizard with Fort saves and the Fighter with Will saves.

I think if a PC could wipe out the rest of the party with one attack, it probably is an underlying problem with PC effectiveness than with PvP in general.

(To be completely honest, I'm fine with PvP on occasion, but not with the game being balanced around it).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

To me the PvP aspect discussed in this thread is less troublesome. Instead, I am more worried about what happens when I use a group of fellow adventurers as violent opposition to the PCs. Doing so successfully shouldn't require a great amount of care and knowledge of the potential class weaknesses. This is more of a potential trouble than monsters acquiring class levels or templates, as it is expected that throwing a template on a monster requires a bit of skill because class features and monster powers can synergize.

I agree with this sentiment. Would an evil party of five barbarian/fighters be more challenging than an equal-level party of five PCs of varying classes, against the good party?

I disagree that damage is the only or even biggest factor. A party of five wizards (or three fighter/barbarians and two wizards) might be nastier. "Sleep. Sleep. CdG. CdG. CdG!"

 

[GX.Sigma]

I disagree that damage is the only or even biggest factor. A party of five wizards (or three fighter/barbarians and two wizards) might be nastier. "Sleep. Sleep. CdG. CdG. CdG!"

It's actually not that easy to land a sleep spell on a PC group. I know because I had an NPC mage repeatedly cast sleep at a higher level than the PCs could even cast, and couldn't roll high enough to sleep the Fighter.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It's actually not that easy to land a sleep spell on a PC group. I know because I had an NPC mage repeatedly cast sleep at a higher level than the PCs could even cast, and couldn't roll high enough to sleep the Fighter.

We are talking 5e here right? Because I'm a little confused about what the mage is rolling. Isn't it up to the fighter to just make a save? And was the fighter the only one to make the save?

 

[GX.Sigma]

We are talking 5e here right? Because I'm a little confused about what the mage is rolling. Isn't it up to the fighter to just make a save? And was the fighter the only one to make the save?

5e. The mage rolls to see how many HP of creatures fall asleep (no save).