What does "Good at X" mean?

[Lord Zack]

The fighter should not necessarily be any better at fighting than any other class. The fighter is a fighting man, a person whose primary occupation is fighting, a warrior, a professional soldier, man-at-arms, etc. Thus, while the primary skill of the fighter is fighting, there's no reason for them to be the best at combat. Furthermore, they should have other skills than just fighting. Think of the skills a medieval knight would have. The fighter should have those skills, amongst others that other fighter archetypes would have.

 

[Andor]

The fighter should not necessarily be any better at fighting than any other class. The fighter is a fighting man, a person whose primary occupation is fighting, a warrior, a professional soldier, man-at-arms, etc. Thus, while the primary skill of the fighter is fighting, there's no reason for them to be the best at combat. Furthermore, they should have other skills than just fighting. Think of the skills a medieval knight would have. The fighter should have those skills, amongst others that other fighter archetypes would have.

I have to confess, I have no idea what you're driving at here. You seem to be saying that someone who is a trained and experience professional with hundreds of hours of drill and practice has no reason to expect better performance at his chosen field than a rank novice would.

And if that is what you are saying, then I can only say "Fine. As long as my Fighter is then just as good at throwing fireballs as the wizard. Since training and practice are not factors."

In reality a trained and experienced fighter is going to be stronger, faster, with better reflexes, better situational awareness. He is going to not be paralyzed by fear, not frozen by uncertainty. He is going to see his opponents and be able to make quick judgements about their capability. And yes, he is going to be tougher. He is going to know a cut on the arm is painfull but not deadly, and he is going to not panic, or be distracted by his pain. I once heard a friend of mine (IRL, not game) say "The first time I got shot I knew I was dying. By the 7th time it just made me mad." Sounds kinda like HP to me.

1" of steel in your throat will kill you, regardless of who swung it. But a Roman Legionaire is a lot more likely to put that steel in your throat in a single swift and certain stroke than a panicked accountant. And he'll be blocking your shot and sizing up the next opponent while doing it.

 

[Lord Zack]

I have to confess, I have no idea what you're driving at here. You seem to be saying that someone who is a trained and experience professional with hundreds of hours of drill and practice has no reason to expect better performance at his chosen field than a rank novice would.

And if that is what you are saying, then I can only say "Fine. As long as my Fighter is then just as good at throwing fireballs as the wizard. Since training and practice are not factors."

In reality a trained and experienced fighter is going to be stronger, faster, with better reflexes, better situational awareness. He is going to not be paralyzed by fear, not frozen by uncertainty. He is going to see his opponents and be able to make quick judgements about their capability. And yes, he is going to be tougher. He is going to know a cut on the arm is painfull but not deadly, and he is going to not panic, or be distracted by his pain. I once heard a friend of mine (IRL, not game) say "The first time I got shot I knew I was dying. By the 7th time it just made me mad." Sounds kinda like HP to me.

1" of steel in your throat will kill you, regardless of who swung it. But a Roman Legionaire is a lot more likely to put that steel in your throat in a single swift and certain stroke than a panicked accountant. And he'll be blocking your shot and sizing up the next opponent while doing it.

That's not what I'm saying. For one thing, combat means many things. A wizard throwing a fireball is a form of combat. For another thing, there are other classes that should in fact, have just as much training and practice as the fighter, the ranger and paladin being the most noteworthy, maybe the warlord, except I think that the warlord should really be just a fighter build. For another, I said "not necessarily", meaning the fighter should, in fact, be better than some other classes at combat.

 

[Andor]

That's not what I'm saying. For one thing, combat means many things. A wizard throwing a fireball is a form of combat. For another thing, there are other classes that should in fact, have just as much training and practice as the fighter, the ranger and paladin being the most noteworthy, maybe the warlord, except I think that the warlord should really be just a fighter build. For another, I said "not necessarily", meaning the fighter should, in fact, be better than some other classes at combat.

Fair enough.

I do disagree a bit though. A wizard has (or should have) abilities that a magic-less fighter simply cannot match. Scrying, flight, charm person, etc. He should pay for this by being less round-to-round effective in combat than the fighter is.

It sounds like this is the way 5e is headed. Yes the wizard gets to throw a vancian trump card a couple of times a day with a fireball, but mostly he's using at-will feat spells that should be less painfull than a foot of steel to the face.

Likewise the Paladin is a holy warrior. He has divine grace and holy powers. This should make him more effective than a fighter in specific circumstance like fighting demons or the undead. But against a bandit he should be at least a small notch behind the fighter if only becuase of all that time he spend kneeling in the chapel rather than training in the sallé.

Ranger, to me, is looking more like a kit or whatever they're calling it in 5e than a distinct base class.

Yeah, Aragorn had spells. Aragorn was also 80 years old. He had multiclassed.

 

[Tallifer]

This is a strange thread in my opinion. Every single edition measures the power and effectiveness for different classes differently.

A wizard is effective if he solves seemingly insurmountable problems or ties up the enemy with various conditions. In this case versatility for a variety of situations and properties for effectiveness are important.

A cleric is effective if he heals and enhances the party for better survival. In this case I guess properties are important, meaning enough useful effects but still very specialized.

A fighter is effective if he protects the squishier party members. A few all important properties like marking/blocking, opportunity attacks, grappling et cetera and good armour.

A thief is effective if he can spy everywhere and overcome the traps and obstacles. In this case versatility is important: who knows what the dungeon will throw at you. Every skill even obscure lore for puzzling puzzle-traps Indian Jones style.

And some wizards, fighters or others are effective if they can slaughter things quickly. Numbers, numbers and more numbers.

Classes which cannot do any of these effectively ought to stay in the castle and be consulted or hired when the obscure occasion arises. Classes which can do two of these things decently can be good for a small party in need or for a party large enough to have hangers-on.