D&D (2024) Which class is the most durable (level 1)?

[FrogReaver]

For 2024, Assuming you spend your resources on durability, which class do you think is the most durable at level 1 while still maintaining decent offensive output (no dodging in the corner type stuff).

I’m thinking.
1. Fighter
2. Barbarian
3. Paladin
4. Cleric

What do you all think?

 

[Willie the Duck]

It's a tough call, but I think I would say fighter.

Two 1d10+1 healing surges per short rest plus theoretical 19 AC (chain, shield, defensive fighting style) can be massive. With a 14 Con and two short rests, that can get us 12+(1d10+2) (regular HD spending during rests) + 4x(1d10+1) = 45.5 hp.

Paladin with 13+ str, 14 Con, and 16 Cha edges them out by a point with 46.5, but no fighting style until level 2 keeps their potential AC down a point. That, plus it's significantly more likely that you won't have both a 16 Cha and a 14 Con, since you probably want to get that Str up at 16-17, and it's a lot easier to get that to work with at least one of those other two a bit lower.

A raging barbarian can double their hp, which are 14+(1d12+2) =22.5 (so doubles to 45 even), so almost the same, but their AC is very likely to be lower (whether using unarmored defense or armor) and any hit before they rage eats into it.

Cleric that heals themself gets close, but not there, plus similar to paladin has a harder time getting a 14 con and a decent wisdom along with the Str necessary for optimal level 1 AC (I am treating wearing armor without the requisite strength as violating 'decent offensive output,' as never getting to the fight is generally a way not to contribute to it).

 

[FrogReaver]

It's a tough call, but I think I would say fighter.

Two 1d10+1 healing surges per short rest plus theoretical 19 AC (chain, shield, defensive fighting style) can be massive. With a 14 Con and two short rests, that can get us 12+(1d10+2) (regular HD spending during rests) + 4x(1d10+1) = 45.5 hp.

Paladin with 13+ str, 14 Con, and 16 Cha edges them out by a point with 46.5, but no fighting style until level 2 keeps their potential AC down a point. That, plus it's significantly more likely that you won't have both a 16 Cha and a 14 Con, since you probably want to get that Str up at 16-17, and it's a lot easier to get that to work with at least one of those other two a bit lower.

A raging barbarian can double their hp, which are 14+(1d12+2) =22.5 (so doubles to 45 even), so almost the same, but their AC is very likely to be lower (whether using unarmored defense or armor) and any hit before they rage eats into it.

Cleric that heals themself gets close, but not there, plus similar to paladin has a harder time getting a 14 con and a decent wisdom along with the Str necessary for optimal level 1 AC (I am treating wearing armor without the requisite strength as violating 'decent offensive output,' as never getting to the fight is generally a way not to contribute to it).

Is 2 short rests a good assumption for level 1?

 

[Willie the Duck]

Is 2 short rests a good assumption for level 1?

Honestly not sure. I'm not sure that people play level 1 (which at 300 xp is potentially one session) the same way.

Perhaps the best answer I can give is: any type of situation where overall durability is the primary goal is likely to have at least one short rest (and the difference between one and two is only 6.5 hp for the fighter).

It's probably pretty important to note that, at level 1, overall durability is going to only be one small factor. Immediate durability -- how much damage can I take before my next turn -- is going to be really important as well. if you are at 1 hp and your opponent can hit for up to 15 hp, it might not matter if you can get more hit points during or after a short rest, you want to halve the damage you take nownownow. Between that and the 'decent offensive output' (meaning taking your main action to cast a healing spell is pretty limiting, a bonus action slightly less so, and just halving the damage taken after an initial bonus action the least) which class actually wins out is going to be incredibly situation-dependent.

Which is probably a good thing, as you want there to be both meaningful differences and reasons to take any of the given choices. It just makes the OP question a lot harder to answer.

 

[ECMO3]

For 2024, Assuming you spend your resources on durability, which class do you think is the most durable at level 1 while still maintaining decent offensive output (no dodging in the corner type stuff).

I’m thinking.
1. Fighter
2. Barbarian
3. Paladin
4. Cleric

What do you all think?

Warlock, because of Armor of Agathys and short rest slot recharge.

If you are building for durability at 1st level, I think a Dwarf Warlock with AOA and magic initiate Shield spell is probably the most durable while still maintaining decent damage output.

 

[FrogReaver]

Warlock, because of Armor of Agathys and short rest slot recharge.

If you are building for durability at 1st level, I think a Dwarf Warlock with AOA and magic initiate Shield spell is probably the most durable while still maintaining decent damage output.

I don’t see that one. Much less AC than a Fighter, less hp, and less average hp/temp hp generation per short rests.

 

[Ashrym]

For starting equipment the fighter is offered chainmail with no shield, studded leather with no shield, or 155gp to buy armor which is going to likely be chain mail and shield based on the premise. +1 AC for fighting style and still does d8+3 damage with a longsword plus sap via weapon mastery. Plus Second Wind.

Barbarians can rage for the damage reduction and apply weapon mastery but cannot replenish healing.

Clerics can have nearly the same AC but lack weapon mastery effects and need to invest in STR i bit while relying on giving up other spells for healing to increase their survivability.

Paladins match up with the fighters pretty well. They can wear the same armor and take the same weapon mastery but lack a point of AC from the fighting style at 1st level. They also invest in CHA so typically have slightly less CON unless they give up a point on the attack stat. 2 Cure Wounds (at 16 CHA) is 24hp + 5hp from LoH where 2 second winds would be 13 hp of healing plus 2 more assuming 2 short rests becomes 26 hp and better with 3 short rests or more. Assuming the paladin uses those spell slots for healing instead of something else.

I voted fighter.

The warlock would have a 15 AC maybe and can use Blade Ward instead of Hex for concentration, no weapon mastery, and 5thp from Armor of Agathys < 6.5 hp from second wind. Casting Shield for 1 round for free once doesn't compensate for the difference. Additional castings of shield means not casting armor of agathys but worth it.

I don't think the warlock idea is that bad for survivability at 1st level. I don't see them as matching up, however.

 

[Zardnaar]

Fighter I think. I wouldn't bother with +1 AC style.

 

[ECMO3]

I don’t see that one. Much less AC than a Fighter, less hp, and less average hp/temp hp generation per short rests.

All of it is highly situational, and it depends on a bunch of adventure specifics as well as how you define durability and how you define decent damage input. That said the numbers generally in my opinion are not what drives this as much as the mechanics and situational factors. Here are a few reasons I said what I did.


1. Fighter has less total hit points to start the day (i.e hps vs hps+temp hit points) and in terms of not going to 0 having those hit points on the front is better than having them available on a bonus action.

2. Second Wind can't give more than the maximum hit points and therefore can't be used as efficiently as Armor of Agathys. The average rolled on the dice for second Wind is 6.5 hit points vs 5 for Armor of Agathys. But the average hit points given for second Wind is lower than 6.5. This is because for the average (mean) to be 6.5, the maximum (11) needs to be possible. A Fighter with say a 16 constitution is going to have 13 hit points. So the average (mean) he gets on second wind is 6.5 ONLY if he waits until he has 1 or 2 hit points to use it. Using second wind with more than 2 hit point in this example puts the fighter in a situation where the average hit points gained is lower than 6.5.

3. The Warlock's AC is lower but it is competitive when you consider Blade Ward and Shield. One use of Shield is typically better than one use of 2nd Wind, or for that matter one use of Armor of Agathys, and if you assume 2 short rests that gives him 3 uses of shield a day, plus one use of AOA at wake up, plus the ability to cast AOA as an alternative if the situation warrants.

4. Finally the largest reason is to make a high AC fighter you need to either go into melee or accept short range and lower damage. This in turn is a bigger factor in durability than anything else. IME characters die in level 1 and level 2 more than all other levels combined and melee characters die significantly more often than non-melee characters. Not having a shield enables the Warlock to do better damage from Range, which translates into more durability. A fighter could do better damage-wise with a Longbow or Crossbow but when considering spells, they will accept a lower effective AC to do that.

Like I said though there are a lot of variables, but this is how I see it. I could easily be wrong though and certainly would be wrong in certain campaigns, situations or tables.

 

[Deset Gled]

I could make arguments for fighter, barbarian, or cleric, but in the end I went with fighter. The deciding factor for me is that Second Wind can theoretically be reused over and over again.