If fighters are truly the most popular class (sorry, still don't buy it) why are Wizards universally recognized to be the most powerful class?
If you are not willing look at the data...then whether you buy it or not is irrelevant for reasons already explained. To answer your question though, because people often don't choose their class based on how powerful they are. Even if they did, arguendo, Pantagruel's post #68 points out why they might still pick a Fighter. We used to to do L3 one-shots at my FLGS...I learned that casters really do suck at low level compared to martials. For most players, you live in the low levels. Most games will go through them, but most won't ever leave. If I have a DM I suspect will flake out...I'll roll a martial. The reasoning is simple - if the campaign collapses early (and it most likely will), then casters never got their potential at all and the whole experience is a downer. Martials still provide a good time because they're actually good in the early levels.
The big point, lest you miss it, is that players don't powergame. They're not choosing classes based on which one is the most powerful. Wizards are very powerful...but also a very niche archetype and playstyle
.
It seems to me that the big point is: In the real world, where we actually play and experience the game - for most players, martials are actually stronger. The strength casters have on paper rarely materialises in actual games.
And then we can all nod at the fact that at a high enough level, wizards/full casters become more or less immune to martials. Myself, I've played for 35+ years, and I can't remember the last time I played a high level character (I can though, a 2e paladin that reached level 16, which would have been in the mid 90's).
Not posting this to disagree with you. Just to point out that ... that's the conclusion I reach from the data you mention =)
I wouldn't disagree with the dynamics. I'm not convinced that everyone on the whole are choosing based on the power levels etc (although it's not irrelevant either), but I'd certainly agree that due to the power dynamics and typical campaign ranges (that are actually played), most D&D does get played where martials are more powerful, or at least can hold their own. Most of my campaigns never got above L5...and at least until then (and later), martials rule the roost.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Look at it this way. Would anyone argue that fighters are better at casting spells than casters? I don't think so. Really, casters are the universally recognized champion of spells. But are fighters the recognized masters of melee? I don't think so. When a 5th level caster with zero feats (I'm looking at you, warlock with Eldritch and Agonizing Blasts) does more zero cost melee damage at safe range than a 5th level fighter with zero feats in front line melee...everybody thinks that is okay. The fighter is supposed to take TWO feats to have a chance to keep up with a caster's melee damage. (Drat! he only has one feat at 5th. What a fool! He should have selected Vuman). Yet many here maintain that a fighter is still the master of melee damage and non-ranged attacks...I don't think so. Since the caster is attacking from a safe range and the fighter is slugging it out in hand to hand melee...who is going to be standing longer? The myth of the squishy caster is exactly that, a myth. Don't compare an optimized character to a non-optimized character. An optimized caster is going to have a very decent AC as well as other spells like Absorb Elements that are going to vastly reduce the damage he takes.
Out of combat...people who argue that a fighter with his non-magical skills can match a caster's utility with spells are simply being silly. Utility counts, we should not be measuring a character's class strength with player vs. player comparisons anyway. What does a character's class contribute to the party's efforts to achieve their goals? Is anyone seriously arguing that a fighter has the same out of combat utility as a wizard?
We've been through that very example - if the Fighter takes GWM instead of an ASI, his damage massively outstrips the Warlock. Even if he doesn't, the damage is either similar or still more than the Warlock (depending on whether they've gone sword and board or for great weapons), and unlike the Warlock, he's not at disadvantage. The Fighter is likely to have higher AC from their medium armour (heavy if they can afford it) and/shield, and on average 5 extra HP. This is without the class features that tilt things further in favour of the Fighter like Second Wind, Action Surge, Fighting Style and the versatility that comes from the second attack coming from Extra Attack as opposed to a second beam of Eldritch Blast.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
No, no, no! You are comparing an optimized character against a non-optimized character. The fighter should not have to pay a "feat tax" to keep up with a caster who did not. The majority of people do not play with feats in the first place! Why should the fighter have to give up his ASI? The Warlock probably dumped his ASI into charisma to up his damage; his charisma is going to be higher than the fighter's strength, resulting in the warlock getting more damage than the fighter.
You are overestimating the damage that the fighter is likely to do. You assume that BOTH his attacks AND his bonus attack will all hit. The fighter has to hit three times while the warlock only has to hit twice. This is very optimistic, to say the least. Lastly, Action Surge and Second Wind are both limited resources. The warlock can cast Eldritch/Agonizing Blast all day without expending resources. If you are going to throw limited resources into the equation, why won't the warlock cast Mage Armor, Shield, Absorb Elements, etc. so that he takes less damage than the fighter? Explain again how the fighter with GWM is using a shield?
Ummm... it's not optimised. I literally used base Fighter characteristics. Even without GWM (what do you think the increased ASIs are for than to get feats?), the fighter still out damages the Warlock, as well as several other aspects that makes it better at melee. I'm not sure where you're getting the having to hit three times rather than two, the Fighter gets two attacks, which is what Cantrips like EB echo (but not quite as good). The difference is that Fighters aren't limited to 1d10. You moan about not hitting all the time, but the Warlock has the exact same problem, so that's being dishonest. In fact, the Warlock is even worse because they're at disadvantage so they miss more often (about 30% less often with a +3 attribute against a creature with AC15).
The Fighter can go for damage output and outdo the Warlock, or equal them and go for better AC instead, they already have better AC, they have more health, they have more options for going toe-to-toe, and have more expendable resources they can dedicate. The Warlock can kind of compete, if they dedicate themselves to going melee, but still don't keep pace.
If you want to argue casters are better than martials, your going to have to pick a later level when spells become less scarce. But early levels are the martial's domain.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
He's not giving up anything, Fighters get bonus ASIs for the express purpose of spending them. Moreover, in One, all the 4th-level feats will be half-feats, so the Fighter will be able to grab two of them and still be on par with a character that didn't take any.
As for groups that don't use feats, that's fine too - it means the Fighter can max out their combat statistics faster and then allocate points to attributes they'll use outside of combat. That's a less optimal use of them than feats would be, but tables that don't use feats are not optimizing to begin with.
The fighter generally does have superior single target damage to the spellcaster, even with relatively normal levels of optimization. What it lacks is... anything else.
It seems to me that the big point is: In the real world, where we actually play and experience the game - for most players, martials are actually stronger. The strength casters have on paper rarely materialises in actual games.
The fact that martial classes are superior in tier 1 is actually a problem too. Classes should be decently competitive in any tier.
It seems like everybody (myself included) is making many assumptions here. So let's start over. This is not player vs. player. The warlock and the fighter are in the same party fighting the same monsters...hobgoblins? IDK, doesn't matter. Primary stat for the fighter is strength, secondary is constitution. Primary for warlock is charisma, secondary is constitution. Let's give them both 16 and 14, but it doesn't matter so long as they are the same. Let's just say that both have no bonuses in other scores...again, it doesn't really matter so long as they are even. (Well the warlock might have a dex bonus that would up his AC, while our strength based fighter couldn't benefit from that. If the fighter is dex based, the best he can do is a rapier with 1d8 +3 and this contest is over...let's just ignore this for now).
The warlock is casting Eldritch/Agonizing Blast, so 1d10 + 3. The fighter gets 1d8 + 3 with a longsword and shield, or 1d10, 1d12, or even 2d6 if he ditches the shield and picks a two-handed weapon. So we see that the warlock has already won the damage contest unless the fighter ditches his shield and goes with a greatsword or some other heavy weapon. So he will go with greatsword. Armor class for the warlock is 12 with his studded leather (for the moment, we will ignore the fact that he can bump his AC and damage resistance with magic, because we are ignoring limited resources for now. The fighter is in chain mail, AC 16.
So if everybody hits, the warlock will do 1d10 +3 (8.5) and the fighter will do 2d6 + 3 (10). So the fighter does a whopping 1.5 points more damage. The fighter is OP and out of balance, correct? Hold on (ding, ding, reality crossing)! If the warlock has half a brain, he will be making his ranged attack from cover, boosting his AC to 14 or 17 depending on the cover. He also has other party meat shields in front of him, so he has a greatly reduced chance of taking any damage. In the meantime, our fighter is in the thick of it and (golly gee whiz) the hobgoblins are swinging back at him. How rude! So which party member would be the one most likely to receive the most damage? Who is going to be the last party member standing if things go south? If our party wins, who is going to be in the best shape for the next fight? Who has a bunch of useful things to do out of combat before the next fight?
Actually they are fairly well balanced at tier 1. Fighter L1: S)16+3; C) 14+2; Chainmail, GWF & glaive/halberd: AC 16, HP12, +5 to hit, 1atk, Ave.Dam = 6+3=9 HP (*) fighter L1: as above except: +shield, dueling, long sword: AC 18, HP 12, +5 to hit, 1 Atk, Ave.Dam. = 4.5 +3+2= 9.5 HP Fighter L1: as above except Archery, Dex=16, long bow: AC 16, HP 12, +7 to hit, 1 Atk, Ave dam. = 4.5 + 3 = 7.5 HP (really 8.3 HP from the increased hitting**) Wizard L1: I) 16, D)14, C) 14, no armor, firebolt: AC 12, 8HP, +5 to hit, 1 atk, 5.5 dam Warlock L1: Ch) 16, D)14, C)14, leather armor, EB: AC 13, 10 HP, +5 to hit. 1 atk, Ave. Dam. = 5.5 Warlock L2: as above except AB - Ave Dam. = 8.5 *. The reroll of great weapon fighting shifts the average damage from 5.5 to 6 ** The 10% increase in hitting can be treated as a 10% increase in average damage so 10% of 7.5 is 0.75 therefore real average damage is 7.5+0.75=8.25 or 8.3.
At L1 the fighter is superior as both a melee and missile specialist with the caveat that they have an inexhaustible supply of arrows (or at least more than enough arrows for the fight). At L2 the warlock with agonizing blast pulls even with the archer but is still behind the melee specialist. At level 5 they have both gotten an ASI and both are getting a second attack/double damage with equal chance to miss so we can basically ignore misses. Assuming all 3 use the ASI to boost their prime stat to help their to hits, we get:
F1: AC 17 (splint); to hit: +7, Ave.Damage 18 F2: AC 19 ( splint & shield), to hit: +7, Ave. Dam =19 F3: AC17 (splint) to hit +9, Ave. Dam. 16.6 Wiz: AC 12, to hit +7 Ave Dam. 9 * Wlk: AC 14 (studded + Dex), to hit +7, Ave Dam. 17 Hex: AC 16 ( breastplate + Dex), to hit +7, Ave Dam. 17 (AB)/5.5 (glaive 1 atk) As far as Inexaustable resources go the fighter is superior to the mage and warlock. The caster’s superiority comes from their leveled spells not their “inexhaustible” resources. In addition their utility spells give a bonus that the fighter’s skills can’t compete with across the board though they can in the specific skill areas. So it behaves the fighter to use downtime to learn additional skills to broaden their usefulness.
The fact that martial classes are superior in tier 1 is actually a problem too. Classes should be decently competitive in any tier.
Oh, agreed. As a martial player, however, I can safely consider that someone else's problem =D
Jokes aside, you're right of course. Question is if that's really achievable? The blandness of 4e tells me it can be done, but that's not really what we want. I think we really want some shape of rock/paper/scissor. 'We' being some unknowable consensus of all players =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The warlock is casting Eldritch/Agonizing Blast, so 1d10 + 3. The fighter gets 1d8 + 3 with a longsword and shield, or 1d10, 1d12, or even 2d6 if he ditches the shield and picks a two-handed weapon. So we see that the warlock has already won the damage contest unless the fighter ditches his shield and goes with a greatsword or some other heavy weapon. So he will go with greatsword. Armor class for the warlock is 12 with his studded leather (for the moment, we will ignore the fact that he can bump his AC and damage resistance with magic, because we are ignoring limited resources for now. The fighter is in chain mail, AC 16.
So if everybody hits, the warlock will do 1d10 +3 (8.5) and the fighter will do 2d6 + 3 (10). So the fighter does a whopping 1.5 points more damage. The fighter is OP and out of balance, correct? Hold on (ding, ding, reality crossing)! If the warlock has half a brain, he will be making his ranged attack from cover, boosting his AC to 14 or 17 depending on the cover. He also has other party meat shields in front of him, so he has a greatly reduced chance of taking any damage. In the meantime, our fighter is in the thick of it and (golly gee whiz) the hobgoblins are swinging back at him. How rude! So which party member would be the one most likely to receive the most damage? Who is going to be the last party member standing if things go south? If our party wins, who is going to be in the best shape for the next fight? Who has a bunch of useful things to do out of combat before the next fight?
1) Why does the Warlock get to count Agonizing Blast, but the Fighter not get to count Archery/Dueling Style or Weapon Mastery?
2) Why can't an archer fighter use cover too?
3) When both the EB Warlock and the Archer end up in melee, how are we accounting for the fact that the latter can simply stow their bow and pull out a rapier, while the former needs to have picked Blade Pact or a different cantrip that won't benefit from AB?
Jokes aside, you're right of course. Question is if that's really achievable? The blandness of 4e tells me it can be done, but that's not really what we want. I think we really want some shape of rock/paper/scissor. 'We' being some unknowable consensus of all players =)
It's safe to say that there is no general consensus. Or if there is, it involves incompatible goals. I think the general wants are:
Magic should feel special.
Martial characters should feel like badass normals, not superheroes.
Characters should feel generally comparable in importance, not 'boss and minions'.
It is extremely difficult to make all three of these true at the same time. The usual literary solution is plot contrivance, and the RPG equivalent (massive DM bias in favor of certain characters) doesn't tend to play well at the table. I have seen RPGs try to make plot contrivance work by giving the mundane characters some sort of luck or favorable coincidence power, but that's not the way D&D has ever tended to play and my experience is that it's hard to integrate with any of the more sandbox-y play styles.
The warlock is casting Eldritch/Agonizing Blast, so 1d10 + 3. The fighter gets 1d8 + 3 with a longsword and shield, or 1d10, 1d12, or even 2d6 if he ditches the shield and picks a two-handed weapon. So we see that the warlock has already won the damage contest unless the fighter ditches his shield and goes with a greatsword or some other heavy weapon. So he will go with greatsword. Armor class for the warlock is 12 with his studded leather (for the moment, we will ignore the fact that he can bump his AC and damage resistance with magic, because we are ignoring limited resources for now. The fighter is in chain mail, AC 16.
So if everybody hits, the warlock will do 1d10 +3 (8.5) and the fighter will do 2d6 + 3 (10). So the fighter does a whopping 1.5 points more damage. The fighter is OP and out of balance, correct? Hold on (ding, ding, reality crossing)! If the warlock has half a brain, he will be making his ranged attack from cover, boosting his AC to 14 or 17 depending on the cover. He also has other party meat shields in front of him, so he has a greatly reduced chance of taking any damage. In the meantime, our fighter is in the thick of it and (golly gee whiz) the hobgoblins are swinging back at him. How rude! So which party member would be the one most likely to receive the most damage? Who is going to be the last party member standing if things go south? If our party wins, who is going to be in the best shape for the next fight? Who has a bunch of useful things to do out of combat before the next fight?
1) Why does the Warlock get to count Agonizing Blast, but the Fighter not get to count Archery/Dueling Style or Weapon Mastery?
2) Why can't an archer fighter use cover too?
3) When both the EB Warlock and the Archer end up in melee, how are we accounting for the fact that the latter can simply stow their bow and pull out a rapier, while the former needs to have picked Blade Pact or a different cantrip that won't benefit from AB?
To be honest, I've given up. We were talking about the fighter's main niche of upfront melee combat, specifically the claim that Warlocks are superior to Fighters even in that role. Now we're comparing apples to oranges. I'm not even sure what the specific claim is anymore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I provided examples for 3rd and 5th level that show the caster to be superior to the fighter. Now we are going to 1st level where "for one brief shining Camelot moment" fighters are better...But no, not even then. You pick GWF as your fighting style to pathetically boost the damage. But any optimizer will tell you that this is one of the weakest fighting styles that gets worse at higher levels. You are much better off with Defense for the +1 AC or Archery if you are going ranged. So readjust the damage for taking Defense instead of GWF and you will see what we get. Then...we all know that once the warlock gets Eldritch-Agonizing Blast at 2nd level, it is over for the fighter.
You gloss over the fact that the non-ranged melee fighters are taking hits from melee opponents while the casters are attacking from range with +5 cover if they are smart. You want to treat everybody as if they have inexhaustible resources but the melee fighter's hit points certainly don't qualify as inexhaustible. They are MUCH more exhaustible than a ranged attackers hit points. We all know that melee fighters are the meat shields soaking up all those attacks to keep the casters safe. But their additional hit points are not sufficient for that role. From my previous post: "So which party member would be the one most likely to receive the most damage? Who is going to be the last party member standing if things go south? If our party wins, who is going to be in the best shape for the next fight? Who has a bunch of useful things to do out of combat before the next fight?"
Lastly, we all know that it is over for the fighter as early as 3rd level when the casters pick up 2nd level spells. That marks the end of "fighter dominance" if it ever existed in the first place...which it doesn't.
As for downtime, the fighter learning skills so he can be of some very minor use to the party out of combat is rather pathetic. You will never catch a caster doing that because they have so many better ways to use their downtime. Same for most other classes because they already have out of combat utility built into their class.
Again, those who think that fighters are the equal of casters should watch this...skip the annoying introduction if you like.
You gloss over the fact that the non-ranged melee fighters are taking hits from melee opponents while the casters are attacking from range with +5 cover if they are smart.
Ranged vs melee is a completely separate problem. It's a real problem, but it doesn't have a lot to do with martial vs caster except for most casters being ranged. Also, warlocks are... a weird special case.
Again, those who think that fighters are the equal of casters should watch this...
We're not saying "fighters are the equals of casters." In fact, if you'll check the results of the poll that started this thread, 87% of the folks here see martials as weaker overall to one degree or another. We simply got on this tangent because you thought a fighter taking feats despite having more ASIs than every other class was somehow unfair, or that at-will EB+AB outperformed at-will weapon attacks ignoring any limited resources.
At the tables that I DM for or that I play at, the warlock is ubiquitous because so many people multiclass into warlock just to get "the blast". Just another reason why I don't like multiclassing, but I have given up on trying to stop it because everyone else loves it. That might be at the root of our disagreements...experienced optimizing players play very differently than casual beginner players. That is probably the cause of our different experiences at the table. In my experience, fighters are truly weak until they multiclass which I personally do not like to do with my characters. I just want to play my straight fighter to the end of the campaign (usually around level 9-13) without being completely overshadowed by the casters.
I get that the "ranged vs melee" issue is best treated separately. But that doesn't change the fact that the melee fighter is the one soaking up the majority of the damage that the bad guys are dishing. Melee fighters are the "meat shield" or the "damage sponge"...pick your term. But they never have enough hit points to do it. Only the Moon Druid can really fill that role. Bleh!
Sal, I get that you want the divide to be huge with casters far superior, and at high levels when you include all spells they certainly are - no martial character has anything like Wish. However, we are looking at low levels and try to make fair comparisons. That can’t be done without setting as much as possible the same. So my comparisons looked at the key stats with them being set the same. What you get is that at level 1 the martials are somewhat better, really even if you include the leveled spells (all one or two) and the martials’s expendable resources. At level 2, when your warlock gets agonizing blast what it actually is doing is catching the warlock up to the extra damage the marital’s are already getting. At L2 he matches the archers who can also stand 120’ back with that +5 defense from cover etc and in a contest between the archer shooting at you and you blasting back the archer’s higher AC, extra HP and +2 to hit from archer means they will win most such contests (even if you use a leveled spell for mage armor to raise your AC to 15). For the melee fighters, I actually gave the casters an edge if they are dumb enough or unlucky enough to engage in melee - I didn’t account for the disadvantage casting at melee range. Why did I take GWF as one of my comparison fighters? Because they get the same weapon damage as the warlock’s Eldritch blast to keep the comparisons fair. ( your use of “pathetic” actually shows how pathetically desperate you are to shut down arguments you don’t like in the face of relevant comparisons.) I also included the sword and board fighter ( yes with the dueling style to help bring the damages into balance). By L5 casters are superior until they run out of leveled spell slots (if that ever actually happens) - I don’t think anyone here is arguing that. But when you compare what they can do with only their cantrips to what a martial can do with their weapons the martials are generally superior at least through tiers 1&2. Yes if your warlock can blast from cover from 120’ away against a lone fighter that has to fight past a “meat shield” and then dash 2 rounds to get you the martial will probably lose (it is after all 2 on one), on the other hand if it’s just your warlock against my archer ranger with nature, stealth, and perception they are probably going to see you first, get off the first shot and hit and kill you first. Anyone can set up a scenario that favors their choice. A smart party uses their archers and casters to “geek the casters first” while their meat shields protect them and as I showed your warlock (without leveled spells)against an archer martial is a dead warlock. It’s the leveled spells of the casters that give them the edges against pure martials. This is why many folks like the Gishes - most of the martial’s melee/missile ability and a decent chunk of leveled spells to play with as well. Eldritch blast/agonizing blast is a great cantrip but it’s not superior to a comparable martial’s weapon attacks whether melee or missile, at best it is just comparable.
At the tables that I DM for or that I play at, the warlock is ubiquitous because so many people multiclass into warlock just to get "the blast". Just another reason why I don't like multiclassing, but I have given up on trying to stop it because everyone else loves it. That might be at the root of our disagreements...experienced optimizing players play very differently than casual beginner players. That is probably the cause of our different experiences at the table. In my experience, fighters are truly weak until they multiclass which I personally do not like to do with my characters. I just want to play my straight fighter to the end of the campaign (usually around level 9-13) without being completely overshadowed by the casters.
I get that the "ranged vs melee" issue is best treated separately. But that doesn't change the fact that the melee fighter is the one soaking up the majority of the damage that the bad guys are dishing. Melee fighters are the "meat shield" or the "damage sponge"...pick your term. But they never have enough hit points to do it. Only the Moon Druid can really fill that role. Bleh!
They're nerfing "the blast" to require Warlock levels to scale so I think your problem there has a good chance of being solved. As for fighters being weak, the only thing you should really be comparing them to are the monsters, not to their teammates; this isn't a PvP game. And a Fighter can perform quite well against any level-appropriate enemy.
They're nerfing "the blast" to require Warlock levels to scale so I think your problem there has a good chance of being solved. As for fighters being weak, the only thing you should really be comparing them to are the monsters, not to their teammates; this isn't a PvP game. And a Fighter can perform quite well against any level-appropriate enemy.
Character X is better at killing monsters than character Y is still something players notice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I wouldn't disagree with the dynamics. I'm not convinced that everyone on the whole are choosing based on the power levels etc (although it's not irrelevant either), but I'd certainly agree that due to the power dynamics and typical campaign ranges (that are actually played), most D&D does get played where martials are more powerful, or at least can hold their own. Most of my campaigns never got above L5...and at least until then (and later), martials rule the roost.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Look at it this way. Would anyone argue that fighters are better at casting spells than casters? I don't think so. Really, casters are the universally recognized champion of spells. But are fighters the recognized masters of melee? I don't think so. When a 5th level caster with zero feats (I'm looking at you, warlock with Eldritch and Agonizing Blasts) does more zero cost melee damage at safe range than a 5th level fighter with zero feats in front line melee...everybody thinks that is okay. The fighter is supposed to take TWO feats to have a chance to keep up with a caster's melee damage. (Drat! he only has one feat at 5th. What a fool! He should have selected Vuman). Yet many here maintain that a fighter is still the master of melee damage and non-ranged attacks...I don't think so. Since the caster is attacking from a safe range and the fighter is slugging it out in hand to hand melee...who is going to be standing longer? The myth of the squishy caster is exactly that, a myth. Don't compare an optimized character to a non-optimized character. An optimized caster is going to have a very decent AC as well as other spells like Absorb Elements that are going to vastly reduce the damage he takes.
Out of combat...people who argue that a fighter with his non-magical skills can match a caster's utility with spells are simply being silly. Utility counts, we should not be measuring a character's class strength with player vs. player comparisons anyway. What does a character's class contribute to the party's efforts to achieve their goals? Is anyone seriously arguing that a fighter has the same out of combat utility as a wizard?
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
We've been through that very example - if the Fighter takes GWM instead of an ASI, his damage massively outstrips the Warlock. Even if he doesn't, the damage is either similar or still more than the Warlock (depending on whether they've gone sword and board or for great weapons), and unlike the Warlock, he's not at disadvantage. The Fighter is likely to have higher AC from their medium armour (heavy if they can afford it) and/shield, and on average 5 extra HP. This is without the class features that tilt things further in favour of the Fighter like Second Wind, Action Surge, Fighting Style and the versatility that comes from the second attack coming from Extra Attack as opposed to a second beam of Eldritch Blast.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
No, no, no! You are comparing an optimized character against a non-optimized character. The fighter should not have to pay a "feat tax" to keep up with a caster who did not. The majority of people do not play with feats in the first place! Why should the fighter have to give up his ASI? The Warlock probably dumped his ASI into charisma to up his damage; his charisma is going to be higher than the fighter's strength, resulting in the warlock getting more damage than the fighter.
You are overestimating the damage that the fighter is likely to do. You assume that BOTH his attacks AND his bonus attack will all hit. The fighter has to hit three times while the warlock only has to hit twice. This is very optimistic, to say the least. Lastly, Action Surge and Second Wind are both limited resources. The warlock can cast Eldritch/Agonizing Blast all day without expending resources. If you are going to throw limited resources into the equation, why won't the warlock cast Mage Armor, Shield, Absorb Elements, etc. so that he takes less damage than the fighter? Explain again how the fighter with GWM is using a shield?
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
Ummm... it's not optimised. I literally used base Fighter characteristics. Even without GWM (what do you think the increased ASIs are for than to get feats?), the fighter still out damages the Warlock, as well as several other aspects that makes it better at melee. I'm not sure where you're getting the having to hit three times rather than two, the Fighter gets two attacks, which is what Cantrips like EB echo (but not quite as good). The difference is that Fighters aren't limited to 1d10. You moan about not hitting all the time, but the Warlock has the exact same problem, so that's being dishonest. In fact, the Warlock is even worse because they're at disadvantage so they miss more often (about 30% less often with a +3 attribute against a creature with AC15).
The Fighter can go for damage output and outdo the Warlock, or equal them and go for better AC instead, they already have better AC, they have more health, they have more options for going toe-to-toe, and have more expendable resources they can dedicate. The Warlock can kind of compete, if they dedicate themselves to going melee, but still don't keep pace.
If you want to argue casters are better than martials, your going to have to pick a later level when spells become less scarce. But early levels are the martial's domain.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
He's not giving up anything, Fighters get bonus ASIs for the express purpose of spending them. Moreover, in One, all the 4th-level feats will be half-feats, so the Fighter will be able to grab two of them and still be on par with a character that didn't take any.
As for groups that don't use feats, that's fine too - it means the Fighter can max out their combat statistics faster and then allocate points to attributes they'll use outside of combat. That's a less optimal use of them than feats would be, but tables that don't use feats are not optimizing to begin with.
The fighter generally does have superior single target damage to the spellcaster, even with relatively normal levels of optimization. What it lacks is... anything else.
The fact that martial classes are superior in tier 1 is actually a problem too. Classes should be decently competitive in any tier.
It seems like everybody (myself included) is making many assumptions here. So let's start over. This is not player vs. player. The warlock and the fighter are in the same party fighting the same monsters...hobgoblins? IDK, doesn't matter. Primary stat for the fighter is strength, secondary is constitution. Primary for warlock is charisma, secondary is constitution. Let's give them both 16 and 14, but it doesn't matter so long as they are the same. Let's just say that both have no bonuses in other scores...again, it doesn't really matter so long as they are even. (Well the warlock might have a dex bonus that would up his AC, while our strength based fighter couldn't benefit from that. If the fighter is dex based, the best he can do is a rapier with 1d8 +3 and this contest is over...let's just ignore this for now).
The warlock is casting Eldritch/Agonizing Blast, so 1d10 + 3. The fighter gets 1d8 + 3 with a longsword and shield, or 1d10, 1d12, or even 2d6 if he ditches the shield and picks a two-handed weapon. So we see that the warlock has already won the damage contest unless the fighter ditches his shield and goes with a greatsword or some other heavy weapon. So he will go with greatsword. Armor class for the warlock is 12 with his studded leather (for the moment, we will ignore the fact that he can bump his AC and damage resistance with magic, because we are ignoring limited resources for now. The fighter is in chain mail, AC 16.
So if everybody hits, the warlock will do 1d10 +3 (8.5) and the fighter will do 2d6 + 3 (10). So the fighter does a whopping 1.5 points more damage. The fighter is OP and out of balance, correct? Hold on (ding, ding, reality crossing)! If the warlock has half a brain, he will be making his ranged attack from cover, boosting his AC to 14 or 17 depending on the cover. He also has other party meat shields in front of him, so he has a greatly reduced chance of taking any damage. In the meantime, our fighter is in the thick of it and (golly gee whiz) the hobgoblins are swinging back at him. How rude! So which party member would be the one most likely to receive the most damage? Who is going to be the last party member standing if things go south? If our party wins, who is going to be in the best shape for the next fight? Who has a bunch of useful things to do out of combat before the next fight?
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
Actually they are fairly well balanced at tier 1.
Fighter L1: S)16+3; C) 14+2; Chainmail, GWF & glaive/halberd: AC 16, HP12, +5 to hit, 1atk, Ave.Dam = 6+3=9 HP (*)
fighter L1: as above except: +shield, dueling, long sword: AC 18, HP 12, +5 to hit, 1 Atk, Ave.Dam. = 4.5 +3+2= 9.5 HP
Fighter L1: as above except Archery, Dex=16, long bow: AC 16, HP 12, +7 to hit, 1 Atk, Ave dam. = 4.5 + 3 = 7.5 HP (really 8.3 HP from the increased hitting**)
Wizard L1: I) 16, D)14, C) 14, no armor, firebolt: AC 12, 8HP, +5 to hit, 1 atk, 5.5 dam
Warlock L1: Ch) 16, D)14, C)14, leather armor, EB: AC 13, 10 HP, +5 to hit. 1 atk, Ave. Dam. = 5.5
Warlock L2: as above except AB - Ave Dam. = 8.5
*. The reroll of great weapon fighting shifts the average damage from 5.5 to 6
** The 10% increase in hitting can be treated as a 10% increase in average damage so 10% of 7.5 is 0.75 therefore real average damage is 7.5+0.75=8.25 or 8.3.
At L1 the fighter is superior as both a melee and missile specialist with the caveat that they have an inexhaustible supply of arrows (or at least more than enough arrows for the fight). At L2 the warlock with agonizing blast pulls even with the archer but is still behind the melee specialist. At level 5 they have both gotten an ASI and both are getting a second attack/double damage with equal chance to miss so we can basically ignore misses. Assuming all 3 use the ASI to boost their prime stat to help their to hits, we get:
F1: AC 17 (splint); to hit: +7, Ave.Damage 18
F2: AC 19 ( splint & shield), to hit: +7, Ave. Dam =19
F3: AC17 (splint) to hit +9, Ave. Dam. 16.6
Wiz: AC 12, to hit +7 Ave Dam. 9 *
Wlk: AC 14 (studded + Dex), to hit +7, Ave Dam. 17
Hex: AC 16 ( breastplate + Dex), to hit +7, Ave Dam. 17 (AB)/5.5 (glaive 1 atk)
As far as Inexaustable resources go the fighter is superior to the mage and warlock. The caster’s superiority comes from their leveled spells not their “inexhaustible” resources. In addition their utility spells give a bonus that the fighter’s skills can’t compete with across the board though they can in the specific skill areas. So it behaves the fighter to use downtime to learn additional skills to broaden their usefulness.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Oh, agreed. As a martial player, however, I can safely consider that someone else's problem =D
Jokes aside, you're right of course. Question is if that's really achievable? The blandness of 4e tells me it can be done, but that's not really what we want. I think we really want some shape of rock/paper/scissor. 'We' being some unknowable consensus of all players =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
1) Why does the Warlock get to count Agonizing Blast, but the Fighter not get to count Archery/Dueling Style or Weapon Mastery?
2) Why can't an archer fighter use cover too?
3) When both the EB Warlock and the Archer end up in melee, how are we accounting for the fact that the latter can simply stow their bow and pull out a rapier, while the former needs to have picked Blade Pact or a different cantrip that won't benefit from AB?
It's safe to say that there is no general consensus. Or if there is, it involves incompatible goals. I think the general wants are:
It is extremely difficult to make all three of these true at the same time. The usual literary solution is plot contrivance, and the RPG equivalent (massive DM bias in favor of certain characters) doesn't tend to play well at the table. I have seen RPGs try to make plot contrivance work by giving the mundane characters some sort of luck or favorable coincidence power, but that's not the way D&D has ever tended to play and my experience is that it's hard to integrate with any of the more sandbox-y play styles.
To be honest, I've given up. We were talking about the fighter's main niche of upfront melee combat, specifically the claim that Warlocks are superior to Fighters even in that role. Now we're comparing apples to oranges. I'm not even sure what the specific claim is anymore.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I provided examples for 3rd and 5th level that show the caster to be superior to the fighter. Now we are going to 1st level where "for one brief shining Camelot moment" fighters are better...But no, not even then. You pick GWF as your fighting style to pathetically boost the damage. But any optimizer will tell you that this is one of the weakest fighting styles that gets worse at higher levels. You are much better off with Defense for the +1 AC or Archery if you are going ranged. So readjust the damage for taking Defense instead of GWF and you will see what we get. Then...we all know that once the warlock gets Eldritch-Agonizing Blast at 2nd level, it is over for the fighter.
You gloss over the fact that the non-ranged melee fighters are taking hits from melee opponents while the casters are attacking from range with +5 cover if they are smart. You want to treat everybody as if they have inexhaustible resources but the melee fighter's hit points certainly don't qualify as inexhaustible. They are MUCH more exhaustible than a ranged attackers hit points. We all know that melee fighters are the meat shields soaking up all those attacks to keep the casters safe. But their additional hit points are not sufficient for that role. From my previous post: "So which party member would be the one most likely to receive the most damage? Who is going to be the last party member standing if things go south? If our party wins, who is going to be in the best shape for the next fight? Who has a bunch of useful things to do out of combat before the next fight?"
Lastly, we all know that it is over for the fighter as early as 3rd level when the casters pick up 2nd level spells. That marks the end of "fighter dominance" if it ever existed in the first place...which it doesn't.
As for downtime, the fighter learning skills so he can be of some very minor use to the party out of combat is rather pathetic. You will never catch a caster doing that because they have so many better ways to use their downtime. Same for most other classes because they already have out of combat utility built into their class.
Again, those who think that fighters are the equal of casters should watch this...skip the annoying introduction if you like.
https://youtu.be/u1rb9kFFbkA
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
Ranged vs melee is a completely separate problem. It's a real problem, but it doesn't have a lot to do with martial vs caster except for most casters being ranged. Also, warlocks are... a weird special case.
We're not saying "fighters are the equals of casters." In fact, if you'll check the results of the poll that started this thread, 87% of the folks here see martials as weaker overall to one degree or another. We simply got on this tangent because you thought a fighter taking feats despite having more ASIs than every other class was somehow unfair, or that at-will EB+AB outperformed at-will weapon attacks ignoring any limited resources.
At the tables that I DM for or that I play at, the warlock is ubiquitous because so many people multiclass into warlock just to get "the blast". Just another reason why I don't like multiclassing, but I have given up on trying to stop it because everyone else loves it. That might be at the root of our disagreements...experienced optimizing players play very differently than casual beginner players. That is probably the cause of our different experiences at the table. In my experience, fighters are truly weak until they multiclass which I personally do not like to do with my characters. I just want to play my straight fighter to the end of the campaign (usually around level 9-13) without being completely overshadowed by the casters.
I get that the "ranged vs melee" issue is best treated separately. But that doesn't change the fact that the melee fighter is the one soaking up the majority of the damage that the bad guys are dishing. Melee fighters are the "meat shield" or the "damage sponge"...pick your term. But they never have enough hit points to do it. Only the Moon Druid can really fill that role. Bleh!
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
Sal, I get that you want the divide to be huge with casters far superior, and at high levels when you include all spells they certainly are - no martial character has anything like Wish. However, we are looking at low levels and try to make fair comparisons. That can’t be done without setting as much as possible the same. So my comparisons looked at the key stats with them being set the same. What you get is that at level 1 the martials are somewhat better, really even if you include the leveled spells (all one or two) and the martials’s expendable resources. At level 2, when your warlock gets agonizing blast what it actually is doing is catching the warlock up to the extra damage the marital’s are already getting. At L2 he matches the archers who can also stand 120’ back with that +5 defense from cover etc and in a contest between the archer shooting at you and you blasting back the archer’s higher AC, extra HP and +2 to hit from archer means they will win most such contests (even if you use a leveled spell for mage armor to raise your AC to 15). For the melee fighters, I actually gave the casters an edge if they are dumb enough or unlucky enough to engage in melee - I didn’t account for the disadvantage casting at melee range. Why did I take GWF as one of my comparison fighters? Because they get the same weapon damage as the warlock’s Eldritch blast to keep the comparisons fair. ( your use of “pathetic” actually shows how pathetically desperate you are to shut down arguments you don’t like in the face of relevant comparisons.) I also included the sword and board fighter ( yes with the dueling style to help bring the damages into balance). By L5 casters are superior until they run out of leveled spell slots (if that ever actually happens) - I don’t think anyone here is arguing that. But when you compare what they can do with only their cantrips to what a martial can do with their weapons the martials are generally superior at least through tiers 1&2. Yes if your warlock can blast from cover from 120’ away against a lone fighter that has to fight past a “meat shield” and then dash 2 rounds to get you the martial will probably lose (it is after all 2 on one), on the other hand if it’s just your warlock against my archer ranger with nature, stealth, and perception they are probably going to see you first, get off the first shot and hit and kill you first. Anyone can set up a scenario that favors their choice. A smart party uses their archers and casters to “geek the casters first” while their meat shields protect them and as I showed your warlock (without leveled spells)against an archer martial is a dead warlock. It’s the leveled spells of the casters that give them the edges against pure martials. This is why many folks like the Gishes - most of the martial’s melee/missile ability and a decent chunk of leveled spells to play with as well. Eldritch blast/agonizing blast is a great cantrip but it’s not superior to a comparable martial’s weapon attacks whether melee or missile, at best it is just comparable.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
They're nerfing "the blast" to require Warlock levels to scale so I think your problem there has a good chance of being solved. As for fighters being weak, the only thing you should really be comparing them to are the monsters, not to their teammates; this isn't a PvP game. And a Fighter can perform quite well against any level-appropriate enemy.
Character X is better at killing monsters than character Y is still something players notice.