That's kind of my point. If you would only like it if its different, then by definition, you don't like it. as far as subpar mechanics, those of us who like them don't find the mechanics subpar. Subpar is an opinion. You find them subpar, I accept that. That doesn't mean others disagree. Why do those of us that do like it need to lose what we have so you can get something? I assume there are other classes you do like to play. Why not just play those?
Because people want to play characters, not classes, and there really isn't a particularly good alternative class if you want to play a martial character who isn't a berserker. Kensei monk to some degree, but it has its own issues.
That's kind of my point. If you would only like it if its different, then by definition, you don't like it. as far as subpar mechanics, those of us who like them don't find the mechanics subpar. Subpar is an opinion. You find them subpar, I accept that. That doesn't mean others disagree. Why do those of us that do like it need to lose what we have so you can get something? I assume there are other classes you do like to play. Why not just play those?
Because people want to play characters, not classes, and there really isn't a particularly good alternative class if you want to play a martial character who isn't a berserker. Kensei monk to some degree, but it has its own issues.
Define "martial" here. What concept is it, specifically, that you're trying to achieve? What is it that you, personally, actually, want to play, but can only happen with the fighter chassis, and what, specifically, about the fighter chassis doesn't allow you to achieve that goal? Not theoretically. You, individually. How many times have you had a character concept you wanted to play, and the only way to achieve it was through using the fighter chassis, and what, specifically, about that fighter held you back from playing it?
Not "people." You. Because saying "people" want it is pretty much the definition of theorycrafting and edging pretty close to just plain old straw man.
Very true. Some people will just want to play a fighter. But nobody wants to feel that their character is under powered compared to all the other party members. So you really have to LOVE fighters to play one. Wouldn't it be more fun for the person playing the fighter if their character was even remotely equivalent in power to the other party members?
I've never felt any fighter I ever played was underpowered. I guess I was just having fun the wrong way.
Honestly, most of these "fix the fighter" conversations are had by people who don't like them or like playing them. Maybe there is no problem. Maybe fighters are more-or-less good as is, but they're just not to your taste (not you personally, the generic you). I've not played a wizard since 2e. Pretty sure I've only played one druid ever. They don't appeal to me for a number of reasons. But I just figure they're not for me, rather than they need to be "fixed" until they appeal to me. Not every class has to appeal to every player. People who like playing fighters rarely say they wish they played differently or could do more things. It's mostly white-room theorycrafters who try to tell us we shouldn't enjoy them because they don't have the dpr of some other class, or the out of combat options of some other, other class. Those of us who like fighters know that. We like playing them anyway. Please stop fightersplaining why we shouldn't like them.
I Agree with this exactly. You play to have fun. And if you ever feel underpowered, you try to find a way to be better or help the team in other ways.
I do normally prefer to play warrior-like characters (even gishes), i dont mind playing experts (right now Ranger is my favorite class), don't mind playing clerics and don't play Wizards if I can (I do enjoy playing anything, it's the game that's fun), I just don't generally like the wizard or many full caster classes playstyle.
I once played a fighter cavalier in 3.5ed (yes that tier 5 class with a horrible single minded prestige class, according to optimizers), for wanting to build the char that way and story reasons that fitted the campaing world, and yeah... i did not had a mount all the time, and when the opportunity presented itself the mount died really fast, but those few rounds with it where gamechanging, so the tactic to take my mount off the battle with AOEs or directly attaking it were valid (we also did the same all the time), until I got a really sturdy mount (I had to buy and bond with a special pegasus in the city of brass, RPed the shit out of it and heavily depended on animal handling and diplomacy rolls, from myself).
In the entire campaing, and we played till 18th level, I never felt useless or underpowered (sure I didnt have shapeshift as a domain spell, but that didn't ended all the battles and was very usefull for many situations): I actually dealt the most single attack damage per Hit (important against DR in a low magic campaing with 2e, 3.0e and 3.5e modules and monsters the DM used, that also made my brother had a hard time dealing with that even with his 8 attacks per round with less damage per attack), took the most amount of damage or attacks for the party (once bad guys figure out they couldn't hit my brothers matrix like high AC), and more importantly, everyone played the game as a group (even with jokes running around because some did more in X or Y situation, or my char being a Monty Python Knight, no one could do everything alone). I enjoyed every single part of the campaing... the hardships, the good times, the lucky once in a campaing moments, the struggles with RP with other players and their chars, and the inmense team synergy we had (I was the newest member of the group, they all had been playing for a long time, my older brother was the second youngest and he taught me to play).
So Yes, there is a Divide in power level, but mostly is just playstyle, teams and players. If someone feels underpowered, talk to them to find a solution.
In those full caster parties, someone still has to be upfront being the "Meat Shield". and if not, then kudos to that campaing party I guess.
I completely agree with Xalthu on this: Oftentimes, when people discuss "improving" certain classes, we forgot that what we may see as an improvement for us is a significant downgrade for some people. Not every class can appeal to every individual.
Fighter is the most popular class in the game. The parts of this class that are loved and enjoyed by many should not be ripped to shreds and rebuilt for people who don't like or use the class. Some mechanics might not be cool to you but may feel awesome for others, and that latter group shouldn't have to lose why they like.
The developers' job is to provide as many options for as many different types of players and playing styles as possible, and taking away options for some people in the process is typically not particularly helpful.
Now, does all this mean Fighter and other classes can't be improved or have their attractiveness to all types of players be grown? No, of course not. All it means is that the people who do like the existing system and features should be taken into account if some want either of those things to change.
If you are filling out the surveys, you are indeed saying that things need to be changed to be what you like and if you are not filling in the surveys, your voice won't be heard. I recommend filling out the surveys and hope for the best.
That's what I am going to do. However, I would like to point out that newer players and people that don't like to work as much and get confused as much in the game (these simple players make up a large part of the audience for classes like Fighter and Barbarian) might not want complete the 1D&D playtest surveys. Meaning that the results might be inaccurate and skew towards people who are more involved in the community and concentrate somewhat in certain classes, subclasses, feats, and builds.
I completely agree with Xalthu on this: Oftentimes, when people discuss "improving" certain classes, we forgot that what we may see as an improvement for us is a significant downgrade for some people. Not every class can appeal to every individual.
Improvement doesn't mean removing stuff. There's basically nothing wrong with martial classes until fairly high level, but their tier 3 and 4 features are just not competitive.
Barbarians and Rogues don't even keep up with damage output. In general damage output needs to roughly double between level 8 and level 18.
A raging barbarian with a greataxe goes from 2 attacks for 1d12+7 (+magic) to 2 attacks for 1d12+10 (+magic) plus a bit of damage from brutal critical. This is...not double.
A fighter goes from 2 attacks with one action surge to 4 attacks with two action surges. This is more than double, no problems here.
A sneak attacking rogue with a shortsword goes from 5d6+5(+magic) to 10d6+5(+magic). This is better than the barbarian, but still not x2.
In terms of noncombat utility, barbarians get nothing of note after level 9, fighter get... an extra feat at level 15. Rogues do get reliable and stroke of luck abilities, which are solid but hardly on a par with high level spells.
I completely agree with Xalthu on this: Oftentimes, when people discuss "improving" certain classes, we forgot that what we may see as an improvement for us is a significant downgrade for some people. Not every class can appeal to every individual.
Improvement doesn't mean removing stuff. There's basically nothing wrong with martial classes until fairly high level, but their tier 3 and 4 features are just not competitive.
Barbarians and Rogues don't even keep up with damage output. In general damage output needs to roughly double between level 8 and level 18.
A raging barbarian with a greataxe goes from 2 attacks for 1d12+7 (+magic) to 2 attacks for 1d12+10 (+magic) plus a bit of damage from brutal critical. This is...not double.
A fighter goes from 2 attacks with one action surge to 4 attacks with two action surges. This is more than double, no problems here.
A sneak attacking rogue with a shortsword goes from 5d6+5(+magic) to 10d6+5(+magic). This is better than the barbarian, but still not x2.
In terms of noncombat utility, barbarians get nothing of note after level 9, fighter get... an extra feat at level 15. Rogues do get reliable and stroke of luck abilities, which are solid but hardly on a par with high level spells.
You're ignoring the part where Barbarians have larger hit die, can do a decent imitation of Medium Armor with their Unarmored Defense feature, and get resistance to the three biggest types of damage when raging. Plus, with the update, it's easier to keep a Rage going out of combat for advantage on STR rolls.
I completely agree with Xalthu on this: Oftentimes, when people discuss "improving" certain classes, we forgot that what we may see as an improvement for us is a significant downgrade for some people. Not every class can appeal to every individual.
Improvement doesn't mean removing stuff. There's basically nothing wrong with martial classes until fairly high level, but their tier 3 and 4 features are just not competitive.
Barbarians and Rogues don't even keep up with damage output. In general damage output needs to roughly double between level 8 and level 18.
A raging barbarian with a greataxe goes from 2 attacks for 1d12+7 (+magic) to 2 attacks for 1d12+10 (+magic) plus a bit of damage from brutal critical. This is...not double.
A fighter goes from 2 attacks with one action surge to 4 attacks with two action surges. This is more than double, no problems here.
A sneak attacking rogue with a shortsword goes from 5d6+5(+magic) to 10d6+5(+magic). This is better than the barbarian, but still not x2.
In terms of noncombat utility, barbarians get nothing of note after level 9, fighter get... an extra feat at level 15. Rogues do get reliable and stroke of luck abilities, which are solid but hardly on a par with high level spells.
You're ignoring the part where Barbarians have larger hit die, can do a decent imitation of Medium Armor with their Unarmored Defense feature, and get resistance to the three biggest types of damage when raging. Plus, with the update, it's easier to keep a Rage going out of combat for advantage on STR rolls.
I don't think any of that is being disputed. I think the issue is that all of those things you listed are attained at level 1. A lot of the tier 3 and tier 4 features, on the other hand, are a lot less useful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
If you are filling out the surveys, you are indeed saying that things need to be changed to be what you like and if you are not filling in the surveys, your voice won't be heard. I recommend filling out the surveys and hope for the best.
That's what I am going to do. However, I would like to point out that newer players and people that don't like to work as much and get confused as much in the game (these simple players make up a large part of the audience for classes like Fighter and Barbarian) might not want complete the 1D&D playtest surveys. Meaning that the results might be inaccurate and skew towards people who are more involved in the community and concentrate somewhat in certain classes, subclasses, feats, and builds.
It doesn't matter where it skews towards. That is where your voice is heard and those are the voices WotC is listening to. The "silent majority" doesn't really matter until after the fact and people go to buy books. Anyone that wants to be heard before that happens needs to fill out the survey.
People can talk till they are blue in the face here and anywhere else on the internet, if the chatter doesn't match the survey results then it doesn't carry a lot of weight.
I completely agree with Xalthu on this: Oftentimes, when people discuss "improving" certain classes, we forgot that what we may see as an improvement for us is a significant downgrade for some people. Not every class can appeal to every individual.
Improvement doesn't mean removing stuff. There's basically nothing wrong with martial classes until fairly high level, but their tier 3 and 4 features are just not competitive.
Barbarians and Rogues don't even keep up with damage output. In general damage output needs to roughly double between level 8 and level 18.
A raging barbarian with a greataxe goes from 2 attacks for 1d12+7 (+magic) to 2 attacks for 1d12+10 (+magic) plus a bit of damage from brutal critical. This is...not double.
A fighter goes from 2 attacks with one action surge to 4 attacks with two action surges. This is more than double, no problems here.
A sneak attacking rogue with a shortsword goes from 5d6+5(+magic) to 10d6+5(+magic). This is better than the barbarian, but still not x2.
In terms of noncombat utility, barbarians get nothing of note after level 9, fighter get... an extra feat at level 15. Rogues do get reliable and stroke of luck abilities, which are solid but hardly on a par with high level spells.
You're ignoring the part where Barbarians have larger hit die, can do a decent imitation of Medium Armor with their Unarmored Defense feature, and get resistance to the three biggest types of damage when raging. Plus, with the update, it's easier to keep a Rage going out of combat for advantage on STR rolls.
I don't think any of that is being disputed. I think the issue is that all of those things you listed are attained at level 1. A lot of the tier 3 and tier 4 features, on the other hand, are a lot less useful.
Tier 3 you get the ability to not die if you make a CON save, and by that point it'll typically take a least three downs per short rest to stick. And Fighters aren't actually that much better kitted out at tier 3 and 4. Tier 3 bumps you up to three attacks and two uses of Indomitable and one extra ASI; that last one is really the only major change in dynamic. Tier 4 two uses of Action Surge, 3 Indomitables, and possibly a 4th attack. Really, the big thing with Barbarians is their most important feature automatically scales; that half off all PSB damage will always keep pace with enemy damage rolls because it's a percentage-based modifier, so they don't need explicit increases to it throughout the leveling process as with Fighter features. Now, neither one is going to match the kit of an Expert, obviously, but that's by design since an Expert doesn't have the same staying power in combat.
Tier 3 you get the ability to not die if you make a CON save, and by that point it'll typically take a least three downs per short rest to stick. And Fighters aren't actually that much better kitted out at tier 3 and 4. Tier 3 bumps you up to three attacks and two uses of Indomitable and one extra ASI; that last one is really the only major change in dynamic.
Um... seriously? The major change in dynamic is the third and fourth attacks.
Over 5 rounds of combat, taking that as typical between short rests, a fighter is making a total of 12 attacks at level 8, and is making 28 at level 20. Damage per attack only increases due to better magic weapons, but even without that, that's a 133% damage increase.
By comparison, the barbarian makes 10 attacks at level 8, and 10 attacks at level 20. His damage per attack goes up by... 4. Given that his base damage was probably 12+ even at level 8, that's a 33% damage increase.
133% is in fact about right for how much damage should ramp up between level 8 and 20. It isn't spectacular, but it is at least keeping up with the power level. 33% is... sad.
The damage per attack goes up by 6 per attack, not 4, between L8 and L20.
I think the problem is that the Barbarian is balanced around his Rages...but the Rages are based around the 6-8 encounter day which almost no one sticks to, including official adventures, so it tops out earlier than the stats suggest. In fact, it could get to the "I can Rage for every encounter" stage by L3, likely by L6 and certainly by L12. The increased number of Rages, and especially the capstone ability of unlimited Rages just doesn't have the impact the designers probably thought it would.
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.
Tier 3 you get the ability to not die if you make a CON save, and by that point it'll typically take a least three downs per short rest to stick. And Fighters aren't actually that much better kitted out at tier 3 and 4. Tier 3 bumps you up to three attacks and two uses of Indomitable and one extra ASI; that last one is really the only major change in dynamic.
Um... seriously? The major change in dynamic is the third and fourth attacks.
Over 5 rounds of combat, taking that as typical between short rests, a fighter is making a total of 12 attacks at level 8, and is making 28 at level 20. Damage per attack only increases due to better magic weapons, but even without that, that's a 133% damage increase.
By comparison, the barbarian makes 10 attacks at level 8, and 10 attacks at level 20. His damage per attack goes up by... 4. Given that his base damage was probably 12+ even at level 8, that's a 33% damage increase.
133% is in fact about right for how much damage should ramp up between level 8 and 20. It isn't spectacular, but it is at least keeping up with the power level. 33% is... sad.
This isn't my discussion, but ... I feel that's missing the rather important point that the barbarian has advantage on every attack. Which means he has double the chance to roll a crit. Meaning he does substantially more damage, not least because he does an automatic +6 pr. attack. On top of that, the barbarian is likely a half-orc - which the fighter typically isn't. Not sure why, but I've never seen a half-orc fighter. And Brutal Critical.
It's possible there are similar things to say about fighters - I've never played one (in 5e, at least), so I wouldn't know.
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.
He has that at level 8. The point isn't damage output at level 8, the point is how damage varies past level 8.
This is true, but I'm not the one comparing the damage output of fighter v. barbarian. I'm the one saying if you don't include all sources of damage, your numbers are going to be way off. But like I said, it's not my discussion, don't mind me =)
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.
People can talk till they are blue in the face here and anywhere else on the internet, if the chatter doesn't match the survey results then it doesn't carry a lot of weight.
It may not carry weight, but it should. Wotc is missing out on valuable input available on this and other forums if they are only getting input from people that like to take surveys. Those surveys can only generate skewed models of the player base. It assumes only people that participate have valuable input to the game. Some that may fill out a survey may not even be aware there are survey's to fill out, there is a whole industry dedicated to getting people to fill out surveys. Surveys are a tool not the answer.
The point of the post was comparing how damage varies with level.
That still doesn't work if the damage for one of the two is way off. Look, I was just trying to be helpful, pointing out something I figured you might have missed. I don't really care either way, because I never play high enough level for this to be remotely relevant.
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.
People can talk till they are blue in the face here and anywhere else on the internet, if the chatter doesn't match the survey results then it doesn't carry a lot of weight.
I may not carry weight, but it should. Wotc is missing out on valuable input available on this and other forums if they are only getting input from people that like to take surveys. Those surveys can only generate skewed models of the player base. It assumes only people that participate have valuable input to the game. Some that may fill out a survey may not even be aware there are survey's to fill out, there is a whole industry dedicated to getting people to fill out surveys. Surveys are a tool not the answer.
Not really. I would put money that most of the people that actually participate in these forums fill out the survey. These are exactly the people that would.
However, and this is just a guess, there aren't 40k people talking on these forums about onednd. It seems to be the same 2 or 3 dozen people in every thread that discusses the UA. That is an extremely small number of people compared to the number of people in total that are filling out the surveys WotC have put out.
BUT, that wasn't the point of my original comment. I was commenting on the idea that people saying "I don't go saying other classes need to be changed to be what I would like." are in fact telling WotC to do just that every time they fill out a survey. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that, in reality I encourage it, but don't claim that you aren't trying to influence changes in the game towards what you want it to be.
Unless of course you AREN'T filling out the survey, in which case you should because you are doing yourself a disservice by not voicing your desires.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
It may not carry weight, but it should. Wotc is missing out on valuable input available on this and other forums if they are only getting input from people that like to take surveys. Those surveys can only generate skewed models of the player base.
This is both right and wrong. Being limited to responses from people who fill out the forms is definitely an issue, but it's not an issue that would be improved by reading forum chatter, because the data they aren't capturing is mostly from low-interaction people who aren't going to comment on forums either.
Well, I Original just came to see if anyone had solutions to the problem but figure I comment my experience and some number crunching I've done.
I personally have primarily played casters in 5e. I have accidently outshined a Eldritch Knight with a Shadow Sorcerer that used Shadow Blade and Booming Blade (both before and after the nerfs to this combo). I'm playing a rogue now that my DM gave a homebrew magic item that let's me attack twice when I take the attack action. So I can keep up with the rest of the party in damage.
My issue with this topic is people like to optimize only one or the other so I crunch some number and here is my results but first let me explain some things. I think we all agree that 6-8 encounters a day is rare and often only come up in dungeon crawls. In my experience 4 encounters is a bit of a stretch but happens from time to time. Again with my experience most combat encounters end in about 4 to 5 turns. Lastly, hit chance I use the DMG's chart for creating a monster which recommends that a monster's AC 8 + a Player Character's proficency bonus and primary ability modifier (it assumes you increase this every four levels until you reach the Cap) which is an 65% chance to hit, every point above this increases your chance by 5%
Let's compare a level 3 Bladesinger(a defensive Wizard) to a level 3 Rune Knight (an offensive Fighter).
A Rune Knight can grow large twice adding an extra d6 to their damage once per turn, important for Action Surge. Can use Action Surge and their fire runes twice in this scenario. I want to point out I would also grab cloud Rune but it's extra damage is hard to quantify with some monsters having multiattack, or save DC's instead of attacks. Finally we will go with a Greatsword and use the Defence Fighting Style.
HP: 30
AC: 17 (Chain Mail+ Defence)
Damage output: When using Giant's Growth you average damage will be (7+3.5)×1.05×.65= 7.2
Action Surge: 7×1.05×.65×2=9.6
Flame Rune(what comes after the "+" is if it restrains the target and i factor the miss chance twice because it has to restrain them, then they have to fail again): ((7+7)×1.05)×.65+(7×.65×.65) =12.5
Basic Attack: 7×1.05×.65=4.8
So with the 4 encounter a day with each encounter being about 4.5 rounds long we can figure the average damage.
(7.2×9)+(9.6×2)+(12.5×2)+(4.8×5)= 133
Now let's look at Bladesinger. Damage spells I will be using is Flaming Sphere, Firebolt, and Magic Missile. We have two 2nd level spells and we get one back on a short rest. Four 1st level spells and infinite cantrips. Also because of how cheap Leather Armor is I'm assuming the Bladesinger will have at least that.
HP: 19
AC: 14 (17 while Bladesong is activated)
Damage output:
Flaming Sphere(the second half is the half damage if the succeed on a saving throw and the 1.5 is having a creature end its turn next to the Flaming Sphere): ((7×.65)+(7×.35×.5)×1.5)=8.7
Magic Missile: (2.5+1)×3= 10.5
Firebolt: 5.5×1.05×.65=3.8
One key point here Flaming Sphere can be used with Firebolt or Magic Missile after the first turn (its an action to cast but bonus action to use afterwards). Now with 4 encounters and each lasting 4.5 turns we can figure out their damage
(8.7×3)+((8.7+3.8)×10.5)+(10.5×4)+(3.8×.5)=201.25
Even if we removed Magic Missile from them and replaced it with the Shield spell. Then the Bladesinger's damage would drop to 159.25 but the Bladesinger would have higher AC than the Rune Knight. If we remove casting cantrips and taking the Dodge Action they are nearly impossible to hit, and deal 117.45 damage throughout the adventuring day. This calculation is also not mentioning multiple enemies can be damaged by Flaming Sphere, and the Bladesinger's damage is at 60ft to 120ft range so they don't have to be front line either.
This just isn't wizard's either Moon Druids with Wildshape can turn into a brown bear twice per short rest giving them a lot more health than a Barbarian that rages, and gets two attacks that deals about the same damage as Barbarian with a Great axe and their to hit is the same as the barbarian.
The thing is casters can fill out every role in a party. Face, Support, Control, Damage, Tank, etc. But if a martial wants to fill a role other than Tank or Damage the lose a lot of damage for it. Look at rogue(after level 5) and Monks. A Fighter that wants to be Support can grab Inspiring Leader, and go Purple Dragon Knight but loses the damage that let's them compete with casters because they can't take GWM or PAM. A barb that wants to go control can go with Sentinel but that only stops one creature.
This is why I think it needs to be addressed, either the classes need more resistriction on what thier role is or let them have a niche but let them all be able to pick the role they want to take.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Because people want to play characters, not classes, and there really isn't a particularly good alternative class if you want to play a martial character who isn't a berserker. Kensei monk to some degree, but it has its own issues.
Define "martial" here. What concept is it, specifically, that you're trying to achieve? What is it that you, personally, actually, want to play, but can only happen with the fighter chassis, and what, specifically, about the fighter chassis doesn't allow you to achieve that goal? Not theoretically. You, individually. How many times have you had a character concept you wanted to play, and the only way to achieve it was through using the fighter chassis, and what, specifically, about that fighter held you back from playing it?
Not "people." You. Because saying "people" want it is pretty much the definition of theorycrafting and edging pretty close to just plain old straw man.
I Agree with this exactly. You play to have fun. And if you ever feel underpowered, you try to find a way to be better or help the team in other ways.
I do normally prefer to play warrior-like characters (even gishes), i dont mind playing experts (right now Ranger is my favorite class), don't mind playing clerics and don't play Wizards if I can (I do enjoy playing anything, it's the game that's fun), I just don't generally like the wizard or many full caster classes playstyle.
I once played a fighter cavalier in 3.5ed (yes that tier 5 class with a horrible single minded prestige class, according to optimizers), for wanting to build the char that way and story reasons that fitted the campaing world, and yeah... i did not had a mount all the time, and when the opportunity presented itself the mount died really fast, but those few rounds with it where gamechanging, so the tactic to take my mount off the battle with AOEs or directly attaking it were valid (we also did the same all the time), until I got a really sturdy mount (I had to buy and bond with a special pegasus in the city of brass, RPed the shit out of it and heavily depended on animal handling and diplomacy rolls, from myself).
In the entire campaing, and we played till 18th level, I never felt useless or underpowered (sure I didnt have shapeshift as a domain spell, but that didn't ended all the battles and was very usefull for many situations): I actually dealt the most single attack damage per Hit (important against DR in a low magic campaing with 2e, 3.0e and 3.5e modules and monsters the DM used, that also made my brother had a hard time dealing with that even with his 8 attacks per round with less damage per attack), took the most amount of damage or attacks for the party (once bad guys figure out they couldn't hit my brothers matrix like high AC), and more importantly, everyone played the game as a group (even with jokes running around because some did more in X or Y situation, or my char being a Monty Python Knight, no one could do everything alone). I enjoyed every single part of the campaing... the hardships, the good times, the lucky once in a campaing moments, the struggles with RP with other players and their chars, and the inmense team synergy we had (I was the newest member of the group, they all had been playing for a long time, my older brother was the second youngest and he taught me to play).
So Yes, there is a Divide in power level, but mostly is just playstyle, teams and players. If someone feels underpowered, talk to them to find a solution.
In those full caster parties, someone still has to be upfront being the "Meat Shield". and if not, then kudos to that campaing party I guess.
I completely agree with Xalthu on this: Oftentimes, when people discuss "improving" certain classes, we forgot that what we may see as an improvement for us is a significant downgrade for some people. Not every class can appeal to every individual.
Fighter is the most popular class in the game. The parts of this class that are loved and enjoyed by many should not be ripped to shreds and rebuilt for people who don't like or use the class. Some mechanics might not be cool to you but may feel awesome for others, and that latter group shouldn't have to lose why they like.
The developers' job is to provide as many options for as many different types of players and playing styles as possible, and taking away options for some people in the process is typically not particularly helpful.
Now, does all this mean Fighter and other classes can't be improved or have their attractiveness to all types of players be grown? No, of course not. All it means is that the people who do like the existing system and features should be taken into account if some want either of those things to change.
That's what I am going to do. However, I would like to point out that newer players and people that don't like to work as much and get confused as much in the game (these simple players make up a large part of the audience for classes like Fighter and Barbarian) might not want complete the 1D&D playtest surveys. Meaning that the results might be inaccurate and skew towards people who are more involved in the community and concentrate somewhat in certain classes, subclasses, feats, and builds.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Improvement doesn't mean removing stuff. There's basically nothing wrong with martial classes until fairly high level, but their tier 3 and 4 features are just not competitive.
Barbarians and Rogues don't even keep up with damage output. In general damage output needs to roughly double between level 8 and level 18.
In terms of noncombat utility, barbarians get nothing of note after level 9, fighter get... an extra feat at level 15. Rogues do get reliable and stroke of luck abilities, which are solid but hardly on a par with high level spells.
You're ignoring the part where Barbarians have larger hit die, can do a decent imitation of Medium Armor with their Unarmored Defense feature, and get resistance to the three biggest types of damage when raging. Plus, with the update, it's easier to keep a Rage going out of combat for advantage on STR rolls.
I don't think any of that is being disputed. I think the issue is that all of those things you listed are attained at level 1. A lot of the tier 3 and tier 4 features, on the other hand, are a lot less useful.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
It doesn't matter where it skews towards. That is where your voice is heard and those are the voices WotC is listening to. The "silent majority" doesn't really matter until after the fact and people go to buy books. Anyone that wants to be heard before that happens needs to fill out the survey.
People can talk till they are blue in the face here and anywhere else on the internet, if the chatter doesn't match the survey results then it doesn't carry a lot of weight.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Tier 3 you get the ability to not die if you make a CON save, and by that point it'll typically take a least three downs per short rest to stick. And Fighters aren't actually that much better kitted out at tier 3 and 4. Tier 3 bumps you up to three attacks and two uses of Indomitable and one extra ASI; that last one is really the only major change in dynamic. Tier 4 two uses of Action Surge, 3 Indomitables, and possibly a 4th attack. Really, the big thing with Barbarians is their most important feature automatically scales; that half off all PSB damage will always keep pace with enemy damage rolls because it's a percentage-based modifier, so they don't need explicit increases to it throughout the leveling process as with Fighter features. Now, neither one is going to match the kit of an Expert, obviously, but that's by design since an Expert doesn't have the same staying power in combat.
Um... seriously? The major change in dynamic is the third and fourth attacks.
Over 5 rounds of combat, taking that as typical between short rests, a fighter is making a total of 12 attacks at level 8, and is making 28 at level 20. Damage per attack only increases due to better magic weapons, but even without that, that's a 133% damage increase.
By comparison, the barbarian makes 10 attacks at level 8, and 10 attacks at level 20. His damage per attack goes up by... 4. Given that his base damage was probably 12+ even at level 8, that's a 33% damage increase.
133% is in fact about right for how much damage should ramp up between level 8 and 20. It isn't spectacular, but it is at least keeping up with the power level. 33% is... sad.
The damage per attack goes up by 6 per attack, not 4, between L8 and L20.
I think the problem is that the Barbarian is balanced around his Rages...but the Rages are based around the 6-8 encounter day which almost no one sticks to, including official adventures, so it tops out earlier than the stats suggest. In fact, it could get to the "I can Rage for every encounter" stage by L3, likely by L6 and certainly by L12. The increased number of Rages, and especially the capstone ability of unlimited Rages just doesn't have the impact the designers probably thought it would.
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.
This isn't my discussion, but ... I feel that's missing the rather important point that the barbarian has advantage on every attack. Which means he has double the chance to roll a crit. Meaning he does substantially more damage, not least because he does an automatic +6 pr. attack. On top of that, the barbarian is likely a half-orc - which the fighter typically isn't. Not sure why, but I've never seen a half-orc fighter. And Brutal Critical.
It's possible there are similar things to say about fighters - I've never played one (in 5e, at least), so I wouldn't know.
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.
Oh, I was looking at the playtest barbarian during part of the math, hadn't noticed that they reduced the rage damage bonus at high levels.
He has that at level 8. The point isn't damage output at level 8, the point is how damage varies past level 8.
This is true, but I'm not the one comparing the damage output of fighter v. barbarian. I'm the one saying if you don't include all sources of damage, your numbers are going to be way off. But like I said, it's not my discussion, don't mind me =)
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 point of the post was comparing how damage varies with level.
It may not carry weight, but it should. Wotc is missing out on valuable input available on this and other forums if they are only getting input from people that like to take surveys. Those surveys can only generate skewed models of the player base. It assumes only people that participate have valuable input to the game. Some that may fill out a survey may not even be aware there are survey's to fill out, there is a whole industry dedicated to getting people to fill out surveys. Surveys are a tool not the answer.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
That still doesn't work if the damage for one of the two is way off. Look, I was just trying to be helpful, pointing out something I figured you might have missed. I don't really care either way, because I never play high enough level for this to be remotely relevant.
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.
Not really. I would put money that most of the people that actually participate in these forums fill out the survey. These are exactly the people that would.
However, and this is just a guess, there aren't 40k people talking on these forums about onednd. It seems to be the same 2 or 3 dozen people in every thread that discusses the UA. That is an extremely small number of people compared to the number of people in total that are filling out the surveys WotC have put out.
BUT, that wasn't the point of my original comment. I was commenting on the idea that people saying "I don't go saying other classes need to be changed to be what I would like." are in fact telling WotC to do just that every time they fill out a survey. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that, in reality I encourage it, but don't claim that you aren't trying to influence changes in the game towards what you want it to be.
Unless of course you AREN'T filling out the survey, in which case you should because you are doing yourself a disservice by not voicing your desires.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
This is both right and wrong. Being limited to responses from people who fill out the forms is definitely an issue, but it's not an issue that would be improved by reading forum chatter, because the data they aren't capturing is mostly from low-interaction people who aren't going to comment on forums either.
Well, I Original just came to see if anyone had solutions to the problem but figure I comment my experience and some number crunching I've done.
I personally have primarily played casters in 5e. I have accidently outshined a Eldritch Knight with a Shadow Sorcerer that used Shadow Blade and Booming Blade (both before and after the nerfs to this combo). I'm playing a rogue now that my DM gave a homebrew magic item that let's me attack twice when I take the attack action. So I can keep up with the rest of the party in damage.
My issue with this topic is people like to optimize only one or the other so I crunch some number and here is my results but first let me explain some things. I think we all agree that 6-8 encounters a day is rare and often only come up in dungeon crawls. In my experience 4 encounters is a bit of a stretch but happens from time to time. Again with my experience most combat encounters end in about 4 to 5 turns. Lastly, hit chance I use the DMG's chart for creating a monster which recommends that a monster's AC 8 + a Player Character's proficency bonus and primary ability modifier (it assumes you increase this every four levels until you reach the Cap) which is an 65% chance to hit, every point above this increases your chance by 5%
Let's compare a level 3 Bladesinger(a defensive Wizard) to a level 3 Rune Knight (an offensive Fighter).
A Rune Knight can grow large twice adding an extra d6 to their damage once per turn, important for Action Surge. Can use Action Surge and their fire runes twice in this scenario. I want to point out I would also grab cloud Rune but it's extra damage is hard to quantify with some monsters having multiattack, or save DC's instead of attacks. Finally we will go with a Greatsword and use the Defence Fighting Style.
HP: 30
AC: 17 (Chain Mail+ Defence)
Damage output: When using Giant's Growth you average damage will be (7+3.5)×1.05×.65= 7.2
Action Surge: 7×1.05×.65×2=9.6
Flame Rune(what comes after the "+" is if it restrains the target and i factor the miss chance twice because it has to restrain them, then they have to fail again): ((7+7)×1.05)×.65+(7×.65×.65) =12.5
Basic Attack: 7×1.05×.65=4.8
So with the 4 encounter a day with each encounter being about 4.5 rounds long we can figure the average damage.
(7.2×9)+(9.6×2)+(12.5×2)+(4.8×5)= 133
Now let's look at Bladesinger. Damage spells I will be using is Flaming Sphere, Firebolt, and Magic Missile. We have two 2nd level spells and we get one back on a short rest. Four 1st level spells and infinite cantrips. Also because of how cheap Leather Armor is I'm assuming the Bladesinger will have at least that.
HP: 19
AC: 14 (17 while Bladesong is activated)
Damage output:
Flaming Sphere(the second half is the half damage if the succeed on a saving throw and the 1.5 is having a creature end its turn next to the Flaming Sphere): ((7×.65)+(7×.35×.5)×1.5)=8.7
Magic Missile: (2.5+1)×3= 10.5
Firebolt: 5.5×1.05×.65=3.8
One key point here Flaming Sphere can be used with Firebolt or Magic Missile after the first turn (its an action to cast but bonus action to use afterwards). Now with 4 encounters and each lasting 4.5 turns we can figure out their damage
(8.7×3)+((8.7+3.8)×10.5)+(10.5×4)+(3.8×.5)=201.25
Even if we removed Magic Missile from them and replaced it with the Shield spell. Then the Bladesinger's damage would drop to 159.25 but the Bladesinger would have higher AC than the Rune Knight. If we remove casting cantrips and taking the Dodge Action they are nearly impossible to hit, and deal 117.45 damage throughout the adventuring day. This calculation is also not mentioning multiple enemies can be damaged by Flaming Sphere, and the Bladesinger's damage is at 60ft to 120ft range so they don't have to be front line either.
This just isn't wizard's either Moon Druids with Wildshape can turn into a brown bear twice per short rest giving them a lot more health than a Barbarian that rages, and gets two attacks that deals about the same damage as Barbarian with a Great axe and their to hit is the same as the barbarian.
The thing is casters can fill out every role in a party. Face, Support, Control, Damage, Tank, etc. But if a martial wants to fill a role other than Tank or Damage the lose a lot of damage for it. Look at rogue(after level 5) and Monks. A Fighter that wants to be Support can grab Inspiring Leader, and go Purple Dragon Knight but loses the damage that let's them compete with casters because they can't take GWM or PAM. A barb that wants to go control can go with Sentinel but that only stops one creature.
This is why I think it needs to be addressed, either the classes need more resistriction on what thier role is or let them have a niche but let them all be able to pick the role they want to take.