Class Comparisons - less relevant in 5E?

[Z3ro]

So this thought comes from an argument that I'm seeing in my other thread (along with other places) when it comes to comparing classes; namely, the idea that when comparing classes all we should be considering are things that are unique to each class. I'm beginning to think this is a pre-5E mindset, and that we should probably move to a character comparison, rather than straight class comparison.

The most prominent example is probably skills. When discussing what sort of out-of-combat options a fighter has, many people brought up the various skills a fighter could get, including things like thieves tools proficiency thanks to the right background. Others argued those shouldn't count, as they're open to anyone, and only things unique to the fighter should count.

The problem is, you will never pay a fighter without a race and a background, meaning every fighter will have a wide selection of skills. I think this comes from a primarily 3.5 mindset, where everything, including your skill list, came from your class. In that case, you could discuss classes in a void, as your class determined 95% of your character capabilities. 5E gives races and backgrounds (and feats) a much bigger impact on your overall character, thus should warrant more consideration.

I think that rather than classes, characters need to be discussed. An orc champion fighter, with no feats and the soldier background is going to play very differently than a drow champion fighter with the criminal background and the ritual caster feat. And this is (IMO) a good thing; D&D has always placed far too much emphasis on class, while in 5E it seems there are many different ways to make a fun, useful character.

What does everyone think? Please note, I'm not looking to discuss differences in class directly (there're plenty of threads for that), but a more meta discussion on the discussion itself.

[Person_Man]

I see the 5E character creation sub-game as a series of Venn diagrams. If you want to be good at a certain role in or out of combat, there are probably at least half a dozen different ways to do it. And because of bounded accuracy, you don't need to have the highest ability score or proficiency bonus or optimal class ability to fill a role exceptionally well. You just need to invest some kind of resource into it.

I think the confusion comes from the fact that 5E has character creation resources distributed across many different sources (ability score, race, background, class, subclass, feat, skills, equipment/armor/weapons/tools, magic items, etc), and is thus much more of a semi-generic system (similar to point buy rpg) instead of being a strict class based system (like 1E/2E/4E) where your class basically determined your roles.

[Doug Lampert]

So this thought comes from an argument that I'm seeing in my other thread (along with other places) when it comes to comparing classes; namely, the idea that when comparing classes all we should be considering are things that are unique to each class. I'm beginning to think this is a pre-5E mindset, and that we should probably move to a character comparison, rather than straight class comparison.

The most prominent example is probably skills. When discussing what sort of out-of-combat options a fighter has, many people brought up the various skills a fighter could get, including things like thieves tools proficiency thanks to the right background. Others argued those shouldn't count, as they're open to anyone, and only things unique to the fighter should count.

The problem is, you will never pay a fighter without a race and a background, meaning every fighter will have a wide selection of skills.

You will also never play a Bard without a race and a background. These can be the same as those of the fighter, and can work better for the bard.

The point of a class comparison is to ask, "What does this class bring to the table, what advantage does it give, what disadvantage?" Something that absolutely anyone can do is not brought to the table by the class and thus is not relevant to whether the class is any good or not.

[Ghost Nappa]

Any and all comparisons between classes should be under the assumption of ceteris paribus: "All other things equal." Any benefits derived from races or backgrounds should NOT be taken into consideration when comparing classes.

Concrete Examples of Acceptable Class Comparisons:

Drow Outlander Fighter Vs. Drow Outlander Ranger

Dragonborn Acolyte Fighter Vs. Dragonborn Acolyte Paladin

Note that in both cases the race and background are the same. The only difference is the class.

Note than you can still compare the "skill lists" granted by a class. Say Class A grants potential access to Religion and Class B grants potential access to Arcana, etc.

[Z3ro]

You will also never play a Bard without a race and a background. These can be the same as those of the fighter, and can work better for the bard.

The point of a class comparison is to ask, "What does this class bring to the table, what advantage does it give, what disadvantage?" Something that absolutely anyone can do is not brought to the table by the class and thus is not relevant to whether the class is any good or not.


Any and all comparisons between classes should be under the assumption of ceteris paribus: "All other things equal." Any benefits derived from races or backgrounds should NOT be taken into consideration when comparing classes.

Concrete Examples of Acceptable Class Comparisons:

Drow Outlander Fighter Vs. Drow Outlander Ranger

Dragonborn Acolyte Fighter Vs. Dragonborn Acolyte Paladin

Note that in both cases the race and background are the same. The only difference is the class.

Note than you can still compare the "skill lists" granted by a class. Say Class A grants potential access to Religion and Class B grants potential access to Arcana, etc.

But here's the problem when you do comparisons that way; the classes doesn't exist in a vacuum. I understand what you're getting at, that if you want to isolate fighter, for example, you have to leave everything else out. The problem is that, no character will ever have to meet the challenges of the game without those other features. From that perspective, why not include them.

Simple example: let's say you want to determine who can open a lock better, a fighter or a wizard. Now, the fighter class gets no features that help lock-picking, while a wizard can cast knock. Oh but wait, a fighter can take the criminal background if they want, giving them proficiency in thieves tools. The counter is that the wizard, too, could take that same background and that it's not the class, but everything else doing the work.

And that's the point. 5E is very modular, almost to the point of a build-point system, and it seems many people keep forgetting that.

[mr_odd]

Class comparisons just do not fit with 5e. If anything, there ought to be party comparisons. 5e is focused on the party in terms of mechanics and is focused on the individual in terms of roleplay.

[Ghost Nappa]

But here's the problem when you do comparisons that way; the classes doesn't exist in a vacuum. I understand what you're getting at, that if you want to isolate fighter, for example, you have to leave everything else out. The problem is that, no character will ever have to meet the challenges of the game without those other features. From that perspective, why not include them.

Oh but wait, a fighter can take the criminal background if they want, giving them proficiency in thieves tools. The counter is that the wizard, too, could take that same background and that it's not the class, but everything else doing the work.

And that's the point. 5E is very modular, almost to the point of a build-point system, and it seems many people keep forgetting that.

But what if the Fighter has access to a magic Skeleton Key?

But what if the Wizard has access to a magic skeleton key AND the Criminal Background?

But what if...?

It doesn't matter what means any given character has to solve a problem. What matters is the source of those means. Both of the "but wait" comments that you use are characters that are acquiring proficiency from somewhere besides the class, thus making it not part of the class comparison.

Of the statement you gave above, here is the only part I consider to be a class comparison:

Simple example: let's say you want to determine who can open a lock better, a fighter or a wizard. Now, the fighter class gets no features that help lock-picking, while a wizard can cast knock.

Beyond that you are comparing background/class combinations, which is a different comparison. It is not irrelevant, but I think you are confusing where the line separating the two of them is (or at least the one I'm using).


To re-phrase it: a character who is a fighter can gain proficiency with thieves' tools but said character does not have access to thieves' tools because of the fighter class, therefore proficiency with them is not attributed to the Fighter class.

Even more specific re-phrasing:
Class comparisons are done only using the material explicitly written in the 5th Edition Player's Handbook on the pages 45 to 119, inclusive, and material written in the 5th Dungeon Master's Guide on pages 96 and 96 (Villainous Class Options).

All other abilities, skills, powers, and resources occur outside of the character's class and are not suitable for comparing a class' features.



The problem is that, no character will ever have to meet the challenges of the game without those other features. From that perspective, why not include them.

Because the comparisons are relevant when BUILDING the character. I agree, no character ever leaves home without their race, background, and class, but are still deciding how you approach combat and potentially everyday life (Cleric, Monk, Druid, Ranger, Bard...) from your class. The decision of which class to pick when building a character is a short-lived but important one and comparing different classes is the primary means of determining what a character is going to do.

[Z3ro]

All other abilities, skills, powers, and resources occur outside of the character's class and are not suitable for comparing a class' features.

Here's the problem with this; what if we were doing a comparison of class features themselves? Specifically, how good something like, say, action surge is.

Now you could point out, correctly, that action surge lets a fighter attack 8 times a round instead of 4.

But imagine if I came back and said "oh no, that doesn't count. We're not including extra attack, that's a separate feature. We're just looking at action surge, so it would only make 1 attack 2, and that's not that impressive. Extra attack does that all by itself".

This is how I hear it when people complain about source of features; every 20 fighter has 4 attacks, it would be disingenuous to act as if they didn't. Just like ever character has a background. And it's not like a skeleton key, as every character explicitly gets a background/race.

[AstralFire]

I feel like this is going to be "all those other double-digit page count threads already on the forum, part eleventy-one."

[Scarab112]

Simple example: let's say you want to determine who can open a lock better, a fighter or a wizard. Now, the fighter class gets no features that help lock-picking, while a wizard can cast knock. Oh but wait, a fighter can take the criminal background if they want, giving them proficiency in thieves tools. The counter is that the wizard, too, could take that same background and that it's not the class, but everything else doing the work.

Actually, on an interesting note, the champion fighter's half bonus to all physical checks does make them better at sneaking and lockpicking than a wizard.

That said, your point is still valid. I see a lot of complaint s that a fighter has no ability to contribute out of combat, when in reality his skill list is very diverse and with backgrounds he gets several more options. While the fighter might not have as much utility, he still has plenty.

[Ghost Nappa]

I feel like this is going to be "all those other double-digit page count threads already on the forum, part eleventy-one."

Yup.


Here's the problem with this; what if we were doing a comparison of class features themselves? Specifically, how good something like, say, action surge is.

Now you could point out, correctly, that action surge lets a fighter attack 8 times a round instead of 4.

But imagine if I came back and said "oh no, that doesn't count. We're not including extra attack, that's a separate feature. We're just looking at action surge, so it would only make 1 attack 2, and that's not that impressive. Extra attack does that all by itself".

This is how I hear it when people complain about source of features; every 20 fighter has 4 attacks, it would be disingenuous to act as if they didn't. Just like ever character has a background. And it's not like a skeleton key, as every character explicitly gets a background/race.

This is a different comparison entirely. When you are comparing different classes, you are comparing Class A to Class B.

Fighter vs. Wizard.

Sorcerer vs. Bard.

Barbarian vs. Druid.

You can go ahead and compare the features of different classes to others all you want, but that does not change the fact that Class comparisons are the most effective method of comparing differences because most of a character's differences are going to come from their class.

There is a larger difference between a Human Druid and a Human Monk than a Human Druid and a Half-Elf Druid.
There is a larger difference between an Outlander Wizard and an Outlander Barbarian than an Outlander Wizard and an Acolyte Wizard.

Edit: Entire character concepts are too specific and harder to compare generally simply because of how many different combinations there are. So most people compare the most significant difference between them all: classes. You get different features from your class throughout all 20 levels. Your race provides a couple of immediate nifty benefits, but it's mostly just fluff and character interaction which are harder to objectify and quantify.

[Z3ro]

This is a different comparison entirely. When you are comparing different classes, you are comparing Class A to Class B.

Fighter vs. Wizard.

Sorcerer vs. Bard.

Barbarian vs. Druid.

You can go ahead and compare the features of different classes to others all you want, but that does not change the fact that Class comparisons are the most effective method of comparing differences because most of a character's differences are going to come from their class.

I wasn't suggesting comparing class features; I was attempting to demonstrate that a comparison of a part, while excluding the whole, can lead to a false conclusion.



There is a larger difference between a Human Druid and a Human Monk than a Human Druid and a Half-Elf Druid.
There is a larger difference between an Outlander Wizard and an Outlander Barbarian than an Outlander Wizard and an Acolyte Wizard.

Edit: Entire character concepts are too specific and harder to compare generally simply because of how many different combinations there are. So most people compare the most significant difference between them all: classes. You get different features from your class throughout all 20 levels. Your race provides a couple of immediate nifty benefits, but it's mostly just fluff and character interaction which are harder to objectify and quantify.

What? Race and background provide benefits that will last an entire characters career. A free cantrip is fluff? Or several spells? Free skills and tools proficiency is fluff?

Really, what it's about to me, is this; a criminal fighter is going to approach problems and challenges very differently than a charlatan fighter - and that's a good thing! It's honestly one of the things I like most about the system, that I can take a very generic class - like fighter - and make it very different than every other fighter out there. Telling my charlatan fighter he has no out of combat options is very disingenuous, and is why I imagine many people are arguing so hard.

[Mandragola]

So, what class comparisons are we talking about? Do we mean the class guides? I actually don't think there's anyone out there claiming that lockpicking is a cool new ability fighters now get which makes them better than other classes (which can do the same). I think there are people saying there's a cool new ability for your fighter: lockpicking. That's different because it is talking about how you can potentially make your character more versatile and useful to a group, not talking about something exclusively available to your character.

A class comparison will tend to be a bit focussed. "Should I play a wizard or a sorceror?", and so on. It generally won't be "should I play a wizard or a fighter?". Someone might ask whether a fighter or a paladin makes a better polearm master, for example (as I was recently wondering myself).

If you're making a class guide then obviously it does make sense to rate races and backgrounds as they apply to that class. Typically, a background that gives a class access to a skill that it wants but doesn't get access to will be good for that class. It may not be so good for another class, if that other class doesn't need the skill, or already has access to it.

But on the other hand, some of these things can be compared more to builds than to classes. You might well start out from the position of wanting to make a build that can use such and such a feat, or weapon, or spell, or whatever to greatest effect. So the criminal background is more useful for a dex (and maybe charisma)-based build than a strength-based one, regardless of class. There are probably criminal half-elf and variant human paladins sneaking, lockpicking and deceiving their way around 5e adventures right at this moment.

To be honest, I think people should be free to compare what they like to whatever else they like. It's their free time to do with as they like, and the internet won't run out of space any time soon.

[Ghost Nappa]

I wasn't suggesting comparing class features; I was attempting to demonstrate that a comparison of a part, while excluding the whole, can lead to a false conclusion.



What? Race and background provide benefits that will last an entire characters career. A free cantrip is fluff? Or several spells? Free skills and tools proficiency is fluff?

I was referring to things like the differences between ancestry like how the Drow split off from the rest of the elves.

Really, what it's about to me, is this; a criminal fighter is going to approach problems and challenges very differently than a charlatan fighter - and that's a good thing! It's honestly one of the things I like most about the system, that I can take a very generic class - like fighter - and make it very different than every other fighter out there. Telling my charlatan fighter he has no out of combat options is very disingenuous, and is why I imagine many people are arguing so hard.

Again, a criminal fighter is more MECHANICALLY similar to a charlatan fighter than a criminal rogue is to a criminal druid. I am not saying that any of the three are the same or similar but most of the differences are behavioral as opposed to mechanical. All of your examples have been mechanical, hence my insistence to the contrary.



We can calculate how changing a character's class from Fighter to Ranger affects their DPS in combat, but we can't calculate how much more fun someone is going to have if they change their character's background from Acolyte to Soldier.

We can observe a significant (read: observable) mechanical optimization by picking certain options during character creation, but there's just as much good story-telling to be had by the "odd duckling" story of the poorly optimized but clever character who compensates for their flaws.

That being said, all of the examples and observations have been mechanical, hence my insistence that class comparisons are better for the discussion over character concept comparisons (the mechanical differences between a Charlatan Fighter and a Criminal Fighter are non-existent). To go back to the Fighter and Wizard try to pick a lock example you raised, conclusions that can be made are:

"Picking the Fighter class will not give you any means of handling locks."
"Picking the Wizard class gives you one way to handle locks: the Knock spell."
"A generic fighter is just as good or worse than a generic wizard at handling locks."

There is a reason that people tend to make class guides instead of race, background, or character concept guides. They are mechanical advisors handling the most complicated mechanical thing that every single person is going to have to do when they make their character.

[Z3ro]

the mechanical differences between a Charlatan Fighter and a Criminal Fighter are non-existent


If you feel this way, I'm not sure there is much to be gained by talking to each other. One character is likely playing a face character, with a high charisma and good social skill scores, while the other is likely a sneaky thief. Even if literally every other statistic were the same (unlikely, as why would a charlatan want dex over str?), the two would play very different in practice.

Just as a side note, this comes from experience; in my current party I'm playing a charlatan fighter and we have a criminal fighter as well. The criminal has far more in common with the party rogue than me.

[Ghost Nappa]

If you feel this way, I'm not sure there is much to be gained by talking to each other. One character is likely playing a face character, with a high charisma and good social skill scores, while the other is likely a sneaky thief. Even if literally every other statistic were the same (unlikely, as why would a charlatan want dex over str?), the two would play very different in practice.

I fail to see how a stat-allocation, a different flavor and most importantly a playing style difference equals an obvious mechanical difference.

This is like me going to the store, buying ice cream, and then preparing two bowls. I put sprinkles on one and whipped cream on the other and asking you to tell me the difference between them - while you are blindfolded. You then tell me that one is Vanilla and the other is Strawberry.

You have taken the labels
The differences between your two characters on paper are their skill proficiencies mechanically speaking.

They both get Deception. Charlatan gets Sleight of Hand, Disguise kits, and forgery kits. Criminal gets Stealth, a gaming set, and thieves' tools.

Do you want to know what these differences prevent you from doing in character? Jack squat. You don't get to add your proficiency bonus if you aren't proficient with something when you use it, but that doesn't mean you are restricted from using it. That is what I mean when I say that there "is no mechanical difference between a Charlatan Fighter and a Criminal Fighter."

There are an infinite different ways they can be played differently but that isn't because of anything granted by the Fighter's features themselves. That's because of the imagination of the players.
Hell, I can take the EXACT same choices during character creation but play someone totally different because of a different playstyle, set of motivations, and values. The two characters are mechanically identical, but they are way different in a campaign.

But those aren't coming from the mechanics of the classes themselves. The class discussions are intended to isolate what roles are most appropriate for a given class to encourage characters that are built optimally because there are people who enjoy doing so. The things you are describing to me aren't even remotely close to the topics of those discussions and I now question what you regard as "mechanically different."

[Z3ro]

Do you want to know what these differences prevent you from doing in character? Jack squat. You don't get to add your proficiency bonus if you aren't proficient with something when you use it, but that doesn't mean you are restricted from using it. That is what I mean when I say that there "is no mechanical difference between a Charlatan Fighter and a Criminal Fighter."


Two things: 1)A lock requires proficiency in thieves tools to attempt to open it, you can't even roll for it. 2)As I suspected, we will gain nothing from this discussion, as our views on the game and class builds are so far off there is no common ground.

[Ghost Nappa]

Two things: 1)A lock requires proficiency in thieves tools to attempt to open it, you can't even roll for it. 2)As I suspected, we will gain nothing from this discussion, as our views on the game and class builds are so far off there is no common ground.

1) Objections:

PHB p. 154


Thieves' Tools. ...Proficiency with theses tools lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to disarm traps or open locks.

PHB p. 174


At other times, a player might ask the DM if proficiency in a skill means an individual can add his or her proficiency bonus to ability checks that involve that skill. Without proficiency in the skill, the individual makes a normal ability check.

You need Thieves' Tools in order to pick locks and such, but you do NOT NEED PROFICIENCY in the the tools in order to actually use them.


2) You're welcome to your own opinion, but it is rather clear to me that you are confusing play-style and character concept with mechanical features signature of a class chassis in many of your arguments. We can both agree that there is no point in further discussion.

[Z3ro]

1) Objections:
You need Thieves' Tools in order to pick locks and such, but you do NOT NEED PROFICIENCY in the the tools in order to actually use them.

PG 152 - Lock. A key is provided with the lock. Without the key, a creature proficient with thieves’ tools can pick this lock with a successful DC 15 Dexterity check.

You need proficiency to pick a lock



We can both agree that there is no point in further discussion.

Agreed

[Vogonjeltz]

Here's the problem with this; what if we were doing a comparison of class features themselves? Specifically, how good something like, say, action surge is.

Now you could point out, correctly, that action surge lets a fighter attack 8 times a round instead of 4.

But imagine if I came back and said "oh no, that doesn't count. We're not including extra attack, that's a separate feature. We're just looking at action surge, so it would only make 1 attack 2, and that's not that impressive. Extra attack does that all by itself".

This is how I hear it when people complain about source of features; every 20 fighter has 4 attacks, it would be disingenuous to act as if they didn't. Just like ever character has a background. And it's not like a skeleton key, as every character explicitly gets a background/race.

It's worth noting that a Wizard can only actually prepare up to 25 spells at best. They are only guaranteed 40 spells known through leveling. That leaves them with 40 discrete kinds of actions they can take.

Some of those actions require a higher level spell slot than others. So with that 1st level spell slot there are exactly 4 actions they can take. And if the situation doesn't call for one of those 4 actions, the slot may as well not exist.

I have no doubt we can come up with more contests or improvised actions that can be done as one of the Fighter extra attacks than there are possible options for Wizard spell slots.

[neonchameleon]

Just like ever character has a background.

But the background is not a part of the class. And you therefore can not use it for comparing classes unless you can indicate some way that the background behaves differently for that class than for any other.

And yes, class comparisons are still relevant in 5e. They are where the character gets an overwhelming majority of their abilities from - as always.

Edit: Improvising is not an ability unique to the fighter. And when you have more baseline options there are more ways you can improvise.

[Z3ro]

But the background is not a part of the class. And you therefore can not use it for comparing classes unless you can indicate some way that the background behaves differently for that class than for any other.

And yes, class comparisons are still relevant in 5e. They are where the character gets an overwhelming majority of their abilities from - as always.

Edit: Improvising is not an ability unique to the fighter. And when you have more baseline options there are more ways you can improvise.

But my point is why are you comparing classes, rather than characters, when 5E gives you so many options that are not based on class, more than any other edition of D&D?

[OldTrees1]

But the background is not a part of the class. And you therefore can not use it for comparing classes unless you can indicate some way that the background behaves differently for that class than for any other.

And yes, class comparisons are still relevant in 5e. They are where the character gets an overwhelming majority of their abilities from - as always.

Edit: Improvising is not an ability unique to the fighter. And when you have more baseline options there are more ways you can improvise.

When comparing classes, you need to compare them as they will appear rather than in an oversimplified and thus irrelevant model. Therefore while classes don't get credit for what comes from backgrounds, races, ability scores, and etc, they need to be judge with those background details taken into account.

Consider comparing races while assuming they are all dead(since it is classes not races that grant hp). By ignoring the hp granted by classes, we would incorrectly assume all races are functionally identical since they would all be 0hp corpses in our "ignoring classes" model. While this is an extreme example, the same holds true for all oversimplifications due to only making comparisons under factually incorrect assumptions.

[silveralen]

When comparing classes, you need to compare them as they will appear rather than in an oversimplified and thus irrelevant model. Therefore while classes don't get credit for what comes from backgrounds, races, ability scores, and etc, they need to be judge with those background details taken into account.

Agreed.

You should also take the rest of the system into account. If I have to hear "all a fighter can do is attack" one more time.....

[neonchameleon]

But my point is why are you comparing classes, rather than characters, when 5E gives you so many options that are not based on class, more than any other edition of D&D?

5e lags well behind late 4e for non-class based options (notably themes) here. And I'm comparing classes because the game designers designed classes rather than individual PCs.


When comparing classes, you need to compare them as they will appear rather than in an oversimplified and thus irrelevant model. Therefore while classes don't get credit for what comes from backgrounds, races, ability scores, and etc, they need to be judge with those background details taken into account.

And when doing this you assume that the things that are not specifically and explicitly different are assumed to cancel out unless there is a good reason they should not.


Consider comparing races while assuming they are all dead(since it is classes not races that grant hp). By ignoring the hp granted by classes, we would incorrectly assume all races are functionally identical since they would all be 0hp corpses in our "ignoring classes" model.

Oh ffs.

[OldTrees1]

And when doing this you assume that the things that are not specifically and explicitly different are assumed to cancel out unless there is a good reason they should not.

By cancel out, do you mean assume they don't exist or do you mean don't use them as a reason to prefer X over Y?

Consider these 2 functions as an analogy.
F(x) = x/(x-1)
G(x) = (x+1)/(x-1)
Do you compare them as they are or as F(x) = x and G(x) = x+1? The oversimplification in this case overlooks a hole in both curves at x=1.

When something is the same for all options, it is invalid to consider a case where it is not present.



Oh ffs.
I did not understand this sentence.

[ad_hoc]

The idea is that we can't compare classes in a vacuum.

"A fighter cannot pick locks" is incorrect. A character with only fighter levels can easily have thieves tools proficiency through their background.

Instead, "the fighter class does not provide the proficiency for picking locks." Okay, so what does that mean exactly?

It limits the character in that if they want the proficiency they need to take a background that has it and not a different one. They can still do it though if they want to.

[KiltieMacPipes]

I did not understand this sentence.
I believe ffs stands for "For F*$K'S Sake"

[Rogue Shadows]

By cancel out, do you mean assume they don't exist or do you mean don't use them as a reason to prefer X over Y?

Consider these 2 functions as an analogy.
F(x) = x/(x-1)
G(x) = (x+1)/(x-1)
Do you compare them as they are or as F(x) = x and G(x) = x+1? The oversimplification in this case overlooks a hole in both curves at x=1.

Don't...don't use math as an analogy, it's early in the morning for some of us and math is bad for analogy purposes at any time of the day anyway since the point of an analogy is to provide an example that is quickly and easily understood and related back to the classes.

A better example is this: a Jeep Wrangler and a Honda Civic, two distinct types of cars, each with their own mechanical strengths and weaknesses. When the guy at the dealership is trying to sell you the cars, he'll tell you the strengths (and, if he's honest, the weaknesses) of both the Wrangler and the Civic. This will be the largest point of comparison between the two, because it is where the greatest number of mechanical differences occurs. This is our class analogy, and what you want out of a car will be most determined by the model of car you choose.

Even after making the car choice, there are a host of options yet available to you; color, for example. Fundamentally, however, a black Honda and a white Honda, while there are strengths and weaknesses between the two (notably on a hot day), provide much, much, much less distinction than a white Honda and a white Jeep.

Now, let's bring it on home. You want to compare concepts? Okay. Conan, King of Aquilonia:

- Human Outlander, Fighter (champion) 7/Rogue (thief) 3
- Human Folk Hero, Barbarian (berserker) 10
- Human Soldier, Fighter (battle master) 7/Rogue 2/Ranger 1
- Human Noble, Barbarian (berserker) 6/Ranger 1/Rogue (assassin) 3

A decent case could be made for any of these representing King Conan around, say, The Hour of the Dragon's publication. So tell me: where are the biggest mechanical differences to be found? Which one most determines the methods Conan is going to use to get the Heart of Ahriman and defeat the sorcerer Xaltotun?

[AvatarVecna]

Regardless of whether it's more important to directly compare classes alone, or overall characters, I strongly believe that the classes themselves have a proportionally smaller importance to the overall character. While in 3.5, your class was the source of virtually everything relevant to your character, 5e instead has classes remain important while increasing the importance of things like race and skill choice; by making the other parts of character creation have a much more significant impact, the relative impact of classes is less relevant (but only by comparison to earlier editions).

[Z3ro]

Now, let's bring it on home. You want to compare concepts? Okay. Conan, King of Aquilonia:

- Human Outlander, Fighter (champion) 7/Rogue (thief) 3
- Human Folk Hero, Barbarian (berserker) 10
- Human Soldier, Fighter (battle master) 7/Rogue 2/Ranger 1
- Human Noble, Barbarian (berserker) 6/Ranger 1/Rogue (assassin) 3

A decent case could be made for any of these representing King Conan around, say, The Hour of the Dragon's publication. So tell me: where are the biggest mechanical differences to be found? Which one most determines the methods Conan is going to use to get the Heart of Ahriman and defeat the sorcerer Xaltotun?

So you've taken a single item I mentioned (background) and are complaining that it isn't that mechanically different, while leaving out the other two (race and feats). This is not representative. I could take those builds you've listed, as is, and, using different feats and races, make them radically different.

[neonchameleon]

Regardless of whether it's more important to directly compare classes alone, or overall characters, I strongly believe that the classes themselves have a proportionally smaller importance to the overall character. While in 3.5, your class was the source of virtually everything relevant to your character, 5e instead has classes remain important while increasing the importance of things like race and skill choice; by making the other parts of character creation have a much more significant impact, the relative impact of classes is less relevant (but only by comparison to earlier editions).

It has dropped - I'd estimate from around 90% (including ability scores) to around 80%. It's still overwhelmingly the most important thing.

[OldTrees1]

Don't...don't use math as an analogy, it's early in the morning for some of us and math is bad for analogy purposes at any time of the day anyway since the point of an analogy is to provide an example that is quickly and easily understood and related back to the classes.

A better example is this: a Jeep Wrangler and a Honda Civic, two distinct types of cars, each with their own mechanical strengths and weaknesses. When the guy at the dealership is trying to sell you the cars, he'll tell you the strengths (and, if he's honest, the weaknesses) of both the Wrangler and the Civic. This will be the largest point of comparison between the two, because it is where the greatest number of mechanical differences occurs. This is our class analogy, and what you want out of a car will be most determined by the model of car you choose.

Even after making the car choice, there are a host of options yet available to you; color, for example. Fundamentally, however, a black Honda and a white Honda, while there are strengths and weaknesses between the two (notably on a hot day), provide much, much, much less distinction than a white Honda and a white Jeep.
Good point about analogies.
The guy at the dealership will tell you the strengths and weaknesses that differ between the two models. This will be the biggest factor in making your decision. However such a decision is still made with the background that these are both cars. For instance, a Hybrid has a strength that it can use electricity as a fuel source. If we make a decision between a Hybrid and a non Hybrid merely on the differences we would choose the Hybrid since the non Hybrid has no fuel source(even if the non Hybrid came with some nice strengths like all wheel drive and anti-lock breaks). However if we make a decision with both the differences and the context in our minds we would not dismiss the non Hybrid out of hand(since we now can recognize that it does have a fuel source). Since we are remembering the shared context we can see the value of the non-hybrid's unique strengths. We may still choose the hybrid but at least we did so in a logically valid way.



Now, let's bring it on home. You want to compare concepts? Okay. Conan, King of Aquilonia:

- Human Outlander, Fighter (champion) 7/Rogue (thief) 3
- Human Folk Hero, Barbarian (berserker) 10
- Human Soldier, Fighter (battle master) 7/Rogue 2/Ranger 1
- Human Noble, Barbarian (berserker) 6/Ranger 1/Rogue (assassin) 3

A decent case could be made for any of these representing King Conan around, say, The Hour of the Dragon's publication. So tell me: where are the biggest mechanical differences to be found? Which one most determines the methods Conan is going to use to get the Heart of Ahriman and defeat the sorcerer Xaltotun?

Let's see (I assume you put the levels in order right?):
Skills:
High Goal: Athletics, Survival, Stealth, Persuasion, Perception, Intimidate, Nature
1: Athletics, Survival, Ftr2, Rog1, Thieves Tools, +1 (fails by 1, any 1)
2: Animal Handling, Survival, Barb 2, +1 (fails by 2, any 2)
3: Athletics, Intimidation, Ftr 2, Rog 1, Thieves Tools, Rgr 1, +1(passes)
4: History, Persuasion, Barb 2, Rgr 1, Rog 1, Thieves Tools, +1 (fails by 1, any 1)

Features(ignoring combat skills since those look good enough):
1: Action Surge 1/rest, 2ASI, Remarkable Athlete, Expertise, Fast Hands, Second Story-work
2: Rage, Danger Sense, Fast Movement, 2ASI, Intimidating Presence
3: Action Surge 1/rest, 2ASI, Know your Enemy, Natural Explorer, Expertise
4: Rage, Danger Sense, Fast Movement, 1ASI, Natural Explorer, Expertise, Disguise Kit, Poisoner's Kit

Well #4 seems to eclipse #2 since I think Expertise-1ASI > 0.
I think the additional skill of #3 outweigh #1's subclass features but I can see it possible to argue the other way.
Between #3 and #4 I would have a hard choice between Rage+Danger Sense-1ASI and Action Surge. I lean towards #3 but this is easily argued either way.

From that analysis, the biggest factors(tied) were # of skills and class features. However if backgrounds and races were ignored then I would have overestimated Remarkable Athlete.

[thugthrasher]

It has dropped - I'd estimate from around 90% (including ability scores) to around 80%. It's still overwhelmingly the most important thing.

I don't think it's that simple, though. I think that, in this edition especially, it depends on your level. Take the following 3 characters:

Soldier/Mountain Dwarf/Champion Fighter (level 4 feat: Martial Adept)
Soldier/Mountain Dwarf/Wild Magic Sorcerer (level 4 feat: War Caster)
Sage/Variant Human/Wild Magic Sorcerer (level 1 feat: Ritual Caster Wizard, level 4 feat: Spell Sniper)

At low levels, the two dwarves may play more similarly than the two sorcerers (particularly if they have SIMILAR skills/ability score priorities). However, as they increase in levels, the differences between the two dwarves will likely drift more apart and the two sorcerers will likely drift closer together in play style. Even if they are have much different builds at level 20, the two sorcerers are likely to be much more similar than the two dwarves. At intervening levels, the differences will vary a lot, I'd expect (particularly depending on builds...and I haven't seen these above level 6, so I don't know where builds will go).

I think that in this edition, how relevant class comparisons are depends on what levels you are planning to play at, given the levels of customization available for each class. Particularly once you hit level 3 and all classes have chosen an archetype.

[Knaight]

So you've taken a single item I mentioned (background) and are complaining that it isn't that mechanically different, while leaving out the other two (race and feats). This is not representative. I could take those builds you've listed, as is, and, using different feats and races, make them radically different.

You could, but it still isn't anywhere near the level of difference provided by a class. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as it generally makes sense to have some sort of hierarchy in place if a combination of several separate systems are in use for defining a character, but it's there.

Basically, consider the class as the generally encompassing related category of mechanical concepts. For instance, a fighter has a handful of fairly distinct fighting styles, with some very minor tangential out of combat utility that comes with some of the abilities (mostly Action Surge). At a mechanical level, races tend to accentuate that more than anything, the racial abilities tend to be pretty minor. As a game system element, class is predominant. Feats are tied into the class, and the ability scores of the class clearly highlight particular sets of feats as more applicable. Again, they accentuate already existing options encapsulated within the class design. Backgrounds are the first thing to get away from all this, as they provide a bit of uniqueness, plus some skill access. Unfortunately, the skill system is clearly an afterthought, D&D is an extremely spell and combat based game, as the design of the book clearly shows. So, backgrounds remain more minor.

I'd also add that the primary thesis of the thread is that the root of class comparisons comes from people being used to thinking in terms of classes. I'm actually a counterexample there - I generally consider a class and level system a pretty big mark against a game, and the vast majority of RPGs I play are either skill based or esoteric experimental things. I'm not predisposed to look at classes first. Yet everything else still seems minor in comparison, and comparing class to class still seems like the obvious option as it's where the vast majority of mechanical interaction comes with. There's character interaction regardless, but that's not really a point in favor of the system; it can be had with no system at all.

[NotALurker]

Here's the problem with this; what if we were doing a comparison of class features themselves? Specifically, how good something like, say, action surge is.

Now you could point out, correctly, that action surge lets a fighter attack 8 times a round instead of 4.

But imagine if I came back and said "oh no, that doesn't count. We're not including extra attack, that's a separate feature. We're just looking at action surge, so it would only make 1 attack 2, and that's not that impressive. Extra attack does that all by itself".

This is how I hear it when people complain about source of features; every 20 fighter has 4 attacks, it would be disingenuous to act as if they didn't. Just like ever character has a background. And it's not like a skeleton key, as every character explicitly gets a background/race.

that is because there is a difference between comparing classes and characters.

[OldTrees1]

that is because there is a difference between comparing classes and characters.

1) Your post does not describe its relevance and thus sounds like a nons equitor.

2) The difference between comparing classes and comparing characters is as follows:

Comparing classes takes a generalized concept of the context(background, races, ...) and then sees what different classes would bring to the general case.

Comparing characters takes multiple concrete characters and compares everything about them.

Both fully utilize context but what is being generalized, what is being specified, and what is counted as pros/cons changes as the scale of the comparison changes.

[NotALurker]

1) Your post does not describe its relevance and thus sounds like a nons equitor.

2) The difference between comparing classes and comparing characters is as follows:

Comparing classes takes a generalized concept of the context(background, races, ...) and then sees what different classes would bring to the general case.

Comparing characters takes multiple concrete characters and compares everything about them.

Both fully utilize context but what is being generalized, what is being specified, and what is counted as pros/cons changes as the scale of the comparison changes.


...do you honestly not know why you compare classes? I though it was obvious that no rational person would not know...

But ok I will use a very very simple example, if your confused I will use smaller words.

bob the fighter, who is a thief by training and a human is killing everything the party comes across, and doing most of the damage of the party. To the point that it is causing a problem for the party.

joe the wizard, who comes from the southern tower, and is a fan of fire magic, and is a half-elf like his father before him is having trouble in the fights, he can't seam to use his spells effectively, and gets maybe one spell per day off that does anything good.

The problem here may have something to do with class, or race, or background or stats. It is only by separating them out that we can tell.

[OldTrees1]

...do you honestly not know why you compare classes? I though it was obvious that no rational person would not know...

But ok I will use a very very simple example, if your confused I will use smaller words.

bob the fighter, who is a thief by training and a human is killing everything the party comes across, and doing most of the damage of the party. To the point that it is causing a problem for the party.

joe the wizard, who comes from the southern tower, and is a fan of fire magic, and is a half-elf like his father before him is having trouble in the fights, he can't seam to use his spells effectively, and gets maybe one spell per day off that does anything good.

The problem here may have something to do with class, or race, or background or stats. It is only by separating them out that we can tell.

Did you fail to understand what I meant by " Your post does not describe its relevance and thus sounds like a non sequitor." or is this you continuing to not understand why you compare classes? or are you trying to win an internet argument by veiled insult rather than valid argumentation?

An analogy:
I am making a full meal. I am going to make a pasta dish. I can compare Red Sauce(marinara) to White Sauce(Alfredo). I can do this either by chugging them individually, or by tasting them one at a time on pasta. If there is a difference in verdict between these methods then which method is applicable to my question of which sauce to use when making my pasta dish?

When deciding which class to pick for a character, it is best to judge the classes with the assumption there is a character rather than judge them with the assumption I am making an aberration with no race/background/ability scores/gear.

So yes you have to separate out what traits come from classes and what traits come from other sources, but it is irrational to assume those other sources do not exist while you are comparing the classes.

[Ashrym]

We play characters and not classes. What a character can do is the sum of the parts. The only purpose in comparing classes is in what they add to the character.

The mistake a lot of players make is in thinking there is any relevance in isolating the class for comparison and then stating the player cannot do certain things well with the character because of the need to ignore existing options in the class comparison, which at that point has become a false conclusion drawn by an incorrect comparison.

Then it becomes the subject of internet debate with multiple posters feeling the need to have the last word. :smallbiggrin:


There's definitely a point in comparing classes. A character who uses a sorcerer will know less spells than a wizard can prepare and not have ritual casting. The sorcerer will have a some pretty spiffy metamagic, however. This is a valid comparison because both classes contribute similar spells to a character (pure or MC) but on focuses more on less spells with improved effects while the other focuses more on variety. At that point the discussion reflects player perception of value more than actual mechanical superiority, for the most part. Both classes fill similar roles and functionality in different ways with a lot of similarities and overlap.

Comparing a life cleric to a berzerker barbarian is almost meaningless. They do not share nearly the same design space or functionality, and generally very different purposes desired by the player and party. This also leads back to player perceived value on which different mechanic is worth more for whatever opinion but 2 characters filling different party functions are an apples to oranges comparison. In a class based system we're supposed to using a virtual fruit salad of differences beyond just apples and oranges.


Classes themselves aren't really the comparison when comparing classes. We're comparing different abilities within the class and rating them based on, again, subjective perceived value. Objective observations can be made but it's impossible to measure all variable because of the human element in playstyles.

Back to the opening, we play characters, not classes. Ideally, players should be comparing full builds and build progression from low to high levels. A fighter isn't a character; it's only part of a character, and there is a lot of leeway in subclass, fighting style, ability distribution, background, skills, taken, feats taken, and multi-classing options to end up with completely different characters based on the fighter. Class comparisons are not generic statements regarding a specific subclass as representative of all subclasses and similar other classes.


Players need to keep in mind what they are comparing and why, and not to draw false conclusions. For example, just because horse manure can be eaten (by mushrooms), and apples can be eaten (by people), and both are round, we should not make a horse manure pie for our families. That's a false conclusion drawn by invalid comparisons, and something I see happen often on internet forums where one thing must need another because this similarity; thing can be different.


Anyway, my on topic point is classes are compared for their contributions to meet the character concept, and characters are compared for end results to see if separate desired goals in the character concept satisfy perceived value. IE, if the player is happy with his own choice, it's working.

[NotALurker]

Did you fail to understand what I meant by " Your post does not describe its relevance and thus sounds like a non sequitor." or is this you continuing to not understand why you compare classes? or are you trying to win an internet argument by veiled insult rather than valid argumentation?

An analogy:
I am making a full meal. I am going to make a pasta dish. I can compare Red Sauce(marinara) to White Sauce(Alfredo). I can do this either by chugging them individually, or by tasting them one at a time on pasta. If there is a difference in verdict between these methods then which method is applicable to my question of which sauce to use when making my pasta dish?

When deciding which class to pick for a character, it is best to judge the classes with the assumption there is a character rather than judge them with the assumption I am making an aberration with no race/background/ability scores/gear.

So yes you have to separate out what traits come from classes and what traits come from other sources, but it is irrational to assume those other sources do not exist while you are comparing the classes.

I have won, via the fact that I am right and you are wrong. The fact you are claiming I have not because you say I have not shown proof we landed on the moon is not relevant.

when I am looking at classes the pick it DOES NOT MATTER what race I am, because that will not change because I am a different class. Same for backgrounds, same for the baseline skills. therefor I have to look at classes in a vacuum.

also again do you have the data for every fighter player so we can average them out? so we can compare every possible combination of background/class/race? so we can find the issues with them and resolve them? if not we might have to make the problem simpler...maybe take away the elements that are not needed? maybe the background and race?

[OldTrees1]

I have won, via the fact that I am right and you are wrong. The fact you are claiming I have not because you say I have not shown proof we landed on the moon is not relevant.

when I am looking at classes the pick it DOES NOT MATTER what race I am, because that will not change because I am a different class. Same for backgrounds, same for the baseline skills. therefor I have to look at classes in a vacuum.

also again do you have the data for every fighter player so we can average them out? so we can compare every possible combination of background/class/race? so we can find the issues with them and resolve them? if not we might have to make the problem simpler...maybe take away the elements that are not needed? maybe the background and race?

1) Circular Reasoning: Claiming you are right because you claim you are right
2) Strawman: I never asked for proof about the moon or anything remotely similar
Please be respectful.

Wait, if those other things don't matter, then why do you have to look at classes in a vacuum? (answer: you don't)
But what if they did matter?(say because your race gave you a skill which affects the value you would get from the skills your classes could give) Then should you look at classes in a vacuum? (answer: no).
I'll leave constructing the 2x2 game theory table as an exercise to the reader, but the conclusion is that you won't get burned by remembering the context and you can get burned by forgetting the context.

Why would you need data to construct a general case? General cases are built from pattern matching and abstraction. Data mining is too inefficient when you have the rule book right there.

Consider backgrounds: all backgrounds offer 2 skill proficiency, some tools/languages and a plot trait. Therefore I know that my character will have a minimum of 2 more skills than whatever class I pick. Furthermore I know that my race adds 0, 1, or 2 skill proficiency*. So I will have 2-4 more skills than my class will grant. Thus I know my possible skill range is actually 4-8 rather than 2-4. If I were aiming for 4 skills to simulate my character, this added information lets me know that I am not restricted to the Rogue base class.

That was a comparison of classes with a specific character(s) in mind. I can also do even more generalized comparisons like compare the +4 skills of a rogue(a 100%-200% increase in skills) to that of the +2 from fighter(a 50%-100% increase in skills). Not only do I know the information of the vacuum(aka Rogue gives 2x the skills that Fighter does) but I also know how much that will impact the game(aka Rogue will at most be responsible for 2/3rds of the skills of a character while Fighter will at most be responsible for 1/2 the skills of a character).

*I am ignoring Skilled Variant Human for now which would be 3 proficiencies.

[Scarab112]

I have won, via the fact that I am right and you are wrong. The fact you are claiming I have not because you say I have not shown proof we landed on the moon is not relevant.

when I am looking at classes the pick it DOES NOT MATTER what race I am, because that will not change because I am a different class. Same for backgrounds, same for the baseline skills. therefor I have to look at classes in a vacuum.

also again do you have the data for every fighter player so we can average them out? so we can compare every possible combination of background/class/race? so we can find the issues with them and resolve them? if not we might have to make the problem simpler...maybe take away the elements that are not needed? maybe the background and race?

Say for example, you have a Half-Elf Fighter and a Half-elf Rogue. Each gets 2 bonus skills from their race. Each takes the same background for 2 extra skills. The Fighter gets 2 skills from his class, while the Rogue gets 4.

In a vacuum, the Rogue has twice as many skills as a fighter.

Adding background and race, the Rogue doubles his number of skills, while the Fighter triples his. The Rogue goes up to 8, while the Fighter goes up to 6.

Now the Rogue only has 25% more skills than the Fighter. The gap has been cut in half.


Now do you see why accounting for background and race is important, even if it's the same for both characters?

[OldTrees1]

Oh, yet another example via Backgrounds and skills.

Assume the 18 skills can be put in an ordered list from the one you most prefer to the one you least prefer.
Assume we can assign values of 18 thru 1 to these skills based upon your preferences(some liberties are being taken to simplify the math)

You get 2 skills from your background and are considering between the marginal benefit of being a Fighter(+2skills) over being a Rogue(+4skills).

If you ignore your background then you are comparing 35(18+17) vs 66(18+17+16+15) for a difference of 31.
If you consider your background then you are comparing 66(18+17+16+15) vs 93 (18+17+16+15+14+13) for a difference of 27.
Notice that the difference shrunk when you remembered the context.

[Suichimo]

ANY character can be ANY race.
ANY character can have ANY skill.
ANY character can have ANY background.
ANY character can have ANY feat, if they are being used.
ANY character CAN NOT have ANY class feature.

This is why you compare classes and nothing else. Because everything else is mutable because anyone can have it. This isn't to say they won't be compared. Every single character guide will have a section for optimal races, skills, etc. They are not why you choose what you choose however.

[Gwendol]

ANY character can be ANY race.
ANY character can have ANY skill.
ANY character can have ANY background.
ANY character can have ANY feat, if they are being used.
ANY character CAN NOT have ANY class feature.

This is why you compare classes and nothing else. Because everything else is mutable because anyone can have it. This isn't to say they won't be compared. Every single character guide will have a section for optimal races, skills, etc. They are not why you choose what you choose however.

What is that supposed to mean? You can choose * any* class as well. Your points are meaningless.
Every choice you make when building a character is meaningful, and some combinations are more meaningful than others. Everyone can grapple, but if you are a barbarian, having advantage on strength checks makes that more powerful than for an equally strong paladin.
The class doesn't exist in a vacuum, which means some conclusions drawn based on class abilities alone may be erroneous.
I don't give a rats ass to how comparisons are made, but be prepared to be called out on statements made without taking into account at least backgrounds and racial skills.

[Suichimo]

What is that supposed to mean? You can choose * any* class as well. Your points are meaningless.
Every choice you make when building a character is meaningful, and some combinations are more meaningful than others. Everyone can grapple, but if you are a barbarian, having advantage on strength checks makes that more powerful than for an equally strong paladin.
The class doesn't exist in a vacuum, which means some conclusions drawn based on class abilities alone may be erroneous.
I don't give a rats ass to how comparisons are made, but be prepared to be called out on statements made without taking into account at least backgrounds and racial skills.

I didn't say class, I said class feature. Still badly worded though but that is what I get for posting during the latter half of a 12 hour shift.

I didn't say those choices are meaningless either, just that they are secondary, tertiary or worse. I even said that the guides will deal with them, and they do.

However, they aren't nearly as important as class.

This thread was brought in to being with the idea that we should look at entire characters rather than just classes. However, the reason we can look at just the class is because anyone can have be any race, any race/background/class combo can have any skill, and anyone can have any feat. Those are traits anyone can have. Only Fighters get Action Surge, Wizards have their spells, Paladins have their Smite. These are unique features that will be the major focus of the conversation.

[Gnaeus]

In practice, as opposed to in theorycraft, the purpose is in making sure that the PCs all have their relevant chances to shine. Now, the fighter is already capable in combat, no issues there, but he needs to be useful out of combat too (so the argument goes). So the fighter gets his 4 proficiencies, and the half elf rogue gets 8. AND he has class abilities that make them better like expertise. Well, its good that the utility character has more utility than the combat guy, but that doesn't mean that the combat guy is useless out of combat.

What will happen at any remotely optimized table is not that the rogue just has all the fighters tricks but better. What will happen at any remotely optimized table is that at character creation, the party will divvy up roles. As in "OK, Perception, stealth and survival are things that will get lots of group checks, lets make sure we have at least 2 people with each of those. Now, Fred fighter, you are our str guy, so you take athletics and be our lead for climbing, jumping and swimming, annnnd we need a handle animal guy so you can do that too. Wally Wizard, you can take some of those nice intelligence skills. Sam Sorcerer, you take the party face role and get some charisma synergy going, and Ralph Rogue, can you cover the gaps? Yes? Good." Now everyone has out of combat jobs to do. The only reason that Fred Fighter needs to worry that Randolph Ranger is better at non-combat stuff is if Randolph Ranger is actually sitting in the chair next to him at the table and even then, it merely requires a 5 minute chat to make sure they are differently focused. This isn't 3.5. If you are worried about niche protection, sit down with your people and find everyone a niche. It isn't like there arent enough useful proficiencies that everyone can feel good at something. Given the way group skill checks work, even being the second best guy at stealth or survival is a real addition to the group, since you will want to succeed more than once to sneak the party past the guards or trek through the marsh. You could literally make a party with Fred, Francis, Fiona and Fern fighter and between them be able to defeat a large majority of the games out of combat challenges with a little bit of savvy in race and background selections.

[mephnick]

The athletics niche kind of sucks though. Other than busting in doors, which is often just a prelude to combat, there isn't much athletics can do to help the party out of combat. "Great Fred, you swam across the river..the rest of us will go this way."

I'd much rather have the knowledge, face or stealth niches.

[Gnaeus]

The athletics niche kind of sucks though. Other than busting in doors, which is often just a prelude to combat, there isn't much athletics can do to help the party out of combat. "Great Fred, you swam across the river..the rest of us will go this way."

I'd much rather have the knowledge, face or stealth niches.

Climbing up a cliff or wall or jumping over a chasm or swimming across a river and then tying off a rope isn't a thing you do? Seems like a critical group skill to me. Yeah, it was super lame in the game where everyone can fly, but those days are over. You can't get your hostage over the Cliffs of Insanity without Andre the Giant (Fezzik has Athletics and Intimidation, because "The Dread Pirate Roberts is here for your soooooouls". His time performing for crowds got him the performance proficiency, which he mostly uses making rhyme jokes for his fellow party member. Out of combat fighter success!)

And if it isn't useful, Insight and Intimidation make a nice base for a party face. Perception is good for anyone. Survival is good for anyone. Animal Handling is situationally awesome. Pick something else and let the rogue be the swimmer.

[Rowan Wolf]

Climbing up a cliff or wall or jumping over a chasm or swimming across a river and then tying off a rope isn't a thing you do? Seems like a critical group skill to me. Yeah, it was super lame in the game where everyone can fly, but those days are over. You can't get your hostage over the Cliffs of Insanity without Andre the Giant.

And if it isn't useful, Insight and Intimidation make a nice base for a party face. Perception is good for anyone. Survival is good for anyone. Animal Handling is situationally awesome. Pick something else and let the rogue be the swimmer.

Now I have this picture of a fighter swimming across a river rope tied around his body leading up to a levitating Warlock who didn't want to get wet.

[Gnaeus]

Now I have this picture of a fighter swimming across a river rope tied around his body leading up to a levitating Warlock who didn't want to get wet.

Whatever works!

[oxybe]

I'm kinda amazed this question is asked myself.

People compare classes to understand and learn. No one is saying that backgrounds and whatnot are bad, but they tend to be a bit more situational, mechanically speaking.

The gist of what your character can do is described by their class. Most of their skills are gained via choice of class, how they tend to handle combat is gained via choice of class, which stats to focus on, etc...

Class choice matters very much because it infers a very specific choice. It's effectively the equivalent of an adjective, in terms of character creation. The subject is elf but the adjective is fighter. It describes rather quickly how our subject is likely to handle itself in a stressful situation. Outliers exist mind you, but with the fighter adjective used, we can often safely assume that in a stressful situation our elf is likely to pick up arms and confront the situation head-on, due to our knowledge of how the fighter class works.

Comparing classes allows us to make better choices in choosing how our characters react to situations. Knowing the capabilities of a fighter allows us to better tune our elf to the way we want. Sometimes this is simply a matter of picking a suitable background: one with stealth training will better allow our elf to take a more subtle approach or even escape from the problem. Or maybe we simply realise that the fighter's way of doing things isn't appropriate for our character and a different class or skill/feature set, like rogue, ranger or even a bit more exotic, like the warlock, might fit our character better then the fighter class.

But we wouldn't be able to make these calls without comparing and dissecting classes and their features, and since the impact from class choice is so great in practical play, it's only natural to want to compare them.

I've seen it happen on more then a few occasions, where a player just picks things based on face value rather then having studied the mechanics, and is disappointed when the play doesn't match the character he imagined.

[OldTrees1]

I'm kinda amazed this question is asked myself.

The discussion has moved past the title. Everyone agrees comparing classes is very important. However the debate is about whether it is reasonable to compare them exclusively when one is forgetting about other relevant factors (like the fact 2 skills are gained from backgrounds impacting the value added from the skills a class grants).

[Forum Explorer]

I didn't say class, I said class feature. Still badly worded though but that is what I get for posting during the latter half of a 12 hour shift.

I didn't say those choices are meaningless either, just that they are secondary, tertiary or worse. I even said that the guides will deal with them, and they do.

However, they aren't nearly as important as class.

This thread was brought in to being with the idea that we should look at entire characters rather than just classes. However, the reason we can look at just the class is because anyone can have be any race, any race/background/class combo can have any skill, and anyone can have any feat. Those are traits anyone can have. Only Fighters get Action Surge, Wizards have their spells, Paladins have their Smite. These are unique features that will be the major focus of the conversation.

I think there needs to be an established 'baseline', call it the most incompetent player or something and see what is the absolute minimal a horribly made character can contribute. Or perhaps an 'effective baseline' where you are going up against a theoretically hyper optimized wizard and the baseline is set by how effective you must be in order to contribute in a party that contains that character.

Point is I think we need to start with characters before we can move to compare classes. In depth anyways. I mean we already know that the wizard or druid is more powerful then the fighter. But the real question is if it matters. Does the fighter fail to meet the baseline character?

Another thing is a clear goal to be met. To use an analogy, comparing the fuel efficiency of a truck vs a hybrid is kinda pointless when I need the vehicle to be able to pull a trailer while off road. The hybrid is disqualified cause it can't even meet the goal.

[Rack]

My first reaction was to reject this idea, if you're comparing classes there's no need to muddle the issue by talking about race and background as everyone gets the same choices. Thinking about it further I realise where you're coming from but I still disagree, just down to the fact that backgrounds and race add so little compared to class.

Back to your cooking analogy it's less like comparing marinara and alfredo and more like comparing a lasagne to a canneloni, without references to what wine you might have with it. Sure it can have some small impact but if you try both with every wine you have you'll probably be too drunk to make a sensible decision by the time you've finished.

[OldTrees1]

My first reaction was to reject this idea, if you're comparing classes there's no need to muddle the issue by talking about race and background as everyone gets the same choices. Thinking about it further I realise where you're coming from but I still disagree, just down to the fact that backgrounds and race add so little compared to class.

Back to your cooking analogy it's less like comparing marinara and alfredo and more like comparing a lasagne to a canneloni, without references to what wine you might have with it. Sure it can have some small impact but if you try both with every wine you have you'll probably be too drunk to make a sensible decision by the time you've finished.

I am not advocating considering every background when comparing classes, I am advocating remembering backgrounds exist when comparing classes. To tie it to your wine example, it would be remembering that you are going to have wine with the meal rather than considering every combination.

That said, I want to thank you for how you are reacting. While it should be simple internet etiquette to try to understand, I have found it an uncommon jewel and one worthy of recognition.

[Scarab112]

My first reaction was to reject this idea, if you're comparing classes there's no need to muddle the issue by talking about race and background as everyone gets the same choices. Thinking about it further I realise where you're coming from but I still disagree, just down to the fact that backgrounds and race add so little compared to class.

Back to your cooking analogy it's less like comparing marinara and alfredo and more like comparing a lasagne to a canneloni, without references to what wine you might have with it. Sure it can have some small impact but if you try both with every wine you have you'll probably be too drunk to make a sensible decision by the time you've finished.

That's not quite right. To continue the cooking metaphor, imagine the Fighter as "Instant Cake Mix, Just add Water" and the Rogue as a small cake. Then, imagine backgrounds as a glass of water. With the glass of water, you can use the cake mix and make a cake with a little bit of work. If you already have a cake, then you get a glass of water which might make the cake go down a bit easier, but you didn't really need it too badly. If you compared the two cakes, you might say one might be better than the other or that one took less work, but you still get a cake in both cases.

What people are trying to do instead though, is say that even though water is free and everyone gets one glass of water, that we should be restricted to comparing the uncooked cake mix with a fully prepared cake. Of course it's going to not be very good, because you forgot to mix all the ingredients that go into it.

[Gnaeus]

I really think the cooking metaphor is not helping the discussion.

And it is simply deceptive to try to evaluate classes in the absence of backgrounds and races. Especially if, as in the other threads, we are trying to misapply the tier system to 5e. You wind up with results that are simply not applicable at table. The statement "the fighter class adds very little non-combat utility" may be true. But that sounds a lot like "Fighters have very little non combat utility", which is NOT true. A 6th level half elf fighter who used his level 6 ability boost on the "Skilled" feat has 9 proficiencies, compared with 7 on a halfling rogue. Now, the rogue has expertise on 4, so his bonuses are higher, but it will be pretty situational as to which of those 2 have more non combat utility, and that fighter might very well have more non combat utility than a blasty caster like a sorcerer or warlock. It is not merely possible to make a fighter a skill monkey, it is really easy, and he will still be a very solid combatant. So comparing classes in a vacuum is actively misleading.

[mephnick]

I really think the cooking metaphor is not helping the discussion.

But this place is all about unwieldy metaphors that further confuse the issue.



And it is simply deceptive to try to evaluate classes in the absence of backgrounds and races. Especially if, as in the other threads, we are trying to misapply the tier system to 5e. You wind up with results that are simply not applicable at table. The statement "the fighter class adds very little non-combat utility" may be true. But that sounds a lot like "Fighters have very little non combat utility", which is NOT true.

I think people are arguing about different things and are talking past each other now, but I think this is the most important point. In fact, I've changed my stance on it a bit and agree completely.

[Ashrym]

I'm kinda amazed this question is asked myself.

People compare classes to understand and learn. No one is saying that backgrounds and whatnot are bad, but they tend to be a bit more situational, mechanically speaking.

The gist of what your character can do is described by their class. Most of their skills are gained via choice of class, how they tend to handle combat is gained via choice of class, which stats to focus on, etc...

Class choice matters very much because it infers a very specific choice. It's effectively the equivalent of an adjective, in terms of character creation. The subject is elf but the adjective is fighter. It describes rather quickly how our subject is likely to handle itself in a stressful situation. Outliers exist mind you, but with the fighter adjective used, we can often safely assume that in a stressful situation our elf is likely to pick up arms and confront the situation head-on, due to our knowledge of how the fighter class works.

Comparing classes allows us to make better choices in choosing how our characters react to situations. Knowing the capabilities of a fighter allows us to better tune our elf to the way we want. Sometimes this is simply a matter of picking a suitable background: one with stealth training will better allow our elf to take a more subtle approach or even escape from the problem. Or maybe we simply realise that the fighter's way of doing things isn't appropriate for our character and a different class or skill/feature set, like rogue, ranger or even a bit more exotic, like the warlock, might fit our character better then the fighter class.

But we wouldn't be able to make these calls without comparing and dissecting classes and their features, and since the impact from class choice is so great in practical play, it's only natural to want to compare them.

I've seen it happen on more then a few occasions, where a player just picks things based on face value rather then having studied the mechanics, and is disappointed when the play doesn't match the character he imagined.

I have to disagree with parts of this.

If someone asks, "What does a fighter do?" the answer is they are good at fighting. The next question becomes, "What do they do when the aren't fighting?" Well, they make ability / skill checks, which is pretty much what many classes do.

Barbarians, fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, and rogues all do that same basic functionality. Barbarians, fighters, and rogues are very similar. That's why we look for specific class features.

The part I disagree on is how much impact non-class features contribute to the total.

A fighter is a class but it's almost the exact same thing as a rogue. A bit more durable and less skill focus covers it. The main defining characteristics in classes come from the backgrounds, ability score distribution, and feats taken just as much as class because those define how the classes fight and which ability checks in which the character is proficient just as much as the class can. A DEX rogue with a criminal background and wizard ritual caster is a lot more similar to a DEX fighter with a criminal background and wizard ritual caster than the same fighter is with another fighter who is STR based with a soldier background and the healer feat.

Comparing classes makes sense. Focusing on classes by eliminating other character options is often like putting together half a puzzle and then complaining that only half the picture is there.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Imagine the discussion as a sausage eating contest. Bad analogies are like someone bringing a store brought hot dog to the contest.

[AvatarVecna]

Imagine the discussion as a sausage eating contest. Bad analogies are like someone bringing a store brought hot dog to the contest.

I think my favorite part of this post is that it's proven by any attempt to disprove it by over-analyzing the analogy. It's so wonderful, and it can be used to describe countless RPG arguments.

May I sig this?

[AvatarVecna]

I have to disagree with parts of this.

...

A fighter is a class but it's almost the exact same thing as a rogue. A bit more durable and less skill focus covers it.

Okay, I agree with your main argument (that Fighter A can have less in common with Fighter B than they do with Rogue C or Wizard D), but the line I've quoted is one I cannot agree with.

The mechanics that 5e Fighters and 5e Rogues have in common with each other are either universally common mechanics (that is, all characters get them), or are only similar at a very general level. Fighters gets lots of attacks, while rogues struggle to get more than one (2, if TWF); rogues get far more skills, and have much higher bonuses; fighters gets extra options in combat no other class can ever have; rogues can use skills in ways that nobody else can. The fighter may have a more intelligence-based option, but that doesn't make it a super-skilled fighter; the rogue may have a combat-based option, but that doesn't make it a powerful combatant. The classes are similar, yes...in the sense that they exist in the same character creation system. But the mechanics of the two classes are not "almost exactly the same".

The only counter-point to any of this is that, of all the classes, rogues and fighters are the only ones who get more than 5 feats. Even that's just a small counter-point: they don't even get the same number of extra feats.

[Ashrym]

Okay, I agree with your main argument (that Fighter A can have less in common with Fighter B than they do with Rogue C or Wizard D), but the line I've quoted is one I cannot agree with.

The mechanics that 5e Fighters and 5e Rogues have in common with each other are either universally common mechanics (that is, all characters get them), or are only similar at a very general level. Fighters gets lots of attacks, while rogues struggle to get more than one (2, if TWF); rogues get far more skills, and have much higher bonuses; fighters gets extra options in combat no other class can ever have; rogues can use skills in ways that nobody else can. The fighter may have a more intelligence-based option, but that doesn't make it a super-skilled fighter; the rogue may have a combat-based option, but that doesn't make it a powerful combatant. The classes are similar, yes...in the sense that they exist in the same character creation system. But the mechanics of the two classes are not "almost exactly the same".

The only counter-point to any of this is that, of all the classes, rogues and fighters are the only ones who get more than 5 feats. Even that's just a small counter-point: they don't even get the same number of extra feats.

You are mistaken. 2 more skills isn't far more. It's 6/18 vs 4/18 with double proficiency on some and minimum roll later. The base mechanic is the ability check and both are almost identical with ability checks with the majority of checks.

Reliable talent doesn't even matter for passive checks, and expertise is often used to cover lower ability score modifiers for some skills because ASI's are still limited and rogues become too MAD covering too many via ability checks.

Rogues are definitely better at skills but how much better is often overstated. It's better at a few skills when they come into play. That doesn't change the fact DC design is to be succeedable without expertise. The DC's don't become higher so the effectiveness in expertise is being able to meet the DC earlier and auto succeed more.

IE a fighter isn't bad with skills just because higher numbers are possible with expertise. The system isn't designed around needing the highest bonuses to be successful and both continue to use the same mechanic.

They are more dissimilar in combat because rogues use an opportunistic big attack for damage and fighters use multiple smaller attacks to do the same thing, action surge is an extra action with more potential uses less often than cunning action, and fighters have heavier armor plus more hit points instead of uncanny dodge and evasion. Combat for both still breaks down to larger damage numbers and mitigating damage with their martial abilities.

I find the classes amazingly similar I'm what they do and how they play when I take a good look. The difference gets more into subclasses, ability scores, backgrounds and skills chosen, and feats taken. The basic foundation us almost identical with one focused more on skills and the other on direct combat.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I think my favorite part of this post is that it's proven by any attempt to disprove it by over-analyzing the analogy. It's so wonderful, and it can be used to describe countless RPG arguments.

May I sig this?

Absolutely!

Sigging this is like the uh...spicy...i'll stop.

[Gnaeus]

Fighters gets lots of attacks, while rogues struggle to get more than one (2, if TWF); rogues get far more skills, and have much higher bonuses; fighters gets extra options in combat no other class can ever have; rogues can use skills in ways that nobody else can. The fighter may have a more intelligence-based option, but that doesn't make it a super-skilled fighter; the rogue may have a combat-based option, but that doesn't make it a powerful combatant. The classes are similar, yes...in the sense that they exist in the same character creation system. But the mechanics of the two classes are not "almost exactly the same".

The only counter-point to any of this is that, of all the classes, rogues and fighters are the only ones who get more than 5 feats. Even that's just a small counter-point: they don't even get the same number of extra feats.


You are mistaken. 2 more skills isn't far more. It's 6/18 vs 4/18 with double proficiency on some and minimum roll later. The base mechanic is the ability check and both are almost identical with ability checks with the majority of checks.

I find the classes amazingly similar I'm what they do and how they play when I take a good look. The difference gets more into subclasses, ability scores, backgrounds and skills chosen, and feats taken. The basic foundation us almost identical with one focused more on skills and the other on direct combat.

Well, the rogue also gets the very useful thieves tool proficiency, so we can call it 3. However, curiously, a fighter who uses his level 6 bump on the skilled feat has the same number of proficiencies and the same number of feats as a rogue :-).

[Ashrym]

Well, the rogue also gets the very useful thieves tool proficiency, so we can call it 3. However, curiously, a fighter who uses his level 6 bump on the skilled feat has the same number of proficiencies and the same number of feats as a rogue :-).

Thieves' tools also come in the background without changing number of total skills. 3 backgrounds have it by default in addition to the 2 skill proficiencies. Skills are very open in this edition.

[Gnomes2169]

I really think the cooking metaphor is not helping the discussion.

http://forums.euw.leagueoflegends.com/board/attachment.php?attachmentid=83426&d=1335258600

... I'm sorry, I'll stop now.

[Gnaeus]

Thieves' tools also come in the background without changing number of total skills. 3 backgrounds have it by default in addition to the 2 skill proficiencies. Skills are very open in this edition.

I only see it as part of criminal. Are you thinking that thieves tools are an artisans tool? Because I don't think thats true.

[Ashrym]

I only see it as part of criminal. Are you thinking that thieves tools are an artisans tool? Because I don't think thats true.

Criminal and urchin. I was thinking spy for the third but forgot that it's a criminal variant.