Who would win... Meta Thread

[odigity]

Since there are now several "Class X vs Class Y" dueling speculation threads (Barbarian vs Druid (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?504271-Who-would-win-in-a-fight-between-Barbarian-amp-Druid), Paladin vs Rogue (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503443-Who-would-win-in-a-fight-between-a-Paladin-amp-Rogue)), I figured there should be a separate thread for discussing in a general way the concept of pitting two classes against each other, since that topic seems to take up half the posts of each thread. Better to separate it out.

I'll start:

I don't think this is something we can hope to settle in any way just by talking here, though I get that it's fun to try.

I think the only reasonable thing to do is take the question to the next major game con, man a table, and try to run an actual encounter between the two classes in question at least 30 times with 60 different volunteers to account for the variety of builds and tactics people might choose and generate enough data to maybe indicate a clear "real-world" answer.

[Ghost Nappa]

"No, because my class would always win because it's my class. And my class is always optimized to beat your class because I always win."

/thread

[bid]

"No, because my class would always win because it's my class. And my class is always optimized to beat your class because I always win."

/thread
You win the internet, we might as well unplug our computers and go cry outside, in the rain.

[Mith]

Well that escalated quickly.

[djreynolds]

In early play, a rogue's cunning action allows him to dash twice a turn to avoid conflict or attack and dash.

Just this class feature alone makes the rogue very powerful, as long as he has enough arrows... its simple attrition.

The paladin changes once he gets spells that might enable him to catch up, such as a OoV, has misty step, haste, and dimension door... and he can catch the rogue use hold person and smite.

[odigity]

"No, because my class would always win because it's my class. And my class is always optimized to beat your class because I always win."

/thread


Well that escalated quickly.

Nah, the comment was appropriate. The whole point of this thread is to discuss the very idea of pitting two classes against each other in a vacuum, in which case making a statement about the sillyness or pointlessness of such an endeavor is perfectly on-topic.

In the first post I, too, expressed the belief that these Vs threads are probably a futile endeavor.


In early play, a rogue's cunning action allows him to dash twice a turn to avoid conflict or attack and dash.

Just this class feature alone makes the rogue very powerful, as long as he has enough arrows... its simple attrition.

The paladin changes once he gets spells that might enable him to catch up, such as a OoV, has misty step, haste, and dimension door... and he can catch the rogue use hold person and smite.

I think you're in the wrong thread. You probably want this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503443-Who-would-win-in-a-fight-between-a-Paladin-amp-Rogue).

[djreynolds]

More fun would be a 4 person team versus a 4 person team.

[FrostAce]

I'd be interested in a thought exercise involving a Monk or Fighter. Maybe against one another?

[JellyPooga]

I think the only reasonable thing to do is take the question to the next major game con, man a table, and try to run an actual encounter between the two classes in question at least 30 times with 60 different volunteers to account for the variety of builds and tactics people might choose and generate enough data to maybe indicate a clear "real-world" answer.

The biggest problem with the "X vs. Y" concept is that it's too vague. It's like asking "Which is best; Apples or Footballs?", when they have very different applications, either could be a variety of colours and shapes and it largely comes down to personal taste or the scenario you're putting them in.

The next logical step, then, would be to pin down some details. Asking "What's better; Red Apples or Red Footballs?" is a little better but it still needs context; apples are great for eating, but rubbish for kicking around a pitch. This would be like the "Rogue vs. Paladin" being "Assassin Rogue with X,Y,Z stats vs. Vengeance Paladin with X,Y,Z stats"; we might be dealing with a more absolute set of stats to compare, but it's still lacking any context; without a surprise round and in a 10x10 box, the Assassin will probably lose, for example, but in a maze-like dungeon that the Assassin can play hide-and-seek in, he has the advantage.

So for this kind of discussion to have any relevance, we need to pin down both the specific details or character builds and some kind of a context; some characters are better at team-play, others are good at utilising the environment and others still excel at 1v1 duels. If the entire point of the exercise is merely to compare combat stats in a limited area white-room environment, then there are going to be some pretty clear cut "winners", with the trophy being absolutely no indication of how useful any given Class involved really is.

If, on the other hand, we present a series of scenarios, the utility of Classes becomes much more clear, especially if those scenarios are designed to highlight some of the more esoteric aspects of the game, such as skill challenges and tactical or even strategic play; a Bard who uses his charms to recruit the local Thieves Guild to take down the Wizard who's been kicking his butt from here to last Sunday gets just as valid a "win" as the one who builds his character to defeat him in personal combat, in my opinion.

[Mith]

Nah, the comment was appropriate. The whole point of this thread is to discuss the very idea of pitting two classes against each other in a vacuum, in which case making a statement about the sillyness or pointlessness of such an endeavor is perfectly on-topic.

I am aware. I was more looking at the comment after that as well.

I would say that the only way to really compare classes in a death match is to identify what the fighting strategy is with regards to the class being compared. Then you try and develop a scenario where there is a way for both sides to press their own advantage. If you do entirely close quarters, the mobile ranged attacker is kind of SOL.

However, if it is a far starting distance with no cover, the ranged guy has a great starting advantage.

So I guess it is more a methodology approach.

[Rogozhin]

Of course we could just actually do this on something like roll20..... how would the 1 on 1 encounters be best set up? Just put the two characters in a battlefield, roll initiative and let the steel fly?

[ClintACK]

Of course we could just actually do this on something like roll20..... how would the 1 on 1 encounters be best set up? Just put the two characters in a battlefield, roll initiative and let the steel fly?

I think the point is once you've set up the battlefield and conditions and the various edge rules... you've determined who will win. Playing it out is just a technicality.

Examples: Rogue vs. Barbarian/Paladin/Melee Fighter in an open, featureless arena of modest size, where leaving the arena is a forfeit -- Rogue loses, no question.

Rogue/Ranger vs. Barbarian/Paladin/Melee Fighter in a sprawling lightly wooded arena perfect for hit-and-run -- Rogue wins, no question.

[Mith]

Rogue/Ranger vs. Barbarian/Paladin/Melee Fighter in a sprawling lightly wooded arena perfect for hit-and-run -- Rogue wins, no question.

Barbarian starts a forest fire. The winner is the guy who dies last, right?

[ClintACK]

Barbarian starts a forest fire. The winner is the guy who dies last, right?

And *this* is how I learned, at the ripe old age of eleven, never to volunteer to DM for PVP.

[Foxhound438]

I'd be interested in a thought exercise involving a Monk or Fighter. Maybe against one another?

well, since I like monks, obviously the monk wins 11 times out of 10. I mean, it moves faster than the fighter and can kite it forever with a shortbow, and deflect missiles to prevent ever taking damage.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Barbarian starts a forest fire. The winner is the guy who dies last, right?That still leaves a lot of questions. Even in the most California-ish conditions for wildfires, dashing as a bonus action allows the rogue to outrun the hazard more effectively - not to mention the possibility the barbarian gets caught in a fire of his own making depending on wind direction and survival knowledge. The barb may even fail by taking too long to start the fire in the first place, depending on local conditions. But yeah, a lot of "this is the terrain" type of set-up is going to involve the side who doesn't like that terrain setting it on fire.

In general, I think PVP overvalues mobility and defense, because both of those things are a lot easier to exploit when there aren't other targets. You can be a super mobile archer who never gets attacked, but if your party dies while you're dashing around, it's still bad news.

[Mith]

And *this* is how I learned, at the ripe old age of eleven, never to volunteer to DM for PVP.


Oh, I know. PvP never truly interests me in the slightest. But saying that there is no way for a Barbarian with half damage and fast movement cannot win in any case is odd. If this was against a caster, that is a different story.

[jas61292]

Barbarian starts a forest fire. The winner is the guy who dies last, right?

This might sounds like a silly point, but really it gets right to the heart of the silliness of the whole Class v Class analysis. Quite possibly the biggest issue is that either you talk about a white room situation, which is totally unrealistic an would never actually happen, or, you actually create a situation for the battle, but then suddenly there are factors that can come into play that are completely unrelated to the class (such as your setting of a forest fire).

There will never be a fair way to do this kind of analysis in a realistic way. The more realistic you try and make the situation, the more uncertainty there is, and the less the class starts to matter.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

This might sounds like a silly point, but really it gets right to the heart of the silliness of the whole Class v Class analysis. Quite possibly the biggest issue is that either you talk about a white room situation, which is totally unrealistic an would never actually happen, or, you actually create a situation for the battle, but then suddenly there are factors that can come into play that are completely unrelated to the class (such as your setting of a forest fire).

There will never be a fair way to do this kind of analysis in a realistic way. The more realistic you try and make the situation, the more uncertainty there is, and the less the class starts to matter.If the Barbarian is put in a situation where his best odds are the rogue dying in a forest fire first - which itself is unlikely - that still says something about the rogue's advantageous class features. Still, this is why I prefer a "friendly duel" setup like what MaxWilson proposed in that Warlock 10 vs. Fighter 20 thread. IIRC it was basically capture the flag, incapacitate on the kill shot. So, no holing up forever or just burning everything to the ground, and like with actual combats in RPGs there are goals besides killing the other guy. It illustrates key class features without going too crazy with the lateral thinking - because we know that lateral thinking usually wins out. The outdoor terrain still favors archers over other builds, but you could just as easily do a best of 3, one in a forest, one in a dungeon complex, and another on a set of hilly/rocky plains.

[odigity]

How about instead of pitting class A vs class B in direct combat against each other, they're both participants in a triathalon-style competition (think end of Revenge of the Nerds) with a long series of identical challenges that both have to overcome?

Need a good number of scenarios for variety (say a dozen). Some are solo combat, some are skill-based, some have terrain challenges, some have time challenges, some have special property challenges (need a magic weapon, or to target a particular save, etc), and for some you get teamed up with a fixed set of three additional temporary party members (to test teamwork and support features).

The biggest problem is it'll be nearly impossible to measure the char's social features. (Persuasion, deception, intimidation, performance, charm, disguise, etc.)

[jas61292]

How about instead of pitting class A vs class B in direct combat against each other, they're both participants in a triathalon-style competition (think end of Revenge of the Nerds) with a long series of identical challenges that both have to overcome?

Need a good number of scenarios for variety (say a dozen). Some are solo combat, some are skill-based, some have terrain challenges, some have time challenges, some have special property challenges (need a magic weapon, or to target a particular save, etc), and for some you get teamed up with a fixed set of three additional temporary party members (to test teamwork and support features).

The biggest problem is it'll be nearly impossible to measure the char's social features. (Persuasion, deception, intimidation, performance, charm, disguise, etc.)

Yeah, something like this, while nearly impossible to do, would be a far better measure of classes than any direct combat comparison. Beyond the fact that such comparisons are silly and unneeded, they only measure one aspect of the game. And while combat may take the most time of any element of the game, it is almost always the least important in practice. To be completely honest, combat even taking place frequently, but most certainly not always, means you failed at the non-combat elements of the game. You need skill in combat to survive as an adventurer, but the amount of skill you need is inversely proportional to how often your other skills allow you to circumvent challenges without a fight.

But yeah... who cares who wins in a fight between a rogue and a paladin, when the rogue makes off with the paladin's stuff without ever being seen, and no fight ever takes place?

[Waffle_Iron]

In the games that I run, and the games I've most enjoyed playing in over the years, combat with the intent of killing the opposition as the only goal has been the rarest.

Mostly, violence happens when my goals come into conflict with yours.

Even in modern warlord type scenarios, the violence is the means to an end. "Get that guy/group out of the way so that my rule is unopposed." When straight out killing the other dude is the highest return on effort plan available, you're already waist deep in a total war scenario. Those types that DND has never been particularly good at.

The motivations and needs of the conflicting parties usually create more nuanced, and more engaging, narratively driven battles.

Some example motivations:
Weaken the opponent's resources: political, logistical, moral, morale
Gain a valuable thing: monetary, honor-laden, logistical, intelligence, food
Move through a dangerous area: infiltration, exfiltration, escape, migration, refuge
Protect a thing/person: children, leaders, holy site, ritual casting, home

Fighter vs monk is not really a question.

Hill dwarf neutral good soldier champion fighter vs Light foot halfling chaotic neutral entertainer four elements monk is better.

Man protecting his children and home from the destabilizing attacks of a local warlord vs a desperate woman forced to gather intelligence under the threat of blackmail? That's best.