ad_hoc
(they/them)
Well, that's my weekly quota of getting trolled.
I should have looked at the post count first.
Brand new DM to 5E and many concerns...
Well, that's my weekly quota of getting trolled.
I should have looked at the post count first.
toucanbuzz
No rule is inviolate
Levels 1-4 in my last game I DMed took exactly 2x as long as your list for levels 1-3. Each session was about four hours. Level 4 took six sessions. Personally, I thought it was a good pace to the game.
No.
Because the Wizard often died without getting to attack in trials the Fighter got to go first. Barring a critical hit, it's impossible for the Wizard to drop the Fighter in the first round. So the Fighter always gets to counterattack. The best the Wizard can do is 11 points of damage, which, incidentally, occurred on the first trial.
The Fighter has a 57.5% chance of dropping the Wizard in the first round and, therefore, the Wizard not even getting a turn in any trial where the Fighter goes first.
Last edited:
W
WhosDaDungeonMaster
Guest
You obviously aren't getting the point. I know a Fighter will usually beat a Wizard in a toe-to-toe fight, that was never my issue. My point was they each have the same chance to hit! They both have +5 (Dex and PB) Attack bonus against AC 13 or a 65% chance to hit. That makes no sense whatsoever. A Fighter has spent years training in weapons and combat, but the Wizard is just as likely to hit. Do you see my point? I am not talking about damage (sure, the Fighter will use better weapons and has better combat abilities, never argued that...), but is just as likely to deal some level of damage as the Wizard.
None of that withstanding, your simulations also used every benefit the Fighter gets (Fighting Style and Second Wind) and none of the Wizard's. Not they it would make a huge difference, but toss in a couple Shield spells as reactions to getting hit (turning one or more into misses) or a Burning Hands and the Fighter's success isn't as close to a guarantee.
W
WhosDaDungeonMaster
Guest
That wouldn't be too bad and is close to what I plan to do anyway. Needing 2 sessions (avg 1 per wk) for 2nd, 3 for 3rd, and 4 for 4th is basically about two months of real time for 4th level. It is a bit faster than I would do in 1E or 2E, but not far off which is why I chose it.
Sacrosanct
Legend
You keep saying how you’re open to suggestions, but the overwhelming suggestion from folks is to not do anything until you play the game and see how things work out, and yet you keep saying how you are going to make major changes. So...
No, I don't see your point. It's a stupid point. A first level Fighter in 1e has the same chance to hit as a 1st level Wizard (or it's only off by one).
A 1st level Fighter hasn't spent years in training.
A 1st level Fighter is likely to have a higher Strength or Dexterity than a Wizard.
A 1st level Fighter can have a higher to hit chance with a ranged weapon because of a Fighting Style.
A 1st level fighter will have higher AC than a Wizard (because of better armor) and, if for some reason the Wizard is wearing the same armor the Fighter can have a higher AC (and, therefore, a better to-hit chance) from a Fighting Style.
Three fighting styles increase damage so it stands to reason the Fighter has learned to sacrifice some chance to hit to get more damage out of those attacks.
A Fighter DOES have a higher to-hit on basically every other weapon outside of the few a Wizard is proficient in. If I had truly done the battle ceteris paribus I could have given both of them short swords and then the Fighter would, in fact, have had a higher to-hit chance.
As to my simulations using the benefits a Fighter gets... well, yeah. Your complaint was about martial prowess of the Fighter and Wizard. So that's what I compared. Straight martial prowess. If a Wizard is dual-wielding daggers, he isn't casting burning hands or shield while wielding them, is he?
Honestly, if you are getting this bent out of shape about a Wizard and Fighter having the same to-hit chance with the few weapons a Wizard is proficient in, then D&D is clearly not the game for you. You'd be better served playing something much simpler.
W
WhosDaDungeonMaster
Guest
That is pretty rude. I asked for feedback and many people have been very good about expressing themselves without being snarky. If you don't like my discussion, comments, etc. then please don't post to the thread. Thank you.
Even though it might have only been a point (or more with Specialization later on) in 1E, it still wasn't the same. One of my possible changes would be reducing the Prof Bonus from d6 HD classes by two. At 1st-level a Fighter shouldn't be a god in hitting compared to non-warriors, but he should be better IMO.
Then how did he learn how to use the weapons, armor, Fighting Style, etc.? I am not saying he had decades, but given the starting ages for many 1st-level characters, he likely had 4-6 years or more of training somewhere (parent, army, city watch, etc.).
No, that was not my complaint at all. It was this:
It was just about the chance of hitting at 1st-level. With the numbers from your post, they have the same chance to score a hit. Sure, due to better weapons and Fighting Style, a Fighter can deal more damage, but that wasn't my point.
But FYI, when you take away a dagger and let the wizard cast shields, he will still likely lose, but about 17-20% of the time he wins. With Burning Hands, he wins about 40% of the time.
Hardly. Since you seem to not get my point of view, I suggest you let it go unless you have something more constructive to offer.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
It does seem like chance to hit is a bit of a weird thing to get so hung up on. Like, the Wizard having Proficiency with daggers and the same Dexterity score as the Fighter would seem to me to indicate that they’ve each trained about the same amount with daggers. While the Wizard spent more time learning Shield and Burning Hands, the Fighter continued training with more weapons. That’s why, yeah, the Wizard has the same chance to hit with a dagger that the Fighter has. But he has a lower chance of hitting with a shortsword than the fighter does. And a lower chance of hitting with a Rapier. And, well, pretty much every other weapon. Even the small handful of weapons with which the Wizard is as accurate as the fighter, the fighter can still use some them more effectively, since she trained to use a specialized style of fighting that the Wizard did not. It’s just that, most of those styles focus more on power or guard than accuracy, with the exception of the Archery style.
Similar Threads
