D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[Scott Christian]

Such artificial boosting or lowering of the difficulty is often unwelcome in multiple common styles of play (which you implicitly recognize). Employing such heavy-handed techniques is always possible, yes, but the consequences for doing so are rather steeper than a lot of folks want to admit.

Further, just because it is easy to make a difficult encounter does not mean it is easy to make an appropriately difficult encounter. "Rocks fall, everyone dies" is the facetious form of this, but like, you can always just put in a monster with seven million HP that the party simply can't kill before it kills them. Needing to fit the game context makes it much more complicated, and 5e's intentionally opaque design doesn't help matters either.

If the DM reads the table and understands their players, it is never unwelcome. It is a DM understanding how a story works, knowing their players' wants, and using the tools that the players have already accepted to put the situation back into the players hands. Maybe, if we are talking about a convention or some one-shot solo play with strangers, that might be true. But for a table running a campaign, it is not unwelcome.

We are also going to disagree with how easy it is to make an "appropriate difficult encounter." It is easy. And this comes from a DM who never fudges dice rolls, never alters hit points on the fly, and never underplays a villain's motive. It is easy. Will sometimes the dice still let the party wipe your enemies clean with barely a scratch? Yup. Will sometimes they come very close to death, even though it wasn't meant to? Yup. But that is because there are dice involved.

And fitting the context of the story is exactly what I am talking about. There never needs to be some ludicrous monster with a million hit points or stupid death skill challenge. But for a first level group, it is easy to take those three goblins and give them an orc overseer. For fifth level, it is easy to take that lamia challenge and let her have a few jackalweres in her servitude. For that 10th level group, it is easy to have the bone devil and minions, but then add an adjacent task that must be accomplished at the same time. (And yes, feel free to try and pick apart the examples. It is not the point, as it simply gives oversight to quickly explain how easy it is.)

One caveat: I will grant you that it takes a lot more planning and experience as the group levels up. By 15th level, the dice can swing so far, that it is like riding a wrecking ball. But by 15th level, there are so many other variables in play that can save a group, that it rarely experiences a true TPK.

 

[Scott Christian]

I wrote a lot more about this, but for once I'll try to be brief. Early on, fresh campaign or fresh new arc or whatever, the world's your oyster. You've got the freedom to do most anything--everything lies Beyond The Horizon. But every question you answer pushes the horizon back.

Six sessions deep in the kobold-centric Seven Warrens for Seven Bothers arc, just tossing goblins in 'cause you're absolutely sure they're needed? Not kosher anymore. You gotta explain why now. Player questions and your answers have pushed the horizon too far away. The goblins had to affect the world to get there so fast, in secret, etc. Early days, players have plenty of chance to find out in advance--and it's on them to do that work. Decided six weeks later, after the party has done its due diligence? No, doesn't fly unless you at least give the players a chance to find out first.

This is of course separate from my "rewriting monsters on the fly without justifying it is blatantly cheating" issues, but that's a whole different can of worms.

On the fly is in question here. I have written a lot about the importance of DM preparation. If the DM knows their world, or kingdom, or even area really, really well. If they have an idea of the resources, populations, economy, monsters, environments, and cultures - these adjustments will come through in the story. And as I said before, these adjustments are based on the story. The DM is not throwing in something that doesn't fit the ecosystem, or something that clearly they never intended in their creation, and that can include "more of something."

Example: There are two illithids wreaking havoc on an area. They have manipulated and controlled the town's population for a long time. The group finds the illithids, and skewers them no problem. It can happen. But, if the group finds the illithids, then leaves for months to come back three levels higher, what should the DM do? They could have the illithids grow in power. That might be justified. They could also have the illithids realize they are in danger and twist some of the townfolk to help protect them. That would be reasonable. They could have the illithids take their ill-gotten gains from their time harassing the town and hire some guards or assassins to take care of them. That would be reasonable. They could also trap their hideout. That would be reasonable. They might make a pact with a higher evil t help protect them. That might be reasonable.

All these are because the DM knows and has actively thought about the area. None of it is unreasonable. Having the illithid sit there and do nothing. That is unreasonable. It simply shows the inexperience of the DM (which we all were at one point) or that the DM does not prep.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"Mother may I" comments always comes off as condescending to me. In D&D only the DM knows the true state of the world, what NPCs are thinking or know, what environmental effects could be going on. That and there's a fair amount of flexibility built assumed for the game, the rules give you tools to make the game work, but DMs and groups are encouraged to make the game their own.

This can take shape in many ways such as I happen to rule a different way than other DMs. There may be a spell like inner sanctum in play. As a DM I just haven't provided enough detail or was misunderstood. Perhaps I want to keep the game moving so I'll make a call and we'll discuss it later.

None of those are "Mother may I", it's just the way the game has always worked.

That's because its a condescending term.

 

[James Gasik]

Sincerely: How is it not, in your opinion? Because it seems to be indistinguishable from "I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it any further," apart from hiding the fact that it's been altered.

(I only didn't respond to the rest because I have little to say; it sounds like you got some good advice and took it to heart.)

The main reason I say that is because calling it "cheating" is a bit of a loaded term. To me, cheating would be breaking the rules or fudging the dice constantly behind the screen to get the results you want.

Consider this: if adding extra enemies to an adventure is cheating, then every time a DM has rolled on the wandering monster table, they've been cheating! These monsters are presented as being in addition to the other monsters already present, and very rarely does an adventure (or monster manual, as they've had terrain-based wandering monster tables in the past) say "oh by the way, each of these results may only be encountered once").

It's sometimes written right into the adventure that infinite monsters exist, such as Undermountain, where in addition to the many gates that things could blunder into, Halaster has been known to kidnap monsters for his dungeon, and his apprentices have even created monsters that wander the dungeon!

Because the DM creates the world, they could easily write the ability to add monsters out of nowhere in it's lore (hey it only takes one Fiend on the Material Plane 24 hours to start summoning more of it's kind, you know!), and this is true for canon worlds as well.

To me it feels like cheating, but I'm not going to outright say it is, because from another point of view, it's simply a tool in the DM's toolbox. And a tool isn't bad or good innately- it comes down to how it's employed.

 

[Mort]

I agree with you except the bolded part of course. Which is always the impasse.

What specifically do you disagree with?

If the players control the pace of play then wizards will generally have their most powerful spells available for any given situation. A wizards most powerful spells (and even a few pegs down from there) are SIGNIFICANTLY more game changing than anything the fighter can do. The control is, they are not always available and the wizard has to save them for the truly important moments. Thus the fighter can keep up because they can go "all out" a much greater percentage of the time. But if the wizard doesn't have to save the spells, can just use them when they need? That's a huge plus in favor of the wizard

I would like to differentiate with you about the "mother may I" comment. I feel for most tables, it's not "mother may I," but rather, "did we meet a standard." Almost every DM I know looks at the situation, and then tries to apply some type of logic to that situation. So, when the players meet a standard in that specific situation, they are able to rest more easily. To me, that is not a "mother may I" situation.

I suppose "mother may I" is a bit overly derogatory, though I didn't really mean it as such.

The point is, the players HAVE to filter their actions through the DM and some DMs handle that significantly better than others. Hopefully experience helps on this front (usually does, but not always).

 

[Minigiant]

To me, one of the biggest problems with rests is that since WOTC didn't mandate a certain measure but designed around a certain amount,this imposes on the DM to

1. Figure out what the amount of rests players actually enjoy
2. Tailor the game to a rest type that they AND the players enjoy
3. Mold the game into to have an internal logic behind the chosen rest type.

The last bolded one is 80% the problem. The chosen rest system either doesn't make sense internally or flay out told to the players.

Tell players that "the world keeps moving when you rest" only works if the players understand "how the world moves". That only happens if you tell them or let them experience it.

One of my starting adventures has the beginning fully about getting the players to understand the world.

The adventure is a delivery service for many powerful people. As they pick up the packages and letters, they learn.

• The concept of latent mana and how it affects resting
• A good place to long rest is at an inn.
• Empty houses and building are safe for short rests but not reliable for long rests
• Houses of Healing are the best place to long rest but usually require to be members of the religion, a big favor, or a large payment.
• War camps and forts have scouts and spies so resting near them is unwise as one will likely be discovered.
• Druids, rangers, fey, and other people touched with the primal have animals as spies and harassers to keep people from ambushing them.
• Gunpowder exists
• Permanent alarms exist.

Once they leave the city, there is no need to manage rest. The players know how rests, random encounter, wandering monsters, dungeon rooms, and scouting works in the setting.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because an experienced DM can adjust an encounter. First, they know they can adjust the encounter. Some new DMs just think what is in the adventure path must be used. Second, an experienced DM understands how to adjust. It should (if they have read the books and played as both a player and DM for awhile) be easy to adjust the encounter to a more appropriate challenge. That is, of course, if the players seem to want that challenge. Which is yet another hallmark of an experienced DM, they can read the table.

If they are adjusting the encounter then they are adjusting the story, no?

Encounters have in game dependencies, you cannot adjust them too drastically without also needing to adjust the story.

 

[Oofta]

If they are adjusting the encounter then they are adjusting the story, no?

Encounters have in game dependencies, you cannot adjust them too drastically without also needing to adjust the story.

Sure but if you're going after that crime boss who's to say if he had 6 thugs or 8? If you suddenly have a fiend (and the crime boss was not secretly a fiend or in league with them) that would change the story. But a couple extra goombas? Forget about it.

Good grief. Gotta stop playing Cyberpunk.

 

[Scott Christian]

What specifically do you disagree with?

If the players control the pace of play then wizards will generally have their most powerful spells available for any given situation. A wizards most powerful spells (and even a few pegs down from there) are SIGNIFICANTLY more game changing than anything the fighter can do. The control is, they are not always available and the wizard has to save them for the truly important moments. Thus the fighter can keep up because they can go "all out" a much greater percentage of the time. But if the wizard doesn't have to save the spells, can just use them when they need? That's a huge plus in favor of the wizard

It is the heart of the disagreement here, I just happen to not only believe are wizards and fighters equal at contributing to a group, I believe they are equal even with only one fight per long rest.

In combat, the fighter shines sometimes and the wizard shines sometimes. Our session last night, the wizard was kind of worthless. The big-bad had magic resistance and a few legendary actions that negated the wizard outright. And the wizard would have been the first to fall had my character not offered a surrender. In essence, the wizard did nothing. Oh, and on the way there, the ranger had the spotlight and was the one to get us out of the jams. Each time, there was a fully rested wizard. (The prior fight, the wizard dazed a few creatures and my fighter sliced both up. Teamwork - yea!)

In the end it boils down to the table. My fighter contributes just as much (if not more than) the other characters during RP. My fighter explores just as much too. This has been true for every table I have ever played at for 5e, which is five across three states. All in person. And while all of this is circumstantial, others on here keep saying the same thing. This is why, when we disagree, I actually think it is the DMs fault. Maybe they do not know how to set up a variety of encounters that highlights different classes? Maybe they don't know how the RP sessions and exploration sessions inside the game are supposed to work? I don't know what it is, but I know my experiences have been consistent - the fighter shines just as much as the other classes.

One caveat: I know I keep putting caveats in, but this is one I have not seen discussed, and I think it is worth mentioning. Not everyone is a good player. And some players have a certain personality that lends themselves to certain classes. This can make the waters mirky. And when you sit that player next to a great player, the water can turn to mud. Picture a strong roleplayer with a pedantic grasp of the rules playing a wizard. Now picture a player that is a weak roleplayer, weak grasp of the rules, playing a fighter. Put them at the same table and I could possibly see coming to the conclusion that fighters need to be changed. That is, of course, until I saw the player play a different class.

I suppose "mother may I" is a bit overly derogatory, though I didn't really mean it as such.

The point is, the players HAVE to filter their actions through the DM and some DMs handle that significantly better than others. Hopefully experience helps on this front (usually does, but not always).

I know you didn't mean it as derogatory. I didn't take it as such. I was just trying to point out the difference, at least how I see it. I do 100% agree with you though. It is filtered through the DM, and there are DMs that handle it terribly. (I know I have mentioned this, but I have run several D&D clubs for different high schools. At that age, there are so many other things at play at the table, the DMs often make very poor decisions, despite the players being creative and really intelligent at times. So I have seen what you are talking about.)

 

[Scott Christian]

To me, one of the biggest problems with rests is that since WOTC didn't mandate a certain measure but designed around a certain amount,this imposes on the DM to

1. Figure out what the amount of rests players actually enjoy
2. Tailor the game to a rest type that they AND the players enjoy
3. Mold the game into to have an internal logic behind the chosen rest type.

The last bolded one is 80% the problem. The chosen rest system either doesn't make sense internally or flay out told to the players.

Tell players that "the world keeps moving when you rest" only works if the players understand "how the world moves". That only happens if you tell them or let them experience it.

One of my starting adventures has the beginning fully about getting the players to understand the world.

The adventure is a delivery service for many powerful people. As they pick up the packages and letters, they learn.

• The concept of latent mana and how it affects resting
• A good place to long rest is at an inn.
• Empty houses and building are safe for short rests but not reliable for long rests
• Houses of Healing are the best place to long rest but usually require to be members of the religion, a big favor, or a large payment.
• War camps and forts have scouts and spies so resting near them is unwise as one will likely be discovered.
• Druids, rangers, fey, and other people touched with the primal have animals as spies and harassers to keep people from ambushing them.
• Gunpowder exists
• Permanent alarms exist.

Once they leave the city, there is no need to manage rest. The players know how rests, random encounter, wandering monsters, dungeon rooms, and scouting works in the setting.

I like the starting adventure. It is a great idea. But I really do not see it being a problem for players to understand. Maybe it's just me, or rather, my experience, that lets me understand how the DM is structuring it a bit more innately.