D&D General Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic

[Umbran]

Most proposed changes deal with the latter goal.

That's... highly debatable.

 

[Aldarc]

You say this as if there's general agreement on what its shortcomings, weakness, or sore spots are. The thing you see as a weakness or shortcoming might well be someone else's happy spot.

This is an aspect of being a broadly popular game - suggested changes have a tendency of serving narrow purposes and preferences, rather than the broad audience. A broadly popular game is, by its nature, going to include a large number of compromises, rather than clear optimal choices. A person with specific preferences is apt to find some of those compromises to be weaknesses, and want them "fixed", when really they serve a purpose in a broader context.

A variation of, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," is, "Don't make perfect the enemy of good." In our context, given how well D&D is doing, that probably means not worrying so much about whether the core product gets what you see as weaknesses fixed, but allowing house rules or third party publishers handle that. Let WotC optimize for broad popularity, proven empirically, and leave others to do the experimenting.

No, I say this as someone aware that the designers at WotC have admitted as such and made public comments about wanting to make changes to the game to address them in some fashion.

That's... highly debatable.

Thank you for your insightful, positive contribution to this thread.

 

[Oofta]

No, I say this as someone aware that the designers at WotC have admitted as such and made public comments about wanting to make changes to the game to address them in some fashion.

They've acknowledged no game is perfect. Just like DMs everywhere, in their home games they make tweaks to suit their specific style and group. If you've ever been part of a group design or development, you would know that there will always be compromises or things you wish you could go back and do over. The biggest complaint I remember seeing is how bonus actions work from Mike Mearls, who has also talked about some other house rules like different initiative alternatives.

If you don't like the game there are plenty of options, including 3PP like A5E. They're doing surveys now for what the yet to be named 50th anniversary edition will be. There will always be room for improvement but D&D for better or worse is a mass market game.

 

[Minigiant]

The bolded is where we disagree. I don't think the system has "major flaws". I keep disagreeing not because I refuse to acknowledge any issues, it's that I've never seen them be an issue in this edition. I have a half dozen house rules for some of the rough spots, but I assume most people are going to have at least a few eventually. I played 3E and at around 15th level, anyone other than the optimized caster was pointless. I don't see that issue any more. Then we get the alternatives suggested to fix things. This varies from "just give me a 4E fighter" to "they should be able to do superhuman feats like jump double the world record long jump" to "they should be mythic heroes that can redirect a river". It's kind of all over the board. Is it combat effectiveness? Out of combat options? Depends on who's answering.

If you want a more simplified wizard, I'm not sure what that would look like ... isn't that the role of the sorcerer? Alternatively use the sidekick wizard? Don't play a wizard if they're too complex? I don't think there's an answer to this one, wizards, especially high level ones, are always going to be complex. That's why we have simple alternative classes like fighters and rogues.

Fighters and wizards have different roles to play. But I'm also a realist. D&D 5E is the best selling version ever, they aren't going to do a major redesign. As a software developer we have a saying. Don't let perfection get in the way of good enough. Pick just about any topic on how to improve the game and you'll get completely different suggestions time and time again.

Getting the balance right is incredibly difficult from a game that is supposed to span dungeon crawls where you bust in and crack heads over the course of a day to urban mysteries that span a few days to overland hex crawls that can span weeks or months. I think they leaned too much into the dungeon crawl as the baseline assumption, but I counter that by spreading my adventuring "day" across several days using the gritty rest rules.

I don't think there's a single fix for accommodating every campaign style. Perhaps an extended set of rules on alternative rest options? Different ways of recovering spell slots using a mechanism similar to arcane recovery? But when the thread title is as provocative as "Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic" you're going to get pushback. No link to the source was provided so we don't know the context. We don't know what example, if any, was given. All we know is that the OP hates a major aspect of the game that millions of people enjoy.

So, sorry I'm not sorry. I'm going to continue saying that while the game has minor flaws it doesn't have major flaws. I've found workarounds for some of the issues I encountered. I'm not using the game's success as a shield against making change, just acknowledging that it works for millions of people so I'm hardly in the minority.

I think they missed enough targets on classes that I consider it a major flaw

Fighter, ranger, sorcerer, barbarian, monk...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think they missed enough targets on classes that I consider it a major flaw

Fighter, ranger, sorcerer, barbarian, monk...

Nah. All these work either well or at least OKish. It is far cry from 3e situation where at higher levels non-casters couldn't really contribute. Is it perfect? No, not at all, I certainly have my gripes too. But things work well enough that most people don't even notice any issues and those who do generally don't feel it is a huge deal. It's more like blemishes than major flaws.

 

[Aldarc]

They've acknowledged no game is perfect. Just like DMs everywhere, in their home games they make tweaks to suit their specific style and group. If you've ever been part of a group design or development, you would know that there will always be compromises or things you wish you could go back and do over. The biggest complaint I remember seeing is how bonus actions work from Mike Mearls, who has also talked about some other house rules like different initiative alternatives.

Naturally, and I'm not claiming the game is bad for not being perfect, but that also doesn't remove the designers' desire to look for opportunities to address these issues as a team.

If you don't like the game there are plenty of options, including 3PP like A5E. They're doing surveys now for what the yet to be named 50th anniversary edition will be. There will always be room for improvement but D&D for better or worse is a mass market game.

I'm not sure how you made the jump from me criticizing the game to the implication here that I don't like the game.

There are definitely things that I wish that WotC had done differently with 5e, such as throwing away some of their better and less controversial ideas from 4e, but I am also not looking for the game to cater to my every personal preference, and I understand why they did what they did, and I am proud for their success. I still enjoy the game, even if there are ways that I may personally think that WotC could improve the game.

 

[FrogReaver]

You say this as if there's general agreement on what its shortcomings, weakness, or sore spots are. The thing you see as a weakness or shortcoming might well be someone else's happy spot.

This is an aspect of being a broadly popular game - suggested changes have a tendency of serving narrow purposes and preferences, rather than the broad audience. A broadly popular game is, by its nature, going to include a large number of compromises, rather than clear optimal choices. A person with specific preferences is apt to find some of those compromises to be weaknesses, and want them "fixed", when really they serve a purpose in a broader context.

A variation of, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," is, "Don't make perfect the enemy of good." In our context, given how well D&D is doing, that probably means not worrying so much about whether the core product gets what you see as weaknesses fixed, but allowing house rules or third party publishers handle that. Let WotC optimize for broad popularity, proven empirically, and leave others to do the experimenting.

I agree with most of that but I think the thought process is that increasing the effectiveness of martials in tier 3 would be a broadly popular move.

From a far out vantage point it’s easy to see. Full casters get 7th, 8th and 9th level spells as well as some solid class features.

Martials for the most part get minor incremental improvements to a few of their abilities in tier 3.

Dnd beyond data also shows very few groups playing to high levels. Which at best points to a broad lack of experience at those levels and at worst points to groups actively avoiding those levels.

 

[Oofta]

I think they missed enough targets on classes that I consider it a major flaw

Fighter, ranger, sorcerer, barbarian, monk...

I've played and DMed to 20th, my current group is 15th. Nobody has had a problem with those classes. One person's major flaw is another person's works reasonably well.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nah. All these work either well or at least OKish. It is far cry from 3e situation where at higher levels non-casters couldn't really contribute. Is it perfect? No, not at all, I certainly have my gripes too. But things work well enough that most people don't even notice any issues and those who do generally don't feel it is a huge deal. It's more like blemishes than major flaws.

Saying It’s not as bad as it was in 3e isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement either.

But yea, Most classes in 5e work very well in tier 2 and toward the end of tier 1. That’s where most of the game is played for most groups.

 

[FrogReaver]

I've played and DMed to 20th, my current group is 15th. Nobody has had a problem with those classes. One person's major flaw is another person's works reasonably well.

I fully believe that these are not issues for your particular group. Whatever y’all are doing has made it work.

But I also think it’s fair to acknowledge that the way you all play isn’t going to be for every group and maybe not even most groups.

what might be interesting is to see what build and items your fighter has vs the build, items and spells the groups wizard has. With a bit of info about typical combat tactics and the like - and what a typical adventuring day looks like.