D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[pemerton]

D&D is an attrition game. Spell slots, HP, etc. In a fight, the only attrition is (living allies) and (HP of characters). Outside of combat, HP and Spell slots (and reuse abilities).

This allows for danger to accumulate over more than 1 encounter. Without such a mechanism, you'd either need players to regularly lose encounters (as they run out of resources), or combat to create the illusion of the possibility of losing, or combat becomes an automatic win.

When the game is analysed at this level of abstraction, I don't see the difference between accumulation of danger over more than 1 encounter, in virtue of attrition and accumulation of danger over more than 1 round of action, in virtue of attrition.

Those two models - we could call them, at least roughly, AD&D/5e vs 4e - have different implications for other features of play, but not - as best I can see - for threat posed to PCs.

 

[jgsugden]

Yep. Trouble is the wizard can fill the wizard’s role…and the fighter’s role…and the rogue’s role. So there’s a problem with the wizard. As shown in the OP and several other threads. The wizard matches or outclasses the fighter in damage. The fighter’s role is damage dealing. The wizard’s role is not. And this is a wizard without subclass features. Imagine how much worse the imbalance would be with an evoker. Add in a no-brainer class of spells like monster summoning and you do even more damage than the fighter…who’s niche is damage dealing. It doesn’t take math skills to see it’s problematic.

We've been through this a lot. It all depends upon the level assumptions, equipment, feats. Assumed foes, etc... when it comes down to beating the central foe in a battle, a well designed fighter does beat the well designed wizard in most scenarios. The OP needs to be more specific with their assumptions on all the missing variables... and also remember that the wizard may need to use some of those spells for defense.

However, it is all irrelevant for what really matters. Does the game work? Is it fun? Yes to both. The red herrings over the math are not impacted on the play experience. Too many people are having a lot of fun to say the situation is inherently problematic.

 

[Oofta]

Does anything exist between the two extremes or are we destined to exclude every middle?

You can't please everyone. The current version of D&D and it's version of fighters seems to please millions.

 

[overgeeked]

We've been through this a lot. It all depends upon the level assumptions, equipment, feats. Assumed foes, etc... when it comes down to beating the central foe in a battle, a well designed fighter does beat the well designed wizard in most scenarios. The OP needs to be more specific with their assumptions on all the missing variables... and also remember that the wizard may need to use some of those spells for defense.

Yes, we have been over this.

However, it is all irrelevant for what really matters. Does the game work? Is it fun?

No to both.

The red herrings over the math are not impacted on the play experience. Too many people are having a lot of fun to say the situation is inherently problematic.

Just because the system works for you does not mean the system is not broken. Just because people can have fun with a broken system does not mean it’s not broken.

 

[Mort]

Yes, we have been over this.

No to both.

Just because the system works for you does not mean the system is not broken. Just because people can have fun with a broken system does not mean it’s not broken.

Broken is a bit of a loaded term.

IMO the system is mostly fine. Just about any fix necessary is readily available within it.

The real problem is that while the combat pillar is well defined, the other two really are not. DMs are left too much on their own and because casters have so many levers it's easy for DMs to make it easier for the casters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You can't please everyone. The current version of D&D and it's version of fighters seems to please millions.

I probably will stop pointing this out eventually, so persistence could pay off, but that is still the same informal fallacy it was all the other times you've said it, and it will continue to be so.

I mean, if you were a Hasbro suit at a board meeting, heckling a game designer giving a power point presentation about Ways to Make D&D Better, it'd be spot-on, popularity equals revenue which is the only thing that matters.
But, we're drooling fanboys, not Hasbro suits, here. We'll carry on analyzing what the fighter is.

Broken is a bit of a loaded term.

It's loaded with facts about D&D.
Seriously, tho, broken might imply that the game is non-functional, and D&D is generally non-functional only if the DM doesn't deign to make rulings, and why would you DM if you didn't want to make rulings? It's just... why would you not? It's like being a bee and not bee-ing.
(OK, that wasn't serious either...)

Like, this thread is not about broken, it's about the game functioning as intended: as a celebration of caster supremacy.
No, wait, sorry, seriously, again...

...now...

OK, for real.

Broken is not the right term for the way 5e arguably may roughly aim to balance fighters' overall DPR with wizards' overall DPR over the course of a 6-8 med-hard encounter/2-3 short rest adventuring day (or, arguably, 3-4 deadlyx1-2 encounter/2-3 short rest day).
Balanced isn't the right word for it, either...
... "Bad," honestly, tho a bit non-specific, seems to apply, IMHO, FWIW (which is nothing).

The real problem is that while the combat pillar is well defined, the other two really are not. DMs are left too much on their own and because casters have so many levers it's easy for DMs to make it easier for the casters.

That is a real problem with D&D, and not just 5e, either.
D&D has rarely done much with out of combat challenges - utility spells, roll a d6 to search for secret doors, theif 'special' abilities, single skill checks from an expert. Spells kinda do stand out as by far the most numerous and powerful out of combat options.
It's a long-standing and valid criticism.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, we have been over this.

No to both.

Just because the system works for you does not mean the system is not broken. Just because people can have fun with a broken system does not mean it’s not broken.

Just because people are playing the game and having fun doesn't mean that they're playing the game and having fun?

 

[Scott Christian]

When a group of people play separating all pillars of the game; when they play with an assumption that no one ever drops, no one ever has anything else to do but do damage; when they play that only the highlight gets the highlight per DM casting call - the game will always be broken.

When a group plays according to the suggestions in the PHB and DMG, things are not broken.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When a group of people play separating all pillars of the game; when they play with an assumption that no one ever drops, no one ever has anything else to do but do damage....

erm... that's kinda the simplification going on in this analysis. Just looking at combat. Just looking at DPR. Just looking at fighter and wizard doing damage every round over a longer and longer period of rounds, until, at some number of rounds... they balance!

Yes, if you think about it there are two other pillars where the wizard has many useful spells, and some skills that use his prime stat so he's pretty good at them, and the fighter has a skill that uses his prime stat. If you think about, yeah, well, actually, there are things to do, even in combat, besides grind out damage, and that, as you grind out damage, your probably get ground down by some damage, too, and will drop eventually... yeah, it gets more complex.

 

[overgeeked]

erm... that's kinda the simplification going on in this analysis. Just looking at combat. Just looking at DPR. Just looking at fighter and wizard doing damage every round over a longer and longer period of rounds, until, at some number of rounds... they balance!

Yes, if you think about it there are two other pillars where the wizard has many useful spells, and some skills that use his prime stat so he's pretty good at them, and the fighter has a skill that uses his prime stat. If you think about, yeah, well, actually, there are things to do, even in combat, besides grind out damage, and that, as you grind out damage, your probably get ground down by some damage, too, and will drop eventually... yeah, it gets more complex.

And the problem with all that additional nuance is that every iota of it all falls in the wizard's favor. From just a pure DPR analysis, the fighter and wizard are balanced at some high number of rounds, if and only if you're fighting solo monsters...when the wizard doesn't even get any subclass features...and every single extra bit of extra "context" makes the wizard more and more powerful compared to the fighter.