D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[Mort]

There is no way to objectively state whether a class is good or bad. White room analysis is always going to be flawed based on assumptions, what is being measured and variations in actual play. So we can only determine if a class meets it's goal, which in the case of a game like D&D means that we have to base the judgement on completely subjective measurement, do people want to play the class.

The answer for fighters? It's the most popular class there is. People choose it over other classes because in their subjective opinion it's the class they want to play. Nobody is being forced to play a fighter. So yes, for this particular scenario popularity is a good measure of does the class meet the goals of class design for the game being played. Is it the best possible version of fighter for everyone? That's not possible, it's a compromise like all other classes.

P.S. insisting that something is a fallacy does not make it so. If there is a flaw to my logic go ahead. But saying "People don't really want to play" has no basis, saying "Popularity fallacy" is also meaningless on it's own.

The real measure isn't (or at least shouldn't be) do people want to play fighters - we KNOW fighters are popular and people like the archetype. Many/most people will come at this from a new perspective and pick the fighter BECAUSE it's popular/familiar(movies, books etc.)

The real question is after having played a fighter were people happy with it? Would they play a fighter again? Did they have any of the issues discussed?

 

[Minigiant]

The popularity argument loses to the lack of options.

Fighters have a monopoly of a popular archetype and many sub-archetypes.

If I want to play a master swordsman, there is only one class that provides that. Even if the fighter had no class features, it would be the only class I could choose to play that character.

 

[Oofta]

The real measure isn't (or at least shouldn't be) do people want to play fighters - we KNOW fighters are popular and people like the archetype. Many/most people will come at this from a new perspective and pick the fighter BECAUSE it's popular/familiar(movies, books etc.)

The real question is after having played a fighter were people happy with it? Would they play a fighter again? Did they have any of the issues discussed?

People have been playing D&D 5E for close to a decade. There is no indication of reduced popularity of fighters over time. To me that answers your question. Which that question is really the same old same old "Do people really like to play fighters or are they just ignorant because if they weren't so stupid they'd agree with me."

Not liking something that other people like is not a bad thing. We all have preferences. Saying that people who disagree with you are just idiots who don't know better? Ain't nobody got time for that.

 

[Minigiant]

There is no winning for WotC here. Players always want to be at full health, and the game relies partially on them not being at full health. And it is the DM's job, per the description in the DMG, to help tell the story and create encounters that push the players' PCs into more than one encounter per day if it matches the story.

There is a winning for WOTC.

It however requires the designers to insert and focus on optional rules they wont use but others they might never see will use. Which is hard for humans.

That has always been one of the core issues with D&D under both its IP holders: support and investment in things they don't care for but other fans do.

 

[Mort]

People have been playing D&D 5E for close to a decade. There is no indication of reduced popularity of fighters over time. To me that answers your question. Which that question is really the same old same old "Do people really like to play fighters or are they just ignorant because if they weren't so stupid they'd agree with me."

Not liking something that other people like is not a bad thing. We all have preferences. Saying that people who disagree with you are just idiots who don't know better? Ain't nobody got time for that.

For me it's not a question of liking the fighter. I like the fighter class, I just wish it had a bit more to offer outside of combat.

That said, I'm fully willing to admit that people certainly seem to like the fighter A LOT. I found a spreadsheet that maps out a survey from 2018. It shows the fighter as the MOST enjoyed of all the classes. With that kind of information, it certainly makes sense that WoTC would be very hesitant to change anything about the fighter.

 

[Mort]

There is a winning for WOTC.

It however requires the designers to insert and focus on optional rules they wont use but others they might never see will use. Which is hard for humans.

That has always been one of the core issues with D&D under both its IP holders: support and investment in things they don't care for but other fans do.

Why would WoTC expend the resources?

They're better off just waiting for someone to release something on DMsguild (or, hey Level Up)with these alternate rules and then profit because everything ELSE being bought is their stuff.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is no way to objectively state whether a class is good or bad.

If you consider good or bad to be wholly subjective value judgements, sure, that's a trivially true, if useless, statement.

You could judge an objectively strictly inferior class "good" and a class objectively strictly superior to it "bad."
You have that privilege.

I say feature not bug.

What's the benefit of lacking sub-systems, other than spells, to model exploring environments or interacting with NPCs in ways other than trying to kill eachother?

 

[Minigiant]

Why would WoTC expend the resources?

They're better off just waiting for someone to release something on DMsguild (or, hey Level Up)with these alternate rules and then profit because everything ELSE being bought is their stuff.

Because it makes more money.
And because 5e is futureproofed like unstable explosives.

The entire problem is the encounter assumptions. The designers never intended for other resource paradigms to work. So it's too late to fix it.

 

[jgsugden]

... Does the game work? Is it fun? ...

...No to both.

It seems like a really bad idea to devote this much of your life to a game that you think is inherently broken and is not fun. Even if you justify it to yourself, the idea that millions of people would do it is ... questionable.

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.

If you try to turn on your TV and it does not work, but 9 other people in the house make it work just fine ... it isn't the TV.

What is broken? Does it simple meant there is not perfect balance? No. It means there has to be such an imbalance that the game is not fun anymore unless, potentially, you're using the overpowered mechanics. So many people have had an amazing time playing each of the classes ... in a variety of styles of games ... it just doesn't work to argue the wizard is inherently broken relative to the fighter. The fact that many people enjoy playing fighters when wizards are present DOES disprove that wizards are broken ... and I still highly challenge the math behind the starting assumptions. Saying you've done THE math ignores that there are inherently hundreds of assumptions being made here that introduce variables that influence the outcome. I'll tell you that at high levels - especially at 20 - the most overpowered offensive PC at the table is often the pure fighter. 10 or so attacks ... 30 to 40 damage each ... Maybe 20 if they can sneak up on a foe and get that surprise round...

 

[Minigiant]

The core issue is that 5e was designed around having ~25-35 rounds of combat per long rest. 5e was designed around long dungeon crawls.

A huge chunk, maybe even a majority of tables, don't do that many rounds pr LR regularly nor average around that. Heck the SR pr LR numbers are all over the place.

So the math assumptions when designing the game was off.