D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[doctorbadwolf]

Lol okay

 

[Scott Christian]

There should have been rules to:

1. turn short rest classes into long rest classes
2. turn long rests classes into short rest classes
3. turn all classes into very long rest classes (megadungeon mode)

So for tables that have X encounters a day, the DM converts all the classes to have their resources to their style.

WOTC recognized this and their to make the default all classes long rest base in a playtest. It flopped.
Because
A the classes were designed for their original 2014 rest type.
B People enjoyed having access to the 2014 rest type classes
C There still are no rules to do 1, 2, or 3.

Do you honestly believe if they had written the optional rules this way, that, that would have made the difference? That the complaints would have not been there? That suddenly, everyone would be like, "The optional rules for running gritty really balances out all the classes? And the high fantasy rules, they have balanced classes too."
I am sorry, but the same thing that is happening now would rear its head.

 

[Scott Christian]

Believe it or not, there are games out there, general games, which embrace a wide variety of play styles and methods, where the optimal choice is to do what the rules were designed to do. Where the smart choice is, in fact, in keeping with the intended choice.

And those games sell .001% of what WotC does. Why? One reason is, they don't appeal to the masses. I have played other games. Some are really good. But they are good for a specific playstyle. Like crunching numbers all day, play PF1. It's awesome for that. Want realistic crit charts and tables upon tables of different damage via armor and weapons. Grab some old school Rolemaster. Etc.
These are great games. They cater to a specific playstyle. D&D 5e caters to a specific playstyle. And they are more popular than anything. It's not just legacy. It is a better and broader play experience that most people enjoy.

 

[Minigiant]

Do you honestly believe if they had written the optional rules this way, that, that would have made the difference? That the complaints would have not been there? That suddenly, everyone would be like, "The optional rules for running gritty really balances out all the classes? And the high fantasy rules, they have balanced classes too."
I am sorry, but the same thing that is happening now would rear its head.

Yes. Yes I do.

Truly and Honestly, if they took out or reduced a lot of that Manual f the Planes stuff and put in optional class features that shift short rest classes to long rest classes and long rest classes to short rest classes then...

1. More people would have bought the DMG
2. More people would have therefore read the DMG

And to be clear again:
I said there should have been Class Feature Variants, not Rest Variants.

The Rest Variant in the DMG don't fix anything because 5e doesn't have a rest problem. The problem is, and what the OP states, that the Fighter and Wizard math problem is that the classes were balanced around having 25-35 rounds of offensive combat.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I'm not sure the 5 minute work day is fun in the long run. In the short run, yes, you feel awesome, but in the long run winning every encounter easily gets boring, because the challenge aspect of the game gets trivilaized.
One of the most common complaints I hear is, that 5e is too easy.
Like, people love Dark Souls because it is hard. Winning an extremely diffifficult encounter while being already low on ressource feels extra satisfying.
Of course everybody has a different threshold for how challenging they like their game, but I doubt a game were every encounter is trivial will make fun in the long run.

My experience has been that most players have yet to encounter that long run where winning every encounter gets boring - despite years of gaming. It's a common preference; lots of players have a low threshold for how challenging they like their game, and find dealing with low resources to be frustrating and annoying rather than fun. Also, my experience is that GMs tend to overestimate the amount of challenge that players want and like.

There's an old usenet post on the subject. Not by me, but I entirely endorse it:

RPGs and video games differ from most ordinary board games in that
there doesn't have to be a loser. I think it's reasonable that they
attract mindsets which aren't very interested in losing; and a lot
of RPG groups successfully cater to this.

If I enter into playing, say, chess with the expectation I will never
lose, I'm being an idiot and I'm bound to be disappointed. Not even
the World Champion gets that. But if I enter into _Heroes of Might
and Magic IV_ (which is what I'm currently playing) with the
expectation that I won't lose, I'm not hurting anyone, and it's not
unreasonable that I may get what I want. (Especially if I turn the
difficulty down--and I may yet do that, because the losses are really
more annoying than challenging.)

Whether the player still wants it when she gets it is another question,
but for at least some players in some situations the answer is "yes."
I don't think I would still be playing Heroes if I lost even 1/3
of the time. In a board game, I know I have to give my opponent
a fair shot, but here there's no such obligation; the only thing
against winning all the time is that it may detract from the challenge,
and for me, right now, I'd rather win than have a really strong
challenge.

If this is a personality flaw it's an awfully common one; I think
it's better just regarded as a preference.

A common problem with such games is that they are entertaining for
the players but not for the GM. I get tired of having my NPCs
wiped out time and again; I spoiled a campaign recently by engineering
a TPK in the attempt to make things "a bit more challenging." Clearly
I overshot, but by game contract I shouldn't even have been trying.

If there's a "too easy, is boring" threshold, it's not the 5 minute day but the 6 second day, where combat encounters end after only one or two rounds, and that gets boring more because there is not enough for the players to do during the combat, and less because the doing is too easy. The solution there is to make the combats longer without particularly trying to make them harder. E.g. with more opponents rather than tougher ones.

 

[overgeeked]

My experience has been that most players have yet to encounter that long run where winning every encounter gets boring - despite years of gaming. It's a common preference; lots of players have a low threshold for how challenging they like their game, and find dealing with low resources to be frustrating and annoying rather than fun. Also, my experience is that GMs tend to overestimate the amount of challenge that players want and like.

There's an old usenet post on the subject. Not by me, but I entirely endorse it:



If there's a "too easy, is boring" threshold, it's not the 5 minute day but the 6 second day, where combat encounters end after only one or two rounds, and that gets boring more because there is not enough for the players to do during the combat, and less because the doing is too easy. The solution there is to make the combats longer without particularly trying to make them harder. E.g. with more opponents rather than tougher ones.

I’d say it depends entirely on the individual player. Not even the table. And trying to sync up the preferences of a whole table on that kind of micro scale is a non-starter. Some want a challenge, others don’t. Some want a 5MWD others a 6SWD. Dialing in that minute is going to be impossible. And it likely changes based on the day, time of day, and individual player’s mood.

 

[Scott Christian]

Yes. Yes I do.

Truly and Honestly, if they took out or reduced a lot of that Manual f the Planes stuff and put in optional class features that shift short rest classes to long rest classes and long rest classes to short rest classes then...

1. More people would have bought the DMG
2. More people would have therefore read the DMG

And to be clear again:
I said there should have been Class Feature Variants, not Rest Variants.

The Rest Variant in the DMG don't fix anything because 5e doesn't have a rest problem. The problem is, and what the OP states, that the Fighter and Wizard math problem is that the classes were balanced around having 25-35 rounds of offensive combat.

Fair enough. You might be right.

 

[M_Natas]

My experience has been that most players have yet to encounter that long run where winning every encounter gets boring - despite years of gaming. It's a common preference; lots of players have a low threshold for how challenging they like their game, and find dealing with low resources to be frustrating and annoying rather than fun. Also, my experience is that GMs tend to overestimate the amount of challenge that players want and like.

There's an old usenet post on the subject. Not by me, but I entirely endorse it:



If there's a "too easy, is boring" threshold, it's not the 5 minute day but the 6 second day, where combat encounters end after only one or two rounds, and that gets boring more because there is not enough for the players to do during the combat, and less because the doing is too easy. The solution there is to make the combats longer without particularly trying to make them harder. E.g. with more opponents rather than tougher ones.

My personal experience with Computer Games is, when it gets too easy, either trough finding optimal strategies, turning down the difficulty or (whispers) cheat codes, I lose interest.
Like ... Civ 5 (or was it 6?) - with each civilization, you had a different optimal strategy that would win the game. Once I mastered that strategy, my interest in playing that civilization vanished. But Civ 5 and 6 have dozens of Civilization, so I still can play the game .

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think your taking these comments and findings to the extreme to fit your position.

This applies to everyone in every discussion about D&D's popularity. No one wants to look at the whole picture because it reveals neither the objectively best game ever, nor the greatest failure of all time. And there is clearly nothing in the middle, so we all must pick and choose to sort ourselves into a tribe with our relationship to D&D at the core of our personalities.

 

[payn]

This applies to everyone in every discussion about D&D's popularity. No one wants to look at the whole picture because it reveals neither the objectively best game ever, nor the greatest failure of all time. And there is clearly nothing in the middle, so we all must pick and choose to sort ourselves into a tribe with our relationship to D&D at the core of our personalities.

Sure, its essay to fall into that trap, but its not inevitable. Ultimately, its up to you.