D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[Oofta]

There sort of is. The Oberoni fallacy. It goes something like "if there's a problem with the game and the referee can fix it, it's not really a problem with the game."

The logical followup of that would be: "If there's a problem with the game and the referee can fix it, but doesn't...then it's a problem with the referee."

It's all about shifting blame away from the game itself. For some reason it's held up as perfect and cannot be sullied.

Nobody has said the game is perfect that I know of. If I could wave a magic wand, I'd have WOTC figure out some kind of rest/recovery alternative. However, that's not likely to happen.

Since some people have an issue and others do not, are the people that do not have the issue just supposed to not discuss why there may be a difference?

 

[Oofta]

There is a point to talking about the default game as written.

Just because the referee can make house rules and fix the problems with the system does not mean those problems no longer exist within the system itself.

Fixing a problem at my table only fixes the problem at my table. The point of most of these discussions is about fixing the problem with the system itself.

Suggesting house rules or optional rules is only putting a band aid on the problem, not actually fixing it.

Unless you are in charge of WOTC development, changing game style and/or house rules are the only options that have a chance to rectify the problem.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think the problem with the 1000 ORC example is that it is a white room scenario.
We can proof everything we want with made up scenarios.
So let's use real play examples:

At my table right now I DM a seljammer campaign. The characters are resting in Plankstadt (Plankcity?) which is a bunch of asteroids tied together and blessed by a god chauntea to survive in the outer system.
The players encountered a Pirate ship in the first session that they successfully destroyed, by luring it next to an asteroid spider they encountered before.
But the Neogi Pirate Captain escaped and has a second ship and is attacking asteroid settlements to enslave people.

Now, while the players rested up in town, the pirate attacked another settlement and refugees are coming into town.
And the longer the characters rest in town, the longer the pirate will attack, getting more slaves, destroying more settlements ...
And because we are at the outer rim, their isn't really anybody else with the power to stop the pirate, except our heros.
So the longer they wait, the worse the problem gets.
Of course they had a reason the rest, one of them got killed by a night scavver (and got resurrected at the local temple and needs to slepe of the exhaustion from being resurrected) and they are upgrading their asteroid Hopper (their ship) which takes time.
The Pirate Thread is not a punishment for the players. It is an evolving quest hook. And if they would just leave for the next big settlement and leave Plankstadt, when they come back after a while maybe the pirate will have taken over that bigger settlement.

Like, ignoring or interrupting quests and quest hooks can have consequences. I try to built them into the game.
In the campaign I ran before, I would usually offer 2 quests, and than they solve one quest, but the other one gets more complicated, the situation worse (not always, of course).

So that’s perfectly fine. I don’t think you’ll find any pushback there. If the pirate captain showed up in 3 days with 100 pirate ships that would raise some eyebrows though.

I think it’s a matter of scale not principle.

 

[overgeeked]

Since some people have an issue and others do not, are the people that do not have the issue just supposed to not discuss why there may be a difference?

No. But maybe don’t bust in on every single thread you can where other people are trying to talk about their problems with this issue and tell them they’re wrong. If you want to help, offer up your solutions and leave it there. Constantly telling people their problem doesn’t exist is less than helpful. Strawmanning and insulting people isn’t helpful.

I’m glad this balance issue doesn’t exist for you at your table because you instituted various house rules and optional rules, but that in no way means the underlying problem no longer exists in the game itself. The fact that you are using optional rules and house rules specifically to avoid this problem suggests you’re fully aware it does, in fact, exist.

Unless you are in charge of WOTC development, changing game style and/or house rules are the only options that have a chance to rectify the problem.

The point. You have missed it.

 

[Oofta]

No. But maybe don’t bust in on every single thread you can where other people are trying to talk about their problems with this issue and tell them they’re wrong. If you want to help, offer up your solutions and leave it there. Constantly telling people their problem doesn’t exist is less than helpful. Strawmanning and insulting people isn’t helpful.

I’m glad this balance issue doesn’t exist for you at your table because you instituted various house rules and optional rules, but that in no way means the underlying problem no longer exists in the game itself. The fact that you are using optional rules and house rules specifically to avoid this problem suggests you’re fully aware it does, in fact, exist.

The point. You have missed it.

There are plenty of threads I ignore on this topic. Meanwhile every single thread that's even somewhat related to fighter gets dragged into this exact same topic and back-and-forth.

I've never said the rules were perfect and I get incredibly tired of that accusation. My house rules are minimal and I use the alternate rest rules for story pacing as much as anything. I didn't use gritty rest rules for most of my first campaign.

You telling me that I can't express my opinion? That I can't offer advice? That I'm pragmatic about options? Sorry, not sorry about that.

 

[Minigiant]

Can you be more specific than "situations"? Is it really any worse than your current issues?

Because the only one you brought up that I remember if I understood correctly is that the world is static, much like a video game. That you can go rest for a week, come tromping back and things are exactly as they were when you left. To me it's illogical for a group that has been attacked, knowing they're likely to be attacked again to do nothing in that week. There are multiple options there, it would depend on the specific scenario. The exception is the crypt of undead/constructs but that also has possible solutions.

I guess I've just never had an issue coming up with some sort of ticking clock when a long rest is a week in a relatively safe location. Have you ever read books like The Dresden Files*? Everything is going fine for Harry and then all heck breaks loose for a few days. My campaign arcs frequently follow similar plot lines.

*If not, I highly recommend them.

I stated that the world isn't static.

BUT

Most D&D monsters if they reasonably react within the resources cannot compete with a part that is 50% or more casters.

You had to give most monster resource they would not realistically have that players would not except
OR
make every monster a spellcaster.

 

[Oofta]

I stated that the world isn't static.

BUT

Most D&D monsters if they reasonably react within the resources cannot compete with a part that is 50% or more casters.

You had to give most monster resource they would not realistically have that players would not except
OR
make every monster a spellcaster.

Then throw more monsters. Don't have monsters show up in fireball formation. Make monsters use tactics that are appropriate, even wolves know to flank, lions set up ambushes.

If you ever want to discuss specifics, that's fine. I'm done with the "it doesn't work" with nothing to go on when it works for me and the groups I've played with.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Y'know, 5e was meant to be an edition that would work for more play styles than prior eds had. It turns out, mathematically, that it 'works' in so far as comparative DPR goes (which is, like, combat, so not necessarily more broadly) for a tightly proscribed range of pacing. That's a bad thing for the self-proclaimed 'big tent' edition, as styles that use any other pacing are going to experience imbalances.

Does it work for some styles of play that naturally fall into or outright force that pacing? Well, as far as DPR goes, it should. And, some folks have reported that, for them, it does.

OK.

 

[Minigiant]

Then throw more monsters. Don't have monsters show up in fireball formation. Make monsters use tactics that are appropriate, even wolves know to flank, lions set up ambushes.

If you ever want to discuss specifics, that's fine. I'm done with the "it doesn't work" with nothing to go on when it works for me and the groups I've played with.

Monsters just don't show up in in a realistic world.

 

[payn]

Y'know, 5e was meant to be an addition that worked for many styles. It turns out, mathematically, that it 'works' in so far as comparative DPR goes (which is, like, combat) for a tightly proscribed range of pacing. That's a bad thing for the self-proclaimed 'big tent' edition.
Does it work for some styles of play that naturally fall into or outright force that pacing? Well, as far as DPR goes, it should. And, some folks have reported that, for them, it does.

OK.

Somewhere along the line they switched up to 'not great, but not offensive casual tent'. Now we have everybody's second favorite edition.