D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[Minigiant]

I'm s fan of consistency. A DM should expects the players to react appropriate to the world they create and not simply assume they will confirm to expected means of play described by others.

And a game should expected the player base to gravitate it's play towards both the demographics it attracts and the mechanical weight it incentives and not simple following the play standards of the creators.

 

[M_Natas]

Bottom line, magic is completely unrealistic, which kills it for D&D (and Star Wars is science-fantasy and not much better), and calling it verisimilitude doesn't really change that. The whole deal is based on an indefensible double standard.

You are argumenting unfairly here. Verisimilitude means, that in order to accept the unrealistic parts, we need a grounding in realistic parts or the Suspension of Disbelief is destroyed.

Consistency, I think, is about the most you can hope for, but that's entirely internal to the genre/setting/story.

Star Wars rarely goes into logistics or construction or anything.
OT1H, it really doesn't seem consistent that, in the original movies, the Empire, ruling the Galaxy, and seemingly unlimited resources, while the Rebellion struggled with old-looking gear, yes, in the Disney movies, the New Republic, ruling the Galaxy is still making do with old battered ships, and the First Order has seemingly unlimited resources.
OTOH, it is entirely consistent with the framing of relatively few heroes struggling against villains with seemingly unlimited resources.

There was never an answer, either, FWIW.

In Star Wars 2 they show how they get the clone troopers, they show an android building fabric and have fights in there.

We don't know from watching 'episodes IV-VI' that the Empire levies crushing taxes and conscripts millions of it's citizens to build a cyclopean war machine, or that the Rebellion scavenges some ships from past conflicts or builds others by hand in secret.
Those seem like reasonable assumptions, but the real reason is theme, and the 'realistic' explanation doesn't matter.

Unless they matter to the story you don't need to go into great detail. But the details that are there need to make sense.
Like in Star Wars 1 to 3 clone troopers and android armies matter a lot, so they show how they get both.
You don't need to show how they build ships that they fight with in episode 1 to 9 - but when the side that lost the war is able to build a fleet in secret that is stronger than the combined might of the empire in episode 9 - on one single planet without outside support, that just breaks the suspension of disbelief at least for me and if you look at the reviews and fan reaction for a lot of other people, too.

Like, Star Wars doesn't need to be Honor Harrington, but I think that level of consistency and world building would have saved episodes 7 to 9.

 

[Scott Christian]

The assumptions and over-simplifications in the exercise are truely profound. They are entirely in favor of the fighter, tho. The analysis is really looking for any indiction of balance, at all, the slightest numeric evidence that it could exist.
The more detail you bring in, the worse it's going to look, because DPR is not just the fighter's best thing, it's virtually his only thing, and the wizard has so many other things he could be doing with those slots besides blasting 1-3 enemies.

First, if I may point out, that you ignored my actual premise about how many variables there are in combat. It is not that the wizard can do so many things. This has always been the case. It is what the wizard is able to do. If you ignore all the other variables and pretend the wizard always has the right spell, the enemies are always lined up, that the foes always wait for the fighters to come up front and only attack them, and that there is only ever one thing to do in combat, then yes, the wizard does better.

But the real truth, the "more detail you bring in" as you put it, greatly improves the fighter vs wizard balance. It is the exact opposite of what you suggest.

The tables with the problem are the same tables that had a problem with races having +2/+1 bonuses to specific abilities. They are the same tables that have a problem with hit point differentials. They are the same ones that have a problem with almost anything that doesn't allow them to build and be a character that is great at everything. The truth of the matter is, they are good at most things, and great at a few things, but they refuse to see it that way.

PS - I would also note that these same tables are the ones that complain gold is worthless, which makes me question some things about the players' play experience and the DM's rigor when building a campaign. (It should be noted that not all campaigns need to be about gold. A good West Marches romp might not have anything to do with gold.)

You can. You can do it with the 1000 orcs or with any other use of DM force or illusionism - if your players trust you because you always deliver a fun session, its just that much easier.
(there arguments against that sort of thing, that it erases player agency &c, but when it's down to just your & your players, it's a personal relationship, a social contract, whatever, it's unique to each group)
You can also formally introduce all manner of rule changes, or less fromally ad hoc rulings. Like you say, at that point, it's all on the DM.

But, that doesn't excuse the system in any way.

There is absolutely zero, nada, none, & nothing about a DM taking into account a living breathing world that reduces player agency. Does the DM need to consider what the players have experienced in the past parts of the campaign? Yes. Do they need to take into account whether a specific player has had the limelight? Yes. Do they also have to show that their world might have consequences to actions and non-actions? Yes. Do they also have to consider their world's NPCs' intelligence and motivations? Yes.

It is a balance. And that is where the trust comes in. And it seems to me, that DMs that apply this balance fairly, are also the DMs that seem to not have a problem with the "supposed" power imbalances of classes. Maybe it's experience. Maybe it's playstyle. Maybe it's dumb luck. Maybe it's having the right group of players. Maybe it's ignorance. Who knows? But one thing seems apparent, and that is tables that have a DM that players trust seem to not have this problem.

If someone from group A actually tried alternatives and it doesn't work, start a thread about what happened with scenario specifics. Then we can discuss what went wrong and see if there are any solutions.

I would argue Group A can't try to implement Group B's solutions because they play a game that is different. They apparently play where everyone does damage per round, they never seem to mix pillars of play, their characters never seem to attempt anything they are not the best at, and their DM's refuse to follow the examples of play described in the PHB, the DMG, the MM, and every adventure path written. There is no way to attempt a solution when you play a story-based game like a miniature war game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You are argumenting unfairly here. Verisimilitude means, that in order to accept the unrealistic parts, we need a grounding in realistic parts or the Suspension of Disbelief is destroyed.

Which itself is a false concept considering the willing suspension of disbelief is willing. So no matter how little verisimilitude there is, it's still not 'destroying' anything. At least nothing of much value.

 

[Scott Christian]

Except the post was in response to a DM who suggested that if the party interrupted their delve and came back, there would be 100 orcs waiting for them.
So there are clearly different approaches to this.

They are not different approaches. The person that suggested 100 orcs was under the premise of how to make the scenario more dangerous if needed. It did not state they would do it all the time or that is what they always do. It was responding to how to utilize your DM role to encourage players to continue forth.
PS - The DMG suggests, quite literally, the same exact thing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is absolutely zero, nada, none, & nothing about a DM taking into account a living breathing world that reduces player agency.

There is also nothing about it that automatically imposes 6-8 encounter days to force balance on classes with large resource disparities.
D&D's traditional design, essentially asks the DM to limit the range of things he can run, and, yes, curtail player agency, to impose balance on classes, or just run an imbalanced game.

If you want to run a living breathing world for your TTRPG, a game with balanced player-facing choices will work better for you than D&D.

Does the DM need to consider what the players have experienced in the past parts of the campaign? Yes. Do they need to take into account whether a specific player has had the limelight? Yes. Do they also have to show that their world might have consequences to actions and non-actions? Yes. Do they also have to consider their world's NPCs' intelligence and motivations? Yes.

It is a balance.

TTRPGs, do need balance. They need both mechanical balance, and the sort of balanced approach you're describing, there.
The latter being left to the DM is probably inevitable, tho I'm sure there could be more resources, the former being pushed on the DM, who already has so many responsibilities, is a real problem. The same problem as class imbalance experienced by players, just viewed from a different angle.

You are argumenting unfairly here. Verisimilitude means, that in order to accept the unrealistic parts, we need a grounding in realistic parts or the Suspension of Disbelief is destroyed.

That is the indefensible double standard, yes. You arbitrarily demand realism from some elements of the game, but not others. Why should any player facing choice be limited by "realism" (forget verisimilitude, you've already admitted it's just realism, selectively applied), when certain player choices cannot be, by definition? You claimed I was being unfair - isn't what you're demanding innately unfair? Isn't that the point of it.

If you ignore all the other variables and pretend the wizard always has the right spell, the enemies are always lined up, that the foes always wait for the fighters to come up front and only attack them, and that there is only ever one thing to do in combat, then yes, the wizard does better.

TBF, that is not what the analysis in the OP did. It assumed that only DPR mattered, that enemies would not kill either the fighter or wizard before being killed themselves, even if the fighter was dedicated melee or the wizard was casting from a safe distance, and that the party never faced an encounter where more than 3 enemies were w/in 40' of eachother.

The variable that were left out were myriad, but leaving them out discounted swaths of the Wizard's power & versatility.

 

[Vaalingrade]

PS - The DMG suggests, quite literally, the same exact thing.

All the more reason 5.5 need's a serious rewrite. If the DMG is suggesting this king of shenanigan, that's the source of the problem.

 

[Scott Christian]

I feel like the roles that are stated here are pretty thorough and give a nice broad perspective.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Heck, the 1e DMG suggested punishing players that way, too. D&D has been grappling with the issue forever.

 

[Scott Christian]

There is also nothing about it that automatically imposes 6-8 encounter days to force balance on classes with large resource disparities.
D&D's traditional design, essentially asks the DM to limit the range of things he can run, and, yes, curtail player agency, to impose balance on classes, or just run an imbalanced game.

Except when he doesn't limit player agency it is still balanced.

If you want to run a living breathing world for your TTRPG, a game with balanced player-facing choices will work better for you than D&D.

Except there are many that run D&D with a living breathing world and player-facing choices just fine. (And it is still balanced.)

It's already a balancing act, even if the classes weren't so badly imbalanced, sure. DMs have a lot to do without trying to force balance on the game they're running, as well.

Except the classes aren't imbalanced. A DM balancing the game is in the job description. The is why they are careful about choosing antagonists, environments, and even roleplay objectives. The game is literally based on levels - ie balance.

TBF, that is not what the analysis in the OP did. It assumed that only DPR mattered, that enemies would not kill either the fighter or wizard before being killed themselves, even if the fighter was dedicated melee or the wizard was casting from a safe distance, and that the party never faced an encounter where more than 3 enemies were w/in 40' of eachother.

The variable that were left out were myriad, but leaving them out discounted swaths of the Wizard's power & versatility.

The OP did leave it all out, which is why I said it was a pointless starting point for a debate. Leaving out saving throws, damage resistances, AC, HP, damage output of foes, range, lair effects, magic resistance, contributions of minions, contributions of allies, environment, and cross-pillar objectives make for a ridiculous starting point for a debate.