D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[EzekielRaiden]

This might be true for a new DM. I would agree to that. They may feel like their hands are tied.

Of course. I don't believe my statement said otherwise.

Yes, it will affect the story - absolutely. And if the DM, recognizing the group is at full health, beefs up the single encounter for the day (as long as it makes sense), then they can do that.

Except the DM actually controls the encounters. The DM identifies more than one thing than what is in a book. If a group finds a clever way to rest inside the temple right before the big-bad fight, a DM could let them rest and have an easier fight than what was initially prepared. The DM, if they thought the players wouldn't like that, could boost-up the big-bad encounter. IF the DM thought they were going to run out of time, they could modify the encounter to a partial encounter.
I guess, I do not get it. It is not hard to make a difficult encounter for PC's of almost any level- full rest or not. But, in the end, the story should dictate how easy it is to rest - and that is determined by player choices and DM choices.

Such artificial boosting or lowering of the difficulty is often unwelcome in multiple common styles of play (which you implicitly recognize). Employing such heavy-handed techniques is always possible, yes, but the consequences for doing so are rather steeper than a lot of folks want to admit.

Further, just because it is easy to make a difficult encounter does not mean it is easy to make an appropriately difficult encounter. "Rocks fall, everyone dies" is the facetious form of this, but like, you can always just put in a monster with seven million HP that the party simply can't kill before it kills them. Needing to fit the game context makes it much more complicated, and 5e's intentionally opaque design doesn't help matters either.

 

[Oofta]

Such artificial boosting or lowering of the difficulty is often unwelcome in multiple common styles of play (which you implicitly recognize). Employing such heavy-handed techniques is always possible, yes, but the consequences for doing so are rather steeper than a lot of folks want to admit.

Further, just because it is easy to make a difficult encounter does not mean it is easy to make an appropriately difficult encounter. "Rocks fall, everyone dies" is the facetious form of this, but like, you can always just put in a monster with seven million HP that the party simply can't kill before it kills them. Needing to fit the game context makes it much more complicated, and 5e's intentionally opaque design doesn't help matters either.

This is very group dependent. Some people realize that they have limited time to play the game and don't want encounters to be played on "easy" mode just because they find and exploit. Others would be irritated by the DM changing things.

Personally? If you take a long rest after the target realizes that someone has been mowing through their defensive layers and minions? The situation will not remain static because any reasonably intelligent creature is going to realize that they're dead if they don't do something. Most creatures have a sense of self preservation or, barring that, take an f-you if you're going to kill me I'll make sure it's the last thing you do.

In other words, encounters aren't set in stone. It doesn't matter if I wrote something down 2 days, 2 hours or 2 minutes ago. If the party uses clever tactics, that's different. Giving an enemy that's been warned that you're coming 8 hours or more to react? That, in my book is trying to exploit the rules not a clever tactic. But it's also something I'll be up front with my players about.

 

[James Gasik]

It's interesting that you see that as a rules exploit. While I can see how it could be viewed as an exploit of the game itself as presented, it's not illegal to take rests! It generally comes down to "do I think I can risk resting in this scenario", doesn't it?

But as you said, you are up front with your players about how you expect the game to be conducted. Most of the quibbles related to rest and recovery in the game comes down to that old gamist vs. simulationist mindset.

If D&D is a game, it could have hard rules that say "an adventure is designed with allowing no more than X short and Y long rests before it is completed". If D&D is a simulation (it's not and never has been, but many people will die on this hill), then the rule is "rest whenever you can afford to", with the understanding that there can be consequences for resting (though if these aren't adequately telegraphed, I'd call foul on any DM who decides to "punish" players for making a decision when they had no information to work with).

That the rules are quiet on this front, and basically leave it all up to the DM is just another reason why we have so much disparity between tables and people's experiences with the game. Everyone plays it differently, even the people who made the game!

In public play, for example, you might get a short rest. You rarely get a long rest. Going over the adventures carefully, they usually have very few encounters (as you have to fit the adventure in a short time); 3-4 is fairly normal. It's worth noting that the budget of 6-8 encounters fits into these 3-4 (and it's not unheard of for the mod to go over budget!), yet xp and other rewards are static no matter what you face.

But you can bring up to six players and a lot of players combat this by optimizing the heck out of their characters. This renders some adventures cakewalks, yet there are others that would be absolute meatgrinders if you didn't (and sometimes even if) you optimize.

Yet WotC apparently feels this is an appropriate way to play, and an appropriate on-ramp for people to get into 5e, despite the fact it runs counter to the paradigm in the DMG.

And their published adventures don't seem to follow these guidelines either, which really makes me wonder if trying to figure out a standard for pacing one's players is a fool's errand, unless you step in and say "look, I don't care what you do, you're going to play the adventure this way and not try to exploit it!".

 

[Oofta]

It's interesting that you see that as a rules exploit. While I can see how it could be viewed as an exploit of the game itself as presented, it's not illegal to take rests! It generally comes down to "do I think I can risk resting in this scenario", doesn't it?

But as you said, you are up front with your players about how you expect the game to be conducted. Most of the quibbles related to rest and recovery in the game comes down to that old gamist vs. simulationist mindset.

If D&D is a game, it could have hard rules that say "an adventure is designed with allowing no more than X short and Y long rests before it is completed". If D&D is a simulation (it's not and never has been, but many people will die on this hill), then the rule is "rest whenever you can afford to", with the understanding that there can be consequences for resting (though if these aren't adequately telegraphed, I'd call foul on any DM who decides to "punish" players for making a decision when they had no information to work with).

That the rules are quiet on this front, and basically leave it all up to the DM is just another reason why we have so much disparity between tables and people's experiences with the game. Everyone plays it differently, even the people who made the game!

In public play, for example, you might get a short rest. You rarely get a long rest. Going over the adventures carefully, they usually have very few encounters (as you have to fit the adventure in a short time); 3-4 is fairly normal. It's worth noting that the budget of 6-8 encounters fits into these 3-4 (and it's not unheard of for the mod to go over budget!), yet xp and other rewards are static no matter what you face.

But you can bring up to six players and a lot of players combat this by optimizing the heck out of their characters. This renders some adventures cakewalks, yet there are others that would be absolute meatgrinders if you didn't (and sometimes even if) you optimize.

Yet WotC apparently feels this is an appropriate way to play, and an appropriate on-ramp for people to get into 5e, despite the fact it runs counter to the paradigm in the DMG.

And their published adventures don't seem to follow these guidelines either, which really makes me wonder if trying to figure out a standard for pacing one's players is a fool's errand, unless you step in and say "look, I don't care what you do, you're going to play the adventure this way and not try to exploit it!".

When I ran public games, I adjusted things on the fly a bit to suit what the table was enjoying. So I might make the encounters more or less difficult which is easy enough to do. Use max HP instead of average, add an additional monster, add a few points to attack bonus, just use different tactics. There are plenty of options. There were multiple games where at the end of the encounter there was 1 person left standing, in 1 case after a few too many crits on my side of the DM screen the only reason the party survived may well have been because a PC rolled a 20 on their death save.

You can take it too far though. I was playing an interactive and at one point there was a "wandering encounter" that had a giant stride into the middle of our tier 1 group (literally pushing minis aside to make room for them to stand) then proceed to do an AOE attack by picking what should have been a random selection of attack that would be most effective. The giant killed half the party instantly. That was just plain annoying because there was nothing we could do, it wasn't a challenge it was just a "Oops your PCs are dead".

I don't use mods for many reasons, in part because I find they are often more work than homebrew and I like more freedom for my players. But if I did? I'd likely just add in encounters as needed or make the encounters more difficult to find the right balance of challenge for my group.

D&D, obviously, is a game. But people still have different motivations and goals for playing. As a DM I'm simply going to let people know that the world is not static, that their choices have consequences. I'm also going to do my best to make game difficult as they want and overall I've never had an issue doing that.

P.S. yes, I do think taking a long rest can be an exploit if nothing changes because the group took a long rest. It's a pretty obvious exploit in most video games, even for most of BG3 where there are only a handful of times when there's any time pressure.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As I believe I've said before, for me, there's some pretty important limits on this kind of power for a DM. That is, if the DM is constantly rewriting things whenever they feel like it, even if they feel it's extremely important that they do this and believe they never do it unless they have extremely good reasons, it just...I mean is it even really a game, a challenge, anymore? It's one thing to say, "Well, you waited, and the situation changed." It's quite another to rewrite monsters on the fly, add new monsters simply because the party's plan was out of step with what you expected (whether weakening the monsters because their plan sucked or strengthening them because the plan was too awesome, doesn't matter.)

But let's talk limits first.

I wrote a lot more about this, but for once I'll try to be brief. Early on, fresh campaign or fresh new arc or whatever, the world's your oyster. You've got the freedom to do most anything--everything lies Beyond The Horizon. But every question you answer pushes the horizon back.

Six sessions deep in the kobold-centric Seven Warrens for Seven Bothers arc, just tossing goblins in 'cause you're absolutely sure they're needed? Not kosher anymore. You gotta explain why now. Player questions and your answers have pushed the horizon too far away. The goblins had to affect the world to get there so fast, in secret, etc. Early days, players have plenty of chance to find out in advance--and it's on them to do that work. Decided six weeks later, after the party has done its due diligence? No, doesn't fly unless you at least give the players a chance to find out first.

This is of course separate from my "rewriting monsters on the fly without justifying it is blatantly cheating" issues, but that's a whole different can of worms.

 

[James Gasik]

I will say that while I've used "Quantum Ogres" (and their cousins, Quantum Encounters) in the past, where I adjust things based on what the players do, it always felt like me to be cheating.

It's not really cheating, per se. But I presented the world, and set the parameters for the challenge, and the players, through pluck, ingenuity, or dumb luck, overcome the challenge more easily than expected. I got some advice from a more experienced DM that basically came down to:

"Step back. Look at the situation. Ask yourself if this affects the world. Were there survivors to tell the tale? Is there a greater scope villain who will have to step up their plans as a result of this? If not, you always have more challenges. Let the players have their win.

From this, I took a "let the dice fall where they may" approach. I always roll openly, so my players know I'm not fudging them*. Sometimes, this has led to encounters getting out of hand, but the players usually surprise me, so I've yet to lose more than one PC at a time.

*If I'm going to fudge, I tell the players what I'm going to do. If I made a mistake, I'll offer compensation. If the encounter had an unfair element, I'll promise not to do it again. It's not really a big deal to overturn a death that shouldn't have happened if I had my head screwed on right. And if I'm having a hot streak of crits, I've been known to look at a crit rolled against someone on low hit points, say "nope", and reroll it (I call it "DM Inspiration", lol). Because defeating PC's is easy. You can always set up a no win situation.

The challenge of the Dungeonmaster, in my opinion, is twofold. Make things that are challenging, but not beyond the party's ability (unless properly telegraphed- you want to go fight the red dragon at level 2, I'll let you know I think that's a bad idea, and let you do what you will), and above all else, make the game enjoyable.

If someone wants maximum difficulty and the assurance that PC death is not a possibility, but a certainty, I know a few DM's who will happily rip up or burn the sheets of their dead characters in front of their faces, and put a stamp on their DM's screen with a hearty laugh.

I don't take pride in that sort of thing because I find it detrimental. I want characters who have grown, developed as people, and have connections to the peoples and places they encounter. Sure, characters can (and will) die, but that's not my preferred outcome. I've seen adventures end, campaigns stop cold, and players just lose interest and move onto other pursuits because a character died. Plus now I have the hassle of working in the new PC when there might not be a good spot to introduce them, and everyone will have to gladly accept this stranger out of the blue as their new bosom companion!*

*I know there are ways to combat this by introducing NPC allies and the like. But when you're storming an Ice Giant fortress miles from anywhere, introducing "Bob the Fighter you all met five sessions ago" suspends belief, lol.

But that's just part of my preferred style. Some like it, some don't.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I will say that while I've used "Quantum Ogres" (and their cousins, Quantum Encounters) in the past, where I adjust things based on what the players do, it always felt like me to be cheating.

It's not really cheating, per se. But I presented the world, and set the parameters for the challenge, and the players, through pluck, ingenuity, or dumb luck, overcome the challenge more easily than expected.

Sincerely: How is it not, in your opinion? Because it seems to be indistinguishable from "I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it any further," apart from hiding the fact that it's been altered.

(I only didn't respond to the rest because I have little to say; it sounds like you got some good advice and took it to heart.)

 

[Scott Christian]

That's exactly my point.

Since D&D, like it or not, is quite "mother may I" the degree of difficulty rests on how much the DM allows the players to control the pace of play.

And to tie it back to the thread. How's much the players control the pace of play will also greatly affect the power balance between wizards and fighters. If the players control the pace of play such that they can rest before most/all hard+ encounters, wizards WILL dominate. If the DM does not allow this, but instead keeps the pace such that the players face encounters at or near the DMG encounter guidelines, things will likely equalize and the classes should be on much more equal footing.

I agree with you except the bolded part of course. Which is always the impasse.

I would like to differentiate with you about the "mother may I" comment. I feel for most tables, it's not "mother may I," but rather, "did we meet a standard." Almost every DM I know looks at the situation, and then tries to apply some type of logic to that situation. So, when the players meet a standard in that specific situation, they are able to rest more easily. To me, that is not a "mother may I" situation.

 

[Scott Christian]

Why do you think it's not true for experienced DM's? Have they maybe just been lulled to sleep by accepting that approach for decades that they don't even realize how much it's actually tying their hands?

Because an experienced DM can adjust an encounter. First, they know they can adjust the encounter. Some new DMs just think what is in the adventure path must be used. Second, an experienced DM understands how to adjust. It should (if they have read the books and played as both a player and DM for awhile) be easy to adjust the encounter to a more appropriate challenge. That is, of course, if the players seem to want that challenge. Which is yet another hallmark of an experienced DM, they can read the table.

 

[Oofta]

I agree with you except the bolded part of course. Which is always the impasse.

I would like to differentiate with you about the "mother may I" comment. I feel for most tables, it's not "mother may I," but rather, "did we meet a standard." Almost every DM I know looks at the situation, and then tries to apply some type of logic to that situation. So, when the players meet a standard in that specific situation, they are able to rest more easily. To me, that is not a "mother may I" situation.

"Mother may I" comments always comes off as condescending to me. In D&D only the DM knows the true state of the world, what NPCs are thinking or know, what environmental effects could be going on. That and there's a fair amount of flexibility built assumed for the game, the rules give you tools to make the game work, but DMs and groups are encouraged to make the game their own.

This can take shape in many ways such as I happen to rule a different way than other DMs. There may be a spell like inner sanctum in play. As a DM I just haven't provided enough detail or was misunderstood. Perhaps I want to keep the game moving so I'll make a call and we'll discuss it later.

None of those are "Mother may I", it's just the way the game has always worked.