D&D General Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic

[Oofta]

I suspect the pushback comes from the contrasting degrees to which the different classes have the mechanical tools to reliably empower those team contributions and affect change in the campgain through their mechanical agency, particularly given as the non-mechanical contributions (e.g., "the friendships made along the way," etc.) are often irreproducible between campaigns, tables, and groups.

I don't think you're getting it. What @Aldarc said has absolutely nothing to do with DPR. It literally has to do with almost everything else in the game, except DPR.

There's at least two camps on this. On one hand you have @Minigiant talking about things like how awesome spells like meteor storm are and how many attacks a fighter should have to balance that out. Then it gets pointed out that DPR isn't everything and suddenly it's not about DPR at all.

Out of combat? If a fighter wants to contribute they can take feats to get bonuses or use ASIs to do things other than just be good at fighting if they want. Observant and prodigy can be taken by any class, but a fighter gets more feats. Even so, a lot of people don't care as long as someone in the party has the appropriate proficiency. But what does a wizard add outside of combat that a fighter can't? Teleportation? Cool. You get from point A to point B more quickly. But would the stories really change that much if teleport wasn't an option or would the DM just tweak the story so it doesn't matter? Would Star Trek really have been much different without teleporters? Or was it just convenient? IMHO it's a nice convenience and shortcut but that's all.

What makes wizards so far above and beyond fighters that doesn't involve DPR and meteor storms? Things like alter self are nice, but a hat of disguise is an uncommon item. Charm person just makes someone a friendly acquaintance and they know they were charmed. Suggestion is powerful but depends on the DM's interpretation of reasonable and I've never seen it used.

People keep doing this bait and switch. It's DPR! No, its out of combat! But I don't remember the last time anyone actually stated what out of combat capabilities they think are so game changing and not just convenient. So what exactly are you talking about?

 

[Aldarc]

There's at least two camps on this. On one hand you have @Minigiant talking about things like how awesome spells like meteor storm are and how many attacks a fighter should have to balance that out. Then it gets pointed out that DPR isn't everything and suddenly it's not about DPR at all.

People keep doing this bait and switch. It's DPR! No, its out of combat! But I don't remember the last time anyone actually stated what out of combat capabilities they think are so game changing and not just convenient. So what exactly are you talking about?

My apologies; I was following and responding to a goal post you shifted from meteor swarm to what matters most are "the decisions made by the players, the alliances forged, the enemies made over time." If you want to accuse people of bait and switching, then perhaps you shouldn't be doing it yourself. If you could refrain from accusing others of baiting-and-switching, rolling your eyes at people, and what not, then maybe we could talk about my post here:

I suspect the pushback comes from the contrasting degrees to which the different classes have the mechanical tools to reliably empower those team contributions and affect change in the campgain through their mechanical agency, particularly given as the non-mechanical contributions (e.g., "the friendships made along the way," etc.) are often irreproducible between campaigns, tables, and groups.

 

[Minigiant]

There's at least two camps on this. On one hand you have @Minigiant talking about things like how awesome spells like meteor storm are and how many attacks a fighter should have to balance that out. Then it gets pointed out that DPR isn't everything and suddenly it's not about DPR at all.

My point was that a fighter class that is designed to be solely in the combat pillar should have way more combat power to match the progression of everything else

If the fighter isn't suppose to be pure combat, then it needs more exploration power, social power, or supernaturalness to affect more of the campaign.

 

[Oofta]

My apologies; I was following and responding to a goa post you shifted from meteor swarm to what matters most are "the decisions made by the players, the alliances forged, the enemies made over time." If you want to accuse people of bait and switching, then perhaps you shouldn't be doing it yourself. If you could refrain from accusing others of baiting-and-switching, rolling your eyes at people, and what not, then maybe we could talk about my post here:

I was responding to this:

I don't think you're getting it. What @Aldarc said has absolutely nothing to do with DPR. It literally has to do with almost everything else in the game, except DPR.

But now you're switching back to DPR? Maybe?

But the question remains. Which is it? DPR? Out of combat? I think DPR is a flawed metric. Out of combat utility? Okay. What do you see that's broken?

 

[Oofta]

My point was that a fighter class that is designed to be solely in the combat pillar should have way more combat power to match the progression of everything else

If the fighter isn't suppose to be pure combat, then it needs more exploration power, social power, or supernaturalness to affect more of the campaign.

So what does the typical wizard contribute that a fighter does not? I disagree anyway, I want options to be explicitly mundane and not supernatural. There are plenty of options for supernatural PCs, including fighters with appropriate feats, subclasses and multi-classing if you want. But what does the wizard contribute other than convenience outside of combat?

 

[Minigiant]

So what does the typical wizard contribute that a fighter does not? I disagree anyway, I want options to be explicitly mundane and not supernatural. There are plenty of options for supernatural PCs, including fighters with appropriate feats, subclasses and multi-classing if you want. But what does the wizard contribute other than convenience outside of combat?

There are a lot of out of combat magic spells.

 

[Oofta]

There are a lot of out of combat magic spells.

So how do they get used? How do you think they affect the game? I listed a few, and my thoughts. Most of them are things that are nice to have but hardly game changing to me.

 

[Aldarc]

I was responding to this:


But now you're switching back to DPR? Maybe?

But the question remains. Which is it? DPR? Out of combat? I think DPR is a flawed metric. Out of combat utility? Okay. What do you see that's broken?

IMO, your whole "which is it?" question is a fundamentally misguided attempt to restrict the scope of the conversation. It misses the forest for the trees. DPR is a means to affect change in the campaign (i.e., the ability to make things dead) - particularly as combat is the pillar with the greatest mechanical support - but it's not the only one or even the primary one when it comes to what you discuss here:

People seem to be so obsessed with big boom spells like this but the major turning points in my campaigns rarely turn on things like this. It's the decisions made by the players, the alliances forged, the enemies made over time. It's the fighter holding off the BBEG so that the rogue can disarm the doomsday device. It's not about being flashy, it's about contributing to a shared story as part of a team.

I am not switching back or forth regarding DPR anymore than you are. I am only responding to the point you are trying to make here about what matters is "contributing to a shared story as part of the team" and what not. You should read my comment below in that context:

I suspect the pushback comes from the contrasting degrees to which the different classes have the mechanical tools to reliably empower those team contributions and affect change in the campaign through their mechanical agency, particularly given as the non-mechanical contributions (e.g., "the friendships made along the way," etc.) are often irreproducible between campaigns, tables, and groups.

It's not about switching between DPR vs. OOC Utility at all. The issue is the switch you make from the mechanical impact to the non-mechanical impact and the difference of available mechanical tools that classes have at their disposal to affect change in the campaign. DPR and OOC Utility both reflect aspects of mechanical impact, so IMHO it is not an either/or situation we are dealing with. Those are the trees. The forest entails the wider look at the mechanical tools that a given player character have at their disposal to affect change in the campaign.

 

[Fanaelialae]

So what does the typical wizard contribute that a fighter does not? I disagree anyway, I want options to be explicitly mundane and not supernatural. There are plenty of options for supernatural PCs, including fighters with appropriate feats, subclasses and multi-classing if you want. But what does the wizard contribute other than convenience outside of combat?

Options.


A wizard can rewrite someone's memory, eliminating an inconvenient moment, or creating a convenient recollection (or both).

A fighter can... hit someone in the head until they're either dead, or if the DM permits, brain damaged... I guess?


A wizard can move the party from point A to point B in moments, oftentimes with perfect reliability.

A fighter can... charter a boat which could get the party there eventually, though the journey might resemble the better part of the Odyssey...


A wizard who is busy dealing with other opponents can disable enemies in any number of ways (Hypnotic Pattern, Impenetrable Sphere, Forcecage, Maze, etc) until the party is ready to deal with them.

A fighter can who is busy dealing with other opponents can... throw something with disadvantage at the enemy and hope that the DM decides to "aggro" onto the fighter so that it beats on the fighter instead of the rest of the party?


Do you need more examples? I can provide plenty more.

 

[Mind of tempest]

why not just get rid of the wizard?