D&D 5E Merlin and Arthur or Batman and zatana

[Fanaelialae]

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Sometimes, imbalance can have a negative impact, as with the Twighlight domain. Most of the time, it has no effect, or as with wizards, has a positive effect.

No one is "punished" for anything. Because how much fun you have playing D&D is not tied to how powerful your character is. If it was, everyone would play wizards. The fact that they do not indicates they are having fun playing fighters. They do not feel punished.

The point of a punishment is to deter someone from doing something. If they are not deterred, they do not feel punished.

Are you a Sith?

Claiming that power level isn't tied to fun is an absolute.

Moreover, it's one that I know from my own experiences to be a false claim. I've seen players retire characters that they were enjoying as characters, because they weren't enjoying them from a power-level perspective. Not surprisingly, it only seems to happen to players who play warriors. Also unsurprisingly, they seem to reroll as casters.

This certainly isn't something that happens to every player. I've seen players who've had fun with fighters despite the imbalance. I've also seen players who were unhappy but chose to stick with the character anyway.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

You're the one giving an absolute here! You're the one who said, and I quote, "Imbalance has no* negative consequences."

Sometimes, imbalance can have a negative impact, as with the Twighlight domain. Most of the time, it has no effect, or as with wizards, has a positive effect.

You're going to have to actually demonstrate that positive impact--because I'm not seeing it. Quite the opposite, actually.

No one is "punished" for anything. Because how much fun you have playing D&D is not tied to how powerful your character is. If it was, everyone would play wizards. The fact that they do not indicates they are having fun playing fighters. They do not feel punished.

The point of a punishment is to deter someone from doing something. If they are not deterred, they do not feel punished.

Except that the game does deter those things by giving them less success. That's...literally how any game ever deters anything. Make it less successful. It's part of why 3rd edition is so deeply, fundamentally broken. (Edit: To be specific, 3rd edition very clearly wanted to make certain things be the dominant strategy, but the actual rules provide enormous perverse incentives to do exactly the opposite of what the designers intended. 3e is broken specifically because it rewards things the designers wanted players to avoid and punishes--reduces the success of--things the designers wanted players to pursue.)

And, as I've said many times now, "you can have fun with it" is the worst possible standard for judging a game's design. If you couldn't have fun with it, if it were literally physically impossible for anyone to derive joy from the experience, it would be a powerful weapon of psychological warfare, not a game.

It DOES have an impact. Sometimes that impact is hard to see, or misidentified as arising from some other issue. I would know--that's how the first (almost) decade of my D&D experience ran. You cite that some people have fun despite this state of affairs; I cite that some people really do feel punished because of it, and that the fun the previous group has would be completely unaffected by changing it. (Unless, of course, they're bad-faith players who desire to feel more powerful than, and have advantage over, their peers. But I think, or perhaps I hope, we can agree that such bad-faith players are not who the game should be designed for?)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You're going to have to actually demonstrate that positive impact--because I'm not seeing it.

I can only give anecdotal evidence, with a little support from the official statistics, but I find players simply don't want to play wizards. Someone ends up playing one, only because they are strong, so the group feel they need one.

Now, it's open to debate if that is a positive or not. Maybe you feel the game would be better without wizards?

And, as I've said many times now, "you can have fun with it" is the worst possible standard for judging a game's design.

It doesn't matter how many times you state it, repetition does not make something true.

It is my opinion that "fun" is the only thing that matters in game design. I won't bother to repeat it ad nauseum, because that wouldn't make it anything other than an opinion.

You're the one who said, and I quote, "Imbalance has no* negative consequences."

Hence the asterisk. I don't believe that is an absolute. I allow for exceptions.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I can only give anecdotal evidence, with a little support from the official statistics, but I find players simply don't want to play wizards. Someone ends up playing one, only because they are strong, so the group feel they need one.

Now, it's open to debate if that is a positive or not. Maybe you feel the game would be better without wizards?

It doesn't matter how many times you state it, repetition does not make something true.

It is my opinion that "fun" is the only thing that matters in game design. I won't bother to repeat it, ad nauseum, because that wouldn't make it anything other than an opinion.

Why would your takeaway be that anyone wants wizards removed from the game?

How about, narrow the imbalance between wizards and fighters?

This could be done by improving fighters. By giving them better tools to achieve their role in combat, and by giving them tools to be able to do things out of combat.

To be clear, when I say do things out of combat I don't mean in the sense of what anyone can do, such as declaring, "my character tries to flap his arms really hard before leaping off the roof". I mean mechanical support, such as perhaps granting them some parkour abilities to get down from the roof effectively, or granting them some narrative mechanics where they can declare that, simply due to luck, there happens to be a conveniently placed cart full of hay that they can leap into.

 

[Oofta]

... as I've said many times now, "you can have fun with it" is the worst possible standard for judging a game's design. ...

Repeating the same faulty argument doesn't make it true. What, exactly is a better standard? Why would people play a game that wasn't fun? It's a game. I play because I enjoy it. I can't imagine spending my free time playing if I wasn't having fun.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

How about, narrow the imbalance between wizards and fighters?

As I said, I find players simply don't want to play wizards. If wizards where weaker and fighters stronger, I don't think anyone would play wizards at all.

 

[Blue Orange]

Most recent data I can find (Dec 2020) has 8% playing wizards, same as barbarians and clerics and tied for 4-6th place behind fighters (13%), rogues (11%), and warlocks (9%). Still higher than bard, sorcerors, rangers, paladins (all at 7%), and druids (the least popular class at 6%).

D&D: And The Most Popular Class Is...

We're looking at the most popular classes according to the latest data and seeing how your favorites stack up. But one class stands a cut above the rest.

www.belloflostsouls.net

So warlocks are more popular, but it's not quite accurate to say nobody wants to play a wizard, and in fact it's one of the more popular full casters.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Moreover, it's one that I know from my own experiences to be a false claim. I've seen players retire characters that they were enjoying as characters, because they weren't enjoying them from a power-level perspective. Not surprisingly, it only seems to happen to players who play warriors. Also unsurprisingly, they seem to reroll as casters.

I have not run a newbie game in 2 1/2 years so MAYBE it's different with newer players, but in my experience 7 out of 10 people excited to roll up a fighter in a newbie character will not be playing that character come 5th level. Some trade out for casters (half or otherwise) some just stop playing... the number 1 reason given is "I don't have the options X does" where X is almost always a wizard cleric bard or warlock with melee capability.

From 2014-2016 I ran about a dozen 'starter' games and in 2017 and 2018 I ran 4 starter campaigns. all in all about 50ish brand new players and 10-12 returning from 2e (or older) players and 3 people who had played some but not a lot of 5e, and 1 forever DM from 4e and 5e who had never been a player. Only people happy with the fighter where returning vets from 1e or 2e who already knew what to expect.

in 2 of the 2017/18 campaigns I had brand new players who had 0 idea of what D&D really was like quit playing and go to try other systems entirely 1 because of fighter and 1 because of ranger.

Durring the 17/18 years there were 2 other DMs running at the same store I was trying to support, 1 other trying to be newbie friendly, and they both ran into similar issues.

in all my time running 5e only 1 time can I say someone stopped playing a caster because it was too complex, and even then they moved to a half caster.

 

[Fanaelialae]

As I said, I find players simply don't want to play wizards. If wizards where weaker and fighters stronger, I don't think anyone would play wizards at all.

I accept that might be true at your table, but it isn't at mine. Even if fighters were stronger wizards would still get played at my table (and, I suspect, plenty of others).

The only meaningful difference at your table would be that maybe your players wouldn't feel that someone needs to play a wizard. And since you've stated the goal is fun, and your players seem to have more fun with fighters, wouldn't this result in greater fun for your players (and therefore be a good thing)?

 

[Oofta]

As I said, I find players simply don't want to play wizards. If wizards where weaker and fighters stronger, I don't think anyone would play wizards at all.

I can't speak for anyone else but I rarely play wizards. Part of that is because without protection wizards are glass cannons. Part of it is that my warrior may not have those occasional peaks of glory, they're contributing significantly round after round. A lot of times I just don't want the hassle and overhead. As far as contributing to combat, when I play Solasta (D&D based video game that gives you overall stats) the fighter almost always comes out in the lead on total damage or is neck-and-neck with the wizard. Out of combat? We're all planning so I don't care who does what part of the plan.

I've seen many people jump into the game playing a wizard for a while and then switching over to something else when they realize that the wizard isn't all that. You could potentially get this data from DndBeyond by taking a look at long term trends, but until then all I can say is that all classes are represented in games I've been involved with. My most recent campaign has 2 fighters, a paladin, sorcerer, bard and druid. Even the druid is a moon druid so most of the time they're just a fighter using a beast shape.

I'm not claiming my experience is universal. Just that other people's experience are not universal either. The best indication of how well designed classes are will come from DndBeyond and surveys, not our infinitesimally small slice of the gaming population at large.