D&D 5E Might&Magic: the linear fighter and the exponential wizard

[Ancalagon]

[MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] ... did you read the article?

Ok, let's try this another way.

A high level fighter is really good at fighting. But he could be replaced by 2-3 lower level fighters. They too can fight, but not as well. But if you have a lot of them, they make up the difference.

A high level caster can do things a bunch of apprentices cannot do, period.

 

[FrogReaver]

[MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] ... did you read the article?

Ok, let's try this another way.

A high level fighter is really good at fighting. But he could be replaced by 2-3 lower level fighters. They too can fight, but not as well. But if you have a lot of them, they make up the difference.

A high level caster can do things a bunch of apprentices cannot do, period.

You seem to be trying to make a point I already agree with. Yes Wizards are more versatile than fighters. Fighters aren't very versatile. They probably are closer to a constant level of versatility or maybe they show a really slow linear growth rate for versatility. Either way, they aren't very versatile.

Wizard's on the other hand are much more versatile. But do they actually grow their versatility in quadratic or exponential fashion or is it just a fast linear growth...

I'm about to facepalm the fact that you can't get that someone can view the wizard as much more versatile than the fighter while questioning if they grow in versatility linearly or quadratically or exponentially...

 

[Rod Staffwand]

You seem to be trying to make a point I already agree with. Yes Wizards are more versatile than fighters. Fighters aren't very versatile. They probably are closer to a constant level of versatility or maybe they show a really slow linear growth rate for versatility. Either way, they aren't very versatile.

Wizard's on the other hand are much more versatile. But do they actually grow their versatility in quadratic or exponential fashion or is it just a fast linear growth...

I'm about to facepalm the fact that you can't get that someone can view the wizard as much more versatile than the fighter while questioning if they grow in versatility linearly or quadratically or exponentially...

I dunno, let's take teleporting magic:

Level 1 wizard. Teleportation potential = 0.
Level 5 wizard. Teleport distance = 30 ft.
Level 7 wizard. Teleport distance = 500 ft + additional uses of 30 ft teleporting.
Level 9 wizard. Teleport distance = Anywhere (Circles only) + additional uses of 30 ft and 500 ft teleporting.
Level 13 wizard. Teleport potential = Anywhere + additional uses of 30 ft, 500 ft and circle teleporting.

And each increase in distance is actually an increase in teleportation 'area' equal to pi x radius squared. That looks like an exponential increase to me--and only one of many things a wizard can do.

 

[FrogReaver]

I dunno, let's take teleporting magic:

Level 1 wizard. Teleportation potential = 0.
Level 5 wizard. Teleport distance = 30 ft.
Level 7 wizard. Teleport distance = 500 ft + additional uses of 30 ft teleporting.
Level 9 wizard. Teleport distance = Anywhere (Circles only) + additional uses of 30 ft and 500 ft teleporting.
Level 13 wizard. Teleport potential = Anywhere + additional uses of 30 ft, 500 ft and circle teleporting.

And each increase in distance is actually an increase in teleportation 'area' equal to pi x radius squared. That looks like an exponential increase to me--and only one of many things a wizard can do.

I'd call that exponential. So some types effects definitely have exponential scaling (teleportation). Some do not (damage) I wonder what other wizard spell effects have exponential scaling?

 

[Tony Vargas]

. What concept can you possibly be referencing by calling something quadratic/exponential if you aren't referencing any kind of numbers?

So let's look at a wizard.
-He grows linearly in spells known (2 per level).
-He grows linearly in the number of spells he can cast per day

And those multiply together. The more spells known, the more different things you can do, the more you can cast, the greater the combinations of those things you can do in a single day.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, yes. The impact of the character on the game is what I am looking at here. Let's compare a cleric and a fighter, shall we?

At low level, a fighter can sword well, and a cleric can heal well.

At high level (say, 11), a fighter can sword *extremely* well indeed. And a cleric can heal extremely well too. But the cleric can do so much more. She could animate the dead, create food and water, break spells and curses. She can communicate at great distances, or speak to those who have been killed

... and that's just level 3 spells! At higher level she can use divination and scrying, locate objects and creatures, speak directly to her deity and ask questions, bring down flames from the heavens, bring the dead back to life, see things truly, summon planar allies....

There is SO MUCH MORE a caster can do than just damage.

Think about this. You are Churchill, leading the UK in WWII. The fairy courts owes the crown a favor, and they are sending a champion. Would you want a high level fighter, or a high level wizard? A single wizard - if he's skilled at divination - could turn the war. A fighter... what is he going to do? Sword a few nazis?

Again, this supers comparison.

Why do people think D&D is a supers game when it's a fantasy game?

 

[CapnZapp]

You actually used the word exponential not quadratic...

But let's say you are just trying to use it to reinforce a concept. What concept can you possibly be referencing by calling something quadratic/exponential if you aren't referencing any kind of numbers?

So let's look at a wizard.
-He grows linearly in spells known (2 per level).
-He grows linearly in the number of spells he can cast per day
-He grows linearly in potential daily damage output

(Actually some of those things I listed may be a slower growth pattern than linear...)

What on earth is growing anything other than linearly about him? How on earth are you measuring versatility and having it come out any other way but as a linear increase in versatility?



Generally yes, but depends on the game.

He (and many others) use the term "quadratic" to summarize the notion that while casters and martials are (very roughly) equal at first, casters become noticeably more versatile ("have larger impact") at high level.

Focusing on whether this will be a line or curve from a pure mathematical viewpoint is, I'm afraid, completely missing the point.

 

[Ancalagon]

I dunno, let's take teleporting magic:

Level 1 wizard. Teleportation potential = 0.
Level 5 wizard. Teleport distance = 30 ft.
Level 7 wizard. Teleport distance = 500 ft + additional uses of 30 ft teleporting.
Level 9 wizard. Teleport distance = Anywhere (Circles only) + additional uses of 30 ft and 500 ft teleporting.
Level 13 wizard. Teleport potential = Anywhere + additional uses of 30 ft, 500 ft and circle teleporting.

And each increase in distance is actually an increase in teleportation 'area' equal to pi x radius squared. That looks like an exponential increase to me--and only one of many things a wizard can do.

Thank you. I believe some similar could be made with some other abilities - raising the dead, removing conditions, divination... In some other cases though, it's "you can't do this and then suddenly you can" which is hard to put a "number" on it

 

[Ancalagon]

You seem to be trying to make a point I already agree with. Yes Wizards are more versatile than fighters. Fighters aren't very versatile. They probably are closer to a constant level of versatility or maybe they show a really slow linear growth rate for versatility. Either way, they aren't very versatile.

Wizard's on the other hand are much more versatile. But do they actually grow their versatility in quadratic or exponential fashion or is it just a fast linear growth...

I'm about to facepalm the fact that you can't get that someone can view the wizard as much more versatile than the fighter while questioning if they grow in versatility linearly or quadratically or exponentially...

I think I'm starting to see the root of our disagreement here. What we are arguing about is not the slope of the "top" of the curve - where the high level casters increase in power very quickly, we definitely seem to agree on that. We're talking about the shape of the curve, and especially what happens at the bottom.

(The old saying was quadratic btw).

In previous editions (esp 2nd ed and earlier), the wizard had few HP, few spells and no cantrips. I also noted that 2nd level spells seemed weaker back then. So the first level wizard was quite weak... and the second level wizard was still quite weak compared to the fighter. The third level wizard was still weak (although getting a bit better). It's only at level 5 that the wizard suddenly started pulling their weight - and with only one or two 3rd level slot, not by a ton. And then the increase started getting more and more drastic, resulting in a non-linear shaped curve.

In 5e there has been effort done in making the low level wizards less weak (cantrips, 2nd level spells are a bit better, more hp) and also reigning in high level mages with the concentration rule (soo good!).

So I have to conceded that the non linearity of the curve is less than before...

Are we now understanding each other?

 

[Doug McCrae]

It frankly hurts my suspension of disbelief that any character WOULDN'T know magic in 5e, given how easy it is to apparently learn.

D&D would be closer to its Vancian source material if everyone could learn magic.

They would be poignant corrosive spells, of such a nature that one would daunt the brain of an ordinary man and two render him mad. Mazirian, by dint of stringent exercise, could encompass four of the most formidable, or six of the lesser spells.

- Mazirian the Magician