Manbearcat
Legend
Ive literally started a thread challenging people to prove this 'busted' nature of the caster v martial aspect of the game to me.
I can’t imagine how someone would think this sort of exercise is informative.
The asymmetric power relationships and capacity for Calvinballing is the actual signal in these exercises…not how balance or unbalance is systemitized.
The GM has complete control over both macro and micro framing.
The GM has complete control over frequency of encounters.
The GM has complete control over sequencing of encounters.
The GM has complete control over the battlefield, Team Monster, and general obstacle dynamics (anti-swording or anti-Wizarding?).
The GM has exclusive access and complete control to leverage secret backstory or unintroduced offscreen elements to block player moves (or enable them) at their discretion.
And this backstory and unintroduced offscreen elements are wholly unconstrained (unlike in an actual game with that features the continuity of a collective shared imagined space that has accreted over the course of considerable play…which, by the way, is still profoundly unconstrained in a game of 5e D&D).
Like above (and unlike a game like Torchbearer where you’re assessing codified factors to generate Obstacle difficulty or 4e where you’re using DC by level chart or PBtA where you’re using the basic outcome spread like 4e), the GM can effectively initiate “numbers-based blocks/enabling” because they control the DCs (without any procedure that guides or encodes them!)!
The list is endless as to why exercises like this are just an expression of the asymmetric power relationships of 5e D&D GMs and their players.
The only way to effectively do something like this is to get data from 100s of tables/instantiations of play of level 12 (or whatever) and try to tease out the Calvinball/Force by GMs so you can extract the signal of play from that noise (and good luck with that!).
What you’re likely to find is:
* Calvinballing and GM Force is much more rampant than folks would like to admit.
* GM expression of their control over all of the mentioned above profoundly affects the trajectory of the gamestate and who makes what impact (or not) and when/how.
* If you’re not routinely running the truly ridiculous # of 6-8 resource ablating encounters, the signal of player wresting control over the trajectory of the gamestate will lean massively in the favor of the Wizard (particularly if they’re a Diviner…which is what I have experience GMing at these levels!).
* Even if you are running that ridiculous encounter # model that 5e designers embedded in their game, the gas tank and problem solving capabilities of a Diviner overwhelms the other characters (subject to veto by GM Calvinballing and Force of course)…and for a certain number of encounters, they’ll be able to throw out a decisive, powerful spell early on (using Portent to ensure a failed save by the big threat of the random encounter if they feel inclined) and then “CLEAN UP ON AISLE 4” and take 5 for the rest of the encounter (because their early spell deployment has rendered the rest of the fight a fate accompli so their pals can clean up relatively stress free…subject to Calvinballing and GM Force of course)! And those same Diviners should be able to surveil/magic their way into controlling the workday dynamics (therefore refilling their gas tank and/or changing loadout) at least SOME of the time (subject to Calvinballing and GM Force of course!).
TLDR - I don’t know who would be convinced by your exercise…but it would not be me.