D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[ECMO3]

Also, this is flat out wrong

No it isn't. They rarely show numbers at all. When they do, they use numbers which indicate an imbalance in mechanics. Those numbers, while true, come with a variety of assumptions and caveats which are usually not mentioned. More importantly the numbers do not show or correlate to a lack of contribution.

Just because a class is mechanically weak in comparison to another class (with a bunch of assumptions going into both of those hypothetical builds), that does not actually show or even imply that the weaker class will contribute less in game.

The example videos I posted above as well as my own experiences, including specific examples given on this thread, indicate fighters do not contribute less than other classes in play.

 

[ECMO3]

IMO No. Screen time can be balanced independently of mechanical contribution. It’s like talking about oranges when the rest of us talk apples.

But mechanical balance is not the same as contribution. The thoery is players playing mechanically weak classes are penalized by not being able to contribute in game as much. Contribution to the story is better measured by screen time than anything else.

You are arguing that being weaker (and that itself comes with a bunch of caveats) means you contribute less. That is not true and not supported by any numbers provided.

Apples and oranges? Are we talking about contribution to the game here or not? What are you suggesting needs to be fixed in game? Just balance for balance sake or is there some problem we are trying to fix?

For my part I have never said fighters are balanced with other classes. I do think those complaining about it tend to oversimplify the argument in ways which do not often translate into actual play, but I also fully agree that at certain levels (8+) full caster classes, if optimized, can be built to be more powerful than is possible in a non-caster class with the same ability scores.

I reject the notion that this influences the amount of contribution from players playing those respective classes, even in this hyper-optimized hypothetical build at high level.

 

[Oofta]

I keep hearing this, but the one thing those that say fighters contribute equally never do is show numbers of any kind to back that up. Be they white room, actual game play, etc.

What would be "proof"? I can only relate personal experience or "Whiteroom analysis". I can tell you that in Solarus, the D&D based video game that tracks various stats and goes up to level 13, shows that fighters do significantly more damage. But that doesn't "prove" anything either.

Conversely, you can't prove my statements are wrong either. All we can say is that more people choose to play fighters than any other class. Are all those people playing fighters choosing something they believe is suboptimal?

I don't think so. But you'll just disagree or give some other reason people play them. That's the way these conversations always go. Which is why these conversations are pointless.

 

[FrogReaver]

But mechanical balance is not the same as contribution. The thoery is players playing mechanically weak classes are penalized by not being able to contribute as much. Contribution to the story is better measured by screen time.

You are aguing that being weaker (and that itself comes with a bunch of caveats) means you contribute less. That is not true and not supported by any numbers provided.

Are we talking about contribution to the game here or not? What are you suggesting needs to be fixed in game?

For my part I have never said fighters are balanced with other classes. I do think those complaining about it tend to oversimplify the argument in ways which do not translate into actual play, but I also fully agree that at certain levels full caster classes, if optimized, can be built to be more powerful than is possible in non-caster classes.

I reject the notion that this influences the amount of contribution from those players.

I mean if you are going to define words to mean something different than what the rest of us mean by them then have it at - that’s not a discussion I care to participate in.

Just note that when I talk contribution I mean mechanical contribution.

 

[FrogReaver]

What would be "proof"? I can only relate personal experience or "Whiteroom analysis".

I’m good with either as long as they involve numbers and not feels. And also provide enough context about the encounters/characters/magic items etc.

I don’t expect absolute proof, just more than feels.

I can tell you that in Solarus, the D&D based video game that tracks various stats and goes up to level 13, shows that fighters do significantly more damage. But that doesn't "prove" anything either.

Can you elaborate here? Individual game, all games combined?

Conversely, you can't prove my statements are wrong either. All we can say is that more people choose to play fighters than any other class. Are all those people playing fighters choosing something they believe is suboptimal?

Yes. Though fighters are one of the strongest in tier 1 and compare favorably in early tier 2 as well. So it may depend on when the campaign started - or that most people don’t choose based on optimality (a much better case can be made for this I think)

I don't think so. But you'll just disagree or give some other reason people play them. That's the way these conversations always go. Which is why these conversations are pointless.

Or we can talk and analyze to try and understand in context.

 

[ECMO3]

Just note that when I talk contribution I mean mechanical contribution.

Ok I don't understand what you mean with "mechanical contribution" then.

I thought when we were talking about contribution, we were talking about contributing in the game vs being left out. I guess I am not tracking.

I also don't understand why it is bad as a player to have low "mechanical contribution", if does not affect how much you actually contribute to the game itself.

 

[Oofta]

I’m good with either as long as they involve numbers and not feels. And also provide enough context about the encounters/characters/magic items etc.

I don’t expect absolute proof, just more than feels.


Can you elaborate here? Individual game, all games combined?


Yes. Though fighters are one of the strongest in tier 1 and compare favorably in early tier 2 as well. So it may depend on when the campaign started - or that most people don’t choose based on optimality (a much better case can be made for this I think)

Or we can talk and analyze to try and understand in context.

If you play Solarus mods, they give you stats for damage dealt over the course of the game. For a while I played quite a few games, because it was something I could play as a quick break. In any case, fighters pretty much always did the most damage, with either the rogue or paladin second (depending on which one I took). The mods frequently let you long rest every few fights and short rests were easy to come by. I typically ran champion fighters.

The exception was a module that handed out a couple of wands of fireball and always had hordes of low level monsters swarm in from one location.

To me, those numbers are a closer approximation of a real world game than a spreadsheet will be.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ok I don't understand what you mean with "mechanical contribution" then.

And I don’t understand what you don’t understand about it.

I thought when we were talking about contribution, we were talking about contributing in the game vs being left out. I guess I am not tracking.

Can happen with mechanical contribution just the same.

I also don't understand why it is bad as a player to have low "mechanical contribution", if does not affect how much you actually contribute to the game itself.

I think you have a different idea of what ‘the game itself’ is than I.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you play Solarus mods, they give you stats for damage dealt over the course of the game. For a while I played quite a few games, because it was something I could play as a quick break. In any case, fighters pretty much always did the most damage, with either the rogue or paladin second (depending on which one I took). The mods frequently let you long rest every few fights and short rests were easy to come by. I typically ran champion fighters.

The exception was a module that handed out a couple of wands of fireball and always had hordes of low level monsters swarm in from one location.

To me, those numbers are a closer approximation of a real world game than a spreadsheet will be.

In solasta I would expect that due to
1. Good early game magic weapons
2. Fighters can go dex and range can plays a Huge factor on many maps
3. Many good caster damage spells arent included or heavily modified. (Conjure animal comes to mind, no find familiar to help in combat, etc.)
4. Casters often do control instead of damage
5. Flanking and hiding really boosts martials damage due to how solasta handles those.
6. Tier 1 and early tier 2 is really good for fighters. I’d expect campaigns centered mostly at those levels to favor martials.

I’d expect these to really factor into the solasta damage numbers and make it somewhat less comparable to a normal 5e game.

 

[ECMO3]

Can happen with mechanical contribution just the same.

I don't think this is true. Can you post a video or stream where this is happening? Where someone is being left out because of mechanics? Failing that, can you provide a specific example from your own personal experience where this has happened?