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

[jgsugden]

Slow down and examine why a comfortable norm exists.

If I don't go and touch my thermostat, is it a problem? Likely - no. It is likely because the temperature is actually fine. Perfect? Likely not. But if we're not seeing an overwhelming outreach to fix something - it likely isn't broken. Really - balance is not a point. It is a range. ...

...But what can be held up as a objective measure is that people who go online and talk DND like this are the most passionate parts of the audience, and the most highly tuned to the actual game design underlying these issues.

And these people are constantly arguing about martials vs casters, and while theres seldom a consensus on how to fix martials (why the debate is perrenial), there is one on casters generally being too powerful relative to them...

Those are the vocal minority - and we know they are a minority because we do have metrics. We have surveys from WotC, we have statistics from D&DBeyond, etc... and they say that Fighters are more, not less popular than wizard.

- In 2020, Fighters were the MOST PLAYED CLASS and they comment it has ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. They come in at 13% of characters while wizards are only 8%. (Look at the 10 minute mark). That is the real world of lay people reporting in ...

But if you go to the vocal minority - the passionate folks that overanalyze, we start to see switches where the wizard may be more popular. And you start to find these people that say, "If you push this to the limit here, interprete that rule agressively there, and ignore the Sage Guidance here you find that a wizard is overpowered!" These folks are more than welcome to do so ... but those people are the vocal minority. And their percentage of sales ends up being rather miniscule. There are thousands of us on Reddit, Enworld, etc... talking about this game like this on a regular basis. There are millions of sales of the PHB - not including the starter set, special editions, etc... You're less than 1% of the people they collect money from on these books. You're an outlier.

People love this edition. The outlier complaints that throw in 50 unspoken assumptions into each of their condemnations of the game are, essentially, irrelevant. In truth, most of these complaints do not hold up at most tables ... and when they do, it is usually more a complaint about the player of the wizard trying to show off hos sMUrT they are that they copied something from an optimization guide rather than it is a condemnation of the class balance.

YMMV - but the people making this game have spoken OVER and OVER about how proud they are with the edition, and there is a lot of support for their opinions of themselves. There are a few things that can be improved by tweaks, but the people that scream that the sky has been falling and ruining this edition since 2015 ... well ... the game is going strong after nearly a decade of this edition. The sky is safe.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Those are the vocal minority - and we know they are a minority because we do have metrics. We have surveys from WotC, we have statistics from D&DBeyond, etc... and they say that Fighters are more, not less popular than wizard.

- In 2020, Fighters were the MOST PLAYED CLASS and they comment it has ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. They come in at 13% of characters while wizards are only 8%. (Look at the 10 minute mark). That is the real world of lay people reporting in ...

But if you go to the vocal minority - the passionate folks that overanalyze, we start to see switches where the wizard may be more popular. And you start to find these people that say, "If you push this to the limit here, interprete that rule agressively there, and ignore the Sage Guidance here you find that a wizard is overpowered!" These folks are more than welcome to do so ... but those people are the vocal minority. And their percentage of sales ends up being rather miniscule. There are thousands of us on Reddit, Enworld, etc... talking about this game like this on a regular basis. There are millions of sales of the PHB - not including the starter set, special editions, etc... You're less than 1% of the people they collect money from on these books. You're an outlier.

People love this edition. The outlier complaints that throw in 50 unspoken assumptions into each of their condemnations of the game are, essentially, irrelevant. In truth, most of these complaints do not hold up at most tables ... and when they do, it is usually more a complaint about the player of the wizard trying to show off hos sMUrT they are that they copied something from an optimization guide rather than it is a condemnation of the class balance.

YMMV - but the people making this game have spoken OVER and OVER about how proud they are with the edition, and there is a lot of support for their opinions of themselves. There are a few things that can be improved by tweaks, but the people that scream that the sky has been falling and ruining this edition since 2015 ... well ... the game is going strong after nearly a decade of this edition. The sky is safe.

What a remarkably dismissive post, riddled with assumptions about how people who don't agree with you act and think.

You don't have to agree with those who say casters are overpowered and fighters can't keep up. But you can get a heck of a lot flies with honey than with vinegar, and telling people here that their thoughts on the subject are irrelevant is a very "vinegar" take.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Its all the utility magic thats really causing this problem. All these low cost buttons that only exist to turn off entire game mechanics. Your goodberry and tiny huts and all that.

That crap needs to be nixed and fast, as does the ridiculous things at high level like Wish or Simulacrum.

IDK what kind of slow motion whackamole developers play with broken spells, but it seems like a spell will stand out as particularly egregious one edition, and get nerfed, only for some other spell to pop up.

Like Knock was never that broken, but 5e nerfed it into the ground because it was used as an example of casters obviating the rogue's thing... not only did 5e nerf knock, they also make lockpicking no longer the Rogue's thing, its a tool proficiency, you can get those with downtime. At the same time, 5e took the innocuous Tiny Hut, which had never much stood out beyond being used as the title of an old Dragon Magazine column, and made it a whacktasticcrazybroken dome of force you could shoot through.
Just. Why?

 

[Vaalingrade]

In 2020, Fighters were the MOST PLAYED CLASS and they comment it has ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. They come in at 13% of characters while wizards are only 8%. (Look at the 10 minute mark). That is the real world of lay people reporting in ...

People keep saying this as if that means those same people are satisfied with what they're playing rather than just dealing with it.

Or, again, new players who get stuck with the simple fighter because D&D culture doesn't respect the intelligence of new players and think they can't operate the other classes.

 

[ECMO3]

Its all the utility magic thats really causing this problem. All these low cost buttons that only exist to turn off entire game mechanics. Your goodberry and tiny huts and all that.

I don't think this is a big problem in play.

LTH for example comes off as an OP spell, but a simple dispel magic, at 3rd level, destroys it. And it is not like you can use it in the middle of your raid on the Thieves guild because you need a long rest. You might get your long rest but the locals might also burn the building around you so you are buried alive when it ends.

That crap needs to be nixed and fast, as does the ridiculous things at high level like Wish or Simulacrum.

Simulacrum not really that disruptive in play IME because the simulacrum has so few hit points and doesn't regain them.

Wish is OP and there is an argument for banning it, but players like it so why ban it?

The thing, aside from Wish though, there is a cost to loading yourself down with these utility spells as it means fewer other spells prepared and in your book. If you are going to take Mage Armor, Shield, Absorb elements, Misty Step, Rope Trick, Counterspell, Fly, Greater Invisibility, Dimension Door, Wall of Force, Contingency and Simulacrum ... at 13th level that is two thirds of the spells you have prepared and it is over a third of the spells you have in your book (and if you add in LTH as a ritual it is almost half of the spells you have in your book above 1st level). That does not leave a whole lot of spells available to be the offensive powerhouse that a lot of people like to play as a Wizard.

 

[ECMO3]

People keep saying this as if that means those same people are satisfied with what they're playing rather than just dealing with it.

This argument works both ways though. People keep insisting there is a problem with the power disparity when there is no evidence that is broadly a concern for 5E players.

I firmly believe (and admit it is a belief) that a weaker wizard will negatively impact most players experience, to include players who play fighters.

I also firmly believe players will also be even more negatively impacted by changes that make the fighter class stronger. This will severely hurt the game IMO because the fighter is already the most powerful of the non-casters, has powerful subclasses at its disposal and making fighters as a class even more powerful will essentially make those other classes, particularly Monk and Barbarian, less relevant or even irrelevant.

I will admit those are beliefs, and I have no proof. Those taking the opposite position - that we need to fix this gap for the fighter, rarely point out the subjective nature of their position or that there is no evidence fixing it would be good for the game.

I also think those talking about the weakness of the Fighter vs the Wizard fail to consider subclasses and feats in that discussion when those things are a major part of the fighter class chassis and comparatively a less important part of the Wizard class chassis. At a fundamental level it is not fair to compare a subclass-free fighter to a subclass-free wizard when much of the power for the fighter class comes from the subclass and that is part of the class design.

Or, again, new players who get stuck with the simple fighter because D&D culture doesn't respect the intelligence of new players and think they can't operate the other classes.

This is a problem if it happens in your game, but that problem is not in the fighter class, the problem is asking new players to play a fighter. Players should play what they want to play thematically and giving a new player a fighter because it is perceived as being easy, or worse because "that is what the party needs" is the real problem here.

New players should play what they want to play thematically and should be presented with an unbiased honest discussion of strengths and weaknesses of classes and subclasses to meeting that theme. But when it comes to ease of play, I would say in general Warlocks and Barbarians are both easier to play than Fighters. I would also say Rogues, Paladins, Rangers, Druids, Wizards and Clerics can be easier depending on the specific level, optional tashas rules that are used, and subclasses being considered.

Things like Battlemasters, Rune Knights, Eldritch Knights, Psi Knights, Echo Knights and Arcane Archers are not simple or easy to play in the mid-levels (3-8) that make up the core of the game. These are more complicated than most Wizards and Paladins and more complicated than some Clerics and Druids at those levels. Combined those fighter subclasses also represent well over half the fighters I see played.

The only two classes that I think are really pretty much regularly more complicated than fighters at late tier 1/tier 2 are Monks and Sorcerers.

 

[Emberashh]

We have surveys from WotC, we have statistics from D&DBeyond

Speaks for itself, and thats all I'll say on your post.

I don't think this is a big problem in play

Then you don't DM much.

but players like it so why ban it?

Bad game design is easy to like when you can abuse it for a dopamine hit.

there is a cost to loading yourself down with these utility spells as it means fewer other spells prepared

Yes, people get stuck in white rooms and don't acknowledge Casters can't do everything everywhere all at once.

That doesn't make the spells fine.

Mechanics that only exist to turn off other mechanics is bad game design, full stop. Nothing else matters and there is no arguing with it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

People keep saying this as if that means those same people are satisfied with what they're playing rather than just dealing with it.

The fighter has always been the most popular class. It's also a class that has changed radically with each WotC edition.
The 1e fighter was a brainless tank with the best armor, the best weapons, the best attack matrix, the fastest-scaling saving throw matrix, the highest possible native STR (shared with it's sub-classes), the most attacks/round (ditto) and the highest possible hp (shared with Paladin, until Barbarian, anyway) - no magic, no skills, no nothing... oh and it could build a moneypit castle at 9th level. It was essentiallly a living moveable mantlet for the real characters to hide behind, and a high-survivability magic item platform if you were lucky/clever.
The 2e fighter's lead in attack bonuses was slightly narrowed by THAC0, but it got crazy TWF/specialization DPR (relative to the hps of the monsters in the Monsterous Compendium, anyway). And everyone got NWPs.
(no, it's not that simple, there was weapon spec back in 1e UA, and NWPs in survival guides, it was all very messy TBH, and there were 2 or three other arugable editions in TSRs reign)
3e, %STR, max CON, weapon & armor restrictions, all gone. THAC0 becomes BAB, everyone gets extra attacks from it. Fighter's saves become terrible, caster's DC go through the roof, skills get tightly defined and fighters are the worst at them. The infamous late 3.5 Class Tier list put the Fighter in the abysmal Tier 5, one step above "class doesn't even work as written."
4e the fighter became an heroic defender, with encounter and daily exploits doing lots of 'cool' stuff, which mostly boiled down to fight coreography. Still, it was closer to balanced with casters than any edition before or since. It was also ceaselessly criticized for it.
5e the fighter loses all the cool stuff it had in 4e, has the same proficiency bonus as everyone else, and scales primarily via extra attack. S'ok for DPR.

So, really, the fighter has been, a dumb wall of meat, and the most popular clas; a whirlwind of destruction, and still the most popular class; a Tier 5 embarassment fighting it out with the Druid's animal companion for relevance, and still the most popular class; an MMO tank drawing aggro, and still the most popular class, and a good source of minimum recomended daily DPR, and still the most popular class.

The fighter's been good, bad, indifferent, overwhelming, and embarrasing (in no particular order, edition warriors, fill it in), but always the most popular.

That popularity clearly does not rest on the design, performance, or even viability of the class.

 

[jgsugden]

What a remarkably dismissive post, riddled with assumptions about how people who don't agree with you act and think.

You don't have to agree with those who say casters are overpowered and fighters can't keep up. But you can get a heck of a lot flies with honey than with vinegar, and telling people here that their thoughts on the subject are irrelevant is a very "vinegar" take.

Yes. Dismissive is accurate as one of my points was that the vocal minority is such a small percentage of the customer base that they do not matter to the people making the game (other than as a group that bothers them with their contradictory truth-bombs).

However: Assumptions? My post was based on data. My entire point was that we have a lot of data and the data indicates that a.) The premise doesn't hold up generally as we have a significant preference for fighters over wizards, and b.) The people arguing it represent a negligible part of the customer base. The core of those two points is not based upon assumption - the core is based upon measured and publicly available fact.

People keep saying this as if that means those same people are satisfied with what they're playing rather than just dealing with it.

Just walk me through this thought process, please. People choose to play fighters 50% more often than wizards ... yet are just 'dealing with it' rather than playing a barbarian, paladin, or ranger ... because... ? Usually, when someone just deals with something, there is no alternative for them ... but here there are many alternatives. Yet despite the presence of the alternatives, they elect to just 'deal with it' to play a fighter?

Or, again, new players who get stuck with the simple fighter because D&D culture doesn't respect the intelligence of new players and think they can't operate the other classes.

So a 50% excess in fighters over wizards is either a bunch of people that do not know better, or people that are electing to "deal" with an 'inferor'(?) class (despite the options of a ranger, paladin or barbarian being present). I don't think we have that many new players constantly joining the game. Even if they are: They're likely running a one shot and then switching to new characters. The D&DBeyond metrics and the surveys both focused on identifying ongoing preferences. DNDBeyond only looked at characters that had updates over time, and the WotC Surveys asked players to talk about their preferences. Neither would be heavily biased by newbies, and neither would be disproportionally biased to overrepresent a class that people were barely tolerating.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The fighter has always been the most popular class. It's also a class that has changed radically with each WotC edition.
The 1e fighter was a brainless tank with the best armor, the best weapons, the best attack matrix, the fastest-scaling saving throw matrix, the highest possible native STR (shared with it's sub-classes), the most attacks/round (ditto) and the highest possible hp (shared with Paladin, until Barbarian, anyway) - no magic, no skills, no nothing... oh and it could build a moneypit castle at 9th level. It was essentiallly a living moveable mantlet for the real characters to hide behind, and a high-survivability magic item platform if you were lucky/clever.
The 2e fighter's lead in attack bonuses was slightly narrowed by THAC0, but it got crazy TWF/specialization DPR (relative to the hps of the monsters in the Monsterous Compendium, anyway). And everyone got NWPs.
(no, it's not that simple, there was weapon spec back in 1e UA, and NWPs in survival guides, it was all very messy TBH, and there were 2 or three other arugable editions in TSRs reign)
3e, %STR, max CON, weapon & armor restrictions, all gone. THAC0 becomes BAB, everyone gets extra attacks from it. Fighter's saves become terrible, caster's DC go through the roof, skills get tightly defined and fighters are the worst at them. The infamous late 3.5 Class Tier list put the Fighter in the abysmal Tier 5, one step above "class doesn't even work as written."
4e the fighter became an heroic defender, with encounter and daily exploits doing lots of 'cool' stuff, which mostly boiled down to fight coreography. Still, it was closer to balanced with casters than any edition before or since. It was also ceaselessly criticized for it.
5e the fighter loses all the cool stuff it had in 4e, has the same proficiency bonus as everyone else, and scales primarily via extra attack. S'ok for DPR.

So, really, the fighter has been, a dumb wall of meat, and the most popular clas; a whirlwind of destruction, and still the most popular class; a Tier 5 embarassment fighting it out with the Druid's animal companion for relevance, and still the most popular class; an MMO tank drawing aggro, and still the most popular class, and a good source of minimum recomended daily DPR, and still the most popular class.

The fighter's been good, bad, indifferent, overwhelming, and embarrasing (in no particular order, edition warriors, fill it in), but always the most popular.

That popularity clearly does not rest on the design, performance, or even viability of the class.

So it's an issue only if you care about mechanics? Since large portions of the player base ignore the mechanics as much as possible, it's not a problem to most players!