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

[jgsugden]

No, it's wasn't, this thread doesn't even posit a question...

There was a mission statement. A mission statement is a ststement of how you intend to solve a problem. This is literally asking how to fix something.

That's not the problem statement. You've moved the goalpost from "how do we fix the clear disparity between these classes?" to "how do we shift attitudes about these classes?" We're currently arguing about whether we actually know attitudes, and/or what is meant by the data we have about those attitudes. ...

Think about that statement you just made. You're saying you want to fix the disparity without resolving the question of whether the disparity exists. I'm suggesting we have ample evidence that you don't need to fix anything.

Again - anytime you have different classes with different mechanics, you're going to see differences. That is known, expected and desired. When you diminsh those, you end up with a system like 4E which - while a fun system - was rejected by too many D&D players as not fitting for their fantasy RPG. They wanted the wizard to be different than the fighter.

Once we accept that classes should be different, the question is what do we need each class to do. I'd suggest we wat each class to allow you to build an evocative PC that is fun to play for 20 levels. We want them to feel effective, and we want them to be entertaining without being disruptive to the fun of other players or the DM.

Further, as I've noted here and elsewhere: Optimizers are not the target audience here. They do not drive sales. If you have to pick whether to entertain 99% of your fans or the 1% of vocal fans that that are pushing the game to the limits to look for cracks that the majority of players never experience?

Fighter hits the key marks. Again - my 20th level fighter soloed an Ancient Red. CR 24 - down before it did anything. Does that sound underpowered? Does it sound problematically weak? Yes, he did have a couple spells cast on him by allies - but those could have come from potions.

You ask: "Tell me how to fix the clear disparity?" My answer, and the answer of so many is: There is no clear disparity.

 

[FrogReaver]

You ask: "Tell me how to fix the clear disparity?" My answer, and the answer of so many is: There is no clear disparity.

What evidence would you require to accept that there is a disparity? I get the feeling there is nothing you would accept - prove me wrong.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Again - anytime you have different classes with different mechanics, you're going to see differences. That is known, expected and desired. When you diminsh those, you end up with a system like 4E which - while a fun system - was rejected by too many D&D players as not fitting for their fantasy RPG. They wanted the wizard to be different than the fighter.

Okay sure, but different does not and IMO should not mean the same thing as better or more powerful/useful

 

[jgsugden]

What evidence would you require to accept that there is a disparity? I get the feeling there is nothing you would accept - prove me wrong.

Well, if people overwhelmingly used the wizard over the fighter on DnDbeyond... if the surveys taken by WotC of the wider populace revealed that people preferred the wizard to the fighter by a large margin ... if I was at tables and people were systemically not enjoying playing fighters because of the presence of a wizard... You know, all the things we've been seeing that show the exact opposite.

Think about why you asked that question. The answer was obvious, but you didn't see it. Why? What put the blinders on?

As an aside: If you go back to 2015 and 2016 you can find a bunch of threads on the problems created because parties do not have wizards and thus don't have any PCs with the Knowldge (Intelligence) skills at high levels, even.

Okay sure, but different does not and IMO should not mean the same thing as better or more powerful/useful

Inherently - that is a flawed premise.

If you're going to have differences, then they will inherently have things they do differently - and as discussed before - that means some designs will be better at some things than other designs. Differences require disparity. A rogue, for example, is generally set up to be better at stealth than a fighter. If you play RAW, they generally are better than the wizard, too. We do not want a basic wizard to be as good at close combat as a basic fighter. You might develop specialization and twists to offset some of those discrepancies in thie highly tailored game, but generally speaking: It is absolutely desirable for classes to have different strengths and weaknesses.

Do we want to fix every disparity? No. That breeds boring uniformity. We celebrate differences. So the question is: Do the different designs work. Can you have fun playing them, and can they fill an important roll in a party. And, as discussed before: That is absolutely true of all 5E classes. Some subclasses are more troubling - and there are definitely things I would change about the fighter design to give it more exploration and social options... but those would be tweaks, not necessary redesigns.

Seriously: If you're experiencing tables where people can't enjoy playing a fighter because another player is playing a wizard: Consider that the play style of the wizard may be the issue there.

Why are we at the table? To optimize? Or to share an experience? If you optimize a PC and play glory hog, that is not a problem with the game - that is a problem between players.

I've mentioned the solo kill of the dragon. Do you know what the first things I did was? I turned to the group of players (not in character) and apologized. When they gave me the "no, its fine ... you were just being in character ... it is cool..." response I said, "No - it isn't cool. I expected to do a good bunch on the initial strike, but I expected us all to get in there. I am legit sorry. I like the game to tell a good story and that kind of was a boring end to the adventure for most of you. You were planning how you'd get in there and I took that from you. I don't want to steal thunder - let's talk about it."

In that same scenario, today, I'd approach that combat differently. I would not go all in and plan for the alpha strike and gamble that we are undetected and win initiative. I'd set us up so that if the dragon gets to go, we're in a more defensible situation.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Inherently - that is a flawed premise.

If you're going to have differences, then they will inherently have things they do differently - and as discussed before - that means some designs will be better at some things than other designs. Differences require disparity. A rogue, for example, is generally set up to be better at stealth than a fighter. If you play RAW, they generally are better than the wizard, too. We do not want a basic wizard to be as good at close combat as a basic fighter. You might develop specialization and twists to offset some of those discrepancies in thie highly tailored game, but generally speaking: It is absolutely desirable for classes to have different strengths and weaknesses.

Do we want to fix every disparity? No. That breeds boring uniformity. We celebrate differences. So the question is: Do the different designs work. Can you have fun playing them, and can they fill an important roll in a party. And, as discussed before: That is absolutely true of all 5E classes. Some subclasses are more troubling - and there are definitely things I would change about the fighter design to give it more exploration and social options... but those would be tweaks, not necessary redesigns.

Seriously: If you're experiencing tables where people can't enjoy playing a fighter because another player is playing a wizard: Consider that the play style of the wizard may be the issue there.

you misinterpreted the meaning of my post, what i meant is that while it is completely fine that the rogue might be better at sneaking than the fighter or that the bard is more glib than the cleric, when it comes time for everything a class is skilled and weak at to all be tallied up and compared to the other classes there shouldn't be a clear outlier in who is more useful in sum total.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There was a mission statement. A mission statement is a ststement of how you intend to solve a problem. This is literally asking how to fix something.Think about that statement you just made. You're saying you want to fix the disparity without resolving the question of whether the disparity exists.

The mission statement already acknowledged that the issue exists, it minimizes it (focusing on the modest gap between the fighter and half-casters), but it acknowledges it.

Denying it is just obstruction. ...not that Zard asked for this to be a + thread, so I guess you're free to engage in denial and obstruction.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, if people overwhelmingly used the wizard over the fighter on DnDbeyond... if the surveys taken by WotC of the wider populace revealed that people preferred the wizard to the fighter by a large margin ... if I was at tables and people were systemically not enjoying playing fighters because of the presence of a wizard... You know, all the things we've been seeing that show the exact opposite.

Think about why you asked that question. The answer was obvious, but you didn't see it. Why? What put the blinders on?

As an aside: If you go back to 2015 and 2016 you can find a bunch of threads on the problems created because parties do not have wizards and thus don't have any PCs with the Knowldge (Intelligence) skills at high levels, even.

Consider this:
More people play fighters than wizards - that’s what the data shows. Does that imply that Fighters are more powerful than Wizards. If so why aren’t you advocating for buffing wizards or nerfing fighters? That’s what that data means to you right? So why is your conclusion that everything is balanced when the evidence of usage for you (based on your own words) would be sufficient evidence of itself to show a class is stronger than another? Why is it that you conclude that there is no disparity between the fighter and wizard despite one being played more than the other?

 

[jgsugden]

We're going back and forth - and all I am seeing is people holding true to a premise despite the metrics that indicate their belief does not hold up. Good luck to you.

 

[FrogReaver]

We're going back and forth - and all I am seeing is people holding true to a premise despite the metrics that indicate their belief does not hold up. Good luck to you.

Back and forth? For the first time the validity of your preferred metric for determining class strength is rather thoroughly disproven. If it was a good metric to determine class strength you would be forced to conclude that fighters are stronger than wizards because fighters are played more than wizards.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Back and forth? For the first time the validity of your preferred metric for determining class strength is rather thoroughly disproven. If it was a good metric to determine class strength you would be forced to conclude that fighters are stronger than wizards because fighters are played more than wizards.

People make way too much out of these surveys because they don't also have any data on the why.

And the additional data we do have creates more questions than answers IMO.

For instance, we know many survey people play at mostly lower levels.

So, in the context of lower level play, the Fighter doesn't have as many /any of the balanced issues of high level. So, perhaps that combined with the Fighter as one of the only non spellcaster options makes it very popular?

Who knows. If someone has more data I'd like to see it, but the stuff I've seen is not useful in drawing much conclusions about this issue either way.