D&D 5E What Level is the Wizard vs. the Fighter?

[HammerMan]

Success of an edition based on longevity?
1st edition 15 years
2nd edition 11 years
3rd edition 8 years
5th edition 8 years and going strong
4th edition 6 years

how many of those years of 2e (my 2nd favorite and system I started with so no hate) was well the company was going down and going bankrupt...
3rd edition had a full rewerite...not an "PHB+this" like essentials 3.5 rewrote the PHB classes. so it is more like 3e 3 years 3.5 5 years.

but great way to manipulate the numbers.

Claiming that 4e was the second most successful ever is to ignore the growth of of the industry and a little something called market share.

okay... so we have 0 info for 1 e and 2 e market share (some gut feeling and base ideas says #1 but bu 10% or 700% is anyones guess)
5e grew the market more then any AD&D version...

Being less successful than a competitor isn’t failure…

very true, and it was never less successful then a competitor... you need to move to when WOTC was putting out only a single and last supliment and Piazo had multiple to see piazo creep ahead...

I can out run Mr Bolt if he is asleep of watching a TV show in a recliner... that doesn't mean I can out run him when he is running.

…Being less successful than a spin off version of your previous product that you tried to make obsolete is definitely failure. .

and at no point was it ever less successful then pathfinder... now if pathfinder wasn't there it would have not competied with a previus version of itself in a way no other edition had (and IMO would have lasted longer and been pushed farther) but even WITH that problem it never fell behind... just wasn't as ahead as it used to be.

 

[HammerMan]

at this point (trying to get back to topic really) is there anyone that thinks the fighter damage is too low?

I know I argue it is weird rogue's hit for more damage per hit (this dagger hit the right spot to deal 1d4+3d6+4, but that trained warrior with the same dagger hits twice each for 1d4+5+1d4+5... or twice with his longsword for 1d8+5+1d8... why doesn't he know where to put the blade to deal +3d6 damage?) but that is more narrative... 2d8+10 averages to 19 and 1d4+3d6+4 averages to 16, the fighter does more damage in the round, but the rouge does 2/3 to 3/4 the damage of the multi attack fighter in a single hit... why is the cut purse, the trickster the pick pocket and the lock smith all better at placing 1 blow per round then the trained soldier the knight and the mercenary? (yes game balance... but it feels weird) but never once did I think the way to make the fighter and the rogue feel more better was to give the fighter sneak attack

(((Okay, I did once put fighter and rogue as an amalgam class in a game becuse everyone else was caster... it was WAY over the top damage but the mobility skills and general utility still didn'tkeep up with the casters.... also that was when we reaslized that with uncanny dodge a 5e rogue could tank single creature encounters better then a fighter)))

 

[DND_Reborn]

at this point (trying to get back to topic really) is there anyone that thinks the fighter damage is too low?

I do (soft of).

Their burst damage on surging can be good, if optimized for it, but then the class suffers from being optimized in other ways.

And, it is more I think other classes shouldn't be quite as good as fighters, but unfortunately they are.

 

[Maxperson]

the word you are useing is wrong. He didn't fail he lost. coming in last place in the Olympics is not a failure it is in fact a success so wild 99% of people will NEVER get to do it. This ricky boby mentality of "If your not first your last" means EVERY edition of D&D is a failure becuse sooner or later every edition is going to (useing your words)failed to get what it needed to survive, so it's a failed edition in that regard

The perspective you are looking at is wrong. Just because you make it to the Olympics, does not make you a successful Olympian. They don't give everyone medals like they do in Little League. Only getting a medal makes you a successful Olympian. Successful athlete. Failed Olympian.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm not actually claiming that fighters are equal to wizards by any particular metric, just that action surge is extremely boring and I'm glad Level Up got rid of it. Kudos on the math though.

Keep in mind the o5e Action Surge lets you take any action - it does not require that you use it for attacks. You could Dash, Cast a Spell, Use an Object -

you probably haven't seen it because for Fighters it's unusual that an action other than Attack is the best Action - but Action Surge isn't the problem. It's the whole fighter kit.

Blaming Action Surge is like saying wizards shouldn't get more spell slots because they'll just use them to cast more fireballs.

 

[HammerMan]

The perspective you are looking at is wrong. Just because you make it to the Olympics, does not make you a successful Olympian. They don't give everyone medals like they do in Little League. Only getting a medal makes you a successful Olympian. Successful athlete. Failed Olympian.

being a successful athlete is one thing... being part of the upper 1% of your sport (aka being in dead last at the olympics) is still being SUPER successful. There is no such thing as a failed olmpian...by being olympian you are not a failure.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Keep in mind the o5e Action Surge lets you take any action - it does not require that you use it for attacks. You could Dash, Cast a Spell, Use an Object -

you probably haven't seen it because for Fighters it's unusual that an action other than Attack is the best Action - but Action Surge isn't the problem. It's the whole fighter kit.

Blaming Action Surge is like saying wizards shouldn't get more spell slots because they'll just use them to cast more fireballs.

Again, fireball has nothing to do with it. It is not objectively the best spell in almost all combat situations. Using action surge to attack more is. That may be because of the whole fighter package, or the nature of D&D combat, but it is what it is. As long as the ability to attack more is an option for fighters, that's all they will use 99% of the time, which makes any other use meaningless, and Action Surge effective but boring.

 

[Micah Sweet]

being a successful athlete is one thing... being part of the upper 1% of your sport (aka being in dead last at the olympics) is still being SUPER successful. There is no such thing as a failed olmpian...by being olympian you are not a failure.

Not the way human beings work. Try saying that to any Olympian who didn't medal.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Not the way human beings work. Try saying that to any Olympian who didn't medal.

I would give them more credit than that. I am certain they deal with disappointment, but even making it to that level is a dream achieved for most of them IMO from the interviews, etc. I've seen. Getting a medal is just the icing on the cake, but the cake still tastes pretty good without it.

 

[Maxperson]

being a successful athlete is one thing... being part of the upper 1% of your sport (aka being in dead last at the olympics) is still being SUPER successful.

Not as an Olympian. That's a fact as you cannot be super successful as an Olympian without winning medals. It's only super successful as an athlete in general.

There is no such thing as a failed olmpian...by being olympian you are not a failure.

You are as an Olympian if you don't get a medal.