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

[TheSword]

By definition, anyone who thought that there wasn't a deviation isn't going to need or implement any corrective measures.
Therefore when designing those measures, you only take into account the people who they're actually for.

I mean . . . that's just basic triage and problem management.
When designing designing bicycles do you concentrate on the needs of cyclists over non-cyclists?
Is that the way you actually handle your own projects?

I don’t poll first.

 

[TheSword]

You should take a few courses in poll design, analysis, and statistics.

Why do you think I reported the complete data set FIRST?


Even including the nay-sayers, the results are no where near showing there isn't an issue:

0.8 Wizard = 1 Fighter
7.56 Wizard = 10 Fighter
14.68 Wizard = 20 Fighter

And only after this, I removed the outliers (who are the ones with bias) from the poll, so I could show the unbiased results???

You have it backwards.

Actually no it doesn’t show there is an issue. From a data point of view it shows there are a number of people that think there is a issue and a number of people that don’t. The way the poll results are being looked at with averages masks this fact. Trying to put values on something that is ephemeral as if levels can be converted to % is a bit of nonsense really.

Is a level 1 fighter half the power of a level 2 fighter? I don’t believe so. Is a level 10 wizard half as powerful as a Level 20 wizard. Absolutely not. You haven’t even said what value you’ve given a less than level 1 character (whatever that means).

There is an ideological argument being made about wizard and fighters, it’s just worth recognizing that there is no mathematics here that backs that up. Probably because there are far too many variables to put a number to it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Actually no it doesn’t show there is an issue. From a data point of view it shows there are a number of people that think there is a issue and a number of people that don’t. The way the poll results are being looked at with averages masks this fact. Trying to put values on something that is ephemeral as if levels can be converted to % is a bit of nonsense really.

Yes, it does.

And you are mistaken because you are comparing Wizard 10 to Wizard 20, thinking Wizard 20 is twice as powerful, that is absurd. Such as these statements:

Is a level 1 fighter half the power of a level 2 fighter? I don’t believe so. Is a level 10 wizard half as powerful as a Level 20 wizard.

I am comparing classes at the same level, and noting that the ratio (or percentage) is roughly equivalent across levels (a useful observation).

You haven’t even said what value you’ve given a less than level 1 character (whatever that means).

And yet enough people (nearly 25%) understand that concept to have voted for it? I think the value is pretty apparent.

There is an ideological argument being made about wizard and fighters, it’s just worth recognizing that there is no mathematics here that backs that up. Probably because there are far too many variables to put a number to it.

This is why asking someone to compare fighter level vs. wizard level in these three cases is qualitative, not quantitative. You can apply quantitative analysis to qualitative results.

 

[TheSword]

Yes, it does.

And you are mistaken because you are comparing Wizard 10 to Wizard 20, thinking Wizard 20 is twice as powerful, that is absurd. Such as these statements:

I am comparing classes at the same level, and noting that the ratio (or percentage) is roughly equivalent across levels (a useful observation).

And yet enough people (nearly 25%) understand that concept to have voted for it? I think the value is pretty apparent.

This is why asking someone to compare fighter level vs. wizard level in these three cases is qualitative, not quantitative. You can apply quantitative analysis to qualitative results.

Look you do you. If you want to reduce the power of wizards or increase the power of fighters then good luck with that.

Trying to convert a concept like power (or shenanigans which you still haven’t converted into a precise term) into a number and then suggesting it provides some kind of quantitive evidence to justify doing so is just flawed.

This is precisely what Chris was trying to avoid when he described what high level wizards do as shenanigans. They can’t be compared.

 

[tetrasodium]

Out of curiosity, what level does the fighter become the scary juggernaut against the party?

2 5 & 11 due to the impact of multiplicative attacks each stacking any ability & weapon modifiers. Things accelerate at some point as almost everything players fight starts rolling in with energy /magic resist & energy immune alongside "still takes full damage from any magic weapon's bludgeoning piercing & splashing attacks.

As to the initial question posed by the OP, there is some things that need clarification before it can be given any sort of answer
* is this wizard sporting a quantum spellbook or are they limited to the spells in the spellbook?
** same question about the prepared spells list... Quantum spellprep or no?

• is a non quantum spell prep list & spellbook cluttered with a bunch of "this looks like a job for aquaman" spells that must be prepared in order to consume spell slots as a plot device prop like the knock or moonbeam only doors in part of rotfm?
• does the Fighter get to basically expect a magic weapon before or slightly after the party starts fighting anything that's likely to be resist nonmagic bps?

*what does the wizard's spellbook & spell prep list look like?

 

[DND_Reborn]

As to the initial question posed by the OP, there is some things that need clarification before it can be given any sort of answer
* is this wizard sporting a quantum spellbook or are they limited to the spells in the spellbook?
** same question about the prepared spells list... Quantum spellprep or no?

• is a non quantum spell prep list & spellbook cluttered with a bunch of "this looks like a job for aquaman" spells that must be prepared in order to consume spell slots as a plot device prop like the knock or moonbeam only doors in part of rotfm?
• does the Fighter get to basically expect a magic weapon before or slightly after the party starts fighting anything that's likely to be resist nonmagic bps?

*what does the wizard's spellbook & spell prep list look like?

It is really immaterial. It is like asking what fighter build?

As to the magic items, I would think not since 5E was designed to not have to have them, but if you or others imagine using them which is actually the common practice, do so. Over all, I would imagine at 1st level no, 10th level maybe, and 20th level probably?

 

[tetrasodium]

It is really immaterial. It is like asking what fighter build?

As to the magic items, I would think not since 5E was designed to not have to have them, but if you or others imagine using them which is actually the common practice, do so. Over all, I would imagine at 1st level no, 10th level maybe, and 20th level probably?

those are actually critical questions because they are one hundred percent outside guidance from wotc unlike what o5e is "designed to not have".

 

[Maxperson]

Wizards get quadratic options and shenanigans.

They're not quadratic anymore. They're spells(other than cantrips) no longer scale, so the vast majority of low level spells are fairly useless combat at high levels.

Concentration, spell scaling, and total slots has cut down on wizards' flat out offense and defense power compared to 3e while fighters' full multiple attacks after movement and in a bounded accuracy AC system is a big boost on combat power for them compared to 3e.

Magic continually expands wizards' options though, particularly in not-attacking-hp ways. Fighters only get their skills and either better stats or feats, not generally in the same league as spell options.

The goal from 3e on was always for every class to be equal power in combat at every level, I think 5e does a decent job of it. 4e was better balanced, but 5e is decent.

Outside of combat if a wizard uses options and shenanigans, he's removing himself as a potent force in some of the 6-8 encounters during the adventuring day. The lower level you are, the more true that is.

A 10th level wizard only has 15 spells to spread over 6-8 encounters, +5 more spell levels if he can get in a short rest. At 8 encounters that's going to translate to about 2 a combat, so already about half the rounds of a given fight will involve the wizard using cantrips, if he spreads out his higher level spells. Of those 15+ spells, 7 of them are levels 1 and 2, which makes them about cantrip level in damage ability. If he uses his 2nd level spells defensively(invisibility, blur, etc.), then he's not going to be using those slots to end the encounters.

Now let's say he uses 4 spells for out of combat shenanigans. He's just taken himself down only cantrips for 2 fights, and since most of the useful shenanigans are 3rd level or higher, he's removing his better combat spells to do it.

 

[Minigiant]

My "1, 9, 15" is assuming feats and +X items.

Without feats and +X items, a fighter's damage doesn't increase fast enough over 8 encounters and 2 short rests. Their combat ability becomes too dependent on spell buff or mages taking over 2-3 encounters then

"1, 9, 15" base
"1, 8, 12" no feats nor +X items
"1, 11, 18" if fighter is optimized

 

[EzekielRaiden]

those are actually critical questions because they are one hundred percent outside guidance from wotc unlike what o5e is "designed to not have".

Your point would be much stronger if one of the passages shown didn't explicitly say, verbatim, "Characters and monsters are built to face each other without the help of magic items." That's literally what the text actually says. Now, perhaps you can argue that the text is wrong to assert this, or that the designers failed to actually pull this off, or that the text is incoherent because it asserts both A and not-A in different places. But you cannot say that the books don't explicitly tell us that characters and monsters were designed with a presumption of no magic items.