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

[Maxperson]

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.

Excellent! I knew that was the case, but couldn't remember where it was. What book is that quote in?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Excellent! I knew that was the case, but couldn't remember where it was. What book is that quote in?

According to the post Tetrasodium linked, XGE, page 136.

 

[Maxperson]

According to the post Tetrasodium linked, XGE, page 136.

I see it, thanks.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

It's less incoherence and more lack of clarity.

"Characters and monsters are built to face each other without the help of magic items." However characters were built to to fight monster in caster heavy, heal heavy, buff heavy parties. If your PC and NPC casters and buffing and healing, you don't need magic item.

One thing that was learned about 5e is the designers played and created characters and worlds very different from a large chunk of the large influx of fans 5e brought in.

 

[Maxperson]

It's less incoherence and more lack of clarity.

"Characters and monsters are built to face each other without the help of magic items." However characters were built to to fight monster in caster heavy, heal heavy, buff heavy parties. If your PC and NPC casters and buffing and healing, you don't need magic item.

One thing that was learned about 5e is the designers played and created characters and worlds very different from a large chunk of the large influx of fans 5e brought in.

You're reading more into it than is there. All it takes is a single spellcaster or monk in the eyes of WotC, which is why they say it's rare for a party to be that way. And it's not even as hard as they make it sound. A group of battlemasters will still make short work of a damage resistant creature or two. Also, note that they only call out resistance/immunity to nonmagical damage. Not flight or the other things you say fighters need.

 

[Minigiant]

You're reading more into it than is there. All it takes is a single spellcaster or monk in the eyes of WotC, which is why they say it's rare for a party to be that way. And it's not even as hard as they make it sound. A group of battlemasters will still make short work of a damage resistant creature or two. Also, note that they only call out resistance/immunity to nonmagical damage. Not flight or the other things you say fighters need.

Community sentiments of the state of mid-high level suggest that it wasn't playtested well or enough within the parameters they suggested..

Fighters don't have enough superiority dice to grind down 8 encounters of the huge sacks of HP printed in the MM without heavy buffing via spells. Especially without use of control and utility magic or optional feats.

Neither can wizards or clerics grind them down. However killing isn't the wizards or cleric's primary nor secondary jobs. That's why the 13-16 range on the poll has so many votes. There are so many monsters with tons of traits, scary attacks, and over 100 HP.

I don't think the designers intended people to play 5e without magic items, feats, and half the party not being full casters with DM playing straight by the book. They expected you to use some of the "options".

 

[Maxperson]

Community sentiments of the state of mid-high level suggest that it wasn't playtested well or enough within the parameters they suggested..

Fighters don't have enough superiority dice to grind down 8 encounters of the huge sacks of HP printed in the MM without heavy buffing via spells. Especially without use of control and utility magic or optional feats.

Neither can wizards or clerics grind them down. However killing isn't the wizards or cleric's primary nor secondary jobs. That's why the 13-16 range on the poll has so many votes. There are so many monsters with tons of traits, scary attacks, and over 100 HP.

4 level 20 fighters who hit half the time(they hit more often in actual play), will do with a greatsword, 96 points of damage a round. It's actually higher, since they will be re-rolling the first 1s and 2s that they roll on the dice. Those sacks of hit points are going to drop fast. If they hit 3 times a round, which is more likely than 2, then it's 144 points a round.

I don't think the designers intended people to play 5e without magic items, feats, and half the party not being full casters with DM playing straight by the book. They expected you to use some of the "options".

For this to be true, they have to all be liars. The books say straight out that the classes are designed to fight the monsters without magic items or feats, and players have the option to play any classes they want, so while rare, parties without a single caster or monk do happen. That's why they say it gets harder if that rarity happens and the group might "need" +1 weapons as the only magic items "necessary."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's less incoherence and more lack of clarity.

"Characters and monsters are built to face each other without the help of magic items." However characters were built to to fight monster in caster heavy, heal heavy, buff heavy parties. If your PC and NPC casters and buffing and healing, you don't need magic item.

One thing that was learned about 5e is the designers played and created characters and worlds very different from a large chunk of the large influx of fans 5e brought in.

Oh, sure, I don't question any of that. My point was that Tetrasodium cited those passages as though they indicated the designers never intended magic items to be seen as optional, when very clearly they did intend so, with whatever caveats etc. one would like to add.

And that last bit is, frankly, par for the course for 5e design, as it was for 3e design. They did better than they did in 3e, but easily half (likely more) of 5e's design issues can be tied back to "the designers played and created characters and worlds very different from [what a lot of people play.]" The caster/martial disparity has shades of it, the saving throw stuff shows it (I still distinctly remember the "ghoul surprise" podcast), certain races show it, the oddities lingering in the basic weapons kind of show it (e.g. the trident being literally just a heavier, more expensive, martial-weapon spear), short-rest classes getting the short end of the stick, the CR system still being pretty much a joke, GP is sorely lacking in mechanical value rather than "ooh shiny" value, a few other odds and ends.

3e was DRAMATICALLY worse, no question, 5e is definitely a step up in a lot of ways, but "designed a game without knowing how people would actually play it" is unfortunately one of the problems inherited from 3e.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For this to be true, they have to all be liars. The books say straight out that the classes are designed to fight the monsters without magic items or feats, and players have the option to play any classes they want, so while rare, parties without a single caster or monk do happen. That's why they say it gets harder if that rarity happens and the group might "need" +1 weapons as the only magic items "necessary."

I don't at all think they would have to be liars, that's a way too strong take. But they would certainly have to be making statements that seem stronger than they are (which is quite common), or more likely, making statements about the game as they played it, rather than the game as actual players play it. Because, as noted above, that's a serious and ongoing issue. It's (one part of) why 4e fans liked 4e as much as they did; with the rules being so transparent and straightforward, there was no obfuscation, intentional or accidental. You couldn't have this "well then did they LIE to us?!" moment, because the true meaning wasn't hidden by the text.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't at all think they would have to be liars, that's a way too strong take. But they would certainly have to be making statements that seem stronger than they are (which is quite common), or more likely, making statements about the game as they played it, rather than the game as actual players play it. Because, as noted above, that's a serious and ongoing issue. It's (one part of) why 4e fans liked 4e as much as they did; with the rules being so transparent and straightforward, there was no obfuscation, intentional or accidental. You couldn't have this "well then did they LIE to us?!" moment, because the true meaning wasn't hidden by the text.

I disagree. This is what I am looking at. Feats are an optional rule, so they did not assume those to be present in groups. Monsters and PCs are stated very clearly to be designed to interact with each other properly without magic items, so they did not assume those to be present in groups. They did think about a group of purely non-casters and said that in such a situation, it can(might) be necessary to give them magic weapons.

To assume that they expected the use of options flies directly in the face of what they have told us straight out about the game. They would have to be lying for that assumption to be true. They designed the game with the assumption that no magic items or feats would be in use, and that groups can pick whatever classes they like. And in the off chance that a purely non-magical group happens, maybe the will need to hand out some magic weapons, though if he doesn't that group can still do very well. It will just be harder for them.