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

[HammerMan]

I would love to find a way to reduce the needed number of combats for attrition, without eliminating the concept completely. There has to be a happy medium. Why WotC hard-coded at 6-8 encounters a day I swear I don't know.

i want smaller hit point totals (no PC should ever easily hit 100hp) slightly expanded accuracy/AC and more limited spells/healing. If we tied most (but not all) healing to HD front loaded HP and didn't give HD every level I think we could have a great start.

 

[Lanefan]

The 5 minute work day was invented (or at least popularized) in 3e. A lot of people seem to think that was and is a problem, in all fairness

It was a thing long before 3e, believe me; but not always seen as a problem.

If it makes sense for the characters to nova for ten minutes then retreat and rest up for the day then IMO that's what the characters should (try to) do.

Then again, resting-recovery rates in pre-WotC D&D were considerably slower, making hit points and-or curative spells a much more valuable resource.

 

[Voadam]

If the adventuring day is designed as 6-8 encounters and a typical segment/chapter of a published AP has, say, 15 then clearly they're shooting for one long rest per segment - maybe two if a party is cautious.

I've only played in one 5e WotC mega module -Curse of Strahd- but it sure did not feel like 6-8 encounters in a day was the norm.

Often it was one in a day, sometimes as many as three as we checked out a dangerous location. In the big multi-level dungeon we did in one shot there were more.

We used a recharge magic house rule so healing up between fights and spell resource management was different for us than the norm, but I think the DM used the module encounters pretty straight.

 

[jmartkdr2]

To me 4E's design based on number of encounters seems to contrived and forced to really like the approach, but that is just my preference. I never got to play it so if I had I might feel otherwise.

The only upside, and it might have been accidental, is that since everyone has the same schedule of powers everyone is equally affected by changed to the length of the adventuring day.

In other words, having only one fight a day helps the fighter, the warlock and the wizards, and helps them the same amount. So it doesn't create new balance issues (beyond being trickier to make fights challenging - and that not too much.)

The downside, of course, is that wizards and fighter having the same number of daily abilities is rather contrived and gamist.

 

[Maxperson]

as much as I would love that, I am sure that nothing will stop people from saying the second most successful D&D ever was a failure

By what metric?

1e: 12 years
2e: 11 years
3e: 8 years
4e: 6 years
5e: In its 8th year now.

4e was the least successful if you go by longevity.

 

[Maxperson]

something can UNDER perform, something can OVER perform but still not live up to goals you set. I am sick of hearing how something that did great but didn't hit some goal as being a failure...

Something can be a failure and not be bad. 4e failed to be successful enough to continue on. Not only did it only last 6 years, but the decision not to continue with it happened a few years(or maybe more) prior. 5e was announced in 2012, just 4 years after 4e came out. I'm not saying it was a horrible, or even bad game(though I disliked it), but it was a failure when compared to the other editions.

imagine you went to play basketball and was told "You are going to win by 80 points" then you only won by 50pts... that doesn't mean you lost.

A coach who continually gets to and loses in the first round of the playoffs will eventually be fired. He will be viewed as a failed coach.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The only upside, and it might have been accidental, is that since everyone has the same schedule of powers everyone is equally affected by changed to the length of the adventuring day.

In other words, having only one fight a day helps the fighter, the warlock and the wizards, and helps them the same amount. So it doesn't create new balance issues (beyond being trickier to make fights challenging - and that not too much.)

The downside, of course, is that wizards and fighter having the same number of daily abilities is rather contrived and gamist.

It is a bit odd. The design is different between classes as a feature, but it turns out to both work and be a hinderance sometimes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To me 4E's design based on number of encounters seems to contrived and forced to really like the approach, but that is just my preference. I never got to play it so if I had I might feel otherwise.

To me if the game is based round the encounter (as it was in 2e, 3.0, 3.5, 4e, and 5e) it seems impossible for there not to be some sort of expectation round which the number of encounters per day works best and communicating that to the DM is just sensible. From memory all of 3.0, 3.5, and 4e decided four encounters per day and it's a decent number.

The real problems come when (a) the default number is fairly extreme (6-8 encounters) and when they impose artificial pacing on the game - in 5e's case it's with the short rest being an hour long meaning that you're expected to have two one hour breaks in your adventuring day (union rules?) In 4e of course the short rest was five minutes - or long enough to catch your breath, clean your weapons, bandage your wounds, and grab some water. And take obvious loot.

 

[DND_Reborn]

To me if the game is based round the encounter (as it was in 2e, 3.0, 3.5, 4e, and 5e) it seems impossible for there not to be some sort of expectation round which the number of encounters per day works best and communicating that to the DM is just sensible. From memory all of 3.0, 3.5, and 4e decided four encounters per day and it's a decent number.

I don't remember 2E being based round the encounter... but it has been a long time.

I only played 3E for less than a year, but d20 SW for about two years on and off... I don't recall any of those being based round the encounter, either.

The real problems come when (a) the default number is fairly extreme (6-8 encounters) and when they impose artificial pacing on the game - in 5e's case it's with the short rest being an hour long meaning that you're expected to have two one hour breaks in your adventuring day (union rules?) In 4e of course the short rest was five minutes - or long enough to catch your breath, clean your weapons, bandage your wounds, and grab some water. And take obvious loot.

Union rules! Good one!

But long or short (in duration, that is), the "short rest" really shouldn't be a rest IMO. I've never been fond of hit points being that "replenishable", personally.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't remember 2E being based round the encounter... but it has been a long time.

If you read the DMG it tried to be. Don't make me dig up the scans... (The mechanics on the other hand were almost the same as 1e)

Union rules! Good one!

But long or short (in duration, that is), the "short rest" really shouldn't be a rest IMO. I've never been fond of hit points being that "replenishable", personally.

I've never been fond of them being entirely non-replenishable. I've seen boxing matches and other cases of people pulling themselves on their feet - and bandages and first aid. Which is what you're assumed to be doing in a rest IMO.