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

[Maxperson]

sales

Adjusted for changes in the value of the dollar?

 

[Maxperson]

2e bankrupted a company and almost killed D&D... but not many people would call it a failure.

Because 2e didn't do that. Poor decisions about certain products being made during the edition did it.

it didn't loose. it won.
if your pull the 2nd best pitcher of all time after the 3rd inning and put the best pitcher of all time in his place then win that doesn't make the 2nd best pitcher of all time a failure...

The coach never made it to the Superbowl, so he was a failed coach, despite a winning record. As I said, you can be a failure without being bad.

 

[HammerMan]

Because 2e didn't do that. Poor decisions about certain products being made during the edition did it.

The coach never made it to the Superbowl, so he was a failed coach, despite a winning record. As I said, you can be a failure without being bad.

Yes good things can fail and bad things can succeed, but no D&D has ever failed. None. Not the one I hate the most and will not ever play again if I have my way, not the ones that I bearly played (and even then only after they were out of print), not the one I am playing now, not the one I love the most. Not the one I started with and even though it's flawed I have a soft spot for.

the coach did make it to the big game every single time (basic, 1e,2e,3e,pathfinder,4e,5e) and he mostlikly will every time going forward... however some times he won by 80, and some times by 5. winning by 5 isn't a failure just because other times you won by 80.

any company that makes RPG would beg borrow steal, maybe even kill to 'fail' the way 4e did. because it was still a HUGE successes just not enough of a success for wotc to be happy.

I know 2 small business (one my local gaming store) both run by friends/acquaintances I knew BEFORE the business.

One failed and went out of business (no gaming store anymore) it did so because it cost more money to run then it was making. It did this for a few years and in the end the only way to keep it open would be to sink more money in and not take pay to run it... this was not able to be done.

the second is NOW going strongish... it is in the black. the owners (there are 2) 1 works else were and took a small payout (not anywhere near enough to live on if he didn't have a 40+hr a week job) and the other takes a small pay (more then the 2 other players but still not alot) if he was living alone he would have issues but he lives with family and can meet his bills. However in year 1 they had to sink money and go into dept to open this... technicaly they are still in debt... BUT they are making more then the min payment on that debt AND paying the 1 and the 2 employees and the other owner is taking a bit of profit... if things stay as in (not better or worse) in a year or so they will be out of the debt and as such more money to profit...

that second store would never bring in enough for Walmart to keep it open... the profit is too small (although there) so it would fail for Walmart but succeed for a small new business. Not just would it be closed if it was walmart but I think such a small profit could count as a failur... however not every store walmart closes is a failure. some are sucsesses (and I am sure the two above small buisnesses would kill for 1/10 the profit a failing walmart has)

see big companies don't want good they don't want success they want growth.

you or me can be happy making $72,000 a year (there was a study done that is the magic number...don't know if it is true or not) however cost of things will go up of course (nothing ever costs less look at gas prices) so that number of 'happyness magic number' will have to go up too. however there is some set of it where X is what you need to live and Y is fun spendable money and Z is money for savings... right now (or when study was done) 72k is what X+Y+Z equaled... the thing is X and Y have to go up (I would say Z too) to match costs. (I have NO IDEA HOW TO DO THAT %...SOMEONE WAY SMARTER CAN BE MORE EXACT)

but for big companies X+ Y+ Z isn't enough... they need P+X+Y+Z... and P is greed. It is MORE then you need. it is growth. SO if they make X+Z+Y (adjusted for year) today, then tomorrow they have to make X+Z+Y+1, and the day after that X+Y+Z+2 and if they keep making X+Y+Z+P where P is an ever growing by 1 that is good. but it isn;t great they would rather P go up by 2 instead of 1... then 3 instead of 2.

WotC saw "missed sales" because there was a competition (for the first time in 7 years I think) that was making X+Y+Z... and even thought 4e was making X+Y+Z+P that P could be higher if they got some of the XYZ from that other company...


if I build a new computer that doesn't mean my old one failed... it means I wanted a new one. if I buy a new car that doesn't mean my old car failed... (Now maybe I had to get a new computer/car because my old one failed... but just getting a new one doesn't prove the old one failed)

 

[Maxperson]

Yes good things can fail and bad things can succeed, but no D&D has ever failed. None. Not the one I hate the most and will not ever play again if I have my way, not the ones that I bearly played (and even then only after they were out of print), not the one I am playing now, not the one I love the most. Not the one I started with and even though it's flawed I have a soft spot for.

the coach did make it to the big game every single time (basic, 1e,2e,3e,pathfinder,4e,5e) and he mostlikly will every time going forward... however some times he won by 80, and some times by 5. winning by 5 isn't a failure just because other times you won by 80.

any company that makes RPG would beg borrow steal, maybe even kill to 'fail' the way 4e did. because it was still a HUGE successes just not enough of a success for wotc to be happy.

I know 2 small business (one my local gaming store) both run by friends/acquaintances I knew BEFORE the business.

One failed and went out of business (no gaming store anymore) it did so because it cost more money to run then it was making. It did this for a few years and in the end the only way to keep it open would be to sink more money in and not take pay to run it... this was not able to be done.

the second is NOW going strongish... it is in the black. the owners (there are 2) 1 works else were and took a small payout (not anywhere near enough to live on if he didn't have a 40+hr a week job) and the other takes a small pay (more then the 2 other players but still not alot) if he was living alone he would have issues but he lives with family and can meet his bills. However in year 1 they had to sink money and go into dept to open this... technicaly they are still in debt... BUT they are making more then the min payment on that debt AND paying the 1 and the 2 employees and the other owner is taking a bit of profit... if things stay as in (not better or worse) in a year or so they will be out of the debt and as such more money to profit...

that second store would never bring in enough for Walmart to keep it open... the profit is too small (although there) so it would fail for Walmart but succeed for a small new business. Not just would it be closed if it was walmart but I think such a small profit could count as a failur... however not every store walmart closes is a failure. some are sucsesses (and I am sure the two above small buisnesses would kill for 1/10 the profit a failing walmart has)

see big companies don't want good they don't want success they want growth.

you or me can be happy making $72,000 a year (there was a study done that is the magic number...don't know if it is true or not) however cost of things will go up of course (nothing ever costs less look at gas prices) so that number of 'happyness magic number' will have to go up too. however there is some set of it where X is what you need to live and Y is fun spendable money and Z is money for savings... right now (or when study was done) 72k is what X+Y+Z equaled... the thing is X and Y have to go up (I would say Z too) to match costs. (I have NO IDEA HOW TO DO THAT %...SOMEONE WAY SMARTER CAN BE MORE EXACT)

but for big companies X+ Y+ Z isn't enough... they need P+X+Y+Z... and P is greed. It is MORE then you need. it is growth. SO if they make X+Z+Y (adjusted for year) today, then tomorrow they have to make X+Z+Y+1, and the day after that X+Y+Z+2 and if they keep making X+Y+Z+P where P is an ever growing by 1 that is good. but it isn;t great they would rather P go up by 2 instead of 1... then 3 instead of 2.

WotC saw "missed sales" because there was a competition (for the first time in 7 years I think) that was making X+Y+Z... and even thought 4e was making X+Y+Z+P that P could be higher if they got some of the XYZ from that other company...


if I build a new computer that doesn't mean my old one failed... it means I wanted a new one. if I buy a new car that doesn't mean my old car failed... (Now maybe I had to get a new computer/car because my old one failed... but just getting a new one doesn't prove the old one failed)

Listen. I get what you're saying, but this is a matter of perspective. A very successful athlete can make it to the Olympics, but if he doesn't win a medal, he's a failed Olympian. 4e failed to get what it needed to survive, so it's a failed edition in that regard, even if it was a good game(and a lot of people liked it).

 

[TheSword]

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 about nostalgia continued play? Oh wait no.

The Orr Group Industry Report Q1 2021 - Roll20 Blog

Spring is in the air: Flowers are blooming, the sun is shining, and dice are, in fact, rolling. Yes, Q1 has wrapped up, and we’re here to once again bring you the latest data on what systems are being played on Roll20. Before we get into it, though, let’s talk a little bit about that […]

blog.roll20.net

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.

Being less successful than a competitor isn’t failure…

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

 

[DND_Reborn]

People please stop the edition wars discussion or take it to a private conversation. Thank you!

 

[Lanefan]

It's not hit points.

It's the "These are your total HP for the 8 encounters" vs "These are your total HP for 1 encounter".

If there are nothing forcing multiple encounters a day, a fighters 25 HP for the day becomes 25 HP per fight and everything goes out of wack.

Not if getting those 25 hit points back for tomorrow is made much more difficult - instead of managing that resource only in the immediate here and now you have to manage with an eye to the future. That's IMO what the current edition(s) of the game have sadly lost.

 

[FrogReaver]

Listen. I get what you're saying, but this is a matter of perspective. A very successful athlete can make it to the Olympics, but if he doesn't win a medal, he's a failed Olympian. 4e failed to get what it needed to survive, so it's a failed edition in that regard, even if it was a good game(and a lot of people liked it).

Imo. The connotation of calling something people liked a failure is a bit much. While you are arguably technically right about the words - I think there’s a better way to say it.

4e simply didn’t reach expectations. I think everyone agrees on that and it’s exactly how you are using ‘failure’ except without any baggage. There were many things including the edition warring at the time, the radical change in mechanics, etc that caused that to happen. I think we all have a little different perspective of ehat caused 4e to fall short of expectations - especially when we rank the importance.

But perhaps most importantly - this thread isn’t really about 4e or 5e. The only reason it came up at all was as a justification for 5e’s magic system being popular compared to very different magic systems. IMO. While 5e selling better than 4e just isn’t really important to the discussion by itself, that fact coupled with the voiced complaints about 4e magic system from many d&d fans does lend credence to the view that 5e style magic is liked better than 4e style magic which itself lendscredence to the view that 5e is liked because of its magic system and not despite it. So IMO, Changing it drastically probably wouldn’t be a good idea for wotc. Home brew for a smaller audience is a different story though. Which does seem to be more where this thread has headed and so that’s probably a better thing for all of us to focus on than 4e vs 5e.

 

[Minigiant]

Not if getting those 25 hit points back for tomorrow is made much more difficult - instead of managing that resource only in the immediate here and now you have to manage with an eye to the future. That's IMO what the current edition(s) of the game have sadly lost.

Doesn't matter.

The point is that it is not a great mechanic for incremental room busting.

Having actual increments that is better for incremental play that management of bulk resources.


The reason why the LEvel 20 fighter is as good as his job as a level 14-15 wizard is because the Fighter's resources are still bulky and linear to the wizards quadratic increments in their resource.

Really 5e just lowered the wizards quadratic coefficient (spells per day) and increased fighter's constant (Action Surge)

Fighter still barely grow after level 12 until they hit 20. And that jump is smaller and less impactful

 

[Micah Sweet]

Doesn't matter.

The point is that it is not a great mechanic for incremental room busting.

Having actual increments that is better for incremental play that management of bulk resources.


The reason why the LEvel 20 fighter is as good as his job as a level 14-15 wizard is because the Fighter's resources are still bulky and linear to the wizards quadratic increments in their resource.

Really 5e just lowered the wizards quadratic coefficient (spells per day) and increased fighter's constant (Action Surge)

Fighter still barely grow after level 12 until they hit 20. And that jump is smaller and less impactful

Action surge is absolutely the most boring possible mechanic to increase the power of a class. It's just, "I attack more". That's why I'm cool with the Level Up fighter, which ditches action surge in favor of a huge passel of other stuff.