D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[EzekielRaiden]

The questions of whether the game is mechanically balanced across mainstream PC builds, and whether millions of people enjoy the game, seem almost completely unrelated (because millions of people play in a way in which mechanical balance doesn't really figure).

So I don't get why arguments about the second are put forward in response to arguments about the first.

Because the central tenet of a significant amount of the opposition to considering game-design in D&D is that, if something sells, it necessarily must be good, and if it is good, then it must be well-made.

 

[Minigiant]

Plausible, needs more than anecdotal backing.

The age demographics of 5e and 5es success basically that that many of not the majority of people who filled out the 2013 survey are not the majority of today's 5e players.

 

[Minigiant]

Of course instead of playing the game as designed you can re-design it, but I prefer the easier approach (because I am not a designer).

Sure but that is not want I've said.

The majority of the 5e player base is under 40 and has a very different genders and racial demographic.

5E was literally not designed for the audience that plays it today. Today's audience did not fill in the original surveys.

 

[payn]

The age demographics of 5e and 5es success basically that that many of not the majority of people who filled out the 2013 survey are not the majority of today's 5e players.

I'm talking about the part they don't want numerous combats a day. Not sold on the idea.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm talking about the part they don't want numerous combats a day. Not sold on the idea.

WOTC, in their 2024 playtest, are giving every class ways to Nova out in 1-3 encounters.

They would not be doing this without data for it.

WOTC realize that many tables today run many adventure in days that are not contained in a dungeon and therefore their math assumption of 25 to 35 combat rounds a day does not work as a general case.

 

[Oofta]

Sure but that is not want I've said.

The majority of the 5e player base is under 40 and has a very different genders and racial demographic.

5E was literally not designed for the audience that plays it today. Today's audience did not fill in the original surveys.

They're having input now with the surveys and feedback for the 2024 edition. Yet I don't see any major changes. The latest bastion UA is probably the biggest change I've seen.

As always, I think the DMG needs a big rewrite, but that's part of the plan. So again just because the game doesn't do something you personally want doesn't mean there's broad-based demand for it. Even though many players don't pay attention to the surveys, people who want change are more likely to provide feedback, many people are just happy with the game as is.

 

[Minigiant]

Yet I don't see any major changes.

You missed it.
Read the comment above yours.

 

[Clint_L]

Maybe that imbalance is the reason people don't go past lvl. 12?

It’s not. We already know why most campaigns (96%+) don’t go past level 9, let alone 12, per WotC, and it is overwhelmingly due to attrition given the pace of advancement versus the difficulty of keeping one group together, one story going, and one DM interested and willing to keep at it. High campaign attrition is built into the structure of the game; for practical purposes levels 10+ mostly exist for aspirational reasons.

 

[MGibster]

Maybe that imbalance is the reason people don't go past lvl. 12?

I won't discount the possibility this is a factor, but I don't believe it's the primary reason. The higher level the party is the more unwieldy things start to get for the DM. All the PC's opponents have more hit points & abilitie and it's a drag to keep track of it all, challenging the party becomes more difficult because they can so easily circumvent obstacles, and of course there's the time it takes just to get to high level (assuming you don't just start out there of course).

 

[Sacrosanct]

They're about the game. Every one you describe is about the game. Insulting the work is not insulting the artist or the viewer.

I don’t think it’s that simple.

“I really like this game”
“Why? It’s an apology edition that is badly designed meant to cater to the lowest common denominator”

Surely you can see how someone making that first statement could take that personally.

I mean, just look at how many people got/get upset if someone calls 4e an MMO video game.