D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[Mort]

Well, let's see.


Sales = quality; other games sell less, so they are clearly lower quality, while D&D sells more, and is thus better quality. "A better...play experience".


Popularity (which, for products, really is pretty much identical to sales) = quality. If it is played a lot, it must be good, otherwise people wouldn't play it.


"5e is already the best it can be because it makes ridiculous amounts of money. It is hubris to argue that changes any individual person likes could improve how much money 5e made, therefore, 5e is the best it can be." Again, sales = quality.

I welcome any corrections the above posters would like to make that disclaim the connection between popularity/sales and quality.

Mort said:
5e has made more money than any edition of D&D ever, it's still making gobs of money. Saying they would have made EVEN MORE money if they'd just done X (which happens to align with "my" tastes) is pure unsupportable hubris.

There is a reason they abandoned modular design (which is essentially what you are advocating for) - and the decision (though I personally am sad about it) seems to be working quite well for them.

For My part. I absolutely did not say that sales mean quality! I was responding to the claim that "had they just done X they would have made even more money..." - a completely different argument.

Though I will also add - 5e IS a quality game/product, which is completely separate from the "it's made a lot of money..." argument. It has, IMO, some serious blind spots and ways it can be improved upon. But to claim it is not a quality product (which by NO MEANS implies perfection, or even close) is a pretty tall order.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Though I will also add - 5e IS a quality game/product, which is completely separate from the "it's made a lot of money..." argument. It has, IMO, some serious blind spots and ways it can be improved upon. But to claim it is not a quality product (which by NO MEANS implies perfection, or even close) is a pretty tall order.

My problem is, this "5e is a quality product" argument is then used to shut down every possible criticism. Fighters have problems? Sure as hell don't, otherwise people wouldn't play them! 5e's a quality product, it wouldn't do that wrong. Encounter math is messed up? Nah, can't be, 5e is a good product with good content.

The one and only concession I've ever been able to wrangle out of anyone on that front is the DMG. People used to defend it. Eventually, however, they recognized that yeah, okay, the 5e DMG is pretty bad. Of course, this then gets appended with "but everyone knows that" (or worse, "everyone always knew that"), which is incredibly frustrating considering no, actually, lots and lots of people defended it for years, even though nothing about it has changed!

Are there quality things in 5e? Yes. I thought that was a sufficient truism to never actually need to be spelled out, but here we are.

Does that mean 5e made no mistakes?

Because I'm getting quite sick of being told that things can't have mistakes while being widely used, or frequently purchased, or whatever else. And that's exactly what people have told me, for years and years, on this very subject.

I want to fix what I see as mistakes. Some of them can't be fixed--there's nothing you can do to fix 5e's CR system, you'd have to nuke things to the ground and start over and that's far too dramatic a change for anything short of a new edition, which would be a very bad idea right now. Some of them, however, can. Mearls recognized that the Fighter has no identity years ago. Crawford recognizes that Warlocks and Fighters were designed with mechanical expectations that simply don't work with the way actual people usually play 5e. 5.5e is, in part, the result of those and other recognized mistakes in 5e's design.

For another example, one rather more personal for me, dragonborn. You don't rewrite a race three times if it was well-made the first time. It's been known since the first year or so of 5e that dragonborn were massively under-powered compared to most other races, and yet dragonborn are quite popular (IIRC, topping out at 4th most popular non-human race, behind half-elf, elf, and tiefling). But trying to get anyone to recognize that there could maybe, possibly, be an issue with the design of the 5e dragonborn race was like pulling teeth.

 

[NotAYakk]

When the game is analysed at this level of abstraction, I don't see the difference between accumulation of danger over more than 1 encounter, in virtue of attrition and accumulation of danger over more than 1 round of action, in virtue of attrition.

Those two models - we could call them, at least roughly, AD&D/5e vs 4e - have different implications for other features of play, but not - as best I can see - for threat posed to PCs.

Oh, feedback!

The danger in a single round or in a single encounter produces feedback within the encounter. PCs have to flee from the actual encounter - which, mechanically, is insanely lethal -- if things don't go their way. Or the DM has to fudge it.

On the other hand, with danger accumulating between encounters, PCs get plenty of feedback that they are in trouble. Fleeing between encounters tends to be much easier, and the consequences are usually of the form of changes to the shape of the world and story, and not in the form of a PC dead.

Ie, if it takes 4 encounters to drain PCs of all of their HP and spells and abilities, and after 2 encounters things are going poorly (they are all at 1/3 HP and 1/3 spells, having used up that much in each of their previous encounters), the Players have a really solid feedback that the next encounter would be possibly fatal unless it is no harder. And after that encounter, with everyone nearly completely exhausted (even if they kept losses to 1/4 of resources), the next encounter (which is seemingly no easier) should send the PCs panicking.

But if it takes 4 rounds for this to happen, after round 2 the PCs are on the ropes (at 1/3 of max HP and having used 2/3 of their abilities), fleeing using a D&D like game engine is likely to just result in a TPK, or at best under 50% of the party escaping (unless they use a magical "get out of doom free" card like a single-action teleport).

I see a bunch of anecdotes about DMs feeling they have to pull punches to prevent PCs from being wiped regularly. And that is going to happen when you try to be challenging with 1 encounter/day and NOT use attrition mechanics.

Meanwhile, if you do use attrition mechanics, the PCs (and hence the players) will be making informed decisions to risk everything by pushing on (because of the feedback).

Player agency is about providing feedback and meaningful choices. Attrition based gameplay does exactly that - the stakes (of whatever motivates the PCs to adventure in this situation) vs the risks (which are being played out by attrition of resources).

When it is the difficulty of individual encounters, PCs really don't have great resources to measure how hard an encounter is (short of player's metagaming). Like, "you see 20 half-orcs" - they could be using the stats of CR 1/8 guards, CR 1/2 orcs, or CR 2 berzerkers. The same game fiction could be a suitable encounter for a group of Level 2-3 PCs, the other is an encounter for a group of level 10-15 PCs.

 

[payn]

But the bolded statement is that argument. You are, quite literally, saying that this path, and this path alone, are the reason why it is financially successful. The only way your claim works is if it is bidirectional: this design caused success (which is inarguable, 5e has clearly made money!), but also success could only come from this design (which is extremely arguable).

The designers have already said that changes need to be made. They wouldn't put the money, time, and effort into making 5.5e, regardless of whatever names they want to use to dance around it, unless they felt changes were necessary.

Further, as I argued multiple times above and in other threads, the changes are not severe. This mischaracterization--that there needs to be some horrific massive overhaul that would totally replace huge chunks of the game--is a big part of why these discussions always go round and round and round. Someone (sometimes me!) asks for improvements, and gets painted as having posted the ninety-five theses. I would, of course, prefer bigger changes rather than smaller ones, and anyone who's known me for any length of time on here knows this, but I have to be pragmatic. That's the only reason I have any interest in 5e at all (well, other than helping friends navigate its rules). Finding games of any interest to me that aren't 5e D&D is nigh-on impossible, so I must take what I can get. That is why I provided actual, concrete suggestions for what I would consider an absolute bare-minimum, "ragged edge of acceptability" type solution to the problem. It isn't a solution I'm happy with, but it's a solution I can tolerate, designed to conform to the requirements @pemerton described above (straightforward, easy-to-use, compatible with nigh-exclusive focus on GM fiat, well-connected to the Fighter concept as a gritty hero rather than "The Flash," etc.), albeit not exactly knowingly, since I did so before those requirements were posted.

You may note that almost no one actually responded to those concrete examples. There's a reason I often don't bother--almost nobody is interested in that kind of conversation.


Okay. The designers disagree with you. That's literally why we have "2024 5e." You don't put out a video from one of your lead designers explicitly saying that certain classes fall behind because people fail to take the expected numbers of rests, if there are no faults present in the design.

Of course, this just loops back into the above, the either-or, black and white thinking problem. Either the game is absolutely perfect and making any changes at all would destroy its success utterly and irrevocably, or it is the dirt-worst most rotten garbage ever penned by man. It can't be a decent-ish product that mostly lucked into fantastical success by doing some things well and some things poorly. It has to either be the greatest thing since sliced bread or the worst thing since rancid mayonnaise--and the reason given is invariably "because a lot of people played it" (hence, popularity = quality) or "because it sold a lot" (hence, sales = quality.)

You are taking every argument (including your own) to extremes. I'm saying changes are an unknown risk at a time when the need is low. Lots of folks these days taking Dev quotes as absolute proof of their own opinions as facts and its rather unfortunate. Not every argument has to be a objective suplex into utter submission.

 

[NotAYakk]

Evidence suggests otherwise. Like, I dunno, the designers explicitly telling us that Warlocks were falling behind because actual players don't take enough short rests for Warlocks to keep up.

That, right there, indicates that the assumptions baked into the math above are what the designers actually assumed when making 5e.

They assumed 6+ encounters of ~3 rounds each (or 5ish of not-quite-4 rounds each, or the like.) They translated, as they have explicitly told us, crowd-control/debuff/etc. effects into a hypothetical damage-equivalent, and then used those numbers to model the DPR of characters.

Call it what bad names you like. This is the math 5e used. And it doesn't work with the way people actually do play this game at real tables, in real life, right now. The majority of players play 5e under assumptions which make casters more powerful than non-casters.

That's not a white-room argument. That is the truth, backed up by observation, actual statements from designers, and theoretical modeling. Do with it what you will.

Sure, but the ratio in terms of damage is not that large.

And it really isn't hard for a DM to compensate for caster supremacy.

Give a spellcaster a staff of power. Awesome item.

Give a martial the thunderblade. Sword grants the ability to fly at 60' speed, +2 attack and damage, adds +3d6 lighting damage, grants lightning and thunder resistance. As a reaction to someone else dealing lightning damage to someone within 60' can redirect it to a new target as a ranged weapon attack.

And this isn't theoretical. I've seen DMs hand out rather insanely good magical weapons, and (in comparison) relatively tame tools for spellcasters (well not that exact sword, but rough equivalents).

5e flattens a lot of the insane things 3e spellcasters could do. 5e spellcasters can still do pretty great things, but many of them require specific reading of specific spells that (if abused) a DM can easily rule away, unlike 3e where if you ruled out one broken combo another 200 waited in the wings.

And in playing with actual people, I've seen both martials and spellcasters dominate combat. The specific builds seem to matter more than the class. Probably the optimization ceiling for spellcasters is much higher, but that only matters if people are optimizing for it.

Mostly it has been played with 1-4 encounters per day, with 0-3 short rests.

And mostly, the "I pull out big guns" from spellcasters has seemed impressive, and "I kill things fast" from damage oriented martials has seemed impressive. Sometimes a poorly optimized PC was lackluster; but honestly, that was a Ranger/Monk/Rogue/Artificer, as those 4 classes seem to be a bit lackluster.

 

[M_Natas]

But obviously for a lot of RPGers a RPG is not a "mathematical structure designed to achieve a specific end".

The discussion about mechanical balance makes sense on its own terms, but the attempt to generalise it to quality of design or playability of the game - from either side - seems fraught to me.

But you need mechanical balance to have a good quality in any multiplayer game.
Yes, players don't need to realise that mechanical balance is important in order to enjoy a game. But the moment it gets unbalanced (enough) the enjoyment of the game will vanish.

Or rephrased: as long as a multiplayer game is balanced (enough) between the player options, players will not and don't need to care about mechanical balance. But when it is not balanced, people start to care. Because than the game will not feel fair. And people care the uttermost about being treated unfairly.

Like all the players here who played fighters at a table with a playstyle that penalises the fighter abilities and rewards spellcasters.
Like everybody who plays Tekken against me when I pick Eddie and they will not get a punch in.

In single player games balance between player options doesn't matter as much, because the computer doesn't feel, if something is unfair or not. Like BG3 - that game can be utterly unbalanced if you want it to be. You have and can make overpowered combos that will One Hit a lot of encounters or even complete dungeons. And everybody finds it hilarious. But if you would allow such things at the table, it would break the game.

Mechanical game balance is a necessary for a good quality of multiplayer game. It needs to be there. If it is missing, the rest of the design doesn't really matter.

 

[Mort]

My problem is, this "5e is a quality product" argument is then used to shut down every possible criticism. Fighters have problems? Sure as hell don't, otherwise people wouldn't play them! 5e's a quality product, it wouldn't do that wrong. Encounter math is messed up? Nah, can't be, 5e is a good product with good content.

The one and only concession I've ever been able to wrangle out of anyone on that front is the DMG. People used to defend it. Eventually, however, they recognized that yeah, okay, the 5e DMG is pretty bad. Of course, this then gets appended with "but everyone knows that" (or worse, "everyone always knew that"), which is incredibly frustrating considering no, actually, lots and lots of people defended it for years, even though nothing about it has changed!

Are there quality things in 5e? Yes. I thought that was a sufficient truism to never actually need to be spelled out, but here we are.

Does that mean 5e made no mistakes?

Because I'm getting quite sick of being told that things can't have mistakes while being widely used, or frequently purchased, or whatever else. And that's exactly what people have told me, for years and years, on this very subject.

Personally, I've argued far and wide that fighters could use a lot of improvement in the non-combat pillars (including in this very thread)- so no argument there from me.

BUT

Fighter has been shown to be not just popular, but THE MOST popular class in 5e (I included some data earlier in the thread). So WoTC would be foolish to seriously mess with that. As in, including a big change in the fighter class in the main books? Highly unlikely to happen, why would WoTC risk it!

Could they add some serious support in other documents, sure, but again, it doesn't seem to be worth it for them.

Support for the fighter will likely have to come from 3rd party (and has already, such as Level Up).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Give a martial the thunderblade. Sword grants the ability to fly at 60' speed, +2 attack and damage, adds +3d6 lighting damage, grants lightning and thunder resistance. As a reaction to someone else dealing lightning damage to someone within 60' can redirect it to a new target as a ranged weapon attack.

Based on the way actual DMs talk about magic items? I find this solution completely inadequate to the task.

They talk like giving players magic items of any kind is anathema. Verboten. The absolute worst thing you could ever do to a campaign. How they crowed about magic items being optional in 5e, so now they could finally get to doing what they always wanted to do, never giving out any.

And this isn't theoretical. I've seen DMs hand out rather insanely good magical weapons, and (in comparison) relatively tame tools for spellcasters (well not that exact sword, but rough equivalents).

All I can say is that it is theoretical to me.

5e flattens a lot of the insane things 3e spellcasters could do.

Never said otherwise.

Personally, I've argued far and wide that fighters could use a lot of improvement in the non-combat pillars (including in this very thread)- so no argument there from me.

BUT

Fighter has been shown to be not just popular, but THE MOST popular class in 5e (I included some data earlier in the thread). So WoTC would be foolish to seriously mess with that. As in, including a big change in the fighter class in the main books? Highly unlikely to happen, why would WoTC risk it!

Could they add some serious support in other documents, sure, but again, it doesn't seem to be worth it for them.

Support for the fighter will likely have to come from 3rd party (and has already, such as Level Up).

Fighter was the most popular class in every edition of D&D. There's only been one time a class has meaningfully threatened Fighter supremacy. This occurred in 4e.

That class was named "Warlord."

You are taking every argument (including your own) to extremes. I'm saying changes are an unknown risk at a time when the need is low. Lots of folks these days taking Dev quotes as absolute proof of their own opinions as facts and its rather unfortunate. Not every argument has to be a objective suplex into utter submission.

All risks are, by definition, at least partially unknown. If they weren't, they would be simply costs. There is also risk in doing absolutely nothing. WotC is embarked; they have to make some decision, even if that decision is to not do anything.

That it might have costs is not a reason to exclude one option and consider others--because all options, including not picking an option, might have costs.

 

[M_Natas]

Oh, feedback!

The danger in a single round or in a single encounter produces feedback within the encounter. PCs have to flee from the actual encounter - which, mechanically, is insanely lethal -- if things don't go their way. Or the DM has to fudge it.

On the other hand, with danger accumulating between encounters, PCs get plenty of feedback that they are in trouble. Fleeing between encounters tends to be much easier, and the consequences are usually of the form of changes to the shape of the world and story, and not in the form of a PC dead.

Ie, if it takes 4 encounters to drain PCs of all of their HP and spells and abilities, and after 2 encounters things are going poorly (they are all at 1/3 HP and 1/3 spells, having used up that much in each of their previous encounters), the Players have a really solid feedback that the next encounter would be possibly fatal unless it is no harder. And after that encounter, with everyone nearly completely exhausted (even if they kept losses to 1/4 of resources), the next encounter (which is seemingly no easier) should send the PCs panicking.

But if it takes 4 rounds for this to happen, after round 2 the PCs are on the ropes (at 1/3 of max HP and having used 2/3 of their abilities), fleeing using a D&D like game engine is likely to just result in a TPK, or at best under 50% of the party escaping (unless they use a magical "get out of doom free" card like a single-action teleport).

I see a bunch of anecdotes about DMs feeling they have to pull punches to prevent PCs from being wiped regularly. And that is going to happen when you try to be challenging with 1 encounter/day and NOT use attrition mechanics.

Meanwhile, if you do use attrition mechanics, the PCs (and hence the players) will be making informed decisions to risk everything by pushing on (because of the feedback).

Player agency is about providing feedback and meaningful choices. Attrition based gameplay does exactly that - the stakes (of whatever motivates the PCs to adventure in this situation) vs the risks (which are being played out by attrition of resources).

When it is the difficulty of individual encounters, PCs really don't have great resources to measure how hard an encounter is (short of player's metagaming). Like, "you see 20 half-orcs" - they could be using the stats of CR 1/8 guards, CR 1/2 orcs, or CR 2 berzerkers. The same game fiction could be a suitable encounter for a group of Level 2-3 PCs, the other is an encounter for a group of level 10-15 PCs.

Thank you! That is absolutely right. Having ressource attrition at the strategic core of the game mechanics makes the game playable on a strategic level.

If all your powers reset every encounter you can't really make strategic decisions for the long run of the game. The GM can't do it, the players can't do it. It would all boil down to tactical decision making in one encounter and fights would only matter if they threaten to TPK the party (on a mechanical level).

At the same time any rest mechanic that allows to regain 100% of all spend ressources (aka Long Rest) can be misused to remove that strategic aspect of the game (aka 5 Minute Work Day). And I think even the Gritty Realism Variant Rules allow this misuse to a certain degree, because they also reset the ressources to a 100%, after you reached the threshold of 7 days (instead of 8 hours).
Of course from the perspective of a player to always go for the 100% reset of ressources makes sense from an optimising viewpoint, but it removes a lot from the game.
That's why I proposed (in another thread: https://www.enworld.org/threads/lon...ty-realism-variant-rules.700415/#post-9162672 ) a Gradual ressource recovery system.

Because if you only recover 15 or 20 or even 30% of you ressources like spellslots and hit points per a long rest, suddenly the strategic aspect is back.
Because now it matters with how many ressource left you start your rest.

At the moment the most efficient thing to do is for example to use up all spellslots before a long rest with spells like goodberry, sending, healing or anything else.

Also Healing Magic suddenly matters more, because you don't reset to max HP after every long rest, making healing magic in 5e mostly useless outside of some specific circumstances (dropping g to 0 HP).

 

[Mort]

Fighter was the most popular class in every edition of D&D. There's only been one time a class has meaningfully threatened Fighter supremacy. This occurred in 4e.

That class was named "Warlord."

Not sure what you are saying. Are you saying Warlords were as popular as fighters during 4e? Because I don't remember that being the case (glad to be proven wrong).