D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[Tony Vargas]

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).

one L&L poll I recall leading up to Next did ask respondents their favorite class, fighter came in comfortably 1st, followed by wizard, rogue, something else I don't remember and Cleric. (it stuck with me that Cleric was the only one of the Big 4 not in the top 4). Warlord came in middle of the pack. Druid may have been last - it usually is (it was my favorite class back in the day) - but I don't have a clear memory of the whole ranking.

I cannot think of another WotC poll or playtest survey question that asked about the Warlord. AFAIR, after the first playtest packet, no poll or playtest survey asked about any content introduced by 4e. (The very first playtest survey asked about a number of spells, all the 4e-introduced spells on the list got high marks and are in 5e, notably Healing Word.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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).

Yes, I am saying that. I'm also saying that Fighter was the most popular class in 3e--the edition that is generally agreed to have made a Fighter that really, well and truly, sucked.

The "warrior who fights with thews and grit" archetype is popular. It has always been popular. It will always be popular. You have to put out something worse than the 3e Fighter for it to stop being popular. Also: offer the option of "warrior who fights with strategy and tactics," and it turns out that, too, is a very popular archetype, most likely regardless of how good or bad it is (though it certainly didn't hurt that the Warlord was very competent in 4e, and specifically, that it matched the ways actual players wanted to play 4e.)

Both points are key here. Fighters will be popular even with poor implementation. Hence, their popularity is not a useful guide for whether there are flaws that need correcting. Also, there are similar archetypes (nobody denies Warlords are similar to Fighters, they're both Martial for goodness' sake) which also get a very big positive response. It would seem, then, that there is a high demand for the Martial archetype, and that some fans are more picky than others about how that archetype is expressed. Surely, then, if there are those who don't really care that much about the mechanics (up to a point, as @pemerton noted), and others who care a lot, so long as it isn't a ginormous investment of resources, why wouldn't we want to please both groups? Their interests are mostly orthogonal, and making both happy should mean more sales.

That was sort of the point of making a "big tent" edition...another of the talking points about 5e that got quietly abandoned over the edition's run, but held up as a rallying flag for its boosters for years and years.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

one L&L poll I recall leading up to Next did ask respondents their favorite class, fighter came in comfortably 1st, followed by wizard, rogue, something else I don't remember and Cleric. (it stuck with me that Cleric was the only one of the Big 4 not in the top 4). Warlord came in middle of the pack. Druid may have been last - it usually is - but I don't have a clear memory.

Druid was in last place, yes. Warlord was on the low end of middle, but still middle.

I cannot think of another WotC poll or playtest survey question that asked about the Warlord. AFAIR, after the first playtest packet, no poll or playtest survey asked about any content introduced by 4e. (The very first playtest survey asked about a number of spells, all the 4e-introduced spells on the list got high marks and are in 5e, notably Healing Word.)

IIRC at least one of them wasn't a poll conducted by WotC, and of course any of this would be nearly 15 years ago now. Make of them what you will, of course.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, I am saying that. I'm also saying that Fighter was the most popular class in 3e--the edition that is generally agreed to have made a Fighter that really, well and truly, sucked.

I was a zealous fighter defender back in the Gleemax days of Fighter SUX threads, but I have to admit the 3.5e Tier 5 ranking was fair.
But, I maintain that it was a very elegant design that worked very well with 3.5 style multi-classing - or would have, if any other class had also worked very well with it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I was a zealous fighter defender back in the Gleemax days of Fighter SUX threads, but I have to admit the 3.5e Tier 5 ranking was fair.
But, I maintain that it was a very elegant design that worked very well with 3.5 style multi-classing - or would have, if any other class had also worked very well with it.

That's fair. The 3e Fighter could have been good, in a game where you have something like the Spheres of Power magic system (if you're familiar with that one) and a much, much, MUCH more robust and better-designed feat system. SoP forces spellcasters to be focused, they can't afford to go willy-nilly grabbing everything they like from every sphere imaginable.

Part of why the 3e Fighter sucks is that 3e feats mostly suck (though often the ones that don't are stupidly, insanely good), and combat feats were notorious for sucking more than usual. Building a class around combat feats requires good combat feats. (Which would be part of how the Spheres of Might stuff--the martial equivalent to the Spheres of Power--fixes the problems of 3.x/PF. The other part being "absolutely yeet the full attack action INTO THE SUN and move to Standard-only Special Attack Actions, which allow movement while still doing your best damage.)

 

[pemerton]

But you need mechanical balance to have a good quality in any multiplayer game.

If "good quality" means a good game play experience, then I don't think this is true in general. As I posted upthread, there is a widespread approach to D&D play in which the GM is the dominant determinant of the play experience, and the mechanics/maths of the game are secondary at best.

When D&D is played in that fashion, mechanical balance is not necessary for good play.

the moment it gets unbalanced (enough) the enjoyment of the game will vanish.

Sure. As I posted upthread,

For these play groups, the mathematical/mechanical balance between classes doesn't really matter (provided it's not so bonkers that the descriptors become unworkable) as all the real action in adjudicating outcomes is via the GM.

But the maths in the OP does not show that the mechanical imbalance in 5e D&D is bonkers enough to undermine the descriptors on the PC sheet.

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.

This is an empirical prediction. The evidence is that there are many 5e players who do not feel that the game is unfair. And I think the reason for that is pretty clear - it's because they are not playing at tables where the maths of the game is the main determinant of outcomes. They are playing at tables where the GM is the main determinant of outcomes.

I believe they have focused on that to the exclusion of almost everything else, and as a result, consider that "uber alles" approach bad design.

I've neither played nor GMed even a moment of 5e D&D. And I don't anticipate doing so in the future. I'm not carrying a torch for 5e. If anyone asked me for advice on how to get a great D&D experience, I'd recommend either 4e D&D (if you want to see D&D's promise of class-and-race-based heroic fantasy fully realised), or Torchbearer (if you want to see D&D's promise of class-and-race based gritty dungeoncrawling fantasy fully realised).

But I don't see what it adds to the discourse about 5e to try and argue that its mathematical imbalance is a sign of bad design. It's a sign of mathematical imbalance, and that seems enough to make the point. There are ways that the mathematical imbalance can be reduced. Some of those ways might be overall improvements to the game. But the only way to make that second judgement is to have regard to the other constraints on the game's design - and once that is done, it already follows that we must reject any straightforward equation of mathematical imbalance and poor design.

 

[pemerton]

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.

The idea that defeat and/or retreat must be lethal isn't inherent to D&D in my view, though it is part of the "AD&D" approach.

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).

There can be non-resource based strategic considerations, which can be made independently of the game's resource recovery framework.

 

[pemerton]

if there are those who don't really care that much about the mechanics (up to a point, as @pemerton noted), and others who care a lot, so long as it isn't a ginormous investment of resources, why wouldn't we want to please both groups? Their interests are mostly orthogonal, and making both happy should mean more sales.

I don't think it's quite that straightforward.

It's obvious that giving limited-use abilities to fighters, while maintaining the "feel" that many enjoy, is tricky.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think it's quite that straightforward.

It's obvious that giving limited-use abilities to fighters, while maintaining the "feel" that many enjoy, is tricky.

I have not found it to be that difficult to come up with concepts. The devil is in the details, of course, but the proposal I offered wasn't offensive enough to warrant comment from anyone, other than the person I directly spoke to IIRC, which is pretty major praising with faint damnation in this context.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Regardless of whether you take something personally, don't make personal attacks against your fellow posters or make the discussion personal, especially heated ones. The mods have been pretty clear to all of us at one point or another that it is that simple. Don't do it.