D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[James Gasik]

The fighter has historically been the most popular class in D&D regardless of its relative mechanical strength. The fighter, for example, was probably the most popular class even in 3e, when it was a Tier 4 class.

I can attest to this, I saw many people play Fighters in 3e (or at least dip Fighter) because of "all the Feats!"- despite the fact that most of the Feats were garbage until you met strict prerequisites. Heck, I played several myself, since I would often find some niche Feat that I really wanted to build around, lol, especially in Complete Adventurer and the PHB2.

I did always want to try a Tome of Battle class, but I never got the chance before nobody wanted to play 3.5 anymore in my area.

Heck, I even played a Fighter in PF1e for much the same reason, those crazy combat Feats, lol.

And as for AD&D, sure, Fighter was a strong character choice, you had great survivability, and while there were better classes for doing what Fighter did, they usually had crazy ability score prerequisites or roleplay restrictions that kept Fighter from being truly overshadowed.

I saw a lot of people trying out Fighter in 4e, without realizing it wasn't actually the "beat up people with big weapons" class...and some kept trying to optimize their melee damage even when they did figure it out, even when the Barbarian was available (heck, I saw a few people play Warlords with the same mindset!).

The class fantasy remains strong, even though I don't really believe there's a lot about the class that's special in 5e. At this point, I don't have any real desire to play another Fighter (at least, not a single-classed one), but maybe if a really neat subclass is printed I might change my mind.

 

[NotAYakk]

Y'know, 5e was meant to be an edition that would work for more play styles than prior eds had. It turns out, mathematically, that it 'works' in so far as comparative DPR goes (which is, like, combat, so not necessarily more broadly) for a tightly proscribed range of pacing. That's a bad thing for the self-proclaimed 'big tent' edition, as styles that use any other pacing are going to experience imbalances.

Does it work for some styles of play that naturally fall into or outright force that pacing? Well, as far as DPR goes, it should. And, some folks have reported that, for them, it does.

OK.

From my perspective, a 30% different in damage output isn't that large.

Especially if the damage looks different.

Two characters, one doing 30% more damage than the other, are peers.

So, the damage model that "doesn't work" -- where we have a 5 minute adventuring day, and the wizard does 30% more damage than the fighter -- the two characters are peers in combat.

As peers in combat, itemization (magic items, which is explicitly a DM tool in 5e), optimization (the degree to which a player tweaks their character), luck (literally how the dice land) and situation (the tactical details) can easily trump the difference.

And sure, out of combat the wizard's (or other spellcaster) trump card abilities is pretty large. But it is also not completely insane; as an example, a single uncommon magic item (winged boots) can make a L 5 fighter have as much or more magical utility than a typical L 5 wizard.

Sure, you can throw those boots on the wizard as well: but the point is that their difference can't be that huge when a single modest item bridges the gap.

And the two types of character are going to appeal to very different players.

And yes, this does mean there would have been piles of room to increase fighter utility and 5 minute day power output. But imperfection is not unplayable!

Note that I've said nothing about DM fiat - I'm just looking at the variation between character types, and seeing how large it is compared to other game elements.

This does mean that an optimizer who wants to optimize maximally may end up playing a wizard and not a fighter, exaggerating the imbalance; however I'd argue this only really matters at the highest end of optimization, when you start doing mass buffed minionmancy, nuclear wizards, or the like, because an optimizer maxing out a non-spellcaster can still get pretty far.

I can attest to this, I saw many people play Fighters in 3e (or at least dip Fighter) because of "all the Feats!"- despite the fact that most of the Feats were garbage until you met strict prerequisites. Heck, I played several myself, since I would often find some niche Feat that I really wanted to build around, lol, especially in Complete Adventurer and the PHB2.

I did always want to try a Tome of Battle class, but I never got the chance before nobody wanted to play 3.5 anymore in my area.

Heck, I even played a Fighter in PF1e for much the same reason, those crazy combat Feats, lol.

And as for AD&D, sure, Fighter was a strong character choice, you had great survivability, and while there were better classes for doing what Fighter did, they usually had crazy ability score prerequisites or roleplay restrictions that kept Fighter from being truly overshadowed.

I saw a lot of people trying out Fighter in 4e, without realizing it wasn't actually the "beat up people with big weapons" class...and some kept trying to optimize their melee damage even when they did figure it out, even when the Barbarian was available (heck, I saw a few people play Warlords with the same mindset!).

The class fantasy remains strong, even though I don't really believe there's a lot about the class that's special in 5e. At this point, I don't have any real desire to play another Fighter (at least, not a single-classed one), but maybe if a really neat subclass is printed I might change my mind.

Oh, 4e Fighter ended up as a pretty good beat them up class.

Its feat support grew and grew. As a PHB1 class and a popular one it got more feats than any other martial. And some of those feats where better than average; when you cherry picked the best ones, it got insane.

High-optimization in 4e generally involves spreading your menu of options as wide as possible then picking the best from them. This was made worse by the tendency for 4e designers to see a power gap and patch it with a feat (like the avenger "add attribute to damage" paragon tier feat) that you could poach.

Sometimes this meant you leaned hybrid. Like, a hybrid ranger-fighter two hand axe build that grabbed per-tap abilities from fighter (the per-encounter +2 damage/-2 AC stance). It took off-hand and interrupt attacks from both; but the majority of its feats where fighter ones. The main thing it got from ranger was a single at-will power: twin strike.

---

A problem I have with the 5e fighter is that until level 11, its only strong "thing" is action surge It gets fighting styles; but other classes get them at level 2. It gets extra attack at the same level. It gets second wind (which is strong, don't get me wrong: stronger than barbarian d12 HD) but much weaker than Rage or even Uncanny Dodge on a Rogue.

It would be nice (to me) if each of the martial classes fought differently.

Paladin: They have Smites. Lean into it.
Barbarian: Rage/Reckless makes them feel different.
Rogue: Sneak Attack does a good job of making it feel different.
Monk: The extra punch and flurry almost does it. Stunning strike is a bit too spammable.

Ranger: Literally featureless at level 1. Hunter's Mark isn't enough really.
Fighter: Action Surge is the only different feel before level 11.

4e made Rangers feel different with tap-spam. Fighters got a mark and battlefield control.

It could be fun trying to make level 4 martial characters all fight differently within a power budget limited by existing classes (I think Reckless Raging Barbarian with PAM+GWM is the current power budget cap for level 4?)

 

[nevin]

But coming back to TTRPGs - yeah, I would quit any game where the DM would create 1000 Orcs out of thin air to punish us for resting or where a red ancient dragon would attack us 1st Level Characters out of nowhere.

and here we are. The consequences argument of the world go's on around the PC's when they stop in thier magical hut has now turned into a DM attacking 1st level characters with a Red Dragon. Or armies appearing out of thin air.

But I guess that making up your own argument is easier than addressing the ones made.

 

[CapnZapp]

Germany has a native TTRPG called "Das schwarze Auge" (The dark eye The Dark Eye - Wikipedia ) that was a long time market leader but D&D caught up in the last years. Das Schwarze Auge is even more crunchy than Pathfinder 2. Maybe Germans do like more bookkeeping.

Then Americans also liked more bookkeeping twenty years ago, when everybody played 3rd Edition and then Pathfinder.

Or in other words, perhaps people don't like bookkeeping. It's just that most older games were very rules detail heavy. And it takes time for inertia (nostalgia, familiarity, availability of scenarios in your local language and/or campaign setting) to give way.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then Americans also liked more bookkeeping twenty years ago, when everybody played 3rd Edition and then Pathfinder.

Or in other words, perhaps people don't like bookkeeping. It's just that most older games were very rules detail heavy. And it takes time for inertia (nostalgia, familiarity, availability of scenarios in your local language and/or campaign setting) to give way.

In terms of American pop culture it always felt like Germany was a good 20 years or so behind. Maybe table top rpgs are similar.

 

[FrogReaver]

I only ever exchanged a life cleric in a campaign. It was during the lost mines and she just felt ineffective. Incombat healing is useless, out of combat we got enough rests. And for her to do any damage she needed to use her spellslots, because sacred flame is just bad.

I exchanged her for an Evocation wizard.

I think most people play the life cleric wrong.

His channel divinity is a strong enough heal that comes back on a short rest that you just use it when an ally drops or gets very low. Due to that you should rarely if ever be casting a healing spell, especially in combat. For tier 1 you should mostly be using guiding bolt and inflict wounds. Maybe an occasional command, bless or hold person depending on situation.

I’m not a huge fan of spiritual weapon, but if you expect the encounter to be long it’s an asset as opposed to typical 3ish rounds. Even then it’s a lot better in combat than spell slot healing. Though, Typically better to upcast inflict wounds or guiding bolt imo.

Then level 5 comes and spirit guardians which gives you a solid offense niche.

The one thing to say about life clerics is they are somewhat boring as their best moves are fairly apparent and they don’t provide a ton of flash like a wizard who can turn entire combats in the parties favor in turn 1 (even if it’s just with a fireball)

 

[Mort]

The one thing to say about life clerics is they are somewhat boring as their best moves are fairly apparent and they don’t provide a ton of flash like a wizard who can turn entire combats in the parties favor in turn 1 (even if it’s just with a fireball)

I think this is insightful - and applies to more than the cleric. Fighter's too - generally aren't "flashy" other than the occasional Nat 20 ridiculous damage takedown.

Wizards (and other arcane casters too), though ARE flashy - They have spells that when they work, can immediately turn the tide of a battle, and are thus memorable. Forgetting everything else, it contributes to bias - people remember the flashy stuff.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think this is insightful - and applies to more than the cleric. Fighter's too - generally aren't "flashy" other than the occasional Nat 20 ridiculous damage takedown.

Wizards (and other arcane casters too), though ARE flashy - They have spells that when they work, can immediately turn the tide of a battle, and are thus memorable. Forgetting everything else, it contributes to bias - people remember the flashy stuff.

yes but it’s also more than that. Being adaptable to match workload required is a huge boon.

Maybe it’s best illustrated this way.
The exact pace and nature of encounters in a day has quite a bit of volatility day to day and encounter to encounter. In general fighters give the Same output every encounter. Meaning that approximately 50% of the time they output more than was really needed and 50% less than was really needed. A caster in general can better match what he outputs with the need. Meaning overall the more casters the less the party experiences encounters where they cannot meet the requirement.

Note that this principle applies even if wizards and fighters produced the same daily outputs.

 

[gatesvp]

6 battles a day doesn't fit most modern narratives - dungeon crawling is not the standard mode of play anymore

This isn't just a narrative problem, it's a physical IRL time problem. By level 7, nearly every PC has multiple things to do on every turn. Resolving 5 PCs and 5 Mobs turns can easily take 7 to 10 minutes. So completing even 18 rounds of combat is going to require 2 to 3 hours of IRL time combat. And that's if we're doing things fast.

But things can go really slow. Just look at a Monk burning some ki points.

1. 2 Attacks, each with a Stunning Strike
2. Flurry of blows for two bonus attacks and Way of the Open Hand forcing saves

Resolving such a Monk round requires up to 8 sequential rolls of the d20 (attack/save, attack/save, ...). What's worse, each roll depends on the roll before it. You can't roll your second attack until you know if the Stun worked. Your second Flurry attack may be improved if the target fails, etc.

There's just no way to resolve such a round in an IRL minute. So completing 18 rounds of combat requires hours of combat and sucks up entire sessions.

 

[FrogReaver]

This isn't just a narrative problem, it's a physical IRL time problem. By level 7, nearly every PC has multiple things to do on every turn. Resolving 5 PCs and 5 Mobs turns can easily take 7 to 10 minutes. So completing even 18 rounds of combat is going to require 2 to 3 hours of IRL time combat. And that's if we're doing things fast.

But things can go really slow. Just look at a Monk burning some ki points.

1. 2 Attacks, each with a Stunning Strike
2. Flurry of blows for two bonus attacks and Way of the Open Hand forcing saves

Resolving such a Monk round requires up to 8 sequential rolls of the d20 (attack/save, attack/save, ...). What's worse, each roll depends on the roll before it. You can't roll your second attack until you know if the Stun worked. Your second Flurry attack may be improved if the target fails, etc.

There's just no way to resolve such a round in an IRL minute. So completing 18 rounds of combat requires hours of combat and sucks up entire sessions.

I’d expect 3-4 rounds of combat for 4 pc and 4 NPCs to take about 30 minutes. Longer for slow groups faster for quick ones.

Tougher combats take probably twice as long, both because more rounds and players are more careful about their decisions.

In short, a bunch of relatively easy combats vs a few hard ones likely doesn’t change the real time time sink of combat very much.