D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[payn]

But the irony is, 9th-12th is when the Wizard begins to take over again. You get a brief spurt of Fighter effectiveness around 5th level, when Extra Attack comes in, but then things even back out again almost immediately, and swing heavily toward the Wizard at 9th level, when fifth-level spells appear.


Okay. Perhaps phrasing that avoids things like "sour grapes" accusations would be conducive to it not being too late?

Oh like "apology edition", "accidently successful", "objectively bad design", and "milquetoast legacy", said repeatedly? Where would I ever get the idea?

 

[Minigiant]

Doesn't change a beat about the solution. Have more combat rounds between long rests and your wizards will have less resources per combat round.

Or Design 5e around fewer damage rounds and have magic or herbalism items and potions extend the combat round. Healing potions and Mana potions.

Like how good o' days and nice modern days.

 

[pemerton]

I suggest that most people who choose to play fighters (in any edition) do so because fighters as an archetype are cool. It's not because they've made a cost-benefit analysis of the mechanics you get and decided 'this will be an effective and fun packet of abilities with which to engage the game'.

This seems highly plausible to me.

I further suggest that a lot of campaigns i) don't really follow the rules super closely and ii) never progress to double digit levels where the issues with fighters become more apparent.

So does this.

To me, it seems that the ways to make fighters mechanically more effective, without changing the way the play, are not entirely straightforward. I think it was @doctorbadwolf who, upthread, suggested expanding Indomitability in both frequency of use and scope of use. That seems like a good idea that wouldn't change how they play. But it also does create some comparative weirdness potential - eg why can the fighter do this but not the skill specialists like rogues, rangers, and bards? - so even a change like that is not risk-free.

The core design chassis of "why can't others do this thing?" is a genuine one. The obvious answer is to leave fighters alone and dial down the spell-users, but that hardly seems likely to make playing fighters even more popular! It would just increase the number of irritated people.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This seems highly plausible to me.

So does this.

To me, it seems that the ways to make fighters mechanically more effective, without changing the way the play, are not entirely straightforward. I think it was @doctorbadwolf who, upthread, suggested expanding Indomitability in both frequency of use and scope of use. That seems like a good idea that wouldn't change how they play. But it also does create some comparative weirdness potential - eg why can the fighter do this but not the skill specialists like rogues, rangers, and bards? - so even a change like that is not risk-free.

The core design chassis of "why can't others do this thing?" is a genuine one. The obvious answer is to leave fighters alone and dial down the spell-users, but that hardly seems likely to make playing fighters even more popular! It would just increase the number of irritated people.

I think Heroic Determination (the win button feature”) can easily be flavored as something that even low level fighters can’t get, just like indomitable and second wind.

If I’m wrong, could always put 1 use per day in a feat.

Another random martial thing I thought of; a given martial class could have a feature that lets them get a reaction attack when a creature uses a legendary save, possibly negating the LS?

Maybe rogue, and flavor it as taking advantage of that moment of bracing themselves and shaking off an effect to make an opportunistic strike?

A lot of the ideas we have collectively had could be higher level class or feature requiring feats, as well. Ya know, level 12, must have extra attack, etc.

 

[Oofta]

Oh like "apology edition", "accidently successful", "objectively bad design", and "milquetoast legacy", said repeatedly? Where would I ever get the idea?

Bah. Haven't you heard? D&D is a mediocre game riding on the laurels of past editions. We've only seen double digit growth for a decade because of Stranger Things and Critical Role (even though growth started before either) which accounts totally for the game being the most successful version ever. People don't actually enjoy playing the game, much less fighters, millions of people are just ignorant, stupid or delusional and don't know any better.

After all people who know better have told us this repeatedly.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Oh like "apology edition", "accidently successful", "objectively bad design", and "milquetoast legacy", said repeatedly? Where would I ever get the idea?

Description of the game vs description of people. Like, not making personal attacks.

 

[payn]

Description of the game vs description of people. Like, not making personal attacks.

So being condescending about the folks who make the game and enjoy it is fine? Seriously think this over please. You can criticize the game without the attacks as well.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So being condescending about the folks who make the game and enjoy it is fine? Seriously think this over please. You can criticize the game without the attacks as well.

The game is not and should not be so much of our personalities that an insult to it is an insult to us. Actually targeting people with attacks is different from razzing a game. And frankly highly uncharacteristic.

 

[payn]

The game is not and should not be so much of our personalities that an insult to it is an insult to us. Actually targeting people with attacks is different from razzing a game. And frankly highly uncharacteristic.

Again, you should think very seriously on this because many of the quotes I mention are not about the game, but people who make it and play it.

 

[Minigiant]

a the information and stats provided by DNDB and WOTC, it is HIGHLY unlikely that the majority of the people polled in 2013 DNDN surveys are the majority of 5e players today in 2023.

5e isn't poorly designed. 5e however was very likely designed for people who are not the majority of players today.

The Fighter vs Wizard math more of less explains this.

And saying "Have more encounters" proves that point.

5e was designed for Bob. Bob loves 10-20 room dungeon crawls with heavy wilderness adventures going to and leaving from the dungeon. Bob filled out the 2013 survey.

But Bob doesn't play 5e. Bob's nephew Tony does.

And Tony likes more cinematic adventures where you fight the minions, then their sargents or some guard monster, then the lieutenant and his/her/their/its minions, fight big boss, then go home to sleep it off.