D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[payn]

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.

Plausible, needs more than anecdotal backing.

 

[Scott Christian]

Good. We agree.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

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

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

And if anyone actually argued that, your commentary would be quite incisive.

But, as far as I can tell, no one has.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Does something being well-designed not depend on who actually uses it?

It doesn't matter if something is made of silk, if it's meant to be used by sew--um, wastewater repair technicians.

 

[M_Natas]

I feel as though the math just isn't fair. The Wizard likely has a high Intelligence while the Fighter might have a 10 at most. Of course the Wizard is more likely to win any math contest against a Fighter.

More seriously, does any chart really need to calculate anything past 12th level? Most people don't go too far beyond that, so it doesn't seem relevant to me.

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

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

In fairness, there are a lot of reasons people don't go past level 12. I would argue the lack of good content written for that level range is the bigger culprit, and a lack of good DM advice specifically for high levels (even when compared to the already dire state of DM advice in 5e) is definitely second place.

But I wouldn't at all be surprised if balance issues contribute to it as well.

 

[Retros_x]

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.

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).

 

[pemerton]

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.

 

[Retros_x]

Possibly, but basing that decision on relative damage-dealing of classes, when one is designed to be good at damage-dealing and the other is designed to be good at other things seemed a bit dubious to me.

And sometimes you simply can't enforce more combat rounds.

Well do you have a better approach? I think this damage dealing approach shows pretty easily that fighters benefit from more combat rounds because they are consistent. Magic users are not consistent, they have very limited resources that - if used efficiently - can turn around situations. If they don't need to be efficient with their resources because they rest all the time of course the martials can't play out their strengths. Yes dealt damage is not the best metric, but it is the only metric we have at hand without making bigger assumptions and projections. But I think the result stays the same.

Yes, sometimes you can't enforce that, but we are not talking about exceptions, we are talking about general adventure design.

Btw, I really like your format of spoilering the anecdote, I think its a really neat idea for discussions and I will steal it