D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[Sacrosanct]

Maybe I’m just lucky in that I have the right people blocked because I don’t see anyone saying 5E was designed for dumb people.

There have been several posts along the lines of "it's an apologist" or "it's catered to the lowest common denominator" re: 5e over the past decade. Some have been called out in this very thread.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Me neither, but maybe Sacrosanct has some actual examples of that happening in this thread?

Maybe you have some actual examples of me defending personal attacks like you accused me of?

 

[overgeeked]

There have been several posts along the lines of "it's an apologist" or "it's catered to the lowest common denominator" re: 5e over the past decade. Some have been called out in this very thread.

So not actual personal attacks but people choosing to take them as such and choosing to be offended by them. Got it.

 

[Oofta]

I am just comparing optimization to optimization. My point is that more optimization is more damage.


+7 as the fighter is using SS/GWM to get those damage numbers.

And I am comparing nearly unoptimized (pick 1 or 2 spells) vs quite optimized (most of build and gear choices dedicated to it, and only a few specific builds match this).

Real minionmancy blows past these numbers.

My goal here isn't showing Wizard>Fighter. It is showing Optimized X>Unoptimized Y.

The fact that high end fighter optimization caps out at "do a bunch of damage", and wizards also have builds that "do a bunch of damage", is also important.

You can choose to ban the wizard high damage builds if you want. But they exist.

They usually aren't the wizards best option, because they cost a lot build wise, and they restrict you to "do a bunch of damage", and as noted the DM can simply veto the mechanism you use to do a bunch of damage (as it will be a specific spell or two usually) as OP.

Meanwhile, other wizard builds rely on "do everything", and do acceptable damage. Banning everthing a wizard can do is less palatable to most DMs, and as the resource costs are cheaper, the risks are as well.


The fighter has nothing else to do.

Making a foe the fighter can't hurt is trivial for an encounter, but as a fighter can't do anything else, it is rather mean spirited.

So every encounter by a non mean spirited DM has a foe rather optimally designed to be beat on by a fighter. Reachable AC, reachable range, no immunities, no retribution, no vetos.

Meanwhile, wizards don't need kid gloves. Their primary trick can be nerfed by DM choices, and they can fall back on 7 more tricks in their bag.

I played a batman bard to level 20, and avoided using the same trick in any two boss battles. It was more fun that way than repeating. Everyone still remembers the kracken dance party - but adter that, I never irresistable danced a single boss!

First you're comparing one optimized PC to another. Either look at optimized PCs or not. Second, a fighter has a lot of ways to counter the attack penalty and they'll still have a higher bonus to hit than skeletons even without things like bless or one of the ways to get advantage. Third you're assuming that shortbows and arrows are available for those skeletons. I don't. Fourth, all of the additional skeletons and objects you're adding take up space and you're assuming they can all attack. Lastly, skeletons have a whopping 13 HP, although the objects (which again, I've seen used to good effect) have 20. Neither going to last long if they're attacked or included in an AOE.

Another aspect people seem to ignore is immunities, resistances, legendary resistances, the defensive capability of the wizard meaning they tend to be glass cannons, assumes the wizard has the right spells and etc..

I do agree that strength based fighters should have better ranged attacks which is why I've made longbows versatile. Of course it's not that hard to get a dex of 10-14 even with point buy if it's an issue.

All I can say is that in the real world or the Solasta D&D video game (which tracks damage), the fighter works just fine and contributes just as much if not more than wizards do.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So not actual personal attacks but people choosing to take them as such and choosing to be offended by them. Got it.

Calling something an "apologist" is a moral failing. Calling something "catered to lowest common denominator' is an intellectual failing. I'm sure why or how you can't see how inferring that about the people who like it isn't a personal attack. I mean, we've got several people telling you they feel that way about those sorts of comments. If people keep telling you the feel those are personal attacks, you don't have the right to tell them they are getting offended over nothing.

 

[Aldarc]

Calling something an "apologist" is a moral failing. Calling something "catered to lowest common denominator' is an intellectual failing. I'm sure why or how you can't see how inferring that about the people who like it isn't a personal attack. I mean, we've got several people telling you they feel that way about those sorts of comments. If people keep telling you the feel those are personal attacks, you don't have the right to tell them they are getting offended over nothing.

But the whole "people are calling it a dumb game" bit was your invention, wasn't it?

 

[Vaalingrade]

No one is saying people can't get offended. We're saying they're not personal attacks.

Also, 'apologist' is a loooooong walk from 'apology edition'. Like marathon long.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But the whole "people are calling it a dumb game" bit was your invention, wasn't it?

What do you think "catered to the lowest denominator" means? Look at what people are telling you. They are telling you that they feel like it's a personal attack on them by inference. Why do you keep denying others' experiences?

I'm still waiting for you to show me where I was defending personal attacks. Or was that "your invention"?

 

[overgeeked]

Calling something an "apologist" is a moral failing. Calling something "catered to lowest common denominator' is an intellectual failing. I'm sure why or how you can't see how inferring that about the people who like it isn't a personal attack. I mean, we've got several people telling you they feel that way about those sorts of comments. If people keep telling you the feel those are personal attacks, you don't have the right to tell them they are getting offended over nothing.

Feelings don’t alter facts. Feeling something is true does not make that something actually true. You can feel however you want about whatever you want. That doesn’t change something from not a personal attack into a personal attack.

Either way, I’m done with this tangent of a tangent of a tangent.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No one is saying people can't get offended. We're saying they're not personal attacks.

Also, 'apologist' is a loooooong walk from 'apology edition'. Like marathon long.

"I really like 4e."
"4e is an apology edition for racists."*

Yeah, it's marathon long for the first person to associate the second comment to be about them as a fan...

*I'm not actually making this argument, but using it for illustration purposes