D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[Tony Vargas]

One of the many advantages of D&D is that it's not a video game. Things can happen even when you are not triggering a scene by entering the area. This idea that the PCs can just waltz back where they left off like nothing happened after a week off is plain and simple a failure of DMing, not the rules.

It's driven by the rules.

Sensibly....
If the players are assaulting a stronghold, and expect to put a pin in it, retreat, rest, and pick up where they left off, well, that's a stupid decision and no competent DM wouldn't 'punish' it.
Conversely...
If the players are exploring an ancient tomb, untouched for centuries, that only they know the location of, and they decide to retreat from a powerful construct guarding one of the inner chambers, re-seal and cover the entrance, rest up, make a new magic weapon capable of harming said construct, and come back to dispatch it later, well, that's just 'bout Smart Play, i'n'it?

But, D&D, by balancing both classes and encounters with resource attrition and prescribed day length, makes every such decision a potential point of failure. Either the DM fails if he doesn't apply time pressure, or the system fails by breaking when there's absolutely no reason for that time pressure.

 

[Minigiant]

One of the many advantages of D&D is that it's not a video game. Things can happen even when you are not triggering a scene by entering the area. This idea that the PCs can just waltz back where they left off like nothing happened after a week off is plain and simple a failure of DMing, not the rules.

No one said you can waltz back in like it was nothing.

I actually said the opposite.
It will just make the wizard cast fireball 3 times in one fight instead of once, tap out faster, and encourage more nova.

That's the problem. WOTC heard that wizard fans were upset that they only had 3 bombs for the whole adventure. So they gave the wizard fans 10 bombs with no restriction for tossing half of them one after another.

Why does a level 5 wizard have 10 spell slots if the point is for point of the game is to be cooperative and take turns in the spotlight? I mean if the wizard does share the spotlight, they will have a ton of magic to bear when they take their turn in the spotlight.

 

[Oofta]

No one said you can waltz back in like it was nothing.

I actually said the opposite.
It will just make the wizard cast fireball 3 times in one fight instead of once, tap out faster, and encourage more nova.

That's the problem. WOTC heard that wizard fans were upset that they only had 3 bombs for the whole adventure. So they gave the wizard fans 10 bombs with no restriction for tossing half of them one after another.

Why does a level 5 wizard have 10 spell slots if the point is for point of the game is to be cooperative and take turns in the spotlight? I mean if the wizard does share the spotlight, they will have a ton of magic to bear when they take their turn in the spotlight.

What have those orcs done in those 7 days? The DM has infinite dragons, or in this case orcs. The orcs thought raiding the region would be simple, the didn't expect the locals would hire effective mercenaries (the PCs). Now they know better so they've called in favors and pulled in tribes from all corners to get revenge. They've heard rumors of this group, they've done this before.

So don't throw 10 orcs next time, there are a 100. Perhaps a hill giant or a dozen. Have them prepare for the group and make the fight hard, impossible to win to the point where it's either a TPK or they run.

Or one of the several other scenarios I listed about bad things that happen when the players ignore threats for a week.

You can say that they made mistakes but it doesn't matter one iota. The game is not going to change. But it's easy to change how you DM.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Or you could not achieve your goals, be unable to fulfill secondary objectives, deal with story consequences, etc, etc.

Yes, those sort of things should be in play. But for a mass market game there absolutely should be mechanical consequences for combat, as building story consequences for every fight is hard and not something everyone will do.

Attrition was never a 'consequence' in the first place because the game was apparently always going to grind you down.

Amount of attrition is. If you do better, you suffer less attritions. That's the whole point.

And if combat is a setpeice, you don't even have to pretend to care about 'consequences' of fights at all. It was just a fun thing you do.

Is it fun to you go trough the motions knowing you can't lose?

 

[FrozenNorth]

What have those orcs done in those 7 days? The DM has infinite dragons, or in this case orcs. The orcs thought raiding the region would be simple, the didn't expect the locals would hire effective mercenaries (the PCs). Now they know better so they've called in favors and pulled in tribes from all corners to get revenge. They've heard rumors of this group, they've done this before.

So don't throw 10 orcs next time, there are a 100. Perhaps a hill giant or a dozen. Have them prepare for the group and make the fight hard, impossible to win to the point where it's either a TPK or they run.

What do thise 100 orcs eat? Where do they sleep? If the PCs cut 1/3 of the previous tribe into ribbons using their highest spell slots, why would anyone else agree to come act as cannon fodder? Where did 100 orcs come from within 3 days of the ruin? (3 days to send a messenger, 1 day to organize, 3 days to return). How did no one notice an army of 100 orcs marching through the woods.

It seems like in order to discourage a 5MWD, you are throwing verisimilitude out the window.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, those sort of things should be in play. But for a mass market game there absolutely should be mechanical consequences for combat, as building story consequences for every fight is hard and not something everyone will do.

It should certainly support having consequences for combat, sure. But every edition of D&D has done that. I would argue some have done it much better than 5e does, in fact.

Amount of attrition is. If you do better, you suffer less attritions. That's the whole point.

Of course, this runs into the problem that "do the thing better so as to not suffer as much" is, overall, a less compelling gameplay mechanic than "do the thing better so that you are rewarded." The two may be arithmetically equivalent, but they are not emotionally equivalent. And "do better so as to suffer less" is, frankly, one of the weakest consequences you can apply. Much as how death is incredibly over-valued as a consequence, because its actual results are usually quite boring--the equivalent of falling down a chute in Chutes & Ladders, simply forcing you to run the same gameplay loop all over again with no meaningful variation.

Is it fun to you go trough the motions knowing you can't lose?

When did making combats a set piece mean you can't lose? Just because you won't permanently, irrevocably die doesn't mean you "can't lose." Losing--being defeated--can be its own punishment. Especially if you believe you should have won.

Were gladiatorial games somehow pointless if the emperor decided the loser got to live?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It should certainly support having consequences for combat, sure. But every edition of D&D has done that. I would argue some have done it much better than 5e does, in fact.

But some do not seem to want any mechanical consequences.

Of course, this runs into the problem that "do the thing better so as to not suffer as much" is, overall, a less compelling gameplay mechanic than "do the thing better so that you are rewarded." The two may be arithmetically equivalent, but they are not emotionally equivalent. And "do better so as to suffer less" is, frankly, one of the weakest consequences you can apply. Much as how death is incredibly over-valued as a consequence, because its actual results are usually quite boring--the equivalent of falling down a chute in Chutes & Ladders, simply forcing you to run the same gameplay loop all over again with no meaningful variation.

There are also positive rewards, such as XP and treasure, and of course narrative progression. But you seem to be arguing against negative consequences. Frankly, I know no RPG where such do not exist in some form.

When did making combats a set piece mean you can't lose? Just because you won't permanently, irrevocably die doesn't mean you "can't lose." Losing--being defeated--can be its own punishment. Especially if you believe you should have won.

Because once we remove attrition, the only negative mechanical consequence left is death; the thing you said is boring consequence. And once raise dead becomes available, only TPK remains as a consequence. This in turn necessitates either accepting that any combat has a decent chance to end the campaign, or the GM calibrating the difficulty so that the defeat is no longer a realistic possibility. Neither of these seem appealing options to me.

 

[Pedantic]

OMG. "Tech" is what kids these days call, well,... [tries and deletes several phrasings because I don't want to be mean]... interpreting a rule to create wild consequences.... supposedly it's short for "technique" not "technicality"
if you've heard of 3.5 PunPun? There's a similar trick in 5e, but it's foundation is an interpretation of Nystul's Magic Aura ... I am not making this up....
anyway the short hand is "Nystuls tech"

That's just standard terminology taken from other games, I'm guessing mostly competitive card games, but you see something similar in fighting games and other genres. In constructed deck card games, for example, you might include a series of "tech cards" to handle other expected strategies in the meta. Usually these are to deal with specific situations and are not expected parts of your normal win condition or game plan, but give you an out when an opponent deploys a specific strategy.

Occasionally it's also used to refer to innovative combos or game plans on their own, say discovering a new economic or draw engine and combining it with an existing strategy. That's just normal behavior from other kinds of games; the TTRPG here is the thing asking for special treatment.

 

[TwoSix]

The best way to combat the 5MWD and to make attrition have some bite, while still maintaining most of the core structures of modern D&D, is to make recharging resources have a cost, both in time, narrative consequences, and resources.

Recharging spell slots should require special reagents, that cost real gold and aren't always in easy supply. If XP is being used in the game, taking a short or long rest should cost a scaling amount of XP, low but not trivial.

This allows DM to control pacing by simply adjusting the amount of treasure they give out, while also incentivizing players to push forward to accomplish as much as they can without resting.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The best way to combat the 5MWD and to make attrition have some bite, while still maintaining most of the core structures of modern D&D, is to make recharging resources have a cost, both in time, narrative consequences, and resources.

Recharging spell slots should require special reagents, that cost real gold and aren't always in easy supply. If XP is being used in the game, taking a short or long rest should cost a scaling amount of XP, low but not trivial.

This allows DM to control pacing by simply adjusting the amount of treasure they give out, while also incentivizing players to push forward to accomplish as much as they can without resting.

Not a bad idea actually!