D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[Aldarc]

There are 2 basic groups here. Group A has an issue. Group B doesn't have that issue and is more than willing to share what they do that might be why they don't see the issues group A has.

Except group A ties themselves in knots coming up with excuses why they can't even attempt the solution while sticking their fingers in their ears repeating the mantra "It's broken! It's broken!"

"There are more than two groups here, but I don't want to honor the unique positions of individuals, so I will politicize this by depicting them in two opposing camps. To that end, there are two groups: A & B. I will depict the people I agree with and their position as reasonable. This will be Group A. The people I disagree with will be in Group B. However, I will not choose to depict their positions fairly as per how they see the situation. Instead, I will present them as ridiculous, absurd, and unreasonable people who are tying themselves up in knots and sticking their fingers in their ears. But let's ignore how insulting and condescending that is towards other people."

Is that about right, Oofta?

 

[Oofta]

"There are more than two groups here, but I don't want to honor the unique positions of individuals, so I will politicize this by depicting them in two opposing camps. To that end, there are two groups: A & B. I will depict the people I agree with and their position as reasonable. This will be Group A. The people I disagree with will be in Group B. However, I will not choose to depict their positions fairly as per how they see the situation. Instead, I will present them as ridiculous, absurd, and unreasonable people who are tying themselves up in knots and sticking their fingers in their ears. But let's ignore how insulting and condescending that is towards other people."

Is that about right, Oofta?

Obviously I'm generalizing. If you perceive an issue, have you considered changing play style? Following any of the advice I, and others, have proposed? If you did, how well did it work, and are you willing to share details?

No? Until then feel free to ignore any possible advice and continue railing against the dark when someone is offering you a flashlight. I'm not going to agree that it's a fundamental problem because it is not an issue in my group and the fixes are simple.

 

[Tony Vargas]

On a highly conceptual basis you could design a game that way. Basically you are trying to reduce resource efficiency by making sure the wizard player cannot place the resources exactly where they are most effective all the time. It's a decent strategy.

It's not enough, by itself, tho, I agree....

1. Short rest spell recharge becomes problematic for many spells - healing spells being the most apparent. Any buff spell that lasts longer than an hour (darkvision is a low level example). Then there's the conjuration type spells.

Ideally, in-combat, healing, and non-combat (even social vs exploration) abilities could use entirely different resources.

2a. There's not a good method for turning spell slots into a short rest recharge.

Pact Magic already does that. The problems with it are simply that spells are far too powerful (they're all designed as if they were 1/day) and mix systematically abuseable spells with more situational ones in the context of spontaneous slot casting.

4. You've not eliminated the 5MWD - you've just moved the problem to the short rest space.

Very true, you still need resource parity, it just might be easier to sell short-rest recharges of things other than spells.

IMO... Having no idea if 1000 orcs are going to show up isn't time pressure. Time pressure doesn't work unless the players could have reasonably predicted 1) what will happen if they fail and 2) how close they are to that happening. The clock solves for these.

Acknowledged. It does so in a more abstract manner that may lead some players to feel they are acting on knowledge their characters don't have, but it is a solid mechanic that has worked well in other games.

It sounds more like you are saying - let's let everyone participate in the 5MWD to balance things.

Yes. Because the biggest problem with the 5MWD is that it utterly wrecks class balance. Eliminate that, and it's less of a problem. Also have more encounter/at-wil resources and few daily resources would further reduce the incentive, while still allowing players to strategize and prioritize when they rest and how they manage daily resources.

The Great Lie is that D&D is going to work equally well for all campaigns. That they all should be able to progress naturally and still work out just as well as a campaign more attuned to the system.

That's essentially saying that D&D in it's current form is a bad game that fails at it's basic goals. Which is fair.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I almost feel like there should be a TTRPG fallacy that deals with blaming every problem on "bad DMs."

In addition to hearing "its a DM problem" to dismiss system problems, you'll hear, "no system can save you from a bad DM"

So, really, the point being made is that systems aren't relevant, you don't really need them (EGG intimated as much back in the day).
Freestyle RP all the way.

But, aside from advocating for the cessation of all RPG publishing and embracing freestyle and the one true way, those statements do leave open what really constitutes a good or bad DM. Is it strictly benevolence/malevolence? Talent? Years of experience? Learned skill? If it's the last, why do DMGs do such a poor job of preparing DMs to run?

These statements need some nuance. No system can save you from an actively malicious DM. This system isn't bad, it just has much higher requirements when it comes to DM skill.

 

[Aldarc]

Obviously I'm generalizing.

You're not just generalizing; you're being insulting towards others. I hope that you can appreciate and understand why insulting others would be a problem.

 

[NotAYakk]

That one. There's the one.

So, the world contains things PCs can do that are suicidal. Like charging a nearly endless horde of orcs.

What do you do when players choose to do something suicidal? You could run the fight and watch the PCs die. You could veto the player's choice to make their PCs act suicidally.

Like, literally, 1000 orcs. Against AC 20 they have a ranged DPR of 585 per round (including accuracy) at a 120' range. Can move 90' towards foes, and against AC 20 within 30' has a ranged DPR of 2.1 and a 5' range melee DPR of 3.2.

Killing 1000 orcs is possible for a mid-high level party, but doing so by charging them probably ain't it. I guess if you get your AC up to 25+ you start having a chance (at 25+ AC their melee DPR is 0.8, 30' ranged is 0.5, 120' ranged is 0.03, low enough to plausibly survive).

But regardless of the mechanics, the threat -- a huge horde of orcs, beyond what you can handle -- is clear. And the decision by the players -- charge in heedless of the clear danger -- is also clear. Do you not allow Players to make suicidal decisions for their PCs in your game?

If they jump in lava and start eating, what happens?

If they jump off a 1000' cliff with no plan, what happens?

I'm really curious about your solution. Maybe it is a good one I can steal!

 

[Oofta]

You're not just generalizing; you're being insulting towards others. I hope that you can appreciate and understand why insulting others would be a problem.

You seem to be unwilling to discuss or even try possible options. I'm sorry if it's insulting that the game works for me and I'm trying to share what I might be doing different. It's certainly not my intent. But if the game works for me and not for thee the most likely issue is a difference in play style. I don't think what I do is particularly difficult to implement and seems to be a better option than rewriting the game or hoping WOTC fixes it for me.

If you're willing to attempt a different play style, I'll attempt to help. Until then ...

 

[Aldarc]

You seem to be unwilling to discuss or even try possible options.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that you condescendingly insulted other posters, which is the actual issue.

I'm sorry if it's insulting that the game works for me and I'm trying to share what I might be doing different.

No, it's not insulting that the game works for you and that you are trying to share what you are doing differently. It is, however, insulting when you characterize the positions of others in the manner that you did, characterizing them as tying themselves in knots and sticking their fingers in their ears. I take issue with the point where you decided to cross the line and insult others. Got that now?

 

[Vaalingrade]

So, the world contains things PCs can do that are suicidal. Like charging a nearly endless horde of orcs.

What do you do when players choose to do something suicidal? You could run the fight and watch the PCs die. You could veto the player's choice to make their PCs act suicidally.

Like, literally, 1000 orcs. Against AC 20 they have a ranged DPR of 585 per round (including accuracy) at a 120' range. Can move 90' towards foes, and against AC 20 within 30' has a ranged DPR of 2.1 and a 5' range melee DPR of 3.2.

Killing 1000 orcs is possible for a mid-high level party, but doing so by charging them probably ain't it. I guess if you get your AC up to 25+ you start having a chance (at 25+ AC their melee DPR is 0.8, 30' ranged is 0.5, 120' ranged is 0.03, low enough to plausibly survive).

But regardless of the mechanics, the threat -- a huge horde of orcs, beyond what you can handle -- is clear. And the decision by the players -- charge in heedless of the clear danger -- is also clear. Do you not allow Players to make suicidal decisions for their PCs in your game?

A lot of things can happen between the charge and vomiting math until they die.

They could break off once they realize they're actually outmatched. They could pull off something I didn't expect that changes the odds or situation. The orcs could capture them.

All of that is precluded if I jsut decide the die out of spite and disguising spite as 'consequences'

If they jump in lava and start eating, what happens?

Do they have fire resistance? That's a thing in this game after all.

But no, I could jsut declare them dead despite it maybe not being a thing that even could kill them.

If they jump off a 1000' cliff with no plan, what happens?

10d6 and a superhero landing if they aren't downed. That's like the actual rules. I'm not going to break the rules to 'consequence' at my players. I'm not daddy, I'm the lead in cooperative storytelling.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The fact that 'everything works for me, you must be having problems on purpose' is a common argument is why D&D should be mothballed.