D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[Scott Christian]

All the more reason 5.5 need's a serious rewrite. If the DMG is suggesting this king of shenanigan, that's the source of the problem.

Please read the DMG. Please. Read chapter three. Put what they say in context. There is nothing wrong with what they say. In fact, they argue for a balanced approach. A balanced approach has two sides.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Except the classes aren't imbalanced.

I'm sorry, but that is factually incorrect. The classes, among other player facing choices in D&D, including 5e, are profoundly imbalanced. In the case of 5e, that can even be taken as imbalanced by design, since they were closer to balanced in the prior ed, and 5e backed off from that.

Even in the very specific case examined in the OP, balance is only nominally achieved with a prescribed day length.

A DM balancing the game is in the job description.

It's on the DM to present challenges in play, it's his choice how challenging he wants to make them. Which can mean balancing, for instance, combat encounters, or not - in a 'living world' style, if the players decide to bully weak creature or march into certain death against a vastly superior foe, it's on them.

The player facing choices, like class, can be modified by the DM, but they're presented by the game as if they were balanced (as equally weighted choices) and they very clearly are not. It should not be on the DM to don a designer hat and fix them up-front, nor should it be in the DM job description to compensate for class imbalances in play, by, for instance, forcing day length so Fighter and Wizard DPR come into some sort of rough balance.

The is why they are careful about choosing antagonists, environments, and even roleplay objectives. The game is literally based on levels - ie balance.

By all rights, level should be a good metric of party capability and monster threat. It would be intuitive.
Thats something else that the game could deliver, if it had better class balance.

The OP did leave it all out, which is why I said it was a pointless starting point for a debate. Leaving out saving throws, damage resistances, AC, HP, damage output of foes, range, lair effects, magic resistance, contributions of minions, contributions of allies, environment, and cross-pillar objectives make for a ridiculous starting point for a debate.

It makes it a simplified starting point. And, again, one that favors the fighter, and, even so, finds nominal balance only at a point. As you add back many other considerations, the analysis will get more difficult - and cast the fighter in a worse and worse light. Because, while overall DPR for the day an be balanced between a resource heavy and low resource class by forcing day length, the tremendous versatility of neo-Vancian slot casting only becomes more valuable, the more complexity you introduce.

 

[Oofta]

I'm sorry, but that is factually incorrect. The classes, among other player facing choices in D&D, including 5e, are profoundly imbalanced. In the case of 5e, that can even be taken as imbalanced by design, since they were closer to balanced in the prior ed, and 5e backed off from that.

Stating that something is factual when it's completely subjective and play dependent does not make it factual. For many groups, the classes are reasonably balanced when you look at all the factors. Which, of course, is a completely subjective judgement.

 

[Scott Christian]

I'm sorry, but that is factually incorrect. The classes, among other player facing choices in D&D, including 5e, are profoundly imbalanced.

I will gladly accept this position if you add: "At the table I play at..." in front of it. I will add the same to my comments.

It's on the DM to present challenges in play, it's his choice how challenging he wants to make them. Which can mean balancing, for instance, combat encounters, or not - in a 'living world' style, if the players decide to bully weak creature or march into certain death against a vastly superior foe, it's on them.

I agree. I stated so earlier.

The player facing choices, like class, can be modified by the DM, but they're presented by the game as if they were balanced (as equally weighted choices) and they very clearly are not. It should not be on the DM to don a designer hat and fix them up-front, nor should it be in the DM job description to compensate for class imbalances in play, by, for instance, forcing day length so Fighter and Wizard DPR come into some sort of rough balance.

And back to, "At my table..."

By all rights, level should be a good metric of party capability and monster threat. It would be intuitive.
Thats something else that the game could deliver, if it had better class balance.

Are you suggesting the game does not deliver on this point. That the entire DM community of thousands upon thousands upon thousands, views that the game does not deliver this balance? That those 60,000 people at GenCon all left thinking: "Man, I can't believe that every D&D game a played at was imbalanced. If only I hung out in the PF room, which was balanced?"
For fear of opening a can of worms, name a TTRPG you consider balanced?

It makes it a simplified starting point. And, again, one that favors the fighter, and, even so, finds nominal balance only at a point. As you add back many other considerations, the analysis will get more difficult - and cast the fighter in a worse and worse light. Because, while overall DPR for the day an be balanced between a resource heavy and low resource class by forcing day length, the tremendous versatility of neo-Vancian slot casting only becomes more valuable, the more complexity you introduce.

"At my table, during combat, the fighter is cast in a worse and worse light."

I played last night. We're level nine. I am playing a fighter, and I don't even have a 20 strength. Three hungry wyverns attacked our ship. We were all super rested. Guess, out of the five PCs, who did the most damage? If you guessed the fighter, you'd be correct. Grabbed it by the talon as it tried to pick me up and carry me away. Then stabbed it through the belly three times. Then, not being able to get out of the way in time, it fell on me. Guess, out of the five PCs who did another cool thing? Our ranger managed to shoot one down from the crow's nest as he slid down the mast. Guess who else did something cool? Our warlock grabbed one that was flying away with a Bigby's hand! Crushed it and made it shark chum. Our cleric got their slams in, and our bard stayed below deck pew-pewing and blessing what they could see while staying safe.

One battle. The next one will probably be different. And the one after that will be different. The point is, a simple starting point is not a good starting point to make a debate. It's like going to the grocery store, looking at the price of one item, and suddenly declaring it the most or least expensive grocery store in the area. No one would listen to an argument with this premise, which is why no one should be using this as a basis for an argument when it comes to the fighter vs wizard.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Stating that something is factual when it's completely subjective and play dependent does not make it factual. For many groups, the classes are reasonably balanced when you look at all the factors. Which, of course, is a completely subjective judgement.

The facts make it factual. The classes are right there in the books, in black and white. They are susceptible to objective, quantitative analysis - this thread was started by a simple example of that (which had been done shortly after 5e launched, too).

You can have subjective opinions about class imbalance - you can find it highly desirable (afterall, Gandalf was a Wizard and far more powerful than the rest of the Fellowship, why shouldn't the casters be far better than the non-casters?) or irrelevant to your enjoyment of the game. You can even make it worse or better in play - from the player side via optimization, as well as from the DM side.
So, sure, some groups can compensate for imbalance, or just not complain about it, and boom, you have an anecdote that there's "no class imbalance" that is at odds with the facts.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I will gladly accept this position if you add: "At the table I play at..." in front of it. I will add the same to my comments.

Nothing in this life forces you to accept facts. The classes are right there in the book. They are not subjective.

Are you suggesting the game does not deliver on this point. That the entire DM community of thousands upon thousands upon thousands, views that the game does not deliver this balance? That those 60,000 people at GenCon all left thinking: "Man, I can't believe that every D&D game a played at was imbalanced. If only I hung out in the PF room, which was balanced?"
For fear of opening a can of worms, name a TTRPG you consider balanced?

It'd be a very small can of worms. Perfect balance is impossible. The least imbalanced edition of D&D was the 4th, for instance, but it was still imbalanced. The early editions of D&D - 1e is the one I'm most familiar with from long years of experience - tried a variety of balancing mechanisms, of questionable effectivness, that have generally been abandoned.

 

[Oofta]

The facts make it factual. The classes are right there in the books, in black and white. They are susceptible to objective, quantitative analysis - this thread was started by a simple example of that (which had been done shortly after 5e launched, too).

You can have subjective opinions about class imbalance - you can find it highly desirable (afterall, Gandalf was a Wizard and far more powerful than the rest of the Fellowship, why shouldn't the casters be far better than the non-casters?) or irrelevant to your enjoyment of the game. You can even make it worse or better in play - from the player side via optimization, as well as from the DM side.
So, sure, some groups can compensate for imbalance, or just not complain about it, and boom, you have an anecdote that there's "no class imbalance" that is at odds with the facts.

Doubling down on the fallacy that declaring something to be true makes it so? Okay. Your experience is not universal and your judgements are completely subjective.

I've had a few campaigns that went up to 20th level now, some with me as a DM, some not. Sometimes the wizard shines, sometimes the fighter is holding off the enemy so the wizard can shine, sometimes the fighter is the big damage dealer. Heck, my current group is starting up a new game and the only caster is a war cleric. I had to ensure them that nobody was forced to play a wizard, if there's ever a gap (identifying items was one concern that came up) that we'll figure out a workaround.

But I'm not the one stating that my personal experience with multiple groups, multiple DMs over the past 9 years is universal or "right there in black and white".

 

[Minigiant]

I think again the class balance is more or less tailored around a paradigm not assumed or preferred by the large influx of players 5e received.

Saying 5e should not shift to the audience it ended up with and stick to the original is a fast track to 6e.

That's what 4e, cater to only one part of the community.

 

[Mort]

I think again the class balance is more or less tailored around a paradigm not assumed or preferred by the large influx of players 5e received.

Saying 5e should not shift to the audience it ended up with and stick to the original is a fast track to 6e.

That's what 4e, cater to only one part of the community.

Where are you getting that from?

I've recently been doing quite a bit of adventurer's league. Different cities even.

I've noticed there is never a lack of people bringing fighters to the table - often 2 in a party of 4-6.

Wizards, while not exactly rare, are not that common either with 0-1 being average at a table.

For non adventurer's league:

I play in a group that alternates DMs - different characters depending on the DM, I was the last person to join the group.

In BOTH groups there is a fighter (one has a fighter and a barbarian). Neither group had a wizard, I grabbed one in one group and was asked (by the DM) to play a bard in the other (so it still has no wizard).

In my personal group (where I DM 95% of the time), there were 2 fighters (down to 1 now) and no wizard for YEARS of actual play time. The group has had a wizard since about 2020 (Player that had moved away joined us when we went remote, he commutes in now because he didn't want to give up the game).

Point being, despite my personal views on balance/imbalance, I CLEARLY see a lot more fighters being played than wizards (or any other class really) among both old and new players.

While I would personally love to see the fighter's role out of combat greatly improved - I cannot say people, in general, are unhappy - they keep picking fighters (in my group and otherwise).

 

[M_Natas]

Which itself is a false concept considering the willing suspension of disbelief is willing. So no matter how little verisimilitude there is, it's still not 'destroying' anything. At least nothing of much value.

You can willingly suspend your disbelief. But that can be made impossible by the fiction.
Suspending your disbelief takes cognitive capacity - you need to get in the right frame of mind to enjoy certain Kindstod of movies, for example ornof you are very stressen or tired it can become a chore to play D&D or read a high concept SciFi or Fantasy Novel.
So in order for the Player or Audience to be able to suspend their disbelief, the weite/director/DM needs to help them by putting in as much relatable things he can.
For example:

• Characters need to react as realistically as possible to situations and not act out of character, especially in more relatable situations.
• Unless otherwise established, Humans are Humans and function like humans. That's why a lot of people got so pissed at Game.of Thrones for fat character staying fat while walking in the winter with barley any food for months.
• War logistics should make sense when they are shown. Building a fleet on a lone planet without outside support that is stronger than the whole might of the empire before its fall breaks the suspension of disbelief.

Like, the second to last example with staying fat, it didn't disturb me, it didn't break my suspension of disbelief but on an intellectual level I understand why that can be a deal breaker for others.
Because the big problem is, the breaking of the suspension of disbelief is not a conscious decision. It is your subconscious stopping to work and saying: Hold on, that doesn't make any sense!
And when that happens, you suddenly stop to enjoy the movie or game at that moment. If it is just something small, people can go back in the right set of mind, but if its something big or a lot of small things, people can enjoy the game or movie or novel anymore.
And this breaking of the suspension of disbelief, everybody had a different breaking point, but you can average it out and you can train people to do it better - which for example the Marvel.Cienematic Universe did (and the DC Universe failed to do):
The MCU starts with Iron Man, it is very ground in reality (the more fantastical hulk movie before flopped more or less).
And with every MCU Movie the slowly increased the fantastical elements. We go from a guy in high tech sci-fi suit to time travel shenanigans and parallel universes and multiverse theory.
If the MCU would have started with Avengers Endgame or the Loki TV Show, it would have flopped because the audience wasn't ready for that.
That's why new D&D players usually don't start with planescape or spelljammer but with forgotten realms. Because it is more real. And only after they get accustomed to the default 5e Setting, they can go to more stranger settings.
But not everybody can do that. That's why Forgotton Realms will always be more popular than spelljammer or planescape.