Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9160882" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Why is DPR a good measuring stick of performance in this instance?  We know that Wizards aren't damage machines in the traditional sense* and there are people who think that their non-damaging spells are the problem.*Even in a target-rich environment, a Wizard not only needs to be able to accurately target 3+ foes for something like Fireball to be worth casting, but they also need to avoid friendly fire (or be Evocation Wizards) and even then, your 28 damage save for half might seem like a lot of damage, but it hasn't actually felled many foes so it's not reducing much incoming damage on the turn it occurs, the way a group of Fighters who can focus fire on a single target will.I would think it's far better to try and Slow up to 6 guys, severely blunting their damage and making them easier for said Fighters to kill off quickly, and no need to worry about hitting a friendly, but it's really difficult to compare a tactic like that to damage, it's literally apples and oranges.It's perhaps not too dissimilar to something like American Football- when judging a team's merits, you have to look at offense, defense, special teams, leadership, and "intangibles" that are difficult to judge in a vacuum- is home field advantage going to be a thing?  How about the weather?  The condition of the turf?  Win/Loss ratios in the past?Put another way, it's like trying to decide which class is better and what DM advice should go into comparing Fighters to Rogues and only looking at Skill Proficiency between both classes- it's one facet of a complex scenario.The Fighter is strong when it comes to damage output, the Wizard, less so.  We have math that shows this much, and while that's useful data, it doesn't paint a complete picture.And to those who think Fighters are fine and have never had any problem with them whatsoever, nor apparently can conceive of a scenario where Fighters might fall short in a campaign- you have the answers you require.Through some combination of player preference and DM playstyles, by accident or design you've avoided the scenarios that might cause problems.  Congratulations!  So what's the answer for those who do see these problems?Are they playing the game wrong?  Are their DM's completely inept?  Are they lying to further some agenda?  And what agenda would that be, beyond "nerf casters plz" or "buff Fighters"?  And if, through some miracle, WotC actually deigns to pay attention and nerfs casters and/or buffs Fighters, what difference does that make?Fighters are already popular, so the only result I can foresee is that people play casters less often than they already do. Which seems like it would settle the debate once and for all.  The people who want balance get it, and the people who like Fighters continue playing them.  Huzzah!But instead we get bogged down in the weeds somewhere, because the issue isn't balance at all- the issue seems to be, quite often "will my Fighter feel like some posthuman superbeing if they get improved?".Because somehow, the option of still playing the "just fine" Fighter regardless is apparently off the table.  Which I don't get.  If an omnipresent demiurge swooped in and replaced the Fighter in the PHB with a, I don't know, "Myrmidon" who can throw shields, leap 50' into the air, and dodge arrows while being relatively immune to spells, it occurs to me that the people who reject that concept on it's merits will just...not use them.DM's will say "banned in my games", as is their prerogative.  Players who don't like that class fantasy will gravitate towards tables that still allow them to play Fighters.So what's the problem then?  That it could turn out players actually would prefer the Myrmidon over the Fighter?</blockquote>

Verification