• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

overgeeked

B/X Known World
While it is known that casting spells for damage dealing is not optimal, it is useful to know that suboptimal play from a wizard is superior to the basic fighter option.

Or rather, you have shown that optimising for something less than ideal (damage) a wizard can still outperform a fighter (that is essentially unable to optimise for anything else)
Right. And the wizard used doesn't even have a subclass. It's hilarious. An optimized fighter still does less damage than a suboptimal wizard. The wizard has no business focusing on damage because their non-damaging spells are where the majority of their game breaking shenanigans come from...and the wizard still out damages the fighter. LOL. As said earlier in this thread and in others, even with mathematical proof, some people will still just shut their eyes, put their fingers in their ears, and refuse to accept it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mort

Legend
Supporter
If a wizard doesn't optimise his damage output, encounters will be harder.

But I agree that the fighter needs a boost. Especially in the AoE Department. That's his combat weak spot.

Fighters are supposed to be the single target DPR guys and casters (esecially wizards) are supposed to be the AoE guys.
 

M_Natas

Hero
Yeah, it seemed pretty clear from releases that an effort had been made to balance single target damage over many rounds, with fighters getting a boost from Action Surge aproximately every-other combat, and otherwise grinding, while casters got a boost while their spells lasted, then ground less effectively with cantrips than martials could with extra attacks.

Thus the whole 6-8 encounters & 2-3 short rests thing, which is alternately presented by apologist as the only way to run the game, or as a completely meaningless non-requirement, depending on whether they're apologizing the game's mistreatment of players who don't choose casters or of DMs who don't want to force pacing. 🤷‍♂️

That seemed a clear intent, at a glance, and one that at least approximately seems to work (as you've shown, once again, here), at best, at the price of constraining the DM's creativity, and pushing the party through comparatively pointless filler combats. But it only illustrates a rough, fragile balance in the combat pillar, in terms of overall DPR, the martial types' only good pillar, and best thing within that pillar.
The other two? 😬 It don't look so good.

Control spells like that can more or less trivialize a combat - unless the melee types screw it up, which is a whole 'nuther thing - and, while it may make the numbers look good for the party's damage grinders to grind damage against a more or less helpless foe for an extra round or few while the caster conserves spells and plinks with cantrips, it ain't exactly the stuff of high fantasy. ;)

While I like numbers at least as much as the next guy, and I'm not going to quibble much with yours (there are two potential issues I see at a glance, one is topping out at 3 enemies, which seems low - 5e BA makes being outnumbered /bad/ for the party, but they should face at least equal forces now and then - the other is going out to dozens of rounds of combat in a day, when, y'know, characters, especially melee-oriented ones, do take damage, and the party can lose members outright or collectively run out of hp & HD), I do think an analysis like this completely misses the versatility & flexibility that put 3.5 casters in Tier 1&2 and non-casters in 4&5.

In 3.5 there was a huge debate over whether the Sorcerer's (and other less famous spontaneous casters) round-by-round flexibility to cast the pest spell they knew, or the Wizard's (or CoDzillas') day-by-day flexibility to prepare the best spells they anticipated would be useful, was ultimately more powerful. The Tier list consensus was prepped beat spontaneous, putting Wizard/Druid/Cleric in Tier 1 and Sorcerer/Favored Soul in Tier 2. 🤷‍♂️
That debate is moot in 5e, since all slot casters cast spontaneously, so have greater flexibility than they did at their height in 3.5
It is 3+ enemies. I had to stop somewhere. My excelsheet already looks crazy enough ^^. I just estimated that an aoe spell will roughly do twice its average damage. Lime hitting 4 people who all save, hitting 2 who don't save or inbetween. If a caster statically significantly can hit more than 4 to 5 creatures with an AoE effect the DM needs some strategy lessons.
 

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
Thanks for that exercise, it really did highlight a lot of good information regarding the Fighter v Wizard disparity. Most notably though is the observation about "using single creatures over 9 - 18 battle rounds" being optimal, that really puts a constraint on DMs designing fun scenarios that dont rely on bloated monster HP.

That said making the gritty rest rules standard might be good for the game
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
If a caster statically significantly can hit more than 4 to 5 creatures with an AoE effect the DM needs some strategy lessons.
Facing larger number of lesser foes is a very fantasy trope thing, and one called out ahead of the Next playtest as something that fighters & wizards should both be able to do (differently, but well) at higher levels.
And just, generally, I'd rather not resort to blaming the DM when starting an evaluation of a system. Genre features hordes, assume DMs will at least try it, and ding the system if it does it badly. JMHO.

That said making the gritty rest rules standard might be good for the game
Giving the DM - or, rather, the DM claiming, proactively - the flexibility to dictate when rests are possible, rather than being locked into a daily or 'gritty' weekly pacing, would go a ways towards expanding the sorts of stories that could be told while forcing the rough, combat-pillar-only, DPR-only, martial/caster balance 5e vaguely aims for.
 
Last edited:


Mort

Legend
Supporter
Yes, that is the entire issue. It I'd a table/DM issue, not a game system issue.

That's not quite right though.

It's a game issue because the assumptions of the game are not well communicated (and even obfuscated) to the person running the game!

More importantly the game gives a HUGE number of tools (relative to all the tiers of play) to one set of classes, but leaves the other set for the DM to "figure out..." - that's a game issue.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
But the assumption is always that wizards (and the people who play them) are like Batman with the correct spell always prepared and the spell slot available to win the day.
That's the biggest problem I see in threads like these. This assumption. In my project management world, we call it "garbage in, garbage out." For those not in the know, it basically means if you're starting with bad data, then no matter how good your process, the result will be bad.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
That's not quite right though.

It's a game issue because the assumptions of the game are not well communicated (and even obfuscated) to the person running the game!

More importantly the game gives a HUGE number of tools (relative to all the tiers of play) to one set of classes, but leaves the other set for the DM to "figure out..." - that's a game issue.
Wel, no, this is all in the DMG. Granted, this can be better presented and hopefully will be next year. But thenissue is Encounter design and management, not the Classes.
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
Wel, no, this is all in the DMG. Granted, this can be better presented and hopefully will be next year. But thenissue is Encounter design and management, not the Classes.

It's not though.

The fact is some of the classes are MUCH more affected by how encounters are designed and managed - and that is TERRIBLY communicated. The DMG essentially treats party design as neutral (number of people in the party vs. what classes those are) and it REALLY is not.

More importantly, the released adventures don't comport to the design assumptions in the DMG (generally with MUCH fewer encounters and of an easier nature).

The point is, experienced DMs know this and can compensate (or not) but new DMs are on their own. Yes. it's technically in the DMG, but I've read the DMG (multiple times) it is horribly presented and would be near impossible for a newcomer to absorb.

That's a game issue.
 

Remove ads

Top