|
9 months ago ::
Sep 20, 2012 - 7:21AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Mar 15, 2005
|
Here is a brief summary of numbers I crunched to compare damage capability of a wizard vs a fighter.
Level 5 Fighter/Wizard
Both with applicable ability modifier of +4
Wizard CON 12 (+1), Fighter CON 14 (+2)
Wizard HP: 13-25 (21)
Fighter HP: 24-60 (44)
Fighter with a 1d8 damage weapon. Using expertise dice only for damage bonus
1d8+2d8+str/dex+weapon attack
3d8+4+4 = (3+8)-(24+8) = 11-32 per successful hit
(Including natural 20s)
VS AC 10 = avg 19.5
VS AC 15 = avg 14.1
VS AC 20 = avg 8.7
Wizard:
Cantrips (Magic Missile, Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp) At-Will
Lvl 1 (Burning Hands/Thunder Wave) up to 4x per day
Lvl 2 (Melf's Acid Arrow) up to 3x per day
Lvl 3 (Fireball/Lightning Bolt) up to 2x per day
Magic Missile
VS AC 10 = avg 3.5
VS AC 15 = avg 3.5
VS AC 20 = avg 3.5
Ray of Frost (including natural 20s)
VS AC 10 = avg 6
VS AC 15 = avg 4.4
VS AC 20 = avg 2.7
Burning Hands (3 targets):
VS DEX 10 = avg 27
VS DEX 15 = avg 25.5
VS DEX 20 = avg 23.3
Ray of Enfeeblement (including natural 20s)
VS AC 10 = avg 14.2
VS AC 15 = avg 12.4
VS AC 20 = avg 10.7
Melf's Acid Arrow (including natural 20s):
VS AC 10 = avg 26.6
VS AC 15 = avg 22.1
VS AC 20 = avg 17.6
Fireball (3 targets):
VS Dex 10 = avg 47.3
VS Dex 15 = avg 44.6
VS Dex 20 = avg 40.7
Lightning (2 Targets):
VS Dex 10 = avg 37.8
VS Dex 15 = avg 35.7
VS Dex 20 = avg 32.6
So if the wizard takes all damage spells he can do about 15-40 total damage/round for 9 rounds. After that he is down to about 3-9 damage/round using cantrips.
Which on a damage/damage comparison is pretty decent for the wizard. The fighter's 9-20 per round will take some time to catch up. (Approximately 18-26 rounds before the fighter catches up)
However, it still assumes that the wizard only takes high-damage spells. No cause fear, comprehend languages, charm person, counterspell, hold person, resistance, dispel magic, suggestion.
Realistically I would only take about 5 high damage spells and 4 utility spells. This would mean the fighter would outpace the wizard's damage after only 10-14 rounds. Which is still reasonable. I think most fights I have seen so far have only been 3-5 rounds each.
On the bad side, the wizard will only have 21 hp, with an AC of maybe 12. One crit (from the fighter for example) and the wizard is down and almost insta-killed (-11 hp with a con of 12). 2 Hits from a bugbear/minatour/ogre would easily kill a wizard. It would take a 4-5 hits from a goblin or 1-2 from an orc to bring the wizard to 0 hp. Which, for a wizard, all sounds reasonable.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 20, 2012 - 7:04PM
#2
|
|
|
This is actually a good version of these posts, which normally I can't stand.
A couple of thoughts.
First with the Fireball and Lightning bolt spells, did you total the average damage based on what it does to the multiple mobs or is that what was rolled on average?
Second, does having this information really impact how you play a Fighter or play a Wizard or any other class?
The second question is meant to any and every one. I ask because I fail to see the value in these kinds of posts. Personally, I don't see how having these numbers could help someone have more fun playing than not having this. I don't know, maybe its just me.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 20, 2012 - 8:04PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2009
|
Second, does having this information really impact how you play a Fighter or play a Wizard or any other class?
The second question is meant to any and every one. I ask because I fail to see the value in these kinds of posts. Personally, I don't see how having these numbers could help someone have more fun playing than not having this.
Some of us have empathy, and care that Timmy has no fun being a floor Wizard.
Your campaign might be made of magic, but the game is based in numbers, just because you try not to understand them, doesn't mean that they have no effect.
Ideally the gap between min maxing, and average choices close allowing everyone at the table to maintain a good mood with no one feeling left behind.
I don't think you have to do any mental math to calculate the benefit of balancing a game.
Unless you just want to be 'OP' despite hating min maxers.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 20, 2012 - 9:37PM
#4
|
|
|
Which on a damage/damage comparison is pretty decent for the wizard. The fighter's 9-20 per round will take some time to catch up. (Approximately 18-26 rounds before the fighter catches up)
However, it still assumes that the wizard only takes high-damage spells. No cause fear, comprehend languages, charm person, counterspell, hold person, resistance, dispel magic, suggestion.
This comparison assumes that the Fighter's dumping all CS dice into Deadly Strike. If that's the basis for balance, then Combat Superiority has failed at its most fundamental purpose - giving Fighters balanced and meaningful tactical choices rather than just "I hit it with my sword."
When a Wizard with a balanced spell list balances against a Fighter who makes regular use of a balanced suite of tactical maneuvers - that's when we're in good form.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 12:46AM
#5
|
|
|
I don't understand why you would bother crunching the numbers(extreme boredom?) but I can tell you this...
Compairing the fighter to the Wizard on a single metric(damage in this case) is at best a fun number crunching experiment, and at worst an exercise in the creation of strawmen. Damage output is a poor balancing point and largely lost when the full scope of spells and combat manuevers is applied over the course of a game.
Preferences... Not where they should be.
Asking someone if they're Trolling you is in violation of section 3 of the Code of Conduct.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 3:12AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
This is at least the third time this has been done for this packet (I did it once and someone else followed up) - all with slightly different assumptions but similar conclusions.
It take around 20 rounds to reach parity. If you have less than 20 rounds in the adventuring day - the wizards are favored and as you go beyond 20 rounds the fighter starts to dominate.
However - based on the calculations by many other people - your fighter expected damage appears to be low. Most people have come up with a figure of around 15 points for the fighter at L3. You have the fighter doing 14 at L5 (when he should be doing more more like an estimated 17-18 due to the second expertise die). I'll comment on the principle - then come back to look at why you arrived at a different number than I did for the fighter.
I, at one point, was working on the math to 'fix' some of the issues with the spell damage. Specifically, my goal wsa to define spell damage in terms of multiples of fighter damage.
The idea was to take the fighter's expected damage (14 points by the above calculation - at bit lower than I would have used at that level - I doubt most fighters would ever use a 1d8 weapon with racial weapons usually offering better options) and corrolate spell damage to that.
So, for example Burning Hands would be doing too much damage by that metric, Arc lightning is a bit low and fireball is a bit high (and I allowed more targets per fireball than 3 - more like 4 or 5).
As an aside: I think the fix for burning hands is to take it back to its AD&D roots - at least in terms of area of effect. In AD&D, burning hands was a 120degree arc extending 3' from the caster. Not a cone. I think this is a good idea and is easily modeled on a grid as three adjacent contiguous squares. This would reduce the expected number of targets to 2 rather than 3 and thus the expected damage to around 17 (close enough to the fighter expected damage).
For the others, there are many ways of getting to damage formulas that would use these numbers - if they agreed with the premise that expected spell damage should be proportional to spell level (something I consider to be essential if they are going to have spell point caster mechanics).
Other advantagess of this approach is that the spells per day for wizards can be more easily calculated to determine the number of rounds to reach parity - which makes design easier; and it makes it possible to alter that table to adjust their spells per day for the number of rounds the DM wishes to run.
Carl
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 3:35AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Here is a brief summary of numbers I crunched to compare damage capability of a wizard vs a fighter.
Level 5 Fighter/Wizard
Both with applicable ability modifier of +4
Wizard CON 12 (+1), Fighter CON 14 (+2)
Wizard HP: 13-25 (21)
Fighter HP: 24-60 (44)
Fighter with a 1d8 damage weapon. Using expertise dice only for damage bonus
1d8+2d8+str/dex+weapon attack
3d8+4+4 = (3+8)-(24+8) = 11-32 per successful hit
(Including natural 20s)
VS AC 10 = avg 19.5
VS AC 15 = avg 14.1
VS AC 20 = avg 8.7
A fighter with a 16 ability score would have an attack bonus of +6. I suppose you might have a +4 at L5 but that is a bit high of a value (I usually just use +3). On the other hand, they are also highly unlikely to ever use a d8 weapon (unless you are talking about a halfling). I guess that balances out.
On the other hand - you added the attack bonus into the damage. Huh????
Your fighter numbers are.... odd.
Recalculated:
Level 5 Fighter ability modifier of +6
Fighter with a 1d10 damage weapon (typical 1 handed for a fighter; can be as high as a 2d6 - 2 handed - weapon). But 1d10 is a good standard assuming one-handed.
Using expertise dice only for damage bonus 1d10+2d8+3 = average on a hit: 17.5 (Crit 29).
Note - this assumes that the fighter does not have Glancing Blow (see below).
Against AC 15 (higher than the average in the Bestiary, but it's the median value you used. AC 14 is the actual average AC) the fighter hits on a 9 for 60%. Average damage per round (including crits):
(.4)(0) + (.55)(17.5) + (.05)(29) = 9.625 + 1.45 = 11.1 points.
But what if the fighter has glancing blow?
(.4)(9) + (.55)(17.5) + (.05)(29)
The expected damage increases to 14.7 points.
To put it into your format:
(Including natural 20s)
(.15)(9) + (.8)(17.5) + (.05)(29)
VS AC 10 = avg 16.8
(.4)(9) + (.55)(17.5) + (.05)(29)
VS AC 15 = avg 14.1
(.65)(9) + (.30)(17.5) + (.05)(29)
VS AC 20 = avg 12.55 (much of this damage comes from the glancing blow. Note, however, that the highest AC in the bestiary is AC 17)
Bottom line: Your numbers aren't too far off - even if the numbers you used were a bit ... odd.
15 points is what most people use for the fighter's expected damage output. You can get there at L3 with some slightly different assumptions (including AC 14 since it's a lot more common and a two-handed weapon). Or youcan get there at L5 witha one-handed weapon. Give the variables, it makes a nice convenient number for most comparisons.
For comparison - if I did assume a Str 18 fighter with a d12 (two handed) weapon that would be:
Base: 2d8 + 1d12 + 4 = 19.5 (crit 32)
(.4)(9) + (.55)(19.5) + (.05)(32)
VS AC 15 = avg 15.9
Aside: The warlock does around 14 points expected damage with its Eldritch Blast - making it comparable to the fighter in at-will damage.
Carl
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 9:14AM
#8
|
|
|
Second, does having this information really impact how you play a Fighter or play a Wizard or any other class?
The second question is meant to any and every one. I ask because I fail to see the value in these kinds of posts. Personally, I don't see how having these numbers could help someone have more fun playing than not having this.
Some of us have empathy, and care that Timmy has no fun being a floor Wizard.
Your campaign might be made of magic, but the game is based in numbers, just because you try not to understand them, doesn't mean that they have no effect.
Ideally the gap between min maxing, and average choices close allowing everyone at the table to maintain a good mood with no one feeling left behind.
I don't think you have to do any mental math to calculate the benefit of balancing a game.
Unless you just want to be 'OP' despite hating min maxers.
Now clearly, I'm an un-empathetic monster but bare with me as I try to understand your response.
Now, I very much understand that the groundfloor of any game is going to be mathematically based. I, personally, don't see how endless number crunching posts will help me, my group or anyone else out there have fun. The problem that I have with these posts is the endless, as I interpret it, demands that everything be completely balanced. I am a firm beleiver in to much balancing will homogenize the fun out of the game.
Now, yes there needs to be a balance. That balance does not need to be strictly in the combat sense. As of right now Rogues are viewed as vastly overbalanced in the Skill department and a bit under-balanced in Combat (look balancing).
There is more to D&D than long swords and fireballs and that should never be forgotten, nor should the long swords and fireballs be ignored.
I simply asked, having no empathy of my own, does this impact how you play a Fighter or a Wizard or any other class? It's not a matter of min/maxing or being "OP" (since I like the challenge of underpowered classes/characters), but of the true core of any game. A question that must be asked at every step of the way and one often overlooked;
Is this Fun?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 11:23AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2004
|
How about 17+1 Strength+2 Strength 20 Strength Fighter using a Greataxe for 1d12+5 damage+2d8 for the expertise? You also didn't consider the fighter getting a mastercraft weapon for +1 to damage. So you could got 1d12+2d8+6 damage. 6.5+9+6=21.5 Damage.
Glancing Blow and Cleave have not been considered either as a Slayer. Slayer Human, biggest strength and weapon possible is what I would do to deal the most damage.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 12:34PM
#10
|
|
|
This is actually a good version of these posts, which normally I can't stand.
A couple of thoughts.
First with the Fireball and Lightning bolt spells, did you total the average damage based on what it does to the multiple mobs or is that what was rolled on average?
Second, does having this information really impact how you play a Fighter or play a Wizard or any other class?
The second question is meant to any and every one. I ask because I fail to see the value in these kinds of posts. Personally, I don't see how having these numbers could help someone have more fun playing than not having this. I don't know, maybe its just me.
I've been trying to say this time and again.
With how radically different that mechanics are for each class, complete balance is going to be impossible. DnD is an active, dynamic game, not flat hp slugfest. What I mean by that is, these posts are usually under "Perfect" conditions, not including terrain, traps, environment, monsters, DM messing with the players, etc. Having all classes balanced can be tipped by so many factors that if you try and include all of it, you'd probably go insane.
Let's take your two classes for example, Wizard and Fighter. Let's say the developers balance their numbers for a combat, sure. But let's say there's only 1 combat before you rest. The Wizard can blow all of his spells and wreck shop. But lets say there's 7 or 8 combats before rest. The wizard gets tapped quickly but the fighter still is chugging along with his dice. You see? There's just too many factors.
Now that being said, balancing class usefulness is an obtainable goal. This is more akin to making sure that the classes can use their abilities easily and often enough to make them feel balanced, but not too easily or often. But asking for a 1 to 1 ratio in damage is just out of the question 
My two copper.
|
|
|
