D&D 5E Might&Magic: the linear fighter and the exponential wizard

DreamsAndPixies · Apr 5, 2018

This is a very old topic in d&d, the linear fighter and the exponential wizard. Fighters start off as strong, but as they progress, wizards exceed them, and by a fair margin at high-level. The subject was interesting enough to me that I wrote a long article.

Link here.

I argue that, although it is less true in 5e, it is still the case. Especially because casters have the tremendous upside of versatility. And in my opinion, it will always be the case because of the fantasy of swords and magic that we have in our heads.

Also unexpected Avatar: the Last Airbender reference!

Also follow me on twitter, and check out my previous articles.

Shiroiken · Apr 5, 2018

It really depends on your terms. In earlier (non 4E) editions, casters got more spells as they leveled, and their lower level spells got more powerful, allow them to remain useful(thus gaining twice the benefits per level). Now casters generally stop using lower level spell slots for combat, since they generally don't even keep up with cantrips. Yes, many full casters start off weaker than a lot of non-casters, but they don't massively surpass them at higher levels (if they surpass them at all). IME, all classes are fairly linear (with spikes at levels 5 and 11), just they have slightly different variations on the increase.

As for versatility, Clerics, Druids, Wizards, and Paladins will always be more versatile than non-casters, because they have the ability to change spells per day. The other casters... not so much. They're basically locked in abilities, just like non-caster class abilities. They may have more options for character building, but not much more versatility during play.

Tony Vargas · Apr 5, 2018

DreamsAndPixies said:
I argue that, although it is less true in 5e, it is still the case. Especially because casters have the tremendous upside of versatility. And in my opinion, it will always be the case because of the fantasy of swords and magic that we have in our heads.

If by 'we' we mean 'people who have played D&D for a long time,' sure, I suppose so.

Dreams&Pixies said:
As long as d&d has such high-fantasy magic, the gap between fighters and wizards is unlikely to ever be bridged.

You say 'as long as,' but the gap's already been bridged. In 4e the Fighter & Wizard were reasonably balanced.

5e did not restore LFQW entirely. It restored part of the lavish spell progression to wizards while taking away virtually all limited-resource abilities from the Fighter, but it also scaled spells with slots rather than caster level. And, it also restored the 1e fighter's multiple attacks, problematic in their own way.

OTOH, 5e scales save DCs with character levels when 3.x scaled saves with slot level, and TSR era D&D didn't scale save DCs, at all.
The 5e fighter improves with level, basically, about every 5th level he gets an extra attack, that's the main thing. It's nothing to sneeze at, it's 'linear,' though any damage bonus he gets is essentially multiplied by the number of attacks. The wizard also scales his cantrips every 5 levels, and they start out, and stay, weaker in terms of DPR than extra attacks, and there's not a lot of bonuses available to add to them. There's more of a range of what cantrips can do than what weapons can do, but it's not huge, so on the at-will side there's this gap between the two. Spells fill in that gap.

At first, two 1st level spell slots do so, and it goes up from there. It takes the wizard's higher level slots to really step up and deliver excess damage to make up for the difference between cantrips & extra attack over a full 6-8 encounter day, so if the wizard only ever got 2 or 3 of his top slots, it'd probably just end there. But, of course, he keeps his lower level slots, which stop mattering so much for DPR purposes but still give him ever-growing added versatility. Then there's rituals.

Thus, the wizard stays Tier 1 as it was in 3.5, while the fighter, as a competent DPR specialist rises to Tier 4 - or even with judicious use of backgrounds & feats to expand out-of-combat competence, arguably Tier 3 (purists might point out that 'builds' aren't supposed to factor into Tier).

The Crimson Binome · Apr 5, 2018

Fighters and wizards are both exponential. Fighters grow by number of attacks per round, and damage per attack, and attack accuracy. Wizards grow by spells per day, and spell damage, and spell accuracy, and versatility.

Just saying that they're both exponential is not enough to compare them. Even saying that the wizard grows by a greater number of parameters is not sufficient. You would need to actually get in there and quantify each of those points before you can really say which side comes out better, and the big problem is that versatility isn't easy to quantify.

The fighter does more damage, and the wizard can teleport. Who contributes more? I would argue that the fighter is the star of the show, regardless of where they perform, but the wizard gets to pick the venue.

toucanbuzz · Apr 5, 2018

DreamsAndPixies said:
This is a very old topic in d&d, the linear fighter and the exponential wizard. Fighters start off as strong, but as they progress, wizards exceed them, and by a fair margin at high-level. The subject was interesting enough to me that I wrote a long article....I argue that, although it is less true in 5e, it is still the case. Especially because casters have the tremendous upside of versatility. And in my opinion, it will always be the case because of the fantasy of swords and magic that we have in our heads.

As you note, "the gap does not seem to be an issue at the table." It's not an issue at mine either. Why? Because, as you also note, many players like the idea of playing Conan instead of a weakling in robes who hides in the back. So, they don't care that mechanically, fighters can do less, because the game isn't all about what I can do. It's about what we can do. If I keep you alive long enough to cast that Meteor Swarm, then we've accomplished something. And, as you state, mechanics have little to do with actual roleplay, strategy, wits, and cunning that players bring to the table, no matter the class. Instead of compensation, it's a dynamic of the game that is apart from combat.

However, we like to let everyone have a chance to shine at the table. A good DM will throw a variety of situations and challenges that, with a good social group, will make this a routine facet of the game. But, it seems you're pointing out that the disparity from a mechanical perspective is that a fighter has less tools in his belt and it's a gear-dependent class. Well, that's purposeful. Some people don't want or need to play a character who can do everything. Some just want to roll a die and make big booms with a hammer. Some don't want to think about how I can get around the challenges that lie between Point A and Point B by using this spell or this divination. For them, let's barrel through can be enough, or "point me to where I need to go." If I get a big shiny sword that helps, all the better.

So, it may simply just fall into market economics. If there's a demand, then the perceived gap doesn't really matter.

The Crimson Binome · Apr 5, 2018

A wizard in D&D is a lot like Mew in the first Pokémon game. Its stats aren't that great, but it can learn any move in the game, which means its only real practical use is as an HM mule that can go anywhere while only taking up one spot in the party.

A wizard can cast Knock, or Teleport, or Water Breathing; but if you don't have a wizard, then you simply don't get past those obstacles, and you constrain your gameplay to the areas that you can access. Regardless of whether you explore over here or over there, the fighter is the one who does the heavy lifting.

CapnZapp · Apr 5, 2018

DreamsAndPixies said:
This is a very old topic in d&d, the linear fighter and the exponential wizard. Fighters start off as strong, but as they progress, wizards exceed them, and by a fair margin at high-level. The subject was interesting enough to me that I wrote a long article.

Link here.

I argue that, although it is less true in 5e, it is still the case. Especially because casters have the tremendous upside of versatility. And in my opinion, it will always be the case because of the fantasy of swords and magic that we have in our heads.

Also unexpected Avatar: the Last Airbender reference!

Also follow me on twitter, and check out my previous articles.

It really isnt the problem it used to be.

In fact, it's one of 5th editions greatest successes, how fighters remain relevant and useful to parties of any level.

DreamsAndPixies · Apr 6, 2018

toucanbuzz said:
As you note, "the gap does not seem to be an issue at the table." It's not an issue at mine either. Why? Because, as you also note, many players like the idea of playing Conan instead of a weakling in robes who hides in the back. So, they don't care that mechanically, fighters can do less, because the game isn't all about what I can do. It's about what we can do. If I keep you alive long enough to cast that Meteor Swarm, then we've accomplished something. And, as you state, mechanics have little to do with actual roleplay, strategy, wits, and cunning that players bring to the table, no matter the class. Instead of compensation, it's a dynamic of the game that is apart from combat.

I agree with half your message. But wizards don't need to be weaklings that hide in the back. Especially in the case you quote, Meteor Swarm or high level. It's only because everyone pitch in in the collective fantasy of d&d that you're thinking that wizards would stay hidden in the back-line at high level. Everyone pitch in, including the wizard that knows they could simply power-game with all their spells. Hence there is a gap, not just mechanical, but also between world-building and mechanics. I like when flavour, mechanics and world-building all match up together.

Oofta · Apr 6, 2018

I think this is going to vary tremendously from game to game and isn't nearly as bad as previous editions (well, pre 4E anyway). I remember hitting level 15 or so in 3.5 and suddenly my fighter who was pretty amazing soon just sat their making sure the wizard/cleric got their turn. He became a support character to help carry the pagoda of the almighty casters.

If you follow the standard 6-8 encounters per day with 1-2 short rests, fighters hold up just fine. Yes, wizards will cast Meteor Storm once per day which is an amazing spell in the right circumstance. Meanwhile the fighter is a cuisinart of spinning blade death.

It's kind of like the tortoise and the hare. Yes, the hare has incredible utility now and then but averaged out over an average combat day and it feels close. There are a few problematic spells that seem unbalanced under certain situations but that can be countered to a certain degree by a variety of encounters.

But if your game has 2-3 fights between long rests or you let wizards scribe 9th level scrolls (and give them the money to do so), it's going to be a different story.

DreamsAndPixies · Apr 6, 2018

In practice, almost no one runs 6-8 encounters per adventuring day, which boost the relative power of full casters.

See this survey by Colville https://twitter.com/mattcolville/status/896458473688268801
Critical Role S1 had 1.6 encounters per adventuring day I think.

And no official modules run that many encounters from what I know. Designers also said 6-8 medium/hard encounters is a theoretical threshold that party can run, not their expectations of what dms would run.