In a typical fantasy setting, I've always wondered if it even makes any sense for a "Fighter" to stand on equal ground as a hero with a Wizard or a spell caster. It's like having super heroes and policemen in the same team.
I love playing the melee warrior guy and 3.5 has always bored me because I always feel like I'm just a glorified NPC grunt. 4E balanced it out but it drove a pro-Wizard friend away from our games.
What does everyone think? Does the melee guy still have a place as a PC if magic is powerful, reliable, and unlimited? On the other hand, is it also pointless if magic isn't impressive, reliable, and greatly limited?
Looking forward to earnest insight to this convention we've come to accept-- cleric wizard fighter thief.
Thanks all!
Fantasy novels aren't fantasy games. In most pre-D&D fantasy novels, LotR being a big exception, there's only one or two heroes, and they're either fighter-commanders or low-level casters.
After D&D became popular (a non-identified term), parties starting becoming more common in fantasy novels. Alas, they still tended to "nerf" spellcasters in various ways. LotR (older than D&D, but still) had Gandalf afraid to use magic, because it would create a massive beacon letting the forces of evil know where he is. Fantasy novels are filled with weak spellcasters who can cast mystic dart three times per day.
Even if the caster is considered powerful, this just means they can cast three powerful spells per day, all of which take a lot of time to cast, requiring them to be guarded by fighters.
And of course, in D&D novels, casters
never get to rest. (There should be a trope for this.) I read one of the Knights of Myth Drannor book, and the wizard character, who could cast Lightning Bolt, cast less than six spells in the 400 page book, which took place over only two days, and complained about being "out of magic". In the rare instance where casters aren't so limited, they tend to become flagrantly overpowered (Elminster, Lina Inverse, if anyone knows who the latter is). Could bad writing be at the core of this complaint?
In short, the books and game don't match up.
The game has made repeated attempts to balance things up. Wizards are weak and vulnerable to go with that power; unfortunately, this tended to make them very weak at low levels, while at high levels fighters only acted as their bodyguards. (This was explicitly pointed out in novels and flavor text for Dragonlance, when explaining the partnership between a wizard and a fighter. It was part of Caramon and Raistlin's combat strategy.) In 3.x, for instance, because wizards had such terrible hit point and AC scores, even "overpowered" spells that simply boosted these scores weren't any good. Instead, wizards tended to rely on powerful but balanced defensive spells (Mirror Image) or flat-out broken ones (Greater Invisibility) to go along with their incredible, ever-increasing offense.
IMO, 4e has done a pretty good job of balancing things out. Wizards are no longer horribly weak - their AC scores aren't terrible anymore (being based on Int), their hit points are low but you're no longer in danger of being one-shotted by a kobold minion, and you have a "limitless" supply of attack magic, so you're not constantly hugging the fighter like an iron security blanket while plinking darts in the general direction of your foes. On the other hand, you can't be constantly invisible (which has been nerfed into a fairly easy to understand mechanic), flying, and dishing out save-or-suffer spells every round that a fighter-type NPC has no real chance of resisting, with only one spell necessary to take out each opponent!
By giving wizards a clearer role, WotC has made it difficult for either class to feel jealous of each other. Sure, the fighter has more hit points, better AC and more healing surges (usually of greater value too) but the fighter's job is to take hits for other characters, and is given the tools (marking, Combat Challenge, etc) to do just that. Meanwhile, the wizard is probably dishing out multi-target control effects like Icy Rays, which don't dish out massive damage but (literally) freezes opponents in place. Alternatively, if the wizard is using the somewhat weaker wand build, they can still dish out reliable AoE damage, great for clearing minions, clumps, and so forth. Despite claims that there's no difference between the classes, the fighter cannot do the wizard's job, and the wizard cannot do the fighter's job.
Magic is both more and less reliable than before. Yes, the wizard can whip out some fairly weak Thunderwave spells ad-infinitum, but that's no stronger than Tide of Iron or whatever another character can do. On the other hand, if the wizard hits an opponent with, say, Legion's Hold, it's not a guaranteed hit even if the targets are weak-willed, and the targets get a greater than 50% chance of breaking free every round. Contrast with in 3.5, a wizard could hit a target with Hold Monster, which gave a save every round, but if your target was a rogue who could make their save less than 25% of the time, they were effectively out of the entire battle.
Having fewer spells/encounter meant setting up a massive alpha strike combo is nearly impossible. It also makes picking spells easier, IME; in 3.x, I played an "invincible wizard" rather than a sorcerer because I wanted spell variety, but noted I pretty much did the same thing every encounter. (Mirror Image, then save-or-suffer spells like Glitterdust until the battle is over.) Several of the spells said wizard were using are rituals in 4e, and wouldn't need to be used every day, like Knock. (Speaking of which, Knock is a great example of a ritual. You can get a +5 bonus to your Arcana check, which will probably be equal to a rogue's Thievery check without the bonus, but it costs you a healing surge. A rogue can use a daily utility to get an ever larger bonus to their Thievery check, and in any event can do so faster than the wizard. I'm not seeing a lot of competition there. The wizard can't replace the rogue if the rogue is there, but if there isn't a rogue, and you need to get through that door regardless of cost, well, turn to the wizard.)
I wouldn't refer to the situation as "policemen versus superheroes". Superheroes are flat-out better than cops, being at least as tough and can have the same training (in some cases, they might literally be cops when out of costume). It's more like X-Men First Class where you've got X-23 (younger Wolverine clone) and a telepath who can't fight; probably a better example is to say the fighter
is a superhero, with a different set of abilities than his more mystical companions.
