Fighter vs. Wizard - what's your preferred balance of power?

[Steelwill]

In 4e the fighter was legitimately made better. More powerful, more versatile, more interesting to play. And a certain segment of the player base revolted against that. I can only imagine the uproar had fighters been given the ability to sunder the heavens. (Personally I think they should at epic tier but that's another issue entirely).

As for in fantasy magic > all, it depends which fantasy. Certainly not Appendix N. Conan beat Thulsa Doom. And many, many other sorcerors. Fafhrd wasn't a caster and the Grey Mouser was an inept one. And Historical D&D has, although the rules called a L1 fighter a "veteran", had a classic "start as a farmboy" arc. People want to play the fighter who overcomes magic, this reaches back to the roots of D&D, and has long been a part of fantasy. You are seeking to exclude them so far as I can tell.

TL;DR: I believe your tastes are very much minority ones and you'd be happier with Exalted than anything approaching D&D.

Magic was neutered in 4E, and then everyone, fighters, casters and everything in between were given the same AEDU mechanics and this homogeneous system was the basis for 4E's balance. You must have had a really low opinion of a fighter in all previous editions, but still people played them and enjoyed them. In fact for the entire run of 3.x I ran groups that always had more fighters and rogues than casters, because most of them didn't want to bother with being weaksauce for most of the game and easy to kill, and have to deal with vancian bookkeeping. However those few who did want to deal with those things because there was a legitimately epic promise of power, did so and enjoyed it. I ran probably 5 long running campaigns that went into 17-20 range during 3.5's run, and in those the fighters and rogues kicking the crap outta everything, the casters struggled to keep up, casting one spell per round versus their multitude of attacks.

I challenge the assertion that fighters and rogues etc had it so bad, because every debate arguing that I have found ends up using examples of casters built by char-ops forum elite vs melee built by a 5 year old and offers the perfect storm situations that favor their assertion in the comparisons. In the real games I have DM'ed and played in however, that is far from what happens.

In 4E however it is undeniable that a large portion of what used to be possible with magic and spells is just GONE. Save or sucks/die = gone, wide range teleports, flight, and planar travel, significantly reduced or gone, summoning = gone, polymorphing = gone, banishing/imprisoning = gone, long lasting magic buffs = gone. Magic items as well are much less attractive and interesting, compare Deck of Many Things 4E to 3E...no contest.

Nothing you have said Neon sways me. As for my tastes being minority ones, then why is 4E being succeeded so soon in it's short life? Why did Pathfinder flourish piggybacking onto a system already a decade old? Clearly not minority tastes, sorry bud.

 

[Dausuul]

My experience of arcane casters in 3E is that as soon as they get glitterdust, they have zero trouble pulling their weight. With a little maneuvering to draw the enemy into a tight space, one 2nd-level spell can shut down an encounter; monsters blinded for 3+ rounds might as well roll over and die, especially if there's a rogue in the party. It targets Will, which is the weakest save for most foes, and doesn't allow SR.

And even before glitterdust, there's color spray and sleep, available from the get-go. Of course, you still need fighter-types to do the butcher work as the monsters struggle with your Debuff of Doom; you don't get to dispense with the rest of the party until you're into the teens. But I have never found that 3E arcanists followed the "suck at low levels, godly at high levels" arc unless they were foolish enough to rely on direct damage spells. Instead, the arc was "effective party member at low levels, godly at high levels."

Nothing you have said Neon sways me. As for my tastes being minority ones, then why is 4E being succeeded so soon in it's short life? Why did Pathfinder flourish piggybacking onto a system already a decade old? Clearly not minority tastes, sorry bud.

Yes, because the only thing that changed between 3E and 4E was wizards getting nerfed. Everything else stayed exactly the same.

 

[chaochou]

I'd like casting times to be measured in weeks, months and years. I'd like the vast majority of spells - not cantrips for conjuring light or banishing rodents or keeping milk fresh - to be wildly unpredictable and dangerous rituals which can leave horrifying scars and terrible madness.

I'd like prerequisites which are entirely beyond the caster's control - spells which require Sirius to be aligned with Alderbaran during a waxing moon. Spells which require it to be daytime on the west of the house and night on the east at Winter Solstice. I'd like spellcasting to require such intense study and dedication that, to paraphrase Pratchett, after years of toil a wizard can summon a bevy of naked beauties but can't remember what happens next.

I'd like all magic items to be considered artefacts - rare, exquisite, treasured, and owned by something bad enough and smart enough to use them. Something pried from cold, dead hands and never relinquished. I'd like their creation to be a lost art from an older, wiser time.

In short, I'd like the magic of Newhon and Sanctuary, tinged with Lovecraft, and if spellcasting was like that I doubt too many 'martial' classes would feel short-changed.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

In short, I'd like the magic of Newhon and Sanctuary, tinged with Lovecraft

Nah, I'd prefer Rowling like magic. Go to school for seven years, point your wand, say a couple of words and BAM!

 

[Kynn]

Lowering the bar instead of raising it fails for everyone, and is very much the reason why only 4 short years after release 4E is already being succeeded. My 2 cents.

I wish the folks who dislike 4e could stop with the argument-from-discontinuation threads. They don't contribute anything other than edition-warring gravedancing, and they're wrong, anyway.

There's not a provable relationship between "4e's mechanic did [X]" and "the edition was discontinued." The latter is a complex business decision that had nothing to do with whether any given mechanic, or even an aggregate set of mechanics, was good or bad.

In fact, it's entirely possible that a demonstratively superior set of mechanics could still be shut down due to business factors that had nothing to do with the quality of the game.

Just like there are great television shows that get cancelled all the time for stupid reasons, likewise there's no direct relationship between the quality of a game and how long "an edition lasts." (In fact, that's a downright crazy metric to try to apply.)

Star Trek: Voyager is not superior to Star Trek (TOS) because they had more seasons.

 

[Dausuul]

There's not a provable relationship between "4e's mechanic did [X]" and "the edition was discontinued." The latter is a complex business decision that had nothing to do with whether any given mechanic, or even an aggregate set of mechanics, was good or bad.

In fact, it's entirely possible that a demonstratively superior set of mechanics could still be shut down due to business factors that had nothing to do with the quality of the game.

Just like there are great television shows that get cancelled all the time for stupid reasons, likewise there's no direct relationship between the quality of a game and how long "an edition lasts." (In fact, that's a downright crazy metric to try to apply.)

I would be very surprised if the decision to make 5E did not flow from player dissatisfaction and the Pathfinder/4E split. But even granting that, it's a very high bar to prove "This one change was the one that destroyed 4E!" More likely it was a combination of mechanical changes, flavor problems, and the perception (right or wrong) of hostility from the 4E designers toward the 3E fanbase.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In fact for the entire run of 3.x I ran groups that always had more fighters and rogues than casters, because most of them didn't want to bother with being weaksauce for most of the game and easy to kill, and have to deal with vancian bookkeeping. However those few who did want to deal with those things because there was a legitimately epic promise of power, did so and enjoyed it. I ran probably 5 long running campaigns that went into 17-20 range during 3.5's run, and in those the fighters and rogues kicking the crap outta everything, the casters struggled to keep up, casting one spell per round versus their multitude of attacks.

Then all I can say is that your casters were not very creative. The wizard is competative with the fighter from level 1. Colour Spray creates a 15 foot cone that turns monsters with 4hd or less (i.e. almost everything you will be facing at first level) into punchbags.

As for druid vs fighter (where the obvious imbalance is), at level 1 a druid can have a wolf as an animal companion. And assuming the fighter was built with the Standard Array, the wolf almost certainly has more hit points, about the same attack bonus, and a trip thrown in for free. And some actually useful skills. No, the wolf isn't quite the fighter a fighter is. But there's not that much in it, especially with the prone rules and AoOs. And then the druid pitches in.

Simply because your players never put the thought or effort in to playing casters doesn't mean that they weren't broken sideways. It means that your characters never put the thought or effort in. Druids have two class features (the animal companion and Wild Shape) more powerful than the fighter's entire class.

I challenge the assertion that fighters and rogues etc had it so bad, because every debate arguing that I have found ends up using examples of casters built by char-ops forum elite vs melee built by a 5 year old and offers the perfect storm situations that favor their assertion in the comparisons. In the real games I have DM'ed and played in however, that is far from what happens.

A Wizard 20 using only PHB material is not what the Char Op Elite would recommend. And the Char Op elite are more than happy to use as much stinky cheese as possible for the meat shields - it doesn't change a thing. Wizard 20 is going to walk over anything if played well. And you just need one batman wizard to show you how it's done and the game won't go back.

In 4E however it is undeniable that a large portion of what used to be possible with magic and spells is just GONE. Save or sucks/die = gone,

Reduced. They do exist in a couple of very rare cases.

wide range teleports, flight, and planar travel, significantly reduced or gone,

Reduced.

summoning = gone,

I guess someone ought to have told my wizard that before he ended up with more minatures on the table than the rest of the party combined.

polymorphing = gone

Restricted. You can still turn people into frogs or yourself into things.

banishing/imprisoning = gone

Restricted. Immurements take time and money to work.

long lasting magic buffs = gone.

Rituals.

Magic items as well are much less attractive and interesting, compare Deck of Many Things 4E to 3E...no contest.

Indeed. The 4e Deck won't break campaigns. You aren't going to draw from it and find you're now playing a completely different game. No contest indeed.

Nothing you have said Neon sways me. As for my tastes being minority ones, then why is 4E being succeeded so soon in it's short life? Why did Pathfinder flourish piggybacking onto a system already a decade old? Clearly not minority tastes, sorry bud.

4e is an entirely new game under the D&D license. And is being withdrawn because Hasbro have set targets that no edition of D&D there has ever been can meet. And Pathfinder is an extremely well polished game that doesn't change certain fundamentals about D&D and that has the well written adventure paths. What I'm objecting to isn't that some people prefer 3e. I'm objecting to your notion that Exalted is a common playstyle.

 

[Hussar]

Isn't that why we have polls?

Well, sure. But, how does that counter my point? The fact that a significant, non-zero segment of the gaming population reports that this is an issue, kinda means that there is an issue here. Simply saying, "Well, in my game we never had this issue" doesn't really help matters does it?

The way it's phrased is very pro-4e; it's stated as "balance" rather than "homogeneity" or somesuch, and implicitly seems to assume that the two are the same. I find it remarkable that less than half of people have said "perfectly balanced", despite the fact that that's what everyone wants in the broader sense. If you made a poll that asked whether people would rather have the same mechanical system for all classes or different ones for different classes (i.e. the thing that supposedly balances everyone), I think the results would be very different. If you read the replies, many people have qualified their answers to precisely that effect: that balance doesn't mean you need something like the power system for everyone.

Different issue though. You can achieve balance by having unique mechanics for each class. That's possible as well. Granted, we haven't actually seen it done in D&D, but, it can be done. The only D&D system that has actually seen serious parity between the classes is 4e. Thus, one tried and true method for achieving balance is to have each class use the same base mechanics.

Now, as to whether this leads to homogeneity or not is a different issue, but also one that's pretty easily answered. No, it doesn't. The existence of every point based/skill based RPG on the marked proves that having all classes use the same mechanics does not necessarily lead to homogeneity.

I mean, look at Vampire. Now, I only played OWoD, so, I don't know the newer rules. But, in OWoD, there were zero unique mechanics between your Malkavian 13th gen vampire and my 8th gen Toreador. But, if you think those two characters play the same, you haven't played Vampire.

Really? Frankly, sorcerers are more powerful than wizards. They have such large spell lists they can do quite a bit, and their spells/day are so huge they rarely run out. I don't think that balances anything in the case of wizards.

OTOH, I do have spontaneous divine casters. The divine casters, unlike wizards, don't have to find or pay for their spells, and they have a lot of really situational ones, so limiting their selection is a good thing. I still wouldn't say that makes them not the most versatile characters in the game.

I think the problem, to the extent that there is one, is that magic has no consequences.

Well, I did mention the extensive spell lists in the same post, but, you're right, I didn't put the two points together. Yeah, you need to trim the spell list WAY down, get rid of easily crafted wands and scrolls and finally make everyone a spontaneous caster. Druid, Wizard and Cleric go away. While the sorc might be more powerful than the fighter, it's generally at somewhat higher levels than the wizard, so, the sweet spot gets extended that much further.

In any case, we all agree that the casters are an issue.

 

[Grydan]

I'd like to posit that the pillars are different for one big reason: they are usually controlled by the players themselves, not by the DM.

The DM presents a situation: there are orcs attacking the town. The players are the ones who present a solution, and the solution might come from any of those pillars. They might sneak into the orc camp and kill the chief (exploration). They might negotiate a peace treaty (interaction). They might go there and wipe out the army (combat). All of the ways are entirely valid. Some might be easier than others. The DM doesn't rule out any of them.

So you, as the player of the fighter, get to determine how often fightin' solves the problem. As the player of the wizard, you get to determine how often teleportin' solves the problem. As a party.

So the DM doesn't determine the mixture of pillars. The players of the fighter, wizard, or whatever, determines the mixture of pillars.

I would posit that the mixture of pillars is determined by the players to the extent that the DM allows it.

If the DM wants an event to happen, it happens. All they have to do is say so.

If the DM wants your Orc scenario to result in a combat scene, then attempts at negotiation are refused (blatant rejection) or break down in progress and result in the orcs attacking over the negotiating table (more subtle).

If the DM wants to avoid combat, the orcs can go out of their way to avoid every attempt by the PCs to engage, or be described as travelling in sufficiently large and powerful bands as to make direct combat a suicide mission.

If the DM wants to avoid the infiltration/assassination, the orc camp might be described in such a way that infiltration is clearly non-viable, or more subtly, allow infiltration but have it inevitably end in discovery (leading either to capture and negotiation, or combat).

If the DM has spent a good deal of effort setting up for one of those options, chances are they're going to attempt to guide the players into it, whether blatantly or subtly.

Do all DMs do this? No. Do many DMs do this, to some varying extent? Certainly.

It can be taken too far, and lead to railroads where the players don't have real choices, in which case the players will revolt to some degree or another, which brings up the corollary to my first statement:

DMs control the mixture of the pillars to the extent that the players allow them to.

---

Regardless, say we grant your position that the players determine the mixture.

What does that resolve when it comes to the balance issue?

The players aren't all going to be playing the same class, in most cases. So there's not going to be one mixture that's "right" for all of their characters, unless all of their characters are viable in all mixes.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If the DM wants an event to happen, it happens. All they have to do is say so.

If the DM wants your Orc scenario to result in a combat scene, then attempts at negotiation are refused (blatant rejection) or break down in progress and result in the orcs attacking over the negotiating table (more subtle).

...

It can be taken too far, and lead to railroads where the players don't have real choices, in which case the players will revolt to some degree or another, ...

Good DMing 101: No Bottlenecks. There should be multiple valid solutions to any problem, and you shouldn't "force" the players to do any one thing in order to proceed. Assuming the game is built to encourage good DMing, this is a non-problem. DMs don't have preconceived notions of how their scene should go. The game educates DMs to not have these notions.

Of course, we can always have a particular "style" of campaign (say, a campaign focused more on interaction/roleplay than on combat), but these styles, assuming the DM is upfront about them, can help influence class choice. If a DM says that he will blatantly prefer one pillar to another, players can choose classes skilled in that pillar (paladins and bards instead of fighters and barbarians).

Regardless, say we grant your position that the players determine the mixture.

What does that resolve when it comes to the balance issue?

The players aren't all going to be playing the same class, in most cases. So there's not going to be one mixture that's "right" for all of their characters, unless all of their characters are viable in all mixes.

It resolves it because if the players control their approach, they don't feel like their abilities are under-utilized, or that they constantly suck. If they did go into a situation they weren't good at for some reason (perhaps the reward for peace with the orcs might be better than the reward for killing them all), they could prepare for their failings, shore up their weaknesses, and head in fully aware that they need to be careful.

"Viable" is different than "equal." Viable can be the difference between -5 and +5, which is still a significant mechanical divergence. "Always Wins" and "Always Looses" are extremes that it's smart to avoid, but there's a lot of room between those for people to have legitimately different odds of success in a given encounter. A bard SHOULD have a higher rate of success in social encounters than a barbarian. A fighter SHOULD have a higher rate of success in combat than a wizard. That doesn't mean barbarians can't grunt (even at -5), and that wizards can't have more than 1 hp (even if they are very frail), but it does mean the success levels can be measurably different.