Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[cross ofth carpenter]

Where in the Nine Hells are you getting this from? Not all wizards are Raistlin Majere, you know.

You might as well say that all high level fighters are ax crazy, mass murdering psychopaths who seek to conquer the world in a manner which would shame Genghis Khan and make Hitler weep. Or do you think it healthy to be a member of a profession that involves killing people for a living, and which requires you to kill a great deal of people to reach high levels?

While all wizards might not be the archetypical wizard
who has delusions of power and grandeur,
I would they their class as a whole has a tendency towards
such a thing.

Particularly as they gain in level and therefore
believe that they can bend reality to their will
and see other people as instruments created
to fulfill their purposes and goals.

Not to mention the tendency towards isolation
particularly from society which manifests itself
in the wizard profession as a result of the nature of
the class itself (requiring much study in a library or so)
and also from the general mistrust towards magic-users
which does to some extent exist in the society of a D&D
world.

Not to mention that this distrust by society is further
reinforced by the tendency to see wizards as holding
the common man (considered to be most members of society) in contempt and being skeptical of and not adhering to the religion of the society.

 

[cross ofth carpenter]

A wizard's ability to impact the campaign setting is vastly superior to that of a fighter's. A fighter has two things he can do as a fighter: hit things or shoot things. Sure, he could try to raise an army, but that requires Charisma. He could try to lead an army, but that requires Int and Wis. As a fighter, your Strength, Dex, and Con scores are going to take priority over your mental stats - at least if you plan on fighting.


Meanwhile, the fighter's class abilities enable him to hit things better.

Power which is the basic question between classes in the
D&D world depend on a lot of things.

For example, in the D&D world of the middle ages,
the basic form/structure of government is monarchy.

There is usually one religion to which conformity is
expected to be an accepted member of society.
Non-conformity means expulsion and banishment.

Wealth, aristocratic titles, barons and so forth are
another form of power.

Similarly common law (not the English), and the traditions
of the community are another.

In this world of feudalism and a knight owing
fealty to his lord.

Now a fighter and wizard exist within this world.

Now all classes have a social rank, and
fighters also do not necessarily think, plan
and fight alone.

Unless a wizard is considered to be one of the preceding
powers mentions such as a wealthy baron.

Although a wizard in this world could also be
considered to be a new force such as innovation
and an innovator for example Johannes Gutenberg
the inventor of the printing press or a force
which disturbs this feudal balance through some
innovation ushering in a new age.

 

[Dandu]

While all wizards might not be the archetypical wizard
who has delusions of power and grandeur,
I would they their class as a whole has a tendency towards
such a thing.

Particularly as they gain in level and therefore
believe that they can bend reality to their will
and see other people as instruments created
to fulfill their purposes and goals.

Meanwhile, fighters are committing acts of mass murder without suffering any of the emotional trauma associated with such acts, which is psychopathic or sociopathic behavior.

Not to mention the tendency towards isolation
particularly from society which manifests itself
in the wizard profession as a result of the nature of
the class itself (requiring much study in a library or so)
and also from the general mistrust towards magic-users
which does to some extent exist in the society of a D&D
world.

Do physics graduate students strike you as particularly mentally unbalanced, or likely to aspire to world domination?

Not to mention that this distrust by society is further
reinforced by the tendency to see wizards as holding
the common man (considered to be most members of society) in contempt and being skeptical of and not adhering to the religion of the society.

In the USA, people feel much the same about rich lawyers, yet many of our presidents have been such.

Power which is the basic question between classes in the

D&D world depend on a lot of things.

For example, in the D&D world of the middle ages,
the basic form/structure of government is monarchy.

Let me stop you right there. No D&D world really models the middle ages. Peasants are not landless serfs who are dying of disease and starvation left and right, there is a healthy, prosperous middle class, literacy is near-universal - with the barbarian class being the only one that is illiterate, a feat not even the humble commoner peasant can boast of - which implies higher levels of education...

There is usually one religion to which conformity is
expected to be an accepted member of society.
Non-conformity means expulsion and banishment.

Polytheism says "hi". The D&D pantheons vary by setting but always have multiple gods and the default one has two gods of magic, in which case you'd expect their followers to approve of wizards.

Wealth, aristocratic titles, barons and so forth are
another form of power.

And how do you get wealth and titles? By kicking dragon arse and taking orc names, which both fighters and wizards will do.

Though as any true mastermind will tell you, the best position to be in is the power behind the throne. Now you tell me, is a wizard or fighter more likely to secure that position?

Similarly common law (not the English), and the traditions
of the community are another.

Ah, the law. A domain populated by lawyers... which wizards resemble more than fighters.

In this world of feudalism and a knight owing
fealty to his lord.

And if you can manipulate the lord, you gain the knight as well, no?

Now a fighter and wizard exist within this world.

Now all classes have a social rank, and
fighters also do not necessarily think, plan
and fight alone.

Unless a wizard is considered to be one of the preceding
powers mentions such as a wealthy baron.

Although a wizard in this world could also be
considered to be a new force such as innovation
and an innovator for example Johannes Gutenberg
the inventor of the printing press or a force
which disturbs this feudal balance through some
innovation ushering in a new age.

A wizard could revolutionize the world, or, if high enough level, simply blast it to bits.

If you would like a demonstration, I could provide one.

 

[n00bdragon]

[MENTION=6750279]cross ofth carpenter[/MENTION], can you please stop using line breaks willy nilly? Just type normally in the text box and the message board will break when appropriate for you. Your posts are very hard to read.

Also, NPCs are all plot devices. They can be as powerful or weak as the DM requires. Players on the other hand have their powers in the game codified by rules. In those rules for 3rd edition D&D specifically (and its offspring) wizards and casters in general are more powerful than non-magical classes because they have abilities which can affect the game world that the non-magical classes do not. Everyone can roll diplomacy to convince the King to aid you, but even if he fails at at that the Wizard can still charm him. Everyone can bluff the monster into chasing the party down the wrong passage, but even if he fails at that the Wizard can use an illusion. Everyone can roll Open Locks to do the eponymous deed, but even if he fails only the Wizard can cast Knock. However, only the wizard can scry on the villain, teleport into his bed chamber, and cast a quickened Grease and Evard's Molesting Tetnacles.

 

[Dandu]

However, only the wizard can scry on the villain, teleport into his bed chamber, and cast a quickened Grease and Evard's Molesting Tetnacles.

Which would then give the villain a +10 on his escape artist check to slip out of the tentacles.

 

[cross ofth carpenter]

Well It seems pretty much like dogma so I will leave it there, although I will say that whether a class is powerful or weak or dominates the game depends on the DM and how powerful he allows the class to become. I don't think there is anything absolute about it, but since such a suggestion is received with so much hostility I don't think there is any point in arguing. I think that whether a class breaks the game or not depends on whether the DM allows it to, not something inherent in the game. But since any questioning of that assertion regarding fighters and spellcasters is received with so much hostility I will not bother making any more posts in the thread and simply consider this matter resolved or dropped.

 

[Dandu]

My good man, are you sure you aren't confusing the polite exchange of ideas with enmity? To simply disagree is not to be hostile, and I would hope the forum regulars have been polite when addressing your points?

he belief that wizards have greater power than fighters is not a matter of dogma; I myself offered to prove it to you with a character build earlier, and I assure you the offer is still on the table.

Your last comments make me curious. If I may ask, by what means would a fighter break the game, and by what means would a wizard do so?

 

[delericho]

Well I still think that considering spellcasters to completely dominate the game ignores certain things. For example the way that the power of classes is calculated is probably faulty in some ways.

Fighters advance in power at a little over a linear progression - they gain in BAB and hit points (linear), and also gain feats as they go (the "little over").

Wizards advance in power at at least a cubic progression - they gain more spells as they go up in level, they gain access to higher level spells, and (because of things like ranges being "25 ft + 5 ft per level") all their existing spells become more powerful as they go, too.

And even that neglects the problem that the Fighter's capstone abilities allow him to hit someone really hard, while the Wizard's can allow him to casually rearrange reality on a whim.

In the RAW, there is indeed a significant mismatch between the classes. Played with the same level of skill and optimisation, the Wizard will win (except perhaps at the lowest levels). And I'm not sure that's fixable without radically altering the game. As far as I can see, it's something that the group is just going to have to resolve for themselves, either by requiring the player of the Wizard to hold himself back, or by the DM making sure to give the Fighter extra chances to shine.

 

[Cyberen]

I definitely agree with the idea 3.x Wizards capabilities are far beyond those of a fighter.
I also agree with the OP in the sense that the power of magic has to be reigned in for worldbuiding reasons (and also to explain why the PCs are not Scried and Fried by the evil wizard)
But stop saying the fighter is linear : its damage output per combat is almost cubic, as his HP, to-hit are linear, and its damage is kind of linear...
(But he is stuck at hitting thing very hard)

 

[Ahnehnois]

Fighters advance in power at a little over a linear progression - they gain in BAB and hit points (linear), and also gain feats as they go (the "little over").

Wizards advance in power at at least a cubic progression - they gain more spells as they go up in level, they gain access to higher level spells, and (because of things like ranges being "25 ft + 5 ft per level") all their existing spells become more powerful as they go, too.

That's a bit naive though. They do gain more spells, but their existing spells don't increase in DC and become less useful over time. And some of those increases in the power of a spell that do come with level (like range) are marginally useful at best. I mean, if we said every fighter level added 5 ft. to the range increment of his ranged weapons, that would hardly mean anything.

More importantly, it neglects the practical consideration that using spells effectively requires a lot of foresight and/or preparation, while a fighter is pretty much always optimally ready to act.

It also neglects the way that defenses scale. Saves scale at either an equivalent rate to highest spell DC or slightly slower, but AC does not scale at all. Magic items to boost saves are much cheaper. In 2e, characters become virtually immune to magic at high levels. In 3e, this is less pronounced, but it still becomes more difficult for high-level spellcasters to use any direct effects.

Most of the power that a spellcaster has comes from unusual effects that are hard to represent with numbers. Being able to change shape or teleport are very useful things.

And even that neglects the problem that the Fighter's capstone abilities allow him to hit someone really hard, while the Wizard's can allow him to casually rearrange reality on a whim.

Hard to say that this is a problem. After all, a wizard that couldn't rearrange reality, or a fighter that could, would both be complete failures in achieving the basic concept of the class.

In the RAW, there is indeed a significant mismatch between the classes. Played with the same level of skill and optimisation, the Wizard will win (except perhaps at the lowest levels). And I'm not sure that's fixable without radically altering the game. As far as I can see, it's something that the group is just going to have to resolve for themselves, either by requiring the player of the Wizard to hold himself back, or by the DM making sure to give the Fighter extra chances to shine.