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

[CapnZapp]

Fighters in 5E already are superheroes: they can fall multiple stories from a building and keep fighting. Thor is a Cleric, Captain America is a Fighter, and a Fighter with a magical weapon iani that different in capability.

By using super hero examples, you set expectations the game doesn't, can't, and won't deliver on.

 

[FrogReaver]

And those multiply together. The more spells known, the more different things you can do, the more you can cast, the greater the combinations of those things you can do in a single day.

If you are talking combinations then those increase faster than even exponentially. Closer to N^N.

I don't think most people measure versatility by the number of combinations of spells a wizard can cast in a day. Nor do I think that's a very valuable measurement in general. Instead I think most people measure versatility as the total number of options he has available at the start of the adventuring day coupled with the strength of those options. All adding more spell slots does at that point is increase the amount of time that you can stay at peak (or near peak) versatility.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Still, mentioning Superman sets your expectations to a genre the game does not deliver on.

You have it backwards. I don't want or expect to play a superhero, but that is exactly the genre which the game invariably delivers for the wizard. There's no way to stop the wizard from turning into Superman, unless you go out of your way to make dumb decisions.

 

[CapnZapp]

You have it backwards. I don't want or expect to play a superhero, but that is exactly the genre which the game invariably delivers for the wizard. There's no way to stop the wizard from turning into Superman, unless you go out of your way to make dumb decisions.

D&D characters don't have super powers because D&D is not a supers game.

Stop referencing the supers genre and you can enjoy D&D for what it is.

I find it quite easy to have fun D&D not thinking of the supers genre - at all. Maybe the problem is in your mind?

 

[Ancalagon]

. It's not going to be 'fixed' in the standard game, it can't be fixed by adding a balanced martial class (maybe 4, completely obsoleting the Fighter & Rogue in the process), but it should at least be acknowledged.

It'd require introducing some sort of 'martial power' supplement that replaces the fighter, rogue & berserker with a set of martial classes amped up to the level of casters. Or a 'low-magic' setting that replaces casters with something nerfed to the point that it would look up at the 3.0 Adept in awe.

I don't think that amping up the power of the martial class will help. I think the answer is narrowing the *versatility* of casters. Look at what warhammer 2nd ed did - no not the chance of spell failure and madness, let's stick with D&D's safe magic concept shall we? But rather in the narrow focus of each caster. If you were a fire wizard, you did fire stuff. No teleporting around or seeing the future.

That is why when you do a formal analysis of the classes regarding tiers (with the 3 scenarios - this isn't just a gut feeling thing), the full casters end on top - because they can do almost anything. Remove that breathtaking versatility and they are now in line with the martial classes.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

D&D characters don't have super powers because D&D is not a supers game.

Stop referencing the supers genre and you can enjoy D&D for what it is.

I find it quite easy to have fun D&D not thinking of the supers genre - at all. Maybe the problem is in your mind?

But it does. Wizards* are reading minds, creating pocket dimensions at level 3, conjuring demons, teleporting, asking the gods questions etc. He can toss spells off 1 round after the other, with no risk of magical backlash, insanity, spell failure, etc.

Look at a wizard in Conan and compare it to a wizard in D&D. The D&D wizard is Dr. Strange. The Conan wizard is some schmuck who will probably be eaten by the big snake he charmed. D&D wizards are WAY more powerful than they are in any genre fiction I can think of where the entire "party" isn't a wizard or the story is told from a wizard POV. Hell, they're powerful than a magi in Ars Magica, and that's a game that explicitly recognizes that casters are just better than everyone else and non-magical companions are just weak in comparison, so everyone plays creates a wizard AND multiple non-magical grogs/companions. Honestly, that's kind of how 1st edition was as well - you'd have a couple of fighters/thieves as henchman and your "real" character, the caster.

Other than Mage, I can't think of a game that bends over backwards to create a nerd caster power fantasy than D&D. In Shadowrun you have to devote your top 1 or 2 "build" selections just for the ability to cast. So a caster has less stats, skills, and racial abilities than everyone else (and cant use cyberware). In Savage Worlds you pay a feat just to be able to cast ANYTHING, and then you pay one feat for each additional spell you learn (and have to roll to cast, with a 1 in 6 chance for backlash).

And it's fine if D&D wants to go full bore on the casters! All I'm asking for is a class where a fighting type gets to do equally badass feats. Attacking one extra time and maybe taking an extra punch doesnt cut it. If the rogue in your game had some cool abilities, you wouldn't be trying to figure out how to make him hit for 100+ damage a round just to contribute. Damage isn't a niche, because everyone deals it, and outside of a few specific builds, non-casters don't grossly excel at it enough to make up for their shortcomings in utility.

*Wizards being a general term for spellcaster in this case

 

[CapnZapp]

All I'm asking for is a class where a fighting type gets to do equally badass feats.

Again - your supers comparison is leading you astray. You're asking for not something small. You're asking for something that, in the context of the game, is clearly unreasonable: a complete genre overhaul of the entire game.

The only resolution is either to stop thinking about D&D as a supers game, or to stop thinking about D&D. Really.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Ahhh..."this old chestnut".

I'll keep it very short. I promise!

With regard to the whole LFQW thing...huh...mmm...hmmm....nope. Never encountered it in all my nigh-40 years of play with ONE exception: 3.5e. That game was borked beyond all recognition unless the DM knew and owned EVERYTHING for it or had fetish for saying "No".

But B/X, BECMI, 1e, 2e, Hackmaster, and now 5e? Nope, glad to say it is and never was a "thing" in any game I played in (and my highest level character is a Grey Elf Magic-User of level 20 from 1st Edition AD&D!). The problem is that some people are looking for a problem, so they only equate "level to level" and "one combat at a time only" with a light covering of "and perfect knowledge of the time before and after said combat". IMNSHO, it was never about "a level to level" thing. The potential and perceived "power level" of a character was/is determined on a CAMPAIGN LENGTH BASIS.

In short:

"A Casters true balance is measured over the course of months and years of play. Not over the course of a single combat".

If someone wants to write up a nice novel of one of their 4 or 5 year D&D campaign that covers the PC's going from 1st to 20th level...then I might change my mind. Until then....I have to stand by my experience of playing "D&D" for the last 38+ years. Which is to say, no, there is no real power dependency between Fighter and Magic-User when viewed through the lens it should; a multi-year campaign.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Tony Vargas]

With regard to the whole LFQW thing...huh...mmm...hmmm....nope. Never encountered it in all my nigh-40 years of play

yeah, and George Burns smoked cigars and lived to be 100, but tobacco still causes cancer.

with ONE exception: 3.5e. That game was borked beyond all recognition unless the DM knew and owned EVERYTHING for it or had fetish for saying "No".

3.5 was the high point of caster supremacy, yes.

"A Casters true balance is measured over the course of months and years of play. Not over the course of a single combat".

Classically, the magic-user, and generally, other casters, were balanced over a whole campaign, starting weaker than non-casters for a level or few, pulling equal through the 'sweet spot,' and dominating the later game (if the campaign ever got that far). To really experience balance, you'd have to play a caster not just in a full campaign, but casters in many campaigns, including some in which your magic-user died at low level, and some that never reached the high level pay-off, at all.

I don't think that amping up the power of the martial class will help. I think the answer is narrowing the *versatility* of casters.

I think either narrowing the focus/power of casters, or increasing the power/versatility of martial classes could help. It's not like it hasn't been done with some success in many other games and even one other edition of D&D. It's just that the core branding of D&D has become associated with the feel LFQW gives, so if it's addressed at all (rather than merely complained about on-line, which remains a popular pass-time we'd be loath to give up entirely), it has to be as a set of options.

Again - your supers comparison is leading you astray. You're asking for not something small. You're asking for something that, in the context of the game, is clearly unreasonable: a complete genre overhaul of the entire game.

It's definitely not something small, it's on the same scale as wanting 3.5 levels of customization with feats & MCing & PRcs (which I also think is reasonable, BTW). And it wouldn't be a genre overhaul, so much as a genre reconciliation. Just put all classes in the same genre. Don't design non-casters as if they were in a gritty-realism low-fantasy genre and casters as if they were thinly-veiled supers with fantasy trappings ('high fantasy' doesn't even begin to cover it, LotR was high fantasy, and D&D casters leave Gandalf &co in the dust).

The only resolution is either to stop thinking about D&D as a supers game, or to stop thinking about D&D. Really.

There are two plausible resolutions: add options to bring the whole game up to the casters' 'supers' level, or to drag most of the classes down to the non-casters' 'gritty' level.

Or, I suppose, aim for something closer to S&S. You'd have to boost non-casters a bit and pull casters down some, but most of the 'balance' could come from making actually using spells extremely risky, not just inconvenient or applying lame RP restrictions or doing a few dice of damage when you flub a roll, but carry an inevitable risk of loss of the character (death or loss of control as it becomes a monster or insane and must be put down by other adventurers).

 

[Hjorimir]

I'm of the opinion that it's important to test the endurance of spellcasters in order to maintain some semblance of balance. It's probably fair to say that most campaigns don't hit the 6-8 encounters per day and I certainly don't. So, I use house rules to adjust the rest schedule (8 hours of rest = a short rest) and that allows me to sit inside what I consider to be a comfortable cadence of encounters and still create space for a fighter or rogue to shine.

My players are very conservative with slinging spells as a result because they don't know how many days it will be before they can complete a long rest (normally 3 days for my setting - called "a cycle" - but can be a single day in a place of "sanctuary"). It was simple enough to implement and has done wonders for me as a DM.