My favorite heresy: mundane vs. mundane & magic vs. magic, please!

[JasonZZ]

As for the original topic, the OP's preferences are not only defensible, but have a solid precedent: The Lord of the Rings. Gandalf is the only one who can deal with the Balrog and Saruman, and has a better track record against the Nazgul, but the other heroes accomplish much more against wargs, orcs and trolls. It's not a hard and fast division, though--Gandalf can handle mundane foes, and we all know about the Witch-King. In addition, it's Aragorn, not Gandalf, who bests Sauron in a battle of wills.

Except for one slight problem--Gandalf isn't really a wizard. He's a celestial being, as are the Balrog (albeit corrupted and lessened) and Saruman (with the same limits Gandalf had).

 

[Glade Riven]

There is one common bit of fantasy writing that just can't be properly supported by D&D: Magic is most effective against magic, mundane is most effective against mundane. 2e, 3e, and 4e have become increasingly dungeonpunk - any sufficiantly advanced magic is indistiquishable from technology. It's a side effect of needing to codify actions as rules.

I suppose it could be fixed, but it would require "muggles" to have automatic spell resistance that increased per level or some other sort of drastic design change.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Except for one slight problem--Gandalf isn't really a wizard. He's a celestial being, as are the Balrog (albeit corrupted and lessened) and Saruman (with the same limits Gandalf had).

Yet Gandalf employs simple trickery to help Bilbo and friends out of a few jams. And he says quite plainly that if not for Bilbo's warning he would have likely been overcome in the cave by, oh, a measly handful of random goblins.

Other than somehow surviving (for at least a while) toe-to-toe with the Balrog, we really have no reason to believe Gandalf possesses any special physical prowess. We have every reason to believe he could die on the point of any rusty sword easily enough.

Furthermore, Gandalf is of a classic archetype. Claims of special origins are the norm for the top notch members of his club. Does Merlin not count due to a demonic bloodline? Does Galadriel not count because she carries the light of the Two Trees in her heart? Does Elrond not count because he happens to be descended from the most heroic of all Elves and Men?

 

[Leatherhead]

Fighters and even monsters can have bows. But part of the problem is that Wizards have too easy a time figuring out how to avoid the swords. It is one of the reasons I am against Generalist Wizards as a sacred cow -- certain reliable tactics are too obvious and (almost) always accessible.

Naw, the sacred cow that needs to be butchered is the "simple swordsman."

Being melee-locked in combat limits the amount of awesome encounters you can do. Seriously, you are playing a hero, you should be able to deal with flying monsters. It just so happens the most mundane way of doing that is by picking up a weapon designed for fighting at range. If the fighter needs crack-shot skills to keep up with such things, by all means give the fighter crack-shot skills.

 

[RangerWickett]

So option A is: Wizard counters other wizard's spells, having a discreet or flashy battle to prevent the other caster from pressing an I-Win button like summoning a demon who'll kill the whole party. An unmatched wizard can kill non-spellcasters with ease, but if the 'normals' get the drop on him, or if he's busy fighting a wizard duel and doesn't have bodyguards, he's easy to kill.

Option B is: The wizard can't kill a man as easily as a warrior with a sword can, but he can beguile, confuse, or evade trouble. He can bolster his allies or enfeeble his foes, and if confronted by a beast of supernatural origin he will probably contribute more to defeating it than the warriors will.

Option C is: The wizard turns invisible and flies into the air, then proceeds to blast with a wand. By the level that the wizard is able to do this, the fighter is able to pull out a bow, listen for the wizard's movements, fire blindly into the sky, and disrupt the spell. Then, using the first arrow as a visual marker, he can pump enough arrows into the wizard to make him regret floating around without any sort of cover.

 

[RangerWickett]

And if the wizard does have cover, the fighter parkours his way around the battlefield and sticks a sword in the guy's spell component pouch, if you know what I mean.

 

[pemerton]

We could think of it instead as equipping the Wizard with spells that are specifically powerful against heavily magically endowed creatures, and then dialing the Wizard power to the right overall level.

I think Protection from Evil and Dismissal, Abjure etc (in AD&D - I don't know them so well in their 3E versions) are meant to reflect this somewhat, but they are only a modest part of a spellcaster's arsenal. It would be interesting to see them brought more to the fore.

Doesn't OGL Conan have some mechanic whereby wizards can draw one another into duels of will? Something like that might help - that being a spellcaster makes you uniquely vulnerable to a generic spellcaster attack form.

Anyway, an interesting idea even if I don't have much to add.

Gandalf is of a classic archetype. Claims of special origins are the norm for the top notch members of his club. Does Merlin not count due to a demonic bloodline? Does Galadriel not count because she carries the light of the Two Trees in her heart? Does Elrond not count because he happens to be descended from the most heroic of all Elves and Men?

I don't have anything to add to this either, but can't XP it at the moment so will QFT instead.

Being melee-locked in combat limits the amount of awesome encounters you can do. Seriously, you are playing a hero, you should be able to deal with flying monsters. It just so happens the most mundane way of doing that is by picking up a weapon designed for fighting at range. If the fighter needs crack-shot skills to keep up with such things, by all means give the fighter crack-shot skills.

Being able to throw your sword would be one pretty obvious, and fantasy-hero-appropriate, option!

 

[Glade Riven]

"But throwing swords breaks realism!"

Of course, realism is a stupid argument when trying to apply it to D&D.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Option B is: The wizard can't kill a man as easily as a warrior with a sword can, but he can beguile, confuse, or evade trouble. He can bolster his allies or enfeeble his foes, and if confronted by a beast of supernatural origin he will probably contribute more to defeating it than the warriors will.

I think B is very achievable. Most enchantments, illusions and battlefield control do not directly defeat an enemy. They make some of the enemies easy pickings for your Fighter friends.

My off the cuff proposal would be:
(1) Eliminate SR from the game.
(2) Lower the default direct damage amounts.
(3) Give a big damage boost for Wizards against Outsiders.
(4) Give a big damage boost for Druids against Undead.
(5) Give a modest damage boost for Clerics against both Outsiders and Undead.

The sacred cow that probably should be ground into burgers is the idea a Generalist Wizard can be an effective and reliable blaster. Direct damage should be brought down 2 notches against most targets and brought up against select kinds of enemies.

3.5 Psionics points the way. The 1e Illusionist points the way. Yes there are lots of good spells/powers in the generalist pile, but you only get access to a small subset of the best of the best.

It is okay to have blasters in the game, but that should be a serious specialization, or perhaps even a separate class. (Sorceror? Warlock?)

 

[Ellington]

Wizards should be more powerful than warriors, because wizards represent the superiority of intellect over mundane strength.

A lion is far superior to a human in a contest of physical might, yet our brains ensure that we humans are at the top of the food chain. It should be the same way between wizards and fighters.

I am so happy that they're NOT going for this line of thinking in 5E.

Levels should be an assessment of how powerful a character is. Equal level characters of different classes should be equally powerful. Different classes should be different approaches to problems.