I think it Might be the Mage; Not the Fighter that's broken

[Thunderfoot]

I've been doing sheer number comparison between classes, based on Feats obtained, damage power, striking probability, etc. and as many have stated the fighter is underpowered compared to the Wizard, however, so is every other class, across the board the wizard is over-powered if you consider that the designers were really trying to "bring balance" to the game.

As an aside the various edition have use the following methods to attempt play balance. 1st & 2nd edition used the sliding XP scale to alleviate obvious problems though it wasn't perfect either. 4th edition just made everyone spellcasters and bland... 3.X however, seems to have just ignored the problem in hopes it would go away.

For example, let's look at Feats: the cleric, the other major spell casting class, has weapons, hit points and armor as well as turning at first level....and that's it. It never changes, neither does the sorcerer. Meanwhile the wizard gains bonus feats, Why? No other spellcasting class gains them in such a way, not the cleric or the sorcerer and even though the druid picks up quite a few extra abilities these "mostly" affect skill rolls and saving throws, it seems to be balanced by metal aversion.

So other than allowing wizards to gain crafting feats,, which they aren't required to take, why the bonus Feats? All it does is allow the wizard to bump his/her damage quotient, should they so desire. Anyone have any ideas? Comments?

I ask, because I'm currently working up rules for a home brew that grasps a little more realism and the wizard is blowing the curve WAYYY out of proportion.

The other classes have been relatively easy to alter - I'll post the dissected paladin later - basically I made it an off shoot of cleric instead of fighter and worked up to a PC that turns into the paladin. It seems to work well, but that's another post.

 

[Sadrik]

If I grasp what you are going at - I agree, I think it is with the full casters that the game has a problem. And most people who want to fix the power curve issue want to give more to the non-full casters to balance them. This is a prudent way of tackling the problem but it might make the most sense to go the other route and subtract from the full caster.

The conclusion would be:
A new spell level every third level rather than every second level. So, 1/4/7/10/13/16/19 for 1st/2nd/3rd/4th/5th/6th/7th then reserve 8th and 9th level spells for epic level play. This would push the power threshold out longer through the mid levels. To make this work a spell chart with a comperable number of spells per day to the normal would be important. So if a 5th level caster has 9 spells a day then a 5th level caster should also have 9 spells per day.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

On a certain level, I don't have a problem with the Wizard being overpowered. To use a military analogy, the Wizard is like an Aircraft Carrier. However, you can't just have a force comprised of top units- you need other elements to keep those units alive. That's why Aircraft Carriers operate in carrier strike groups with destroyers, missile cruisers and other units. Its hard to close on an Aircraft Carrier hiding behind its multifaceted, multiply-layered protective envelope. But if you do, they can't really defend themselves.

Still, I can see this as a problem from the gamer's standpoint.

The combination of having the bulk of the best spells in the game coupled with the option of gaining bonus feats to enhance them clearly lets them stand out.

(However, many players would assert that the Cleric and Druid are at least as powerful as the Wizard, if not moreso, citing CoDzilla builds.)

One thing we tried in the last D&D game was doing away with Metamagic as Feats and folding it into spell research. Note- the PC in question was a Sorcerer. So, instead of a Wizard gaining access to a feat that he could apply to any spell he had access to, he would have to learn the "metamagic" version of the spell as a distinct spell. So, a Stilled version of Magic Missile would be a completely new 2nd level spell. A Stilled, Silent version of Magic Missile would be a completely new 3rd level spell.

What this does not do:

1) It does not decrease the power of a particular spell & feat combination. An arcanist is still capable of having an empowered, maximized Lightning Bolt.

2) We didn't apply this to any divine caster, so we can't speak to what it did there. (More accurately, nobody playing a divine caster was interested in any of the metamagic alterations.)

What this does:

1) It decreases the variety in a given caster's spell list. If he wants to learn a spell, its empowered version, its maximized version, and its empowered and maximized version, that's 4 spells he has to learn, and that is a real opportunity cost. It means a mage can't be an Über-Blaster AND even a competent buff-master.

I would imagine that, over time, this means more wizard players would gravitate towards specialists for maximum effectiveness within a build style, and the generalist wizard players would eschew metamagic entirely, and may favor crafting or Reserve feats instead.

(We did not alter Crafting or Reserve feats either, FWIW.)

2) It decreases the flexibility of a given caster. He can't learn one Metamagic feat and use it over and over again for any spell he knows.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

If I grasp what you are going at - I agree, I think it is with the full casters that the game has a problem. And most people who want to fix the power curve issue want to give more to the non-full casters to balance them. This is a prudent way of tackling the problem but it might make the most sense to go the other route and subtract from the full caster.

The conclusion would be:
A new spell level every third level rather than every second level. So, 1/4/7/10/13/16/19 for 1st/2nd/3rd/4th/5th/6th/7th then reserve 8th and 9th level spells for epic level play. This would push the power threshold out longer through the mid levels. To make this work a spell chart with a comperable number of spells per day to the normal would be important. So if a 5th level caster has 9 spells a day then a 5th level caster should also have 9 spells per day.

I don't think making it every 3rd level is necessarily the best approach, since before 7th level they're not too amazing and after that they really take off. In 2e, there was a 1-level gap between 5th and 6th level spells (so it went 1/3/5/7/9/12/14/16/18), but given the power boost the 3e wizard gets, I'd insert 2 level gaps. The first really good spells come around 4th level (phantasmal killer and polymorph, for instance), so 1 gap between 3rd and 4th and another between 6th and 7th would be good (for a final pattern of 1/3/5/8/10/12/15/17/19).

This delays the power curve but still leaves 8th and 9th level spells in the nonepic game, which is an important consideration for various reasons (having mind blank is almost necessary for the bad guys at higher levels, you need wish to take out the tarrasque, etc.).

 

[Ilja]

EldritchLord has a good point. While a fireball is powerful, it's doesn't really change game play in the way 4-th level spells do. The most gamechanging spells of level 3 must be Fly, Clairvoyance, and Invisibility Sphere. All of these are still FAR more limited than spells such as Polymorph, save-or-dies, and Dimension Door. But what about slowing down the progress after that point? Making it every 3 levels after level 7 allows 8th level spells, but not 9th level nor empowered 7th level. These could only be gained at epic levels. Also, reducing spells per day gives back some of the limitation that the wizard should have (but rarely has at high levels). A table might look something like this:
[sblock=Wizard spells per day]

[b]Clvl  0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8[/b]
1     3   1   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
2     4   2   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
3     4   2   1   -   -   -   -   -   -
4     4   3   2   -   -   -   -   -   -
5     4   3   2   1   -   -   -   -   -
6     5   3   3   2   -   -   -   -   -
7     5   4   3   2   1   -   -   -   -
8     5   4   3   3   2   -   -   -   -
9     5   4   4   3   2   -   -   -   -
10    5   4   4   3   2   1   -   -   -
11    6   4   4   4   3   2   -   -   -
12    6   4   4   4   3   2   -   -   -
13    6   4   4   4   3   2   1   -   -
14    6   4   4   4   3   3   2   -   -
15    6   4   4   4   4   3   2   -   -
16    6   4   4   4   4   3   2   1   -
17    6   4   4   4   4   3   3   2   -
18    6   4   4   4   4   4   3   2   -
19    6   4   4   4   4   4   3   2   1
20    6   4   4   4   4   4   3   3   2

[/sblock]
With this, they'll get their basic spells at about the same rate, but the more powerful will take more time to master. Also, they won't have a long line of "4 per day's" at level 20; spell levels 6, 7, and 8 will at most have 3, 3, and 2 times per day respectively.

There are three levels where not much happens though; 12, 15, and 18. However, I don't see this as a big problem, as these are the same levels where new feats are gained (at level 12, it's also an attribute point, possibly increasing spells per day anyway, and at level 15 it's two feats).

Now, this would make sorcerers gain spells faster than wizards. I don't have a problem with this either; sorcerers aren't as overpowered as wizards as is, and it feels quite logical that sorcerers, who has magic in their blood, learn to master advanced spells more quickly. Wizards on the other hand has greater versatility and learns more of the theoretical aspects (leading to more metamagic and item creation feats).

 

[Nopal]

Wizards aren't over powered. They are the core to the game. Everything else should compare to them. If you want to talk power how about the sorcerer. He is under powered. He gets no special ability at all. Even the spontanious cleric the Favored Soul gets more than just able to cast on the fly. Wizards and Fighters are the base they should be the best. All others should compare to them or be less than them.

 

[slwoyach]

The best way to reign in wizards is to bring back the old limitations they had. Give every spell a casting time equal to the spell level. If a wizard begins casting fireball on initiative 17 it doesn't go off until 14, giving enemies time to interrupt him. Memorizing a spell requires 10 minutes per spell level. So memorizing a single fireball requires 30 minutes of study. Completely replenishing a high level wizard's spell list would take several days. This is the main thing that kept wizards in check in earlier editions, they had to use their spells more conservatively. Yeah they could nuke the BBEG, but the fighter had to keep him alive long enough to reach it.

 

[Sadrik]

Eldritch_Lord & Stringburka:
These are very good possibilities. I suppose there is no wrong way to do it. Essentially the idea is to slow down the caster progression to limit full casters. Whichever way it should bring in line the other classes more to the full casters, especially at the top end. Conceptually, I still like the simpler and slower progression of every 3rd CL gain a new spell level. But I can see the merits of having it other ways.

The following is probably my best effort at the representation of the idea. It increases the number of spells you get so as to compensate for the loss of the upper level spells.

As you move forward through the epic levels and your caster level increases you get more spells until you max out at 5 across the board (0-9th) for the Cleric, Druid and Wizard and 7 for the Sorcerer. Additionally the specialist wizard and domain bonus both add +1 to each spell level as usual.

Cleric, Druid and Wizard Progression

CL	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1	4	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2	4	3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
3	5	4	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
4	5	4	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
5	5	4	3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
6	5	5	4	1	-	-	-	-	-	-
7	5	5	4	2	-	-	-	-	-	-
8	5	5	4	3	-	-	-	-	-	-
9	5	5	5	4	1	-	-	-	-	-
10	5	5	5	4	2	-	-	-	-	-
11	5	5	5	4	3	-	-	-	-	-
12	5	5	5	5	4	1	-	-	-	-
13	5	5	5	5	4	2	-	-	-	-
14	5	5	5	5	4	3	-	-	-	-
15	5	5	5	5	5	4	1	-	-	-
16	5	5	5	5	5	4	2	-	-	-
17	5	5	5	5	5	4	3	-	-	-
18	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	1	-	-
19	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	2	-	-
20	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	3	-	-
21	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	1	-
22	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	2	-
23	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	3	-
24	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	1
25	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	2
26	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	3
27	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4
28	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4
29	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4
30	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5

Sorcerer Progression

CL	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1	7	3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2	7	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
3	7	5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
4	7	6	3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
5	7	7	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
6	7	7	5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
7	7	7	6	3	-	-	-	-	-	-
8	7	7	7	4	-	-	-	-	-	-
9	7	7	7	5	-	-	-	-	-	-
10	7	7	7	6	3	-	-	-	-	-
11	7	7	7	7	4	-	-	-	-	-
12	7	7	7	7	5	-	-	-	-	-
13	7	7	7	7	6	3	-	-	-	-
14	7	7	7	7	7	4	-	-	-	-
15	7	7	7	7	7	5	-	-	-	-
16	7	7	7	7	7	6	3	-	-	-
17	7	7	7	7	7	7	4	-	-	-
18	7	7	7	7	7	7	5	-	-	-
19	7	7	7	7	7	7	6	3	-	-
20	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	4	-	-
21	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	5	-	-
22	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	6	3	-
23	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	4	-
24	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	5	-
25	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	6	3
26	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	4
27	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	5
28	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	6
29	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7
30	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7

Nopal & slwoyach:
What I am talking about is reigning in Full Casters rather than improving other classes to match the wizards power. Spread out the spell levels and you have a very easy way to adjust without whole sale alterations of game rules.

 

[Runestar]

I would say that the fighter's problems come from a variety of reasons. That they are weaker compared to a full spellcaster is just one of those reasons. And the interesting part here is that people tend to miss the mark when they try to determine why the fighter is inferior to a spellcaster. And by nerfing spellcasters, you just end up making both classes suck and equally unfun to play.

I will give you a hint - damage is not the reason why fighters suck. So anyone claiming that wizards are overpowered because they can deal 6d6 fire damage in a 20-ft burst at 6th lv has failed to understand just why spellcasters dominate the game.

You know they will have missed the mark when their fighter revision does nothing to address their long standing weaknesses, and focuses on boosting their already strong points, such as letting them do more damage or get more hp/AC.

I could summarize everything I feel is problematic with the fighter with just one word - warblade (from tome of battle). Everything the warblade can do just serves to highlight the flaws of a fighter, most notably its lack of mobility, reliance on the full-attack action for the bulk of his damage (which ties back to the issue of mobility), the ease with which status effects can shut him down and the inability to deal with these debuffs, poor use of the action economy (stemming from a lack of swift-action abilities). Feats provide a linear-scaling (or stagnant) benefit, while spells double in power every lv on average. The list goes on.

I personally feel that the warblade fixes the fighter and makes melee fun again, by giving the player more options, making it as exciting to play as a spellcaster.

It is ironic when you realize that the fighter actually does not have issues with his damage output. This is why spellcasters are advised to stay away from direct damage spells. Why bother trying to compete with the fighter (who is capable of dishing out a limitless amount of damage) when you can complement the fighter instead (disable the foes so the fighter can whack them without fear of retaliation).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I can't stand most of ToB, so...you can guess I'm not really in agreement over your assessment of Warblades.