re
There is a synonym for "well-designed" that is used more often now: Optimized. And that is what those 2 fighters you described are. Those were not builds you could generate in 10 minutes. They also had weakness out the wazoo. So they were not standard run of the mill characters, they were hyper-focused specialists built out stuff from a dozen different books.
At the same point your average wizard had been granting limited wishes for 2 levels already.
Have you even played 3.x editions? I'm beginning to doubt it by your statements.
Limited Wish was not a spell used often. It had an xp cost.
What you are describing is system mastery. Your players had enough system mastery that they could make fighters effective, but if they had used an equivalent level of mastery on a cleric, druid, wizard or sorcerer they would have ended up with characters who far outstripped them in power often with fewer vulnerabilities.
No. They were not outstripped in power. Your standard fighter with Power Attack and the most basic of weapon specialization feats could output huge damage.
If you're implying that system mastery isn't necessary to make a hyperpowerful wizard, I'll take a player that knows how to make an optimized fighter against a player that doesn't know how to optimize a wizard any day of the week as far as betting money.
It takes as much system mastery to create a powerful wizard as it does to make an optimized fighter. Once again prove what you say. Don't make statements I know to be false. I'm talking take two classes in a regular combat where there is no real preparation time other than initiative, see who has more of an impact on a given encounter. I'll bet that 90% of the time, an optimized fighter will have a greater impact on the encounter than an inexperienced wizard at almost all levels.
Encounters usually develop like this:
1. Roll Initiative
2. Fighter rush in and do damage. Wizard will either self-buff for defense or launch an attack. If the creature saves, wizard's turn over. Fighter rushes in hits for 30 to 40 points. If he crits, usually a 60 to 100 points on creature. In full attack range.
3. Creature goes. Dishes out damage according to its ability. Perhaps mounts it's own defenses depending on its options.
4. Next round wizard launches another attack. Creature saves, attack fails. Creature doesn't save, effect takes place. Fighter full attack. Creature takes 120 to 160 points of damage. Far more if a crit.
These false statements that attempt to make it seem as though the fighter's capability is based on a prepared wizard vs the fighter in a one on one situation or D&D occurring in a vacuum where the fighter is somehow on his own and the wizard is on his own are false examples of what occurred in D&D 3.x Not to say there were never instances where a wizard shined by unleashing a spell where the main creature didn't save and an encounter was ended quickly. It certainly happens and should happen. But I've had as many instances or more where a fighter unleashed a series of vicious crits that ended a fight as well.
D&D does not happen in a compartmentalized world where the fighter and wizard fight alone, either one does everything, or is even capable of doing everything. There are plenty of fights where wizards are effectively useless. And many of these fights are against the toughest monsters in the game like dragons, demons, and enemy NPCs. Where if they stick their head out, their low fort saves and hit points are going to get them killed.
Speaking from experience having played several campaigns of high level D&D, fighters are not useless. Wizards that don't take the time optimize or learn how to play their characters are as useless as a fighter who doesn't take the time to build his character correctly. Knowing how spells work is especially important to being a successful wizard or cleric.
In my experience playing high level D&D, a wizard or cleric lacking system experience and the ability to optimize has gotten more parties killed than any fighter or melee-type combined. Why? Because a lack of system experience by a player going against a DM with a great deal of system experience usually leads to the death of the wizard and/or cleric. Which often leads to the death of the party unless the fighters dish some serious pain quickly, especially if the healer is lacking experience. That has been the main culprit of party death more than the wizard or fighter combined. But I guess no one thinks the healers are overpowered.
For example, just last week my party went into an encounter against an NPC group in a
Pathfinder game. There was a
wind wall making the zen archer monk/ranger inert.
The wizard PC did not take the time to dispel the
wind wall. Instead he launched a take out the NPC spell
baleful polymorph against an NPC in range hoping to use this "destroy the encounter" spell scenario no decent DM falls for. The NPC he cast at saved, his turn is over. He's done nothing.
Now the so called weak barbarian NPC motored through the hit points of both the PC fighters and they hammered him for insane damage. In the entire round, they did something like 400 points of damage between them. And the healer for the NPCs healed the barbarian. The PC healer healed the fighters.
The fight continued and Mr. overpowered wizard did not dispel the
wind wall effectively eliminating one of his own offensive options from the fight, while attempting to cast encounter destroying spells against NPCs that were well-protected against such attacks.
What does that illustrate?
That D&D is a team game. No class can do it alone. Not the wizard, not the fighter, not the cleric, not the rogue.
Now one on one, which is not how D&D is played on average, the wizard is the strongest due to magic being inherently stronger than melee. But not invincible. In fact, a well-designed archer can kill a wizard or caster if both are starting at zero in a one on one combat. Even a regular fighter might kill a wizard if close enough.
But that is irrelevant. The game of D&D is not played in that fashion on average.
And if you decide you want to simulate something of that kind, you can do it and I have done it. If you and your player want to simulate say Hercules or Gilgamesh, you can do it. In fact, you can do it in 3.x better than you can do it in any edition of D&D including 4E.
Why?
Because 3.x doesn't use the at will, encounter, and daily power allotment.
If you want to say simulate Hercules. You give him super strength and write an ability that says "Hercules is the son of a god. He can lift nearly impossible to lift items like rivers or immovable objects because of his divine strength."
Hercules has DR 10/- due to his divine nature. And then you toss him an SR.
There is your Hercules simulation.
Same with Arthur and Excalibur.
Or any number of heroic characters.
Standard D&D, sure, you can't make that son of a god fighter. But you can't make Raistlin or Elric as your wizard either. Both would require the DM to work with you to create such characters.
Because contrary to the statements on here, real D&D wizards aren't prepared for every eventuality and can be killed. They have weak saves, in fact fort and reflex are both weak. They get hit by some harsh effect targeting fort or ref, and they may well die. They can't obliterate armies because AoE spells only effect so much area.
Sure, they might be able to have a spell-prepared to deal with it if they know what's coming, which isn't the case most of the time. And if they let their fighters, rogues, and clerics get taken out because they're trying to be Mr. Do-it-all-yourself, chances are all they're going to do is get themselves killed. If a powerful demon or dragon gets up on them in melee, chances are they are dead. No dragon or demon is going to fall for simple parlor tricks like
mirror image,
fly, or
invsibility. Not going to happen.
And a wizard doesn't have enough defenses to withstand a concentrated melee attack by a monster of that magnitude easily. If your primary contention is that a prepared wizard can defeat a fighter, sure, you're right. I don't see anything wrong with that.
If you're contention is that a fighter is useless in 3.x. Or has no chance against a wizard whether he is prepared or optimized or not. I don't agree with that. I can absolutely prove that wrong empirically.
