Crazy thought 'bout Fighters, Wizards, and progressions

[Ratskinner]

Having just occurred to me, this thought is not near and dear to my heart or anything. It is kinda interesting so I thought I'd share.

We've all seen the arguments on Wizard-Fighter balance (or lack thereof) as the game progresses. We've also heard that they are planning to tone down level progressions for things like "to hit" bonuses.

So...what if Fighters (or a small group of fighter-like classes) were the only ones who got increases in BAB (or its 5e equivalent)? I figure that even if the progression was slow, it would be very significant compared to the other classes. Thoughts?

 

[Yora]

The whole problem in 3rd Edition, which really seems to be the one edition where it is an actual problem, lies in the fact that spellcasters have much too many "instant win" spells. It's not the options that martial characters have, it's not the way spellcasting works, or how many spells spellcasters get.
It all comes down to the fact that there is a huge number of spells that can virtually, and sometimes even actually, completely shut down the options that other characters have or perform certain tasks better than the supposed specialists for that task.

If you want spellcasters to be equally strong and versatile as martial characters, really the only thing that needs to be adressed is the design of spells. Avoid spells that replicate the special abilities of other characters and spells that make the special abilities of other characters unusable, and 95% of all problems are taken care of.

 

[Grazzt]

The whole problem in 3rd Edition, which really seems to be the one edition where it is an actual problem, lies in the fact that spellcasters have much too many "instant win" spells. It's not the options that martial characters have, it's not the way spellcasting works, or how many spells spellcasters get.
It all comes down to the fact that there is a huge number of spells that can virtually, and sometimes even actually, completely shut down the options that other characters have or perform certain tasks better than the supposed specialists for that task.

If you want spellcasters to be equally strong and versatile as martial characters, really the only thing that needs to be adressed is the design of spells. Avoid spells that replicate the special abilities of other characters and spells that make the special abilities of other characters unusable, and 95% of all problems are taken care of.

And part of the imbalance with wizards in 3.x came about because they removed the checks and balances put in place in 1e/2e for spells/magic. (Things like aging when casting or receiving certain spells, the inability to cast spells for a day or whatever after casting resurrection [IIRC], the system shock roll when polymorphing, etc.)

 

[Yora]

Yes, the problem is less severe if spells are less reliable than doing things the mundane way. In 3rd Ed., they are even more reliable.

 

[Mattachine]

And part of the imbalance with wizards in 3.x came about because they removed the checks and balances put in place in 1e/2e for spells/magic. (Things like aging when casting or receiving certain spells, the inability to cast spells for a day or whatever after casting resurrection [IIRC], the system shock roll when polymorphing, etc.)

In 1e, wail of the banshee, power words, death spell, and shapechange worked about the same as 3e. Sure, some of the toughest restrictions were removed, but many spells didn't have them. In the 1e games I ran, casters dominated by a longshot (druids and wizards); the spells with tough requirements were used sparingly, but plenty of devastating spells were left over with no restrictions. Heck, the druid conjuring 16 HD, +2 or better weapon to hit elementals was devastating enough.

Note: Only involuntary polymorphs required the system shock roll. And resurrection had a caster aging cost.

 

[Ratskinner]

Wizardry in D&D has always had a problem trying to split the difference between an unseen fairy tale character that shatters a kingdom with a curse and some kid waving a stick and shouting "expelliarmus!" (Even when that kid didn't exist yet.) The big problem is that magic has changed its position within the story since becoming a valid literary tool. The old fairy tale (or legend or mythical) wizard probably shouldn't be a PC, ever. He exists solely to move the story along and has reality/causality altering powers to suit that role.

Nonetheless, D&D must soldier on. Redesigning the spells is a bit beyond the scope of my suggestion, and touches on defining the wizard's (or any spellcaster's) role in the game.

 

[Grazzt]

In 1e, wail of the banshee, power words, death spell, and shapechange worked about the same as 3e. Sure, some of the toughest restrictions were removed, but many spells didn't have them. In the 1e games I ran, casters dominated by a longshot (druids and wizards); the spells with tough requirements were used sparingly, but plenty of devastating spells were left over with no restrictions. Heck, the druid conjuring 16 HD, +2 or better weapon to hit elementals was devastating enough.

Note: Only involuntary polymorphs required the system shock roll. And resurrection had a caster aging cost.

You're right about the polymorph self. Forgot about that. I don't recall the aging cost in 1e for resurrection (may be there; i just dont remember it). I was thinking it was the cleric couldnt cast spells for 1 day per level of the person restored to life.

 

[Grazzt]

Wizardry in D&D has always had a problem trying to split the difference between an unseen fairy tale character that shatters a kingdom with a curse and some kid waving a stick and shouting "expelliarmus!" (Even when that kid didn't exist yet.) The big problem is that magic has changed its position within the story since becoming a valid literary tool. The old fairy tale (or legend or mythical) wizard probably shouldn't be a PC, ever. He exists solely to move the story along and has reality/causality altering powers to suit that role.

Nonetheless, D&D must soldier on. Redesigning the spells is a bit beyond the scope of my suggestion, and touches on defining the wizard's (or any spellcaster's) role in the game.

Yep. Sorry about derailing the thread. My fault. So- back to the subject at hand, I don't know about completely removing BAB (or whatever) for wizards, but I'm for definitely slowing it down and widening the gap between it and fighters/martial characters.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Although I think there *is* something to be said about bringing the player, not the class. Sure, some spells might duplicate the abilities of another class... but isn't that a good thing insomuch as that you thus aren't forced to have that other class in the party if you don't want to?

I know it seems kind of weird because traditionally the rogue has never been a class that was typically missing from any adventuring party (there always seems to be at least one person who wants to play a rogue)... but still, having spells available to function in place of the rogue is not a bad thing in of itself. In fact, I'd say it's rather needed. Just like having other classes who can heal are needed so that you aren't required to have a cleric in every party.

I think the real issue though is about the power of said abilities. Having a spell to open locked doors is fine... so long as the spell functions similarly to the skill. Meaning that it's not automatic that the door unlocks when the spell goes off, but just that the wizard can make a skill check as if they were a trained rogue. So the wizard can be the rogue in a pinch when a rogue isn't available... but they aren't better than the rogue across the board.

After all... if a party has a wizard and a rogue and the wizard realizes his Knock spell is only just pretty much on par with what the rogue can do all the time... he'll more often than not choose to study some other spell to have on hand instead.

 

[Andor]

The magic/mundane class imbalance issues has been an issue in every edition of D&D except 4th, and 4th "fixed" it by removing mundane classes and then pretending some of the magic was mundane.

The fact of the matter is that you can't balance people who have to play by the rules of physics and those who don't.

For example (and forgive me for using it but it's the most direct analogue I can think of) in the anime series Naruto there is a character Rock Lee who sucks at magic. While everyone else has illusions, fireballs, summoning, impossible racial powers and even shapeshifting he has fists.

And he generally manages to hold his own. Because due to his crazy training regime he is so fast and strong that when he cuts loose you can't even percieve him moving without powers, and has strength capable of of ripping an ancient tree out of the ground.

In other words he violates the rules of physics just as badly as any other character, he just does it in supposedly non-magical ways.

And that's actually just fine as long as you realise that you're using cinematic physics, and not what you or I would recognize as reality.

D&D (In the first 3 editions) tried to keep the reality dial toned down a bit from the cinematic end of the spectrum. And perhaps, if we want balanced combat capabilities between magical and mundane characters, it's time for that sacred cow to die.

If not, then they need to be balanced elsewise, through opportunity costs, or over time, or by punching wizards player in the face whenever he casts a spell. (I do not actually recommend this.)