D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[Remathilis]

I don't fear that sort of thing at all, probably unsurprisingly.

Alternatives:
Player: "Well, then I hit him in the helm hard enough that it spins around obscuring his vision."
or... (in the enemy's stat block) "Great Helm: Immune to blindness."
or... "He's blinded; tell me how you did it."
or... "Despite his greathelm, you manage to deliver a savage blow to his helm, making him see stars."

I don't actually have much of an issue with any of those; I just expect some level of parity on this sort of level with casting. Would a greathelm help against a Blindness spell or Glitterdust? I think it's appropriate that it helps just as much here. I'm tired of magic functioning because "magic."

-O

I'm going to shock you. A great helm should probably grant a bonus (if outright immunity) to some blindness spells too. A quick glance of the SRD shows there are 7 wizard spells that cause blindness: color spray, glitterdust, blindess, pyrotechnics, power word blind, and sunburst. 5 of those spells cause blindness by either exposure to light or sparklies, while two directly affect the person's ability to see (blindess and PWB). I could feasibly argue that a full great helm with the shield down could block the dust of glitterdust, grant a bonus to saves vs blinding light (+4?) due to shielding eyes, but does nothing against blindness (necromantic effect) or a power word (which, is high level anyway).

Then again, I don't like magic being an "I win" card anymore than I like martial PCs carrying "I win" metacards either. Fireball's shouldn't work underwater. Charm person doesn't make the barkeep willing to take an arrow for you. You can't trip an ooze with a longsword or a grease spell. Then again, I dislike the notion all tools a PC has is always effective on all creatures or situations because you bought it with a plot card (power slot) so if it means you can blind a grimlock, trip an ooze, burn an fire-elemental, or charm a zombie without necromancy.

 

[B.T.]

I've been mulling it over, and I have to retract my earlier statement: I can't get on board with CAGI. The forced movement and automatic damage just don't work for me. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If I were to design a similar maneuver for 3e / Pathfinder, I might make it work similar to this:

Come and Get It
As a swift action, you can enter a stance of feigned weakness. By encouraging your enemies to attack you, you can surprise them with a merciless counterattack. For the duration of the stance, you take a -4 penalty to AC. Any enemy who attacks you in melee provokes an attack of opportunity from you, and you do an additional +1d8 damage with the attack (+2d8 at level 5, +3d8 at level 10, +4d8 at level 15, and +5d8 at level 20). All enemies with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher are capable of understanding that you are offering them easy prey, though they must make a Sense Motive check (DC 10 + your Bluff skill) to see through your ruse.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I've been mulling it over, and I have to retract my earlier statement: I can't get on board with CAGI. The forced movement and automatic damage just don't work for me. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If I were to design a similar maneuver for 3e / Pathfinder, I might make it work similar to this:

Come and Get It

snip

Isn't this just Robilar's Gambit?

 

[B.T.]

Similar. It's been awhile since I've played 3e.

 

[NotAYakk]

Come and Get It:
You convince enemies to attack, then exploit their mistake. Make a Fighter attack against the higher of their Morale & Will. Hit: For 1 turn, they suffer disadvantage on all attacks unless they move towards you as far as they can and attempt to attack you, and you gain advantage on attacks against them. If moving towards you would require exposing themselves to a hazard that they are aware of, (insert second save rules here). A good description how you convince enemies to attack (be it a trick or taunt), if it is appropriate, can give a bonus to your attack roll.

Hazards: Leaving someone's threatening reach is a hazard, as is dangerous and damaging terrain and zones.

Class attacks: You are presumed to be competent with your class ability attacks. (Insert appropriate attack bonus rules here)

 

[Tovec]

First, I just want to say I know there is a full page between the post I'm responding to and the reply itself. To that end, if any of this has been covered I apologize but I have limited time to cover what I want to cover.

You do know that "If everyone is special then no one is" was the villain of The Incredibles?

First, I just wanted to say that if any of your post is sarcasm then that drastically changes what you mean - and you should let me know.

Second, Yes I have seen the incredible. That also isn't what I said or meant though.

Third, if all cops had the powers of superheroes, then there would be no superheroes. And by cops I mean the regular NYPD (or w/e) and not a special army division in case you were wondering.

Fourth, it is muddied when a fighter's power level is no better or worse than any other "defender". Or to give another example. If two classes in 4e - both filling the same role - were to fight the same opponent would they be expected to have the same outcome? If so, how does that make any class different from another EXCEPT by role and specific powers selected. Say what you want about 3e but the fighter never felt like the wizard.

Then I guess they just don't want those hit points.

I don't understand this comment, especially in relation to what I posted. I said that people who play fighters do so to be mundane, that they wouldn't want the cosmic powers of wizards even if that was a direct choice. More power - that is fairly split - but the same level of cosmic power as the wizard - that would probably come down on the "no, thanks". Again, they play mundane to be mundane. You can't be a mundane cleric, paladin, ranger, bard, druid, monk, wizard, sorcerer, bard... and even rogues and barbarians have random seemingly semi-magical powers (rage and evasion). So, yes fighters are the mundane choice when you WANT mundane. I don't know what the comment about HP was meaning.

Because most fighters can create fire by snapping their fingers.

This is what I meant earlier about the sarcasm thing. So, all I can do is reply to what you said.

No, most fighters can't create fire by snapping their fingers. BUT with the invention of things like CaGI they are clearly doing some form of mind control and therefore must be magical. That is what I meant by "If fighters are now as magical as wizards (a necessity to explain them in 4e)".

You are laying out the other problem. Some people want the wizard to shatter the power level structure and be the most powerful class in the game. Other people want level to be a measure of power because that's what it presents itself as. If you want to play Ars Magica in which wizards are explicitely the strongest that's fine. But don't try to present the classes as equal when you don't want them to be equal.

Again, I hate to disagree but the problem is they want these cosmic powers to be available. But very few people who prefer the "broken" 3e would say that they aren't a problem how they are. As you correctly diagnose later - the problem is having these kinds of powers available to a PC full time.

Also, this isn't the first time you (I think it was you anyway) suggested Ars Magica. I may just have to take a look at it. Not that I'm displeased with my current version of DnD or anything but apparently it doesn't have the stuff I can't stand in 4e so at least its worth examining. But also, since I'm not familiar with Ars Magica and have no way of checking or evaluating it, for the purpose of these discussions would you mind leaving it out as my "preference"?

Replace the fighter with the Warblade and the wizard with the bard. Then we're talking.

This confused me (where it was) but I later understood it to mean the following. Please let me know if I'm wrong. You are proposing to play 3e where the "best" wizard is a bard and that all fighters are warblades?

Having played 3.5 (not as familiar with 3.0) I can say that you don't even need the warblade to outpace the bard. But even so, I wouldn't have a problem with this idea .. mostly. The problem would be the current powers of the bardic wizard and less that wizards should have less high level spells. I have seen MANY houserules where wizards are simply stripped of 9th, 8th and sometimes 7th level spells. So I have seen how it can work.

But even so .. that WOULD be to do what I said. Fix the problem if the overly high-powered wizard while not completely changing the fighter. And it certainly wouldn't do anything to bring the fighter in line with the bard - which is what 4e did. Also, this all assumes you keep the weaker fighter along side the weak bard.

Merlin in most myths is an NPC. Like Gandalf in Lord of the Rings.

Find me one reference to Tolkien calling Gandalf an NPC and you win.

The Lady of the Lake was another NPC.

And? So?

The attempt to make Merlin into a PC is a problem.

Agreed, but not for the reasons you seem to suppose.
The problem you are putting forward is that Merlin has magic. That magic > mundane. And that because Merlin (magic) > Arthur (mundane, technically mundane+ but I'll get to that). And that Arthur is somehow a "Second class PC".

The problem is you can't let Merlin, or the Lady of the Lake or Gandalf, break out ultimate cosmic powers every day without fail. The solution isn't to remove those powers from the game. Nor is it to somehow "fix" Arthur so that he has more powers LIKE Merlin.

Then make the fighters and the rogues the star of the show. Stop the party from being a team up between Odysseus and Circe and return her to her rightful place. As an NPC.

I don't see that this is accurate either. Mosly because I don't see any classes to be the "star of the show".

I also don't see how you put that back into the box - making all casters into "NPCs" again.

The obvious one is to make the level structure mean something. To keep the fighter mundane say that the highest level mundane fighter is level 7. The fighter class stops there. There are other solutions. All save or die effects belong to the fighter. You can survive a spell much better than you can a sword through the eye. Or fighters are fast, magic takes time. If fighters act in 6 second rounds, and non-quickened spells take a minute to cast most of our problems vanish.

The obvious solution - to the problem of overpowered casters - is to reduce their power. That can be done by fewer spells slots, different spells, different durations, inability of stacking, different components, longer casting times, unreliability (chance of failure in each casting) or many more solutions. Or as you say "a minute to cast" works too. All of these reduce their power, but very little of these reduce the potency.

Also, show me where I went wrong in my example of Supernatural? The highest level mundane fighter might be ... the max level of any class - say 20 or 30 or no max. If the fighter is more defined by power, accuracy, health and ability to perform maneuvers (something I dislike but again I don't see how we repackage that box either) then why do they need MAGIC on top of that?

Or, no save or die spells belong to regular - in combat - spells? What if you have to get a target to drink poison. That would resemble reality and require no one to actually have magic. If the wizard is able to brew up a fancy and extra deadly poison then who cares? If they are able to conjure it from across the world - again what does that matter? If the person still has to drink it then there is the problem. And in that regard the fighter is going to be much more capable of manhandling them into the act if it comes to it. The rogue might be able to cleverly (or through stealth) slip the poison into the regular drink and the wizard able to convince them that the poison is really a health potion. These all result with Dead Target, but they vary wildly on HOW. Why does the fighter need the ability to mind control the target into drinking the poison?

Again, the problem is the "save or die" not the "fighter lacks these".

That isn't a conclusion. It's a third premise. Last time I checked in this world mundane beats magic.

How about
Premise 3: Whereever they can directly come into conflict, Mundane > Magic

The trick mages have to do is to change the battlefield so they don't. They become like the classic thieves - and the masters of combat are the fighters.

I think you meant "mundane < magic" but I should talk... I honestly can't believe I put premise 2 ahead of 1. I must have been tired.

The third premise wasn't a premise. It was a conclusion but that doesn't really matter either. IF it was a premise, what is the conclusion that was drawn from..

Premise 1: Fighter is mundane
Premise 2: Wizard is magic
Premise 3: Magic > mundane
Conclusion: ??? (possibly profit?[/sarcasm])

This is a "Magic belongs to NPCs" approach. (And yes, I know about Castiel). Magic belongs to NPCs is fine. What isn't fine is to mix the party and the power levels.

I never said magic belonged to NPCs. You did, repeatedly. But I didn't. I said that the Lady of the Lake gave excalibur to Arthur because he could use it better. Which meant that she knew she couldn't use it as effectively. Tougher, Accuracy, HP, Maneuvers.. All of these are excellent base traits to have. Add in the magical weapon and Arthur (literally) becomes something of legend. Without it .. well we know what happens to the sword in the stone.

Magic is the domain of casters, non-magic is the domain of non-casters. If it takes magic to create excalibur then there is no reason why it has to STAY with casters.

Sam and Dean have gathered a lot of tricks so they can routinely defeat or at least stall all manner of magical creature. They also know how to defeat ALL of them with no magic in their body. They can do it more easily when they are jacked up on demon blood but that isn't their base trait. They know magic, but it is significantly ritual related. They kill ghosts by burning the ghost's bones. They can slay demons because of the demon-bane weapon they have. ALL of these things relate to mundane fighters, but with some magical tricks. I don't see anyone who objects to mundane+ in this way. Many of us complain when magic becomes the only explanation to explain something a supposedly non-magical class does.

We can indeed. What we can't have is mundane fighters, mundane-immune monsters and wizards who can handle the mundane-immune monsters. Kill the wizard as a PC class (or just shred their power to 3.5 Bard standard or below) and the problem vanishes. Mundane immune monsters with mundane fighters are interesting for the challenge. Mundane immune monsters with all wizards are there to make the wizards look cool. Mundane immune monsters with mundane fighters and non-mundane wizards are a "You must be this magical to play" sign.

Sure we can. You said you were familiar with Castiel. He shows up and the bad guys die. Sam and Dean defeat them somehow when Cas is away, but Cas makes it so much easier. Even if the "caster" was more of a glass jaw, do you think Sam and Dean would be ONLY there to protect Castiel? I very much doubt it. To the same extent fighters can be in the same party with wizards without any issue. If wizards have less reliability in magic, or less power - as discussed above - then that evens out the playingfield while keeping both (casters and non-casters) as valid choices. And it keeps magic magical, without giving everyone magic.

Or the party wizard. And that is the problem.

But more importantly the solution is GEAR.
The party wizard has limited slots per day, or may prepare the wrong ones. Or maybe they just don't know those spells at all. Or (add in some of the stuff from above) they are otherwise able to do significant damage but they can't win things all by themselves all the time all day.

The fighter on the other hand can be given a sword and fight with it all day. He may be less effective in that "nova" situation that the wizard tends to find himself in. That is okay though because he IS as effective all day. He can have tricks and maneuvers to argument this. Or some other form of expendable power but that isn't what the fighter is at the core. Those are bonuses. If he has a bag of sand he can throw it in an enemy's face but there is no reason to have a "bag of sand" ability to blind someone.

Also, going back to supernatural for a second, give the brothers wrought iron and they can kill many things effectively (an entire brand of creatures - which currently escapes my memory). Without those implements they are useless. Easily torn apart. Without SALT they would be killed by ghosts before they had time to find the mcguffin of the episode. There are VERY mundane tricks that that show could show DnD about how to handle magical creatures. Make garlic more effective at repelling vampires and you may not need the cleric. You'll be happy when he is there and able to do straight damage to him, but you won't NEED him otherwise.

Make things highly resistant but not overly immune (as 5e has mostly adopted last I looked) and this sort of solves itself. It make take a while but you can eventually defeat that creature. If you have a wizard then it goes faster, but the wizard is going to die alone so not everyone can be just a wizard. If everyone CAN then again there is a problem... but that problem has to do with wizards not the other classes.

Making magic users into NPCs works. The problem is the wizard class and the style you espouse. Kill the wizard and the game works. But "Increasing the fighter, and all non-casters, to be parallel and equal to casters muddied the concept of magic is special." as you said. And yet 4e fighters still aren't in the league of CuChulain or Hercules. But people object.

A. Covered both the 'NPC/kill the wizard' and 'specialness/muddied classes' above.
B. Who says fighters are supposed to be in line with Hercules (unassisted)?
C. High level fighters aren't the problem either. Fighters in 3e are linear. The problem is the quadratic wizards.

 

[Manbearcat]

- A quarterback/running back tandem performs a play-action fake causing the linebackers to crash the line of scrimmage, abandoning deep middle coverage.

- A quarterback stares down the right side of the field drawing the safety 10 steps in that direction; outside of the hash-mark. When the safety vacates the seam, the quarterback hits the tight end running down it.

- A running back jukes right, plants his foot and cuts back left, leaving a tackler in his wake, scrambling for nothing but air.

- A pitcher throws an 84 mile per hour change-up with the exact same motion and armspeed in which he just threw a 94 mph fastball by a hitter. The hitter is foolishly out in front on the change-up, swinging and missing and screwing himself into the ground.

- A basketball player in the post performs an up-fake, causing the defender to leave his feet. He then pivots past the defender, stepping through and scoring an uncontested layup.

- A hockey forward behind the net, in the peripheral vision of the goalie, skates hard right, drawing the goalie to that post. He spins, stick-handling the puck to the opposite side of the net for a wraparound score.

Ok. Clearly none of them are magic or mind control. We can all agree on that, yes?

In 5e terms, all of these would probably involve a Wisdom or Intelligence Saving Throw, yes?

Ok, question(s) then:

Which (if any) of these would involve a force of personality/sense of self (Charisma) attack? Which (if any) of these would involve a physical attack (Strength of Dexterity)?

 

[Neonchameleon]

First, I just want to say I know there is a full page between the post I'm responding to and the reply itself. To that end, if any of this has been covered I apologize but I have limited time to cover what I want to cover.

I'm going to jump right in and say that from what I can see now you are repeating in good faith a range of fallacious edition warrior claims. They are so commonly repeated in bad faith that it's often hard to see that they can be repeated in good faith.

First things first, forget Come and Get It. It is one single seventh level encounter power and I can think of only one other fighter power like it - Warrior's Urging which is a twenty second level encounter power that might as well be named Improved Come and Get It. There are ten other optionsfor level seven encounter powers that you can take instead of Come and Get It. That said, I'd estimate that half of all 4e fighters choose CAGI because it is so cool - it's a classic cinematic move.

Look at the fighter's poower list as a whole. Every single combat power on that list is a weapon attack power. Every single one of them is a melee (or close - Whirlwind Attack style) power. I don't believe there's one single fighter attack power with an elemental keyword - the fighter doesn't produce fire, lightning or any of that nonsense. They are simply the masters of using weapons in melee combat. The barbarian hits harder. The ranger's faster. The rogue's more accurate. But the fighter is the master of melee combat. You can not afford to even take your eyes off a fighter who has targetted you or he will have a free opening that a member of another class simply couldn't exploit. The fighter's a master of certainly cinematic and possibly outlandish swordplay (or axeplay or maceplay or [weapon of choice play]). But swordplay all the same. And all the fighter's combat powers are about making the business end of that weapon meet the enemy.

So why does a fighter need powers? Simple. Character Customisation. At Will powers are what you do most of the time almost without thinking. Encounter powers are signature moves. Daily powers are full spotlight stuff. To illustrate, let's simply take two sword and board fighters. Both have identical stats (Str 18, Wis, Con, and Dex 14 each, Int and Cha 10). Same class, same stats, same equipment. Cookie cutter stuff? Not really. Their At Wills say how they move. Our first fighter has Tide of Iron and Cleave. Tide of Iron adds a push and follow up to his at will attack and requires a shield. So he uses his shield to bully the enemy and drive them backwards. Cleave does a little damage against an enemy adjacent to you when you hit (generally used to lay out a minion). So our first fighter is forceful, using shield as a weapon to bully with, and driving the enemy backwards. Our second fighter uses the other two at will powers in the PHB. Reaping Strike and Sure Strike. Sure Strike gets +2 to hit, but does less damage than a basic attack. Reaping strike cuts through and does a little damage even on a miss. So our second fighter is precise, accurate, and always gets his target whether by finessse, or simply bullying through their defence. Our two fighters are already very different because they physically move differently on the battlefield and their approach to sticking their longsword into their enemy is demonstrably different. (The four encounter powers in the PHB are all different and as signature moves further flesh out your character; Lunging Strike is a lunge that adds to your reach, Passing Attack lets you dart between two foes - if you hit the first you can move and attack a second. Spinning sweep knocks someone down, and Steel Serpent Strike pins them in place).

Does that explain a bit more about 4e powers, how the fighter powers are not magic (the wizard powers are very visibly magic), and why you would want them? After 4e I find anything you can do with 3.X/Pathfinder fighters to be very limited and bland. And there to be more diversity in the 4e fighter class than between any non-casters outside the Book of 9 Swords in 3.X. The entire Whirlwind Attack feat chain, for instance, has about the effect of the Sweeping Blow level 3 encounter power.

Then you've made the two textbook mistakes about roles and balance. Balance means something simple. There is no such thing as "Picking a bad class." (Outside the sub-par classes in Heroes of Shadow, anyway - seriously, there are three notably weak 4e classes (still tier 4 by 3.X standards) and all three are in that book). With the nerfing of magic, and the greater focus on skills this produces, everyone can do some things well outside combat (and if you want a fighter who's a ritual caster and so casts spells out of combat and picks up a sword when the rubber meets the road you can). It's not that everyone's the same. It's that everyone should be able to contribute most of the time.

Or to give another example. If two classes in 4e - both filling the same role - were to fight the same opponent would they be expected to have the same outcome?

Roles are just a very broad overview of what you contribute in combat. To illustrate I'm going to take up your "How would a single brute monster fare against different classes in a given role." I'm taking a brute as a default monster. The role I'm choosing is striker (i.e. high damage) - you may see some old favourites going past and therefore see how different the roles are.

• Ranger. The PHB ranger is really two separate combat classes unless you try to build a mishmash.
  • Archery Ranger. It's an archer vs an ogre. How do you think this is going to go? In all honesty how it goes depends whether the archer has room to keep stepping back and filling the ogre with arrows (or using special shots to slow our ogre) or whether the ogre can pin them against a wall and get opportunity attacks when the archer shoots.
  • Two Weapon Ranger. This will be short and bloody. Two weapon rangers do the most damage in the game - but they wear light armour, no shield, and don't have a great dexterity. Their armour class is horrible - especially for a front line combatant.
• Rogue. There's a big question here. Can the rogue get sneak attack? If the rogue has taken a range of powers that do things like daze their target they will be lethal. If they've taken powers to allow themselves to hide more easily and there's nowhere to hide, or high damage powers and rely on flanking for combat advantage, the rogue is strawberry jam.
• Warlock. The warlock is often considered weak - but here the warlock will have a ball - they specialise in neutralising single targets. Each of the three different types of Warlock in the PHB has a different at will attack power - and with any of them our ogre is in trouble.
  • Fey Pact: Eyebite. When the feypact warlock hits with eyebite they are invisible to the target until the start of their next turn. Normally this is weak as everyone else can still see them. But with only one ogre it's barely ever going to see the warlock.
  • Infernal Pact: Hellish Rebuke. When the Infernal warlock hits with Hellish Rebuke, if they take damage before the end of the next turn the ogre takes the hellish rebuke damage again. The Ogre is going down - it can't hit the hell'lock without hurting itself.
  • Star Pact: Dire Radiance. If a target under Dire Radiance tries to approach the Starlock it takes Dire Radiance damage again. Normally this isn't that great - but our starlock is going to keep retreating and kiting the ogre. If the ogre comes forward it burns even faster. If not it doesn't attack.
• Avenger. The avenger is probably even better off than the Warlock here; Avengers are master duellists who roll 2d20 when attacking isolated targets. And their powers either help them isolate targets (they get divine magic to help) or help them kill isolated targets with the biggest two handed weapons they can carry.
• Barbarian. Is a Barbarian. Almost a mirror match with the Ogre.
• Sorceror. The sorceror is in deep trouble. Probably the squishiest class in the game, the sorceror specialises in area of effect elemental blast spells rather than doing damage to one target. The ogre walks through the flames and turns the sorceror into strawberry jam. (Of course if it was a handful of orcs rather than an ogre, the sorceror would incinerate them all at once).
• Monk. Theoreticaly interesting match-up. It doesn't play to the monk's strength (wire-fu mobility, and the ability to punch out everyone around them in a turn) but monks do a fair amount of damage and are very hard to hit (as they need to be given that they regularly run up walls or wire-fu past the front line to beat up archers and casters, leaving themselves isolatied). I think the monk wins in a fight that's boring because it fits none of the monk's ways of showing off.

All these classes are strikers. All contribute in combat in the way strikers do - damage in the right places and killing the enemy fast. Which do you think play remotely the same way? Which do you think you could confuse for each other?

Fourth, it is muddied when a fighter's power level is no better or worse than any other "defender".

The way they do it is significantly different. A fighter is the best at keeping the enemy unable to look anywhere but at them. A warden is the best at staying on their feet no matter what you throw at them. A swordmage picks a foe, hexes it, and kites it - either they follow the swordmage (a challenge) or they suffer the effect of the hex (unpleasant). Paladins are self-sacrificing people who keep everyone else on their feet. Is it better to be an incredibly sticky defender or one who can stay up even when chewed on by a dragon by channelling the spirits of the earth through themselves but who people can walk away from more easily?

Say what you want about 3e but the fighter never felt like the wizard.

No. The fighter felt like the barbarian and the wizard like the sorceror. A 4e fighter is no more like a wizard than a 3e wizard is like a cleric. (In fact I'd say quite a lot less).

So, yes fighters are the mundane choice when you WANT mundane. I don't know what the comment about HP was meaning.

You can drop a mid-level fighter from orbit and it'll walk away.

Again, I hate to disagree but the problem is they want these cosmic powers to be available. But very few people who prefer the "broken" 3e would say that they aren't a problem how they are. As you correctly diagnose later - the problem is having these kinds of powers available to a PC full time.

And people do object when the power is reduced.

Also, this isn't the first time you (I think it was you anyway) suggested Ars Magica.

Ars Magica is a game that grew out of D&D - with the central conceit that it's wizards and their sidekicks. And yes, I'll leave it out.

This confused me (where it was) but I later understood it to mean the following. Please let me know if I'm wrong. You are proposing to play 3e where the "best" wizard is a bard and that all fighters are warblades?

Having played 3.5 (not as familiar with 3.0) I can say that you don't even need the warblade to outpace the bard.

I am - and you obviously haven't seen a well-played bard. There's a vast amount of synergy in the class if you have the knowledge and system mastery to exploit it. Which is exactly how I want wizards if I'm going for that sort of game - tricky and subtle rather than overtly powerful. (In fact I'd probably play 3e with all casters being replaced by the Bard, and the Bo9S classes in play).

But even so .. that WOULD be to do what I said. Fix the problem if the overly high-powered wizard while not completely changing the fighter.

The warblade more or less makes the fighter obselete.

Find me one reference to Tolkien calling Gandalf an NPC and you win.

You mean that he wasn't the deus ex machina character who was taken away from the party for most of the story? The Fellowship of the Ring works as two adventuring parties and an NPC.

The problem you are putting forward is that Merlin has magic. That magic > mundane.

No. The two problems are not the same.

The problem is you can't let Merlin, or the Lady of the Lake or Gandalf, break out ultimate cosmic powers every day without fail.

Indeed. You can play games other than D&D. But so-called Vancian casting does exactly what you are saying you can't do. Vancian casting with all spells recovered at the end of the day is inherently problematic - and the wizard spell list makes things dire. Many games other than D&D don't have problems here (make all spells take a minute to cast and combat lasting half a minute tops and you've niche protection).

Also, show me where I went wrong in my example of Supernatural?

I've never actually seen it. Merely friends who recap.

The highest level mundane fighter might be ... the max level of any class - say 20 or 30 or no max.

I seriously don't think Supernatural would have a mundane figher dropped from orbit and survive. Level five or six max.

If the fighter is more defined by power, accuracy, health and ability to perform maneuvers (something I dislike but again I don't see how we repackage that box either) then why do they need MAGIC on top of that?

Because pre-4e D&D magic is completely out of control. Especially 3e magic. 4e magic on the other hand - the fighters don't need magic.

Or, no save or die spells belong to regular - in combat - spells? What if you have to get a target to drink poison. That would resemble reality and require no one to actually have magic.

Come play 4e. We have no save or die abilities. Magic's trimmed down in the way you want! (And the assassin class has a mastery of poisons).

I never said magic belonged to NPCs. You did, repeatedly.

Misunderstanding. Aragorn gets Athelas - magic of a sort. I named the powerful casters as NPCs because in most renditions they are. Nimue in most Arthurian stories doesn't do much except with Merlin (and then there are possibly two). The PCs are Arthur and the Knights most of the time.

Magic is the domain of casters, non-magic is the domain of non-casters.

And here we're in serious disagreement. Non-magic is the domain of everyone.

They can slay demons because of the demon-bane weapon they have. ALL of these things relate to mundane fighters, but with some magical tricks. I don't see anyone who objects to mundane+ in this way. Many of us complain when magic becomes the only explanation to explain something a supposedly non-magical class does.

No one objects to Mundane +. What is objected to is Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit.

But more importantly the solution is GEAR.
The party wizard has limited slots per day, or may prepare the wrong ones.

Gear that the wizard also gets. And by your own example the wizard needs to mess up. That's if we have a 3.X like magic system rather than a 4e like one.

The fighter on the other hand can be given a sword and fight with it all day.

Pure myth twice over. The first reason this is a myth is fighting is hard work. If the fighter can fight with it all day he is not mundane. The second reason is the fighter can fight with it until the fighter runs out of hit points. The fighter is on a clock. And it's harder to recover hit points in D&D than it is to recover spells. Which means the fighter's endurance is a function of the healing spells available.

Make things highly resistant but not overly immune (as 5e has mostly adopted last I looked) and this sort of solves itself. It make take a while but you can eventually defeat that creature.

Again you're arguing for 4e. Of course 5e resistances and vulnerabilities are a lot less interesting than late 4e ones.

B. Who says fighters are supposed to be in line with Hercules (unassisted)?

Fighters are supposed to be in line with casters of the same level. Hercules is in line with a level 9 or so caster.

C. High level fighters aren't the problem either. Fighters in 3e are linear. The problem is the quadratic wizards.

Once more I say come play 4e. It has everything you are looking for. D&D Next is back to Quadratic Wizards.

 

[WarlockLord]

Hey Tovec, there's a good reason your Supernatural example doesn't work (at least what you've told us). A couple, in fact.

1) Most D&D land monsters don't have the loopholes found in Supernatural. And while you could make an argument that that would be good for the game, there's problem #2: A wizard can do any of this just as easily as a mundane. Bob can find and burn the ghost's bones. Jim the wizard can also do basic detective work, find the bones, and burn them. So we're right back to mundanes being inferior to wizards - especially as Jim could also be fighting the ghost with magic, use magic to locate the bones, and so on. Thus we get back to the problem that mundanes are completely unnecessary, as they provide no skills the casters can't replicate.

To answer some more of your points:

Point B: My 2nd edition Players Handbook states

There are many famous fighters from legend: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulainn, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad.

That's one answer.

As for point C:
High level enemies in 3e are just as quadratic as the wizards. Many monsters have weird SLAs - the balor's implosion, the death slaad's finger of death, mass planeshifting, flight abilities, wall conjuration/other battlefield control, summoning more of their kind, etc - that outclass mundanes by orders of magnitude. It's hard to stop a blasphemy lockdown if you don't know what you're doing or have no abilities to prepare with. Even mid-level enemies such as mind flayers can stun and dominate parties whilst levitating. Heck, even mid-level monsters are ridiculous - A CR 9 vrock can fly around under mirror image and telekinetically bombard opponents from the air, which a melee fighter is going to be able to do nothing about whilst whining at the

 

[Argyle King]

Or, the way I'd prefer, is to design them to certain areas. Give the Fighter some fighting abilities, while the Ranger gets nature-oriented abilities: he can move faster through rough terrain, hide easier, move quietly faster, etc. You end up something very different than if you turned it into a theme (or the like). Same thing for Monks, Thiefs, etc. As always, play what you like

The problem I see with that is that being better at fighting is pretty much always useful in D&D style adventures.

Being good at moving through nature is only better if the adventure is taking place in nature.

How do you make up for those things not being equally useful?


Edit: I'm ok with different classes having different strengths and weaknesses. It doesn't bother me if the fighter is better at combat than the bard, but worse at social interaction. What bothers me is when a class like the cleric is a better cleric than the fighter, but then also ends up being a better fighter than the fighter at the same time. For a more extreme example, it also bothers me that the druid is a far better caster than the fighter, but then the druid also gets what is essentially a fighter sidekick (animal companion) as a class feature... oh, and did I mention that the druid can cast while also being a giant bear?

I think it's also worth mentioning that the editions of D&D I'm most familiar with are more weighted toward combat as a solution to problems. I believe this is especially true in 4E. No, I'm not saying the tired old argument that you cannot roleplay with the game. I am merely saying that PCs, their adversaries, encounters, and the game are all built in such a way that might tends to make right more often than not. As such, while I'm ok with the base idea that some classes are better than others in some area, and I'm ok with that idea in a vacuum, I'm not necessarily ok with that idea when applied to what seem to be the modern ideals behind D&D design. If one method of conflict resolution (combat) is most often the right answer to challenges or is most often a better answer to challenges, it stands to reason that a class which is built toward being good at that one method is going to be better than other classes.