D&D General Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic

[Maxperson]

IF, and its a BIG IF, you ascribe to the 6-8 encounters per day metric.

If you don't, then any balance issues are your fault and not game design. The game is designed around 6-8 medium to hard encounters per adventuring day.

I see a lot of comments on these boards, and from folks with a problem with the wizard's power, saying that THEY DON'T USE 6-8 encounters per adventuring day for a variety of reasons - time it takes for combat, pacing of their game, journeying, etc.

Sure, but then it's their responsibility to fix their own created problems and not complain about game design not meeting their house rules.

I have the same issue, so long rests are about once a week so that I don't have to mess up pacing that much and can have 1 encounter in a day. I also have to limit short rests to two so that the short rest classes don't overwhelm the encounters by having full power for every fight. The balance remains the about the same since I'm just stretching out the "adventuring day."

They key is for your change not to mess with the 6-8 encounters per "adventuring day" balance that the game is centered around.

In my last game, a sandbox, an encounter or two max per day usually, the spellcasters dominated. In fact, the only Martial was a poorly run Arcane Archer (arguably weak to begin with). But his being there that week, or his missing the session made zero difference in the outcome of the fights. Even when I upped the DCs of the enemies (double +), or threw higher level "PC" spellcasters at the party, zero, zip, no effect.

Casters were able to combine every round damage cantrips (scaling) for ongoing damage (and saving spell slots!), the occasional big flashy spell (Evokers in the house!) to eliminate henchmen and blast biggies, AOE effects from clerics (spiritual guardians, twilight stuff, etc.) to prevent melee NPCs from closing (or to prevent them from getting more than a round in before the passive damage did them in), to nuking the BBG or the biggest perceived threat with the big flashies, while protecting themselves with perfect prep (invisible imp scouts, darkness/devilsight protections, Twilight temp hps, etc.).

And sure, I, as DM, could have easily wiped the party any time I wanted to, but keeping it "realistic" in terms of encounters - I couldn't always start my enemy casters in dispel magic or counterspell range EVERY SINGLE ENCOUNTER (which were 2-3 a day, to 1 a day, to none for weeks). And when they weren't in combat, the Zone of Truths, Charm Persons, Scry, Light spells out the wazoo, etc. made the mundane adventuring (social, exploration) pretty pointless. We got to the point where we just skipped large fights because there was zero reason to waste game time going through the motions of what would be a clear mop up.

Oh, and all the characters had about the same range of HP when we stopped - 40-46, regardless of class. So it wasn't even a matter of the casters being "squishier" than the Martial we had.

I've come to the realization, that its just the way the game is now. And if I want more "mundane", I have to look at using Sidekicks as primary PC's, curating spell lists, or maybe just having Warlocks be the only type of caster out there (covering clerical, magical, sorcerous, etc.).

Try stretching out the "day" like I do. It's not perfect, but it helps a lot.

 

[Maxperson]

Oftentimes a single spell can allow the whole party to bypass a whole encounter. Same can go for Deception/Intimidation/Persuasion/Survival/Etc checks (especially with expertise and/or other ways to boost skills).

What's the value of bypassing an encounter?

Slower leveling and less treasure.

It's safer for sure, and will make more sense from an RP point of view in many cases, but talking yourself out of the fight(if there was going to be one) isn't generally going to grant as much xp.

 

[Maxperson]

That wasn't what I was referring to though.

A high level caster can have a pretty reliable set of spells for combat, as well as a variety of utility. Particularly casters who prepare spells, as you aren't locked into what you know. You can reconfigure your spell selection each day based on your anticipated needs. A wizard can be kitted out for hacking and slashing one day, and kitted for high intrigue the next. A fighter can be kitted out for hacking and slashing one day... and hacking and slashing the next.

I understood you, but my point still remains. Assuming the DM hasn't screwed up game balance by having fewer than 6-8 encounter per "adventuring day," every spell the caster uses for utility will weaken him in combat. It all balances out in the combat arena. The fighter needs no help there.

I've also found that while decking out the wizard in advance for what you think is going to be highly useful tomorrow(intrigue, combat, exploration, etc.) can really work out, it is guaranteed to bit the wizard in the rear a fair number of time. Perhaps you still blow the intrigue and a fight breaks out. Perhaps you learn through that intrigue that something is going down in a few hours and need to sneak into a place(exploration) and then get into a number of fights(heavy combat). Specialization like that tends to even out in the long run.

The only thing that I see as an issue with the fighter is that he really has very few default non-combat options. He needs some help there so that he also has some options outside of combat.

Personally, I don't think that the fighter's ability to hack and slash outshines the wizard's sufficiently to compensate for the wizard's flexibility. I think it's debatable whether a fighter can outshine a combat focused wizard in combat. On a longer day, maybe, on a shorted day, maybe not. I don't think there's any reasonable argument that a fighter can outshine a high intrigue kitted wizard at high intrigue, regardless of how long that day is.

That's fine. I don't have an issue with people having that opinion. It's the reason why some choose fighters and others play wizards. We all have preferences and opinions.

It's when people come here and act like their opinion is some sort of fact and the fighter needs to get 6-10 attacks a round, 12-20 with action surge, just to break even with the wizard that I start speaking out. Not only does the fighter not need that, if that were to occur game combat would break completely.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's not that hard to strike a balance.

If you're objecting to white room scenarios where a caster always has all of the ideal spells prepared, then I agree with you. That wasn't what I was referring to though.

A high level caster can have a pretty reliable set of spells for combat, as well as a variety of utility. Particularly casters who prepare spells, as you aren't locked into what you know. You can reconfigure your spell selection each day based on your anticipated needs. A wizard can be kitted out for hacking and slashing one day, and kitted for high intrigue the next. A fighter can be kitted out for hacking and slashing one day... and hacking and slashing the next.

Exactly this.

Personally, I don't think that the fighter's ability to hack and slash outshines the wizard's sufficiently to compensate for the wizard's flexibility. I think it's debatable whether a fighter can outshine a combat focused wizard in combat. On a longer day, maybe, on a shorted day, maybe not. I don't think there's any reasonable argument that a fighter can outshine a high intrigue kitted wizard at high intrigue, regardless of how long that day is.

I think that many DMs don't see these as issues because there are elements in the game that can compensate for the disparities, such as magic items, or a DM putting in the effort to make certain that fighters get spotlight time. A DM can certainly decide that the King loves the fighter and detests the wizard, and therefore the fighter is the party's go-to-guy for talking to the King. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's good DMing.

I really think alot comes down to magic items. A Fighter with a belt of storm giant strength and a +3 weapon has something like +18 attack and 2d6+9+3 Damage and makes 4 attacks. And that's before any feats or subclass features get added in.

Give him some way to increase his speed and a way to fly and he's a force on any battlefield. High level fighter (melee versions) really need those magic items to be strong late game though. And that's before we start talking out of combat.

Consider that an equal level wizard can have a simulcarum (banned in my games) and that's basically twice as many spells coming out twice as fast. A high level wizard is stupid silly even without magic items.

However, not every DM will do that. Not every DM will even know to do that. So I, personally, am on the side of making that kind of stuff built into the class, so that it isn't dependent on a DM who can smooth over the issues. I think that's a net positive change, since it creates less of a workload for the DM. I think it could be as easy as allowing an 11+ level fighter to choose a few magic items from a curated list, to guarantee that they have a decent set of options, independent of the DM.

IMO. Magic item handouts like that can put stress on the world built by the DM. In terms of balancing it's one of my favorite solutions as well, but it carries with it alot of narrative/world building baggage that I'm not sure is worth the tradeoff.

 

[FrogReaver]

Slower leveling and less treasure.

It's safer for sure, and will make more sense from an RP point of view in many cases, but talking yourself out of the fight(if there was going to be one) isn't generally going to grant as much xp.

There will always be another fight to gain XP and treasure from.

 

[Oofta]

Options.


A wizard can rewrite someone's memory, eliminating an inconvenient moment, or creating a convenient recollection (or both).

A fighter can... hit someone in the head until they're either dead, or if the DM permits, brain damaged... I guess?


A wizard can move the party from point A to point B in moments, oftentimes with perfect reliability.

A fighter can... charter a boat which could get the party there eventually, though the journey might resemble the better part of the Odyssey...


A wizard who is busy dealing with other opponents can disable enemies in any number of ways (Hypnotic Pattern, Impenetrable Sphere, Forcecage, Maze, etc) until the party is ready to deal with them.

A fighter can who is busy dealing with other opponents can... throw something with disadvantage at the enemy and hope that the DM decides to "aggro" onto the fighter so that it beats on the fighter instead of the rest of the party?


Do you need more examples? I can provide plenty more.

Modify memory is one of the few powerful spells that if it works (don't forget the target has advantage on their saves) that I agree with. It's also incredibly situational and potentially dangerous. You're using one of your rare 5th level spell slots of which you only ever get 3 and that's at level 18. I've never seen it used. Maybe others have.

Teleportation? Sure. But again, if there was no teleportation I don't think it would make a difference. If you can't teleport then there would be some other way of getting somewhere, the story would change. The campaign arcs I've seen where teleportation was useful happened because there was the teleportation spell. Does it matter who casts teleport as long as the team gets there? Would the DM run the same campaign scenarios if teleportation was unavailable or would the nature of the campaign simply change slightly? Either the campaign switches to travel mode and the journey becomes part of the campaign or it's handwaved with a "you find a boat and it takes you 3 weeks to get there" in my experience.

Yes, the wizard can sometimes help with defense. Just like the fighter helps defend other people in the party every time they charge up front and get into melee. Except the fighter does it most combats while still dealing damage. If the fighter really cares about it they can take feats like sentinel or pick up the protection fighting style. For the wizard it's a limited resource and they typically have to choose between that and doing damage.

It's like saying the only important people on the team in (American) football are the quarterback and running back because they're the ones responsible for the touchdowns. But without effective linemen it all falls apart*. It just means they're different. If you want to be a caster, be a caster. It's handy if someone on the team is. Just like it's handy to have someone that can open locks and find traps if that's a thing. It's also handy to have that front line fighter keeping the troll from eating the squishy wizard.

*And now I've exhausted my knowledge on football; I don't think I've watched more than a few minutes of a game since high school.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I understood you, but my point still remains. Assuming the DM hasn't screwed up game balance by having fewer than 6-8 encounter per "adventuring day," every spell the caster uses for utility will weaken him in combat. It all balances out in the combat arena. The fighter needs no help there.

I've also found that while decking out the wizard in advance for what you think is going to be highly useful tomorrow(intrigue, combat, exploration, etc.) can really work out, it is guaranteed to bit the wizard in the rear a fair number of time. Perhaps you still blow the intrigue and a fight breaks out. Perhaps you learn through that intrigue that something is going down in a few hours and need to sneak into a place(exploration) and then get into a number of fights(heavy combat). Specialization like that tends to even out in the long run.

The only thing that I see as an issue with the fighter is that he really has very few default non-combat options. He needs some help there so that he also has some options outside of combat.

That's fine. I don't have an issue with people having that opinion. It's the reason why some choose fighters and others play wizards. We all have preferences and opinions.

It's when people come here and act like their opinion is some sort of fact and the fighter needs to get 6-10 attacks a round, 12-20 with action surge, just to break even with the wizard that I start speaking out. Not only does the fighter not need that, if that were to occur game combat would break completely.

That's fair but, regarding the wizard picking all the wrong spells for the day (unlikely as that is), what's the worst case scenario? That, outside of combat, he's about as useful as a fighter for the day?

 

[FrogReaver]

If you don't, then any balance issues are your fault and not game design. The game is designed around 6-8 medium to hard encounters per adventuring day.

Depends on if you think the game should cater to what people prefer to play to or change their play to what the game demands. I personally think the game cater to shorter adventuring days. Under this lens it is a game design problem that they chose to create a game that doesn't.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

So, one issue with this topic, I think, is that while a number of people agree that there is a problem, we don't necessarily agree on what the problem is, and the severity of it. This makes discussions on it difficult, especially for people who don't think there is much of a problem, as it looks like the other side is just switching gears throughout, when it reality we are all just have different opinions on the perceived problem.

For instance, I think that outside white room scenarios the fighter is pretty good on the combat pillar in this edition. They excel at damage, which I'd argue is probably the best thing to have in a fight. They have pretty good survivability as well, although they are not necessarily the best at it. They lack in mobility and battlefield control for the most part however. I wouldn't mind if they were a little better at those things, but overall I don't think a fighter needs much to contribute in most combat situations.

I do think the fighter really falters in the exploration and social pillars however. The base fighter's only out of combat related class features are their two additional ASIs, which could translate into feats when the game allows them. The only other class with a similar lack of features is the Barbarian, who gets Danger Sense and at very high levels Indomitable Might. While all characters get some options through skills, it's pretty bare bones for these two classes to make an impact. So for me, that is where I think a big part of the disparity is, and what I would focus on personally.

 

[FrogReaver]

I've seen the teleport example brought up a few times. IMO the single greatest use of teleport is as an 'Oh Crap' button. You can instantly and safely get the party out of a sticky situation. It's a great anti TPK spell.