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

[Faolyn]

Sorry if I misunderstood. As far as how long? Well, how many turns does the wizard have to rely on lower power spells or cantrips?

By 20th level, a damage-dealing cantrip is doing (as far as I can tell) about as much damage as a fighter is, if all of the fighter's attacks hit. So a fighter is getting four attacks per round with, say, a longsword held in both hands (1d10 four times) while a wizard is chucking fire bolts that do 4d10 damage once. Now, the fighter is probably adding +5 to damage due to Strength and another plus due to magic, but they also have to hit four times, and that may not be a given depending on the AC of their foes (plus the four chances of rolling a nat 1). Here, the main advantage is that the fighter can target up to four different foes (or more with an action surge) where the wizard can only target one with their fire bolt--but without that action surge, the fighter and wizard are doing somewhat similar amounts of damage, and this is just with a cantrip.

I think it's great that cantrips scale as you level, but I also think that maybe all fighters should've had something like an extended crit range as they level up. Or something like that. Or that they should have had maneuvers like Level Up does.

So I don't know how to make a valid comparison. I also don't see the point that @Minigiant was trying to make. People seem to be so obsessed with big boom spells like this but the major turning points in my campaigns rarely turn on things like this. It's the decisions made by the players, the alliances forged, the enemies made over time. It's the fighter holding off the BBEG so that the rogue can disarm the doomsday device. It's not about being flashy, it's about contributing to a shared story as part of a team.

I definitely agree on this. But it sometimes feels that the game itself is built around flashy.

 

[Mort]

It's not really that hard to flee. You don't have to run faster than your enemy, you just have to run faster than the dwarf.

Ah, but even here, casters have options!

slow works great in this situation!

 

[Minigiant]

The fighter already has all the combat power he needs. In order for the wizard to begin to try and match the fighter in combat, the wizard has to give up his ability to affect the other two pillars. If the wizard starts using spells outside of combat to affect the other pillars strongly, he falls waaaaaaaay behind the fighter in the combat pillar.

What you have suggested for the fighter in past posts would create a huge combat imbalance in the game. The fighter can't be as strong as you want without completely borking combat to the point that you'd end up killing the other PCs when trying to challenge the fighter.

My point isn't that the fighter isn't strong enough in combat.

Let's say the Combat/Exploration/Social/Shenanigans. The Fighter is 8/1/1/0 at base and subclass add 1 to Combat and 1 to somewhere else.

This means the Fighter caps out at something like 9/2/1/0. 9 is the best Combat score in the game and the Fighter has it.

The Wizard has an 10 in Shenanigans and can get to 11 with subclass. And their scores are somewhere between 1-7.

The Wizard has an 11. The Fighter doesn't have any 11s and can't get an 11 without adding options that let a Wizard get to a 12 or 13.

"Well the Fighter has the best score in Combat!"

1. Is having that the best score in combat worth capping out at 2 in anything else?
2. Why are the Fighter's other scores so low if other classes can be good at multiple things?
3. Shouldn't the best score in combat be an 11?

 

[Guest 7034872]

It's not really that hard to flee. You don't have to run faster than your enemy, you just have to run faster than the dwarf.

Especially if you shoot her in the knee first.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Okay, so here's a more serious post: I'm reading both this thread and the two rest mechanics threads, right? Right. And so I'm thinking about all the ways one could either nerf the casters a bit or buff the martial folks, right? Again, right. And then an idea just kinda sorta pops into my head: "Well, what if the martial classes got more hit dice they could spend in a short rest?"

Might that help to fix it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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.

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.

Of course, the more stuff you put in the class, the more complicated the character becomes to build and play. And if you're requesting that WotC make these changes, you're making the fighter more complex for everyone.

Also, adding this stuff to the class restricts the DM's options, since now the player can cite rule authority when they disagree with the DM. And that's fine, if everyone is happy with that kind of game.

 

[Oofta]

By 20th level, a damage-dealing cantrip is doing (as far as I can tell) about as much damage as a fighter is, if all of the fighter's attacks hit. So a fighter is getting four attacks per round with, say, a longsword held in both hands (1d10 four times) while a wizard is chucking fire bolts that do 4d10 damage once. Now, the fighter is probably adding +5 to damage due to Strength and another plus due to magic, but they also have to hit four times, and that may not be a given depending on the AC of their foes (plus the four chances of rolling a nat 1). Here, the main advantage is that the fighter can target up to four different foes (or more with an action surge) where the wizard can only target one with their fire bolt--but without that action surge, the fighter and wizard are doing somewhat similar amounts of damage, and this is just with a cantrip.

I think it's great that cantrips scale as you level, but I also think that maybe all fighters should've had something like an extended crit range as they level up. Or something like that. Or that they should have had maneuvers like Level Up does.

A 20th level fire bolt does 4d10 damage, 22 points and only 1 attack. A 20th level fighter, well it depends on a lot of factors but let's say a +1 longsword and 20 strength. That's minimum 1d8+6 damage for 10.5 and the fighter gets 4 attacks.

I'm sure other casters would do a bit more damage, but the fighter damage is also on the extreme low end. If we assume hitting 60% of the time the wizard averaging less than half the fighter.

I definitely agree on this. But it sometimes feels that the game itself is built around flashy.

It seems like the biggest issue is the game being built around more than 2-3 encounters per long rest. If you know you can reliably go nova and cast utility spells and you don't use feats and you don't give non-casters magic items that help compensate some of their weaknesses then it can be an issue. I just think it's an issue that can be resolved in many ways. Not least of which is just accepting that there is no such thing as perfect balance and casters and non-casters are always going to have different roles to play.

 

[Krachek]

I have always played Exploration and Social as time to develop my characters identity and style. For me all classes are at the same level for those aspects.
I consider strange that some find out that there is a way to succeed or be more efficient for a social moment around the table.

 

[Oofta]

Especially if you shoot her in the knee first.

But doesn't that just mean they get immediately teleported to the nearest local hamlet? After all, the town's guard guild has a lot of pull and they need all the recruits they can get.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Maybe. I don't prolong the story arc because of skipped encounters, so if the wizard bypasses them all, a woefully underprepared party will hit the BBEG. Nor of course do I assume that all encounters will be hit, so some are able to be skipped. The players shouldn't just assume infinite encounters(always another fight to get stuff from), though, because there are other considerations.