D&D General The Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard Problem

[Hussar]

Funny thing is that 2e got around the issue simply by making fighters so much more powerful. A fairly big standard fighter at second level could solo an ogre with no problems. It’s unlikely the ogre would live more than a single round.

You want to fix the LFQW issue? Triple fighter damage.

Done. Now fighters are easily as powerful as any caster and are probably the go to classes for players.

 

[Minigiant]

Overall, if D&D's tradition is 9 levels of powerful spells, the ultimate solution to the Linear Fighter problem is to

• List each aspect of the fighter
• Scale each aspect to from Tier 1 to Tier 4
• Allow DMs to ban an aspect that doesn't match their campaign, setting, or liking
• Allow players to choose any aspect still allowed.

Or in big dumb dumb language. Create a seperate feat-like sub-system for martials that scales the same way as spells.

For example, let's steal terminology from 4e: Exploits

1. Might Exploits- Focuses on feats of Strength and Power
2. Agility Exploits- Focuses on feats of Dexterity and Speed
3. Toughness Exploits - Focuses on feats of Constitution and Endurance
4. Melee Weapon Exploits -Focuses on skill with melee weapons
5. Ranged Weapon Exploits -Focuses on feats of ranged weapons
6. Armor Exploits -Focuses on skill with armor
7. Tactics Exploits -Focuses on Intelligence and Planning
8. Leadership Exploits -Focuses on Charisma and Morale

And if you doesn't like the fighter chucking orges around like ragdolls, the DM bans Might Exploits. And the player can choose Melee Weapon Exploits and just cut the ogre's head off with a sword.

 

[Celebrim]

Done. Now fighters are easily as powerful as any caster and are probably the go to classes for players.

Honestly, I don't think it is mostly a combat problem at all. To the extent that it is a combat problem, it's mostly a color problem. If a fighter is still just swinging a big pointy stick round after round but doing triple damage, you still have all the worst problems with the design of the game going on.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

It does feel like spells are on a big pedestal and that they treat it as a very special thing, they're the only system that truly scales with levels and such (say, if there's a magic disease, it can say it needs a 6th level Heal or similar spell to cure it, even though there are non-spell disease curing abilities in the game, you just won't know if a Lay on Hands could work or not).

I was looking at it the other day, on the "tiers of play" part of the DMG, where it talks about the amazing abilities that you unlock as you level up that let you change the world around you. At tier 1, you get some weaker spells and normal items. At tier 2, you get some cool spells and magic items. Tier 3, cool spells and magic items. Tier 4? Cool spells and magic items. It's talking about the abilities that can definite the game, and it's all spellcasters or whatever the DM decides to give you for items, no one is gonna pretend that Brutal Critical or Indomidable will definite how the campaign is played.

But the tier 4 part also talks about level 20. A Cleric can ascend to the heavens and become their god's right hand. A Warlock could straight up become a patron for other Warlocks. A Wizard becomes immortal and expends eons exploring the multiverse. A Druid becomes one with nature and turns into a spirit of the land. The other classes aren't even mentioned by name, but the rest can't really compare to the above . . .

 

[Celebrim]

I've been saying for a while that the Warlord should just eat the Fighter and steel his name because the Warlord is more in line with the Fighting Man of old who could command troops (or just keep Warlord because it's a cooler name than 'Fighter' who is way too generic ). The much vaunted 'Simple Fighter' that's apparently SO popular and SO essential to 'real D&D' should just either be its own independant thing or be absorbed by the Barbarian who is already the 'Hit things hard with a big stick' class anyway.

I don't think this is an either/or sort of issue. By the principle that "Feats are a fighter's spells" the same "Fighting Man" class ought to be able to build tank like brutes and cunning warlords and every combination thereof. If your had a Tactics skill in the game that fighters could be proficient in, even if I didn't take a bunch of Feats that focused my combat around the support I could give to my party and the advantages of my intelligence in combat, my fighter still could outline a battle strategy in that scene where we helping the garrison resist the siege of the orc army even though he's not normally played as a 'warlord'. This would actually be on point with how Conan is presented in the books for example. Conan doesn't normally lead, but when he's pushed into that roll he finds that the knowledge he's picked up from countless battles is useful.

The idea that I'm trying to fight against is something we've seen creep into the game since 3e, which is that martial classes are defined by really narrow concepts like "Pirate" or "Chain Wielder" or "Warlord" and they do that one thing that they do, but spellcasters do everything.

 

[dave2008]

f) If you want real balance, spell-casters need to be made to feel the pain.

What those principles mean is by no means obvious. I’ll delve into the first of them in the next post.

I almost started a thread a few days ago that the purpose was to suggest the fix to martial / caster balance was to make casters squishy again. I was going to suggest at least return them back to d4 HD. Then I realized that was only 1/2 the issue and decided not to explore it further.

 

[Minigiant]

It does feel like spells are on a big pedestal and that they treat it as a very special thing, they're the only system that truly scales with levels and such (say, if there's a magic disease, it can say it needs a 6th level Heal or similar spell to cure it, even though there are non-spell disease curing abilities in the game, you just won't know if a Lay on Hands could work or not).

I was looking at it the other day, on the "tiers of play" part of the DMG, where it talks about the amazing abilities that you unlock as you level up that let you change the world around you. At tier 1, you get some weaker spells and normal items. At tier 2, you get some cool spells and magic items. Tier 3, cool spells and magic items. Tier 4? Cool spells and magic items. It's talking about the abilities that can definite the game, and it's all spellcasters or whatever the DM decides to give you for items, no one is gonna pretend that Brutal Critical or Indomidable will definite how the campaign is played.

But the tier 4 part also talks about level 20. A Cleric can ascend to the heavens and become their god's right hand. A Warlock could straight up become a patron for other Warlocks. A Wizard becomes immortal and expends eons exploring the multiverse. A Druid becomes one with nature and turns into a spirit of the land. The other classes aren't even mentioned by name, but the rest can't really compare to the above . . .

Well that's the issue.

A percentage of the fandom want a cap on where people can go without magic. So therefore in this model, the fighter and other martial classes would be defined in Tier 3 and 4 by magic items.

However a percentage of the fandom don't want to be forced to give martials 1 legendary and 3 very rare magic items of their choice.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly, I don't think it is mostly a combat problem at all. To the extent that it is a combat problem, it's mostly a color problem. If a fighter is still just swinging a big pointy stick round after round but doing triple damage, you still have all the worst problems with the design of the game going on.

Meh, we know how to fix the problem. 4e did it. It fixed the problem completely. To the point where you could have an entire group of non-casters and play would have zero problems. There's no "need a spell level X to fix a problem" in 4e.

But, of course, we're not allowed to have fighters or fighter types like that, so, we keep spinning our wheels trying to fix a problem with all these different solutions, none of which actually work.

You cannot balance a game where you have fundamentally two different games being played at the same table. It's irreconcilable. So, we either accept it (as 5e has done) or we fix it (which is what 4e and various other games which grant all sorts of meta-game power to the players to offset their lack of in-game power).

But, ultimately, until everyone at the table is playing the same game, there is no way to fix this.

 

[Celebrim]

Meh, we know how to fix the problem. 4e did it. It fixed the problem completely.

LOL. Ok.

To the point where you could have an entire group of non-casters and play would have zero problems.

There were no non-casters in 4e. There were just casters skinned in various ways.

There's no "need a spell level X to fix a problem" in 4e.

Arguably, because the exploration pillar was removed from 4e.

Look some of us don't have this problem in 3e. The idea that the 4e "fix" is the only solution just means you haven't played very many different ways.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd say the Fighter's relatively fine, it's the WIZARD that continues to be the problem, and not just in relation with the Fighter in particular: it's also a problem when relating to other spell casters. The Wizard is too loose of a concept. At this point, the only thing that seems to define a Wizard are that it has lots of spells and has a spell book.

When you try to homebrew a new class, there will always be someone to tell you to not invent a new class just to fit a mechanic... the Wizard is barely above naked mechanic. If you take away the spell book feature and just abstract its spell slots progression as 'can cast spells' what are you left with exactly? Nothing but a vague 'book smart' thing? Something that could be applied to ANY character class?

The Wizard needs to be rebuilt as an interesting class without the undercurrent of 'the Best Spellcaster' that actually exist, barely hidden in the Wizard's design. It's abilities need to be reined in and limited, because its vaunted flexibility is more a liability than a character trait.

A liability to the rest of the game, not to the wizard's player, who is probably fine with it. If your solution is to take toys away, you're going to face an uphill battle.