D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Mort]

I'm not going to make that fighter roll for 20 feet, but 21 feet is by definition in doubt, or the rule would be, "You can automatically jump a distance equal to your strength score +1" or something. Now, it wouldn't be all that hard to go that extra foot, but it wouldn't be automatic.

And that's fine - heck, it's more generous than the rules technically allow.

The point (kind of in line with your previous post too) is that the fighter and the wizard need to exist on the same level of reality - not the fighter in "real world" reality and the wizard in "it's magic" mythic reality.

 

[Maxperson]

The issue that I'm trying to illustrate is that often that realism is imposed on martials but ignored for casters. I've seen this many, many times at various tables over decades of play.

Probably because magic overcomes reality by definition. Magic can be used to fly when you don't have wings. Magic can be used to see someone 1000 miles away. Magic can be used to hurl lightning from your fingers.

Now, when it comes to what the spells do, if it shouldn't have an effect due to realism, I'm going to apply it. If the party is in a room with reflective walls, don't cast lightning bolt. The old 3e shatter would do nothing to a rope. Realism applies to effects, but not what magic is capable of.

If the wizard and the fighter are kept to the same scale of realism, then that narrows the gap between them considerably.

That's impossible, since magic by definition breaks realism in some way with every spell. Fighters just plain don't do that. Swinging a sword doesn't break realism. Disarming, tripping, etc. don't break realism. A lot of what the class does doesn't break realism, unlike wizards who do it with pretty much every action.

That's not to say at higher levels a fighter's training can't pass beyond the natural and into the supernatural and break realism, but it's never going to be equal, because they are two very different classes with very different foci.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Probably because magic overcomes reality by definition. Magic can be used to fly when you don't have wings. Magic can be used to see someone 1000 miles away. Magic can be used to hurl lightning from your fingers.

Now, when it comes to what the spells do, if it shouldn't have an effect due to realism, I'm going to apply it. If the party is in a room with reflective walls, don't cast lightning bolt. The old 3e shatter would do nothing to a rope. Realism applies to effects, but not what magic is capable of.

That's impossible, since magic by definition breaks realism in some way with every spell. Fighters just plain don't do that. Swinging a sword doesn't break realism. Disarming, tripping, etc. don't break realism. A lot of what the class does doesn't break realism, unlike wizards who do it with pretty much every action.

That's not to say at higher levels a fighter's training can't pass beyond the natural and into the supernatural and break realism, but it's never going to be equal, because they are two very different classes with very different foci.

It isn't impossible, it's holding a similar standard.

Your example of not using lightning bolt in a room with conductive walls demonstrates that you probably have a tighter correlation of realism for martials and casters than a lot of people that I've gamed with over the years.

Sure, magic is designed to break the rules. But a lot of DMs take that to mean that because it can break some of the rules, it's allowed to break all of the rules (reaching well beyond those it is explicitly meant to break). Unless they offer similar flexibility to martials (which is not typically the case) you end up with a far greater gap in capabilities between the two than is even intended by the design.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Cool. He's using less than 1 slot per combat and has 3 full combats where he's reduced to only cantrips. He's waaaaaaaaaaaay behind the martials in combat. Alternatively, you can choose to cast 3 in combat #1, 2 in combat #2 doing well in those, and then have cantrips only for 6 whole combats. You pick!

Since non-combat encounters count towards the encounter budget, he is using at least one high level spell per combat. Precisely the ones that have a higher impact than the fighter’s consistent attacks. Still not seeing what he’s giving up.

 

[Maxperson]

It isn't impossible, it's holding a similar standard.

No. No it isn't. What you are asking for is to turn fighters into sword wizards where every action they do is a supernatural act. You want to eliminate martial as a category, because that's what happens if you give martials the same level of ability to break reality as wizards.

Your example of not using lightning bolt in a room with conductive walls demonstrates that you probably have a tighter correlation of realism for martials and casters than a lot of people that I've gamed with over the years.

Well, I don't have a caster/martial agenda. If it makes sense to apply to either, I'm going to apply it as fairly as I can.

Sure, magic is designed to break the rules.

Not necessarily rules. Natural laws. Reality. And those are game natural laws and game reality, just to clarify. That's what magic/supernatural does by definition. To give the fighter the same ability to do that is to turn fighters into spellcasters and eliminate martial as a category.

You have sword wizards, heal wizards, nature wizards, and wizard wizards. Oh, and song wizards

But a lot of DMs take that to mean that because it can break some of the rules, it's allowed to break all of the rules (reaching well beyond those it is explicitly meant to break).

Breaking a rule does not equate to supernatural or magic, though. Fighters break the rules already with things like Remarkable Athlete and Action Surge. The rules give 1 action and Action Surge breaks that. The rules limit how far you can automatically jump and Remarkable Athlete breaks that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You are being glib but quite a lot of RPGs do, in fact, require skill rolls for casting. D&D wouldn't be hurt by adding such rules.

Sure, if you want to emulate Heracles or Gilgamesh. But a lot of us want to emulate actual people in an actual world and you are acting as if that were a personal attack.

If you "want to emulate actual people in an actual world" then what are you playing D&D for. In particular what are you playing D&D at above level 5 for?

D&D is a fantasy world full of fantastic people. Many of whom can cast spells and are otherwise capable of magic. It is not a grounded ruleset for gritty realism; it has consequence-free hit points. If your kink is to cap your character at level 5 then do that - and let those of us who want fighters that can actually hang with the spellcasters (and remember that full casters make up a plurality of 5e classes before you count the warlock). And you're playing someone who literally according to the rules of 5e never gets injured; a long rest (or in older editions a few days of bed rest) will heal you up. You recover from any fight you survive in a timescale that matches sporting events not actual injury. You aren't a realistic person.

But even then you aren't playing a realistic fighter. You're playing a fighter armed with a nerf bat thanks to the effects of hit points. And a fighter with absurd, ridiculous healing (in any edition). If you want to play an actual person in an actual world I'd suggest a whole lot of systems (starting with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay) but not the power fantasy system of D&D with its consequence free hit points and near effortless and incredibly reliable spell casting.

And why do you want to prevent other people playing fighters that can keep up outside the combat pillar?

But for what's wanted? And note that I am not really differentiating between the fighter, rogue, and barbarian.

• Tier 1: Levels 1-4. This is more or less OK. Maneuvers are good - and if you want to be an actual person in an actual world then not being a near-untiring robot that can keep making the same attack again and again without either getting tired or their foe learning it would be good. So limited resource abilities.
• Tier 2: Levels 5-10. Here you are an action hero. James Bond and John Wick are good inspirations here as are most solo renditions of Batman.
• Tier 3: Levels 11-15. Now you're an outright superhero. Think Hulk, Captain America, Spider-Man. Or for that matter the mythological Hercules. If at Tier 1 you could break a door by kicking it now you should be able to do the same to a bank vault - or leap a small building.
• Tier 4: Tier 4 should be wild. Look at CuChulain cutting the tops off mountains. Or look at anime (although most anime swordsmen I've seen are Tier 3).

As things stand the fighter is great in tier 1, fine in tier 2, and never gets an ability after level 11 that's not a duplicate of one they had earlier except the level 20 capstone. And as far as feats are concerned most are "full build" by level 8 with a few being full build at level 12. What's needed is for the tiers 3 and 4 fighter to meaningfully exist and gain capabilities they didn't have earlier.

I was more referring to it just feeling boring and unimaginative (my opinion) to have these non-magical abilities work just like magical abilities.

I would so much rather use mechanics that are completely different, so that using them feels completely different. Otherwise…why distinguish it as non-magical? So that it can be used in an anti magic field?

I on the other hand find that magic is magical because of what it does. When I create an illusion that's magical and I don't need the rules to tell me it's magical - and I don't need the rules to tell me that a fireball created out of thin air is magic. Meanwhile I find it to say "fighters shouldn't get nice things because it would make my mage feel less special and that's boring".

 

[Reynard]

here is a question that I think is important in the discussion: is there something a high level character of ANY class but particularly a martial class that a high level wizard cannot replicate and/or do just as well or better?

 

[Fanaelialae]

No. No it isn't. What you are asking for is to turn fighters into sword wizards where every action they do is a supernatural act. You want to eliminate martial as a category, because that's what happens if you give martials the same level of ability to break reality as wizards.

Well, I don't have a caster/martial agenda. If it makes sense to apply to either, I'm going to apply it as fairly as I can.

Not necessarily rules. Natural laws. Reality. And those are game natural laws and game reality, just to clarify. That's what magic/supernatural does by definition. To give the fighter the same ability to do that is to turn fighters into spellcasters and eliminate martial as a category.

You have sword wizards, heal wizards, nature wizards, and wizard wizards. Oh, and song wizards

Breaking a rule does not equate to supernatural or magic, though. Fighters break the rules already with things like Remarkable Athlete and Action Surge. The rules give 1 action and Action Surge breaks that. The rules limit how far you can automatically jump and Remarkable Athlete breaks that.

Huh? How did you get that from my post?

I was advocating using similar restrictions of realism for both martials and casters. Meaning that you can use strict realism for both, and that's fine. For example, if the fighter can't cut the noose with an arrow, the wizard arguably shouldn't be able to shatter it. That would be using high realism consistently.

Frankly the whole sword wizard thing is quite nonsensical. Do you consider Beowulf a sword wizard? If so, that's fine I suppose, but you and I have irreconcilable definitions of sword wizard.

 

[Maxperson]

here is a question that I think is important in the discussion: is there something a high level character of ANY class but particularly a martial class that a high level wizard cannot replicate and/or do just as well or better?

Attack 8 times in a round for two rounds. By 20th level with damage extras, I don't think I wizard can match that kind of single target damage.

It's also white room replication. The wizards gets a limited number of spells for his book, and a limited number to memorize. The chances of memorizing everything a fighter can do AND also have utility AND social AND wizard combat is pretty much nil. So yes, a wizard can cast jump and go farther than a 20 strength champion, but is he really going to have that? No. Yes he can cast haste and get an extra attack, but in the scheme of things is that really the concentration spell he's going to be using on himself? Probably not.

The wizard CAN step on the fighter's toes a lot, but in practical game play this doesn't really happen.

 

[Maxperson]

Huh? How did you get that from my post?

I was advocating using similar restrictions of realism for both martials and casters. Meaning that you can use strict realism for both, and that's fine. For example, if the fighter can't cut the noose with an arrow, the wizard arguably shouldn't be able to shatter it. That would be using high realism consistently.

Frankly the whole sword wizard thing is quite nonsensical. Do you consider Beowulf a sword wizard? If so, that's fine I suppose, but you and I have irreconcilable definitions of sword wizard.

Your scope of realism is very narrow and doesn't include all realism, because as I mentioned, simply by virtue of casting spells wizards are going to break realism with almost every action. A fighter isn't. When you said to hold them to realism equally, that would include the simple act of spellcasting as well, so that's why I responded like I did.

Since all you are talking about is the narrow band of realism that applies to effects like shatter on a rope or lightning into water, then sure. I apply that sort of thing whenever appropriate regardless of class.