D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[Oofta]

I would say one is no longer new when one is comfortable and knowledge enough to discuss the base game itself and analyze variance third party and supplementary products.

Or basically be able to prepare to run one side of DM/Player divide on their own without active help.

And D&D 5e is just about rolling to the point where the majority of its players are no longer new.

So any day now, after playing the game for years, people are going to realize they've been bamboozled and don't really have fun playing fighters?

 

[Minigiant]

You don't get to tell me what I believe or why. I rarely play casters yet have no issues feeling like I contribute significantly to the game when I play. When I DM, my players don't see a problem. No one I've ever played with has raised it as an issue.

You have an issue with the way the game is structured. That's fine, no game can be for everyone.

But you're unwilling to discuss details of any sort, so there's nothing to discuss. What I disagree with is that it's a fundamental issue, that casters reign supreme, that there are not solutions if someone feels casters are too powerful. There are several options.

Making broad statements and assertions as fact simply doesn't carry much weight.

But I'm agreeing with you. 5e's structure is not for everyone.

So any day now, after playing the game for years, people are going to realize they've been bamboozled and don't really have fun playing fighters?

I didn't say they can't have fun playing with fighters. You can run all full casters and have problems. Because 5e's structure is not for everyone.. Because it as designed to be balanced around 35+ rounds of offense.

5e's structure is not for everyone.

 

[Scott Christian]

This is D&D General. I've read the AD&D DMG, the 3E DMG and the 4e DMG. Also Tom Moldvay's excellent advice in Chapter 8 of his rulebooks. I've GMed 100s, probably 1000s, of hours of D&D.

Nothing in the "job description" of a D&D GM tells me that the GM must "choos[e] antagonists, environments, and even roleplay objectives."

If you have DMed thousands of hours, and don't understand, I don't know what to tell you. But maybe there is a misunderstanding, since you seem to be framing this around agency. So I will do my best.

Creating the adventure, or reading it, tells you who the antagonists are. If you follow a more seat-of-your-pants approach, common sense tells you which creatures go where based on the ecosystem. If you like randomness, there are tables for that. No where in the game does the player say, "You know what DM, we see four goblins and a hill giant up ahead on the road. Get out that MM, we want to fight them." The DM creates the antagonists. And on top of that, they even control their thoughts and actions!

The DM is also the one describing the environment. They can describe as little or as much of the environment they want. But no where in the game does the player say, "I walk into this cave and find a magic door. Beyond that magic door is a castle floating in the sky with an attached beanstalk." The DM is the arbiter of environment. They are the ones that choose the environment: what it looks like, the temperature, any magical effects, items, and every DC associated with said environment is in their control as well.

Lastly, the DM chooses the roleplay objectives during a roleplay scene. They are deciders of how easily an NPC can be persuaded. They are the deciders of that NPC's cleverness, aggressiveness, deceptiveness, and/or receptiveness. They, just like with the antagonists and environments, set the DC for any roll that needs to be done. They can even decide when a roll is needed. If the objective is to persuade a group of travelers to leave the road because something dangerous is coming, it is the DM who sets the difficulty for that objective.

The player agency is them interacting with all of these DM decisions. Maybe the group tries to intimidate the travelers to move because there is little time. That might be harder or easier depending on who the travelers are. Maybe the wizard casts an illusion to show them what is headed their way, and the rogue describes in detail the terrible things this creature can do. So the DM gives advantage to the rogue, actively making it easier. Maybe the cleric implores them by noting they have a shared holy symbol. The DM made these decisions, thus choosing the antagonists (in this case the travelers), the environment (did the DM know they shared the same belief as the cleric or exactly how much time the PCs had to persuade the travelers), and the roleplay objectives (setting the DC, choosing to give advantage or disadvantage).

I hope this helps clarify what I said.

 

[pemerton]

In 1989 I was GMing AD&D in which the players, not the GM, got to decide which elements of the setting were "foregrounded" and, as part of that, which hitherto background NPCs became antagonists. They also set their own roleplay objectives.

Around the same time, when a player asked "Is there a <such-and-such place that seems to fit with tone and genre>?", I said yes. (As Gygax advises in his DMG, in the context of the fighter player asking if there is such-and-such a sort of terrain and topography for building a castle on.)

Maybe I was and am just crazy, but neither at the time, nor now, does that seem like any sort of departure from fundamental principles of DMing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I just wonder what this list of balance breaking spells would look like. Is it just things which break rest constraints? Is it the second level spells that replace a bunch of skills? Is it the fact they went away from memorizing to known?

If the problem is really there, it should be trivial to list and solve for.

Rest breaking spells, some teleportation spells, some resurrection spells. I think the first category is the worst offender, but the second has a way to bypass huge chunk of stuff that might be an interesting challenge otherwise, and the third category just trivialises death, and as death is the most serious mechanical setback that kinda is a problem.

There are couple of other spells that are too effective and should be tweaked and made higher level, but those are not really a huge deal. But for example Pass Without Trace is too effective and often trivialises stealth challenges and Wall of Force should be one level higher than other wall spells as it is obviously much better.

And yes, I did ban and alter some spells for my campaign and it has not been a problem.

 

[Aldarc]

Since the "issue" seems to be "D&D", I don't think there is a solution.

I have to agree with @Scribe here. And I think that we have to be careful about not equivocating here in your statement. There is a difference between saying "there is a common problem in D&D" and "the problem is D&D itself." Trying to insinuate that people are arguing the latter is potentially inflammatory, as it implies people just hate D&D. I don't think that's the case. There are many D&D Diehards on this forum who have criticized spellcasting and "restrictions" with spellcasters as being too easy in D&D 5e. I don't think that they hate D&D or believe that the problem is D&D.

I don't believe that the issue is "D&D" because "D&D" has throughout time and editions had ways to curb the power of spellcasters: e.g., interrupted spells, AoO, concentration, prepared Vancian casting, armor casting penalties, discovering new spells, different XP progression, lack of at-wills, utility spells as out-of-combat rituals, etc. These past editions are very much as D&D as 5e D&D.

However, these are things that have been increasingly rolled back to make spellcasting easier: e.g., improved HP, neo-Vancian, at-will cantrips, rituals, abilities for regaining spell slots, no armor casting penalties, etc. That's fine, but there has been relatively little to no counter-cost to spellcasting for what benefits spellcasters have increasingly gained.

There are a number of ways that WotC could curb the on-demand power of spellcasters while still very much being D&D or even without being 4e, if that is your suspicion.

 

[Minigiant]

I have to agree with @Scribe here. And I think that we have to be careful about not equivocating here in your statement. There is a difference between saying "there is a common problem in D&D" and "the problem is D&D itself." Trying to insinuate that people are arguing the latter is potentially inflammatory, as it implies people just hate D&D. I don't think that's the case. There are many D&D Diehards on this forum who have criticized spellcasting and "restrictions" with spellcasters as being too easy in D&D 5e. I don't think that they hate D&D or believe that the problem is D&D.

I don't believe that the issue is "D&D" because "D&D" has throughout time and editions had ways to curb the power of spellcasters: e.g., interrupted spells, AoO, concentration, prepared Vancian casting, armor casting penalties, discovering new spells, different XP progression, lack of at-wills, utility spells as out-of-combat rituals, etc. These past editions are very much as D&D as 5e D&D.

However, these are things that have been increasingly rolled back to make spellcasting easier: e.g., improved HP, neo-Vancian, at-will cantrips, rituals, abilities for regaining spell slots, no armor casting penalties, etc. That's fine, but there has been relatively little to no counter-cost to spellcasting for what benefits spellcasters have increasingly gained.

There are a number of ways that WotC could curb the on-demand power of spellcasters while still very much being D&D or even without being 4e, if that is your suspicion.

This exactly. it's not hating D&D to say WOTC buffed casters a lot.

WOTC's casters by 5e have gained

1. Higher HP
2. More spell slots
3. Spontaneous casting
4. Ability to cast in any proficient armor
5. Ability to cast spells with spellcasting stat
6. at-will spells in the form of cantrips,
7. at-will spells in the form of rituals
8. Ways to regaining spell slots on shorter rests
9. No rules for interruption
10. Independence from spellcasting stat in learning spells
11. Automatic spell learning on level
12. Automatic spell learning from scroll

with the only new drawbacks being

1. Spells don't scale with level
2. A handful of spells were nerfed with drawbacks
3. Concentration
4. No rules for crafting

Yet when they give rangers the ability to automatically find food or north in their favored terrain, it's OP and removed.

 

[Oofta]

Rest breaking spells, some teleportation spells, some resurrection spells. I think the first category is the worst offender, but the second has a way to bypass huge chunk of stuff that might be an interesting challenge otherwise, and the third category just trivialises death, and as death is the most serious mechanical setback that kinda is a problem.

There are couple of other spells that are too effective and should be tweaked and made higher level, but those are not really a huge deal. But for example Pass Without Trace is too effective and often trivialises stealth challenges and Wall of Force should be one level higher than other wall spells as it is obviously much better.

And yes, I did ban and alter some spells for my campaign and it has not been a problem.

Some of these such as teleportation already has built in counters such as inner sanctum, a wall of force can be countered by setting up environments where the enemy can't be penned in. Personally I just talked to the group about spells like forcecage that to me are, if not particularly game breaking (I have infinite dragons, and if the players occasionally break the game that's okay too) it's worse than game breaking. It's boring.

I have no problem with clever play foiling my plans, I have an issue if a spell becomes a go-to spell that is always used time and time again. If the game becomes boring, it's time to discuss alternatives.

 

[Scott Christian]

I have to agree with @Scribe here. And I think that we have to be careful about not equivocating here in your statement. There is a difference between saying "there is a common problem in D&D" and "the problem is D&D itself." Trying to insinuate that people are arguing the latter is potentially inflammatory, as it implies people just hate D&D. I don't think that's the case. There are many D&D Diehards on this forum who have criticized spellcasting and "restrictions" with spellcasters as being too easy in D&D 5e. I don't think that they hate D&D or believe that the problem is D&D.

I don't believe that the issue is "D&D" because "D&D" has throughout time and editions had ways to curb the power of spellcasters: e.g., interrupted spells, AoO, concentration, prepared Vancian casting, armor casting penalties, discovering new spells, different XP progression, lack of at-wills, utility spells as out-of-combat rituals, etc. These past editions are very much as D&D as 5e D&D.

However, these are things that have been increasingly rolled back to make spellcasting easier: e.g., improved HP, neo-Vancian, at-will cantrips, rituals, abilities for regaining spell slots, no armor casting penalties, etc. That's fine, but there has been relatively little to no counter-cost to spellcasting for what benefits spellcasters have increasingly gained.

There are a number of ways that WotC could curb the on-demand power of spellcasters while still very much being D&D or even without being 4e, if that is your suspicion.

I personally agree with this sentiment. However, there is something that should be noted - when a group actively plays against the suggested play styles of a game, and they actively refuse to use rule variants suggested by the game, then the problem is "the system." But it is a problem for them, not the majority.

I remember when we were young and switched from Rolemaster to Gygax's Dangerous Journeys. We played for six months, but weren't happy. We rewrote half of the rules (powers, spells, classes, etc.) inside that book. It took us about a year. And then, in the end, we still were not happy. So we rewrote more rules and piecemealed supplements from other games. And we still were not happy. We had created Frankenstein's monster, a bulbous, puffy, flesh-sewn creature with parts dangling in disarray; an asymmetrical design that was strong, fast, smart (imho), yet terrible.

We were not happy. We switched to MERP (Middle Earth Roleplaying). We were suddenly happy.

Sometimes, at a certain stage in a roleplayer's life, the game they love does not fit. It may again in ten years. It may not. The intrinsic design is not at fault. But there are times where it is "the system's" fault. It's just faulty for that table though, not for most of the people who play.

 

[Oofta]

1. Spontaneous casting
2. Ability to cast in any proficient armor
3. Ability to cast spells with spellcasting stat
4. at-will spells in the form of cantrips,
5. at-will spells in the form of rituals
6. Ways to regaining spell slots on shorter rests
7. No rules for interruption
8. Independence from spellcasting stat in learning spells
9. Automatic spell learning on level
10. Automatic spell learning from scroll

with the only new drawbacks being

1. Spells don't scale with level
2. A handful of spells were nerfed with drawbacks
3. Concentration
4. No rules for crafting

Yet when they give rangers the ability to automatically find food or north in their favored terrain, it's OP and removed.

So I should have been more specific - the problem you have seems to be modern implementations of D&D. Sounds like you want to play an OSR version of the game. There's not a lot that can be done about that, we're never going back to TSR D&D.

Personally? I'm glad wizards no longer have the issues with having 2 HP at first level only to grow to godlike power at high levels. It never worked very well for us back in the day. The "linear fighter quadratic wizard" issue was always a topic of conversation pre-4E, I simply don't have those conversations any more. Well, not with games I actually play anyway.

As far as other specifics:

• When it comes to wizard HP I never have an issue with doing too little damage. Focusing fire on the caster now and then has always worked for me. The DM has infinite dragons after all.
• A lot of the other issues don't seem to be an issue with the system but an issue with the 5 MWD which, again, has pretty always been an issue in all versions of D&D. In 4E it just shifted from casters calling for a 5 MWD to all classes wanting it.
• I've never seen wizards loading up on armor but if it's an issue for you I'd recommend enforcing encumbrance or just ban it.
• Were spells really interrupted all that often in your old-school games? I don't remember it coming up often.
• Same with limits on stats and the related issues you see. Not surprising we played differently back in the day of course, there wasn't exactly a lot of consistency. I guess I don't see a lot of value in limiting what players can build because they didn't roll sky-high stats when the PC was generated. Especially when it takes hundreds of hours of play to get to the point where it matters.
• Cantrips are weak compared to what other classes can do. Fighter just did 30 points of damage? Woohoo I did 5 whole points with my cantrip if I roll good. Super overpowered.
• Only wizards are automatically ritual casters. I don't know of any rituals that are particularly game breaking.
• Wizards can only use arcane recovery once per long rest. I have considered banning multi-classed warlocks, other than that I'm not sure what the issue is with recovering spells on a short rest.
• Learning a spell from a scroll is not cheap and I don't give PCs a ton of gold. It's also simple to not include scrolls as treasure. Some DMs limit the supply of the "special inks and paper" required to scribe a scroll.

But if you want to play an old school version of D&D then modern versions of D&D are the issue and there's not a lot that can be done. The game we have, the game we're going to have for the foreseeable future, just isn't a good fit for you if you are unwilling to alter your style of play to alter your experience.