D&D 5E Are Wizards really all that?

[Neonchameleon]

I just realize that I’m just so lucky to play for years with players that care about the global fun around the table. And that privilege is not commonly shared.

The thing is I do as well. Which is why in the groups I play with the in character bullying you described as the fighter's "leadership" would not be tolerated and if it happened repeatedly rather than was something done once for character development with the fighter's player knowing the fighter was going to be slapped down there would be words had with the player of the fighter.

 

[Krachek]

The thing is I do as well. Which is why in the groups I play with the in character bullying you described as the fighter's "leadership" would not be tolerated and if it happened repeatedly rather than was something done once for character development with the fighter's player knowing the fighter was going to be slapped down there would be words had with the player of the fighter.

I was trying to shake things up!
The trend I was seeing was to place the fighter in a corner, and tell him to not move until the adult solve the social encounter.
which I completely disagree.
I overwrite fighter leadership unwisely, but still state that a player running a fighter can actively participate in any exploration and social encounter without even making a roll.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Pretty much that!
if the table promote collaboration to share the spot light, and players help each other’s to promote ideas and character development, the fighter is fine.

if the table promote competition to gain the spot light, place rolls, spells and abilities, then the fighter is not good choice. Specially if there is a lot of social and exploration encounter.

I mean this in the nicest possible way..

But if what you are suggesting were a sufficiently robust way to balance game mechanics, the whole Player's Handbook could be replaced by a postcard that says

• "Have fun!!" on the front, and
• "Be nice!!" on the back.

This is not now and has not ever been the case for D&D and is not really the case for basically any game, collaborative.or otherwise.

 

[Mort]

I was trying to shake things up!
The trend I was seeing was to place the fighter in a corner, and tell him to not move until the adult solve the social encounter.
which I completely disagree.
I overwrite fighter leadership unwisely, but still state that a player running a fighter can actively participate in any exploration and social encounter without even making a roll.

This depends strictly on the permissiveness of the table and the social contract between the players.

It has 0 to do with mechanics - and in fact is ONLY necessary BECAUSE the mechanics do not support the fighter in this role at all.

As such, I'd say it argues more for the people saying the fighter needs help (in the social and exploration tier) than against.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I was trying to shake things up!
The trend I was seeing was to place the fighter in a corner, and tell him to not move until the adult solve the social encounter.
which I completely disagree.
I overwrite fighter leadership unwisely, but still state that a player running a fighter can actively participate in any exploration and social encounter without even making a roll.

No one is saying that the fighter can't participate. Only their effectiveness in comparison to other classes is in question.

The fighter's participation is basically the old Shake and Bake commercial where the mom says, "I made this!" and her child says, "And I helped!". The fighter is the child, and his contribution is effectively shaking the chicken and bread crumbs together under the watchful gaze of his mother.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I was trying to shake things up!
The trend I was seeing was to place the fighter in a corner, and tell him to not move until the adult solve the social encounter.
which I completely disagree.
I overwrite fighter leadership unwisely, but still state that a player running a fighter can actively participate in any exploration and social encounter without even making a roll.

You shook things up. With the sort of suggestions that would get you kicked out of groups there for everyone's fun because you clearly aren't.

And as I have said repeatedly the fighter can contribute to exploration and social situations about as much as a commoner with the combined minimum abilities of all classes but the same level can.

Can a reasonably fit person help with exploration? Sure. I mean they can give people a leg up to climbing walls. They can keep watch. They can carry everyone else's stuff. They possibly have a few tricks of their own. And everything I've written here also applies to a wizard or cleric ... in an anti-magic field. Who gets just as many skills as a fighter and has skills that are generally rarer and in higher demand than a fighter's (history, arcana, and investigation are all really useful for exploring in my experience while athletics ... would be more useful if anti-magic fields were more common). And of course the wizard doesn't get disadvantage on stealth checks.

Meanwhile if trying to not spend any spells at all because they are either exhausted or saving them for emergencies wizards and clerics alike still get both rituals and cantrips. The pre 2020 fighter gets nothing at all before level seven.

On the other hand I really can't agree with @Fanaelialae ; the fighter in exploration is not a child in the kitchen. What they are is a gofer. Someone needs to watch the milk to make sure it doesn't boil over, or to go and fetch ingredients you've run out of after a run. They are legitimately baseline competent - and by being baseline competent you've no need to use an expert on the annoying jobs that need doing. They might even be the best in the group at some basic tricks. But they're support, subbing in so others can be more interesting.

It's worth noting several things:

• If we look at the 5e skill list the least important stat when you aren't directly being attacked is constitution. The second least important is strength. Coincidentally these tend to be the two best stats of a heavy armoured fighter. Which means the strength fighter has (with the barbarian) the worst stat spread of any class out of combat.
• The barbarian is almost as bad as the fighter. But only almost. And people mind less because it's closer to the archetype.
• The athletics skill tends to get made pretty redundant. Climbing is rendered irrelevant by climb speed and flight. Jumping likewise. And swimming? So much to make it redundant. As for lifting? In 5e your lift scales linearly. So the wizard and the rogue between them can probably lift as much as the fighter.
• Fighters should not be this way; generally about as useful out of combat as a wizard in an anti-magic field.

 

[ECMO3]

You are making an assumption that balance was the reason 4e failed. While I'm not really interested in getting into an edition war, I'll briefly say that the most numerous complaint I've seen on 4e is that the feel of how the classes played made the game not feel like D&D. That is different than saying balanced classes was the problem. So, perhaps the problem was the approach, not the desired outcome?

I think it was. It was specifically giving all classes powers that balanced them. How are you going to balance the fighter and wizard without doing something similar to what was done in 4e?

Regardless, I agree that the goal is to make the game enjoyable. I just disagree with your assertion that intentionally hampering the fighter and boosting the wizard actually helps to reach that goal.

It is not intentionally hampering the fighter it is putting him in the spot the lore and mechanics drive him to. To bring the fighter and wizard to the same power level you need to either intentionally limit the wizard or intentionally boost the fighter more than you should.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

I think it was. It was specifically giving all classes powers that balanced them. How are you going to balance the fighter and wizard without doing something similar to what was done in 4e?

Well, that is the big question, isn't it? It's why why these conversations keep popping up I'd guess.

It is not intentionally hampering the fighter it is putting him in the spot the lore and mechanics drive him to. To bring the fighter and wizard to the same power level you need to either intentionally limit the wizard or intentionally boost the fighter more than you should.

I'll point out the the limitations of magic, or lack therof, are entirely arbitrary and intentional. Why can't a wizard in D&D heal? Because. In Shadowrun magic cannot teleport things. Why? Because. In a lot of stories magic can't raise the dead. Why? Well, probably because it removes a lot of narrative tension, but still, it was decided because of that intentionally.

My first thought by the way, would be making fighters better with skills. How to do that is a bit vexing, as I'd need to do it without stepping too much on the rogue's toes. (On a side note, if we could combine the rogue's skill specialization with fighter combat prowess, I think you'd have a class that could hang with spellcasters for the most part. However, there is way too much legacy to have that happen.)

 

[ECMO3]

You forgot 'conquering overlord' and 'unmatched' and 'staring death in the face'. You're just picking the less interesting aspect.

I did not use them because they do not seem like powerful to me, the ones I underlined are the ones that spoke power to me.. When I hear overlord I think politician (Joe Biden or Donald Trump), when I hear staring death in the face I think of someone who is extremely brave and about to be slaughtered.

That's just fluff, probably not written by the same person who wrote the mechanics, and just show a lack of imagination rather than anything. That fluff is there to get your interested in the class, not to describe in vague terms its power level!
And if the only way to judge how strong two classes are compared to each other is to compare two random paragraphs of fluff, then that's a terrible way to convey power level. I don't think 5e is that badly written.

I know it is just fluff. The point is though you suggested that the PHB implied the classes are equal and someone who did not know better would think they are. It does not do that AT ALL. In fact it implies they are not equal.

If you understand the mechanics and read the mechanics you would understand the classes are not equal because the mechanics show factually they are not equal. If you do not understand the mechanics and instead you read the fluff you should get the hint that the classes are not equal. In either case the idea that the PHB implies classes are all equal is simply and factually untrue.

In either case the PHB clearly tells us Wizards are more powerful than fighters.

It's pretty telling that the only way you can think to make a class stronger is to give it magic...

It is just the only way that makes sense. Giving a non-magical character physics defining abilities as part of his class makes no sense. Either he is magical or not.

Wizards are frail people who spent all their times in front of book, meaning they're just one good hit away from folding in half. Fighters are exceptional people who trained to the limit of what is possible.

Yes, but the key is there are limits to what is possible, and giving the fighter extra abilities beyond the limits of physics, or supernatural abilities (liek an intimidation cone) would push them well beyond these limits.

Further Wizards can have a higher constitution then fighters and they often have a higher strength.

That's just your Wizard bias showing again.

I like wizards better fighters, but I play more Rogues than anything.

4e's lack of popularity is a hugely complex thing that had nothing to do with balance. Only people who complained about that were whiny Wizard players who couldn't hog the spotlight anymore.

I think the 4E powers are the biggest similar reason it was unpopular and the reason those were there to balance the non-casters.

I also think this bore out in the D&D next play test when fighters had those kinds of things and they were removed and replaced with action surge.

lol [citation needed]

I said "I think", do you really need a citation for my opinion? Where is a citation saying balance was intended?

Certainly there is no proof either way, but that the game and fighter are both hugely popular certainly implies lack of balance is not a problem.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think maybe it’s fair to say that if you want the following:
1. Your character to be the star of the show in proportion to the other PCs
2. And you don’t want to rely on mechanics that are flavored as magic
3. And you plan to play at the upper levels of the game

…then unmodified 5e may not be the game for you. I think the fighter is fine, although not as fun as it could be, but I would agree to the above.