Can the Fighter be Real and Equal to spellcasters?

[Pale Jackal]

Sure they can balanced, in a fight.

Make them hit harder, fight longer and more accurate.

Hit Points are an abstract concept. Who cares if your fighter is rolling 4d8 for his longsword at level 4 as opposed to 2d8 at level 2? (That'd be an unwieldy progression, but whatever, it's an example.) People in D&D would still be taking more blows than they would be in real life either way, so I don't see how that'd really impugn on the "realism" of the game.

Whether or not they'll actually be balanced is a genuine concern, but is there any reason they can't be balanced in combat? Absolutely not.

 

[Imaro]

Look at the popularity of WoW. Most players are casual and yet every class has dozens and dozens of options. Warriors are no less complex than wizards. The trick is to introduce the complexity gradually over the course of play.

The difference I see here is that in WoW you, the player (or the DM, which I've seen happen alot) don't have to keep track of what those options actually do (on a mechanical level). That, I think, is the biggest gripe that a casual player has. I will also note that to select "good" powers in most rpg's requires a deeper understanding of the game than alot of casual players want to invest. The more of these fidly powers...the beter understanding of the rules you need.

 

[Warbringer]

.... and Rogues summon BearsQUOTE]

Fr some reason I really like this for an NPC ... nice

 

[Doug McCrae]

That's directly opposed to old Gygaxian style where you have an entire party of wizards and their hired help.

The hired help, yes, that's very old school. But I think Gary intended all the classes to be valid choices.

The whole thing is fairly well balanced over the course of a campaign provided:
1) There are several encounters per day.
2) You stop around name level - 10 or so.

If either of these isn't the case, the game breaks.

 

[JohnSnow]

The hired help, yes, that's very old school. But I think Gary intended all the classes to be valid choices.

The whole thing is fairly well balanced over the course of a campaign provided:
1) There are several encounters per day.
2) You stop around name level - 10 or so.

If either of these isn't the case, the game breaks.

Emphasis mine.

Right. I'll admit that below name level, AD&D (and OD&D) was balanced when you looked at the campaign as a whole and at the adventure as a whole.

Which basically meant that at any given time (the first few levels for magic-users, the last few for fighters, etc.), many of your characters had nothing to do. It was a game with a shifting spotlight and highly situational fun. The fighter player gets to have fun in combat at low to mid levels. The thief gets to have fun when you run into a trap or need someone to scout ahead. The wizard gets to enjoy the game after he suffers through those fragile early levels, and so on. The cleric, pretty much, just gets to watch the action and drop healing spells.

That's one version of balance. But it's a version that's certainly not always "fun" for every player throughout the game. And it only works if you stick to Gary's rule and make every character start play from 1st-level.

Of course, that makes death a horrible penalty at anything past about level 3. Because it means you're no committed to a minimum of 6 months of real-time play as "the sidekick."

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take the 4E goal any day.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take the 4E goal any day.

I agree with you. Gary's method was a crappy way of achieving the balance goal. He doesn't even stick to starting at 1st level himself, in fact he recommends starting at higher level in the 1e DMG, when the rest of the group is well past 1st level.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Basically, once you've got a "level" system in the game, especially one with unified XP curves and level caps (or lack thereof), it's just stupid game design to have some classes significantly more powerful than others of the same level.

The whole POINT of "level" is to gauge a character's power level. If a level X wizard isn't about equivalent to a level X rogue or fighter, you might as well just get rid of "levels."

This DOESN'T mean that you can't have a "classic" setting with uber-powerful wizards in 4e. Just cap non-spellcaster classes at level 10 to keep them from entering the Paragon bracket. (If you also want to replicate wizards sucking at low levels or progressing more slowly, give them a level and/or XP hit.) This system at least makes it immediately clear to the players that martial classes have a dead-end power curve.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Horaay for this thread not turning into a threadcrap or flamewar!

So to sum up some points....

Magic does need to be nerfed. As it is now, it is simply too powerful. It should not be an "I win" button.

People don't mind the Fighter becoming unrealistic. At low levels Conan is fine but once you start fighting demon armies and dragons, you need to do super powerful things.

The fighter doesn't have to go "anime" to keep up. The Fighter can matain the classic fantasy theme while still keeping up with spellcasters.

Anything I missed?

 

[davethegame]

...able to make choices in a fight that are as meaningful and interesting as those made by spellcasters.

This is the crucial point to me. Argue about balance all you want, just don't make it boring and without interesting decisions.

 

[Greg K]

As you say, splats buff every class. One way to even up the imbalance somewhat (though it goes only partway) is to allow non-core options for fighters - Complete Warrior, PHB2, Bo9S - but not for wizards.

Sadly a lot of DMs don't seem to allow Bo9S because of teh anime.

Another option, which seems quite common, is to only play up to level 10 or so. This does a pretty good job of keeping the classes balanced. After that the Big Three (wizard, druid, cleric) take over the game.

I don't allow it, because I don't like the mechanics and I think there should be more risk in trying the maneuvers. There is also no system for building your own maneuvers. For my tastes, I think Mike Mearls did a much better job with the Book of Iron Might.

Mike Mearl's design journal on BOIM maneuvers and the gamble factor
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?designdiary_mmearls_4

cheat sheet for maneuver creation ( BOIM web enhancment)*
http://www.montecook.com/images/BOIM_Cheat_Sheet.doc

Sample Maneuvers (BOIM preview) *
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_BOIM_preview

More Sample Maneuvers ( BOIM web enhancment) *
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_BOIM_webenhance

* BOIM has additional rules (e.g., you can't use the maneuver if you'll need a natural 20 to hit).