Can the Fighter be Real and Equal to spellcasters?

[captaincursor]

Fighters don't need to be equal to wizards for them to be balanced. Fighters need to be equivalent to other classes that are in the role of a defender. And the role of a defender needs to be useful and viable without requiring specific spells or buffs from other classes. I haven't seen anywhere an indication that WotC is balancing classes through the use of a "who would win in a fight? Batman or Spiderman?" method.

Instead they need to ensure that through all three tiers of adventure each role has a place in the party, a function to do, and their actions feel valuable and fun to execute. Then make sure that every class is designed to fill its role.

The question should be if fighters are equal to paladins or swordmages, or if whatever martial controller class gets released is equal to the wizard.

And for all those who say they don't want be Conan, I seem to remember Conan sticking axes and knifes into the skulls of wizard after wizard in books, comics, and movies. I only hope that the 4e fighter is half as kick-ass as our favored son of Cimmeria.

(BTW Batman would win.)

 

[ruleslawyer]

And for all those who say they don't want be Conan, I seem to remember Conan sticking axes and knifes into the skulls of wizard after wizard in books, comics, and movies. I only hope that the 4e fighter is half as kick-ass as our favored son of Cimmeria.

Replace the D&D wizard with the Scholar class from OGL Conan and a fighter *can* look as kick-ass as Conan.

As is noted upthread, you need to change at least one of two variables in order to balance the fighter and wizard at high ("paragon" or "epic") levels: 1) the abilities of spellcasters and/or 2) the abilities of fighters. The way I run it in my current game is to alter both: I play Iron Heroes (which features much stronger fighter-classes that are not dependent on items for their basic stats, defenses, and combat effectiveness) and use a homebrew wizard class that is (a) roughly on par with fighters in terms of combat effectiveness and (b) restricted as to "I win" abilities (flight, teleportation, instant bypassing of traps, etc.). It seems that 4e is adopting a similar rubric, and I for one am excited.

As to the f/x discussion: It's also going on in the Bo9S thread on this board. To restate what I said there, I think that the specific flavor of F/X should be up to the DM (not everyone wants flying warriors who shoot bolts of flame from their swords), but I also note that an averred distaste for "flashy" or "wuxia" elements tends to be used as an excuse to nerf the fighter at higher levels. The context for high-level play really does need to shift to the mythic examples discussed herein, unless you nerf the other classes down to a fraction of their 3e power. You can't have your fighters looking like Conan unless your wizards look like Tsotha-Lanti: being able to use poisons skilfully, pulling off a couple of quasi-magical tricks, and throwing an exploding ball of fire or two (and those might be alchemical items as well), and certainly not being able to fly, teleport, summon powerful monsters as a combat action, turn invisible while attacking, protect oneself from normal weapons, or for that matter use more than one or two tricks in a combat.

 

[apoptosis]

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."
.

I think this is a good point particularly in a level-based game that focuses on series of combat encounters (where your power 'level' in a fight really are of maximal importance).

Probably why I think the game should finally just scrap levels altogether.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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

Clerics should be nerfed back to the BECMI spell list -- fewer buffs and attack spells, mostly defensive and healing spells, and spells capped at a lower level than wizard spells. I'd compensate them with more opportunities for improving their weapon skills (as BECMI did). They should be very capable combatants without spells, based as they are on religious orders of knighthood -- not as good as the fighter, but also not totally outclassed. Basically, their non-spell options need to be better.

If you're going to take away some of wizards' game-changing spells, I'd suggest giving them more opportunities for improving their weapon skills (BECMI) and more ways to use Knowledge checks to overcome challenges or aid the party in combat (a missed opportunity from 3E). Maybe provide the entire party +X to hit, AC, or saves vs. a given monster for a round if you make a DC 10*X Knowledge check. More non-spell options for wizards would be a good thing.

If the fighter can be expected to average 10 points per round with his weapon attack, I'd say a good balance is for the cleric to do about 7 and the wizard about 4 (factoring in hit rolls and damage). So when they aren't slinging spells, they still aren't useless.

 

[Spinachcat]

Many other RPGs have warriors equal to wizards.

Tunnels & Trolls got the balance right in the 1970s by having warriors do tremendous damage at high levels. My 5th level T&T warrior can kill several orcs in a single attack. He can hack down a small dragon alone and without magical items.

RuneQuest and Stormbringer have plenty of warriors who equal the wizards by the sheer ability to attack, parry and dodge out of danger. My archer with 120% in Bow will impale 24% and critically impale 12% of the time. Few wizards are going to survive a crit impale in those game systems.

Most well-balanced point-based games have warriors equal to wizards. Define a warriors ability to swing his sword in a vicious arc as a melee-range area effect and pump the damage and now watch the warrior slice through rooms full of enemies. I have run Savage Worlds fantasy and the melee vs. magic heroes were well balanced.

BTW, I have run OD&D where Fighters add their level to their damage. This does wonders to make the Fighter much more notable on the battlefield. Considering that I use only D6 for damage for all 1H weapons, that bonus really means something.

 

[JohnSnow]

Instead they need to ensure that through all three tiers of adventure each role has a place in the party, a function to do, and their actions feel valuable and fun to execute. Then make sure that every class is designed to fill its role.

Yup. I agree completely. Except that I'd add that their actions should feel valuable and fun to execute at all times. I don't want to see anymore of this "4 characters sitting around killing mooks" while the wizard polishes off the real threat.

A truly deadly foe should require the entire party to work together to succeed. And no encounter should effectively "bench" any member of the party. It's like what they said about rogues in Races and Classes. It sucked to be the rogue when you came up against constructs or undead because your primary ability (sneak attack) just became utterly and completely useless. That should never happen.

And for all those who say they don't want be Conan, I seem to remember Conan sticking axes and knifes into the skulls of wizard after wizard in books, comics, and movies. I only hope that the 4e fighter is half as kick-ass as our favored son of Cimmeria.

Yes, but Conan was mostly fighting wizards that were about his level. Which begs the question - what "level" should Conan be in D&D? My gut instinct says somewhere around 15th. To me, that means a 15th-level fighter's maneuvers should all feel appropriate to Conan in his prime.

By the time you get to 20th-level and beyond, you're talking about Achilles, Beowulf, Cúchulainn, Hercules, Gilgamesh or any number of other characters who do some pretty outrageous stunts.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If the fighter can be expected to average 10 points per round with his weapon attack, I'd say a good balance is for the cleric to do about 7 and the wizard about 4 (factoring in hit rolls and damage).

Seems reasonable. Should the wizard be doing 4 with an at will magic blast or a dagger? How much damage should he be doing with his big zaps and how often should he be able to do them?

 

[Greg K]

To be equal, they spellcasters need to be toned down in power and making mundane skills unnecessary.
- Absolute spells (e.g., knock and other spells) that tread on skills need to be changed to providing bonuses to skills or require skill checks.
- many spells need to be moved to higher levels or removed (e.g, wish and miracle) and spells levels spread out over more levels (maybe current 6th level spells at 18th level)
- Many all or nothing spells that effect living targets on failed saves should be staged effects based on the degree of failure
- spell access needs to be narrowed based on specialties for arcane casters and domains for divine casters

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Seems reasonable. Should the wizard be doing 4 with an at will magic blast or a dagger? How much damage should he be doing with his big zaps and how often should he be able to do them?

Definitely a dagger, not an at-will magic blast (and I meant not necessarily absolute numbers but relative damage to the fighter). Magic shouldn't be convenient, reliable, and unlimited. It's a matter of flavor for me. I'm not a fan of wizards being defined as just spell-slingers and nothing more; I don't think BECMI suffered by having their dagger attacks be relatively important (at low levels, thrown dagger damage was 35-40% of a fighter's damage, and hit frequency nearly the same). It grounds them a little more, keeps them a little more human and less superhero-ish, if they often resort to a thrown dagger or a strike with a staff -- just make it so that it's a moderately useful option. I like the concept of magic as this immensely powerful force that the wizard can just barely contain a small piece of -- not as some force that is at their beck and call whenever they want it (the warlock is different... if wizards are as I see them, then the warlock's at-will abilities become freakishly inhuman and scary). Now, the wizard's big zap should be of greater power and limited use. Perhaps ~10 damage to multiple foes (as good as a fighter's attack), or ~20 damage to a single target, but either way with some limitation on use. Looking at various systems, there are many ways you can do this, frequency of use being one:
a) Saving throw, casting check, or some "% chance it works"
b) Longer casting time, recovery period, or some "lose # of rounds" mechanic
c) Chance of injuring or disabling caster, Sanity check, or some "suffer X result"
d) Limited uses per day or per encounter
e) I'm sure there are other possibilities

Being a fan of the D&D magic system, I favor a mix of (a) and (d), with the DM designing adventures such that the 15-minute adventuring day is not possible (else (d) ceases to be meaningful). For those who don't like the D&D mechanics, there are other options.

I have suggested (c) before, and I think it was Kamosa who insisted that I was trying to "punish" spellcasters for using magic. I happen to like the idea that one class is a safer bet and one is a calculated risk with the potential for greater success or greater failure; that makes the classes more distinct.

 

[BASHMAN]

Many people also want Fighters to be realistic. There are many on the internet who want fighters to represent Conan and keep them based on warriors of history like knights, the Huns, etc. They don't want the fighter to become "anime" or "videogame" like.

Well they'll be disappointed by 4e I think, then. It took notes from Wow, Bo9S, and I think also Exalted in how it will handle warriors. Conan won't stand a chance against a fighter with perfect spikey hair who can jump across 50' chasms, turn his sword into fire, and throw it like a boomerang...