D&D General Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic

[Oofta]

I believe that you have mentioned that you play with a couple of homebrew rules that limit recovering spell slots/long rests.

Have you found that these tend to even things out? What sort of proportion of combat rounds are the wizards using cantrips/other at wills?
That could be useful for setting a baseline.

I use the alternate rest rules, a short rest is overnight and a long rest is a week or more. In part that's for simple pacing since I don't run dungeon crawls, but yes it also lets me get in 4-10 encounters between long rests. I think another option would be to limit the number of spell slots you get with a long rest similar to how Arcane Recovery works but I've never done that.

There are a couple of spells I ban both for mechanical and thematic reasons. Raise dead is difficult, resurrection pretty much unheard of. Jumping between planes is not as simple as casting a spell unless your a god so plane shift only works at gates and banishment doesn't permanently send something away unless you're near the portal they were summoned from. I may also be less generous with things like teleportation circle because it doesn't make sense to me that people would just hand over the keys to teleporting into their basement to anyone who could want in.

 

[Yaarel]

Some suggestions that may or may not apply

• Don't have 5 minute work days. I typically have somewhere between 4 and 10 encounters.*
• Don't give wizards easy access to any spell they could possibly want. At least not without giving fighters access to helpful magic items.
• Enforce the rules on the cost of transcribing spells and don't hand out tons o' gold.
• Enforce the rules on material components, not just the costly ones. For example, Find the Path only works if you are familiar with the location and have an object from that location.
• Have different environments and restrictions. If the wizard is wiping out the enemy with fireball every encounter,
  • set up scenarios where fireball is a bad idea. Don't ignore that fireball sets unattended objects on fire.
  • Don't have the bad guys show up in fireball formation every encounter
  • Throw in monsters that are immune to fire now and then.
• Give opponents counterspell and dispel magic.
• Attack the wizard with the concentration spell they're relying on.
• Give enemies spell resistance sometimes
• Throw a beholder at the party, or even just threaten to.
• Switch up enemy spellcaster spells so they have useful things like globe of invulnerability
• Accept that some people like playing fighters (including champion fighters) because many people, like me, like simple characters.

Those are just the things people can do off the top of my head.

*Every once in a while I'll let the party know there will only be 1 or 2 encounters between long rests so the casters can have fun going nova.

It is a decent list.

Two of the recommendations impact the flavor and setting, and I have concerns about them.

• Enforce the rules on the cost of transcribing spells and don't hand out tons o' gold.
• Enforce the rules on material components, not just the costly ones. For example, Find the Path only works if you are familiar with the location and have an object from that location.

I find gp to be an unworkable way to balance anything because it depends on setting. An urban setting where the characters are aristocrats will inherently find ways to gain gold or patrons. Oppositely, a scarcity setting (Darksun, postapocalyptic, prehistoric, etcetera), will inherently lack gold or patrons. It is better to decouple balance from gold and its setting requirements.

Likewise it is better to decouple magic from gold. I strongly prefer magic that is innate and nonexternal. The requirement of material components makes the magic feel like a non-innate artificial technology, and the requirement of gold literally commercializes it, making it feel nonmagic.

Moreover, an implement like a wand functions as if any material component, and mechanically there is little difference between using an implement and innate spellcasting that requires no components.

So, enforcing spell gp costs and material components are disruptive to some settings and some character concept.



That said.

5e differs from earlier editions because a Wizard only needs to "prepare" a spell once, and after that, can cast the same spells every day for the rest of the life of the Wizard. In other words, many NPC Wizards lack spellbooks, and cast the same spells that they learned from their teachers during apprenticeship.

So the DM has complete control over the amount of spellbooks, if any.

 

[Oofta]

While not magical IMHO, I agree they are rare. However, capturing enemy wizard spellbooks has long been a tried and true method for expanding a wizard's spelllist. While not common, it happens enough to well supplement IMO.

So is taking enemy magical items. IMHO I think if you have one you should have another.
...

I can't really comment on your personal experience, but in mine it is rarely an issue because casters are more conservative, not knowing when another long rest will be coming.

Which is what I see as well. Sometimes I let them know what to expect, sometimes I don't. If you don't know how many encounters you have you tend to save the big guns until you need them.

It just seems to me that some people set up an unbalanced game where everything is in favor of casters and then are surprised when those casters are overpowered. Or that they expect different classes with different roles to be have the same kind of capabilities.

I do think the fighter could use a bit of a boost for things outside of combat, but it's hard to do that without stepping on the toes of rogues and bards. Some of the solutions aren't a good fit for what I want out of D&D. Fighters do get more feats than most classes so they can compensate if they want. Doesn't help in games that don't use feats though. There is no way to make everyone happy.

 

[Oofta]

It is a decent list.

Two of the recommendations impact the flavor and setting, and I have concerns about them.

I find gp to be an unworkable way to balance anything because it depends on setting. An urban setting where the characters are aristocrats will inherently find ways to gain gold or patrons.

But then aren't there other obligations as well? Bribes, taxes, maintaining a lavish lifestyle to impress others, infrastructure and so on? I've always asked people to keep 2 sets of books if I have something like that, only "adventuring income" can be spent on adventuring gear. Mostly I do that so I can keep the business side of things more abstract, I don't want to play paperwork and accountants.

Oppositely, a scarcity setting (Darksun, postapocalyptic, prehistoric, etcetera), will inherently lack gold or patrons. It is better to decouple balance from gold and its setting requirements.

While I tend to be a bit stingy (and have what my players call a "healing potion tax"), I haven't done a true scarcity setting. Seems like if you do, some spells with expensive components would be off the board and adding spells outside of the ones you get for free would be quite limited. As long as all classes are similarly limited I'm not sure I see the problem.

Likewise it is better to decouple magic from gold. I strongly prefer magic that is innate and nonexternal. The requirement of material components makes the magic feel like a non-innate artificial technology, and the requirement of gold literally commercializes it, making it feel nonmagic.

Moreover, an implement like a wand functions as if any material component, and mechanically there is little difference between using an implement and innate spellcasting that requires no components.

A wand or component pouch can only be substituted if the component has no GP cost. I would say the example I gave - the object required for find the path - is an exception to the rule. It doesn't list a GP cost but it's so specific I would call it required.

So, enforcing spell gp costs and enforcing are disruptive to some settings and some character concept.



That said, 5e differs from earlier editions because a Wizard only needs to "prepare" a spell once, and after that, can cast the same spells every day for the rest of the life of the Wizard. In other words, many NPC Wizards lack spellbooks, and cast the same spells that they learned from their teachers during apprenticeship.

So the DM has complete control over the amount of spellbooks, if any.

I get the expense part, for me it's the cost of the special ink and paper. If you don't do that, there would have to be some other limit, maybe the wizard has to be in a special sanctum and burn expensive incense or consume rare herbs?

Personally I just don't hand out that much gold and assume that enemy spellbooks are well hidden and difficult to find.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm done because there's no point. I've played and run games to 20th level. Fighters worked just fine for us, including my lowly champion fighter.

The system isn't the problem.

The system doesn’t have to have provided you personally with a bad experience for the system to be the problem.

This is a very “I got mine, screw everyone else” attitude.

The system is extremely asymmetrical in its balance paradigm at mid to high levels. This works fine for some folks, and completely borks the play experience without significant houseruling or doling out of magic items (which aren’t supposed to be needed at all) to fix it, for others.

Your attitude of proclaiming there is no problem because you flip out any time someone states a preference that might kinda resemble 4e a little and you like that the fighter has objectively fewer ways to effect the game world than the wizard, and is balanced by killing things faster, is frankly insulting to anyone who has experienced the problems being discussed in this thread.

 

[Yaarel]

But then aren't there other obligations as well? Bribes, taxes, maintaining a lavish lifestyle to impress others, infrastructure and so on? I've always asked people to keep 2 sets of books if I have something like that, only "adventuring income" can be spent on adventuring gear. Mostly I do that so I can keep the business side of things more abstract, I don't want to play paperwork and accountants.

The "aristocratic" setting tends to be normal for us, because we have a living world, where the new characters are the children of the semi-retired high-level characters. In principle, the level 1 characters have virtually infinite gold.

Our solution is all magic requires "attunement". There is a limit to the number of items (bodyslots) and consumables possible. High-level items are present but unusable by lower level characters. Likewise, even level appropriate magic requires the character to be in tune with the intention of the original magic item creator. So a DM can arbitrarily have magic items present that are out of sync with the intentions of the player character.

It is impossible to buy and sell magic items, because the items themselves often "refuse" to cooperate. The intention of the creator is an important theme.

In fact, despite the local ubiquity of magic items, the setting is a defacto low-magic setting, in terms of scarce access to magic items.



Regarding red tape, like paying taxes, lifestyle costs are abstract, and use the costs in the Players Handbook equipment section straightforwardly. Bribes risk criminal investigations that discredit the family.

A wand or component pouch can only be substituted if the component has no GP cost. I would say the example I gave - the object required for find the path - is an exception to the rule. It doesn't list a GP cost but it's so specific I would call it required.

The gp spell component is an ongoing dissatisfaction with commercial flavor. Moreover, the gp costs are inconsistent, and it is difficult to see a pattern in order to remedy it. Generally, instead of a gp, there is a ritual requirement to either prepare or cast it, that can only be done once per day, week, month, or year, depending on the nature of the spell, in order to prevent spamming it.

I get the expense part, for me it's the cost of the special ink and paper. If you don't do that, there would have to be some other limit, maybe the wizard has to be in a special sanctum and burn expensive incense or consume rare herbs?

A "spellbook" can be written on stones, staves, leaves, patterns within crystal, imbued into furs or feathers, etcetera. Anything can be magic or transmit magic. The gp requirements feel like a nonstarter.

Personally I just don't hand out that much gold and assume that enemy spellbooks are well hidden and difficult to find.

Similarly scarce, each spellbook is unique to the creator, and if a spellbook exists at all, it may or may not be accessible.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As far as I can tell the issue is with 5 minute work days,

The problem is that “killing things better” is not a satisfying “balance” against “has the bare minimum number of skills and basically nothing else to contribute outside of combat.”

The 5 minute work day is so far removed from what the problem is I have doubts about how much you even read the other side of the discussion up to this point.

 

[Minigiant]

The designers have said since the beginning of 5e, that all gaming math assumes there are no magic items.

All comparisons between 5e classes assume no magic items, including comparisons between Wizard shenanigans and Fighter damage dealing.

It is true that the DMs Guide recommends magic items, that official adventures reward with many magic items, and some creatures even require a magic item to hit them, but the math doesnt reflect this presence of magic items.

In principle, the DM completely controls the amount of magic items, if any. Giving a magic item to a character, makes the character better than the math expects.

It's not a math problem.

5th edition doesn't assume you need any magic items to hit any target numbers of appropriate enemies.

5th edition 1000% assumes that a party of 4 10th level PCs has access to a minimum of TEN permanent magic items for 10 magically effects and collected a minimum of THIRTY consummables to deal with the assumed life of a full time adventurer. And that's on the low side.

The Fighter was designed to have either access to 2-3 permanent sources of shenanigans by level 10.

This's what I meant by 5th edition not telling people the hidden design within it.

 

[Yaarel]

It's not a math problem.

5th edition doesn't assume you need any magic items to hit any target numbers of appropriate enemies.

5th edition 1000% assumes that a party of 4 10th level PCs has access to a minimum of TEN permanent magic items for 10 magically effects and collected a minimum of THIRTY consummables to deal with the assumed life of a full time adventurer. And that's on the low side.

The Fighter was designed to have either access to 2-3 permanent sources of shenanigans by level 10.

This's what I meant by 5th edition not telling people the hidden design within it.

The designers made 5e, from the ground up, able to handle a no-magic setting.

The DM controls magic items.

In a setting where magic items are scarce, the DM can − legally − remove magic items from a plugged-in official adventure.

Also, a DM can swap magic items around, and add extra magic items.

5e is built to handle DM discretion and the sensibilities of different settings.

 

[Oofta]

The problem is that “killing things better” is not a satisfying “balance” against “has the bare minimum number of skills and basically nothing else to contribute outside of combat.”

The 5 minute work day is so far removed from what the problem is I have doubts about how much you even read the other side of the discussion up to this point.

The other side seems to consist of:

• fighters are bad, no explanation given
• they should be able to long jump 200 feet or other supernatural feats such as being better than any real world athlete
• I want them to mythical heroes like Hercules
• they can't do the same things wizards do if wizards can cast as many spells as they want
• fighters are bad, no explanation given

I'm allowed to have a preference. I don't want a repeat of 4E. If you want a supernatural fighter type there are plenty of options.

And round and round it goes.
Bob: "I can't get this to work. It's broken"
Joe: "It's not broken for me, maybe if you explain..."
Bob: "I did explain, it's broken"
Joe: "Right, but maybe..."
Bob: "It's broken dammit!"
Joe: "Okay, if you don't want any help..."
Bob: "See! You agree! It's broken, stop with your flimsy excuses!"