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

[Maxperson]

Actually that's that not the problem. HP is fine.

Here's the thing, if you look at the damage of a 1st level spell and a 9th level spell...

There are only 2 in the PHB. Power Word Kill, which is useless in most high level fights until multiple rounds have passed and the Wizard hopes that he's not wasting it on a creature with more than 100 hit points left. And Meteor Swarm which does 70-140 damage as a 1 use special ability like action surge. The fighter using action surge(comparable high level 1 use power) hits(probably 3 out of 4 swings) for 74 damage + any crits + any superiority dice + possible affects from maneuvers + some amount of additional damage from re-rolled 1s and 2s.

Most high CR creatures are solitary, so the area affect of the meteor swarm only serves to kill party members caught in the blast area, because the wizard is unlikely to be an evoker. It might also clear out some mooks, but that's pretty irrelevant.

The 20th level fighter should have 6-10 attacks BASE with over 15 attacks with action Surge.

Between base damage, crits, superiority dice, and re-rolled 1s and 2s, the fighter with that many attacks would kill or nearly kill most CR 20 creatures in a single round where they action surge. That's absurd.

 

[Maxperson]

How many action surges does a fighter have?

4-5 Surges a day = 5 6th-9th level spells?

If you're playing by RAW then there are no limits on the number of short rests. So a fighter at that level has 2 per fight, or 12-16 action surges per adventuring day.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Honestly, @South by Southwest, this is why I like to have discussions on the forum. After a lot of discussion and further thought, I realized my issues was only slightly with fighters, but more with full casters being too OP for my style of game. So, it is pretty easy to nerf casters a bit, and maybe toss fighters a bone or two, so they have something other than just attacking. With a few slight changes, our group is happier and although I tend towards extreme changes at first, I generally pull back on them to settle them out.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Honestly, @South by Southwest, this is why I like to have discussions on the forum. After a lot of discussion and further thought, I realized my issues was only slightly with fighters, but more with full casters being too OP for my style of game. So, it is pretty easy to nerf casters a bit, and maybe toss fighters a bone or two, so they have something other than just attacking. With a few slight changes, our group is happier and although I tend towards extreme changes at first, I generally pull back on them to settle them out.

That I easily can see, and my opinion is that it's all the discussion and thinking things through that really makes for the best changes. For example, over on that "lit style and gaming style" thread I started, people's contributions have dramatically affected the way I'm finishing the initial writing on my module. It's why we come here, just as you said: the insights other people have are the very things I'd overlooked and needed to discover. EN World has its unfortunate share of "arguing just to argue," I know, but I still think that's the minority: a lot of folks are learning a lot of good stuff from each other and it totally keeps me coming back every day. (Why I hadn't discovered this place and joined years ago is a mystery to me.)

Also, in the end I do agree that the wizards and a few other caster classes are a bit too overpowered if all classes are played as written, so our group usually does buff the martial classes just a bit and nerf certain caster classes just a bit. From what I've seen and read, that's pretty common these days. The wizards do still end up working like nuclear furnaces at higher levels, but everyone has plenty to contribute and we all walk away happy that we've shared the evening together.

 

[Lanefan]

The wizards do still end up working like nuclear furnaces at higher levels, but everyone has plenty to contribute and we all walk away happy that we've shared the evening together.

If they work like nuclear furnaces there should always be the risk that they melt down like nuclear furnaces...

 

[Minigiant]

If you follow the typical 2 short rest max per long rest:

6 surges vs. 6 spells of 6th-9th levels at level 20.

At level 17:

6 surges vs. 4 spells (6th-9th)

But then the Fighter doesn't have Extra Attack (3) so it is relatively even IMO.

At level 20 is 6 surges vs 6 spells of 6th or higher. So that's a wash

If you do a happy middle ground, Delayed Blast Fireball is 7tg level. 12d6 plus 1d6 per turned held. Compared to Burning hands, a 7th level spell is 4 to 7 times more damaging than a 1st. Meteor Swarm is 13 times more.

So an wizards expended resource grows 4-13 times in power over 20 levels. The fighter's only grows 4 times as strong in the same time.

Quite frankly the fighter only getting 4 base attacks max is just feels too few. To me anyway. I'd scale it to 6 minimum.

 

[DND_Reborn]

At level 20 is 6 surges vs 6 spells of 6th or higher. So that's a wash

By the base numbers, it is. But when you look at what is possible for a surge to accomplish vs. a single spell of 6th level and higher, especially 8th and 9th, the surge just doesn't compete IMO. Surges might wreck a creature or two, those spells shift the dynamic of the entire encounter.

Quite frankly the fighter only getting 4 base attacks max is just feels too few. To me anyway. I'd scale it to 6 minimum.

Yet the fighter gets those 4 attacks every round, the caster might get 1 or 2 of the big bangs off in an encounter.

As much as I hate the "typical adventuring day", with 6-8 encounters at 2-3 rounds each, you average about 18 rounds.

The fighter has two AS for 8 attacks in two rounds, plus 4 attacks for 16 rounds, a total of 80 attacks.

Using their highest spell slots, a wizard would use all their spell slots but 1st level and some 2nd:
9, 8, 7, 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, (two extra from Arcane Recover), 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2; for a total of 91 spell levels.

Improving fighters to an Extra Attack (4), would bump them up to 100 attacks in the 18 rounds, while scaling it to the minimum 6 would be an astounding 120 attacks in 18 rounds.

If you can equate how 1 attack = X number of spell levels or 1 spell level = T number of attacks, you could decide just where you want the number of attacks to sit. Personally, I think 5 would be ok, but IMO 6 would be a bit much.

 

[Oofta]

At level 20 is 6 surges vs 6 spells of 6th or higher. So that's a wash

If you do a happy middle ground, Delayed Blast Fireball is 7tg level. 12d6 plus 1d6 per turned held. Compared to Burning hands, a 7th level spell is 4 to 7 times more damaging than a 1st. Meteor Swarm is 13 times more.

So an wizards expended resource grows 4-13 times in power over 20 levels. The fighter's only grows 4 times as strong in the same time.

Quite frankly the fighter only getting 4 base attacks max is just feels too few. To me anyway. I'd scale it to 6 minimum.

But you're only looking at the DPR side of things and not taking armor, magic items or feats into consideration. Admittedly feats are optional, but by high levels? The fighter is likely to have an AC above 20 and in many campaigns a strength above 20 as well. Throw in some feats and the simple calculations fall apart. Each attack that fighter does will likely do at least double the damage they did at lower levels.

But that's part of the problem. No two tables are the same. Is that fighter using SS or GWF against relatively low AC opponents on a regular basis? Do they have a +2 or +3 weapon? A girdle of storm giant strength? Did you roll for stats so they started out with a 20 strength or did they start with a 14 strength? Sure, high level spells are awesome but what if you have a wizard that specialized in fire then fights a red dragon that's immune to fire or even creatures that are resistant if they haven't taken the appropriate feat?

There are simply too many variables.

 

[DND_Reborn]

There are simply too many variables.

That's why I said if you (i.e. your group/table) can answer the question:

How many spell level is 1 attack worth (by the fighter)?

Then you can judge better for yourselves where things stand.

Because there are so many variables and the value to many of those even are subjective, there is no good answer IMO. The best you can do is see where things stand for yourselves.

 

[Oofta]

That's why I said if you (i.e. your group/table) can answer the question:

How many spell level is 1 attack worth (by the fighter)?

Then you can judge better for yourselves where things stand.

Because there are so many variables and the value to many of those even are subjective, there is no good answer IMO. The best you can do is see where things stand for yourselves.

In one campaign my fighter had a belt of frost giant strength and a dwarven thrower at 20th level. Went from 1d6+3 damage to 1d8+9 damage per hit (he was a two weapon fighter but I forget what my off-hand weapon was). My AC was also 20 something. Probably had around double the HP of the wizard.

I'm assuming many campaigns aren't like that, I know that none of the fighters in campaigns I've DMed for had +3 weapons. But if it feels like the fighter is falling too far behind it's easy enough to give them a signature weapon.

In any case, it wasn't a competition. I did my best to tank for the group and keep the bad guys off the squishies. But what's fun for me may not be for someone else.