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

[Faolyn]

A 20th level fire bolt does 4d10 damage, 22 points and only 1 attack. A 20th level fighter, well it depends on a lot of factors but let's say a +1 longsword and 20 strength. That's minimum 1d8+6 damage for 10.5 and the fighter gets 4 attacks.

I'm sure other casters would do a bit more damage, but the fighter damage is also on the extreme low end. If we assume hitting 60% of the time the wizard averaging less than half the fighter.

I'm not sure. A fighter's weapon attack rolls and a wizard's spell attack rolls are going to be the same (assuming they both have the same level in their stat). They're both prof bonus + stat mod. And anything the fighter has that requires a save is going to be the same as the wizard's spell save DC. (And the same thing for every other class as well). The only difference is if the fighter has a weapon that gives bonuses, since there are very few items that give spellcasters bonuses to their attack rolls.

OK, and there are probably more things that give fighters advantage on weapon attack rolls than there are things that give spellcasters advantage on spell attack rolls. But in general, a fighter and a spellcaster with the same stats and PB should be rolling similarly on attack rolls. It's just that the fighter has more attacks.

This is why I also suggested elsewhere that fighters eventually get weapon specialization. Apparently there's a 3pp called 5th edition feats which includes such a feat (+1 to attack, +2 damage, 1/short rest advantage on attack), although something like that should actually either be in the PHB core or even baked into the class itself.

It seems like the biggest issue is the game being built around more than 2-3 encounters per long rest. If you know you can reliably go nova and cast utility spells and you don't use feats and you don't give non-casters magic items that help compensate some of their weaknesses then it can be an issue. I just think it's an issue that can be resolved in many ways. Not least of which is just accepting that there is no such thing as perfect balance and casters and non-casters are always going to have different roles to play.

I definitely agree about this--except that the 6-8 encounters isn't actually a rule or even a guideline. It's just a note in the DMG that that's about as many medium-difficulty encounters a typical party can endure before being completely tapped out. For some reason, people took that to mean that the entire game is built around 6-8 encounters per day, and that deviating from that number is unbalanced in some way, or even wrong.

Personally, I tend to fewer but tougher encounters. Combat and other resource-draining encounters are fun but if you had 6-8 of them in a day, that's all you'd be doing.

 

[Minigiant]

That's horrid LOL!

HP bloat is not fine, your extrapolation proves that the game will make itself completely unwieldly if you progress all the classes in the same way as Wizards!

Well that's the point.

Everyone is fine that the wizard and cleric progresses through all the tiers.

We as a community can't agree what a Tier 3 or Tier 4 fighter is or if it should exist.

The reason the Fighter class shuts down by level 12 is because of a flavor requirement to keep the Fighter class "mundane". In other words, being powerful becomes the "wrong flavor".

That's why my opinion will be always

"Spill And Ban"

Split the Fighter into 3 classes that go past level 10 in different ways and ban the ones you don't like. DM can still ban classes, right?

That's what I did in my homebrew.
The Weaponmaster is more combaty
The Knight gets followers and items
The Paragon is supernatural
The Adventurer gets skills

But the "Too many classes" crew are holding back progress,

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's what I did in my homebrew.
The Weaponmaster is more combaty
The Knight gets followers and items
The Paragon is supernatural
The Adventurer gets skills

These are nice subclasses.

But the "Too many classes" crew are holding back progress,

Nah. We just don't want the game to become bloaty, incoherent and inaccessible to casual players.

But I think your idea is a perfect example why this issue is probably impossible to solve so that everyone is happy. We both want somewhat boosted high level warriors, but your solution is so far from what I would prefer that we are basically talking about completely different games. You think the scope of issue is such that it requires creating four whole new classes, whereas I think the scope of issue is such that it requires maybe four or so new class features. The latter could realistically happen, the former absolutely won't.

 

[Minigiant]

You're all over the map, man. Your ideas that I've seen have primarily been giving the fighter more combat damage. That breaks combat. If not having the best score in combat doesn't compensate for combat, why are you so focused on improving his combat score?

Repeatedly I've said the the fighter needs some(not a lot, but some) help in the other two pillars. I also don't agree with your numbers. The fighter is at a 10 or 11(if you think that the scale goes to 11) in combat. He needs nothing more there.

I agree with you that the fighter could use more out of combat power.

My main point of contention is that I disagree with the notion that the fighter's combat power is as high as the wizard's "shenanigans" power. And that discepancy ruins the defense many have against giving fighters more out of combat power because althought the fighter is the best at its specialty, it doesn't match others at their specialty. And even if it dd, the other classes have access to other parts of the game.

 

[Krachek]

For such subject I go back to DnD roots, a role play game.
I take the skin of a fighter, in a fantasy world, why should I feel outshine by the character that teleport us to our goal or acquire useful information? My character has his own personality, his own agenda, why should I feel outplay in social encounter or exploration. For my character those who believe all those stupid lies of the bard are so dum!

Till the wizard fighter opposition is evaluated on a result oriented point of view no ones will get satisfied. Some characters can make the party use a planar leap. there is no reasons to feel outshine, it’s just the wonders of the game.

And for high level shenenigans, I think that it’s not the DM jobs to endure session after session the same gimmicks. High level play is a pinacle for a character, I don’t think it’s sane to make it years lasting.

 

[Minigiant]

Nah. We just don't want the game to become bloaty, incoherent and inaccessible to casual players.

But I think your idea is a perfect example why this issue is probably impossible to solve so that everyone is happy. We both want somewhat boosted high level warriors, but your solution is so far from what I would prefer that we are basically talking about completely different games. You think the scope of issue is such that it requires creating four whole new classes, whereas I think the scope of issue is such that it requires maybe four or so new class features. The latter could realistically happen, the former absolutely won't.

Class Feature options could work.

I just don't trust WOTC, Paizo, and most game designers to balance it when multiple options are available.

I trust WOTC and the rest on making a balanced weaponmaster, paragon, and knight class of similar power. I don't trust them making balanced weaponmaster, paragon, and knight class feature or feat tree.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That works to get you far away from where you are with a long trip back to where you probably needed to be. It's something to be done in extreme circumstances only.

Every night when you camp, take a stone from the campsite (and toss the previous night's stone, to avoid confusion and encumbrance issues). Then, at the absolute worst, you're one day from your point of origination. Of course, when you enter a new point of interest, you can also grab the first random object you find, for quick backtracking.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not sure. A fighter's weapon attack rolls and a wizard's spell attack rolls are going to be the same (assuming they both have the same level in their stat). They're both prof bonus + stat mod. And anything the fighter has that requires a save is going to be the same as the wizard's spell save DC. (And the same thing for every other class as well). The only difference is if the fighter has a weapon that gives bonuses, since there are very few items that give spellcasters bonuses to their attack rolls.

OK, and there are probably more things that give fighters advantage on weapon attack rolls than there are things that give spellcasters advantage on spell attack rolls. But in general, a fighter and a spellcaster with the same stats and PB should be rolling similarly on attack rolls. It's just that the fighter has more attacks.

This is why I also suggested elsewhere that fighters eventually get weapon specialization. Apparently there's a 3pp called 5th edition feats which includes such a feat (+1 to attack, +2 damage, 1/short rest advantage on attack), although something like that should actually either be in the PHB core or even baked into the class itself.

If you assume hitting 60% of the time the fighter will do a little over 25 points of damage compared to a little over 13 for the wizard. In addition the fighter will almost always do more than just 1d8 +6. Dueling or archery adds +2, wielding two weapons adds another attack (which adds the str/dex mod to the off-hand for fighters) or will be going with a 2-handed weapon with great weapon fighting for bigger dice and rerolling 1s and 2s. The practical low end is 30 DPR at 60%. Throw in a girdle of giant strength or something more than a +1 weapon which unlike casters adds damage to every hit and it continues to go up. If the target AC is low enough to justify it and the fighter has sharpshooter or great weapon master the damage can easily go up into the 40-50 something range. Action surge to double that. My math may be totally FUBARed, but I suspect my rough calculations are actually on the low end.

Or maybe I'm not understanding; the fighter may do less damage per hit but they hit more often. It's kind of the point for fighters.

I definitely agree about this--except that the 6-8 encounters isn't actually a rule or even a guideline. It's just a note in the DMG that that's about as many medium-difficulty encounters a typical party can endure before being completely tapped out. For some reason, people took that to mean that the entire game is built around 6-8 encounters per day, and that deviating from that number is unbalanced in some way, or even wrong.

Personally, I tend to fewer but tougher encounters. Combat and other resource-draining encounters are fun but if you had 6-8 of them in a day, that's all you'd be doing.

I'm not sure DPR is the real issue though, the fighter will frequently have double the HP and likely have a better AC as well. I personally find the classes balance out better and resource management is a bigger issue if you have more than 2-3 fights. It certainly feels like the intent is 6-8 encounters, at least for me. Then again, I use the gritty rest rules and we regularly have more 2 or more sessions between long rests.

 

[FrogReaver]

I want my martial characters to be just that, martial characters. I don't want them to be magic users by another name. My solution is to throw so enough encounters at the group that the casters can do awesome things once in a while, martials can do cool things all the time.

Somehow I navigated back to this post and it’s a really good one.

perhaps a solution is going with revised spell slots progression tables. I seen an attempt like that recently but it was a little over the top IMO.

Having some slot progression options to tie to typical pacing might help a lot.

 

[Faolyn]

If you assume hitting 60% of the time the fighter will do a little over 25 points of damage compared to a little over 13 for the wizard.

But that's with a cantrip. The wizard still has higher-level spells. Sure, that's only a handful of uses per day, but they're able to do a lot more damage with them, so that a combat that would take a fighter many rounds worth of successful attacks could very well be over in just one action taken by the wizard. And unlike a fighter, this ability extends to killing even more powerful creatures. A fighter can hack away at powerful monster over the course of several rounds, but there's a much better chance that a spellcaster can kill or very seriously injure the same creature in a single turn.

Or maybe I'm not understanding; the fighter may do less damage per hit but they hit more often. It's kind of the point for fighters.

It's one of those "anything you can do, I can do better" things. A spellcaster has so many options as to how they kill things and, as it is, fighters don't--unless they have a more magical archetype. They can use their weapon, or they can use a different weapon. In Level Up, they have martial maneuvers to give more options, but in base D&D, only the Battlemaster, or someone who takes that feat that lets them have Battlemaster maneuvers, has anything like that. Although I understand why the Battlemaster isn't the basic fighter package, I wish it had been.