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

[DND_Reborn]

Well, from what I see, the game seems very popular at the moment. WotC is not going to make a change that sweeping that might drive off their precious new players. Nerfing wizards as has been suggested is far bigger than the stuff that people have been complaining about lately. How do you think that would fly?

Yes, it is popular, but mostly up to level 10-12 and then falls of dramatically after that. It is the higher levels in tiers 3 and 4 that people mostly take issue with IME.

Why do you think so many people want variants that stop near those levels? Because the game breaks down. Spells of 5th and lower are stronger than what fighters can do, but there is enough going on that the fighters can contribute meaningfully IMO. But once you get much further past that point, it falls apart.

 

[Yaarel]

If advancing in levels means advancing in power, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to remain mundane at high levels.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But the class isn't just low levels.

Becoming Batman in Tier 4 would be very reasonable to me, but again it is the combination of spells being too powerful at those levels for martials to compete with them.

After dozens of pages and hundreds of posts, we're still at the same issue:

Either raise martials, nerf spells, or find a happy medium. IMO the happy medium is someone like Batman and getting rid of the truly insane spells like Invulnerability and Wish, not to mention dozens of others. But then too many others would say it isn't D&D, etc.

I am against getting rid of spells. But I could see relegating spells of higher than 5th to a kind of researched ritual magic, making their use an out of combat special event.

 

[Yaarel]

I don’t quite agree. Whilst those characters are at the lower end of the superheroic, they still are clearly superheroes, capable of blatantly superhuman feats. I think the poll clearly shows that most people want high level fighters to be more than just normal people. And I think that’s encouraging.

In my eyes, a level 10 Fighter is clearly a "superhero".

For example, when I quantify the stories about Beowulf, he is about a level 10 Fighter, maybe level 12.



Fair enough, about enworlders like the Fighter with at least some superhuman capabilities.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, it is popular, but mostly up to level 10-12 and then falls of dramatically after that. It is the higher levels in tiers 3 and 4 that people mostly take issue with IME.

Why do you think so many people want variants that stop near those levels? Because the game breaks down. Spells of 5th and lower are stronger than what fighters can do, but there is enough going on that the fighters can contribute meaningfully IMO. But once you get much further past that point, it falls apart.

Honestly, I don't think WotC is interested in making high level play better. Its work they don't feel they need to do, since the game is, as you say, mostly played below that. The new players are happy with 1-10, and the people who want more aren't a big enough section of the market anymore for it to be worth it to them in time and money.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I am against getting rid of spells. But I could see relegating spells of higher than 5th to a kind of researched ritual magic, making their use an out of combat special event.

I agree there are a lot of ways higher level spells could be mitigated in the game, but their power is still there and some players would want to match it with fighters.

For me, though, many spells break the adventure (such as teleport), but that is a personal preference and I accept one not widely shared, so I don't have any issue keeping spells in general (I can always remove them).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Honestly, I don't think WotC is interested in making high level play better. Its work they don't feel they need to do, since the game is, as you say, mostly played below that. The new players are happy with 1-10, and the people who want more aren't a big enough section of the market anymore for it to be worth it to them in time and money.

Probably, and regrettably, true.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I agree that a basic fighter doesn't need to be Superhuman with flight or flinging lightning, but i do think they ought to qualify as Super Human (or Super Dwarven or Super Tiefling-ing, ect...) performing physical feats that while incredible are still just feats of pure strength and skill.

Some ideas for what they could have:
-increase the size of or the number of damage die they deal with any weapons by one
-able to bypass resistance to slashing/peircing/bludgeoning damage, Immunity is reduced to resistance
-inherent special attack options or bonus effects for each weapon [not mutually exclusive with maneuvers], a fighter can shoot a flying enemy out of the skies to the ground with a bow, make a reduced reckless attack with the greatsword, strike the ground with the warhammer to trip nearby creatures, stun with club attacks, perform a spin attack with the longsword, disarm people with a whip attack, those sorts of things that are exhibits of skill rather than anything magical, maybe they don't get all of them maybe they do?
-expertiese on athletics
-inherent jump spell may be stretching it but extra distance/height on jumps isn't too out there
-later levels gain minor climb and or swim speeds?
-later levels low level health regeneration under half health?
-able to throw any melee weapon without needing the thrown tag

 

[Yaarel]

At what level does the fighter fall noticably behind the wizard in 5e?

Arguably there is never an imbalance.

The Fighter falls behind the Wizard shenanigans around the same level that the Wizard falls behind the Fighter damage dealing.

Even at high levels, the game tends to need both Fighter damage and Wizard shenanigan.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Fighter is easy to define at low levels.

Honestly? Only through a very specific D&Desque lens. A lot of heroic myths have the heroes painted as special from an early age. Hercules with his strength. Achilles with his invulnerability. Not many I can think of where the hero starts out as a nobody and then progresses to superheroic. It's one reason why one of my suggestions was to make both mundane and epic play available throughout the entire level range. Special heroes tend to start special, while stories about soldier and mercenaries often continue to be stories about soldiers and mercenaries. Let the group decide when, if and under what circumstances the nature of the game changes.

I am against getting rid of spells. But I could see relegating spells of higher than 5th to a kind of researched ritual magic, making their use an out of combat special event.

Rituals is one way, but I do think that magic items as spells is a good option too (though there's nothing saying you can't do both). In LotR, the palantíri were needed for far seeing and communication. Similar things could be done with other spells, making them less convenient to use on a whim by tying them to less portable forms as well as taking them away from the caster's "toolkit" while still being part of D&D.