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

[Maxperson]

I don't think you're getting it. What @Aldarc said has absolutely nothing to do with DPR. It literally has to do with almost everything else in the game, except DPR.

If that's the case, then the wizard plummets in combat since he is using his spells for almost everything else in the game and the fighter shines like the sun in comparison. The fighter is designed to excel in combat and he does. The wizard can almost match the fighter in combat if he used all of his spells in combat and does nothing outside of combat.

Where the fighter needs a bit of help is not in combat, but in the other two pillars.

 

[Maxperson]

Out of combat? If a fighter wants to contribute they can take feats to get bonuses or use ASIs to do things other than just be good at fighting if they want. Observant and prodigy can be taken by any class, but a fighter gets more feats. Even so, a lot of people don't care as long as someone in the party has the appropriate proficiency. But what does a wizard add outside of combat that a fighter can't? Teleportation? Cool. You get from point A to point B more quickly. But would the stories really change that much if teleport wasn't an option or would the DM just tweak the story so it doesn't matter? Would Star Trek really have been much different without teleporters? Or was it just convenient? IMHO it's a nice convenience and shortcut but that's all.

You can't use feats or multiclassing(and I know you didn't mention this one) since they are explicitly optional rules and not part of the default game. Magic items are also optional, so they can't be used, either. All a fighter gets are more stat increases, not feats.

Out of combat the fighter needs a bit of help.

 

[FrogReaver]

So how do they get used? How do you think they affect the game? I listed a few, and my thoughts. Most of them are things that are nice to have but hardly game changing to me.

IMO. An easier way would be for you to name a few situations from your game and have us explain what spells could accomplish there.

 

[FrogReaver]

why not just get rid of the wizard?

There’s still bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, clerics.

 

[Maxperson]

My point was that a fighter class that is designed to be solely in the combat pillar should have way more combat power to match the progression of everything else

If the fighter isn't suppose to be pure combat, then it needs more exploration power, social power, or supernaturalness to affect more of the campaign.

The fighter already has all the combat power he needs. In order for the wizard to begin to try and match the fighter in combat, the wizard has to give up his ability to affect the other two pillars. If the wizard starts using spells outside of combat to affect the other pillars strongly, he falls waaaaaaaay behind the fighter in the combat pillar.

What you have suggested for the fighter in past posts would create a huge combat imbalance in the game. The fighter can't be as strong as you want without completely borking combat to the point that you'd end up killing the other PCs when trying to challenge the fighter.

 

[Mind of tempest]

There’s still bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, clerics.

sorcerers are hardly a problem, the other I agree with needing a fix?

 

[Maxperson]

There are a lot of out of combat magic spells.

And each one used causes the wizard's ability in combat to fall. With no spells used outside of combat, the wizard can only cast spells in half(2) the rounds of combat in an adventuring day. If he uses 6-8 spells outside of combat, he's down to about 1 in each combat. Meanwhile the fighter is trucking away with 4 attacks a round and 2 action surges in most of the combats.

 

[Cruentus]

And each one used causes the wizard's ability in combat to fall. With no spells used outside of combat, the wizard can only cast spells in half(2) the rounds of combat in an adventuring day. If he uses 6-8 spells outside of combat, he's down to about 1 in each combat. Meanwhile the fighter is trucking away with 4 attacks a round and 2 action surges in most of the combats.

IF, and its a BIG IF, you ascribe to the 6-8 encounters per day metric. I see a lot of comments on these boards, and from folks with a problem with the wizard's power, saying that THEY DON'T USE 6-8 encounters per adventuring day for a variety of reasons - time it takes for combat, pacing of their game, journeying, etc.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is any way to balance either of these classes with people approaching from two different premises.

In my last game, a sandbox, an encounter or two max per day usually, the spellcasters dominated. In fact, the only Martial was a poorly run Arcane Archer (arguably weak to begin with). But his being there that week, or his missing the session made zero difference in the outcome of the fights. Even when I upped the DCs of the enemies (double +), or threw higher level "PC" spellcasters at the party, zero, zip, no effect.

Casters were able to combine every round damage cantrips (scaling) for ongoing damage (and saving spell slots!), the occasional big flashy spell (Evokers in the house!) to eliminate henchmen and blast biggies, AOE effects from clerics (spiritual guardians, twilight stuff, etc.) to prevent melee NPCs from closing (or to prevent them from getting more than a round in before the passive damage did them in), to nuking the BBG or the biggest perceived threat with the big flashies, while protecting themselves with perfect prep (invisible imp scouts, darkness/devilsight protections, Twilight temp hps, etc.).

And sure, I, as DM, could have easily wiped the party any time I wanted to, but keeping it "realistic" in terms of encounters - I couldn't always start my enemy casters in dispel magic or counterspell range EVERY SINGLE ENCOUNTER (which were 2-3 a day, to 1 a day, to none for weeks). And when they weren't in combat, the Zone of Truths, Charm Persons, Scry, Light spells out the wazoo, etc. made the mundane adventuring (social, exploration) pretty pointless. We got to the point where we just skipped large fights because there was zero reason to waste game time going through the motions of what would be a clear mop up.

Oh, and all the characters had about the same range of HP when we stopped - 40-46, regardless of class. So it wasn't even a matter of the casters being "squishier" than the Martial we had.

I've come to the realization, that its just the way the game is now. And if I want more "mundane", I have to look at using Sidekicks as primary PC's, curating spell lists, or maybe just having Warlocks be the only type of caster out there (covering clerical, magical, sorcerous, etc.).

 

[FrogReaver]

The fighter already has all the combat power he needs. In order for the wizard to begin to try and match the fighter in combat, the wizard has to give up his ability to affect the other two pillars. If the wizard starts using spells outside of combat to affect the other pillars strongly, he falls waaaaaaaay behind the fighter in the combat pillar.

What you have suggested for the fighter in past posts would create a huge combat imbalance in the game. The fighter can't be as strong as you want without completely borking combat to the point that you'd end up killing the other PCs when trying to challenge the fighter.

Oftentimes a single spell can allow the whole party to bypass a whole encounter. Same can go for Deception/Intimidation/Persuasion/Survival/Etc checks (especially with expertise and/or other ways to boost skills).

What's the value of bypassing an encounter?

 

[Fanaelialae]

If that's the case, then the wizard plummets in combat since he is using his spells for almost everything else in the game and the fighter shines like the sun in comparison. The fighter is designed to excel in combat and he does. The wizard can almost match the fighter in combat if he used all of his spells in combat and does nothing outside of combat.

Where the fighter needs a bit of help is not in combat, but in the other two pillars.

It's not that hard to strike a balance.

If you're objecting to white room scenarios where a caster always has all of the ideal spells prepared, then I agree with you. That wasn't what I was referring to though.

A high level caster can have a pretty reliable set of spells for combat, as well as a variety of utility. Particularly casters who prepare spells, as you aren't locked into what you know. You can reconfigure your spell selection each day based on your anticipated needs. A wizard can be kitted out for hacking and slashing one day, and kitted for high intrigue the next. A fighter can be kitted out for hacking and slashing one day... and hacking and slashing the next.

Personally, I don't think that the fighter's ability to hack and slash outshines the wizard's sufficiently to compensate for the wizard's flexibility. I think it's debatable whether a fighter can outshine a combat focused wizard in combat. On a longer day, maybe, on a shorted day, maybe not. I don't think there's any reasonable argument that a fighter can outshine a high intrigue kitted wizard at high intrigue, regardless of how long that day is.

I think that many DMs don't see these as issues because there are elements in the game that can compensate for the disparities, such as magic items, or a DM putting in the effort to make certain that fighters get spotlight time. A DM can certainly decide that the King loves the fighter and detests the wizard, and therefore the fighter is the party's go-to-guy for talking to the King. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's good DMing.

However, not every DM will do that. Not every DM will even know to do that. So I, personally, am on the side of making that kind of stuff built into the class, so that it isn't dependent on a DM who can smooth over the issues. I think that's a net positive change, since it creates less of a workload for the DM. I think it could be as easy as allowing an 11+ level fighter to choose a few magic items from a curated list, to guarantee that they have a decent set of options, independent of the DM.