Crazy thought 'bout Fighters, Wizards, and progressions

[tlantl]

Sure fighters should be more effective in melee but ensuring that everyone else really sucks at it isn't the way to go.

Wizards without checks on their spell casting is the culprit not they way they work in melee combat. The easy access to spell storage, such as potions and wands to store dozens of the same spell is the biggest problem. If you can drag ten wands around and each of them holding spells that do the work of the cleric or thief then there's going to be issues. DM's who don't try to curb these players are as much at fault as the player who is doing it.

I hope that the devs really spend some time playing the older games so they can get a feel for the things that were in place to lessen the impact of casters on the rest of the game. I also hope they don't try to pigeon hole all of the classes into narrow roles that take the fun out of them. If I make a fighter I want to be able to fight regardless of whether I have a two handed weapon a bow or two smaller weapons. If I'm playing a wizard I want to worry if my spell is going to work or not, if I'm going to find the next great spell or have to expend all of my resources to create it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So...what if Fighters (or a small group of fighter-like classes) were the only ones who got increases in BAB (or its 5e equivalent)? I figure that even if the progression was slow, it would be very significant compared to the other classes. Thoughts?

From a modern perspective, this makes a lot of sense. I may become transcendent in my field, but it is unlikely that I will ever be much better in combat than I am now. Specialization is a key underpinning of modern society.

This was less true in the past, so fantasy games tend to somewhat ignore the idea that you only get better at things that you train at in some way. In a way, the D&D world and its specialized classes are rather modern, so this almost seems appropriate.

I think the problem with the idea is that wizard is such a broad class (as are they all), and if you makle it so that advancing as a wizard completely prevents you from gaining BAB, that's awfully harsh.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In 1e, wail of the banshee, power words, death spell, and shapechange worked about the same as 3e. Sure, some of the toughest restrictions were removed, but many spells didn't have them.

Maybe those specific ones. OTOH, everything from Hold Person to Flesh to Stone to Disintegrate that gave a save went from dicey at low level and pointless at high in 1e to potentially inescapable in 3.5, thanks to the ways save DCs could be jacked up.

In the 1e games I ran, casters dominated by a longshot (druids and wizards); the spells with tough requirements were used sparingly, but plenty of devastating spells were left over with no restrictions. Heck, the druid conjuring 16 HD, +2 or better weapon to hit elementals was devastating enough.

Yep. Which spells broke and why varied from one ed to another, but there were always broken spells - and are still broken powers in 4e. 4e presents a minor obstacle in that it's hard to get a broken spells too many times in a day, but that just adds to the 5 minute workay encintive. Before, a caster could prep a broken spell 2 or 3 or more times, and make scrolls or wands of it if he really wanted to (or make scrolls of less broken spells that might be situationally useful now and then) - systematic abuse could be very systematic, indeed.

 

[Li Shenron]

The whole problem in 3rd Edition, which really seems to be the one edition where it is an actual problem, lies in the fact that spellcasters have much too many "instant win" spells. It's not the options that martial characters have, it's not the way spellcasting works, or how many spells spellcasters get.
It all comes down to the fact that there is a huge number of spells that can virtually, and sometimes even actually, completely shut down the options that other characters have or perform certain tasks better than the supposed specialists for that task.

If you want spellcasters to be equally strong and versatile as martial characters, really the only thing that needs to be adressed is the design of spells. Avoid spells that replicate the special abilities of other characters and spells that make the special abilities of other characters unusable, and 95% of all problems are taken care of.

Good points but...

Isn't the problem after all that Wizards have too many of those spells?

Because if ONE Wizard has spells that can shut down all the options of her comrades, clearly we have a lot of problems.

But now think of the 3ed Sorcerer, with her limited number of known spells: if you ever try to learn many spells that step on the toes of your comrades, you have to give up other spells. Then you wonder if it's worth to "waste" a known spell to bash doors if you can mostly rely on the Barbarian for that, or another for detecting secret doors if you have Elves and Rogues in the party, or spells that turn you into a fighting machine and so on.

A mid-level 3ed Wizard has enough known spells (which technically don't even have a limit) to step on everybody's toes, but a Sorcerer doesn't (it might still, but only at much higher level by comparison), unless Scrolls are for sale everywhere, and guess what... in lots of groups they are.

The real problem then is that guess what the gamerbase reaction would be if you suddenly decide to slim down the number of Wizard spells known (or spells/day, this also has an indirect effect) or ban Scrolls sales.

 

[trancejeremy]

Magic is magic. It should be able to do anything, because it's magic.

Are some spells powerful? Sure, but a 18th level fighter with a AC of -8 and a +4 sword and a girdle of giant strength is going to be able to mow low level opponents, too. And he'll be able to do it all day.

In older versions, adventuring was a marathon, not a sprint - you'd basically rest in between game sessions. Spell casters saved their magic because they didn't rest every room. And if MUs can just buy scrolls and carry 100s of them, I think you're DMing wrong.

I think you can lay a criticism that old school D&D fighters and such required more gear to be effective at high levels, but nevertheless, they were very effective.

Death Spell/Power Word were nasty (due to no saving throw), but only affected lower level monsters. If an 18th level MU were facing and 18th level opponent, those spells likely wouldn't even have an effect.

And shapechange would only let a Druid change into a black bear at best, and the MU counterpart could be countered by simply breaking the 5000 gp jade circlet used as a material component. Virtually any intelligent opponent of an archmage would probably know to break it.


Anyway, to the OP, apparently your idea has been implemented in the old school weird fantasy game, "Lamentations of the Flame Princess". Only fighters improve at combat.

 

[Yora]

Because if ONE Wizard has spells that can shut down all the options of her comrades, clearly we have a lot of problems.

But now think of the 3ed Sorcerer, with her limited number of known spells: if you ever try to learn many spells that step on the toes of your comrades, you have to give up other spells. Then you wonder if it's worth to "waste" a known spell to bash doors if you can mostly rely on the Barbarian for that, or another for detecting secret doors if you have Elves and Rogues in the party, or spells that turn you into a fighting machine and so on.

That is certainly true, and also applies to almost all divine spellcasters as well. I actually strongly prefer to play only with spontaneous casters in 3rd Ed./PF and really hope there will be an out of the box system to have clerics and druids work like sorcerers in 5th Edition. If not, I have to make one up myself.

 

[Li Shenron]

That is certainly true, and also applies to almost all divine spellcasters as well. I actually strongly prefer to play only with spontaneous casters in 3rd Ed./PF and really hope there will be an out of the box system to have clerics and druids work like sorcerers in 5th Edition. If not, I have to make one up myself.

Ouch, forgot about divine casters... if the DM allows them to know all spells from supplements, the problem is exponential.

I've always liked those spontaneous clerics/druids from 3ed UA. Simple, and took away a lot of problems.

 

[Yora]

Though it would be much nicer if they also had the augmentation rules from psionics.

Hey, wait! Didn't they already say that spells would need to be boosted to do more than the standard effect? Nice!

 

[mkill]

...what if Fighters (or a small group of fighter-like classes) were the only ones who got increases in BAB (or its 5e equivalent)? I figure that even if the progression was slow, it would be very significant compared to the other classes. Thoughts?

There seems to be this idea that all it takes for a Fighter character to be worthwile playing is "hit monster reliably". That "high BAB" somehow equals "cool, special, good in combat".

Let's analyze this. You have two pills, red and blue.

Red pill: "If you roll a die to swing that sword, you won't miss even if you roll low"
Blue pill: "You'll be able to fly, turn invisible, read minds, and summon demons to your bidding. If you want to swing a sword and not miss, you can do that too with a spell, but it's usually more effective to just turn yourself into a Warforged Titan. Because travelling back in time and preventing the enemy from being born is not as much fun."

Don't get me wrong, some bonus to hit is nice, and even useful if your job relies on dicing monsters with sharp metal. But it's not a tradeoff for the blue pill, thankyouverymuch.

If you want fighters to take the red pill, that pill better had an amazing sales pitch.

 

[Bluenose]

Maybe those specific ones. OTOH, everything from Hold Person to Flesh to Stone to Disintegrate that gave a save went from dicey at low level and pointless at high in 1e to potentially inescapable in 3.5, thanks to the ways save DCs could be jacked up..

This. The problem with 3e wasn't so much that the spells were so different from earlier editions, but the way saving throws were changed. Certainly, you could try Hold Person/Hold Monster against high level enemies in 2e, but they'd probably save. In 3e, it wasn't hard to pick a spell your enemies had almost no chance of saving against and shut them out of the fight.