Crazy thought 'bout Fighters, Wizards, and progressions

[Grydan]

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

In the vast majority of fantasy literature, fairy tales, and mythology that I'm aware of, this simply isn't true.

Magic almost always has costs and limits.

The nature of those costs, and where those limits fall, varies from story to story. Sometimes these costs and limits aren't stated within the story, but must exist for the story's internal logic to hold together.

The extent of what magic can do is utterly arbitrary. There's nothing intrinsically "more real" about a magic system in which people can wave a wand and do anything, in comparison to one where magic is a slow and subtle thing, unsuitable for combat.

In some fantasy settings, magic is a matter of elaborate rituals, with rare ingredients, precise alignments of stars, and sacrifice required to achieve any significant effect.

In others, magic is a matter of daily routine. It's used for things as trivial as stain removal or opening doors that aren't even locked.

Magic can be subtle or overt. It can be low in cost, or high in cost. It can be complex or simple. It can be anything that the writer of a story, or the designers of a game system, want it to be.

Magic in D&D has always had costs and limits. The nature of those costs, and the placement of those limits, has varied. But they've always been there.

It's entirely possible, and not even terribly difficult, to make it so that those costs and limits prevent magic users from overshadowing those who do not use magic.

Where the difficulty truly comes into play is that some people want magic users to be able to overshadow non-magical characters, and others don't.

I think that the nature of the costs and limits of a given system of magic is what makes it interesting and distinct.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The magic/mundane class imbalance issues has been an issue in every edition of D&D except 4th, and 4th "fixed" it by removing mundane classes and then pretending some of the magic was mundane.

You mean that John McClane and Indiana Jones are magic?

And he generally manages to hold his own. Because due to his crazy training regime he is so fast and strong that when he cuts loose you can't even percieve him moving without powers, and has strength capable of of ripping an ancient tree out of the ground.

In other words he violates the rules of physics just as badly as any other character, he just does it in supposedly non-magical ways.

Now name me the 4e character who does that. Superspeed isn't cinematic physics.

And that's actually just fine as long as you realise that you're using cinematic physics, and not what you or I would recognize as reality.

OK. Under your definition, every D&D fighter has been magical. They even had a mechanic for how magical they were. Hit points. ]

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

Even if that were true this doesn't mean that magicians should be able to do anything. Gods, perhaps. But the power of a PC wizard could be very limited.

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.

Or got bored and brought the dungeon down with an earthquake.

And if MUs can just buy scrolls and carry 100s of them, I think you're DMing wrong.

What about if MUs can make scrolls and wands?

 

[Bobbum Man]

You mean that John McClane and Indiana Jones are magic?

John McClane and Indiana Jones aren't 20th level characters.

If you want to maintain parity between casters and non-casters in the game, then you really have two choices:

1) Amp up the capabilties of martial characters. Let them exceed what we think of as human limitations under their own power as they gain levels. Embrace the notion that farmer John and his rusty pitchfork are meant to one day grow into the equivalent of Cuchallain or Gilgamesh.

I realize that this idea is anathema to some, but D&D shouldn't be Conan for all 20 levels.

2) Tone down spellcasters. They don't HAVE to possess the capability to rewrite reality x times per day. Make their day-to-day spells more tame than they were in prior editions and shunt the world buggering stuff into rituals, the casting of which are quests all to themselves.

Now name me the 4e character who does that. Superspeed isn't cinematic physics.

This is functionally the same as a teleport effect. You see this kind of thing all the time in anime and wuxia...the swordsman is facing his opponent and then in the space of an eye blink is behind them.

A lot of people in the old guard might not like it, but the kids that are coming into D&D nowadays are more influenced by anime and videogames and Harry Potter than they are by Moorcock or Lieber.

OK. Under your definition, every D&D fighter has been magical. They even had a mechanic for how magical they were. Hit points.

I think that EVERYTHING in D&D is magic, from demons and spellcasters to fighters and trees. Some are just overtly so (fireballs and armies of the undead) while others are more subtle (High-level Fighters who caun survive 1000 ft. drops).

The problem is that we keep trying to apply the physical laws of our world to certain characters in a fantasy world, while completely throwing the rule book out for others. I think that the game needs to embrace the idea that human potential is not the same in D&D-land as it is in the real world.

Even if that were true this doesn't mean that magicians should be able to do anything. Gods, perhaps. But the power of a PC wizard could be very limited.

Agreed. But this is D&D. Show-y p[yrotechnics are a big part of the trope. Besides, the majority of non D&D fantasy games out there are gritty, low magic sword & sorcery games (I attribute this to most homebrewers being too lazy to create and balance an actual magic system). I say limit the world destroying, reality shattering, god humping spells and keep the fireballs, lightning bolts and demon summoning.

What about if MUs can make scrolls and wands?

Bad idea, IMO.

 

[JohnSnow]

Anybody here read comic books? Okay, stupid question, of course you do. Characters in the comics have varying levels of "power" - as an example, Superman and Thor are way more powerful than Batman and Captain America.

We have this nice metric for measuring "power" in D&D - it's called LEVEL.

Early on, fighters should be confined to what's "realistic." Like a street level superhero, these characters are mostly bound by real-world physics. At this level, their magical compatriots are like the weakest of comic book heroes with powers outside the norm. If they have telekinesis, it's limited - maybe to what they could physically lift themselves. If they can project force blasts, those maybe do the damage of a punch. If they can block damage, it's maybe the equivalent of a single attack. Sure, magic can do anything, but at these levels, the magicians are very limited.

As the characters get higher in level, the telekinetic can move heavier weights with her mind. Maybe she learns to fly. Maybe the character who can blast things can do the damage equivalent of a cannon. But the fighter character also becomes faster, stronger, and tougher. His punches no longer do the damage of a punch - getting hit by him is like getting shot with a cannon.

In a level-based game, this is simply HOW IT WORKS. Gandalf can face the Balrog because of his phenomenal magical power - in other words, he's higher-level than the rest of the Fellowship. Aragorn, Boromir, Gimli and Legolas are valiant enough fighters, but against a Balrog? They'd be screwed.

That's not to say that Aragorn and the rest are 1st-level characters - they're not. They're warriors of surpassing skill and ability who are easily worth "50 or 100 normal men" (direct quote from The Two Towers as they prepare for the battle of Helm's Deep). But their abilities still seem to be reasonably well grounded to mortal levels. In D&D terms, you might peg them at around 10th-level.

The question really is: how much above that do your power levels need to go? There's a high-level fighter in the Avengers comics - Thor. He can fly and do a couple neat tricks with the weather because of his hammer (and because he's a god, but I digress), but Thor is basically a strong, tough fighter who can take on any opponent with his strength and skill at arms. The mage casts disintegrate? It simply doesn't work on Thor - he's too tough. The guy tries to fly? Thor knocks him out of the sky with a thrown hammer. He blasts him with fire? Thor doesn't get burned. Hold person? Don't make me laugh. The wizard turns into a dragon? Let's dance. And so on.

Now, Thor can lift over 100 TONS. He can shake the ground with a stomp and probably survive getting a castle dropped on him. Do we really need D&D to scale to that level? Personally, I don't think so. But if we're going to limit the level of the fighters (and other characters), we should limit the mages to about the same level of world-influencing power.

You want mages who can teleport, fly, and do all kinds of beyond Harry Potter level stuff? Then the fighters should probably be equivalent to Hercules, or the experienced characters from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Their leaps take them over buildings and their blows knock down trees.

Think that power level is too high? Then ratchet it back.

With most magic, the degree of influence is important. Teleporting around the battlefield is a decent power, but hardly game breaking. Like Nightcrawler in the X-Men, this character simply has an unusual method of movement. On the other hand, long-distance teleporting has major influences on the setting - and is a spell that should be set at whatever level is appropriate for the campaign. Flight's another one.

Magic in fiction is always limited. Gandalf's limitation appears to be situational - he can only pull out the big guns against the big foes. That's why he's got the magic mojo to take on 4 Nazgul or the Balrog, but has to use a sword and staff and some minor fire magic to fight orcs. Similarly, Tolkien's world simply DOES NOT HAVE flight or teleportation magic.

By contrast, in the Harry Potter series, those things are normal. And it's fine, because everyone's a wizard.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that a first-level wizard needs to be able to fundamentally alter reality - he's only 1st-level, after all. Similarly, don't make the mistake of thinking that a 20th-level fighter is in anyway confined by what is "realistic" according to the physics of our world.

My two cents.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that fighters take a dive on all the other cool options as well. I was just musing that if we are lowering the power curve, maybe this one aspect gets lowered to nothing for the other classes.

 

[BobTheNob]

I have often thought that +to hit should have been a fighter only convention, and in a flattened system (and assuming the growth is relatively small). This does actually work, I approve.

This thread got VERY rapidly de-railed by "3e spell casters too powerful"

 

[Banshee16]

And part of the imbalance with wizards in 3.x came about because they removed the checks and balances put in place in 1e/2e for spells/magic. (Things like aging when casting or receiving certain spells, the inability to cast spells for a day or whatever after casting resurrection [IIRC], the system shock roll when polymorphing, etc.)

This is a big part of it.

It's something that annoyed me, particularly with 3.5. All the downsides to magic were gone. Raising/resurrecting became "ho hum". Reincarnation? If the risk of coming back as a badger or dryad or deer was gone, well, it's no longer much of a disadvantage. Haste? No more aging? Not even something like a period of exhaustion at the end of the spell duration (which could have been an acceptable way of dealin with it). Polymorph Other? Now it's an ultimate buff spell. Want a Fire Giant's strength? Talk to the wizard. In 1E/2E you didn't *want* Polymorph used on your character except for a last resort.....because taking Fire Giant form could result in your lvl 10 fighter turning evil, thinking he's a fire giant, and then destroying the entire party. So, you used it for cursing people, turning them into cows, pigs or whatever. Or you could use it as a distraction. City guard coming after you? Turn an innocent lvl 0 NPC into a wyvern and watch the hijinks when they fail their roll to assume the wyvern's INT score and mind.

However.....I'll also point out that the case against fighters has always been overstated in 3E, IMO. I've seen fighters easily just *demolish* spellcasters. With the crit system, and insane stat bonuses that are available, and multiple attacks, I've seen high level fighters take out high level spellcasters in 1-2 rounds. What it came down to was whether the 15 minute workday was used, and if the encounters occurred in areas where the spellcaster had room to move. If the fighter could "stick" to the spellcaster, it was game over. Protective spells like Stoneskin, etc. had very limited ability to limit damage. When fighters could get in, and get a crit and score 60-80 points of damage on a single hit, with two more coming that around, damage reduction spells really don't do much to save the day.

Spellcasters had very effective spells in 3E. I won't deny it. But I think they were much more killable than in 2E in many ways. Stoneskin and other protective spells were much more limited in many ways....energy resistance? Again, limited. In general, 3E spells were less powerful, and more limited than their previous incarnations in 2nd Ed.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

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.

This was what the whole "powers" system introduced in the Book of Nine Swords, and then replicated across all of 4E was supposed to fix.

But they didn't have to ruin spellcasters, in order to make fighters more fun. There were dynamic, powerful combat options for fighters as far back as 1st Ed. via selections of weapon manoeuvers etc. I think they could go that way with martial characters, while retaining the spellcasting system and flexibility for spellcasters.

If you want to fly, don't be a fighter. But if you want to be able to ginsu opponents, and just be the absolute terror on the battlefield, with a bunch of movement, attack, defense manoeuvers that you can deploy when needed, that give you extra advantages in different combat situations, then the fighter should be the main choice. And the mechanics should support that. Get rid of the whole daily/encounter/at will thing though.

There have been great ideas suggested in Dragon Magazine over the years, and I think some of them could be effectively used to make melee combat interesting without taking the toys away from the spellcasters. I mean, I used plenty of those options in 1st Ed., 2nd Ed., and 3rd Ed. (when I played Swashbuckling Adventures), and the fighters didn't miss that they weren't flying.....they were too busy parrying opposing attacks, riposting, marking opponents, tripping them, making called shots to blind, hamstring etc. There were all these options, and the fighters were *dangerous*.

I think part of the problem is when the core game gives all the options to spellcasters, then streamlines things for the martial characters. I think that's where the problems start. Give the martial characters options, and I think the problem largely disappears.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

Don't make the mistake of thinking that a first-level wizard needs to be able to fundamentally alter reality - he's only 1st-level, after all. Similarly, don't make the mistake of thinking that a 20th-level fighter is in anyway confined by what is "realistic" according to the physics of our world.

My two cents.

Don't really agree here. I don't want fighters walking on clouds, or having a punch as powerful as a cannon shot. I'm not a fan of having wuxia in core D&D.

A 20th lvl fighter is an expert swordfighter (or whatever). He can carve his way through hordes of less skilled opponents. He's the guy who keeps his sword sheathed, and doesn't drop the gloves unless he needs to. With a glance, he cows lesser characters. They know he's dangerous. They know he has a reputation as the best swordsman in the kingdom.

Tom Cruise in Last of the Samurai. He's confronted by four of five assassins in the street at night. He waits for them to move. When they finally do, his sword comes out and in a blur of motion, heads are rolling on the ground, and all the assassins are killed. And it took seconds. To me, that's a high level fighter.

By no means is he a wimp. You definitely don't want to get in an argument with him, unless you're standing at the back of a big army, because you know your relatives will be having a funeral.

Yet.....he's not going to fly. He's not going to punch a dragon on the nose and kill it. But he might climb up it's leg, run across its back, as it thrashes and throws it's body around to get him off.....and with his expert skill, he retains his grip, absorbs the damage it dishes out trying to dislodge him, climbs up the neck, and with his strength and skill, plunges his sword into that dragon's eye, and into the brain, killing it.

I also wish they'd bring back the whole followers thing, with high level fighters being lords, and having a castle and a small army of followers etc. That stuff, particularly in high level play really differentiated them back in the day.

That's what I see.

Banshee

 

[hanez]

I consider issues like this central to being a good DM. Even if all the characters are balanced, its the DMs job to try and keep everyone interested, engaged and excited about their characters

For matrtial characters, magic items are usually stronger. Things like , ring of the rams where you can spend up to 20 charges with one shot, smashing your fist through a dragon, swords that allow fireball and teleporting daily, amulets of stoneskin or magic resitance. Often we hit artifact level for martial characters pretty much by tenth level. I remember making my brother the barbarian a cackling cod plate, basically it was a fear belt with a few stat boosts, but the item really helped define his character, when he hit 25% HP he enlarged and everyone started running.

My fighters also have followers, armies, riding gryphons, they are usually entitled to lands ect. In my campaign world kings and barons often understand and relate to fighters and other martial characters, they consider him the front man, while the wizards gets power in the libraries.

I also think its a DMs job to roleplay monsters properly. So if the wizards is blowing fireballs all the time and hes having a good effect, then the monsters obviously charge them. Nothing brings a wizard back to reality then having the mob attack him. (I know on this forum wizards == gods, but in my experience if the big bad guy focusses on the wizard then he'd better hope the party is able to bail him out)

For wizards and clerics, the items pretty much stay as is, although Im sure to make sure they get access to lots of spells.

Then again this has never been a conscious thing. If after a session, I think a player isnt having fun, or his character isnt SPECTACULAR, I think... hmmmm what would be a cool item the PC might like (without it being a wishlist), then, it magically pops up a session or two later if they beat a big baddie or something.