Doing Wrong Part 2: Fighters, Wizards and Balance Oh My!

[Manbearcat]

But I don't think I will ever be able to have a fighter use one of their powers outside of combat. I said up thread that a fire spell simply by being fire makes it more versital than any sword technique could be and unfortunately I don't think this can change as long as we want to keep mundane classes mundane.

Where you are making your mistake here is taking the 1st, 2nd, 3rd order functions (its direct effect and then indirect intangibles) of a spell (eg a fire spell) and comparing it solely to the 1st order function (solely its direct effect) of martial proficiency or mastery.

A correct mapping would be to compare it this way (and this is how it should, and can, play out in terms of resource schemes and deployable resources - and does in 4e):

Fire spellcasting capability > burns enemies > sets combustibles alight and can produce conflagrations > start a controlled fire to burn underbrush and protect a wood from forest fire, light a pipe, or start a campfire.

Professional swordsman > slashes and stabs enemies and parries blows > steels the body and mind; develops coordination, strength, dexterity and grit that will provide advantage in most other mundane trades/practices/affairs/contests > inevitably creates credibility/reputation/legend amongst the warrior (military) and common caste (and possibly the nobility) from town to city to region.

There are numerous 2nd and 3rd order intangibles, derivatives and gateways that arise from martial practice and infamy. You can see them easily enough in our cultures around the world. The world cultures are not in awe of the best analog that we have for wizards; engineers, chemists, physicists, microbiologists (even though they should be). They are held captive by the specter of amazing mundane feats of athletes, gladiators, warriors (courage, strength, speed, dexterity, grit, heart) that far surpass what they can imagine themselves being capable of...and they aspire to that.

Those benefits have real world application and can easily be transcribed as codified, deployable resources and benefits in a gaming system (and have been).

 

[ForeverSlayer]

You've left out why you think this is an aspect of earlier editions worth bringing forward into 5e rather than leaving it as a feature of 1e/RC/2e.

Bonus topic: Why should the Fighter be "easy mode"?

Pathfinder has actually captured the perfect fighter concept because the class allows you to be very very simple to being extremely complex.

 

[Remathilis]

A simple wizard: An elementalist. They have easy control over one element or one force and can do more or less whatever the hell they want with it but lack flexibility. They'd get e.g. Affect Normal Fires and a firebolt as cantrips, and have a few other spells like summoning a fire elemental from an existing fire, and fireball. But only a few. A simple cleric: A Warpriest. They heal, they occasionally throw down a spell like zone of truth. But mostly they hit things and rely on insight.

But that's, in essence, building new classes. This is building a slayer, thief, warpriest, and mage class that replaces the more complex fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue. At a certain point, once you've added the skald, beserker, hexblade, cavalier, scout, executioner, sentinel-druid, etc you've built an alternate PHB practically. At that point, how much farther are we from making Basic and Advanced games?

And I've seen plenty of 4e examples of how the Essential classes are notoriously weaker (and less effective) at their roles than the PHB versions, once you account for errata.

And simplicity isn't limited to JUST hardwiring class choices. What about simpler magic items? Simpler monsters for inexperienced DMs? Simpler spells, feats, and skills? At a certain point "simpler" falls behind "complex" in raw power and capacity.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But that's, in essence, building new classes. This is building a slayer, thief, warpriest, and mage class that replaces the more complex fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue. At a certain point, once you've added the skald, beserker, hexblade, cavalier, scout, executioner, sentinel-druid, etc you've built an alternate PHB practically. At that point, how much farther are we from making Basic and Advanced games?

First, we have characters that can play together effortlessly. It's a seamless game.

And I've seen plenty of 4e examples of how the Essential classes are notoriously weaker (and less effective) at their roles than the PHB versions, once you account for errata.

I've no idea what the writers of Heroes of Shadow were thinking - almost every single class and option in that book is weak. Of the core Essentials Martial classes, the Thief, Slayer, and Scout can very definitely keep up - and thief and scout are significantly more effective out of combat than the PHB rogue and ranger. The Knight has two weaknesses that can be exploited and that are more obvious at high level (weak against pushes and against at-will teleporters) but is very effective the rest of the time. The Hunter is better than his reputation and doesn't do badly when compared to the Warlock; it's simply that the Archer Ranger is possibly the most powerful class in the game. (The Hunter is also one of the best out of combat classes and significantly better than the PHB Ranger). The essentials druid has a problem in that their beast companion doesnt scale properly (and the warpriest had a problem until the PHB Cleric was utterly savaged by errata).

And simplicity isn't limited to JUST hardwiring class choices. What about simpler magic items? Simpler monsters for inexperienced DMs?

You mean a brute wall and artillery? This should probably be pointed out more but simple brutes, skirmishers, and artillery are all fairly plentiful - or you can use solos. And for an inexperienced DM, 4e is a joy.

Simpler spells, feats, and skills?

Essentials has simpler spells and feats if you need them. And the skills are simple enough. Certainly simpler than either 3e skills or 2e Non Weapon Proficiencies.

At a certain point "simpler" falls behind "complex" in raw power and capacity.

It falls behind unless you follow the well mapped path and give bonusses for picking by theme. This isn't rocket science. You put in packages "Pick these options (which are normally simple) and get this blanket bonus." This isn't rocket science - it's part of the way warpriests and a lot of wargames work. Pick to a preselected theme and you get a bonus to make up for that theme not being as strong normally.

Which means "At a certain point simpler falls behind complex in raw power unless you take precautions to make sure it doesn't." And you can do this by giving the narrow selections straightforward bonusses for picking packages. This isn't rocket science.

 

[Obryn]

Pathfinder has actually captured the perfect fighter concept because the class allows you to be very very simple to being extremely complex.

For me, PF exemplifies what I don't want in a Fighter. It's only marginally better than 3.5 because it's still playing the game with a much lower level of player fiat or agency than the casters.

4e managed to hit my Fighter sweet spot with the Heroes of the Fallen Lands subclasses. There are three main options - dirt-simple slayer, mid-range knight, and complex Weapon master from the PHB. Dial in your desired complexity. The PHB class in particular has as rich fiat capabilities as any caster, which to me is great.

The 4e way isn't the only way, but high levels of fiat or player agency are a must.

-O

 

[pemerton]

I think its very tough to balance swords vs sorcery. Magic is by its very nature magical and thus allows a character to bend reality. Swords regardless of the wielder just cut things. That is just really tough to balance over 20 levels.

I don't think I will ever be able to have a fighter use one of their powers outside of combat.

This is part of your problem, then. In a 20-level game of heroic fantasy, swords should be able to do more than just cut things. Fighters should be able to leverage their reputation and their toughness out of combat.

Conversely, in a game in which fighters never become demigods, but are limited to the capabilities of mundane warriors, than wizards must be similarly limited if any sort of balance of player effectiveness is to be maintained. (I guess there is also the very non-D&D-ish option of giving the player of the fighter meta-options that can be exercised independently of the ingame agency of his/her PC. I don't see that happening, though.)

RE: easy and hard mode.

What does a "simple" wizard or cleric look like? What does a "simple" rogue do? How are the complex "hard mode" ones meaningfully different?

<snip>

The Fighter is a similar case: an "easy fighter" hits and does damage; lather rinse repeat. A complex fighter's trips, disarms, and pushes and reaping strikes is a lot more versatile and thus stronger than one whose only means of contribution is damage.

4e shows how to handle this. The simple fighter does more damage. The simple wizard has one effect - say, fire - but can do more with it. Etc.

(In other words, [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] is correct.)

 

[ForeverSlayer]

For me, PF exemplifies what I don't want in a Fighter. It's only marginally better than 3.5 because it's still playing the game with a much lower level of player fiat or agency than the casters.

4e managed to hit my Fighter sweet spot with the Heroes of the Fallen Lands subclasses. There are three main options - dirt-simple slayer, mid-range knight, and complex Weapon master from the PHB. Dial in your desired complexity. The PHB class in particular has as rich fiat capabilities as any caster, which to me is great.

The 4e way isn't the only way, but high levels of fiat or player agency are a must.

-O

Oh the Pathfinder fighter is so much more versatile than the 4th edition fighter because of the sheer number of feats and archtypes available to the class. For me, the 4th edition fighter is too defined by it's marking mechanic and that's not what I want. If I want a defender type of fighter then I can build one in Pathfinder, if i want a two weapon fighting fighter then I can build one using the same class, if I want a polearm fighter then I can build one using the same class, if I want a master of archery then I can build one using the same class, or sword and board, two handed, switch hitter etc....

 

[Obryn]

Oh the Pathfinder fighter is so much more versatile than the 4th edition fighter because of the sheer number of feats and archtypes available to the class. For me, the 4th edition fighter is too defined by it's marking mechanic and that's not what I want. If I want a defender type of fighter then I can build one in Pathfinder, if i want a two weapon fighting fighter then I can build one using the same class, if I want a polearm fighter then I can build one using the same class, if I want a master of archery then I can build one using the same class, or sword and board, two handed, switch hitter etc....

...and you're still shackled to a lack of player fiat, in the end.

-O

 

[Meatboy]

Fire spellcasting capability > burns enemies > sets combustibles alight and can produce conflagrations > start a controlled fire to burn underbrush and protect a wood from forest fire, light a pipe, or start a campfire.

Professional swordsman > slashes and stabs enemies and parries blows > steels the body and mind; develops coordination, strength, dexterity and grit that will provide advantage in most other mundane trades/practices/affairs/contests > inevitably creates credibility/reputation/legend amongst the warrior (military) and common caste (and possibly the nobility) from town to city to region.

There are numerous 2nd and 3rd order intangibles, derivatives and gateways that arise from martial practice and infamy. You can see them easily enough in our cultures around the world. The world cultures are not in awe of the best analog that we have for wizards; engineers, chemists, physicists, microbiologists (even though they should be). They are held captive by the specter of amazing mundane feats of athletes, gladiators, warriors (courage, strength, speed, dexterity, grit, heart) that far surpass what they can imagine themselves being capable of...and they aspire to that.

Those benefits have real world application and can easily be transcribed as codified, deployable resources and benefits in a gaming system (and have been).

This is part of your problem, then. In a 20-level game of heroic fantasy, swords should be able to do more than just cut things. Fighters should be able to leverage their reputation and their toughness out of combat.

Conversely, in a game in which fighters never become demigods, but are limited to the capabilities of mundane warriors, than wizards must be similarly limited if any sort of balance of player effectiveness is to be maintained. (I guess there is also the very non-D&D-ish option of giving the player of the fighter meta-options that can be exercised independently of the ingame agency of his/her PC. I don't see that happening, though.)


4e shows how to handle this. The simple fighter does more damage. The simple wizard has one effect - say, fire - but can do more with it. Etc.

(In other words, @Neonchameleon is correct.)

Unfortunately the intangible of a fighter, whether its their ability to lead or accomplish tasks outside of combat, has never AFAIK been given explicit rules in DnD (Maybe the thing about fighters getting land at higher levels, but I can't recall if that was optional or not.) Up until 4e it was stated in the rules that magic fire burnt, magic electricity acted as such, ice floats etc. This was definately explicit. I certainly agree that in real life martial training has a lot benefits outside of actual combat ability, which is usually very thin anyway especially with guns.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Many people, myself included, start at levels other than one. I've come to believe that this has a negative impact on play by removing checks that the designers used to balance casters. Chief among those that if you want to be a powerful wizard you had to be a sucky wizard first then earn your way to power.

I'd suggest that if many people quite enjoy that style of game, as it seems extremely far from being small in scope, then the rules should be created to support that. That might mean toning down magic, if it's too powerful. I don't see why we'd need to go back to a style that many people don't prefer (always start at level 1, simple strong Fighter at low levels, etc.). Is it simpler? In the short term, yes. But my new players have routinely tried to do things that are not supported by the rules, after they've got the basics down, in D&D games. And that's where the game starts to fail me. But I'm a rules guy. I don't mind deviating from them, but I definitely want them there as support.

Its funny that you should bring up Diablo because I think Diablo leverages the whole "magic users are fragile yet powerful" balance point better than dnd does. If you want to be a powerful chain lightning wielding Sorceress in D2 that can clear out entire dungoens in seconds you need to start at level 1 and play (and probably die... a lot) until you have earned that power. Regardless of whether or not you play hard core or soft core.

Yeah, I brought up Diablo for a reason (even if I never finished Diablo 2 or 3... just couldn't take it). Obviously, the game would be much more than that. Just the pen and paper medium, with a GM and players, is going to allow much more. The RP potential alone gulfs what Diablo can support. But, the style of play described in the original post strikes me as a very Diablo-style RPG: go into dungeons, kill stuff, loot treasure, and see how far you can get, risk versus reward style. And that's cool, but I don't think the majority of people play that way anymore (but I don't know for sure... who can know?). At any rate, I just don't feel like going to that style pays off in the long term. It's simpler in the short term, but it doesn't have the broad appeal to get people interested in the first place ("you mostly just kill and loot stuff? Eh."), and in my experience, it starts to feel limiting past a certain point ("there's no rules on running a business? Or mass combat? Or ruling nations? Or gambling? Or having an addiction? Or underwater rules? Or chase rules? Or crafting unique object rules?" etc.). Mind you, yes, none of those are probably enough to stop the system being used, but it starts to drag on the more your players want to use those rules (especially long term, like running a territory, owning a business, being a gambler, being addicted, fighting underwater, being a craftsman, etc.). And that's why I want rule support for those things.

tl;dr: Simple, in the short term, is nice. It really is. But it starts to fail me in the long term. And, the style described in the original post (Diablo RPG) is simple (good for new players), but it doesn't have broad appeal in campaign style supported (bad for new players). But that's just my view.

I said up thread that a fire spell simply by being fire makes it more versital than any sword technique could be and unfortunately I don't think this can change as long as we want to keep mundane classes mundane.

I also don't know about this. Having the ability to cut things is actually very versatile. It's why I carry a knife with me in real life. Sure, it can be used for defense, but I've never used it that way. I cut things with it. I open things. In the wild, it'd help me (not that I have wilderness skills). Could fire at (if spellcasters can do it at will) will be useful? Sure it will. Lighting fires in the wilderness, creating smoke, causing distractions. Useful.

An the Wizard can carry a knife, to boot! But the Fighter can carry flint and steel. Are either as good as what the other has? No, not really. The Fighter will be able to cut more (or smash more with a mace, like locks or chests) than the Wizard, and the Wizard has range (though a Fighter could use a flaming arrow) and damage. But I'm kind of okay with that. They're better in their respective fields; awesome. As always, play what you like