Fighter vs. Wizard - what's your preferred balance of power?

[JamesonCourage]

I like them to be "balanced" at each level. I just don't want them to be equal at things.

That is, I'd like dedicated warriors to be better at combat. I mean, they're dedicated to it. You can get good killers with magicians, but they should fall behind warriors.

That's because they have other tricks. Lots of them. Magicians, in my RPG, are basically magical "jack of all trades" type characters. When attacking in combat, they're "pretty useful." When exploring ruins, they're "pretty useful." When looking for clues, they're "pretty useful." When protecting the party, they're "pretty useful." When preparing to deal with a social situation, they're "pretty useful."

The warrior, though? He can kill like nobody's business. The magician can help him. He can even hold his own sometimes. But the warrior will have higher damage, consistent damage, higher defenses, and more hit points. He'll lack the versatility that the magician has, though. As always, play what you like

(As an aside, both could be great or mediocre at skills. This includes leading men (Gandalf), negotiation (Tyrion), stealth (Conan), etc.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

The OP presents a false dichotomy.

The decision isn't between overpowered wizards on the one hand and homogeneous characters on the other. There's a middle ground.

That middle ground? Could be a few things.

Could be balance across pillars. Fighters are A+ at combat. Wizards are C at best. But then when you're crossing large distances or uncovering a lost mystery (exploration), Wizards are quite a bit better than fighters, due to magic that reveals the future and bends space and time to their will.

Could be spikes vs. DoT. If the Wizard has a doomlazer that deals 32 points of damage once every 4 rounds and then is useless for 4 rounds, the Fighter has a sword that deals 8 points of damage EVERY round.

 

[Minigiant]

The fighter should be the be great in all fights all the time.

The wizard is excellent at some fights when prepared and Terrible when not prepared for that type of combat.

 

[Tallifer]

However, I have one caveat: I like the idea that a high level fighter with the appropriate magical gear and some kind of "fate" factor can defeat a wizard of equal power. Think of Conan conquering through his heroic effort an evil sorcerer. A house rule that I've been playing with is to give non-magic wielding characters some kind of "Fate Pool" that allows them to buck the odds, either through re-rolls or bonus modifiers that "re-fill" after sleeping. Magic-wielders don't have this because in a sense they are selling their souls for their magic or to their gods--not in any kind of diabolical sense, but it is more that their "soul energy" is channeled through magic or divine power rather than fate.

As far back as 1982, I remember having discussions about how to write the best roleplaying game ever. One of the chief contentions was that fantastic and mediaeval literature usually showed the knight or warrior as the great hero who defeated the evil sorcerer: but most fantasy roleplaying games made the wizard a god and the fighter a mook.

Two main ideas were proposed at our games club. 1. Give the fighter cool abilities like we see in the movies: preternatural strength, astounding athletics, throwing swords and shields, powerful shouts resembling magic. 2. Make fighters increasingly resistant to magic. Their souls are uncorrupted by devilish deals to learn the magical arts, but they become increasingly familiar with its effects and less frightened or bothered by it.

Sixteen years later, the Fourth Edition took the first option. The second option would also be very interesting.

 

[Kaodi]

I think part of the problem in some earlier editions is that for a fighter to make a " save or die " attack in any round the way a wizard does, they need a very specific special weapon, a vorpal sword. Only in 4E did they finally get to choose when to attempt a " mortal blow " like a wizard. And the thing is, in fantasy literature (and other entertainment), fighters are awesome because the writer allows them to make " mortal blows " . St. George and the Dragon, Bard and Smaug, Grom and Mannoroth. When even fights with the BBEG last only six to ten rounds, it is really hard to get in a massive hit when you only have a 1 in 20 chance of really giving it to him. A wizard or cleric, however, often have the potential to end the fight on the very first round, especially if the BBEG has to roll higher than a 1 to make his save.

 

[Rhenny]

There should be balance to a point. I agree that balance does not mean equal. If higher level wizard spells tip the balance toward the wizard, there should be correspondingly powerful options for other classes.

I do however firmly believe that magic must be magical. It has to give PCs and NPCs the chance to achieve interesting and sometimes unthinkable results. Start with that, then balance other classes around it.

 

[Griego]

As long as I can play a Fighter, not Wizard's Bodyguard or CoDzilla's Cheerleader, I'm happy.

Edit: and that means a FIGHTER, not Ftr2/Rog3/Rng1/Brb2/Omg3/Wtf7.

 

[Mercurius]

As far back as 1982, I remember having discussions about how to write the best roleplaying game ever. One of the chief contentions was that fantastic and mediaeval literature usually showed the knight or warrior as the great hero who defeated the evil sorcerer: but most fantasy roleplaying games made the wizard a god and the fighter a mook.

Two main ideas were proposed at our games club. 1. Give the fighter cool abilities like we see in the movies: preternatural strength, astounding athletics, throwing swords and shields, powerful shouts resembling magic. 2. Make fighters increasingly resistant to magic. Their souls are uncorrupted by devilish deals to learn the magical arts, but they become increasingly familiar with its effects and less frightened or bothered by it.

Sixteen years later, the Fourth Edition took the first option. The second option would also be very interesting.

Good point. My feeling--and this is just my personal taste--is that 4E took it too far, both with the "superhero-ness" of what non-spellcasters could do (probably influenced by wuxia), but also in making all classes feel the same underneath superficial differences.

But let's also look at how the hero warrior defeats the evil sorcerer - it is usually guile, heroism, luck, the blessing of the gods, or what have you. Let us also remember that the archetype of the hero defeating the bad guy always includes a less powerful hero and a more powerful bad guy; this is the "Underdog Principle" - we always root for the little guy or gal. (Imagine how ridiculous it would be if Darth Vader was a little shrimp and Luke some badass jedi master; Luke only becomes a badass jedi master after he defeats Darth Vader).

I also like what [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] said, that fighters and wizards can be better or worse in different situations, whether in or outside of combat. To take that a step further, I've always liked the idea that wizards are more powerful in terms of the total impact they can have, but more vulnerable in terms of how easy they are to kill.

That said, when there is too much balance, and in all ways, something is lost, something magical. I would like to see the rules reflect the idea that the warrior hero cannot defeat the evil sorcerer except through indirect or heroic means. This could somewhat be accomplished by a level difference between the two--and maybe that is enough--but it doesn't quite get there, imo.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I dislike the idea that "no one should be able to defeat a prepared wizard". Why not "no one should be able to defeat a prepared fighter"? Why is being awesome through planning and preparation the sole domain of magical classes? I could never understand that.

Classes should be balanced through all levels. I don't there is a single good reason for doing otherwise. Imbalance, whether it is deliberate or accidental, is completely unnecessary and just wrecks the game for a lot of people. Fighter and Wizards should be just as strong as each other as they level up. A Fighter should have a counter-measure for anything the Wizard can throw at him. Fighters should have the HP to survive direct damage, the skills and abilities needed to turn the fight to his advantage, and the courage to endure anything. When the Fighter fails his save against a Wizard's save-or-die effect, he should still be tough enough to not die.

This is why I liked that one Tome of Battle maneuver in 3.5E that let Warblades simply ignore every bad condition affecting them. Talk about a great equalizer. They could bust their way out of a forcecage with that one.

 

[Dedekind]

This sounds so trite, but I really want whatever is most fun. I enjoyed the 3e model and the 4e model. They can both be successful.

I lean towards "guys with spikes", who can do certain necessary tasks better than anyone else.