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

[chitzk0i]

I think every class should have a role that it fills--no more 3E monks or bards. No class should be a mish-mash of abilities that might be useful if you work hard at it. Similarly, Some classes should not get orders of magnitude more influence on the game than others. No casting open-ended wishes while the other guy has to try and build a functioning class with his 8 bonus feats.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm going for Option E - Fighters should be stronger at all levels.

Magic gives the wizard more options. And a creative player is going to make the wizard more powerful than it should be for this reason. Therefoe you need to pitch the balance so that the fighter is stronger to end up balanced in the end.

 

[marleykat]

I voted for wrong representation, I am not concerned with equal balance in a vacuum or in a spotlight sense. I more prefer balance achieved through strength in different focuses. I like when different classes can be stronger or weaker all across the spectrum and in the end everybody is equal in different but meaningful ways.

 

[Mercule]

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.

I think "no one" or "never" are probably not quite the words I should have picked. All characters and classes should see their odds improve with preparation. I just like the idea that wizards are even more so. That also fits the 1e flavor of fighters vs wizards, where it took more thought and experience to play the wizard "successfully".

You can argue that it isn't fair that you can't play a magic-user as a newbie or that the fighter doesn't give advanced players enough options, and that's a reasonable argument. It doesn't change the fact that some players like to have more complexity to their characters and/or take a strategy-over-tactics view of the game. Making the game conform to the tactical, combat-as-sport mindset is no more fair to those players than forcing tactically minded people to play a strategic character.

I really think the answer is to recognize that there are tactical ways to play spell-slingers and strategic ways to play sword-slingers. You can have fighters and wizards both be good at both, but it's unfair to have fighters only good at tactical situations and wizards good at both. What makes sense to me is to have different classes emphasize different aspects of the tactical/strategic axis. This also seems to fit the modular and "different rules, same table" ideas that seem to be core to 5e.

That doesn't mean that you can't play a tactical caster or a strategic warrior. It means that you include this in class balance and the player picks a class that best suits his style. So, the person who wants a tactical caster chooses a warlock, warmage, beguiler, or whatever it is. The person who wants to play the thoughtful magus who can slay the dragon in the first round, but only if properly prepared, plays the wizard. There's also room for a middle ground, but I'm not sure any legacy arcanist fits that bill. Maybe bard or sorcerer, but that could be a flame war in itself.

Do the same for the martial characters. Personally, I love the idea of the ranger as a martial character who can go all Chuck Norris on your butt, if he gets to control the situation. Give them options for prepping their environment, studying foes (more assassin death strike than favored enemy), and stealth. Then don't worry about the fact that they wear lighter armor and don't have weapon focus, TWF, or a stupid-high bonus with a bow. They're aimed at more strategic players and using them tactics-first should end poorly. The fighter could exist at the other end, but I actually see something like a swashbuckler/duelist or barbarian (neither of whom are noted for deep planning, as archetypes) be the tactical focus. Let the fighter have the golf-bag-o-weapons, some stances and/or maneuvers that take a few minutes of meditation to swap out, and some extra healing surges or action points to spread over the day. That should put them in the middle, maybe slightly on the tactical side. The warlord might be set up to fill the middle-to-strategic position. The rogue should probably be extremely strategic in nature -- maybe it would be a good idea to drop the "rogue" name and stop trying to have one class fill both the thief and duelist roles.

Again, I'm definitely not saying that you can't play a mage unless you want to play a "prepare or die" character. I just want to recognize that there is are different play styles and the wizard has evolved from the 1e magic-user which was, very decidedly, in one camp. Leave it there, but give us something to fill the void. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

It was a close call, but I voted for the classic curve. However, the curve should be flattened. How much and even how I couldn't say (but there have been several excellent suggestions made by others), but it needs to be done. (All IMO, of course.) As for the Fighter vs. Wizard fight, if the Wizard can keep the Fighter at bay, the Fighter dies (or the Wizard escapes). If the Fighter can get up close and personal with the Wizard, the Wizard dies. Assuming both are of equivalent level. But this can break down at early levels, especially 1st.

 

[Yora]

At each given level, all classes should be equally able to contribute to the party, though each in different situations.

 

[Endur]

Wizards can prepare spells, which makes them great for prep (fire resistance for red dragons, etc.). Wizards are great for utility. Wizards are great for burst (fireball, sleep).

Fighters should be consistent DPS over time.

 

[Meatboy]

Maybe it's all in the name. Fighters gotta fight. They are pretty one dimensional in this regard. In earlier iterations of DnD they were the "simple" class to play. Enemy? Smash!; Door? Smash! Flying Thing? Shoot it full of arrows, toss hammers/axes/javelins at it; whatever. The problem, at least in 3.x is they stop being good at it. They need AC, HP and Saves that allow them to stand toe to toe with foes of the level and on the reverse they need the To hit bonus and damage output to be able to seriously mess said foes up. And not just with a chosen weapon either, regardless of their specialization a fighter should always be a deadly combatant. That was what made Conan such a BAMF. He could be drunk, naked, and half asleep but could still take on a group of thugs with a table knife.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

My favorite class is the wizard and I prefer the classic curve. If I survive the house cat at first level, then at the highest levels I am Miss Diana Ross and the rest of you are The Supremes.

I thought 4E did a good job in balancing the classes. Instead of toning down the casters, I'd like to see the fighters "hero up" if you will. I think fighters vs. wizards is just a subset of the low power, gritty, realistic, magic is rare or nonexistent style vs. the higher power, more magic, fantastic, superheroic style.

 

[SensoryThought]

I think that the advantages of balanced classes vs linear fighters quadratic wizards are very group mix and campaign dependent. I know a lot of groups with slow progression that can stay within the 3.5E sweet spot and if you play all martial or all magic using pcs it is again not an issue.

In terms of world flavor, if you like the idea of magic being earth shattering and high level fighters still being like normal people the 3.5 model also works great.

However, whenever a fighter or magic user pc feels useless (particularly for fighters when high level mages have a spell for every situation), this can be a problem that is difficult to address within the 3.5 framework.

Note also that the concept of the balanced d&d adventuring party exists poorly within classical sword and sorcery literature. What is great for a story where an author has full narrative control can not necessarily work well within a game.