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

[Grydan]

If level doesn't mean power level, and thus all characters of a given level are of equal power, then what useful purpose does it serve?

If a wizard is more powerful than the fighter, then he's a higher level than the fighter.

If a fighter is more powerful than the wizard, then he's a higher level than the wizard.

If you then want to have one be consistently more powerful than another, or have one achieve power at different rates, you can do it by adjusting the rate of levelling.

Want the fighter to start out more powerful, but for the wizard to gradually eclipse them?

Then have the fighter start at level 3, but level at a steady rate and never go above some arbitrary level like 12. Meanwhile, the wizard starts at level 1, and stays there for a longer time than it takes the fighter to level, but each subsequent level is easier to reach than the last, and you aren't capped at 12.

With this approach, it's also easy to come up with power curves that haven't previously been used.

If you're going to have magic, magic should be magical, and completely beyond anything nonmagic. Moreover, it should be mysterious and dangerous.

Magic can be magical, mysterious, dangerous, and able to do things that are completely outside of the capacity of nonmagical means.

It can do all of these things without being able to do the things that nonmagical means can do better than nonmagical means can do them.

It can even do all of these things if it's completely unable to do things that nonmagical means can.

Magical and powerful are not synonyms.

Situational balance. Fighters should perform pretty consistently across most of the adventuring day. Wizards should be more swingy. And: No one beats a prepared wizard. Conversely, the unprepared wizard dies quick.

Going back to the "combat as war/combat as sport" thread, I guess the fighter should better support the combat as sport style and the wizard should better support the combat as war style. That's not an absolute, but it's the right sort of nod for me. I'm also okay with throwing in a warlock for the players who want a magical combat as sport character and something for the martial combat as war players -- I'd probably say the ranger, but the rogue or certain incarnations of the warlord could serve that roll, too.

The issue that I have with consistent vs. swingy is that situational balance like this is only balance in some situations.

If you have a campaign where every adventuring day has at most one fight, the fact that the wizard is only at their peak for one fight per day isn't swingy at all. It's as consistent as the fighter is. So if that peak is higher than the fighter's, there's no balance, because the wizard is strictly superior.

A campaign where the adventuring day has approximately the same number of fights that the designers balanced around will have the difference between swingy and consistent average out, as designed.

Then the campaign where you have twice the amount of fights per day as the designers anticipated, the fighter is clearly superior. The swingy wizard is hosed.

This is the reason I prefer systems where everyone has approximately the same amount of swinginess or consistency, or that the degree of swinginess is a result of your choices during that adventuring day, rather than the choice of which class to write down on your sheet.

It frees you from the constraints of how much combat the designers anticipated, leaving the amount of combat up to the dictates of the individual campaign.

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.

The issue I have with balance across pillars is pretty much the same one I have with balance across levels and balance across the adventuring day.

In any campaign that doesn't cover the range of levels the designers anticipated, in any adventuring day that doesn't have the number of fights the designers anticipated, and in any campaign that doesn't mix the percentages of play in each pillar in the proportions the designers anticipated, any "balance" the system can claim to have flies out the window.

In a system where level=power, and everyone levels at the same rate, you can have a campaign starting at any level, and running though any set of levels, and still have balance.

In a system where swinginess isn't determined by class, then any mix of classes can have adventuring days of any arbitrary length without hosing OR over-rewarding any character due to a choice made in char-gen.

In a system where each class contributes meaningfully in each pillar, in their own way, and no class is "best", then any class is viable in any campaign, adventure, or adventuring day, regardless of how much play happens in any pillar.

In a system that all three of these things are true, a player can pick any class that appeals to them, and know they're going to be able to meaningfully contribute regardless of where the adventuring day, session, or overall campaign takes them.

That's the sort of system I want to play in.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Magic can be magical, mysterious, dangerous, and able to do things that are completely outside of the capacity of nonmagical means.

It can do all of these things without being able to do the things that nonmagical means can do better than nonmagical means can do them.

It can even do all of these things if it's completely unable to do things that nonmagical means can.

Magical and powerful are not synonyms.

They aren't necessarily synonymous in theory, but in D&D they certainly are. An enchanter can control minds, a rogue can bluff you. A cleric can heal you from the brink of death to perfect health in a matter of seconds, an expert with maxed skill ranks can do it in a few days. A fighter with whirlwind attack can damage a small group of opponents quickly, but this is nothing compared to a sorcerer's horrid wilting. The spell slots per day limitation is a pretty ineffective balancing factor.

D&D has always had very powerful magic effects, has always doled them out by class, and has rarely imposed any real costs or challenges to using magic. One could imagine a paradigm where this was not the case (though this describes most fantasy rpgs), but you'd lose the D&D-ness pretty fast if you tried to make magic less powerful.

In many fictional approaches, magic is a temptation, the power that corrupts. I don't particularly see a problem with mages becoming too powerful for their own good. That's the archetype, and there are some powerful themes underlying it.

There is room to shift magic away from doing the things that are in other characters' wheelhouse. For example, limiting knock is a good idea, to let the rogue pick some locks. Furthermore, martial characters can win on toughness and defensive prowess and gain advantages in the action economy.

You can have balance in the sense of everyone being able to do things and have fun, but when your game posits a capstone spell named 'Wish', there's always going to be something separate and powerful about magic characters.

 

[SensoryThought]

If a wizard is more powerful than the fighter, then he's a higher level than the fighter.

If a fighter is more powerful than the wizard, then he's a higher level than the wizard.

Um, you know that's not how 3E works?

Personally I think this is an interesting thread as the imbalance of 3E and the forced equivalence of 4E have both drawn heavy criticism, which makes me think it comes more down to preferred gaming style than one or the other being right.

My vote does ultimately lie with 4E as one can deal with making high level magic users feel uber by giving them extensive access to rituals (and i use homebrew rituals and 3rd party products). This can allow for them to have mystical and very powerful abilities. The slower casting time of rituals and component cost can limit their advantage over other classes' at-will abilities (rogue lock pick, bardic charisma) and also prevent them becoming relatively overpowered in combat.

 

[FireLance]

I think the ideal is for all characters to have the potential to be more or less equal (standard caveat: equal does not mean identical, etc.) at all levels.

In practical implementation, however, this runs up against the "problem" that martial ability is usually seen as more limited than magic. Hence, it often seems implausible that a pure-classed fighter could approach the power and flexibility of a high-level wizard.

Perhaps the solution to this is that past a certain level, you no longer have pure-classed fighters. Essentially, it is similar to the 4e concept of Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, except that your Paragon Path or Epic Destiny has an even greater impact on your character's abilities.

So, in order to keep up with your Epic Archmage companion, your fighter needs to become a Legendary Hero, or a Demigod. Your friend may be able to cast wish, but you are also able to (literally) move mountains and re-route rivers on the strength (ha!) of your own abilities. Perhaps there could also be a "Gonzo Martial" option for players who are willing to stretch the limits of martial ability, and an explicity less powerful "Mundane Fighter" option for those who don't mind the historical balance of power.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The issue I have with balance across pillars is pretty much the same one I have with balance across levels and balance across the adventuring day.

In any campaign that doesn't cover the range of levels the designers anticipated, in any adventuring day that doesn't have the number of fights the designers anticipated, and in any campaign that doesn't mix the percentages of play in each pillar in the proportions the designers anticipated, any "balance" the system can claim to have flies out the window.

I'd like to posit that the pillars are different for one big reason: they are usually controlled by the players themselves, not by the DM.

The DM presents a situation: there are orcs attacking the town. The players are the ones who present a solution, and the solution might come from any of those pillars. They might sneak into the orc camp and kill the chief (exploration). They might negotiate a peace treaty (interaction). They might go there and wipe out the army (combat). All of the ways are entirely valid. Some might be easier than others. The DM doesn't rule out any of them.

So you, as the player of the fighter, get to determine how often fightin' solves the problem. As the player of the wizard, you get to determine how often teleportin' solves the problem. As a party.

So the DM doesn't determine the mixture of pillars. The players of the fighter, wizard, or whatever, determines the mixture of pillars.

 

[Aenghus]

I prefer 4e-type balance to all-or-nothing methods proported to provide "balance" - spell disruption, aging, system shock, death chances on teleport etc etc. In my experience the latter mechanics are catastrophic in the hands of bad GMs and prone to massive error in the hands of average GMs. While rules can't prevent a bad GM from being bad, it can facilitate and encourage badness, and this is the way I see small-chance-of-hosing-the-PC rules.

For instance, teleports with a death chance tempt some players to play chicken with the referee - many referees will balk at TPKing the party on a teleport and fudge the roll to something survivable. Back in 1e and 2e days I know players who would never teleport alone precisely to coerce the referee into fudging or facing a TKP and the end of the campaign. Other players would have their PCs teleport only in the face of almost certain death, which IMO is going too far in the other direction.

So I prefer equality between casters and non-casters, less powerful magic that doesn't need to be watched like a hawk, as opposed to broken magic with lethal limitations that are written to be fudged most of the time - I very seldom saw system shock rolls being demanded for ageing, polymorph etc, the referee just "forgot".

 

[TwinBahamut]

They aren't necessarily synonymous in theory, but in D&D they certainly are. An enchanter can control minds, a rogue can bluff you. A cleric can heal you from the brink of death to perfect health in a matter of seconds, an expert with maxed skill ranks can do it in a few days. A fighter with whirlwind attack can damage a small group of opponents quickly, but this is nothing compared to a sorcerer's horrid wilting. The spell slots per day limitation is a pretty ineffective balancing factor.

D&D has always had very powerful magic effects, has always doled them out by class, and has rarely imposed any real costs or challenges to using magic. One could imagine a paradigm where this was not the case (though this describes most fantasy rpgs), but you'd lose the D&D-ness pretty fast if you tried to make magic less powerful.

I don't agree at all that imbalance is essential to the "D&D-ness" of D&D. Sure, every edition of D&D (other than 4E, which you fail to acknowledge) has has a severe imbalance between Fighters and Wizard. This is not precedent for keeping that imbalance, it is evidence for the claim that they were flawed games that need improvement. That imbalance is a problem, not something to be happy about.

It is fine to want magic to be different, but I see no good reason for deliberately favoring magic over non-magic in raw power. If you do, you destroy the basic assumption of D&D that every party member is a valuable part of a team of heroes. And i consider that assumption to be far more critical to the basic idea of D&D than an imbalance born from accident and bad game design.

In many fictional approaches, magic is a temptation, the power that corrupts. I don't particularly see a problem with mages becoming too powerful for their own good. That's the archetype, and there are some powerful themes underlying it.

This idea of magical temptation has no precedent in D&D. Also, mages in D&D never become too powerful for their own good. They become too powerful for the campaign's good, or even for the game's good. Basically, it is everyone other than the magic-user who suffers in an imbalanced game.

There is room to shift magic away from doing the things that are in other characters' wheelhouse. For example, limiting knock is a good idea, to let the rogue pick some locks. Furthermore, martial characters can win on toughness and defensive prowess and gain advantages in the action economy.

You can have balance in the sense of everyone being able to do things and have fun, but when your game posits a capstone spell named 'Wish', there's always going to be something separate and powerful about magic characters.

D&D doesn't posit a capstone spell called "Wish". That's just one spell, no more essential to the game than a Hideous Laughter spell. If anything, it is one of the most poorly designed spells in the game, that pretty much causes a total breakdown of the spell system.

I think the ideal is for all characters to have the potential to be more or less equal (standard caveat: equal does not mean identical, etc.) at all levels.

In practical implementation, however, this runs up against the "problem" that martial ability is usually seen as more limited than magic. Hence, it often seems implausible that a pure-classed fighter could approach the power and flexibility of a high-level wizard.

Perhaps the solution to this is that past a certain level, you no longer have pure-classed fighters. Essentially, it is similar to the 4e concept of Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, except that your Paragon Path or Epic Destiny has an even greater impact on your character's abilities.

So, in order to keep up with your Epic Archmage companion, your fighter needs to become a Legendary Hero, or a Demigod. Your friend may be able to cast wish, but you are also able to (literally) move mountains and re-route rivers on the strength (ha!) of your own abilities. Perhaps there could also be a "Gonzo Martial" option for players who are willing to stretch the limits of martial ability, and an explicity less powerful "Mundane Fighter" option for those who don't mind the historical balance of power.

I'm not sure if Fighters need to stop being Fighters at high levels. They just need to be allowed to genuinely become high-level Fighters.

There are plenty of great examples of high-level warrior-type characters in the bast breadth of legend, fantasy literature, and pop culture. They range from low-level figures like Lancelot and Conan to warriors of real strength like the Monkey King of Chinese lore (immortality through brute force, gotta like it). People need to simply open up their realm of inspiration and stop forcing Fighters to act like low-level mooks when they are level 17. Moving mountains are rivers is not "non-fighter", it is pretty much the definition of high-level Fighters of myth and fiction.

Addressing your comments more directly, I don't think a Paragon Path or Epic Destiny system is the way to go. For one, I don't think that system worked very well in 4E, and would be happier to see it go than to see it stay. Also, trying to balance the Fighter with the Wizard through those methods won't exactly work. The Fighter will still have an underpowered set of class abilities, and the Wizard will likely be given Paragon and Epic options just as powerful as the Fighter's, meaning the Fighter doesn't really gain anything.

 

[Ratskinner]

There are a lot of good comments on this thread. I voted "wrong". I've come to believe "balance" is an illusion (although imbalance isn't.) Trying to make sure all the classes are balanced is a futile effort, you cannot reach it without accidentally creating something else instead. (I'm not just talking about D&D, plenty of Indie games work well for proving this point as well.) Additionally, campaigns vary so much (and should) that what counts as balanced in one may be imbalanced in another.

The general solution is option and choices, both for the campaign/group and for the individual player. The specific solution to the crisis of fighter/caster balance is to put consequences and risk back into magic use. How and to what degree?...options/modules.

 

[Minigiant]

One thing I want more emphaszed more it the rigidity of magic.

A prepared wizard who is not outmatched in power is almost impossible to defeat.

The problem is... it is hard to be a prepared wizard.
Why?
Magic spells has many hardcoded laws and counters.
Death wards block and counter death spells. Mindblanks block and counter mind effecting spells. (This means every spell requires an easily accessed counter.)

But swords and armors have no automatic blockage. The effectiveness might lower but it can never be outright stopped (Die Forcewall immunity).

 

[FireLance]

I'm not sure if Fighters need to stop being Fighters at high levels. They just need to be allowed to genuinely become high-level Fighters.

That would be the "Wahoo Martial" option I mentioned.

There are plenty of great examples of high-level warrior-type characters in the bast breadth of legend, fantasy literature, and pop culture. They range from low-level figures like Lancelot and Conan to warriors of real strength like the Monkey King of Chinese lore (immortality through brute force, gotta like it).

I'm quite familiar with the legend, and I'm afraid fighting is only a fraction of his abilities. In the first place, he's not even a natural creature: he was hatched from an egg of stone. Then, he went to study magic (72 transformations). His immortality was "earned" through a variety of methods, including thievery: he crossed out his name from the King of Death's register, and he stole and ate peaches and pills of immortality. He was effectively a demigod, and was probably powergamed and multiclassed to the hilt. And he was definitely not travelling with a balanced party.

Addressing your comments more directly, I don't think a Paragon Path or Epic Destiny system is the way to go. For one, I don't think that system worked very well in 4E, and would be happier to see it go than to see it stay. Also, trying to balance the Fighter with the Wizard through those methods won't exactly work. The Fighter will still have an underpowered set of class abilities, and the Wizard will likely be given Paragon and Epic options just as powerful as the Fighter's, meaning the Fighter doesn't really gain anything.

I'm of the view that epic destinies could have mattered more if they had been more like themes and offered characters the option to swap out class powers for epic destiny powers.

That said, my previous post came from the perspective that fighter abilities could plausibly be balanced with magic spells at Heroic and maybe Paragon levels. Using epic destinies to step outside of the pure fighter concept is more a way to add plausibility to the idea that a character who started out as a normal humanoid warrior could break the laws of physics as we know them. It's not an exercise in giving fighters and wizards balanced abilities at Epic level (they should have been balanced all along); it's an exercise in making balanced high-level fighter abilities more plausible by making them not entirely martial in nature.