LostSoul
Adventurer
What I'm thinking is that, while the magic-user is learning powerful spells, the fighter is gaining allies (or something else that fits on the strategic axis).
Fighter vs. Wizard - what's your preferred balance of power?
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
What I'm thinking is that, while the magic-user is learning powerful spells, the fighter is gaining allies (or something else that fits on the strategic axis).
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I'd also like to posit that, historically in D&D, part of the "balance" between fighters and wizards was that both received their class powers in large degree randomly.
Wizards don't just learn any spell. They MIGHT learn a particular new spell (if they can afford it) -- it's not a guarantee.
Likewise, a fighter doesn't gain new "powers." She gains new magic items, of which she can use the largest suite. Just as a wizard might fail to learn Fly, a fighter might successfully gain a Cloak of Flying (or something).
As time went on, D&D made wizards more reliably learn spells, and disentangled fighters from the magic equipment system via things like proficiencies. But part of the balance originally was that no one got anything, unless they were lucky. That luck wasn't any more the Wizard's than it was the Fighter's.
Which gives us another way to balance without homogeneity: making class abilities more random, and less predictable. Or, alternately, letting fighters pick their equipment as reliably as wizards pick their spells.
Wizards don't just learn any spell. They MIGHT learn a particular new spell (if they can afford it) -- it's not a guarantee.
Likewise, a fighter doesn't gain new "powers." She gains new magic items, of which she can use the largest suite. Just as a wizard might fail to learn Fly, a fighter might successfully gain a Cloak of Flying (or something).
As time went on, D&D made wizards more reliably learn spells, and disentangled fighters from the magic equipment system via things like proficiencies. But part of the balance originally was that no one got anything, unless they were lucky. That luck wasn't any more the Wizard's than it was the Fighter's.
Which gives us another way to balance without homogeneity: making class abilities more random, and less predictable. Or, alternately, letting fighters pick their equipment as reliably as wizards pick their spells.
A slight change over the levels from fighter to wizard as more powerful would be fine. 3e was not that bad for levels 1-10 in this sense, but earlier editions may have nailed it better. A more significant problem in 3e is that the cleric doesn't work that way. Clerics start about equal to non-casters and go at least as high as wizards.
But ultimately I want this kind of difference to be small. If a wizard starts a level behind in power and ends up a level ahead by epic, that's ok as long as a difference of one level is small.
But ultimately I want this kind of difference to be small. If a wizard starts a level behind in power and ends up a level ahead by epic, that's ok as long as a difference of one level is small.
Ahnehnois
First Post
I choose not to acknowledge 4e because I do not have enough experience with it to know whether it destroyed the magic/mundane distinction enough to have "fixed" the balance issues. I do, however, posit that it must either be balanced or be D&D, it can't be both. I also believe that the basic issue of high-level casters pervades through every version of D&D, as well as its spin-offs, including PF, TB, FC, and various retroclones. At what point would this idea become "precedent" rather than "mistake". How many successful and enjoyable games have to be played with this melange of classic D&D rulesets before this paradigm becomes valid?
Your point of view seems to assume that a straight-up balance of power is essential to D&D, which I disagree with. D&D is a game only in the sense that some kids running around a playground pointing at each other shouting "pew pew" is a game. D&D is not competitive. No one wins or loses. D&D is not chess, warhammer, or even Baldur's Gate. It's *possible* that you could have a party made up of high-level adventurers and a low-level commoner and have a great time.
The rules are here to describe situations and help us to decide outcomes that are not immediately obvious or which we would like to leave to chance rather than decide ourselves. Balance is a secondary goal, albeit a meaningful one.
Really, no precedent? As for that second assertion, it's a valid opinion but it certainly doesn't apply to everyone or even a majority.
Wait, so D&D would be D&D without Wish? Not all spells are created equal. Wish is certainly more iconic than Hideous Laughter and is pretty fundamental to the classic D&D conception of magic.
Hey I'm all on board with that, as long as it doesn't mean that they get abilities arbitrarily limited to use per unit time or be able to do supernatural things. I'm not here to defend the 20 level progression of the 3.X fighter. There definitely need to be some changes there.
I think what you're talking about is within the realm of divine or epic rules, not the fighter class (though I certainly agree that these things are within the scope of what the rules should cover).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.
***
The bottom line is that the poll and many of the responses seem to assume that the classic D&D model (spellcasters attaining greater power over time than others) is "unbalanced" and the 4e model (everyone gaining similar powers with flavor difference and some substantive differences based on power source) is "balanced". 3.X and its predecessors and successors are balanced enough. They're balanced in the sense that all character types can be played and enjoyed, but not in the sense that every character can take on his equal-level counterpart in a g;adiator battle. Which is why the poll overstates the case. As many respondents have said, you can have balance without making everyone the same.
I assume you are aware of the quotes from E Gary Gygax in the 1st edition AD&D PHB and DMG where he spoke about balancing the classes more than they were in OD&D. Quite specifically that one class should not overshadow another. If it matters to him, then it probably is the case that D&D was meant to be balanced. That it may not always have attained that is a separate question.
Ahnehnois
First Post
The poll posits the extreme type of "balance", explicitly that all classes should be equally powerful at all levels, referring to raw mechanical power in theoretical scenarios. This is what D&D has never had and this should not suddenly become the goal.
You're positing the pragmatic "balance" in which all classes are generally playable and people enjoy the game. This is what D&D has always had, and which the goal can be to incrementally improve upon without changing the basics of the game (as in your reference).
Big difference.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Sure they do. Teleport. Not being there is the best way not to be hit.
Agreed. Perfect balance is impossible (4e certainly doesn't have it). It's merely something that you can get arbitrarily close to in a complex syste,/
It's not quite balanced but a good effort. But as for D&D, it certainly isn't historical D&D - it's a FRPG more or less written from scratch to play in a common playstyle D&D was used for.
Not sure about that. When they were putting 4e together I would guess it a good chance they had that goal, hence the AEDU system (i.e. put all classes on an identical mechanic).
I do however agree that perfect class balance is a bit of a pipe dream and(IMO) a bit of a waste of development resources chasing a holy grail.
Better they put there effort into character design that builds flavorful results than (over) focus on balance.
(Disclaimer : Balance is an important aspect of game design, it is needed.)
Ahnehnois
First Post
I think it was the goal, and that much was given up in pursuit of it. I'm skeptical that they achieved it.
All fine points.
Teleporting out of the battle ends the fight in a draw. Or even a win if the weapon user just wanted to get the caster away.
Doesn't make weapons and skill less effective.
Similar Threads
- Poll
