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

[billd91]

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.

Balanced, sure. But by what definition? Enough to prevent one class from overshadowing another. And I think most versions of D&D achieved that. It has never been my experience that one class routinely overshadows another. I've seen players overshadow each other, but I've seen that done with all sorts of class combinations, not just caster over non-caster.

 

[Hussar]

Balanced, sure. But by what definition? Enough to prevent one class from overshadowing another. And I think most versions of D&D achieved that. It has never been my experience that one class routinely overshadows another. I've seen players overshadow each other, but I've seen that done with all sorts of class combinations, not just caster over non-caster.

Just because you haven't seen the problem doesn't mean that the problem does not exist. Extrapolating your particular group onto the masses isn't terribly useful.

After all, I have seen classes totally dominate the game. I've done it as well, the powergaming muchkin bastard that I was once upon a time.

So, let's leave our dueling anecdotes at the door.

One thing I am surprised about is the results of the poll. Given the amount of flak 4e gets for trying to achieve character balance, I would not have thought that Option A - All Balance All the Time would be so far ahead of any other option. There really isn't very much support for the classic style of balance across multiple levels.

The problem is, in addition to wizards and clerics gaining access to spells so easily (well, clerics always did) is the HUGE BLOAT of spells. Expert D&D had what? Six or eight (I forget which) spells at any given level. That's it. You had a couple of attack spells, a couple of utility spells and a couple of defensive spells.

The casters couldn't dominate the game simply because they never had the options to do so.

You want to have parity between caster and non-caster? In 3e, make all casters use the Sorcerer Spells Known table and make them spontaneous casters. There, end of problem. Fighters and fighter types are now on par with all casters.

It's the bloat of options for casters combined with the idea that "It's magic! It can do ANYTHING!" that has made this problem. Take that out of the equation and you achieve parity across the classes.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Just because you haven't seen the problem doesn't mean that the problem does not exist.

Isn't that why we have polls?

One thing I am surprised about is the results of the poll. Given the amount of flak 4e gets for trying to achieve character balance, I would not have thought that Option A - All Balance All the Time would be so far ahead of any other option. There really isn't very much support for the classic style of balance across multiple levels.

The way it's phrased is very pro-4e; it's stated as "balance" rather than "homogeneity" or somesuch, and implicitly seems to assume that the two are the same. I find it remarkable that less than half of people have said "perfectly balanced", despite the fact that that's what everyone wants in the broader sense. If you made a poll that asked whether people would rather have the same mechanical system for all classes or different ones for different classes (i.e. the thing that supposedly balances everyone), I think the results would be very different. If you read the replies, many people have qualified their answers to precisely that effect: that balance doesn't mean you need something like the power system for everyone.

You want to have parity between caster and non-caster? In 3e, make all casters use the Sorcerer Spells Known table and make them spontaneous casters. There, end of problem. Fighters and fighter types are now on par with all casters.

Really? Frankly, sorcerers are more powerful than wizards. They have such large spell lists they can do quite a bit, and their spells/day are so huge they rarely run out. I don't think that balances anything in the case of wizards.

OTOH, I do have spontaneous divine casters. The divine casters, unlike wizards, don't have to find or pay for their spells, and they have a lot of really situational ones, so limiting their selection is a good thing. I still wouldn't say that makes them not the most versatile characters in the game.

It's the bloat of options for casters combined with the idea that "It's magic! It can do ANYTHING!" that has made this problem. Take that out of the equation and you achieve parity across the classes.

I think the problem, to the extent that there is one, is that magic has no consequences.

 

[Dausuul]

I prefer the 4E approach. Fighter and wizard should remain balanced at each part of the level range. However, I would omit the word "perfectly"--see below.

One thing I am surprised about is the results of the poll. Given the amount of flak 4e gets for trying to achieve character balance, I would not have thought that Option A - All Balance All the Time would be so far ahead of any other option. There really isn't very much support for the classic style of balance across multiple levels.

I think you're confusing "dislike for fully balanced classes" with "dislike for 4E's method of achieving fully balanced classes." 4E was so zealous in its pursuit of class balance that it stripped away a lot of what made the classes unique. That's why I think "perfectly balanced" is a bad way to think of it. It's okay if the fighter is a bit stronger than the wizard at level 6 and the wizard is a bit stronger than the fighter at level 7, as long as the differences are not large and you don't have to wait more than a level or two for them to be rectified.

In addition, it's okay to have one class be a little better at combat while another is a little better at exploration or roleplaying, so long as the differences are not too large.

You want to have parity between caster and non-caster? In 3e, make all casters use the Sorcerer Spells Known table and make them spontaneous casters. There, end of problem. Fighters and fighter types are now on par with all casters.

Not really. Sorcerors still pwn noncasters at mid- to high levels. You don't need access to every spell in the book to dominate; just the crazy-broken ones. And don't underestimate the value of a sorceror's ability to cast the same spell over and over until the enemy rolls over and dies. Wizards look stronger on paper, but in actual play, the Vancian preparation requirement is a significant concern until quite high levels--you can't always bamf out and come back the next day. I don't think sorcs fall behind wizards in power until you reach the level where Quicken Spell becomes a factor.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

The first goal of combat is to survive. When the fighter and the wizard are hunting each other, the wizard has a vast advantage. The wizard therefore wins if he can negate fair fights, and teleports do that.

The problem is, in addition to wizards and clerics gaining access to spells so easily (well, clerics always did) is the HUGE BLOAT of spells. Expert D&D had what? Six or eight (I forget which) spells at any given level. That's it. You had a couple of attack spells, a couple of utility spells and a couple of defensive spells.

The casters couldn't dominate the game simply because they never had the options to do so.

This. Well, this and the vast flexibility and brokenness of certain types of spell.

You want to have parity between caster and non-caster? In 3e, make all casters use the Sorcerer Spells Known table and make them spontaneous casters. There, end of problem. Fighters and fighter types are now on par with all casters.

Hah! No. You've cut out tier 1. [urote=http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0]Sorcerors might not be tier 1, but they are still tier 2. Fighters are tier 5[/url]. You need to nerf the actual spells as well. (Look at Polymorph or Colour Spray).

The way it's phrased is very pro-4e; it's stated as "balance" rather than "homogeneity" or somesuch, and implicitly seems to assume that the two are the same. I find it remarkable that less than half of people have said "perfectly balanced", despite the fact that that's what everyone wants in the broader sense.

Perfectly balanced is like a frictionless environment. You can get arbitrarily close. But it's an impossibility where there is mechanical differentiation - and you get to diminishing returns.

Really? Frankly, sorcerers are more powerful than wizards. They have such large spell lists they can do quite a bit, and their spells/day are so huge they rarely run out. I don't think that balances anything in the case of wizards.

Try playing wizards as specialists - drop something like evocation and you get an extra spell/day. And remember that one level in every two between third and seventeenth, the wizard has a higher level spell slot than the sorceror can manage (two if specialised, and three if with a good stat). The other level, the sorceror has a grand total of one spell (and two or three slots) at the highest level - he can just cast it frequently. The wizard meanwhile has three or four slots and four spells to choose between.

At the second highest level of spells the wizard can cast, the sorceror knows a total of two spells (although can cast them up to five or six times per day). The wizard meanwhile knows four spells and can cast three to five times per day. Best case scenario for sorceror is possibly a slight win for the sorc but only slight.

Sorceror top end magic < wizard top end magic. And that matters a lot even if the sorceror has more flexibility with spells he/she has had for four levels.

I think the problem, to the extent that there is one, is that magic has no consequences.

Agreed.

 

[dkyle]

The goal should be complete and total balance at all levels of play. Note that this does not mean sameness or equivalence. A Fighter that excels at keeping the monsters off the Wizard, who'd surely get shredded otherwise, and a Wizard that excels at killing those monsters, is a potentially good balance.

If you want a game where magic is super awesome, and non-magic-users drool, then it should be a game where all PCs are magic-users, and magic-users are balanced between each other. If you want a game where fighting-men and magic-users work together and cooperate out of mutual need, which is what I think the intention of D&D always was, then they should be balanced.

 

[Ratskinner]

The more I think about this (and the more people argue about it) the more I think the game needs some modules/dials that go from "Conan" to "Elminster".

 

[Steelwill]

Ideally it would be cool if both classes at high levels are able to sunder the heavens, one with might the other with magic (ok both probably with magic, just one with a magic sword and biceps the size of volkswagons). What 4e did however was instead of bringing the fighter up to the epic level and scale that magic in 3.5 allowed, it neutered the casters, spells, and most of what magic could even do in order to achieve its touted balance. This is completely unacceptable as an approach when designing A) a fantasy game, because in fantasy magic > all, and scale should be Asura's Wrath level and up. B) a game which is supposedly only limited by our imaginations. 4E did not do a service to fighters, it did a disservice to casters and magic across the board. Fighters should be made better, not everything magical made worse to make them seem/feel better. Lowering the bar instead of raising it fails for everyone, and is very much the reason why only 4 short years after release 4E is already being succeeded. My 2 cents.

TL;DR: Fighters should legitimately be made better. This is not the same thing as making casters and magic in general all worse. Bring the fighter up, not pull the magic down.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What 4e did however was instead of bringing the fighter up to the epic level and scale that magic in 3.5 allowed, it instead neutered the casters, spells, and most of what magic could even do in order to achieve its touted balance. This is completely unacceptable as an approach when designing A) a fantasy game, because in fantasy magic > all, and scale should be Asura's Wrath level and up. B) a game which is supposedly only limited by our imaginations. 4E did not do a service to fighters, it did a disservice to casters and magic across the board. Fighters should be made better, not everything magical made worse to make them seem/feel better. Lowering the bar instead of raising it fails for everyone, and is very much a/the reason why only 4 short years after release 4E is already being succeeded. My 2 cents.

TL;DR: Fighters should legitimately be made better. This is not the same thing as making casters and magic in general all worse. Bring the fighter up, not pull the magic down.

In 4e the fighter was legitimately made better. More powerful, more versatile, more interesting to play. And a certain segment of the player base revolted against that. I can only imagine the uproar had fighters been given the ability to sunder the heavens. (Personally I think they should at epic tier but that's another issue entirely).

As for in fantasy magic > all, it depends which fantasy. Certainly not Appendix N. Conan beat Thulsa Doom. And many, many other sorcerors. Fafhrd wasn't a caster and the Grey Mouser was an inept one. And Historical D&D has, although the rules called a L1 fighter a "veteran", had a classic "start as a farmboy" arc. People want to play the fighter who overcomes magic, this reaches back to the roots of D&D, and has long been a part of fantasy. You are seeking to exclude them so far as I can tell.

TL;DR: I believe your tastes are very much minority ones and you'd be happier with Exalted than anything approaching D&D.

 

[Dausuul]

You know, it's quite possible to have wizards with "sunder the heavens" powers, and fighters without, and still maintain a reasonable balance at high levels.

One way to do it is to make wizard power be diffuse while fighter power is concentrated. A 20th-level wizard can lay waste to an army of 1st-level foes, where a 20th-level fighter could kill dozens but would ultimately be overwhelmed. But the wizard can't focus all that destructive power on a single spot, which means a 20th-level fighter can take everything a 20th-level wizard can throw at her and keep on coming. At high levels, wizards kill armies, but fighters kill wizards.

Another way, which nicely complements the first, is to have "sunder the heavens" magic be dependent on big ritual spells that take hours to prepare and cast. That keeps them from being used to dominate regular combat.

Think of it this way: The U.S. Navy has SEALs. It also has technicians who operate ballistic missile submarines. The technician controls weapons with the power to level cities. The SEAL has no attack anywhere near as devastating... but can turn the technician into mincemeat, and doesn't need a big elaborate procedure with safeguards and nuclear footballs and stuff to do it.