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

[Mercurius]

One of the biggest criticisms of 3.5 and Pathfinder is that the balance of power shifts too greatly towards wizards and away from fighters at higher levels. On the other hand, a criticism of 4E has been about the homogeneity of classes, and the fact that wizards and fighters (for instance) are too balanced at every level, with little to no differentiation.

So the point of this poll is to ask this question: What is your preferred balance between the two? Are you 3.5 or 4E or something else? I'm sure someone will say "my preference isn't an option, therefore this is a badwrongpoll." Think of it as a presidential election: you might not love either candidate, but you still probably want to vote for the "lesser of two evils." In other words, just try to vote for whichever option is closest to your preference; if neither of the two main options really work, vote for the third and explain in your response.

Speaking for myself, I must say that I prefer the "classic" approach of fighters more powerful than wizards at lower levels, and the balance gradually shifting until wizards pass fighters sometime in the 7th-12th range. To me it just makes sense and fits the archetype as explicated in literature: a puny wizard that gains great power over time. So I imagine two curves: the fighter with more gradual advancement and the wizard starting lower but rising more steeply.

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.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Both cases are overstated.

That said, the classic model, that as a wizard or a cleric becomes powerful he learns to do things that are beyond what any mortal could ever do, is D&D. It's fantasy.

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

There's plenty of room for improvement over the 3.X skeleton, class balance is a part of it, and the game could certainly benefit from toning down the ease with which the spellcasters can use such a great number and variety of spells, as well as room to make the nonmagic characters more impactful in a variety of ways.

But the bottom line is that teleporting, raising the dead, and granting wishes are the province of wizards and clerics in D&D, and these things will never be balanced with swinging a sword, and they shouldn't be.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Overall balance on all levels. But not balanced by beeing equal. 4e and especially essentials did it more or less right (except rituals and martial practices not baked into both classes).

I chose the third point, because balance should not be the highest design goal. Fun should. And balance and plausibility should follow thereafter.

And I´d like to have something like rock paper scissor balance:
A mage in melee gets beaten up by th fighter, a prepared wizard can beat up the fighter. So fighters are necessary for wizards to keep the enemy away from the wizard. And the wizard helping to get the fighter/enemy into the position where the fighter can beat the enemies up properly.
Both should do a lot of damage, but in different situations.

 

[Gargoyle]

To me, balance in a pen and paper RPG is more about player satisfaction than raw power and numbers. Two classes are balanced if there is significant demand to play them at all levels.

Regarding levels, no class should feel more useful than another at higher or lower levels. The notion that wizards should be weak at low levels and powerful at high levels may work in fantasy fiction, but does not appeal to me in a game.

I voted "wrong" because I feel the 3.5 option is not my favorite, and the 4E option makes the assumption that having a balance of power between two classes is the same as homogenization. I believe the classes can work in completely different ways without one being vastly more powerful than the other at high or low levels.

 

[Belphanior]

I prefer my D&D to be like literature: Conan, Orlando Furioso, and Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Which is to say, warriors start out as the most powerful archetype and eventually become even more powerful.

No just kidding.

But I do mention them to make a point. There is no reason to appeal to literature to justify poor game design, especially when literature can just as easily justify the exact opposite.

I prefer all classes to be balanced at all levels, in the sense that they should all be able to meaningfully contribute to the successful outcome of an adventure. Whether this is due to "power" is a vague issue because it can imply generic effectiveness as well as combat performance. But in any case, the classes don't need to be the same. Balance is not synonymous for bland or identical.

 

[Mattachine]

I voted wrong because I want the characters be equally useful and engaging to play at all levels, and I mean regarding rules mechanics.

I am okay with casters learning to do amazing things as they level up, perhaps even being a bit more "powerful" than fighters at high level, but not to the degree of editions 1-3.

 

[El Mahdi]

I voted Perfectly Balanced, for...

• Rock beats Fighter
• Fighter beats Wizard
• Wizard beats Paper
• Paper beats Rock

 

[ferratus]

I don't mind if the wizard is able to do things beyond my ken as a fighter (teleportation, raising the dead, casting fireballs) but if he tries to make me his servant/bodyguard at higher levels, I want to feed him his teeth.

In other words, I don't care if he does more damage or more cool things than I do, but I want to win against a wizard of equal level on a one-on-one fight.

I want the wizard to say "Why won't you die!".

 

[Meatboy]

I'd say fighters are usually spot on in whatever edition of dnd you are playing. Wizards need to magical, I like wizards with their nifty "win" button magic, but it is annoying, esp in 3.x that a wizard's low level spells get better and they get higher level spells which then also get better.

I would say make spells all of the same general power and remove spell levels and make all spells use the same spell slots. Shoot for 3rd level spells to be you go to power level. It doesn't mean 5d6 dam fireballs at level 1 but It could mean a 3d6 fireball is the default. Then Wizards could augment spells with meta magic feats to make them more powerful and anything you couldn't get to fit into that power area you could make a ritual. If you wanted low power spells that you could "spam" they could also take up a spell slot but once they are not unmemorized when cast. Something likes this anyway.

 

[Mercule]

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.