Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[delericho]

That's a bit naive though. They do gain more spells, but their existing spells don't increase in DC and become less useful over time.

The thing is, as they go up in level the Wizard will typically change the use of those low-level slots. They drop the classic offensive spells (which, as you rightly note, become less useful), and replace them with either save-free debuffs against the enemy or, more likely, with buffs for themselves and/or allies. Sleep disappears, but it is replaced with nerveskitter, which never loses its benefit.

Of course, that also neglects the role of magic items - through the use of wands and cheap scrolls, a Wizard who is so inclined can effectively bypass the Vancian casting that is the primary balance for his class.

But I'll agree that my analysis of the almost-linear Fighter vs the at-least-cubic Wizard is certainly not exactly rigorous. For all that, though, I am reasonably convinced that the conclusion is sound - Wizards advance at a much steeper rate than the Fighter.

YMMV, of course.

(I should also probably note that when dealt with at the table, I've not seen huge problems. My most recent campaign ran from 1st to 15th level, with a party consisting of a Ranger, a Rogue, a Cleric/Fighter, an Artificer, and a Wizard (Diviner). For a while, we also had a Druid and a Psion. In that campaign, all the characters were able to contribute meaningfully, and right throughout the campaign. It was obvious that the casters were both more powerful and more flexible... but it was never game-breaking.)

 

[Ranes]

Wizards have more weaknesses than players sometimes remember but they are more powerful than fighters of the same level.

However, this doesn't bother me and it has rarely bothered anyone I've played the game with. In play, I have rarely seen a fighter player being sidelined or becoming disgruntled at his character's level of effectiveness (relative to that of a wizard).

Consequently, I'm always a little bemused by threads that seek to prove how wizards could dominate an actual game (usually at the expense of that game continuing much longer) and consider the issue to be the Internet-age D&D player's equivalent of a moral panic.

Players who seek to dominate play will do so regardless of system.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But I'll agree that my analysis of the almost-linear Fighter vs the at-least-cubic Wizard is certainly not exactly rigorous. For all that, though, I am reasonably convinced that the conclusion is sound - Wizards advance at a much steeper rate than the Fighter.

YMMV, of course.

(I should also probably note that when dealt with at the table, I've not seen huge problems. My most recent campaign ran from 1st to 15th level, with a party consisting of a Ranger, a Rogue, a Cleric/Fighter, an Artificer, and a Wizard (Diviner). For a while, we also had a Druid and a Psion. In that campaign, all the characters were able to contribute meaningfully, and right throughout the campaign. It was obvious that the casters were both more powerful and more flexible... but it was never game-breaking.)

My experience has always been that spellcasters sound a lot more powerful than they actually are, and even if we assume that spellcasters gain more for advancement (which they do), it should be understood that they start with less.

I'm inclined to say that a 17th level wizard or cleric is probably more powerful on paper than a fighter or rogue at that level, but even that hasn't really played out in games where I've reached that level. Conversely, a 1st level fighter or rogue is clearly more powerful than any of the major spellcasters by quite a bit. Thus, the case for a fighter is easy to make. You'll definitely be useful now, you'll probably always be, whereas playing a spellcaster is something of a gamble (albeit an enjoyable one on occasion).

 

[delericho]

Conversely, a 1st level fighter or rogue is clearly more powerful than any of the major spellcasters by quite a bit.

Than the Wizard, sure. I would probably argue that the Druid is on a par with the Fighter or Rogue. And the Cleric is probably more powerful even at 1st level. (That may well be deliberate - it seems people have always needed bribed to play the Cleric!)

But at that level, it's pretty marginal either way. And, as I said, I've never had a problem in a real game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Than the Wizard, sure. I would probably argue that the Druid is on a par with the Fighter or Rogue. And the Cleric is probably more powerful even at 1st level. (That may well be deliberate - it seems people have always needed bribed to play the Cleric!)

But at that level, it's pretty marginal either way. And, as I said, I've never had a problem in a real game.

Fair enough; the divine casters weren't in my equation there. I'd still take the nonmagical guys, but not by a wide margin.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It also neglects the way that defenses scale. Saves scale at either an equivalent rate to highest spell DC or slightly slower, but AC does not scale at all. Magic items to boost saves are much cheaper. In 2e, characters become virtually immune to magic at high levels. In 3e, this is less pronounced, but it still becomes more difficult for high-level spellcasters to use any direct effects.

Even with save-boosting items scaling more efficiently than Intelligence-boosting items, that last sentence is usually incorrect. Casters boost their key stat, other classes boost their key stats, which aren't always a save stat (and if so, is one of three save stats). Wizards can also pick on a conspicuously low save (eg a warrior's Will save is probably low, a mage's Fort save is probably low). Unlike in 2e, landing a spell on a target becomes easier in 3e.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Well It seems pretty much like dogma so I will leave it there, although I will say that whether a class is powerful or weak or dominates the game depends on the DM and how powerful he allows the class to become. I don't think there is anything absolute about it, but since such a suggestion is received with so much hostility I don't think there is any point in arguing. I think that whether a class breaks the game or not depends on whether the DM allows it to, not something inherent in the game. But since any questioning of that assertion regarding fighters and spellcasters is received with so much hostility I will not bother making any more posts in the thread and simply consider this matter resolved or dropped.

I've been confused by most of this post, and this one most specifically.
The statement about powerful or weak being up to the DM is contrary to your OP, I'm not sure what your views are.
Much of your posts about Wizards describe the mindset of the Wizard and the cultural opinion of the world viewing the Wizard. You appear to have a singular expectation about how all Wizards are likely to be, and how the surrounding society will respond.
Can you help me understand where your perspective is coming from? Where did you develop your understanding of Wizards?

My good man, are you sure you aren't confusing the polite exchange of ideas with enmity? To simply disagree is not to be hostile, and I would hope the forum regulars have been polite when addressing your points?

To second @Dandu's statement, please don't take disagreement as hostility. Instead, accept it as intellectual challenge and the opportunity to refine what you mean.

A world where all Wizards are somewhat mad could make for a fun campaign world to play in, but it is by no means the only world Wizards could make.

 

[The Joker]

petty i know, but i just want to say:

tomb of battle.

i know most people think it is broken but i find its the perfect counter-argument to people who insist that spellcasting is over powered.

 

[Ranes]

Petty I know but it's "Tome of Battle". The spelling might be easier to recall if you remember that tome rhymes with Rome.

But to your point, I think that was ToB's function, to seek to redress some of the power imbalance between the martial and arcane classes.

Unfortunately for me, I found its inspiration to be too Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon for my tastes. I would also have much preferred to see arcane power constrained, rather than an escalation of the arms race D&D always undergoes as an edition matures.

But that's just me, I know.

 

[Dandu]

I've been confused by most of this post, and this one most specifically.
The statement about powerful or weak being up to the DM is contrary to your OP, I'm not sure what your views are.
Much of your posts about Wizards describe the mindset of the Wizard and the cultural opinion of the world viewing the Wizard. You appear to have a singular expectation about how all Wizards are likely to be, and how the surrounding society will respond.
Can you help me understand where your perspective is coming from? Where did you develop your understanding of Wizards?

I have wondered about this as well. He seems to think all wizards are as dysfunctional as like Raistlin Majere, ignoring ones like Merlin, Gandalf, and Prospero.