Fighters vs Wizards - A New (?) Look at Balance...

[Mishihari Lord]

Balance aside, what I hated about wizards is that they can replace any class (except healers) with ease. This is way I shift+deleted the class from my game and written an entirely new way of magic. We never had problems since

This I had as an issue with, particularly with magic-user abilities making the thief superfluous. I was able to solve it through adventure design though.

 

[Stormonu]

One big things that keeps wizards in line in actual play is their spellbook. While feasibly wizards could solve any problem given time, the limits of what's in their spellbook (and available via scrolls and wands) can keep them from getting carried away. Sorcerers have in-built limitations.

Clerics are actually the ones that can cause more problems as being a utilitarian as they only need some time to swap out to any spell on their list - and the more books in use, the bigger their selection.

 

[Fetfreak]

This I had as an issue with, particularly with magic-user abilities making the thief superfluous. I was able to solve it through adventure design though.

That's how I did it in the beginning but it became bothersome, so I went to the core of the problem.

 

[Fetfreak]

One big things that keeps wizards in line in actual play is their spellbook. While feasibly wizards could solve any problem given time, the limits of what's in their spellbook (and available via scrolls and wands) can keep them from getting carried away. Sorcerers have in-built limitations.

Clerics are actually the ones that can cause more problems as being a utilitarian as they only need some time to swap out to any spell on their list - and the more books in use, the bigger their selection.

Oh yes, but don't forget druids! One of my players really did a number on me with a druid character.

 

[TMRose]

If the Caster knows what to expect he is superior. But it something unexpected comes up the fighter is often better able to handle it..
For example a rogue comeing out of the shadows , striking a fighter and the fighter is going to be upset and then trash the rogue. A Wizard caught off guard is dogmeat.
Same if your Wizards with a ton of firebased spells suddenly runs into a fire elemental. Or a Wizard with lots of illusion spells is faceing undead that pay no attention to illusions etc.

 

[Fetfreak]

If the Caster knows what to expect he is superior. But it something unexpected comes up the fighter is often better able to handle it..
For example a rogue comeing out of the shadows , striking a fighter and the fighter is going to be upset and then trash the rogue. A Wizard caught off guard is dogmeat.
Same if your Wizards with a ton of firebased spells suddenly runs into a fire elemental. Or a Wizard with lots of illusion spells is faceing undead that pay no attention to illusions etc.

This is true, but my players always investigate as much as they can before venturing into the dangerous part, and even then the player who plays the wizard prepares the backup spells just in case if the party over saw something in their planing or didn't investigate enough.
I might sound bitter but I really only had trouble with spell casters in my game...

 

[Nytmare]

I personally never had trouble with a caster in a game I ran (mostly because we favored E6), but I was frequently one of the wizardly trouble makers in games I played in.

I think one of the biggest "problems" was the introduction of a play style where you didn't have to put in the time and energy making sure that a spellcaster survived to the levels where he became problematic. I had always operated under the assumption that the ultra-powerful, high level mage was the reward you got in earlier editions for toughing it out and being so fragile for so long.

In my opinion, the only other balance point for having a 3.5ish edition spellcaster in the party was for everybody to play a 3.5ish edition spellcaster.

 

[TMRose]

This is true, but my players always investigate as much as they can before venturing into the dangerous part, and even then the player who plays the wizard prepares the backup spells just in case if the party over saw something in their planing or didn't investigate enough.
I might sound bitter but I really only had trouble with spell casters in my game...

Well, even if they prepare that does not mean they will know everything.. for example they might know the the leeader of some Orc brigands is a tough fighter and very brutal and sadistic, but the fact that he a vampire might not be known. Or the Duke new young wife is conniving immoral and evil but is she or is she not a sucubus?
Might also point out both Players and Gm tend to Alpha strike anyone they think might be a caster. After all if you see 4 drow , one in Plate with a two handed sword, another in leather with Rapier and short sword, a third in chainmail with mace and holy symbol of Loth and a forth in robes and carrying a staff, who do you alpha strike? And itelligent Monster will do the same when they see four similar adventurers

 

[Fetfreak]

Well, even if they prepare that does not mean they will know everything.. for example they might know the the leeader of some Orc brigands is a tough fighter and very brutal and sadistic, but the fact that he a vampire might not be known. Or the Duke new young wife is conniving immoral and evil but is she or is she not a sucubus?
Might also point out both Players and Gm tend to Alpha strike anyone they think might be a caster. After all if you see 4 drow , one in Plate with a two handed sword, another in leather with Rapier and short sword, a third in chainmail with mace and holy symbol of Loth and a forth in robes and carrying a staff, who do you alpha strike? And itelligent Monster will do the same when they see four similar adventurers

I know all of that but the game still requires the DM to tweak the adventure or a battle so casters wouldn't have the advantage. I personally use vampires, demons and other on very rare occasions, to make the enemies special. If I were to that every time the wizard is well prepared, my adventures would loose their flavor. As for alpha striking, since it is such a habit of both monsters and parties, it would be silly for a mage to walk into a battle without necessary protections and without guile. Luckily for him, rules make this easily possible as well.

Don't get me wrong, many like the casters and have no problems with them and know how to deal with them, but the class was too broken and unbalanced for me so I changed it all around.

 

[timASW]

Its not just about dealing Moar Damage, wizards have the ability to subvert or avoid obstacles with spells like invisiblity, wizard eye, esp, dominate, teleport and many, many more spells.

Personally, I'd like to see 4th level spells and above be far less available than in older editions.

The abovbe would only be a problem if at some point you had heard your fighter player complaining that the wizard kept using magic to get around puzzles and such.

But since the people who play fighters generally also dont want to screw with that stuff in 20 years of gaming I've never seen a player complain that the wizard could get them past an obstacle. On the contrary far more often it goes "oh a puzzle,cliff, magical door etc, get the wizard so we can get on with the adventure"

Complaining about is like complaining that you call for the rogue when you want to sneak in somewhere and spy or the fighter to block a doorway from a horde of monsters.

There is no balance issue there, just a pillaring of roles. Wizards just happen to fall into the other category.