D&D 5E How to "fix" (or at least help) the fighter/wizard dynamic. (+)

[Jer]

cantrips like mage hand, light, message really impinge on other classes… making rogues less necessary. Why do you need a rogue to handle traps when you can just safely mage hand everything?

You don’t need to scout and report when you just have cellphones. Light makes any kind of resource stress negated.

Meanwhile this is something I almost never see as a problem because my players don't see it as a problem. I find that Light especially seems to be a useless cantrip to take when everyone else in the party has low light vision anyway. The problems we see tend to come with the higher level spells.

(I think that these kinds of assumptions about gameplay make conversations like this hard. Your list and responses indicate that you and your players like a real low magic game. My tables are almost always high magic tables because that's the kind of fantasy my friends and family enjoy. Reducing magic is out because my tables would insist that we play something else instead.)

Saving throws are out right broken in 5E. As you get to higher levels it becomes impossible to succeed at a non proficient save. Characters should get better at saves as they level, not worse.

On this we can agree wholeheartedly. Even with "bounded accuracy" saves are still too far apart as level increases. And at the risk of taking this off on a tangent the decision to create "Saving Throws" for each ability score - doubling the number of saves from 3e and increasing by 1 the number of saves from 1e/2e - really feels like a hack to get something they could call a "saving throw" into the game for tradition's sake. The overlap between Saving Throws and skills also confuses even some experienced players from other editions - "why is that a strength save instead of an Athletics check?" is a question that has no real good answer.

 

[Remathilis]

Gimping casters might be part of the solution. But there are many ways of gimping casters, whether if it’s in the access of spells, or components, or the way spell alors are recovered…

cantrips are not the biggest issue however, except perhaps some like mending or light that might trivialize otherwise relatively trivial mundane challenges (except in low-magic settings, in which case any type of casting is problematic anyways).

If linear-fighter/quadratic-wizard is the issue, gimping the wizard at low levels is just frustrating, and making a class annoying to play shouldn’t be a solution to a power discrepancy issue. But slowing the exponential progression might be part of the solution, even if that means «gimping » casters.

There is a difference between toning down and gimping.

Toning down may require some spells rebalanced or moved for niche protection, but sledgehammer style moves like "arcana rolls to cast spells with consequences for failure" or "making wizards use slings until they cast their one sleep spell a day" only make wizards unfun to play and as boring as fighters. If I wanted to play "Always the First to Die", I'll play 2nd edition.

I just think you can do a lot to fix the problem without resorting to gutting magic users. Don't use a chainsaw when a scalpel is all that's needed.

 

[Minigiant]

Really seems like a lot of work just to not create another class.

I mean it fixes a lot. It's just that many would rather argue endlessly and do advanced math than make a supernatural warrior class outside of the fighter.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Then mi


Then definitely the issue is too many spells per day.

High level wizards get enough spell slots to nova every encounter unless careful attention to adventuring day is made.

But from my experiences it is almost impossible to play the game in compliance with the expected adventuring day.

It is impossible to fit in the expected number of encounters in a typical 3-4 hour session. At higher levels I expect it is hard even for an 8 hour session.

Access to rest in a bubble spells make recoveries easy.

High level spellcasters will also have wands and staves that provide unlimited charges.

The reason wizards are so much more powerful than fighters is because the game grants them practically unlimited access to their resources. Resources that were developed and balanced on the conceit that they be limited.

I disagree. It's the scope of what those spells do that's at issue. Now, I'll grant, if you really restricted castings of high level spells (it takes a week to regain a 7th level spell slot, a month to regain 8th level, and a year for 9th level) you could achieve a crude sort of balance in typical games. But that would be because most of those effects become a once or twice in an entire campaign ability for wizards. Not because they can use those abilities slightly less often in an adventure, much less the number of times they can do so per day.

A demigod who can only perform a world changing miracle once per day is nonetheless a demigod. And the guy with the sword is still just a guy with a sword, regardless of whether the demigod can perform one or an unlimited number of miracles per day.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Really seems like a lot of work just to not create another class.

I mean it fixes a lot. It's just that many would rather argue endlessly and do advanced math than make a supernatural warrior class outside of the fighter.

I think the biggest issue with creating another class is balance with the current classes.

It would seem to me like a supernatural warrior (depending on just hard far you go, of course), might rival wizards, but would end up out-shining all the other classes like rangers, monks, rogue, etc. who aren't supernatural warriors.

Do you not see a possible balance issue? What are your thoughts exactly on it?

 

[Cadence]

Really seems like a lot of work just to not create another class.

I mean it fixes a lot. It's just that many would rather argue endlessly and do advanced math than make a supernatural warrior class outside of the fighter.

For balance, what do you picture the supernatural warrior being better or worse than the fighter (or rogue/monk/ranger/barbarian) in, both in and out of combat?

 

[Yaarel]

I think the biggest issue with creating another class is balance with the current classes.

It would seem to me like a supernatural warrior (depending on just hard far you go, of course), might rival wizards, but would end up out-shining all the other classes like rangers, monks, rogue, etc. who aren't supernatural warriors.

Do you not see a possible balance issue? What are your thoughts exactly on it?

I notice, it is pretty hard to "out-shine" a Paladin.

Paladin is my go-to for a supernatural warrior, such as Norse Thor.

 

[Minigiant]

I think the biggest issue with creating another class is balance with the current classes.

It would seem to me like a supernatural warrior (depending on just hard far you go, of course), might rival wizards, but would end up out-shining all the other classes like rangers, monks, rogue, etc. who aren't supernatural warriors.

Do you not see a possible balance issue? What are your thoughts exactly on it?

I don't see a balance problem. Nor to i fear it

Numbers can be balanced.

A demigod strongman and a barbaric berserker would each have strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Minigiant]

For balance, what do you picture the supernatural warrior being better or worse than the fighter (or rogue/monk/ranger/barbarian) in, both in and out of combat?

Equal.

The supernatural warrior would be a lot more narrow in combat in exchange for whatever out of combat they get out of expanded use of their power.

 

[Yaarel]

Hexblade is also a successful gish, albeit a fullcaster that is competent in melee.

Well, I think part of that is really more if you want high-magic settings, it makes sense to allow fighters to have magical powers as well (why have a mundane class in a high-magic setting???).

So, the problem is:

1. You want high magic, but fighters don't function as they are in such a setting without tons of magic items.

2. You want low magic, so fighters work fine, but then casters as they are become way too powerful in comparison.

3. And then you have the mid-magic setting, where fighters can be enough with some decent magic items, and powerful casters just push the edge of being too storng.

However, 1 and 3 both rely on magic items or giving fighters superpowers (to some extend or other) and 2 relies on gimping casters.

Having just read @FrozenNorth's post on "simple truths" for a setting, such questions would determine which group you belong to above.

I disagree with 2, that claims casters are more powerful than Fighters.

In 5e, hit points and the elimination of them, are a big deal. The Fighter and other heavy-hitters are way more powerful than other classes.

A dead opponent cant cast spells or do anything. In a combat encounter, heavy-hitters are more powerful than shenanigans-doers.