Might vs Magic

[Andor]

Firelance said in another thread "A fighter is a martial, weapon-using character who is as effective as his spellcasting companions at all levels of the game and in all situations, with perhaps a slight advantage in combat."

Which has me wondering, Why should a fighter be as effective as a spellcaster at everything?

To my mind that's like expecting a boxer, a doctor and an engineer to all be equally good at doing each others jobs.

Frankly it wouldn't bother me a bit if Mages were useless at combat but could do things no one else could outside of it. Or perhaps like the Magus of Ars Magica who could cast the uber-powerful combat ending spell, but only if the fighters could keep the badguys away for the 3 rounds it takes them to cast it.

The Archetypal fantasy wizard, Gandalf, almost never used magic in combat. Usually he just hit things with a sword. Merlin didn't fight that I recall.

Of course, this is D&D. We expect magic missiles and fireballs. Flying carpets and enchanted swords.

And modern roleplaying expectations want everyone to be able to contribute to every scene.

What do you guys think? Should "balance" be as hardwired in to the system as it was in 4e? Should it be as ignored as it was in 1e? Or should there be dial settings for the GM to achieve what he wants for his campaign?

 

[Sunseeker]

I believe that all classes should have a variety of things they can do. To use 4e "roles", be that striking, defending, controlling or leading.

Two characters that are strikers should be equally strikery in terms of output. Rogues would backstab, mages would shoot fireballs, but at the end of the day, both would excell at dealing damage. That mage could take up a more controllery role and do reduced damage, but have a variety of in and out of combat utility.

And so on and so forth. Two characters built to do the same thing should be roughly equal at what they do.

 

[triqui]

This is going to be a race to beat the dead horse and will finish in a long argument about edition wars.

Half the people will say balance is important, and the other half will not.

 

[Stormonu]

Dead horse here:

I don't think everybody needs to shine in every situation in every scene, but I would like to see the fighter be able to climb out of the box he's been put into in that the only thing he's good for is fighting.

Having qualities of a leader/general/director inside and outside the combat arena would be nice, as would a set of skills that would be useful in as many situations as possible.

It'd be nice to see, for example, where the Wizard warps reality (at some cost) to perform something, the fighter organizes a work team (or takes it upon himself), the rogue steals, cons or tricks someone into doing it and the cleric calls on the faithful or divine intervention to get things done.

 

[BobTheNob]

I don't think everybody needs to shine in every situation in every scene, but I would like to see the fighter be able to climb out of the box he's been put into in that the only thing he's good for is fighting.

Not to be too nit picky, but there has to be some expectation. I mean, hes a fighter, when people pick them, its not for their skill at weaving or fence fixing. His name sorta suggests why he is there in the first place. Hes a fighter...he fights!

At the start of 4e, I wanted balance to be precise and perfect. Then 4e came out and it was as close as you could get an RPG. Now Im at the end of 4e and I have totally flip flopped.

Screw balance. Im done with it. So much trouble chasing a holy grail and I had completely forgotten that character definition and distinctiveness did far more to make players fall in love with their characters than precision mechanics every did. If a rogue sux in combat, so be it, If a mage cant->swim climb->Jump then follow it up with witty conversation,suck it up.

I say to the DM's of the world. Make you games as engaging for not starting fights and balance will be that black word from your past. Let your characters be unique, let them contribute in their own way, and let the rules be pushed aside when the moment is right.

I want pen and paper to build on its strength compared to other genres : The DM's ability to improvise and adapt and reward creative play. Balance is a tertiary consideration compared to that.

 

[LordArchaon]

My latest thoughts on the matter of classes and what can distinguish them for real are about identity and strategy.
Combat roles are about tactics. Tactics are a "small thing", they shouldn't define a character class. It's identity (flavor) but more than anything strategy that defines a class IMO.

Fighter: wants to be in the middle of the battle, moves little, hits meaningfully, its presence is "important", fights in the "right way" (upfront).

Ranger: takes advantage of terrain, moves fast and much, wants to hunt down enemies that are out of reach, good at pursuit & escape, hit and run, works best in open environments.

Rogue: fights dirty, sneaky, moves to always find the weakest spot, "blinks" here and there, works best in cramped environments.​

See? They are perfectly defined like this, and still they can fill many combat roles tactically speaking. I even see the three of them being able to take the leader role, with the leader Fighter being the Warlord. In fact, the Warlord as a "martial leader" class is too limited. I would add its identity to that of the Fighter, in order to make the Fighter more interesting. Then you could also have a "Chief Thief" Rogue that "teaches the rogue tricks to allies", and a "Wilderness Guide" Ranger that "teaches the ranger ways to allies".

Other roles become more obvious when you think about the different weapons. Controller is mostly ranged/area, so better served by ranged weapons. Rogues could literally "spray" monsters with thrown darts and daggers or be snipers with their short bows or crossbows; Rangers could be typical "hunters" with longbows, moving a lot and making the prey follow them in an endless pursuit (this is also controlling at a larger scale); Fighters could be more the steady-type of archer, firing less arrows but stronger, more crippling; or he could go melee controller with hafted weapons. Striker and Defender are much more obvious. Can't see a Rogue or Ranger Defender? Well, they sure wouldn't be normal options, but later splatbooks could introduce them. A "Zorro type" could be a Rogue Defender, basically creating a messy situation that can't be ignored, while a Ranger Defender could be one that darts from enemy to enemy, being able to defend characters that are not near each other. Think Aragorn when he defends the hobbits from the nazgul.

This kind of classification works best for Martial classes. For Arcane classes, I'd like to see more of a "magic type" and "methods to gain magic" classification, like this:

Wizard: casts "constructed spells", learned by studying and memorizing. Mostly "fire and forget" (Vancian), a lot of known spells, must prepare and plan ahead to be effective. Versatile but not flexible. Good at strategy, not much at tactics.

Sorcerer: creates spells from "raw magic", not learned but innate and connected to his/her body, probably acquired by bloodline or accident, mostly at-will magic, very little variability but can shape few elements in many forms. Flexible but not versatile. Good at tactics, not much at strategy.

Warlock: channels "outsider magic", imbued into him by an external patron. Some at-will magic and some daily like summons and curses, limited by the patron. Tainted magic, its effects are best if kept at bay. Some flexibility, some strategy, but limited by patron. Opens up new tactics and strategies... (Got to think more about the Warlock)​

Not very polished, but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make...

 

[Sunseeker]

This kind of classification works best for Martial classes. For Arcane classes, I'd like to see more of a "magic type" and "methods to gain magic" classification, like this:

Wizard: casts "constructed spells", learned by studying and memorizing. Mostly "fire and forget" (Vancian), a lot of known spells, must prepare and plan ahead to be effective. Versatile but not flexible. Good at strategy, not much at tactics.

Sorcerer: creates spells from "raw magic", not learned but innate and connected to his/her body, probably acquired by bloodline or accident, mostly at-will magic, very little variability but can shape few elements in many forms. Flexible but not versatile. Good at tactics, not much at strategy.

Warlock: channels "outsider magic", imbued into him by an external patron. Some at-will magic and some daily like summons and curses, limited by the patron. Tainted magic, its effects are best if kept at bay. Some flexibility, some strategy, but limited by patron. Opens up new tactics and strategies... (Got to think more about the Warlock)​

Not very polished, but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make...

I can see the Wizard as having a lot of "small" spells that can be used frequently(ala: magic missile), while the sorcerer would have a lot of powerful but fewer-use spells.
ie: Wizard gets Magic missile as a swift action, 1d6(I don't like d4s). But he can use this three times in a round. The Sorcerer gets "Elemental Blast" for 4d6, but can only shoot 3 of them per day, while the Wizard has no limit on how many MMs he can shoot.
I would like to see the warlock get "dots" or "curses", which do minimal on-hit damage, but do 5 damage a round until saved against. Each curse can only be used once per encounter, but they'll have access to several. They'd also get a summon. They could specialize in either direction of having more curses and using them more often, or summoning bigger and more monsters.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

What do you guys think? Should "balance" be as hardwired in to the system as it was in 4e? Should it be as ignored as it was in 1e? Or should there be dial settings for the GM to achieve what he wants for his campaign?

I would like to see it balanced as it was in 1e.

 

[LordArchaon]

I can see the Wizard as having a lot of "small" spells that can be used frequently(ala: magic missile), while the sorcerer would have a lot of powerful but fewer-use spells.
ie: Wizard gets Magic missile as a swift action, 1d6(I don't like d4s). But he can use this three times in a round. The Sorcerer gets "Elemental Blast" for 4d6, but can only shoot 3 of them per day, while the Wizard has no limit on how many MMs he can shoot.
I would like to see the warlock get "dots" or "curses", which do minimal on-hit damage, but do 5 damage a round until saved against. Each curse can only be used once per encounter, but they'll have access to several. They'd also get a summon. They could specialize in either direction of having more curses and using them more often, or summoning bigger and more monsters.

Strange, we have opposite ideas on Wziards/Sorcerers... I think Sorcerers could be the "fast caster" type that casts with minor actions (minor effects, then they could also have bigger effects, but they'd still be encounter, not daily), while the Wizard has "constructed spells" in the sense that they're complex, they do many things, and as such they'd require more time to cast, and being powerful they could be used only few times per day. At the same time, they'd have at-wills, but they'd feel "constructed" as well, such as the very specific "fire javelin" we heard about.
I wrote a blog on the Sorcerer's flavor too, maybe you'll find it interesting!

 

[Sunseeker]

I would like to see it balanced as it was in 1e.

So, you mean: not at all?