D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[pemerton]

There might be some semantic ambiguity going on here. What is meant by "choose"? In a typical GM running the world style the GM certainly creates NPCs and environments, thus choosing what they're like, but the players will still choose where their characters go, thus choosing the environment, and they will choose how to approach the NPCs thus choosing whether the NPC becomes an antagonist. I really don't understand what the GM choosing RP objectives would mean though.

That could be easy.

Suppose you offer XP if someone befriends an NPC, has a NPC they have befriended die, make everyone at the table laugh. Hand out bonds and backgrounds, and associate those bonds and backgrounds with goals - and grant XP when you reach those pre-assigned goals.

The goals stuff in particular is what I thought of.

 

[NotAYakk]

The goals stuff in particular is what I thought of.

I mean, the game and the GM could choose to reward certain goals, and be explicit about it.

You can ignore the mechanics of Settlers of Catan, and change your goal to be "preserve as much of the island as possible from exploitation". But the game mechanics fight you on it. If you "choose" your goal as "gain more points" or even "build more settlements", did you choose it, or was the choice almost entirely made for you by the game mechanics?

 

[soviet]

So here's an idea. What if after a certain point (say, level 7) Fighters progressed two (or even three) levels of abilities for every one that full casters progressed? So my level 8 wizard adventures with a level 10 fighter. My level 10 wizard adventures with a level 14 (or even 16) fighter.

Is there a point there where the maths work out such that being a basic linear fighter matches up to being a quadratic wizard?

 

[M_Natas]

So here's an idea. What if after a certain point (say, level 7) Fighters progressed two (or even three) levels of abilities for every one that full casters progressed? So my level 8 wizard adventures with a level 10 fighter. My level 10 wizard adventures with a level 14 (or even 16) fighter.

Is there a point there where the maths work out such that being a basic linear fighter matches up to being a quadratic wizard?

But what is your basis?
Like, Fighter and Wizards are even in Damage output between 9 and 18 rounds of battles between long rest over all levels.
At higher levels the Wizards will have more low level spells to do stuff outside of combat.
Like, what are you trying the balancing for?
A 5 minute adventure day?
Out of Combat Ability? That would never really balance, because the (base) Fighter doesn’t get any.

 

[James Gasik]

So here's an idea. What if after a certain point (say, level 7) Fighters progressed two (or even three) levels of abilities for every one that full casters progressed? So my level 8 wizard adventures with a level 10 fighter. My level 10 wizard adventures with a level 14 (or even 16) fighter.

Is there a point there where the maths work out such that being a basic linear fighter matches up to being a quadratic wizard?

Probably not, no. The reason I say this is the Fighter's problem isn't their combat prowess exactly; more levels would just upset encounter balance as they become that much better at dealing damage with increased durability.

What the Fighter lacks really comes down to narrative power and a broader toolbox. A Wizard's spells present potential opportunities- dramatic momentum shifts in battle, dealing with large numbers of foes quickly, and tackling challenges in a more outside the box fashion.

A Fighter can be counted on to, well, fight, and deal excellent damage to one foe at a time, as well as to be tough to take down, and they are fairly consistent at doing so. A Wizard might struggle in an adventure, or they could turn it (and possibly even the campaign) inside out.

A scenario I like to use to demonstrate this goes like this:

The players are tasked with defending a small town. They have five days before a large force of enemies arrives to stomp it flat.

The Fighter might try to come up with a plan to defend the town, form a credible militia, or create defensive structures. Their means of doing so is basically ability checks, with DC's and time required set by the DM.

The Wizard could do this, or-

They could create weapons and armor for the townsfolk with Fabricate in ten minutes. Use an invisible familiar to gather intelligence on the enemy force. Create fortifications in a short period of time with Wall of Stone or Move Earth. Make a building difficult to assail with Guards and Wards. Call for reinforcements with Sending far faster than any rider or messenger bird.

Maybe the Wizard can't do any of these things, of course, but the potential is certainly present in their spell list (it could be even worse with Clerics and Druids, as while their list isn't as deep, they can petition their deity for any spell on their list after a long rest, no matter how niche or obscure!).

Or say your campaign has lots of downtime. The Fighter might forge a new suit of armor, make some contacts, learn how to use a new tool or learn a new language, or just go looking for a battle arena to make some coin.

A Wizard could break the economy by using Fabricate to turn raw materials into trade goods. Mentally influence a powerful NPC. The narrative power granted spells is extreme, and the game isn't balanced around this in any way shape or form- it's completely up to the DM to figure out how casters don't dominate their world (usually with deus ex machina or other casters).

The balance point of spells is the need to ration them out over the course of an adventuring day. But if you're not currently adventuring, or a given day has less encounters, there's more opportunity for spells to get out of hand.

A savvy caster can warp the game around their activities in a way you wouldn't expect from a Fighter, Barbarian, or Monk. And the DM has to do extra work to mitigate the impact on their games.

Now you could try to rebalance what magic can do, and reign it in, but as far as D&D the game goes, spells as they currently exist aren't going anywhere- the majority of consumers apparently like the magic system the way it is, thank you very much.

What I always find strange is that the majority of consumers also seem to like their martials exactly the way they are as well- good at fighting and doing things you'd expect Fighters and Rogues to do. They apparently don't want abilities on par with casters and don't see a problem with their hypothetical potential, because well, it's just that. Hypothetical. It won't show up in every session, every adventure, or even every campaign, so what's the point of worrying about it?

 

[Oofta]

Probably not, no. The reason I say this is the Fighter's problem isn't their combat prowess exactly; more levels would just upset encounter balance as they become that much better at dealing damage with increased durability.

What the Fighter lacks really comes down to narrative power and a broader toolbox. A Wizard's spells present potential opportunities- dramatic momentum shifts in battle, dealing with large numbers of foes quickly, and tackling challenges in a more outside the box fashion.

A Fighter can be counted on to, well, fight, and deal excellent damage to one foe at a time, as well as to be tough to take down, and they are fairly consistent at doing so. A Wizard might struggle in an adventure, or they could turn it (and possibly even the campaign) inside out.

A scenario I like to use to demonstrate this goes like this:

The players are tasked with defending a small town. They have five days before a large force of enemies arrives to stomp it flat.

The Fighter might try to come up with a plan to defend the town, form a credible militia, or create defensive structures. Their means of doing so is basically ability checks, with DC's and time required set by the DM.

The Wizard could do this, or-

They could create weapons and armor for the townsfolk with Fabricate in ten minutes. Use an invisible familiar to gather intelligence on the enemy force. Create fortifications in a short period of time with Wall of Stone or Move Earth. Make a building difficult to assail with Guards and Wards. Call for reinforcements with Sending far faster than any rider or messenger bird.

Maybe the Wizard can't do any of these things, of course, but the potential is certainly present in their spell list (it could be even worse with Clerics and Druids, as while their list isn't as deep, they can petition their deity for any spell on their list after a long rest, no matter how niche or obscure!).

Or say your campaign has lots of downtime. The Fighter might forge a new suit of armor, make some contacts, learn how to use a new tool or learn a new language, or just go looking for a battle arena to make some coin.

A Wizard could break the economy by using Fabricate to turn raw materials into trade goods. Mentally influence a powerful NPC. The narrative power granted spells is extreme, and the game isn't balanced around this in any way shape or form- it's completely up to the DM to figure out how casters don't dominate their world (usually with deus ex machina or other casters).

The balance point of spells is the need to ration them out over the course of an adventuring day. But if you're not currently adventuring, or a given day has less encounters, there's more opportunity for spells to get out of hand.

A savvy caster can warp the game around their activities in a way you wouldn't expect from a Fighter, Barbarian, or Monk. And the DM has to do extra work to mitigate the impact on their games.

Now you could try to rebalance what magic can do, and reign it in, but as far as D&D the game goes, spells as they currently exist aren't going anywhere- the majority of consumers apparently like the magic system the way it is, thank you very much.

What I always find strange is that the majority of consumers also seem to like their martials exactly the way they are as well- good at fighting and doing things you'd expect Fighters and Rogues to do. They apparently don't want abilities on par with casters and don't see a problem with their hypothetical potential, because well, it's just that. Hypothetical. It won't show up in every session, every adventure, or even every campaign, so what's the point of worrying about it?

There is no way to replicate a wizard repeatedly casting Wall of Stone without taking martial characters in a completely different direction that it seems that most people do not want. That doesn't mean martial characters can't contribute, they've contributed plenty out of combat in the games I've played.

It's okay with people because people accept that different PCs have different roles. If you want a PC that has the capabilities of a wizard, nothing stops you from playing a wizard. But let's take your fortifications idea. Yes, the wizard can make a wall of stone, but does it have a solid foundation? It will last for a bit, but if sappers can easily make it collapse then it doesn't really matter. Meanwhile that fighter with stonemason as part of their background can help figure out where to put the wall, or how to build a foundation. Of course stonemason isn't unique to the fighter but that doesn't change anything. If contributing outside of combat is important, the player can always figure out ways to do it, they don't need specific class-exclusive options. Perhaps the fighter has a better grasp of battlefield tactics and where to put emplacements, maybe they're spending their time training the locals to defend themselves, etc..

I'm struggling to come up with examples though because none of this has never come up in a memorable way were specific spells were a turning point in any campaign I've ever played. So you really answer your own question - people don't care about hypothetical advantages because they remain hypothetical. There was one instance I remember where the cleric used stone shape to make structures for people to live in. But end of the day? It really didn't matter, it was more the player showboating about how cool they were. Nobody else cared. D&D rarely gets to the level of detail where making dormitories via magic vs by more traditional construction techniques really matter.

So many of these supposed benefits remain firmly in the hands of the DM and group. If the DM is setting up scenarios where the wizard can utilize spells to do cool things, the DM can also figure out ways people without that Wall of Stone can also contribute.

 

[M_Natas]

So many of these supposed benefits remain firmly in the hands of the DM and group. If the DM is setting up scenarios where the wizard can utilize spells to do cool things, the DM can also figure out ways people without that Wall of Stone can also contribute.

By digging trenches!

 

[Oofta]

By digging trenches!

Well, if they have a Mattock of the Titans.

Or in the innumerable ways I've seen them contribute over the past 9 or so years.

 

[pemerton]

What the Fighter lacks really comes down to narrative power and a broader toolbox.

<snip>

A scenario I like to use to demonstrate this goes like this:

The players are tasked with defending a small town. They have five days before a large force of enemies arrives to stomp it flat.

The Fighter might try to come up with a plan to defend the town, form a credible militia, or create defensive structures. Their means of doing so is basically ability checks, with DC's and time required set by the DM.

The Wizard could do this, or-

They could create weapons and armor for the townsfolk with Fabricate in ten minutes. Use an invisible familiar to gather intelligence on the enemy force. Create fortifications in a short period of time with Wall of Stone or Move Earth. Make a building difficult to assail with Guards and Wards. Call for reinforcements with Sending far faster than any rider or messenger bird.

<snip>

A savvy caster can warp the game around their activities in a way you wouldn't expect from a Fighter, Barbarian, or Monk. And the DM has to do extra work to mitigate the impact on their games.

Now you could try to rebalance what magic can do, and reign it in, but as far as D&D the game goes, spells as they currently exist aren't going anywhere

To me, what you're describing here is not an issue of class design, but an issue of action resolution technique.

There is no reason, in the abstract, why deploying non-magic abilities can't "warp the game" just as much as using magic. In your defend the town example, for instance, the wizard may create weapons and armour, but the fighter can train the militia and boost its morale. Wall of Stone and Move Earth are quick, but a town is probably not lacking in manual labour, and the fighter's tactical intuitions should be stronger than the wizard's.

There's no reason of principle why a system of ability checks can't be structured to permit meaningful impact on the fiction. There are plenty of RPGs which illustrate this, and in which the mechanical resolution of non-magical and magical action declarations the same: Marvel Heroic RP, or HeroWars/Quest, or 4e D&D using a skill challenge.

If the fighter seems less effective in D&D play, that is because action declarations that are tagged as "magic" are being resolved differently from those that are tagged as "not magic" - they are being permitted to impact the fiction more.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To me, what you're describing here is not an issue of class design, but an issue of action resolution technique.

There is no reason, in the abstract, why deploying non-magic abilities can't "warp the game" just as much as using magic. In your defend the town example, for instance, the wizard may create weapons and armour, but the fighter can train the militia and boost its morale. Wall of Stone and Move Earth are quick, but a town is probably not lacking in manual labour, and the fighter's tactical intuitions should be stronger than the wizard's.

There's no reason of principle why a system of ability checks can't be structured to permit meaningful impact on the fiction. There are plenty of RPGs which illustrate this, and in which the mechanical resolution of non-magical and magical action declarations the same: Marvel Heroic RP, or HeroWars/Quest, or 4e D&D using a skill challenge.

If the fighter seems less effective in D&D play, that is because action declarations that are tagged as "magic" are being resolved differently from those that are tagged as "not magic" - they are being permitted to impact the fiction more.

Well, yes. Now having a spell that is a limited expendable resource to do more than an always available skill is fair, but even besides that there is an issue. I think 5e is lacking is codified examples of what skills can achieve and at what frequency and at what difficulty, and a lot of how effective stuff like this is depends on the GM. Not that I think that stuff like skill challenges (that are easily usable in 5e too) are much better in this regard, as with them too it is up to GM what sort of skill challenge to attach to which fictional situation.