Candid Conversation on 5th Edition and Fighters vs Wizards

The following is a candid conversation between two of my friends on facebook. Figured it was relevant and an interesting read beside.

---Lewis F

Alastair Yee
Gave the playtest material a look over. Truly have mixed feelings. I do like clerics and the wizard. The fact that their spells are pre chosen for the purpose of the playtest is nice. The fighter looks decently tough and damaging, but I feel like its highly lacking. It just looks so sad at 1 page compared to every one elses 2. Rogue was decent but the need for advantage means either you need a defender dwarf or attack every other turn.

Kent Carmine
Well, the info we have on the system is very limited, so there's a lot we don't know. There will probably be more ways for rogues to gain the advantage for sneak attack, for example (and remember that in 3.5e there
were relatively few, it wasn't something you could do every round). To make up for that, it looks like sneak attack scales extremely well (1d6 per level). Fighters look pretty similar to 3.5e fighters, which is no surprise given the whole system seems to borrow more from 3.5e than 4e. They will almost certainly get more versatile as they level up and gain more feats. Level 1 fighters never had that many options until 4e.

Alastair Yee
I know that's what they say, but considering that a large contingent of the 3.5 crowd seems to hate the concept of fighters being more then just drooling beatsticks and won't accept anything less then wizards rule fighters drool, I don't exactly have high hopes or opinions of that. That said I don't really mind simple fighters as long as wizards don't go power tripping acid, speed and everything else they had in 3.5. A bit of variety (guaranteed results just like wizards get), and comparable damage and it would be alright.

Kent Carmine
I'm hoping for some degree of balance, but I'd be ok with wizards doing more damage than fighters even though I tend to prefer fighter-ish classes myself. Fighters are more survivable and don't have to worry about running out of steam as much as wizards. I'm not sure what you mean about wizards having guaranteed results either, since they can only out-damage a damage-build fighter if they burn most of their heavy spells, but then they are spent and in the next encounter, the fighter will out-damage them. It comes down to reliable damage & survivability vs. burst damage.

I should also point out that even in 3.5e, it's very possible for a properly built fighter to beat a wizard in damage, even at higher levels (though less so in AoE, though it can be done). Heck, Surram could do significantly more damage than an at-level wizard and he would actually have been significantly more powerful as a fighter than as a paladin due to the extra feats he would get (he would have lost some of his utility spells, though).

In the end, it's all a question of building the character right. A fighter may not have the flashy spells that wizards get, but they tend to survive better and don't have to worry about running out of sword swings.

Alastair Yee
Well as far as I know, all spells in Dnd Simply work. They do exactly what is written in the spell. For damage spells, from what I recall as long as they aren't ray spells you are guarenteed damage (1/2 is they make the save. Then there are THOSE spells. The "non" combat ones that people like to abuse alot. Charm (instant friends and I have barely seen it fail), usually combined with a mindwipe. Teleport and Dimension door are almost unparalled. Higher magic spells break all instances of balance (wish and genesis, force cage). my dislike for save or die or save or suck spells as most particularly bash fighterish types who just happen to have the wrong save to resist. Fighter types can easily deal shit tonnes of damage but they have to get close and melee combat usually favors monsters who get much better stats, attacks and actual abilities. Sure Leap attack and your ever abusive charge cheese can even the playing field but being viable shouldn't require those. Then all the really really good buffs are mage exclusives. The best off the top of my head are blur and displacement. A wizard can use a few spells to get comparable AC and then lay those on top and just laugh their assess off as the weakling fighter attempts to harm them.

Kent Carmine
I think you're seriously exaggerating the power difference between fighters and wizards. It also seems like you don't want wizards and fighters to be comparable, but that you want fighters to be strictly better. You also imply that its wizard vs. fighter in direct combat against each other. It's not. D&D is not designed for PvP, as we've seen.

Spells do not "simply work" and sure as hell they are not guaranteed damage. The only one of those I can think of is Magic Missile (and even that has caveats, such as Shield). Most spells still have to hit to do full damage and nowhere near all damage spells have the "half damage on miss" trick. Some non-combat spells can be abused (though Charm, Teleport, Dimension Door, etc. are not good examples of that and Charm in particular is not as hard to resist as you seem to think). Wishes (and some Time manipulation spells) are something that you almost never want to use because any competent DM will make it cost you more than you gain. As for save or die/suck spells, they are powerful, but they also tend to be easier to save against/have an extra chance to resist in many cases to give you another chance for them to fail, and often have no effect at all on a miss. There are certain death/super-debuff spells that don't have that drawback, and those spells are broken, I agree.

Yes, wizards get buff spells, but they can also use those on people other than themselves (like the fighter). And even if they buff themselves up, while they may get a similar AC, they still have about 1/3 the HP, so one lucky hit by a mob will put them in a world of hurt. Part of why fighters have higher base AC and HP are because they are assumed to be on the front lines. If they are getting instakilled, that's not a balance problem, that's a "GM needs to work on these encounters" problem (unless it's Lewis' game, since he didn't have much choice except to make melee attacks fatal).

Finally, you said that fighters have to use a clever build to out-damage wizards (like charge or leap attack). Sure, I agree. So? If I want to have better survivability and do 2x as much damage as the wizard AND not have a spell limit, I expect to put some work into building my character that way, not having it be the default. That would be broken in favor of fighters if it were. What I want is a system where the average fighter is more survivable than the wizard and has reliable attacks that don't run out of steam, but don't hit as hard. I think 3.5e did that fairly well, actually, though there are a few rough edges, and I do hope 5e will address those.

Alastair Yee
Perhaps I am exaggerating a bit, but Spells do clearly always work. When you cast a spell there is no chance for it not to be cast bar a AMF. Perhaps it won't have the max effect but the spell is always cast. Examples of no risk damage spells are pretty numerous. Acid Fog Wiz 6 spell states that as long as the targets are in the cloud they get hurt no save. Evard's black tentacles doesn't do damage always but it does provide a slow zone no matter what. Call Lightning provides reflex save for 1/2 damage. So only people with evasion can get off scott free. Chain lightning, fireball, Cloudkill, destruction, disintegrate, etc etc.
My personal problem is not that these spells exist, but rather that they encourage an arms race between specifically the caster players and the DM usually. Some people are good enough to balance themselves out and neither will abuse them. I will admit that the rocket tag from Lewis's campaign was genuinely your fault kent.

Fighter's are Tier 5 which means they can really only do one job well and that's damage. Your Paladin, technically not a true fighter in the sense of being only able to fight abused various charge feats and yo had to literally have a spreadsheet to get everything in correctly. Compare that to the amount of work a spell-caster needs to do in order to be comparable. The work might be equal or less depending on whether or not casters take the best spells already laid out.

I think my biggest issue is that Wizards and other spell users while supposedly weaker get so many different tools and spells to make up for their weakness that those weaknesses become moot completely. Wind wall completely negates most projectiles. So a flying Wizard can really only be defeated by another wizard or a flying melee character. The Phrase Magic must defeat magic tends to ring true. Big boss characters are almost always magic users, the fact that they might be baddass melee characters as well does factor in a bit. Melee's biggest weakness has always been getting into melee range. There are quite a number of spells that deny melee characters the ability to do so.

I generally consider myself to be a believer in equality, where all options presented should at least be relatively fair. If there are actual parity's in class effectiveness whether by poor design or intentional it really bothers me a lot. I mean why do melee characters never get any cool stuff at least on par with spells? 4e was pretty good though it got bloated pretty quickly and had a host of other issues. The response to fighters getting cool stuff in 4e was bitching and the subsequent removal of that stuff because it hurt peoples Verisimilitude. I guess it comes down to the fact that I would like to see at least one edition where melee is king for better or for worse. That and being on the receiving end of Phantasmal killer, glitter dust and a number of SOD and SOS spells doesn't really help me appreciate spell casters.

Alastair Yee
Oh and also, when you need something done, who do you generally turn to? If you said magic user that would be correct. Need to get information? Cast charm or some similar spells to get the right answers. Or cast divination and get it right from the DM. Need to move quickly talk to the wizard and get teleport. Etc Etc Etc. I guess I just hate the number of things spell users get to circumvent the predefined system which partially accounts for my hatred of SODs. Plus playing fighters with few skill points left me cold on the roleplaying end quite a bit.

Kent Carmine
If that is your definition of "Spells always work" then I could use the same definition to say "Melee always works". Spells always cast when you cast them, sure. Doesn't mean they always hit. As for the 1/2 damage on save spells (which are not the majority) you are basically saying that if you use a big damage spells that takes a spell slot and get 1/2 its normal damage, thats fine. 1/2 damage isn't exactly great, most of the time (Zaq's single digit HP sorcerer notwithstanding  ).

Alastair Yee
My definition of spells always work can be summed up along the basis that each spell is like a bullet in a magical revolver. A magic user can lazily pull the trigger and X happens. Melee I will concede works in the exact same manner. Except that melee only gets to do damage or do a sub par option of tripping or disarming which near the middle/end game is a worthless option. I mean who the hell attempts to disarm a balor or trip something like a tarrasque? Also most monsters near the higher ranks simply have a STR too high to actually make a difference assuming your allowed to at all. Also I would love to be able to disarm natural weapons. In the end damage spells (which I like) are almost always inferior to a save or suck option depending on the DM. Plus I remember reading a mailman build somewhere where that listed the spells that automatically bypass spell resist and hit automatically. I think it used Sphere spells. Regardless perhaps they will appropriately tone down spells and provide decent character options to the non spell casting classes.

Alastair Yee
I don't mind being a beatstick as long as there exist additional options to be more then that as well (playing another class is nothing more then a cop-out in my mind)
Here is a link where I kinda picked up some discouraging tales. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?622716-3e-what-was-the-exact-moment-you-realized-Caster-Supremacy-Share-your-tales-of-woe

Kent Carmine
As for the rocket tag, that was mostly (but not entirely) my fault, I admit. However, charging was not my only way to fight, it was the only way *after* rocket tag. I could do some pretty decent damage by just sitting in melee and whacking away, but when melee hits became fatal, that wasn't worth it. Surram also never required a spreadsheet to build, that was a WoD character who needed that.

As for bosses usually being casters, that is going to depend on the DM, and in my experience is not true. To use Lewis' game as an example, caster bosses were actually the minority.

May of the problems you cite can also be solved (at higher levels, which you are clearly assuming) by fighters. Wizard's flying? Jump on your flying mount. If he doesn't use Wind Wall, pull out a bow and arrows.

As for getting into range, sorry, but that is one of the things melee will always have to do, and while wizards may have some ways to make that difficult, a heavy hitting fighter only has to do it once. Moreover, I should point out that it's not just D&D that has the melee range problem, every tabletop RPG (and MMO) has the same problem. It's the nature of the beast. I should point out once more that you are assuming a PvP situation of wizard vs. fighter and concluding that wizards are better there, but only if the fighter doesn't build and play smart. D&D is not for PvP, so lets not use that as the comparison.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I don't mind being a beatstick as long as there exist additional options to be more then that as well" If it's skill points you need, try a rogue or some other class that fights in melee but has some tricks up his sleeve and can do pretty well socially. It seems like you are asking for a fighter class than can do everything, which kinda defeats the purpose of having classes.

Alastair Yee
Well as far as I know fighters don't get flying mounts, neither do paladins for what I remember. I mean its not that big and the DM should provide some method of flight or not make the flying dude a douche. It was an example really.
By denying melee people the ability to engage is so much easier for wizards. A number of spells which they probably won't have prepared are the type the completely alter the landscape I think the wall spells. Force cage and other hold X spells can be similarly devastating (they target will right?)

Alastair Yee
The other problem I feel is that magic users can get exclusive access to miss chance spell buffs. These can completely hose the few melee guys they can get into range. 1/6 chance of hitting with a melee attack? Invisibility can be easily countered provided you have an item for it or a fellow caster.

Alastair Yee
And the beatstick thing is the that I am fine with doing damage. But I also want my fighter to be able to do other things as well. Flexing muscles or carrying stuff or intimidate with my non existent Cha score is something most fighter's can't do. Playing a rogue means giving up better defenses etc. Literally play something else. If that is the case then why play a fighter. Just play a Druidzilla or a Clericzilla. Get to beat the shit out of stuff and casting spells that alter the very fabric of the game.

Alastair Yee
I mean if fighters should only get to beat the shit out of stuff and nothing else they should at least explicity state that the character might be lacking in comparison.

Kent Carmine
And, once again: D&D is not made for PvP and is generally not used for PvP. Comparing fighters and wizards on the basis of who would win in a fight under specific circumstances is not a real test and says little indeed about their relative merits.

Your fighter can do other things...if you build him that way. You are totally ignoring the fact that the main point of a fighter is to, well, fight. He CAN be the party negotiator if he puts his skill points in right and gets an item or two. Saying "I want to have a fighter who beats stuff up and does other stuff really well too" is like saying "I want a wizard who blows stuff up can heal really well too". It ignores the whole concept of the class and takes away a weakness for no cost. There are classes that fight and do other stuff (Paladin, rogue, ranger, etc), but if you want an simple-build fighter who can deal out heavy damage, have good survivability, and do a bunch of other stuff well, I think you are asking for the impossible.

Alastair Yee
Except that you forget that in 3.5 DnD opposing creatures with spell levels are built exactly like PCs and include the same options choosing from the same spell lists. So essentially the opposing wizard is a PvP case. Yes classes exist to do singular things. Its just the fact that spell casters can run ramshod over all the other classes. A Cleric as I stated before can outfight a fighter and heal. A druid, well enough said. A wizard can't quite do that as easily but they can find a solution to almost any problem. Some one doesn't want to takl BAM Charm person.

Alastair Yee
And when I said I want my characters to do other stuff I don't mean be the best. If a fighter want to try to do a Cha check in diplomacy they might be decent at it not SUCK holy monkey balls because they can barely speak like a barbarian.
Fighters and most other non spell casting melee types exlcuding the Monk I think who has its own share of problems, get very few skill points. They also have no stats that give them skill benefits (INT) defense against spells (WIS). Most of them are encouraged to buff STR and CON for all its worth. Meaning they usually become barely functional individuals.

Alastair Yee
I know they are trying to avoid that issue in 5e but from what we have seen I have my own personal doubts.

Kent Carmine
You do realize you are moving the goalposts here. Ok, lets say your melee-heavy party goes up against a wizard heavy enemy group, and that you are the same CR, etc. Yes, the wizard heavy party will probably win against an average-build melee group. So? You have taken one specific scenario and applied it across the board. That's like me saying that fighters are better because in a fight against opponents with high spell resist and saves, they don't have to worry as much.

As for making a fighter who can be diplomatic, there's nothing stopping you. You can put skill points in diplomacy, put points into CHA and get items that boost diplomacy rolls. Is he going to be as diplomatic as the diplomacy built wizard? Probably not, but hes not supposed to be. That's not what the class is for.

As for other non-caster melee getting limited skill points (other than monks and rogues), yep. They do (unless they build in an atypical way, which is always an option). That's like saying wizards have small hit dice and calling that a balance issue. It's a part of the class and its there because they do other things well. And as you said, 5e is working on that.

Alastair Yee
What I mean is that most of classes have actual class features that they can fall back on. There are spells that defeat the weaknesses of Spellcasters thus having those weaknesses in the first place superfluous. It doesn't happen all the time (Zaq, I am looking at you) but their exists the option to do so. Fighters can choose to be something they weren't designed too but risk losing the ability to do what they were designed to.

Alastair Yee
I think what I am trying to get at is that fighters are straight jacketed by their class and when standing next to a classes who are able to take care of their weaknesses with a tiny use of resources and then do their designed role how is that comparable? True I guess they don't have to be fair, but is that good design?

Alastair Yee
Every class should have the ability to contribute in the game. Sure some can do it better then others but why does the gap between them have to be so huge?
I think part of the problem is that I see Dnd, both combat and non-combat as sporting thus it should be relatively even. You might see it as war and simulation where you take every advantage and fight as dirty as possible to deny advantages to enemies.
I guess my problem is that melee characters just seem so limited compared to semi-cosmic near infinite powers that can even solve the particular weaknesses backed into your class to prevent you from becoming more powerful then everyone around you.
I guess I just have to accept that spellcasters will almost always be innately superior in most rolls barring beating people's faces in
Any thoughts from you Zaq, I know your watching this argument.

Kent Carmine
"Every class should have the ability to contribute in the game." And they do. Wizards don't tend to tank, since even with defensive spells up, if they get hit once, they are down. Fighters don't tend to be super diplomats. Please also note that a rock-paper-scissors dynamic is possible, and one class might lose out to you in combat, but win in social situations.

As for sport vs. war, I'd come down more on the war side. D&D simulates a party of adventurers (who have different classes with different strengths and weaknesses that overlap and can cancel each other out) and they often get into tough situations, like a rough fight or a tough negotiation. In that situation, real people would do what they have to to 'win' that challenge, they are not going to say 'lets give the other side a 50% chance. Even the IRL military teaches people that if you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan very well. That's how I see a fight (social or combat) in D&D.

I'm probably going to bow out of this argument, because you are ignoring a number of salient points (optimized melee being very capable, the choice to create a melee character that does non-facebeat stuff pretty well, the idea that classes have certain restrictions and are not supposed to be one-size-fits-all, the fact that casters tend to have less HP and passive defenses, and an 'ammo limit'). It's like saying that "wizards are better than fighters except when fighters are better than wizards". It doesn't say much. If you want to do non-facebeat stuff, play a fighter built for it, or don't play a fighter. Don't say "I want to play a fighter who has all the strengths of a normal fighter and none of the weaknesses." Even wizards/clerics/druids can't do that.

Alastair Yee
I don't believe I ever said that you couldn't optimize the hell out a melee character to create death on two feet. I said that you could build a diplomatic fighter but he would be probably piss poor at fighting you may as well have rolled up a Paladin. That way you would get better defenses and spells and a mount for free from actual class features. I concede that we will never see eye to eye due to your war view versus my sport view, but what I believe I am harping about is Viability. I would like to have viable options allow my character to exceed their roles if only just a little bit. But I guess most people see DnD as war and not as sport. I guess there is nothing more that needs to be discussed then.