TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: SHARK on April 29, 2021, 06:57:39 PM

Title: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: SHARK on April 29, 2021, 06:57:39 PM
Greetings!

I have heard for years about how uber the wizards are--and other spellcasters--and how weak and feeble the Warrior classes are. In my own campaigns, I have a Witch Hunter class that can eat spellcasters alive fast. Beyond that, I created numerous feats, special abilities, and a diversity of weapons, equipment, and other items that warrior types can easily access and use against Wizards. Gorgon Arrows, Spider-Web Javelins, Wasp-Head Arrows, Slime Nets, Sack of Swarming Doom, all kinds of things. Tools that slow, interrupt, blind, and cripple Wizards. A Warrior only needs a round or two in the Wizard's face to plunge their mighty blade deep into the Wizard's chest, and they are fucking done!

In mythology, Beowulf, Achilles, Odysseus, the Knights of the Round Table, the Slavic Bogatyr--they all heroically overcame wizards and witches. Solomon Kane, various Witch Hunters in medieval stories, as well of course as figures such as Conan. Some stories even depict wizards and witches living in fear of the wrath coming for them. They know the glorious champions are going to stomp them into mush! You have to bring that deep fear back. That's why witches and wizards NEED huge fortresses and armies of monsters and minions to protect them. Lone champions, or small teams of such mighty heroes, are always a serious threat! Let alone a savage army led by a great champion, marching to bring the witch or wizard to the fire!

In my campaigns, Wizards and Witches are popular, and a powerful class to embrace for any player, but as a DM, you have to provide other players, NPC's, and just as importantly--the world at large--with powerful tools in which to bring the spellcasters like witches and wizards down to fucking earth. Forget what the books butter their spellcasting asses with. Cut that shit out, nerf the hell out of it, and devote some serious time and creativity to providing the warriors with the tools to absolutely DOMINATE!!!!

Achilles wouldn't bat an eye at facing a witch or a wizard. The Witch would try and cast a spell--boom! Achilles nails her with a crippling spear strike. She staggers from the blow, and, without her minions to protect her, Achilles is on her like a pouncing lion, plunging his sword into her, and finishing her! The Witch is fucking done. Lightning quick, savage, crippling damage. The Warrior must be like a mighty lion, faster than a witch's heartbeat. Wizards and such need to FEAR WARRIORS!!!

Not laugh at them smugly, like in the standard rules.

So, that's what I have done. Classes, feats, special abilities, weapons, items, gear, alchemical stuff, blessings from the Church, Holy Items, whatever. Bring the spellcasters dwn to earth, make them live in FEAR of Warriors, and your campaigns will be much better for it, for everyone, but especially Warriors. In mythology, Warriors are not weak, helpless cucks, and I keep them doing just fine in my campaigns.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Greentongue on April 29, 2021, 07:04:26 PM
Another way is to break out the time to cast spells. The more powerful, the longer to cast. Hours long.
"Through Sunken Lands" handles this well I think.

Between needing spell components that you actually have to go find somewhere, besides a store, and having actual casting times not just finger snaps. magic is not over powering.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 08:18:42 PM
As I stated in the other thread, 5E has (wisely) given the martial classes the extra attack ability to help bring them to parity.

Changing spellcasting is a bit more serious, as the tradeoff for arcane spells is that you have very crappy combat ability and equipment (this came up back in the 80's, as people pointed out that even if you strap the wizard into plate armor and give him a sword, his pathetic to-hit and hit dice means he'll still get stomped).

Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Steven Mitchell on April 29, 2021, 09:03:32 PM
In my d20-based system, I've set it up so that most spells require at least one round to prepare and 1 round to cast.  A caster can't move once the spell prep starts but can move/prep in one action then cast/move in the next.  That intermediate space between rounds is when they can get whacked and lose the prep.  It's not losing the slot but it makes the spell take even longer.  Casters have a way to speed it up for a small number of key spells, but those options can get used up during a fight too. 

Then fighter types get multiple attacks about the time casters get some solid spells.  They have a shot at multiple attacks from level 1, though it isn't entirely reliable.  It pretty much makes casting in melee possible but not very productive and only done in desperation.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Greentongue on April 29, 2021, 09:04:05 PM
You make Wizards getting stomped sound like a bad thing.
The bastards would rule the world if you let them.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 09:29:21 PM
Maybe, but there is a mechanical game balance issue. I'm just not sure how to address it that doesn't spectacularly fuck things up further.

In 1E/2E it balanced out as magic-users had fewer spells per day, fewer weapon options, and no metamagic or item creation feats. I'm inclined to strip the metamagic feats away as a starting point. I'd allow magic-users to craft non-permanent items -- wands, scrolls, and potions -- but not permanent ones, not until higher levels.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: robertliguori on April 29, 2021, 09:43:17 PM
Assuming games in the lineage of D&D...

I think you have the exact problem in your statement.  Wizards are squishy, and they can't cover every base.  If you can get to a wizard, you can stab them, even if you need to invest in an adamantine weapon to defeat their signature Stoneskin spell, or perhaps an inhaled irritant poison to send an invisible wizard sneezing and coughing everywhere, and so on.

If you get to them.

Once wizards hit level 5 spells, then get get tools like, for example, Overland Flight.  That means that unless you know a wizard's schedule, they will be aerial when you meet them, and your sword is going to look very silly when they just fly out of melee range.

And they've got Teleport.  And that's the point where you've lost, more or less.  A wizard with Teleport is not in danger from mundane threats unless they are very, very stealthy, or unless you can meet the wizard in a place where they need to defend something more valuable than their own life.  When you march your grand army of witchfinders over the horizon, the wizard finds another horizon to hide behind.  And the great thing is that the more tools there are to bind and delay wizards, the more sure it is that when you come to the tower, you will have your own martial ass held up in those same alchemical tricks and traps while the wizard makes their escape.

And level 5 spells are also where options like Dream and Nightmare and Sending and Lesser Planar Binding come into play, with the traditional Guards and Wards just coming up.  And that's where things go really sideways for the heroes.  A properly prepared wizard will have contingencies, beyond the actual Contingency spell.  A simple, nasty contingency is Dominate Person, a make-up kit, and an almost-discharged wand.  You keep a body double on hand continually Dominated, with mundane disguise on to make them look like you, and when you get your Alarm spells ringing, you shovel your notes and gear into your extradimensional storage, drop a Clairvoyance in your prepared fake throne room, and send your proxy to engage the foes.  They win, they get some treasure...and when they leave, you scour the room for drops of their blood or other residue, track them with Scrying, and quietly send in a babau to slit their throats when they're out on the road two weeks hence to get your wand back.

Armies in general are just a bad idea, if you're fighting a wizard.  Most of them will be low-level, meaning that the wizard can tag them with Scrying, or just send some nasty possessing fiends after them.  Or use much simpler tactics of listening in on your lieutenant reminiscing about his family back in Holden village, then quietly teleporting to Holden, kidnapping them, and letting the lieutenant know via a Dream spell what will happen if they continue further in their crusade.  And that's the quiet version.  The loud version is finding out what lands you own that give you the wealth and support to muster that army, going to those lands, and doing on purpose what most wizards end up doing accidentally when left to experiment with undead, fiends, and self-sustaining evocations, and then just lying low for however long it takes for your army to run out of supplies, support, and morale.

Being a high-level wizard means knowing how the stories go, and subverting them. It means having access to an entire library of tactics which a lower-level or highly-martial party simply does not have defenses against.  As a GM, it means that you need to moderate your wizards and not go full-tactical with them, because if they did, there wouldn't be a story, or at least, there wouldn't be a story that you can tell episodically from the perspective of the witch-hunter.

Fighting an enemy that can flee across hundreds of miles in seconds, that can turn invisible, fly, and spy on you from leagues away, that can steal the will of your followers and call fiends and elementals of all descriptions, and one with, by definition, the intellectual acumen to make use of these tools, should be a campaign-level event for someone who needs to be in the same room to threaten them.  You need to learn what makes that particular wizard tick, what they will and won't do to protect their own life, what blind spots they might have, and what allies they can call on.  And you need to do this knowing that the first time you seriously and openly engage the wizard, you make stopping you their highest priority.  And you need to do this knowing if you get any of those facts wrong, then it is very likely the low-level people closest to you that will be the first target of the wizard, out of practicality if not cruelty on the wizard's part.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Kyle Aaron on April 29, 2021, 09:48:32 PM
This sounds suspiciously like someone searching for "game balance."

Game balance is about ensuring that nobody stands out, that nobody has to use their wits to overcome their natural disadvantages, and that people who complain and whinge are rewarded. Game balance is for Social Justice Warriors.

I thought better of you.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: This Guy on April 29, 2021, 09:57:30 PM
is this like the reverse of that comic where some nerd feels bullied by a jock so he takes it out in his D&D game or something.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 09:59:23 PM
1E and 2E also limited the magic-user's capability to pull rabbits out of their hat for every occasion with a hard cap on spells a magic-user could learn. Granted, at Int 17-18, this was limited (as you could learn up to 14 and 18 spells per level) and of course at 19+ it went out the window. Still, very few PCs were going to have 19 Intelligence or better.

Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: HappyDaze on April 29, 2021, 10:04:14 PM
Still, very few PCs were going to have 19 Intelligence or better.
Please, IME, when players are rolling 3d6 straight-up, they generate a 19 about 50% of the time. Unless someone is watching them roll...
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 29, 2021, 10:10:39 PM
Still, very few PCs were going to have 19 Intelligence or better.
Please, IME, when players are rolling 3d6 straight-up, they generate a 19 about 50% of the time. Unless someone is watching them roll...

LOL wut?
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: This Guy on April 29, 2021, 10:16:49 PM
He's saying you're all fuckin cheaters
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Pat on April 29, 2021, 10:17:49 PM
1E and 2E also limited the magic-user's capability to pull rabbits out of their hat for every occasion with a hard cap on spells a magic-user could learn.
I always liked the idea behind that rule, but yes, there were too many exceptions.

Here's a quick house rule: Magic-users have a 50% chance to fail to learn any particular spell, and they can learn 4 spells/level. Period. That means fireball isn't guaranteed, and you have some hard choices to make. Do you leave a slot open in the hopes you'll find a great new spell? I'd also allow them to use higher level spell slots, so even if you already know 4 3rd level spells, you could still pickup fireball as a 4th level spell.

Restricting # of spells known is probably the best way to keep old school mages in check. The 2e generalist mage spell list was a mistake.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Pat on April 29, 2021, 10:18:18 PM
Still, very few PCs were going to have 19 Intelligence or better.
Please, IME, when players are rolling 3d6 straight-up, they generate a 19 about 50% of the time. Unless someone is watching them roll...
I find hammers are a good solution. Dice or fingers, your pick.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Slambo on April 29, 2021, 10:19:03 PM
1E and 2E also limited the magic-user's capability to pull rabbits out of their hat for every occasion with a hard cap on spells a magic-user could learn.
I always liked the idea behind that rule, but yes, there were too many exceptions.

Here's a quick house rule: Magic-users have a 50% chance to fail to learn any particular spell, and they can learn 4 spells/level. Period. That means fireball isn't guaranteed, and you have some hard choices to make. Do you leave a slot open in the hopes you'll find a great new spell? I'd also allow them to use higher level spell slots, so even if you already know 4 3rd level spells, you could still pickup fireball as a 4th level spell.

Restricting # of spells known is probably the best way to keep old school mages in check. The 2e generalist mage spell list was a mistake.

Not sure if its RAW cause ive been doing it for a while, but i have a chance to learn roll and i makr then find the spells in the world.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: This Guy on April 29, 2021, 10:19:25 PM
Still, very few PCs were going to have 19 Intelligence or better.
Please, IME, when players are rolling 3d6 straight-up, they generate a 19 about 50% of the time. Unless someone is watching them roll...
I find hammers are a good solution. Dice or fingers, your pick.

Fingers, all of em, and I'm gonna look you in the eye the whole time, growing increasingly erect.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: SHARK on April 29, 2021, 10:30:14 PM
Greetings!

Yeah, well, I am not particularly concerned with ideas about "game balance" or having individual players cry. I generally enjoy crafting the game world to embrace a particular kind of flavour. In order to maintain that goal, a good number of standard spells, dynamics, and assumptions within the core rules must be ruthlessly purged, or otherwise nerfed, restricted, or modified. I don't have player characters of any class running around opening gates and traveling to different worlds and planes like catching a train at the train station. I also don't have players talking to their gods like they have them on speed dial, either. That's out. Raise Dead and Resurrection spells? They are also fucking gone, or otherwise carefully restricted. It is with a similar attitude that I approach Wizards and their brethren, in light of how D&D has typically expanded the magical spell powers to ever-expanding degrees from 3rd Edition to the present. As mentioned, though, I have restrictions on even AD&D spells and such dynamics. Having a campaign that embraces a more historical, mystical milieu, requires a different approach to building a standard campaign.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Kyle Aaron on April 29, 2021, 10:36:19 PM
So much denial. We need to stage an intervention.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Shasarak on April 29, 2021, 10:50:41 PM
Achilles wouldn't bat an eye at facing a witch or a wizard. The Witch would try and cast a spell--boom! Achilles nails her with a crippling spear strike. She staggers from the blow, and, without her minions to protect her, Achilles is on her like a pouncing lion, plunging his sword into her, and finishing her! The Witch is fucking done. Lightning quick, savage, crippling damage. The Warrior must be like a mighty lion, faster than a witch's heartbeat. Wizards and such need to FEAR WARRIORS!!!

You answer your own question: just make Warriors immune to all damage - done!

FEAR WARRIORS!!!
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: S'mon on April 30, 2021, 03:35:02 AM
I love the 5e Barbarian. A well-played one is terrifying to 5e casters.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: SHARK on April 30, 2021, 03:49:41 AM
I love the 5e Barbarian. A well-played one is terrifying to 5e casters.

Greetings!

I agree, S'mon! The 5E Barbarian is quite formidable! ;D

I've seen people crying about how Wizards are unbalanced and dominate everything, and Warriors are pathetic cucks for years. Well, I don't think it is necessary to listen to WOTC and embrace every trinket and power they throw at Wizards, while ignoring or cutting the balls off of Warriors. I think that DM's have to be more aware, more in control of their campaigns, and take more proactive steps to create the kinds of campaigns that they want, instead of just allowing the campaign to become a superhero-like circle-jerk where Wizards are invincible and rule everything.

People have lamented that Warriors are like helpless cucks for years, but they don't do anything about the structural and magical dynamics which contribute to those dynamics.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Altheus on April 30, 2021, 06:13:53 AM
I've always thought that warriors should get a hefty boost to their initiative. Being fighting types I imagine them to be quicker off the mark and better able to notice and pre-empt what's going on in a fight.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: S'mon on April 30, 2021, 06:57:29 AM
I've always thought that warriors should get a hefty boost to their initiative. Being fighting types I imagine them to be quicker off the mark and better able to notice and pre-empt what's going on in a fight.

5e Barbarian gets:

Feral Instinct
By 7th level, your instincts are so honed that you have advantage on Initiative rolls.

Additionally, if you are surprised at the Beginning of Combat and aren’t Incapacitated, you can act normally on your first turn, but only if you enter your rage before doing anything else on that turn.


IME they're great mage killers.

5e Champion Fighters get half prof to Init via Incredible Athlete, but then so do 5e Bards via Jack of All Trades(!)
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Omega on April 30, 2021, 07:00:24 AM
The "wahhh! Wizards are more powerfull than warriors" spiel has been an ongoing fallacy for decades now in D&D.

The fact is that Fighters out DPS wizards in about every edition. Wizards have more versatility. But thats really it.

The main factor for fighters is getting ahold of magic weapons and armour. If a campaign is stingy on the items then the fighter can end up falling behind a bit. But not by much. The system is alot more balanced than most give it credit for.

The problems start when people begin to remove the restrictions on casters.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2021, 07:37:24 AM
1E and 2E also limited the magic-user's capability to pull rabbits out of their hat for every occasion with a hard cap on spells a magic-user could learn.
I always liked the idea behind that rule, but yes, there were too many exceptions.

Here's a quick house rule: Magic-users have a 50% chance to fail to learn any particular spell, and they can learn 4 spells/level. Period. That means fireball isn't guaranteed, and you have some hard choices to make. Do you leave a slot open in the hopes you'll find a great new spell? I'd also allow them to use higher level spell slots, so even if you already know 4 3rd level spells, you could still pickup fireball as a 4th level spell.

Restricting # of spells known is probably the best way to keep old school mages in check. The 2e generalist mage spell list was a mistake.

Those rules keep getting watered-down because there are some basic utility spells (e.g. detect magic) that in a lot of campaigns any wizard would have.  My solution is that there are two tiers of spells--common ones that every wizard can learn if they want and rare ones that work more like what you've suggested.  You don't even need a 50% chance for those.  Ideally, they take a lot of questing and time and digging through old archives to even have a shot at learning.  Every GM will disagree about what goes into common/rare, but that should be set by campaign anyway.

For new or casual players this also has the huge benefit of shortening the spell lists.  You only give them the common lists and let them find a rare scroll eventually to learn that there are more.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Ghostmaker on April 30, 2021, 08:10:29 AM
The "wahhh! Wizards are more powerfull than warriors" spiel has been an ongoing fallacy for decades now in D&D.

The fact is that Fighters out DPS wizards in about every edition. Wizards have more versatility. But thats really it.

The main factor for fighters is getting ahold of magic weapons and armour. If a campaign is stingy on the items then the fighter can end up falling behind a bit. But not by much. The system is alot more balanced than most give it credit for.

The problems start when people begin to remove the restrictions on casters.
It's not the DPS, it's the other options wizards enjoy. The fight is more than DPS, you know.

Also, Steven Mitchell makes a good point. I'd strip read magic and detect magic from the spell lists entirely and make them skill checks.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 08:17:57 AM
  One issue I had with 5e was it seemed they pushed balance in an odd way (where so many classes had magic like abilities they could call on in combat) where I always thought 1e had a decent metric to balancing wizards.   They had a tiny hit point pool, and they took a great deal more xp to advance than other classes.  I think the real issue is, if you want warriors to be prominent, you are playing the wrong game in Dungeons and Dragons.  It is not Sword and Sorcery.  The old Conan using 3e rules had some metrics to give warriors an honest chance (but really, it makes sorcerers powerful, magic just had a price).  I think a darker fantasy settings (like WHFRP 2e (cant speak to other editions), DCC, and Elric) give some cost to using magic.  I have a Conan setting in GURPS and sorcerers are very powerful, but magic can cost them quite alot if the have a bad die roll and most spells are actually preparations in advance of material objects to function a specific way. 

     My suggestion would be to give a different game a try, even Savage worlds and GURPS have some tweaks that can give a more sword and sorcery or sword and sandal feel where the mighty thewed warrior can come out on top.  But it should be noted, in settings like that magic is much more rare, and on a relative scale much more powerful, and the people who come out on top of mages are not just fighter#3 at the inn, but heroes who have songs sung about them in every inn all over an entire region.

   I also am curious, is a tone change Shark is looking for or a means to change the basic landscape of D&D?
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 08:18:34 AM
The "wahhh! Wizards are more powerfull than warriors" spiel has been an ongoing fallacy for decades now in D&D.

The fact is that Fighters out DPS wizards in about every edition. Wizards have more versatility. But thats really it.

The main factor for fighters is getting ahold of magic weapons and armour. If a campaign is stingy on the items then the fighter can end up falling behind a bit. But not by much. The system is alot more balanced than most give it credit for.

The problems start when people begin to remove the restrictions on casters.
It's not the DPS, it's the other options wizards enjoy. The fight is more than DPS, you know.

Also, Steven Mitchell makes a good point. I'd strip read magic and detect magic from the spell lists entirely and make them skill checks.

   Correct, the Wizard can win a fight and not do a single point of damage.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 08:21:32 AM
The "wahhh! Wizards are more powerfull than warriors" spiel has been an ongoing fallacy for decades now in D&D.

The fact is that Fighters out DPS wizards in about every edition. Wizards have more versatility. But thats really it.

The main factor for fighters is getting ahold of magic weapons and armour. If a campaign is stingy on the items then the fighter can end up falling behind a bit. But not by much. The system is alot more balanced than most give it credit for.

The problems start when people begin to remove the restrictions on casters.

  We must have been playing a completely different 1st edition version of D&D then.  Because there is no way any fighter can compete with fireball and mobs of goons getting hit with it on the DPS meter.   But I think that was balanced with the squish of the wizard and the difference in XP to level.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Pat on April 30, 2021, 08:30:47 AM
  We must have been playing a completely different 1st edition version of D&D then.  Because there is no way any fighter can compete with fireball and mobs of goons getting hit with it on the DPS meter.   But I think that was balanced with the squish of the wizard and the difference in XP to level.
Even 1e dart double specialists can't keep pace with magic-users after 5th level. The only old school edition that gives fighters a chance is BECMI, with fighter combat options and smash. The ability to take a -5 to hit and get your entire strength score as a bonus to damage (+18 with gauntlets), doubling (expert) or tripling (master/grand master) weapon damage, and entirely negating a certain number of attacks per round (deflect) really changes the game. Fighters can't do as much damage at one time, affect as many foes at once, and don't have as versatile a range of effects, but they become point sources of destruction. And when combined with the bad AC of magic-users (no bracers), multiple attacks (which kick in when it's easy to hit a foe), and the bonus damage for low to hit rolls, magic-users who let a fighter close go splat.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: S'mon on April 30, 2021, 08:31:18 AM
  We must have been playing a completely different 1st edition version of D&D then.  Because there is no way any fighter can compete with fireball and mobs of goons getting hit with it on the DPS meter.   But I think that was balanced with the squish of the wizard and the difference in XP to level.

I remember level 12 Fighters getting 12 attacks/round - every round... those poor villagers at Tanaroa. :(
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 09:18:44 AM
 I remember the level 12 wizard who killed the same 12 villagers as well as 15 gnolls in the same tight space.  BEing able to multi attack zero level scrubs looks good on paper, but given the low number of things that will matter with, I dont know that it means they were in any way competing. 
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: VisionStorm on April 30, 2021, 09:39:12 AM
The "wahhh! Wizards are more powerfull than warriors" spiel has been an ongoing fallacy for decades now in D&D.

The fact is that Fighters out DPS wizards in about every edition. Wizards have more versatility. But thats really it.

The main factor for fighters is getting ahold of magic weapons and armour. If a campaign is stingy on the items then the fighter can end up falling behind a bit. But not by much. The system is alot more balanced than most give it credit for.

The problems start when people begin to remove the restrictions on casters.

  We must have been playing a completely different 1st edition version of D&D then.  Because there is no way any fighter can compete with fireball and mobs of goons getting hit with it on the DPS meter.   But I think that was balanced with the squish of the wizard and the difference in XP to level.

It depends on the level of the fighter and what kind of weapons they have or options are being used in the game. Granted, I only played 2e and used a lot of options, so "disclaimer", but the highest level (lv 20+ at some point) longest running fighter in my old 90s gaming group had max STR and dual-wielded twin Scimitars of Speed +5 with scimitar weapon mastery and the guy could ditch out ridiculous damage per round, between STR bonus, magic weapon bonus, and mastery bonuses, plus like 5+ attacks per round due to level, mastery, dual-wielding mastery and permanent Haste from the scimitars. All of which adds up to enough damage rival a Fireball (1d8+STR+Magic+Mastery x5+) if all attacks hit (which they always did at his level, plus bonuses). And he could do that Every. Single. Round. No bullshit spell slots or anything, but... Every. Single. Round.

We also used Called Shot rules, cuz "realism", and with his effective THAC0 from all his bonuses plus class level he could decapitate (-8 to hit, called shot to the Head) almost anything as a routine roll. Called Shot rules just break apart at higher levels older editions of D&D (anything before 5e, maybe 4e, really) because THAC0/Attack Bonus keeps improving and magic bonuses rack up to the point where a -8 to hit (the highest penalty for called shots, which is to the head or vitals) becomes negligible. At least for warriors.

But that's a matter of whether you allow those rules or not. And a lot of this depends on what type of magic items you allow in the game. A warrior without magic weapons is gonna be at a serious disadvantage against a magic user at higher levels. This makes warriors highly reliant on gear just to measure up to casters, while spell casters need no weapons still ditch out serious damage or buff themselves up.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 11:25:20 AM
The "wahhh! Wizards are more powerfull than warriors" spiel has been an ongoing fallacy for decades now in D&D.

The fact is that Fighters out DPS wizards in about every edition. Wizards have more versatility. But thats really it.

The main factor for fighters is getting ahold of magic weapons and armour. If a campaign is stingy on the items then the fighter can end up falling behind a bit. But not by much. The system is alot more balanced than most give it credit for.

The problems start when people begin to remove the restrictions on casters.

  We must have been playing a completely different 1st edition version of D&D then.  Because there is no way any fighter can compete with fireball and mobs of goons getting hit with it on the DPS meter.   But I think that was balanced with the squish of the wizard and the difference in XP to level.

It depends on the level of the fighter and what kind of weapons they have or options are being used in the game. Granted, I only played 2e and used a lot of options, so "disclaimer", but the highest level (lv 20+ at some point) longest running fighter in my old 90s gaming group had max STR and dual-wielded twin Scimitars of Speed +5 with scimitar weapon mastery and the guy could ditch out ridiculous damage per round, between STR bonus, magic weapon bonus, and mastery bonuses, plus like 5+ attacks per round due to level, mastery, dual-wielding mastery and permanent Haste from the scimitars. All of which adds up to enough damage rival a Fireball (1d8+STR+Magic+Mastery x5+) if all attacks hit (which they always did at his level, plus bonuses). And he could do that Every. Single. Round. No bullshit spell slots or anything, but... Every. Single. Round.

We also used Called Shot rules, cuz "realism", and with his effective THAC0 from all his bonuses plus class level he could decapitate (-8 to hit, called shot to the Head) almost anything as a routine roll. Called Shot rules just break apart at higher levels older editions of D&D (anything before 5e, maybe 4e, really) because THAC0/Attack Bonus keeps improving and magic bonuses rack up to the point where a -8 to hit (the highest penalty for called shots, which is to the head or vitals) becomes negligible. At least for warriors.

But that's a matter of whether you allow those rules or not. And a lot of this depends on what type of magic items you allow in the game. A warrior without magic weapons is gonna be at a serious disadvantage against a magic user at higher levels. This makes warriors highly reliant on gear just to measure up to casters, while spell casters need no weapons still ditch out serious damage or buff themselves up.

  Point taken, but it being 2e and the rather Loooong list of options and magic gear the fighter needed sort of makes my point better than your point.   Not to mention fireball can hit alot more targets than 5 attacks, and at that level we are getting into cloud kills, walls of fire, meteors falling from the sky, etc.( Pack similar powered magic gear onto our level 20 wizard and give him godly class stats as well and I am not so sure an apple to apple comparison is as favorable as first glance suggests.)   All of which will hit and kill more targets and do much more damage than 5 attacks.  I would agree the advantage here is the fighter has attacks that never need a recharge, but his burst is not as big, and his AOE is no where close.  The fighter is a marathon runner, not a 100 meter man. 
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 11:29:32 AM
  Did you allow, say the wizard to use his spells for called shots as well?  Since magic missile never misses and is mentally guided, seems like the Mages would be hitting quite a few decaps themselves. 
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Krugus on April 30, 2021, 06:59:41 PM
Yea I know its not popular but I use the Pathfinder 2e Rules for my Homebrew world and just as a default in that game system, Martial classes are better at single target damage than wizards where wizards excel at AoE damage and Utility.    What currently happened in my homebrew world is it went through a magical "dark ages" in that magic almost went out.   The world is starting to recover and the gods have been rediscovered as well as Arcane magic.   As of right now the highest level spells anyone can get easily is up to 2nd level spells (this is for ALL casters including Cleric's and Druids).   My players party make up is a Warpriest with a Gunslinger archetype (custom), A Druid, A Rogue with a free Wizard archetype, A Deathknight Champion (custom class) and a Monk.  So they are always eager to find new spells.   Heaven forbid I through a spellcaster at them.   They get downright giddy at the prospect of what new spells they might acquire.   
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: VisionStorm on April 30, 2021, 07:28:29 PM
  Did you allow, say the wizard to use his spells for called shots as well?  Since magic missile never misses and is mentally guided, seems like the Mages would be hitting quite a few decaps themselves.

Nah, since most magic uses different mechanics than attack rolls and magic missile doesn't even allow/require a roll (other than damage). I think that the rules specifically stated that you couldn't use call shots with magic. It may have made an exception for spells that used attack rolls (like Acid Arrow), but don't recall and it never came up during play. My witch tended to favor flashier stuff, like Fireball and Chain Lightning, which work with saving throws.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 07:33:14 PM
  Did you allow, say the wizard to use his spells for called shots as well?  Since magic missile never misses and is mentally guided, seems like the Mages would be hitting quite a few decaps themselves.

Nah, since most magic uses different mechanics than attack rolls and magic missile doesn't even allow/require a roll (other than damage). I think that the rules specifically stated that you couldn't use call shots with magic. It may have made an exception for spells that used attack rolls (like Acid Arrow), but don't recall and it never came up during play. My witch tended to favor flashier stuff, like Fireball and Chain Lightning, which work with saving throws.

You can't cast against what you can't see, and I have used "called shots" as a wizard, "I cast light on the eyes of the Orc leader".
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: VisionStorm on April 30, 2021, 07:37:58 PM
  Did you allow, say the wizard to use his spells for called shots as well?  Since magic missile never misses and is mentally guided, seems like the Mages would be hitting quite a few decaps themselves.

Nah, since most magic uses different mechanics than attack rolls and magic missile doesn't even allow/require a roll (other than damage). I think that the rules specifically stated that you couldn't use call shots with magic. It may have made an exception for spells that used attack rolls (like Acid Arrow), but don't recall and it never came up during play. My witch tended to favor flashier stuff, like Fireball and Chain Lightning, which work with saving throws.

You can't cast against what you can't see, and I have used "called shots" as a wizard, "I cast light on the eyes of the Orc leader".

I think that usage of the Light spell could count as a touch attack, which might benefit from called shots, since it would need an attack roll. But for some reason it's never come up in my games (at least not that I recall, might have happened once or more ages ago). Usually people use Darkness in an area instead.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Mishihari on May 06, 2021, 10:31:32 PM
3E did away with spell interruption, which royally screwed up balance IMO.  It massively increased the power of casters and made the tactics and strategy of the games much simpler - not a good thing.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: robertliguori on May 06, 2021, 10:35:50 PM
3E did away with spell interruption, which royally screwed up balance IMO.  It massively increased the power of casters and made the tactics and strategy of the games much simpler - not a good thing.

Spell interruption is a thing in 3.XE; you've got concentration checks if you take damage while casting a spell.  But very few spells last longer than an action, so if you get in melee range, you turn, leg it, eat your op, then turn invisible or fly off or teleport away or whatnot.  You can also have your ranged combatants ready a shot, and peg the wizard when he tries to cast, and potentially ruin his spell and do full damage.  But if the caster runs for cover before casting, then you've lost your action.

There was some tactics involved, but generally speaking, they had the problem of spells like Teleport and Dimension Door being an action, and so past a certain level, if the wizard gets even a hint of breathing room, he's gone.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Pat on May 07, 2021, 12:03:13 AM
Yes there is spell interruption in 3e. But it was a lot easier to interrupt a spellcaster in older editions.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Mishihari on May 07, 2021, 12:54:40 AM
3E did away with spell interruption, which royally screwed up balance IMO.  It massively increased the power of casters and made the tactics and strategy of the games much simpler - not a good thing.

Spell interruption is a thing in 3.XE; you've got concentration checks if you take damage while casting a spell.  But very few spells last longer than an action, so if you get in melee range, you turn, leg it, eat your op, then turn invisible or fly off or teleport away or whatnot.  You can also have your ranged combatants ready a shot, and peg the wizard when he tries to cast, and potentially ruin his spell and do full damage.  But if the caster runs for cover before casting, then you've lost your action.

There was some tactics involved, but generally speaking, they had the problem of spells like Teleport and Dimension Door being an action, and so past a certain level, if the wizard gets even a hint of breathing room, he's gone.

Alright, you caught me, I exaggerated for effect.  Spell interruption is still in there, but I don't recall it actually coming up during a 3E game, whereas with 1E and 2E it was a constant threat.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: S'mon on May 07, 2021, 03:45:56 AM
Spell interruption is a thing in 3.XE; you've got concentration checks if you take damage while casting a spell.  But very few spells last longer than an action, so if you get in melee range, you turn, leg it, eat your op, then turn invisible or fly off or teleport away or whatnot.

Usually you could just 5' step back (no Op Att) and cast. Same for ranged attacks. 3e really hated melee characters.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Wntrlnd on May 07, 2021, 06:28:23 AM
In the Pathfinder campaign I'm playing in now we don't even have a sorceror or wizard.

We have a cleric of course who now and then uses some fire spell against monster who have weakness for it and at those times can do a decent amount of damage.

But she pales in comparison with the dwarf Barbarian who uses oversized weapons, the ranger/magus (as long as its one of his preferred enemies), the Cavalier/Paladin who can lance charge for huge amounts of damage on a single attack (as long as she has her horse). And the clean elven fighter isnt all that bad either.

The DM wont let us have a spellcaster as a hireling or henchman because then it would be to easy.. (its a official campaign, which is part of the problem, as since we know to 80-90% what were gonna face, we can optimize our abilities and magic items)
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Steven Mitchell on May 07, 2021, 07:54:11 AM
Yes there is spell interruption in 3e. But it was a lot easier to interrupt a spellcaster in older editions.

Though still a little cumbersome--if you don't care for the initiative system that makes casting a gamble.  That's why I made the change I referenced on the first page of having most spells take an additional action to prepare*.  (Note, not the same thing as deciding which spells you want for the day.  If adapted to a D&D game that uses "prepare" for that, you'd need a different term.) 

Yes, in 3E or 5E, that takes all casters down a peg or two.  They've still got some earth-shaking spells that are very useful.  It doesn't entirely fix the real problem with spells in higher level 3E, which is the sheer number of stacking buffs and all the accounting that goes with it, but at least in an ambush the casters are playing catch up.  With such a house rule in those systems, I'd make the distinction between preparing versus casting the spell have clear boundaries:  Prepare is picking the spell.  Casting is picking targets, area, all the usual stuff--and burning the slot.  That will mitigate slightly some of the analysis paralysis for the players, too.

I don't say that the casters will like it.  It's a serious reduction in their power. 
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Ghostmaker on May 07, 2021, 08:28:20 AM
Mmm. The point about spell interruption is good. 3E definitely made it easier to get spells off. Hence, I suspect, why Complete Arcane had those 'screw the mage' feats for martial characters.

The aforementioned 5' step, of course, is the easiest way to do it. Casting defensively in 3E required a Concentration check of DC 15 + the spell level. Like most skill checks, it's easier as you go up in levels -- assuming you're a 10th level caster, you should in theory have 13 ranks (it's a class skill for most casters) plus your Con bonus (let's be picky and say you've only got a +1). So, +14 on the check. If you took the Combat Casting feat, you get +4 to that check.

Assuming a 10th level wizard with +14 on the check, he needs a 6+ on d20 to defensively cast a fifth level spell (his highest level available, at DC 20). To quote the Mandalorian, 'I like those odds.'

Pathfinder 1E was a little better. PF eliminated the Concentration skill, and changed it to d20 + caster level + casting stat modifier. However, the DC got harder (DC 15 + (2x spell level)). Taking that 10th level wizard again, his Concentration check is probably the same -- assuming an 18 Int, he's still got a +14 on the check. But now he needs a 11+ on d20 to cast his fifth level spell defensively. Since PF was a little more generous with feats than 3E, you'd probably see that wizard taking Combat Casting if his buddies kept having trouble with keeping him from being mugged.

It should be noted that a quickened spell (using the Quicken Spell feat) does NOT provoke attacks of opportunity.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: robertliguori on May 07, 2021, 08:42:02 AM
Mmm. The point about spell interruption is good. 3E definitely made it easier to get spells off. Hence, I suspect, why Complete Arcane had those 'screw the mage' feats for martial characters.

The aforementioned 5' step, of course, is the easiest way to do it. Casting defensively in 3E required a Concentration check of DC 15 + the spell level. Like most skill checks, it's easier as you go up in levels -- assuming you're a 10th level caster, you should in theory have 13 ranks (it's a class skill for most casters) plus your Con bonus (let's be picky and say you've only got a +1). So, +14 on the check. If you took the Combat Casting feat, you get +4 to that check.

Assuming a 10th level wizard with +14 on the check, he needs a 6+ on d20 to defensively cast a fifth level spell (his highest level available, at DC 20). To quote the Mandalorian, 'I like those odds.'

Pathfinder 1E was a little better. PF eliminated the Concentration skill, and changed it to d20 + caster level + casting stat modifier. However, the DC got harder (DC 15 + (2x spell level)). Taking that 10th level wizard again, his Concentration check is probably the same -- assuming an 18 Int, he's still got a +14 on the check. But now he needs a 16+ on d20 to cast his fifth level spell defensively. Since PF was a little more generous with feats than 3E, you'd probably see that wizard taking Combat Casting if his buddies kept having trouble with keeping him from being mugged.

It should be noted that a quickened spell (using the Quicken Spell feat) does NOT provoke attacks of opportunity.

There were also some system-master-y tricks you could pull.  One simple one is the Vanish spell; it's a level 1 invisibility with duration measured in rounds.  Our caster buddy only has a DC 17 check to cast it defensively, and if it gets off, he can indeed bug out (assuming a lack of See Invisibility in his threatener).  Another more direct method is Darting Duplicate, which makes an illusion of you moving to provoke an op; it's a swift action, so it doesn't provoke itself, and actually forces the user to op the illusion on a failed will save (while presumably giving them a 50/50 of targeting you if they don't and you move).

There are a lot of tools in the toolbox to deal with being threatened in caster range, and not a whole lot for the fighters and defenders to do about it.

On the other hand, a fighter supplemented with magic can do a fairly good job.  Get a spear-wielding fighter in spiked armor (to threaten close and far), tag them with Enlarge Person, and you can do a lot of pain to any caster who was counting on being able to 5' out of threat range.  But you need a caster for that to really dominate the battlefield, which makes it kind of a counterexample to the point of this thread.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Steven Mitchell on May 07, 2021, 08:54:51 AM
Does anyone really like the wizard as "glass cannon artillery"?  That is, I get why, say, the AD&D wizard is made as a glass cannon to trade off from that immense, eventual power.  I can see why someone would say they want the wizard to be very powerful, and there has to be some kind of trade off.  I can see settling for the glass cannon aspect as  way to handle it.  I don't particularly care for it, but I had a lot of fun with AD&D for many years and would still enjoy playing it in the right circumstances.  That's different than actually liking the "glass cannon artillery" thing for its own sake.

Is a lot of our discussion about wizards on this topic (and 5E cantrips and high level player and first level 1 spell and all the usual suspects) built on disagreement on where the wizard fits in the scheme of things?  I've always kind of envisioned my wizards as more fun if their first reaction on being surrounded in melee is to pull out a weapon and try to fight their way out of melee as soon as possible, with just enough fighting ability to not make that a likely death sentence.  Given my druthers in 5E, I'd rather they have that than unlimited cantrips. 

 
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Zalman on May 07, 2021, 09:51:15 AM
Does anyone really like the wizard as "glass cannon artillery"?

I like the wizard as artisan more than artillery. I'm perfectly fine with wizards having next to zero combat skills either way, just as I'm fine with warriors being unable to cast even a single spell.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: HappyDaze on May 07, 2021, 10:01:45 AM
My favorite take on the wizard was from Gauntlet.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: KingCheops on May 07, 2021, 10:42:02 AM
Does anyone really like the wizard as "glass cannon artillery"?  That is, I get why, say, the AD&D wizard is made as a glass cannon to trade off from that immense, eventual power.  I can see why someone would say they want the wizard to be very powerful, and there has to be some kind of trade off.  I can see settling for the glass cannon aspect as  way to handle it.  I don't particularly care for it, but I had a lot of fun with AD&D for many years and would still enjoy playing it in the right circumstances.  That's different than actually liking the "glass cannon artillery" thing for its own sake.

Is a lot of our discussion about wizards on this topic (and 5E cantrips and high level player and first level 1 spell and all the usual suspects) built on disagreement on where the wizard fits in the scheme of things?  I've always kind of envisioned my wizards as more fun if their first reaction on being surrounded in melee is to pull out a weapon and try to fight their way out of melee as soon as possible, with just enough fighting ability to not make that a likely death sentence.  Given my druthers in 5E, I'd rather they have that than unlimited cantrips. 


Yes.  Some people want to be howitzers, some people want to be heavy machine guns, and some assholes want to be Rambo killing with a knife while also packing vehicle mounted weaponry and personal on-call artillery.

All the hybrid classes have been trying to solve this conundrum from late 2nd onwards.  How to let someone be a badass in combat as well as a spellcaster without stepping on either of those specialists or seeming like a weaker version of both.  I don't lump earlier editions because there was usually a very steep cost to get those hybrids (attribute requirements being the first one).
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Chris24601 on May 07, 2021, 11:20:44 AM
Wizard as glass cannon and their limited payload of spells is an artifact of them being adapted from artillery in the Chainmail wargame D&D derived from. As such it doesn’t ring all that true to a lot of wizard-types from myth, legend and literature.

For just one example, Gandolf breaks out a sword more often than he does spells. Merlin in actual legend was mostly a seer/prophet with some shapeshifting ability. Medea was a herbalist/healer with some prophetic ability.

For the most part, works of magic in myth and legend and ancient cultures were to either summon up or protect against evil spirits/curses.

Basically, the lobber of fireballs isn’t very rooted in much. The first literary example anyone’s really found comes from a 1930’s Conan story where a sorcerer lobs a sphere of “hellish fire” at Conan, who ducks it and cuts off the sorcerer’s head before they can throw the orb in their other hand. The first visual reference would be the Wicked Witch of the West tossing a flaming ball at the Scarecrow in 1939’s Wizard of Oz. So basically Satanic magicians throwing something from Hell at people they wished harm upon.

Beyond that most of the energy casting by glass cannon wizards can basically be laid at the feet of D&D as the source (though it adopted it from Chainmail). It is entirely a D&D-ism just like “healing magic is exclusive to clerics/divine casters” is (and the notion that there even IS a divide between “arcane” and “divine” magic in the first place).

Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Steven Mitchell on May 07, 2021, 11:53:56 AM
Yeah, I know the history and why it is that way.  What I'm asking is if people like the "glass cannon" part for its own sake.  It's akin to that rare breed that occasionally wants to play the pacifist healer.  They have an image in their mind of "my guy doesn't fight" and are into that role/archetype.  Does anyone feel that way about the wizard avoiding melee at all costs?  Or is it just the D&D version of "cosmic power, itty-bitty living space"? 
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Chris24601 on May 07, 2021, 12:38:22 PM
Personally, I’m not a fan of glass cannons or it’s opposite extreme, the stone wall (can take it, but can’t dish anything meaningful). I’m more prefer slightly specialized jack-of-all-stats types.

Or to put into numbers... Let’s say a D&D Fighter is a 10 fighting (the best attack progression with best weapons and amor)/1 magic (can use magic items) and a Wizard is a 1 fighting (can use daggers, darts and staves)/10 magic (eventually make genie wishes look underpowered).

With those as a baseline, my preference would be Fighters having 7 fighting (have to pick particular fighting styles, weapons and armor and some creatures are naturally better than even a fighter at physical combat)/4 magic (in this case reliably pulling off superhuman feats of prowess like Hercules or various other mythic heroes) while Wizards have 4 fighting (can wield sidearm-style weapons like swords and wear gambesons, mail shirts and brigandine vests)/7 magic (say capped at 6th level spells, but get more 5e cantrip style at-will minor magics).

In between those you could then drop a 6/5 holy warrior (or thief/rogue if you defined their “magic” as their arsenal of clever/dirty tricks) and a 5/6 “red mage” (gish) without either feeling so middling that they’re gimped by their lack of specialization.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: jhkim on May 07, 2021, 01:12:46 PM
Personally, I’m not a fan of glass cannons or it’s opposite extreme, the stone wall (can take it, but can’t dish anything meaningful). I’m more prefer slightly specialized jack-of-all-stats types.

Or to put into numbers... Let’s say a D&D Fighter is a 10 fighting (the best attack progression with best weapons and amor)/1 magic (can use magic items) and a Wizard is a 1 fighting (can use daggers, darts and staves)/10 magic (eventually make genie wishes look underpowered).

With those as a baseline, my preference would be Fighters having 7 fighting (have to pick particular fighting styles, weapons and armor and some creatures are naturally better than even a fighter at physical combat)/4 magic (in this case reliably pulling off superhuman feats of prowess like Hercules or various other mythic heroes) while Wizards have 4 fighting (can wield sidearm-style weapons like swords and wear gambesons, mail shirts and brigandine vests)/7 magic (say capped at 6th level spells, but get more 5e cantrip style at-will minor magics).

In between those you could then drop a 6/5 holy warrior (or thief/rogue if you defined their “magic” as their arsenal of clever/dirty tricks) and a 5/6 “red mage” (gish) without either feeling so middling that they’re gimped by their lack of specialization.

Coming at this more from a background of more GURPS, Hero System, Runequest and other non-D&D systems. I think the default in other systems tends to be characters who are less specialized than old-school D&D -- i.e. more 7/4 than 10/1. However, I like being able to smoothly handle all of generalists, hybrids, and specialists.

It sometimes has taken some special GM attention to make things work, but I've had good games that included generalists as well as specialists like glass cannons and pacifist healers. The specifics of the system can make things wonky, but I like having the variety.


Regarding the OP-based rant about warriors versus wizards, I find that a common pattern especially in D&D is that spellcasters become increasingly vital for their strategic and non-combat capabilities, while the fighters become more like "grunts". Even if they are vitally important for combat, they become less important overall. This has been less of an issue in games with more social aspects. One of the important non-combat power of fighters is being respected heroes and leaders.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: HappyDaze on May 07, 2021, 01:20:12 PM
I wonder how it would play out if you inverted the wizard trope so that they need to wear heavy armor to safely use spells. If you like, say that the armor keeps the magical energies from grounding through their bodies. Casting in Medium armor leaves a some risk, Light armor a bigger risk, and casting unarmored is sure to hurt. Now you probably end up with Wizards dumping Dex and taking Str instead (possibly as #2 stat, or as #3 after Con).

Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on May 07, 2021, 02:19:15 PM
It's worth remembering that just as most PC wizards don't start out as Merlin or Malagigi, most PC warriors don't start out as Achilles or Lancelot either. For every type of character of X general power/effectiveness level, there is a point where a different character type of Y general power/effectiveness level can give them a fair fight, and a point at which that character of Y+5 power level can squash them; that's an inevitability in any game with significant power progression in its PCs.

Balanced against this is the idea that the whole point of characters with significantly different operating modes is that attempting to confront them in the manner where they're strongest, and you're not, will always work to your disadvantage. Trying to face a wizard's magic when you don't have any magic yourself is supposed to get you turned into a frog, just as trying to pick up a sword and kill a seasoned, armoured warrior with it when you're a scrawny git in an oversized purple robe is supposed to wind up increasing your familiarity with the colour of your bowels. This is why adventuring parties are encouraged to have multiple character types, so they can combine dissimilar assets for best effect. (Hat tip to Brian Gleichman for that note.)

From this perspective the idea of giving the warrior the abilities and items he needs to "go toe to toe" with wizards on a regular basis is kind of missing the point, because that's really just a way of making the high-level warrior into another kind of wizard. (Even Conan's most notable takedown of a nest of wizards, in "The People of the Black Circle", was enabled by a magic belt conveniently passed on to him by a traitor from the wizards' own order, succeeded only because he hooked up with a squadron of Irakzai soldiers and fatalistic hillmen en route, and almost got him killed at the last minute anyway by a vengeful survivor, an attack which a lucky warning alone staved off.) The whole point of learning how to beat wizards without being one yourself is to outthink them, to play to their personal and tactical weaknesses, and to accept up front that there are going to be a lot of fatal failed attempts in the process.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Mishihari on May 07, 2021, 03:31:40 PM
Does anyone really like the wizard as "glass cannon artillery"?

I do.  I love it actually.  It strongly encourages teamwork amongst the players and adds a lot of depth to tactics.  D&D's moving away from this was a big factor in my disenchantment with the game.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Slambo on May 07, 2021, 03:32:56 PM
It's worth remembering that just as most PC wizards don't start out as Merlin or Malagigi, most PC warriors don't start out as Achilles or Lancelot either. For every type of character of X general power/effectiveness level, there is a point where a different character type of Y general power/effectiveness level can give them a fair fight, and a point at which that character of Y+5 power level can squash them; that's an inevitability in any game with significant power progression in its PCs.

Balanced against this is the idea that the whole point of characters with significantly different operating modes is that attempting to confront them in the manner where they're strongest, and you're not, will always work to your disadvantage. Trying to face a wizard's magic when you don't have any magic yourself is supposed to get you turned into a frog, just as trying to pick up a sword and kill a seasoned, armoured warrior with it when you're a scrawny git in an oversized purple robe is supposed to wind up increasing your familiarity with the colour of your bowels. This is why adventuring parties are encouraged to have multiple character types, so they can combine dissimilar assets for best effect. (Hat tip to Brian Gleichman for that note.)

From this perspective the idea of giving the warrior the abilities and items he needs to "go toe to toe" with wizards on a regular basis is kind of missing the point, because that's really just a way of making the high-level warrior into another kind of wizard.

The problem is most pc warriors never become lancelot or achilles and pc wizards would fold merlin 4x over.

Also tge example is kinda flawed as, while a wizard shouldnt be trying to take on a fighter woth swords, when both use their strengths to their advantage the wizard wins.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on May 07, 2021, 08:00:36 PM
Also the example is kinda flawed as, while a wizard shouldn't be trying to take on a fighter with swords, when both use their strengths to their advantage the wizard wins.

Again, that's my point. The warrior using his strengths to his advantage equals not facing a fully-prepared wizard head on and giving him any kind of warning -- because one of the warrior's strengths is that he doesn't need hours of preparation to bring his abilities up to full speed.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: robertliguori on May 07, 2021, 08:09:03 PM
Also the example is kinda flawed as, while a wizard shouldn't be trying to take on a fighter with swords, when both use their strengths to their advantage the wizard wins.

Again, that's my point. The warrior using his strengths to his advantage equals not facing a fully-prepared wizard head on and giving him any kind of warning -- because one of the warrior's strengths is that he doesn't need hours of preparation to bring his abilities up to full speed.

Not giving a paranoid wizard warning is much easier said than done.  Wizards get the Alarm spell from level 1; every creature moving through a prepared area of considerable radius can give them a mental ping, and at mid-levels, the spell can easily last all day, for a few first-level spell slots.  A wizard that Alarms the ground floor of their tower simply can't be ambushed by mundane forces; there's no way for nonmagical people to remove the alarm, or bypass it unless they're the size of a dormouse.

And that's literally the simplest warning spell there is.  If you want martial folks to be comparable with casters, you need to peel off layers of what casters can do.
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: SHARK on May 07, 2021, 09:16:04 PM
Greetings!

You know, I actually have always liked Wizards and such. I just have never understood so many people handwringing about how Warriors are nerfed and helpless.

I have played Paladins, Barbarians, and Fighters, for example, in AD&D, 3E, and 5E. Whether such characters have been level 10 or 20, they have always kicked ass and been great fun to play. Besides whatever mechanical abilities such warrior characters have contributed to the party, unleashing raw combat abilities and weapon skills--the warrior characters have always been vitally important to the party as a whole, and have forged social, military, and political dynamics that have been very influential in the campaign, and have never taken a back seat to Wizards or their ilk.

It just makes me wonder how the hell these kind of people have played their warrior characters in the campaign, and what they expect? Warriors are different from Wizards, just as they are both different from Rogues and Clerics.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on May 07, 2021, 09:47:26 PM
http://spheres5e.wikidot.com/
Title: Re: Raising Up WARRIORS and Breaking the Wizard Down!
Post by: Shasarak on May 07, 2021, 10:01:49 PM
If you really wanted to do pvp rankings then you should probably aim for something like:

Warrior <  Wizard  <  Thief  <  Warrior