D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[Mort]

Not to mention that they're likely changing Banishment so that the target gets a save every round. There are another handful of spells like Forcecage that can trap creatures which IMHO are even worse. It's easy enough to ban those handful of problematic spells if they're making the game unbalanced of course.

Once a DM knows to do that, and some of the spells are not the ones you would expect.

But the assumption is always that wizards (and the people who play them) are like Batman with the correct spell always prepared and the spell slot available to win the day. I've seen it once in a blue moon, but I've played multiple games to 20th level now and it's rare. On the rare occasions when it does work it's fantastic and everybody cheers. Different classes have different roles. I want to maintain that distinction.

You don't need the "perfect" spell for any occasion. The wizard has more than enough slots to have a very useful and broad selection any given day. Heck in the last 2 adventures (where I got to play!) the two MVPs were minor illusion and enhance ability - easy choices.

 

[M_Natas]

Thanks for the analysis, really interesting. I think it's clear that one problem (as stated) is that most campaigns, including ones that use published modules, don't have neary as many fights/encounters between rests as the rules assume they would.

That said, I'll echo what was said by multiple people above. It's not really about combat. IME fighters are fine, even good/great in combat (though to my taste a bit boring, but that's a different issue).

The problem is in the other tiers of the game where fighters get so much less options/support than the caster classes.

For the other pillars of play its harder to do the math . Combat is easy to calculate.

But to mitigate some issues, first of all, to improve the abilities of the Fighter and other "ressource-less" classes would be to add ressource abilities, so they can Nova, too.
For the other pillars of play, I think magic rituals are some things every character maybe could do, gated by intelligence (like lvl 1 rituals if you have +1 Int modifier, lvl 2 rituals if you habe +2 and so on). You still have to learn them, too.

The exploration pillar needs a complete overhaul anyway. There are background abilities like with the Outlander that completely negate stuff like finding food and water.

 

[overgeeked]

That's the biggest problem I see in threads like these. This assumption. In my project management world, we call it "garbage in, garbage out." For those not in the know, it basically means if you're starting with bad data, then no matter how good your process, the result will be bad.

If the proposed wizard changes go through, as long as the wizard knows the spell they'll be able to pick exactly the right one with only one minute of in-game prep time.

 

[payn]

Giving the DM - or, rather, the DM claiming, proactively - the flexibility to dictate when rests are possible, rather than being locked into a daily or 'gritty' weekly pacing, would go a ways towards expanding the sorts of stories that could be told while forcing the rough, combat-pillar-only, DPR-only, martial/caster balance 5e vaguely aims for.

Jettison encounter powers and short rest.

 

[Parmandur]

It's not though.

The fact is some of the classes are MUCH more affected by how encounters are designed and managed - and that is TERRIBLY communicated. The DMG essentially treats party design as neutral (number of people in the party vs. what classes those are) and it REALLY is not.

More importantly, the released adventures don't comport to the design assumptions in the DMG (generally with MUCH fewer encounters and of an easier nature).

The point is, experienced DMs know this and can compensate (or not) but new DMs are on their own. Yes. it's technically in the DMG, but I've read the DMG (multiple times) it is horribly presented and would be near impossible for a newcomer to absorb.

That's a game issue.

Yes, it is Class neutral. If you push the Encoutners as suggested, you will see even-keel results.

 

[Parmandur]

For the other pillars of play its harder to do the math . Combat is easy to calculate.

But to mitigate some issues, first of all, to improve the abilities of the Fighter and other "ressource-less" classes would be to add ressource abilities, so they can Nova, too.
For the other pillars of play, I think magic rituals are some things every character maybe could do, gated by intelligence (like lvl 1 rituals if you have +1 Int modifier, lvl 2 rituals if you habe +2 and so on). You still have to learn them, too.

The exploration pillar needs a complete overhaul anyway. There are background abilities like with the Outlander that completely negate stuff like finding food and water.

Apparently, WotC has worked out "Virtual Damage" math for utility abilities. They aren't sharing, though.

 

[Mort]

Yes, it is Class neutral. If you push the Encoutners as suggested, you will see even-keel results.

In Combat.

There is still the problem of casters having WAY more options in social and exploration. The DMG barely even addresses the imbalance.

Sure if the casters go hog wild on spell use in social and exploration AND the DM ALSO pushes the combats to the number needed/suggested in the DMG the casters might lag behind in combat. But most DMs won't know to do that, and the pace would have to be pretty unrelenting (or the alternate rest rules used, but again, the DMG doesn't go into that).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Jettison encounter powers and short rest.

Do the opposite of this. Kill long rest and the workday. Encounter powers only means you can scale the encounter schedule infinitely without breaking anything.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If the proposed wizard changes go through, as long as the wizard knows the spell they'll be able to pick exactly the right one with only one minute of in-game prep time.

I am not a fan of that move. I think it's a huge mistake to remove mitigations with casters. Have they learned nothing from 3e? In AD&D, caster balance was largely because of the things casters had to deal with (spell failure, being interrupted and losing the slot anyway, slower XP progression, spell components, etc.) If you get rid of those things or implement changes to minimize them but keep the fighter the same, it's no shock 3e had the problem it did.

 

[overgeeked]

I am not a fan of that move. I think it's a huge mistake to remove mitigations with casters. Have they learned nothing from 3e? In AD&D, caster balance was largely because of the things casters had to deal with (spell failure, being interrupted and losing the slot anyway, slower XP progression, spell components, etc.) If you get rid of those things or implement changes to minimize them but keep the fighter the same, it's no shock 3e had the problem it did.

Right. Point being it’s not “a garbage assumption” that the wizard will have a relevant spell. They may not always have the perfect spell, but they will almost always have a relevant or useful spell.

The wizard can add every spell they come across in written form to their spellbook without any real limits. The wizard can prep INT mod + wizard level of spells. Unless you dump stat INT, you’ll always have as many prepped spells as you have slots, if not more. The wizard can cast rituals of some spells to save slots. And real soon, the wizard can swap a prepped spell in one minute of in-game time.