Hey you darn kids get off my edition!

[oxybe]

Balance: older than you'd think.

It's not really balanced though, especially if you were the type to dislike playing fantasy middle-management and just wanted to continue adventuring like you did the level previous.

Then there's also the minor issue that one high level wizard is far more mobile then a fighter with ~100 or so level 0 mooks with a couple handful level 1-5 guys as his closest guard that you'll likely need to engage the wizard on his terms... I highly doubt Wizzy Wizard who managed to get to level 10 (and likely has a good intelligence score) would somehow let himself get randomly jumped by level 10 Fighty Fighterson and his personal army in flat, open plains.

High level D&D has usually been a matter of "who gets the jump on who first?" and "who can unleash their nuke first?"

A high level wizard getting the drop on Fighty's Army can absolutely sow chaos inbetween them, doubly so if did his research and prepped stuff like stoneskin beforehand.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I find getting referred to an EC video somewhat ironic. I've seen all of them probably 3 or 4 times over the years.
The problem is, along with complexity, they're axing depth as well. (See I can do it too.)
I guess it would be more accurate to say I am disappointed that deep games and high production values are mutually exclusive, due to the fact that the latter requires mass market appeal from a business perspective.

Didn't expect to see another EC fan.
There is that. However, I'd argue that a lot of the depth in a good RPG comes more from playstyle than rules. I mean, sure, you can find depth in building the perfect OP Batman Wizard or Hulking Hurler or Pun-Pun or whatever, but in my opinion RPGs are better-suited to more abstract depth (particularly now that they need to compete with video games, which can have as much or more or that kind of depth with less bookkeeping and more engaging play).

And this is why I think martials could use an upgrade*. I think the scariest martial is the one who has trained and killed so much s/he can make a level 1's heart explode just by exerting battle presence. OK maybe not quite that... but something like that.

Thanks to you and Team Four Star, my train of thought went on a track that lead to imagining a setting with a Western-fantasy kingdom full of elves and wizards in conflict with an anime-style one with supernatural martial arts.

casters in old editions had a similar peak in power as they do in contemporary D&D... however there was a lot of jumping through hoops.
[snip]

Reminds me of Grod's Law. This is a little better since some of the annoyance is more in-character than out-, but it still applies.

[Cosi]

To be fair, in older D&D, the high-level Fighter got a small army of well-equipped troops the Wizard didn't, and could easily pass the saving throw against most of the Wizard's best tricks. So Conan could shrug off Rand's spells and just run up and murder him, or hang back and join in with ranged weapons when his army starts shooting (multiple times per round each) while the wizard's busy trying to stand perfectly still and get one spell off without getting hit once.

That solves part of the problem, and even then I've heard of various abilities that trivialized Fighters (something about Druid summons?). But it's not just that the Fighter is sub-par in a fight. It's that he has nothing to do outside a fight. The Wizard can fly, breath under water, see the future, teleport across the world, or travel to distant planes. The Fighter gets an army. That's problematic (it's actually problematic in both directions, as there are characters with magic and armies), because there's really very little you can do with a hundred guys with swords you couldn't do with one guy with a sword and a lot of time and/or luck.

It's not really balanced though, especially if you were the type to dislike playing fantasy middle-management and just wanted to continue adventuring like you did the level previous.

Also a problem. The game should be balanced in such a way as to support maximally many play-styles. That means that no matter what your character concept is (swordsman, mage, assassin), you should be able to play it at high level with however much micro-management you want. Sometimes the guy who just wants to blow stuff up will play the Wizard, and the guy who wants to run a country will play the Fighter. But at least as often it will be the reverse, and it does the game a disservice if you can't play a reasonably effective swordsman without an army.

[JoeJ]

That's problematic (it's actually problematic in both directions, as there are characters with magic and armies), because there's really very little you can do with a hundred guys with swords you couldn't do with one guy with a sword and a lot of time and/or luck.

Except everything that involves being in more than one place at a time.

[BayardSPSR]

It's not really balanced though, especially if you were the type to dislike playing fantasy middle-management and just wanted to continue adventuring like you did the level previous.

Then there's also the minor issue that one high level wizard is far more mobile then a fighter with ~100 or so level 0 mooks with a couple handful level 1-5 guys as his closest guard that you'll likely need to engage the wizard on his terms... I highly doubt Wizzy Wizard who managed to get to level 10 (and likely has a good intelligence score) would somehow let himself get randomly jumped by level 10 Fighty Fighterson and his personal army in flat, open plains.

High level D&D has usually been a matter of "who gets the jump on who first?" and "who can unleash their nuke first?"

A high level wizard getting the drop on Fighty's Army can absolutely sow chaos inbetween them, doubly so if did his research and prepped stuff like stoneskin beforehand.

I would say that it's differently balanced, in that the Fig can kill Wiz at level 1 without breaking a sweat, and that Fig will hit 10 before Wiz does.

[Arbane]

Thanks to you and Team Four Star, my train of thought went on a track that lead to imagining a setting with a Western-fantasy kingdom full of elves and wizards in conflict with an anime-style one with supernatural martial arts.

Shadow Skill?

[Anonymouswizard]

That solves part of the problem, and even then I've heard of various abilities that trivialized Fighters (something about Druid summons?). But it's not just that the Fighter is sub-par in a fight. It's that he has nothing to do outside a fight. The Wizard can fly, breath under water, see the future, teleport across the world, or travel to distant planes. The Fighter gets an army. That's problematic (it's actually problematic in both directions, as there are characters with magic and armies), because there's really very little you can do with a hundred guys with swords you couldn't do with one guy with a sword and a lot of time and/or luck.

The weird thing is though, once you take spells out of the equation (and in 2e high level spells are a precious resource) the Fighter really isn't behind in the out-of-combat department. They get a decent number of NWP, although not as much from their intelligence, and probably have an out of combat area that's their specialty. The 2e fighter was not as focused as the 3.X fighter.

I would say that it's differently balanced, in that the Fig can kill Wiz at level 1 without breaking a sweat, and that Fig will hit 10 before Wiz does.

That's not balance (and for that matter at level 1 the Fighter is essentially just as fragile), because the wizards that do avoid housecats eventually get to bend reality with their little finger.

[Cosi]

Except everything that involves being in more than one place at a time.

You'll note that I didn't say it offered no new abilities.

And even insofar as it supports "be in more than one place", it really doesn't. You can't communicate particularly quickly (because you don't have magic), even if you could you can't travel particularly quickly (because you don't have magic), and it's useless for force projection against meaningful opposition (because the mooks are, well, mooks).

The weird thing is though, once you take spells out of the equation (and in 2e high level spells are a precious resource) the Fighter really isn't behind in the out-of-combat department. They get a decent number of NWP, although not as much from their intelligence, and probably have an out of combat area that's their specialty. The 2e fighter was not as focused as the 3.X fighter.

Any defense of the Fighter that starts with "ignoring spells" does not strike me as particularly compelling.

That's not balance (and for that matter at level 1 the Fighter is essentially just as fragile), because the wizards that do avoid housecats eventually get to bend reality with their little finger.

This is true. It's also bad design even if it is nominally balanced, because it is balanced in exactly one type of campaign: the one where you start at level 1 (where the Wizard sucks) and progress to level 10 (where the Fighter sucks)*. It's not balanced if you start at high level. It's not balanced if you stop at low level. It's not balanced if you don't progress (a la Conan or Superman). It's limiting the number of potential campaigns the game supports for no reason.

*: Obviously, simplified to not use AD&D advancement.

[Anonymouswizard]

Any defense of the Fighter that starts with "ignoring spells" does not strike me as particularly compelling.

Oh, I agree, I just find it interesting that 3e managed to make the Fighter far more incompetent in 'martials only' games.

This is true. It's also bad design even if it is nominally balanced, because it is balanced in exactly one type of campaign: the one where you start at level 1 (where the Wizard sucks) and progress to level 10 (where the Fighter sucks)*. It's not balanced if you start at high level. It's not balanced if you stop at low level. It's not balanced if you don't progress (a la Conan or Superman). It's limiting the number of potential campaigns the game supports for no reason.

*: Obviously, simplified to not use AD&D advancement.

Oh, I totally agree here. I'm currently looking at Legends of the Wulin, and the only balance issue I can immediately find is that the Warrior's Art and the Scholar's Art are more difficult to use than the other three, but they still appear balanced (because Scholar does the same thing as the other 3, just on a different scale, and Warrior gives interesting options for increasing your power).

[Quertus]

managed to get to level 10 (and likely has a good intelligence score) would somehow let himself get randomly jumped by level 10 Fighty Fighterson and his personal army in flat, open plains.

Of course not! He fights them in a large, open room, where there is space for his summons, and to throw his AoE spells without hitting himself. Because he certainly doesn't want to fight them one at a time - he doesn't have enough spell slots for that.

That is, of course, assuming that the wizard has any tactical talent - something which should be a given for fighters; not so much for wizards.

[Cluedrew]

Thanks to you and Team Four Star, my train of thought went on a track that lead to imagining a setting with a Western-fantasy kingdom full of elves and wizards in conflict with an anime-style one with supernatural martial arts.

I wasn't thinking supernatural martial arts (although that fits in some cases particularly for some monks & rangers) but rather just cranking it up a lot. "Battle aura" is sort of on the line between supernatural and the merely super, so I'll pull it in even more. For instance what is something real fighters do when fighting each other? They move in and out of range, side to side, bob and weave to get a better position. This seems like a useless skill when a wizard can point at you, say die, and you die. However, a high level fighter should be good enough at weaving back and forth that pointing at them long enough to say die is a non-trivial exercise.

There are other examples but there are a lot of ways to bring fighters and other martials up without making them magical. Now they will not be realistic but the fellow in the other corner throws fireballs.

Any defense of the Fighter that starts with "ignoring spells" does not strike me as particularly compelling.

I agree, save that for the raging barbarian.

But any class that reaches a high level is going to have ways of dealing with the dangers of the world and this includes the other classes. For barbarians it is rage and raw power; fighter use technical ability; rogues guile and stealth; sorcerers have instinct and magic; wizards have knowledge and magic; bards have music and charm; clerics and paladins have devotion. All of these will work and yet each can (or should) be overthrown by the others in the right situation.

[JAL_1138]

Realistic =/= verisimilitude. As long as it doesn't break the verisimilitude of "This is a normal person who has become exceptionally strong, resilient, and skilled, but is still a non-supernatural being" then you can get away with plenty of action-movie or comic-book-isms. E.g., Batman shouldn't have functional knees, working hands, any intact ligaments in his arms, or a single uncompressed spinal disk anymore, but nobody much blinks at Batman being "not superpowered."

[oxybe]

Of course not! He fights them in a large, open room, where there is space for his summons, and to throw his AoE spells without hitting himself. Because he certainly doesn't want to fight them one at a time - he doesn't have enough spell slots for that.

That is, of course, assuming that the wizard has any tactical talent - something which should be a given for fighters; not so much for wizards.

a level 10 wizard with no tactical talent? highly doubtful.

unless we're falling into the "this is an npc so he doesn't need to follow the xp gaining rules" and both characters gained all 10 levels in a strictly academic environment (fighter at fighter school and wizard at wizard school), a typical adventurer wizard would have just as much tactical acumen as an adventurer fighter due to various experiences they've both encountered, but also have it paired with what is likely a higher intelligence and a larger scope of abilities to make use of it.

plus, not every fighter is tactical genius or even trained in tactics nor should it be expected for them to be. Our theoretical fighter could just as well be a thug who's strength attracted lesser thugs just as easily as him being actual Sun Tsu II (electric boogaloo) as the 2nd ed fighter class was, quite literally, "the class everyone who didn't qualify for any other class" due to stat requirements... it's kinda like the community college for PCs that takes in just about everyone to boost it's enrollment numbers: yeah there are a few people there who are genuinely talented, but it accepts darn near everyone.

[Anonymouswizard]

Realistic =/= verisimilitude. As long as it doesn't break the verisimilitude of "This is a normal person who has become exceptionally strong, resilient, and skilled, but is still a non-supernatural being" then you can get away with plenty of action-movie or comic-book-isms. E.g., Batman shouldn't have functional knees, working hands, any intact ligaments in his arms, or a single uncompressed spinal disk anymore, but nobody much blinks at Batman being "not superpowered."

This so much, and an important thing to remember is that setting and genre conventions have a big impact on what you can get away with. For me:

-Comic Book Setting: I have limits for how fast/strong a 'normal human' can be, but I wouldn't blink at Batman taking a full force punch from Superman and then just standing back up with only a few scratches.
-D&D-style fantasy: warriors should be able to punt the Tarrasque and survive a full from orbit by the time they reach high levels (yes, I see surviving re-entry as a feature, not a bug), partially because they have to stand up to insanely powerful casters, but also because a fighter should have a decent chance of taking down a Dragon of his level alone (possibly without any magic).
-Wuxia: ordinary people can be as fast, strong, and magical as needed, but with a preference to the low end.
-Science Fiction: characters should be able to survive more punishment than real life, but go down to a laser hit or two. Armour shouldn't have a major effect because weapons are so strong, with speed ruling.
-Warhammer 40k: to give an example of how a specific setting can change it, here characters should be a little tougher than real life but start taking serious wounds within a couple of hits, except when they are wearing armour. To me it's not 40k if good armour doesn't boost your survivability, from a Space Marine game where flak armour is nearly worthless and you want Power or Terminator armour, to a Dark Heresy game where flak armour gives a good boost to your survivability and carapace is a thing to aim for. Speed is nowhere near as important as getting into cover and staying there, no matter what Games Workshop wants to say.

Note that of these, my favourite is Wuxia, because it has the awesome martial people that PCs can become, but this is specifically exceptional, followed by the highly brutal and armour focused Warhammer 40k (in fact, I love any game where armouring up is your best option for survival, but I'm willing to tolerate speed-based combat).

[Cluedrew]

a level 10 wizard with no tactical talent? highly doubtful.

Agreed, all PCs will have competence roughly equal with their [power] level.

plus, not every fighter is tactical genius or even trained in tactics nor should it be expected for them to be.

Agreed, not all PCs are competent in the same way.

Our theoretical fighter could just as well be a thug who's strength attracted lesser thugs just as easily as him being actual Sun Tsu II

And if there is anyone in the world who can beat someone who by all reason and logic should win it is a street thug who has climbed to the top.

On Realism vs. Verisimilitude: I agree but I don't even have much to add.

[JAL_1138]

This so much, and an important thing to remember is that setting and genre conventions have a big impact on what you can get away with. For me:

-Comic Book Setting: I have limits for how fast/strong a 'normal human' can be, but I wouldn't blink at Batman taking a full force punch from Superman and then just standing back up with only a few scratches.
-D&D-style fantasy: warriors should be able to punt the Tarrasque and survive a full from orbit by the time they reach high levels (yes, I see surviving re-entry as a feature, not a bug), partially because they have to stand up to insanely powerful casters, but also because a fighter should have a decent chance of taking down a Dragon of his level alone (possibly without any magic).
-Wuxia: ordinary people can be as fast, strong, and magical as needed, but with a preference to the low end.
-Science Fiction: characters should be able to survive more punishment than real life, but go down to a laser hit or two. Armour shouldn't have a major effect because weapons are so strong, with speed ruling.
-Warhammer 40k: to give an example of how a specific setting can change it, here characters should be a little tougher than real life but start taking serious wounds within a couple of hits, except when they are wearing armour. To me it's not 40k if good armour doesn't boost your survivability, from a Space Marine game where flak armour is nearly worthless and you want Power or Terminator armour, to a Dark Heresy game where flak armour gives a good boost to your survivability and carapace is a thing to aim for. Speed is nowhere near as important as getting into cover and staying there, no matter what Games Workshop wants to say.

Note that of these, my favourite is Wuxia, because it has the awesome martial people that PCs can become, but this is specifically exceptional, followed by the highly brutal and armour focused Warhammer 40k (in fact, I love any game where armouring up is your best option for survival, but I'm willing to tolerate speed-based combat).

I know it's popular to say that the D&D fighter needs to be Goku to keep up, but I've never liked that idea much. Once you start punting tarrasques, you're into supernatural, physics-breaking territory, and the verisimilitude for "non-magical person" is gone (for me). At that point, I can't accept that someone surviving reentry or punting a Tarrasque is not supernatural. They're demigods or superheroes/Mutants at that point, because whatever their strength derives from, it isn't ordinary human biology anymore. Which isn't a bad thing in itself as long as the system calls them that, and gives me a clear line where I can say "Yeah, it's epic levels after this point, because you've gone from human to demigod."

And I'd rather like to have a "Badass Normal" be possible and still, well, normal enough to pass for normal.

(As a tangent, I'd call shenanigans on Batman taking a full force punch from Superman. A full-force punch from Supes should leave a fist-sized hole in any human he hits, if it isn't going to atomize them altogether or launch them into the stratosphere (dead from the sudden acceleration). Supes can move entire planets when he feels like it, depending on the era. Batman only survives because he's always got Kryptonite handy and plans ahead, and Superman doesn't punch at full force against humans under normal circumstances. A system that puts Batman and Superman together without giving Batman some kind of narrative power to always pull a necessary defense like Kryptonite out of his utility belt is going to be badly balanced. It either needs to own up to being imbalanced as a design decision, a'la Rifts, or pull something narrativist rather than simulationist like that).

The 5e Battlemaster goes a long way toward making a versatile, useful Fighter (especially given how useful extra feats the Fighters get are in 5th), although I'd have rather seen a die roll chance for Maneuvers to represent opportunities for use instead of X-per-rest (since the fighter shouldn't ever get too tired to say "hey, over here!" to an ally if s/he's not too tired to swing a greataxe accurately four times a round indefinitely). They could use an Expertise and/or some extra tool proficiencies, I kinda think. Less than the Rogue (since skillmonkey is kinda the Rogue's schtick), but a little more than they've got.

I like to keep magic magical enough to be worth the hassle, and non-magic not obviously supernatural, personally. That a wizard can plane shift doesn't in itself make a skilled, strong "normal person" irrelevant, even outside of combat.

That's not to say 5e is without issues in that department--there are several broken spells and a few class features (*cough* Moon Druid *cough* ) that need toned down for better parity.

(As an aside, apologies for the rambly, disorganized, somewhat incoherent and possibly poorly-thought-out response. I'm typing this on a cell phone while decidedly south of sober. )

[Quertus]

a level 10 wizard with no tactical talent? highly doubtful.

plus, not every fighter is tactical genius or even trained in tactics nor should it be expected for them to be. Our theoretical fighter could just as well be a thug who's strength attracted lesser thugs just as easily as him being actual Sun Tsu II (electric boogaloo) as the 2nd ed fighter class was, quite literally, "the class everyone who didn't qualify for any other class" due to stat requirements... it's kinda like the community college for PCs that takes in just about everyone to boost it's enrollment numbers: yeah there are a few people there who are genuinely talented, but it accepts darn near everyone.

Agreed, all PCs will have competence roughly equal with their [power] level.

Agreed, not all PCs are competent in the same way.

And if there is anyone in the world who can beat someone who by all reason and logic should win it is a street thug who has climbed to the top.

True, depending on the game / edition, not all fighters have to be tactical geniuses. Everyone should probably be competent at something, perhaps somewhat in relation to their level... but it doesn't have to be tactics for fighters.

My signature character is my tactically-inept academia mage. Yes, he's been adventuring forever, but he still has no concept of good tactics. So, yes, high level wizards with no tactical talent do exist.

As to whether that's realistic... IME, yes. Even people with decades of experience in a field can be bad at certain aspects of it. Most everybody can relate, by having had a teacher who... probably shouldn't have been a teacher.

[Arbane]

And I'd rather like to have a "Badass Normal" be possible and still, well, normal enough to pass for normal.

Therein lies the problem - you want to have someone who can pull their weight alongside weakly omnipotent spellcasters, without actually having any abilities to DO so, aside from lots of damage taking and giving capacity. [3.5]It's like the casters get to the full 20 levels but the fighters are stuck playing E6.[/3.5]

[Gettles]

Yadda Yadda Yadda

Well what does "reasonably baddass but still essentially human" do against and Elder Dragon, or a Super Demon, or a Tarrasque other than die in short order? Because the traditional D&D answer has been some combination of nothing much/die pitifully/hope the wizard does something which seems a bit on the unbadass side for what is described as a badass character. The normal methods of pushing the character into being relevant at that level are either "throw more dice at balance issue till it fixes itself" or magic items both of which seem uninspired as far as character concepts go.

If a level 20 fighter is technically weaker than a mannequin wearing his clothing does he actually have any strength?

[goto124]

Maybe we shouldn't be talking about level 20, but the levels at which campaigns are more likely to be played at? Level 3, or 5, or 7?

[digiman619]

Well what does "reasonably baddass but still essentially human" do against and Elder Dragon, or a Super Demon, or a Tarrasque other than die in short order? Because the traditional D&D answer has been some combination of nothing much/die pitifully/hope the wizard does something which seems a bit on the unbadass side for what is described as a badass character. The normal methods of pushing the character into being relevant at that level are either "throw more dice at balance issue till it fixes itself" or magic items both of which seem uninspired as far as character concepts go. If a level 20 fighter is technically weaker than a mannequin wearing his clothing does he actually have any strength?

This is why I play pathfinder with Path of War and Spheres of Power. It pulls the mages down from Tier 1 and the martials up from Tier 5.

[Knaight]

Maybe we shouldn't be talking about level 20, but the levels at which campaigns are more likely to be played at? Level 3, or 5, or 7?

There's no issue in any of them at those levels, at least not regarding core design concepts (individual spells, sure).

[Anonymouswizard]

I know it's popular to say that the D&D fighter needs to be Goku to keep up, but I've never liked that idea much. Once you start punting tarrasques, you're into supernatural, physics-breaking territory, and the verisimilitude for "non-magical person" is gone (for me). At that point, I can't accept that someone surviving reentry or punting a Tarrasque is not supernatural. They're demigods or superheroes/Mutants at that point, because whatever their strength derives from, it isn't ordinary human biology anymore. Which isn't a bad thing in itself as long as the system calls them that, and gives me a clear line where I can say "Yeah, it's epic levels after this point, because you've gone from human to demigod."

And I'd rather like to have a "Badass Normal" be possible and still, well, normal enough to pass for normal.

The problem is that when going up against D&D wizards a 'badass normal' cannot compete. If we remove D&D style magic and add a more limited system I actually agree with you, I love Unknown Armies where the strength of character options are theoretically normal<avatar<adept, but in practice the avatar ends up slightly better than the normal, who isn't as limited as the adept. Even at Cosmic levels the normal is still useful due to having an additional skill/two (our normal seemed impossible to take down, at Street level, although she had little out of combat utility).

(As a tangent, I'd call shenanigans on Batman taking a full force punch from Superman. A full-force punch from Supes should leave a fist-sized hole in any human he hits, if it isn't going to atomize them altogether or launch them into the stratosphere (dead from the sudden acceleration). Supes can move entire planets when he feels like it, depending on the era. Batman only survives because he's always got Kryptonite handy and plans ahead, and Superman doesn't punch at full force against humans under normal circumstances. A system that puts Batman and Superman together without giving Batman some kind of narrative power to always pull a necessary defense like Kryptonite out of his utility belt is going to be badly balanced. It either needs to own up to being imbalanced as a design decision, a'la Rifts, or pull something narrativist rather than simulationist like that).

Oh, I agree that it should happen, I was using Supes as shorthand for 'thing that should reasonably kill humans'. But it never happens because Batman spends a Fate Point and makes up an excuse.

The 5e Battlemaster goes a long way toward making a versatile, useful Fighter (especially given how useful extra feats the Fighters get are in 5th), although I'd have rather seen a die roll chance for Maneuvers to represent opportunities for use instead of X-per-rest (since the fighter shouldn't ever get too tired to say "hey, over here!" to an ally if s/he's not too tired to swing a greataxe accurately four times a round indefinitely). They could use an Expertise and/or some extra tool proficiencies, I kinda think. Less than the Rogue (since skillmonkey is kinda the Rogue's schtick), but a little more than they've got.

Remember that the wizard is still just better than the Fighter at higher levels, although it's much closer. The wizard also has more in-combat options, which just rubs me the wrong way.

I like to keep magic magical enough to be worth the hassle, and non-magic not obviously supernatural, personally. That a wizard can plane shift doesn't in itself make a skilled, strong "normal person" irrelevant, even outside of combat.

You can have magic be magical without it being overpowering, while nonmagical characters shouldn't be left quite so far behind versatility-wise.

That's not to say 5e is without issues in that department--there are several broken spells and a few class features (*cough* Moon Druid *cough* ) that need toned down for better parity.

(As an aside, apologies for the rambly, disorganized, somewhat incoherent and possibly poorly-thought-out response. I'm typing this on a cell phone while decidedly south of sober. )

Eh, fair enough.

[Milo v3]

Maybe we shouldn't be talking about level 20, but the levels at which campaigns are more likely to be played at? Level 3, or 5, or 7?

20 represents the highest power level a campaign will go without using Epic level rules so it's a decent enough benchmark of "what's the best a mundane warrior can do?" to "what's the best a mage can do?".

[Quertus]

Remember that the wizard is still just better than the Fighter at higher levels, although it's much closer. The wizard also has more in-combat options, which just rubs me the wrong way.

So, how about some old school D&D? Where the fighter gets to choose between his flame tongue, his frost brand, his sun blade, his long sword +1 +2 vs lycanthropes, his mace, his dagger, his gem bow, his darts, his poisoned crossbow bolt, his blessed crossbow bolt, his flask of oil, his bag of marbles, and his bag of flour? Meanwhile, the wizard gets to choose between wasting one of his few precious, precious spells... or poking it with a stick. And should generally choose "poke it with a stick".

And, after the battle, when they loot the thing, the fighter gets to add "kukri +2, +5 vs mammals", "arrows +2", and "that thing's skull" to his list of options, while the wizard grumbles about how illiteracy is the default state for the universe, so there's never anything good to read, let alone new spells to learn. He dreams of the day when he collects enough loot to research a custom spell, so that he finally has something to memorize in those 4th level slots that have been sitting there empty for the past 6 months.

Would that be more fun than these modern min-maxed, single-tactic rocket tag fighters adventuring alongside wizards with abundant spells and options?

[Raimun]

I just realized that the scariest martial guy in 2nd ed ADnD is the drunk at the bar who plays darts all night long and gets in fistfights...

*Ding-ding!* And in time 1:28, we have a winner!

This is the only 2nd ed AD&D character I will ever play. Like all good characters, it almost writes itself.

[oxybe]

So, how about some old school D&D? Where the fighter gets to choose between his flame tongue, his frost brand, his sun blade, his long sword +1 +2 vs lycanthropes, his mace, his dagger, his gem bow, his darts, his poisoned crossbow bolt, his blessed crossbow bolt, his flask of oil, his bag of marbles, and his bag of flour? Meanwhile, the wizard gets to choose between wasting one of his few precious, precious spells... or poking it with a stick. And should generally choose "poke it with a stick".

And, after the battle, when they loot the thing, the fighter gets to add "kukri +2, +5 vs mammals", "arrows +2", and "that thing's skull" to his list of options, while the wizard grumbles about how illiteracy is the default state for the universe, so there's never anything good to read, let alone new spells to learn. He dreams of the day when he collects enough loot to research a custom spell, so that he finally has something to memorize in those 4th level slots that have been sitting there empty for the past 6 months.

Would that be more fun than these modern min-maxed, single-tactic rocket tag fighters adventuring alongside wizards with abundant spells and options?

red stick, blue stick, glow stick, dog stick, stick stick, not stick, shoot stick, tiny stick, sick stick, glow stick 2 : divine boogaloo, and three options that would get you laughed out of any combat where those sticks are baseline requirement for play and open to everyone (not just the fighter can use these things).

your fighter's options all boil down to "pick the right stick to poke with" and none are really that interesting in play. is it weak to fire? poke it with a red stick. ice? poke with blue stick. evil to it's core? shoot it with the bright ones. immune to stick... throw some flour at it and hope it wants to bake cookies because you have nothing else you can do.

honestly no, it wouldn't be more fun... it's one of the reasons I rarely ever play fighter types, regardless of edition (noting well that I started with 2nd and got quickly disillusioned with the class). even if you have a wide variety of sticks to pick from, if the core function of the class is "hit with stick for damage" without any real features outside of "hit harder".

I will be the first to admit the D&D wizard is a dumb and horribly designed class. it has too many options and many of them have too wide a scope or come along far too early in the wizard's career and mucking up gameplay, but I much rather the wizard's more interesting, if borked, gameplay and variety of options then, when boiled down to it's core, playing medieval Tiger Woods reaching into his golf bag for his +1 stick, +2 vs putting on the green, and hitting the ball... repeat for rest of career.

[soldersbushwack]

In my personal fantasy heartbreaker I explicitly have the following tier list:

Level 1-4: Commoner
Level 5-8: Professional
Level 9-12: Heroic
Level 13-16: Demigod
Level 17-20: God

In fact, Clerics and similar classes can grant spells starting at level 7 and become demigods at level 13. Not sure how I am going to handle the other classes. Maybe I'll may spell granting be a feat.

[Cluedrew]

I love the description "my personal fantasy heartbreaker". Also why not have the other classes ascend at level 13 as well? They would be a different sort of demigod/supernatural being but it could still work. Plus I the idea of a level 20 barbarian being the source of barbarian rage amuses me. That's it.

[Quertus]

red stick, blue stick, glow stick, dog stick, stick stick, not stick, shoot stick, tiny stick, sick stick, glow stick 2 : divine boogaloo, and three options that would get you laughed out of any combat where those sticks are baseline requirement for play and open to everyone (not just the fighter can use these things).

your fighter's options all boil down to "pick the right stick to poke with" and none are really that interesting in play. is it weak to fire? poke it with a red stick. ice? poke with blue stick. evil to it's core? shoot it with the bright ones. immune to stick... throw some flour at it and hope it wants to bake cookies because you have nothing else you can do.

honestly no, it wouldn't be more fun... it's one of the reasons I rarely ever play fighter types, regardless of edition (noting well that I started with 2nd and got quickly disillusioned with the class). even if you have a wide variety of sticks to pick from, if the core function of the class is "hit with stick for damage" without any real features outside of "hit harder".

I will be the first to admit the D&D wizard is a dumb and horribly designed class. it has too many options and many of them have too wide a scope or come along far too early in the wizard's career and mucking up gameplay, but I much rather the wizard's more interesting, if borked, gameplay and variety of options then, when boiled down to it's core, playing medieval Tiger Woods reaching into his golf bag for his +1 stick, +2 vs putting on the green, and hitting the ball... repeat for rest of career.

Between grappling, KO punches, disarming, and all the different "sticks" you get as random treasure (and only the fighter can become proficient in most of them, and different classes take different non-proficiency penalties, and other classes advance their "To Hit" more slowly than in 3e... so it just makes sense that the fighter collects all the sticks), let alone silly tricks like pouring oil or marbles on the floor, or throwing flour on invisible foes, I have never felt that I had "nothing else to do" as a 2e fighter.

Also, different people have different style preferences. I enjoy the coolness of the walking arsenal, or the coolness of using nothing but oil and rope to defeat an epic monster. But that's not everyone's style of play. Thus, my response was, "How about 2e?", rather than, "You obviously need to play 2e."

Because, yeah, where I see cool options, some people may just see different color sticks.