the Fighter builds on 40 points while the Wizard only gets 25

these are characteristic points (as per the point-buy system)
well you have the idea: to compensate for unbalance at high-levels, the fighter has got better stats... 
What? Can you break down this math a bit more? Characteristic points? Are you talking about the classes or the pregens?
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
Stats aren't enough to compensate for poor balance between those 2 classes at higher levels.

The biggest problem, to me, isn't that fighters need to be buffed UP, it's that wizards need to be nerfed DOWN. There are posts all over these boards about giving the fighter more, but nobody mentions that maybe wizards need to be taken down a few pegs. I don't think there should be a spell for every situation. I don't think magic should be able to do everything. THAT'S where the unbalance is. There are WAY too many spells in D&D. Next should really cut down on what spells are in the game. Get rid of some (Wish, for example) and maybe consolidate some.
"Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back."
Wait... so the op is stating that fighters should have higher ability scores than wizards? We haven't even seen higher levels of play in dndn, yet.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
This thread is entirely speculation, we don't know how awful the inevitable inbalance will be yet...

I love DDN so far but even I had to word it that way. 
Don't forget the fighter has more abilities than the die of power now...
Stats aren't enough to compensate for poor balance between those 2 classes at higher levels.

The biggest problem, to me, isn't that fighters need to be buffed UP, it's that wizards need to be nerfed DOWN. There are posts all over these boards about giving the fighter more, but nobody mentions that maybe wizards need to be taken down a few pegs. I don't think there should be a spell for every situation. I don't think magic should be able to do everything. THAT'S where the unbalance is. There are WAY too many spells in D&D. Next should really cut down on what spells are in the game. Get rid of some (Wish, for example) and maybe consolidate some.




I definitely do NOT agree with you. Wizards should NOT be nerfed down. I love all of those spells. I love Wish. If D&D Next is going to unite the fanbase...the game NEEDS TO KEEP THOSE SPELLS IN CORE OR AS MODULES.

Magic needs to be able to do anything and everything or else it isn't magic.

Stats aren't enough to compensate for poor balance between those 2 classes at higher levels.

The biggest problem, to me, isn't that fighters need to be buffed UP, it's that wizards need to be nerfed DOWN. There are posts all over these boards about giving the fighter more, but nobody mentions that maybe wizards need to be taken down a few pegs. I don't think there should be a spell for every situation. I don't think magic should be able to do everything. THAT'S where the unbalance is. There are WAY too many spells in D&D. Next should really cut down on what spells are in the game. Get rid of some (Wish, for example) and maybe consolidate some.




I definitely do NOT agree with you. Wizards should NOT be nerfed down. I love all of those spells. I love Wish. If D&D Next is going to unite the fanbase...the game NEEDS TO KEEP THOSE SPELLS IN CORE OR AS MODULES.

Magic needs to be able to do anything and everything or else it isn't magic.




One has nothing to do with the other...
"Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back."
Stats aren't enough to compensate for poor balance between those 2 classes at higher levels.

The biggest problem, to me, isn't that fighters need to be buffed UP, it's that wizards need to be nerfed DOWN. There are posts all over these boards about giving the fighter more, but nobody mentions that maybe wizards need to be taken down a few pegs. I don't think there should be a spell for every situation. I don't think magic should be able to do everything. THAT'S where the unbalance is. There are WAY too many spells in D&D. Next should really cut down on what spells are in the game. Get rid of some (Wish, for example) and maybe consolidate some.




I definitely do NOT agree with you. Wizards should NOT be nerfed down. I love all of those spells. I love Wish. If D&D Next is going to unite the fanbase...the game NEEDS TO KEEP THOSE SPELLS IN CORE OR AS MODULES.

Magic needs to be able to do anything and everything or else it isn't magic.




One has nothing to do with the other...



What do you mean by that?
If they nerf the wizard and if they remove a lot of beloved and iconic spells like Wish from the game, they would subsequently risk driving away fans of previous editions like they did with 4e. 5e might then become just as much (or more) of a failure as 4e was.

There was possibly a good reason why the survey on spells didn't ask if the spells were unbalanced or if they deserved to be removed. The survey asked which spells were the most iconic according to the fans who were responding to the survey.

Magic needs to be able to do anything and everything or else it isn't magic.



I disagree excessively.




Well, we are disagreeing with each other on magic...but I still think that the designers shouldn't nerf wizards by utterly removing powerful and unbalanced spells. The unbalanced and uber-powerful spells must be available to those who want them...either as core or as modules. 

You may want nerfed and neutered wizards, but you can possibly get those with modules and by banning those spells from your gaming table.


Allow those of us who love those uber-powerful spells (like Wish) to have access to those spells...otherwise the game wouldn't be truly modular and pleasable to everyone.

Besides, this argument is off topic.

Back on topic: As for the fighter-wizard point discrepancy mentioned in the OP...the amount of points a Wizard gets is basically a little over half of what the fighter gets. Maybe to balance it a little the Wizard could get 70% to 80% of the points a fighter gets.
Stats aren't enough to compensate for poor balance between those 2 classes at higher levels.

The biggest problem, to me, isn't that fighters need to be buffed UP, it's that wizards need to be nerfed DOWN. There are posts all over these boards about giving the fighter more, but nobody mentions that maybe wizards need to be taken down a few pegs. I don't think there should be a spell for every situation. I don't think magic should be able to do everything. THAT'S where the unbalance is. There are WAY too many spells in D&D. Next should really cut down on what spells are in the game. Get rid of some (Wish, for example) and maybe consolidate some.



Your joking, right?
Seemingly every other thread is devoted to this in some way....

And I disagree with you about the variety of spells needing to be reduced.  I get it, most of you 4e fans hate casters, their variety, etc etc etc.  But your inceccent campaign to remove options from everyones table just gets old.
You don't want to use something?  Fine, don't use it.  But why would you try & take away my options in the proccess?
Besides, WoTC isn't going to listen to you.  They are in the buissiness of publishing/selling books.  And an easy way to fill pages?  Is to write more spells....  They don't really NEED to worry about if a spell is balanced, or if there's a bazillion to choose from - because that's an issue that should be solved around individual tables.

 
Stats aren't enough to compensate for poor balance between those 2 classes at higher levels.

The biggest problem, to me, isn't that fighters need to be buffed UP, it's that wizards need to be nerfed DOWN. There are posts all over these boards about giving the fighter more, but nobody mentions that maybe wizards need to be taken down a few pegs. I don't think there should be a spell for every situation. I don't think magic should be able to do everything. THAT'S where the unbalance is. There are WAY too many spells in D&D. Next should really cut down on what spells are in the game. Get rid of some (Wish, for example) and maybe consolidate some.



Your joking, right?
Seemingly every other thread is devoted to this in some way....

And I disagree with you about the variety of spells needing to be reduced.  I get it, most of you 4e fans hate casters, their variety, etc etc etc.  But your inceccent campaign to remove options from everyones table just gets old.
You don't want to use something?  Fine, don't use it.  But why would you try & take away my options in the proccess?
Besides, WoTC isn't going to listen to you.  They are in the buissiness of publishing/selling books.  And an easy way to fill pages?  Is to write more spells....  They don't really NEED to worry about if a spell is balanced, or if there's a bazillion to choose from - because that's an issue that should be solved around individual tables.

 




I agree with you CCS.

Stats aren't enough to compensate for poor balance between those 2 classes at higher levels.

The biggest problem, to me, isn't that fighters need to be buffed UP, it's that wizards need to be nerfed DOWN. There are posts all over these boards about giving the fighter more, but nobody mentions that maybe wizards need to be taken down a few pegs. I don't think there should be a spell for every situation. I don't think magic should be able to do everything. THAT'S where the unbalance is. There are WAY too many spells in D&D. Next should really cut down on what spells are in the game. Get rid of some (Wish, for example) and maybe consolidate some.



Your joking, right?
Seemingly every other thread is devoted to this in some way....

And I disagree with you about the variety of spells needing to be reduced.  I get it, most of you 4e fans hate casters, their variety, etc etc etc.  But your inceccent campaign to remove options from everyones table just gets old.
You don't want to use something?  Fine, don't use it.  But why would you try & take away my options in the proccess?
Besides, WoTC isn't going to listen to you.  They are in the buissiness of publishing/selling books.  And an easy way to fill pages?  Is to write more spells....  They don't really NEED to worry about if a spell is balanced, or if there's a bazillion to choose from - because that's an issue that should be solved around individual tables.

 



The threads I see are devoted to increasing the fighter to balance it more with the wizard. I'm saying decrease the wizard, not increase the fighter. Oh, and most importantly, I am NOT a 4e fan. I hate it...a lot. I am a 2e fan, through and through, but I think there are too many spells in that edition too.


To Melwick's comment, "Magic needs to be able to do anything and everything or else it isn't magic", I disagree wholeheartedly. Magic (and spells) is simply another way of doing things. Spells are tools. Magic already lets you do things nobody else can, but that doesn't mean it should let you do everything.
"Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back."
Call me an idealist, but I think the cool, iconic and powerful spells can be designed to not break things but still be cool, iconic and powerful.

I know that some people explicitly want wizard spells to break things. I don't have much sympathy for that but sure, give them that option or module or whatever. For instance, make a version of power word kill that is hp limited to something reasonable, and then have a "wizards are overpowered" option that removes hp limits from spells.
Call me an idealist, but I think the cool, iconic and powerful spells can be designed to not break things but still be cool, iconic and powerful.

I know that some people explicitly want wizard spells to break things. I don't have much sympathy for that but sure, give them that option or module or whatever. For instance, make a version of power word kill that is hp limited to something reasonable, and then have a "wizards are overpowered" option that removes hp limits from spells.



I mostly agree with this.


What about Wish? I don't think the designers should remove that spell from the game or nerf it. But they can make Wish very rare for PC casters to be able to cast as a spell unless it is desperately needed. They could also make the spell easily available with magic items and powerful genies as well. 
So, with Wish, PC casters would need to be very lucky if/when they learn how to cast that spell at the highest levels, but the noncasters would have that spell available in the form of magic items.
This thread is entirely speculation, we don't know how awful the inevitable inbalance will be yet...

I love DDN so far but even I had to word it that way. 



We can already see the imbalance in the way the Fighter progresses Linearly and the Wizard progresses Quadratically.

The Fighter gets 1 new Maneuver every 2-3 levels. They get new CS dice every 2 levels.

The Wizard gets 3 to 5 new spells each level. They have a new spell slot every even level, but every time they gain a spell level, every odd level, they gain 2 new spell slots. The spells they get are extremely versatile.

In other words the Wizard will surpass the fighter in a few levels. The point at which the Wizard gets more spell slots than rounds per day (at level 5 we are at 9 out of 16-20)...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Magic needs to be able to do anything and everything or else it isn't magic.



I disagree excessively.




Well, we are disagreeing with each other on magic...but I still think that the designers shouldn't nerf wizards by utterly removing powerful and unbalanced spells. The unbalanced and uber-powerful spells must be available to those who want them...either as core or as modules. 

You may want nerfed and neutered wizards, but you can possibly get those with modules and by banning those spells from your gaming table.


Allow those of us who love those uber-powerful spells (like Wish) to have access to those spells...otherwise the game wouldn't be truly modular and pleasable to everyone.

Besides, this argument is off topic.

Back on topic: As for the fighter-wizard point discrepancy mentioned in the OP...the amount of points a Wizard gets is basically a little over half of what the fighter gets. Maybe to balance it a little the Wizard could get 70% to 80% of the points a fighter gets.



Super powerful spells need to be 'quest' spells. They need to have ingredients that can only be gathered from quests. That way if the DM wants the players to be able to cast the spell they can allow it, while other DMs can keep them from doing it.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Call me an idealist, but I think the cool, iconic and powerful spells can be designed to not break things but still be cool, iconic and powerful.

I know that some people explicitly want wizard spells to break things. I don't have much sympathy for that but sure, give them that option or module or whatever. For instance, make a version of power word kill that is hp limited to something reasonable, and then have a "wizards are overpowered" option that removes hp limits from spells.



I mostly agree with this.


What about Wish? I don't think the designers should remove that spell from the game or nerf it. But they can make Wish very rare for PC casters to be able to cast as a spell unless it is desperately needed. They could also make the spell easily available with magic items and powerful genies as well. 
So, with Wish, PC casters would need to be very lucky if/when they learn how to cast that spell at the highest levels, but the noncasters would have that spell available in the form of magic items.



I'd make Wish an artifact spell. You can learn it and memorize it, but once cast it removes itself from your spell book and reappears somewhere else in the world as a scroll.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
The gamebreaker spells should never be core (not even as core as a classes spell list can be) no matter what.  That has to be a hard law, because those spells don't ever work as part of a functional balanced campaign.  They work for crazy shenanigans but they don't work in normal game terms. 

I also have to question why some people don't get the difference between plot magic and play magic.  Wish doesn't have to be a spell in the books, the DM can just say make a wish and that would work fine. 
these are characteristic points (as per the point-buy system)
well you have the idea: to compensate for unbalance at high-levels, the fighter has got better stats... 



A problem with this idea: My group doesn't use point buy. We roll for stats. So what do you propose then?
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new First Edition: 4th Known Editions: 4th, 3.5 --- Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled First Expansion: 7th Edition Play Style: Very Casual
The gamebreaker spells should never be core (not even as core as a classes spell list can be) no matter what.  That has to be a hard law, because those spells don't ever work as part of a functional balanced campaign.  They work for crazy shenanigans but they don't work in normal game terms. 

I also have to question why some people don't get the difference between plot magic and play magic.  Wish doesn't have to be a spell in the books, the DM can just say make a wish and that would work fine. 




That is your opinion...others may not have the same opinion.

That is your opinion...others may not have the same opinion.



Yep opinion is all that can be given on a subject like this.

That being said Gamebreaker spells are one of those things that is high devisive in the fanbase.  Therefore it should probably be a module and not core. 

That is your opinion...others may not have the same opinion.



Yep opinion is all that can be given on a subject like this.

That being said Gamebreaker spells are one of those things that is high devisive in the fanbase.  Therefore it should probably be a module and not core. 



Those  so-called "game breaking" spells (at least the ones in 1st edition like Wish) have successfully been in the game for at least 30 years and no one seemed to complain about them before 3rd and 4th edition. How can they be highly divisive now?

Besides, that sort of subject is off topic. The OP was talking about the number of points that fighters get compared to wizards, the OP wasn't talking about whether the wizard was overpowered.

That is your opinion...others may not have the same opinion.



Yep opinion is all that can be given on a subject like this.

That being said Gamebreaker spells are one of those things that is high devisive in the fanbase.  Therefore it should probably be a module and not core. 



Those  so-called "game breaking" spells (at least the ones in 1st edition like Wish) have successfully been in the game for at least 30 years and no one seemed to complain about them before 3rd and 4th edition. How can they be highly divisive now?

Besides, that sort of subject is off topic. The OP was talking about the number of points that fighters get compared to wizards, the OP wasn't talking about whether the wizard was overpowered.


There wasn't much of an internet before 3rd edition so it was easier not to notice what other people noticed.
I agree. Plenty of people complained about Wish in the AD&D years. At any rate you can make wish balanced. 3e did a good job and I made a fourthified version which I will try to find.
As to uglyvan's suggestion, more ability point will not help. A fighter needs a good Strength. After that the marginal benefits of higher stats in no way compare to the historical overpowered wizard.
Why are you guys still arguing about the wizard being overpowered? WHY DO YOU GUYS HATE CASTERS?
I do not want the wizard to be nerfed, and I feel that many people will agree with me.
Why are you guys still arguing about the wizard being overpowered? WHY DO YOU GUYS HATE CASTERS?
I do not want the wizard to be nerfed, and I feel that many people will agree with me.


So it's not Dnd unless you ruin the game for everyone else by being more powerful than them?
WHY DO YOU GUYS HATE CASTERS?



I don't hate casters. I like them very much. Just not the traditional D&D Godwizards, which are overpowered to make Gandalf and Merlin look like chumps. I like wizards and sorcerers to be on a similar level, power-wise, than the hero with the sword.

I do not want the wizard to be nerfed, and I feel that many people will agree with me.



Well, I do. Balancing something is way harder than unabalancing it. My slightyl tongue-in-cheeck suggestion: Start every caster at Partylevel + 10 for your group. Then you have imbalance. And I have my balance and levels serve their purpose: Actually serving as a measure of power and capability.




Then your casters aren't real casters...they are simply stage magicians who aren't really magical.
Why are you guys still arguing about the wizard being overpowered? WHY DO YOU GUYS HATE CASTERS?
I do not want the wizard to be nerfed, and I feel that many people will agree with me.


So it's not Dnd unless you ruin the game for everyone else by being more powerful than them?



I never said anything about ruining the game for everyone else! WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO RUIN THE GAME FOR PLAYERS LIKE ME?

Why are you guys still arguing about the wizard being overpowered? WHY DO YOU GUYS HATE CASTERS?
I do not want the wizard to be nerfed, and I feel that many people will agree with me.


So it's not Dnd unless you ruin the game for everyone else by being more powerful than them?



I never said anything about ruining the game for everyone else! WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO RUIN THE GAME FOR PLAYERS LIKE ME?



If you are powerful enough to obsolete the other players and wreck the adventure you are ruining the game for other players and the dm. It sounds like you can't have fun if the other players get to contribute.
Uhm... nope?

Casters are still casters, they are just not Godwizards and Uberclerics that outclass everything and everyone. Take your caster-fetish somewhere else, please.



No, by putting casters on the level of mundane fighters, you are taking ALL OF THEIR magic away! NOW YOU ARE INSULTING ME BY CALLING MY PREFERENCES A FETISH!


Can't we stop this argument, please! It's off topic and will probably get this thread closed.
Why are you guys still arguing about the wizard being overpowered? WHY DO YOU GUYS HATE CASTERS?
I do not want the wizard to be nerfed, and I feel that many people will agree with me.


So it's not Dnd unless you ruin the game for everyone else by being more powerful than them?



I never said anything about ruining the game for everyone else! WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO RUIN THE GAME FOR PLAYERS LIKE ME?



If you are powerful enough to obsolete the other players and wreck the adventure you are ruining the game for other players and the dm. It sounds like you can't have fun if the other players get to contribute.



You are insulting the fans of pre-4e editions by saying that! And what you are saying is a false assumption!

Please focus on the topic of the opening post, and please stop arguing about nerfing "overpowered" casters.

Uhm... nope?

Casters are still casters, they are just not Godwizards and Uberclerics that outclass everything and everyone. Take your caster-fetish somewhere else, please.



No, by putting casters on the level of mundane fighters, you are taking ALL OF THEIR magic away! NOW YOU ARE INSULTING ME BY CALLING MY PREFERENCES A FETISH!


Can't we stop this argument, please! It's off topic and will probably get this thread closed


What you are saying is that your idea of a wizard shouldn't be playable in a game with fighter and rogue player characters.
If casters are powerwise on a level with fighters means they loose their magical power, I must've played the game wrong for last 4 years, apparently. In our 4E game, the fighter is just as powerful as the wizard, and neither is the wizard boring, nor is he without magic.

In fact, he puts out more magic than a 3E caster could ever hope to accomplish, simply by virtue of at-wills and encounters, with some added dailies. Seems magical enough.

If you don't feel magical enough unless you outclass and overshadow your team members, I think there is something wrong. As I said, let levels be a measure of power and then you can have your utterly unbalanced casters without much problems, okay? You can easily start off your wizards and clerics at level 5, 10, 15, heck even 20, while fighters are locked down to a maximum level of 2 to 5 in your games.

That seems to accomplish quite nicely what you desire, while leaving me with the option to play an actually balanced game that is fun to me. Ain't seeing a problem there.




But what I was hearing from the people who were turned off by 4e...was that BOTH casters and noncasters played the same way so as to be actually boring. Casters were completely nerfed and rendered obsolete. Fighters had magical superpowers. Pre-4e fans don't want that.

And please, stop with the fighter vs caster "balance" argument on this thread unless it pertains to what the OP was talking about.
Uhm... nope?

Casters are still casters, they are just not Godwizards and Uberclerics that outclass everything and everyone. Take your caster-fetish somewhere else, please.



No, by putting casters on the level of mundane fighters, you are taking ALL OF THEIR magic away! NOW YOU ARE INSULTING ME BY CALLING MY PREFERENCES A FETISH!


Can't we stop this argument, please! It's off topic and will probably get this thread closed


What you are saying is that your idea of a wizard shouldn't be playable in a game with fighter and rogue player characters.

I wasn't saying that!
Uhm... nope?

Casters are still casters, they are just not Godwizards and Uberclerics that outclass everything and everyone. Take your caster-fetish somewhere else, please.



No, by putting casters on the level of mundane fighters, you are taking ALL OF THEIR magic away! NOW YOU ARE INSULTING ME BY CALLING MY PREFERENCES A FETISH!


Can't we stop this argument, please! It's off topic and will probably get this thread closed


What you are saying is that your idea of a wizard shouldn't be playable in a game with fighter and rogue player characters.

I wasn't saying that!

Mods, please lock this thread down.
Howdy folks,

If you feel a post violates the Code of Conduct, please use the report post button.  In the meantime, the thread has gotten a bit derailed.  Please return to the original topic.

Thanks.  

All around helpful simian

Thank you, mods.

Perhaps if the wizard has 30 build points to the fighter's 40, maybe it would be better.
A few measly stats don't change the fundamental core-failures of the system as-is.

I repeat my prior statement: Make levels mean something, then those interested in having extensively powerful classes (one way or another) can start those off at higher levels. Stats don't bring much to the table when the fundamental difference is such as it is.



Then you may have what YOU want as modules. Just don't assume the entire core will be like 4e. For what you see as fundamental failures, others may see as features.

If the game has to be truly modular, then both of us must have the features that we want in the game as available options.

If you don't think the stats as presented are good enough, ask for what you want to be available as modules.
A few measly stats don't change the fundamental core-failures of the system as-is.

I repeat my prior statement: Make levels mean something, then those interested in having extensively powerful classes (one way or another) can start those off at higher levels. Stats don't bring much to the table when the fundamental difference is such as it is.



Then you may have what YOU want as modules. Just don't assume the entire core will be like 4e. For what you see as fundamental failures, others may see as features.

If the game has to be truly modular, then both of us must have the features that we want in the game as available options.

If you don't think the stats as presented are good enough, ask for what you want to be available as modules.


I have no problem with Wotc releasing "Tome of broken spells that might just ruin your game" somewhere down the line but it probably shouldn't be in the players handbook.