You could give the fighter the ability to insta-kill anything in melee and he would still be weak.

At least compared to the current version of the Wizard. Fact: When the other person can stop time, shoot lightning out of his ass, destroy whole armies from a mile away, and turn invisible it really doesn't matter what you can do to one person within 5 feet of you.
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
People will always complain about how rock can't beat paper.

The wizard isn't allpowerful. The wizard can be shut down instantly with a single low level spell. You can counter anything. And there are not going to be many 17-20th level wizards around.
At least compared to the current version of the Wizard. Fact: When the other person can stop time, shoot lightning out of his ass, destroy whole armies from a mile away, and turn invisible it really doesn't matter what you can do to one person within 5 feet of you.




Fact: Who cares if he can kill an army from a mile away, stop time, and shoot lightning out of hiss ass?  I didn't want to do that with my character.  I wanted to play a fighter.  
IF the solution to wizards/clerics is more magic (i.e. more wizards/clerics) then the class balance is borked.

IT's not a matter of what your character does in particular, it's a matter of one's ability to influence the encounter. A caster has control of the encounter, the fighter is lucky if he can impede somone else. 
At least compared to the current version of the Wizard. Fact: When the other person can stop time, shoot lightning out of his ass, destroy whole armies from a mile away, and turn invisible it really doesn't matter what you can do to one person within 5 feet of you.


So which spell in particular destroys armys from a mile away?
My two copper.
^ It's not that more magic is a problem, it's that spells scaling do not match with spell slots.

Get rid of "spell levels" Instead have spells, they all start at slot 1 with the lowest damage/effect/affect, if you want a more powerful spell you increase the slot.

A single target damage spell would do 1d4 in slot 1. If you want to make it "better" changing to a d6 is slot 2, d8 slot 3, etc.. area effect add a slot, multiple die add a slot for each die, added extra effect add a slot

Example fireball: start with 1d4 in slot 1, area effect slot 2, added fire damage slot 3, increase to d6 slot 4, 5d6 slot 9.  

Of course this assumes that no matter what spell slots will remain in the game.

The above works much better with spell points where you have spell points equal to 20 X caster level and a spell costs spell points equal to the amount you increase as in the above example.

With the above damaging spells and healing spells cost are rather high when compared to illusions and other "utilities". 
All I ever wanted to be as a Fighter (by level 10+) was Beowulf.  I wanted to wrestle dragons, beat up trolls with my bare hands, and generaly be a mythic hero.

Having Wizards able to stop time, level small cities with a single spell (or was that a clerical spell?  I forget) and generally be a God at the table, didn't really bother me that much (as in it did, but it wasn't that big a deal, if...)

But no version of D&D (and let's face it, most High Fantasy games either) ever let you be anywhere close to Beowulf in ability...
All I ever wanted to be as a Fighter (by level 10+) was Beowulf.  I wanted to wrestle dragons, beat up trolls with my bare hands, and generaly be a mythic hero.

Having Wizards able to stop time, level small cities with a single spell (or was that a clerical spell?  I forget) and generally be a God at the table, didn't really bother me that much (as in it did, but it wasn't that big a deal, if...)

But no version of D&D (and let's face it, most High Fantasy games either) ever let you be anywhere close to Beowulf in ability...


Aye, but that's just not how D&D was made. D&D's theme just don't quite go along with epic martial heroes I'm afraid. Perhaps a module might be in order?
My two copper.
That's the great conceptual divide that caused the wizard vs. fighter balance issues in the first place. Fighters are supposedly normal people and obey the laws of physics and crap, while wizards get to draw upon spells and powers from almost every mythos known. 

Which is pretty lame because it means there's no way to play guys like Beowulf, but playing merlin or gandalf is easy. 
Fact: Wizards will always suck regardless of powers. Fighters rock. Always have. Until wizards wear full plate and wield greatswords, they will never hold a candle to a fighter.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

Tenser's transformation.
Plus, at 17th level a wizard can kill with but a Word!

Well, so long as the target creature has 50 hp or less.  So the wizard could kill another wizard with but a Word! So long as the other wizard was 12th level or less with only average con, otherwise they're going to be over that hp limit.  I guess it's great spell if you wanted to be a wizardly bully, but honestly the fighter is much more efficient at doing the same damage over and over to a target, not just once a day.  And the spell doesn't do damage, it kills, so if you guess wrong or whatever you just burn a spell without causing 50 hp of damage.  And then you wait for tomorrow and try again!

Or you might use that slot to stop time for 10 rounds, so long as you do nothing to affect other creatures or the stuff of other creatures.

Or you might even grant yourself a Wish, so you could use your highest level spell to cast one of your lower level spells - huzzah!
We wanted to fight Asmodeus but we had no magic weapons, so we made weapons out of second level monks.
Tenser's transformation - You become a fighter temporarily, but you still suck, because you're a wizard.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

Tenser's transformation - You become a fighter temporarily, but you still suck, because you're a wizard.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

Tenser's transformation - You become a fighter temporarily, but you still suck, because you're a wizard.


That's a problem. Where the Wizard gets all the godlike skills, then he can even be a better Fighter than the Fighter when he feels like it.
Fact: Wizards will always suck regardless of powers. Fighters rock. Always have. Until wizards wear full plate and wield greatswords, they will never hold a candle to a fighter.


Trying too hard.
This thread seems to be a rehasing of other threads, but one thing I see that seems to be constnatly overlooked in this disscussion is magic items.


Ring of Invisbility, your now in invisible as a fighter.

Necklace of Fireballs, or Horn of Blastingh, you can now kill groups of mooks with ease.

Flying Carpet, or maybe a trained Gyphon, now you can fly.

 
A lot of magic items allow someone to emulate the effect of a spell, without being a spell caster. And with DM help any spell is possible. On the other hand, while there are some items that can make a Wizard a better fighter, there isn't any that give martial dice or manuevers. I am actually okay with that, but you can't ignore the effect magic items or other things not directly baked into a class can have on it.
Tenser's transformation.


Doesn't exist yet in 5e.
My two copper.
Tenser's transformation.


Doesn't exist yet in 5e.


Given we've  got Time Stop and Wish in 5e already, it's only a matter of time for Tenser's Transformation.
Will exist eventually because it's traditional.

Also magic items are irrelevant to class balance because unless you go through and ban wizards from using them then wizards can get the same benfits opening them up for more spells. 

Furthermore unless you institute a LEgend-like system where magic item gain is part of a defined character progression then magic items can't be assumed to fix the flaws in class design because every game will have different magic item availiabilities. 
Tenser's transformation.


Doesn't exist yet in 5e.


Given we've  got Time Stop and Wish in 5e already, it's only a matter of time for Tenser's Transformation.


Perhaps not. I would not be suprised at all if they nixed it in an attempt to help fighters. It's a big enough issue that I'm sure the Devs are aware.

But all in all, argue facts not assumptions. Talk about what's in the packet, not what you fear might be. If tenser's transformation comes out, then argue about it. "Jumping at shadows" seems be the right phrase here. 
My two copper.
ok fine, polymorph then same difference, only the great sword is teeth, and the full plate is scale mail.

Also magic items are irrelevant to class balance because unless you go through and ban wizards from using them then wizards can get the same benfits opening them up for more spells. 

Furthermore unless you institute a LEgend-like system where magic item gain is part of a defined character progression then magic items can't be assumed to fix the flaws in class design because every game will have different magic item availiabilities. 




They are relevant, because the ability to turn invisible with an item can have different impacts on different classes. Obviously it's far more useful to a rouge or fighter than a wizard since the wizard could already do it. The same is true for most of the magic items, as many of which only emulate spells.

As for progression, and having magic items counted, there are recommended amounts of magic items. If a DM chooses to ignore them then they are willfully introducing an imbalance which shouldn't be blamed on the game.
Polymorph is overrated. If you're playing a wizard, prepare for a sucky character. Any character that has to use spells to be a better combatant than the rogue or monk sucks.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

The suggested magic item level as of right now is none though.

Also every spell slot the wizard doesn't spend on invisibility also opens up for another spell, so in addition to gaining invisible the wizard gains another new option while the rogue and fighter only gain invisible.

Furthermore magic items are based on random tables and/or DM fiat. So their power is independent of character level, or choices. It's not a legitimate balancing factor becaus eit doesn't change the fact that certain classes are more valuable. It's a tool the GM can use to treat the symptom, maybe, if you've got the right kind of DM, but it's not addressing the actual problem.

Arderkrag, that's just not true, especially with the return of multiple minute and hour long durations buffers can and do  exceed pure warriors. Especially when you consider the reduced difference between the attack numbers. Furthermore even if the wzard can't quite eek out over the fighter with the current spell lists (and unles the spell list doens't grow much larger this will change soon), the cleric most certainly can, especially since he can rack up the same armor and weapon profs the fighter has.
Tenser's transformation.


Doesn't exist yet in 5e.


Given we've  got Time Stop and Wish in 5e already, it's only a matter of time for Tenser's Transformation.



Oh.

Well, yeah, I guess if you assume they're going to add it and that it will make the Wizard equivalent to a Fighter then... yeah, you are correct that a Wizard can be equivalent to a fighter with this spell.

Assuming away the actual question does make arguing easier.  
Irrelevant, since clerics are only slightly less boring to play than wizards. Wizards and clerics are boring.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

Polymorph is overrated. If you're playing a wizard, prepare for a sucky character. Any character that has to use spells to be a better combatant than the rogue or monk sucks.


Trying waaaay too hard.

Wizards had single spells better than entire class features. They were overpowered. Saying otherwise is factually wrong.
No, they didn't. Spells are overrated, as are casters.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

Your personal preference for non-casters is noted, and shared. It doesn't change the OPness of casters one way or another. Unless of course itt's a result of your DM's houerules nuking the mages, in which case it's not applicable to the core game discussion.

Unless of course you share these house rules as suggestions for limiting the power of the mages in the 5e core. 
At least compared to the current version of the Wizard. Fact: When the other person can stop time, shoot lightning out of his ass, destroy whole armies from a mile away, and turn invisible it really doesn't matter what you can do to one person within 5 feet of you.


So which spell in particular destroys armys from a mile away?



 Meteor Swarm is what he would be referring to. Tradiitonal armies would get ripped apart by it and if wizards are rare enough that it is not an issue until lvl 17 then any PC with access to it is gonna be god like in a low magic world.

 Alot of magical stuff is going to be inherently broken though if one tries hard enough. Dragonborn and Eladrin are fine in a combat sense but would cause problems if let loose in a game based on the rele world. A group of drunken Dragonborn could easily result in a disaster in a bar and teleporting elves could also be abused. A 3rd ed levitate spell causes all sorts of probelms as well if one can buy pottions of levitate for cheap or hire wizards (castel walls are obsolete).



 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

The suggested magic item level as of right now is none though.

Also every spell slot the wizard doesn't spend on invisibility also opens up for another spell, so in addition to gaining invisible the wizard gains another new option while the rogue and fighter only gain invisible.

Furthermore magic items are based on random tables and/or DM fiat. So their power is independent of character level, or choices. It's not a legitimate balancing factor becaus eit doesn't change the fact that certain classes are more valuable. It's a tool the GM can use to treat the symptom, maybe, if you've got the right kind of DM, but it's not addressing the actual problem.



What is said is the game should be decently balanced without them. Which depends on the definition of balance, which ultimately is an underlying theme of the whole debate, everyone has their own ideas of balance. But coming back to that in a moment.

The wizard doesn't gain the ability to use invisiblity he already had it, at best he gains the ability to do something else he could already do one or two more times, he isn't gaining something new, which is important.


Now jumping back to the underlying problems there seems to be 3 things going on:
1. People want Fighters to essentially be the pinnacle of what a normal person could do, mixed with a little heroic luck and skill.
2. People want Wizards to be -magical- which both implies the ability to do supernatural things with magic, and have those things have a degree of power.
3. People want balance.

So far the attempted method to achieve all 3 has been by limiting how often a Wizard can use their magic. But as has been shown by a number of threads here, that isn't enough. That's where magic items come in, they can be used to give a fighter or other martial class magic and keep things balanced, without breaking the martial feel of the class.


Now seperate to all of this is the question of whether or not those 3 things are good things to shoot for, that's not what I am arguing. But they do seem to be the goals the packet is aiming for.  

While the rign may not grant the wizard a new spell directly, it does mean that once he has the ring he doesn't need to pick up invisibility, and in the future can spend gold researchign other spells, it also allows him to not prepare invis and thus prepare some other spell thus giving him instant access to additional power above and beyond that granted by invisibility.

So the wizard gets just as much if not more out of the ring as the other guys do.

as to your 3 points they seem to be amalgated from opposing lists, the people who want fighters to represent mostly real people as opposed to beowulf and fin maccool, don't tend to be the balance people 
It has nothing to do with houserules. Wizards suck. They could have a spell that reads, "You win everything ever" and they would still suck. It's not solely personal preference either. Havfing to use powers to be effective means you're playing a sorry, ineffective class.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

That's the great conceptual divide that caused the wizard vs. fighter balance issues in the first place. Fighters are supposedly normal people and obey the laws of physics and crap, while wizards get to draw upon spells and powers from almost every mythos known. 

Which is pretty lame because it means there's no way to play guys like Beowulf, but playing merlin or gandalf is easy. 

This.

Honestly, I think "Fighters = all natural" is a huge flaw in ideals and it needs to be fixed. D&D is a supernatural world, creating a class that is bound to our Earth definition of mundane is going to cause problems, period. Don't pull the dragons to the ground because the Fighter can't fly, alter the concept of a Fighter so he/she can deal with a flying dragon.

If this is too high fantasy for some people, put it in a module. And while you're at it, put these Wizard spells that stop time and crap in the same module. Because those are just as high fantasy as a Fighter who can RELIABLY snag a dragon with a grappling hook, climb up the rope, and start bloodying the thing up. You can't pull fighters and dragons to the ground and leave the wizards in the sky.

Actually, I think I'd rather see all of this in a module. Because said module will probably also account for the idea that even simple farmers are going to know a spell or two. You know, like how modern day farmers use modern technology to make their lives easier. As opposed to staying 3rd world style dirt poor while we have iPhones. That, and the module will probably also compensate for the fact that things like city walls are neigh worthless in a high fantasy world.

Stop acting like Earth mundane can exist next to supernatural without any problems! Pick a fantasy level and stick to it!
At least compared to the current version of the Wizard. Fact: When the other person can stop time, shoot lightning out of his ass, destroy whole armies from a mile away, and turn invisible it really doesn't matter what you can do to one person within 5 feet of you.


Has this come up in your playtest? Or is this just theoretical?

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Havfing to use powers to be effective means you're playing a sorry, ineffective class.


"Having to use manuvers means you're playing a sorry, ineffective class."

"Having to use backstab means your're playing a sorry, ineffective class."

"Having to use divine powers means you're playing a sorry, ineffective class."

And I'd really hate to see how badly you think 3.5 Fighters are if you think Wizards are ineffective.

And you're opinion is noted, but as was stated earlier, you're opinion does not change that 3.5 Wizards were overpowered. You can say that they aren't, but you'd be wrong.
No, they aren't overpowered. All the opinions or studies or math breakdowns in the world don't prove otherwise. And yes, having to rely on powers to win means your class in ineffective. Basic attacks should be enough to win most encounters.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

No, they aren't overpowered. All the opinions or studies or math breakdowns in the world don't prove otherwise.


Go to the 3.5 CharOp board and mention that. They could use a good laugh every now and then.
No, they aren't overpowered. All the opinions or studies or math breakdowns in the world don't prove otherwise. And yes, having to rely on powers to win means your class in ineffective. Basic attacks should be enough to win most encounters.



So a wizard with a crossbow should be able to win most encounters?  Your viewpoint is......off.  The wizard class powers ARE its basic attacks.
You've got it backwards - going to the CharOp boards is an excercise in hilarity. BTW, 3.5 fighters are where it's at.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.