"But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

One thing I keep hearing is that wizards are/were "overpowered" because they can do so many things that other characters cannot. "How can a fighter and a wizard possibly be balanced when the wizard can do things like fly, teleport, and turn people into frogs?!"

The interesting thing, though, is that people generally considered fighters and wizards to be balanced in 4th edition, even though the exact same thing was true of that edition too! Fighters may have gotten powers just like wizards, but those powers were limited to strictly martial-themed things. Fighters couldn't fly, teleport, throw fireballs or do anything blatantly reality-bending. They certainly could do some things that were amazing and even stretched belief, but they were always feats of physical prowess, never anything outright magical.

So why is it then that people insist that wizards aren't or can't be balanced with fighters because they have a wider range of abilities (no matter how many drawbacks come along with it, like no armor, low hit points, the ability to have their powers disrupted, dispelled, etc.)?

I think there's alot of "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" envy going on here. Were spellcasters overpowered at high levels in past editions? Sure, I won't deny that. Of course, they were also underpowered at low levels. I would rather them be balanced at every level, personally. But that can be accomplished without taking away the wizard's cool toys. The reason wizards were overpowered at high levels in the past was mostly due to the fact that they just had so bloody many spells that the whole "limited resource" thing was no longer much of a limitation at all. Of course, there were some overpowered spells too, but those can be fixed on a case by case basis. We've already seen some good ways of balancing some of the more game-breaking spells of the past, like making it so that long range teleportation can only take you to a teleportation circle.

We shouldn't try to balance wizards and fighters by making wizards suck. We should give fighters some cool toys of their own! And no, I don't mean "MOAR DAMAGE RAWR!" It's the other two pillars where they need help. Alot of help. I have a few ideas on how to do that.

1. Give fighters skill tricks, like the rogue. Not the same list of skill tricks, obviously, but ones that fit a fighter's style. There's no reason why fighters shouldn't be able to be great athletes or inspiring leaders. I can see fighters getting skill tricks related to endurance, feats of strength, climbing, running, riding, swimming, leadership, intimidation, and much more. Fighters should be able to be more than just dumb brutes (not that there's anything wrong with playing a dumb brute, there just need to be other options).

2. Give fighters a bonus skill or two. Most other classes get it, why not fighters? Let them choose one or two of climb, drive, gather rumors, handle animal, intimidate, spot or survival, for example.

3. They could draw some inspiration from 4e's warlord class. I'm not talking about the warlord's healing powers, I'm talking about having the option to gain some tactical abilities that empower their allies and reward teamwork.

4. Let fighters (or anyone else, for that matter) learn ritual casting, if they're willing to invest feat(s) to do so. I don't think it's really stealing a cleric's or wizard's thunder if other classes can learn to use rituals, too.
The interesting thing, though, is that people generally considered fighters and wizards to be balanced in 4th edition, even though the exact same thing was true of that edition too!

Can I see evidence for this assertion?  I see 4E called more balanced, but I know of very few people, even on these boards that would call 4E balanced in general.
Plenty of people commented on the lack of out of combat options for the fighter. 4e got combat balance within an acceptable range (by no means perfectly balanced but almost all classes were tier 3 by 3e standards). Out of combat things were still a mess.

5e though is moving towards less combat balance however, and even worse out of combat balance.
The interesting thing, though, is that people generally considered fighters and wizards to be balanced in 4th edition, even though the exact same thing was true of that edition too!

Can I see evidence for this assertion?  I see 4E called more balanced, but I know of very few people, even on these boards that would call 4E balanced in general.


It's as balanced as you can make a game without reducing options to renamed variants.

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.

The interesting thing, though, is that people generally considered fighters and wizards to be balanced in 4th edition, even though the exact same thing was true of that edition too!

Can I see evidence for this assertion?  I see 4E called more balanced, but I know of very few people, even on these boards that would call 4E balanced in general.


It's as balanced as you can make a game without reducing options to renamed variants.

It was as homogenized as you can make a game without reducing options to renamed variants.  It still had non-dps classes that did multiple times the damage in a round that dps classes could.
I'd be interested to hear some specific suggestions for exploration or social abilities for fighters.
I'd be interested to hear some specific suggestions for exploration or social abilities for fighters.

BB/LG

What am I still getting that the Fighter still sucks. 

Really? Really? I am happy the way the Fighter is right now. Why do the Fighter need more toys just because the wizard can do several things with his spellbook? Big deal, wizards are suppose to the be batman of D&D. Their job is to support the party with their magic, nothing more nothing less. 
Huh? Bblg?
Crow: Hey, if the only thing Wizards can do is support others, then I have no problem with that. It's when they summon their own party with their spells that things get dicey.

 
One thing I keep hearing is that wizards are/were "overpowered" because they can do so many things that other characters cannot. "How can a fighter and a wizard possibly be balanced when the wizard can do things like fly, teleport, and turn people into frogs?!"

The interesting thing, though, is that people generally considered fighters and wizards to be balanced in 4th edition, even though the exact same thing was true of that edition too! Fighters may have gotten powers just like wizards, but those powers were limited to strictly martial-themed things. Fighters couldn't fly, teleport, throw fireballs or do anything blatantly reality-bending. They certainly could do some things that were amazing and even stretched belief, but they were always feats of physical prowess, never anything outright magical.

So why is it then that people insist that wizards aren't or can't be balanced with fighters because they have a wider range of abilities (no matter how many drawbacks come along with it, like no armor, low hit points, the ability to have their powers disrupted, dispelled, etc.)?

I think there's alot of "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" envy going on here. Were spellcasters overpowered at high levels in past editions? Sure, I won't deny that. Of course, they were also underpowered at low levels. I would rather them be balanced at every level, personally. But that can be accomplished without taking away the wizard's cool toys. 

We shouldn't try to balance wizards and fighters by making wizards suck.



I think that believing Wizards can't lose their toys, and not understanding why people think Wizards and Fighters are balanced in 4ed, go hand in hand. That is, Wizards have to suck in order to be on par with Fighters. What a Wizard can potentially do is so off the charts from what a Fighter can do, that I thank God that Vancian casting exists, so that we didn't have Fireball as an at-will power, 'cause that would be flavourful.  

To use the Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit parallel, even the greatest BMX bike imaginable (invisible, flies forever, has disintegration lasers mounted on it) can only match the weakest deva summoned from heaven.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

Considering a Wizard can still regularly out DPS melee Striker classes in 4E, I'd have to say that edition did little to cure Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit syndrome.
The interesting thing, though, is that people generally considered fighters and wizards to be balanced in 4th edition, even though the exact same thing was true of that edition too!

Can I see evidence for this assertion?  I see 4E called more balanced, but I know of very few people, even on these boards that would call 4E balanced in general.



Look up any of the threads over the years about what people liked about 4e, and the class balance is something that is commonly mentioned. Was it perfect? Of course not. But the balance problems people regularly bring up about 4e (like the expertise feat tax) are miniscule in comparison to the balance problems of previous editions. It's a night and day comparison.

What am I still getting that the Fighter still sucks. 

Really? Really? I am happy the way the Fighter is right now. Why do the Fighter need more toys just because the wizard can do several things with his spellbook?



There are three pillars of play: combat, exploration and interaction. Fighters excel in only of of those, and have absolutely nothing going for them in the other two. No class should be left out of 2/3 of the game.
Considering a Wizard can still regularly out DPS melee Striker classes in 4E, I'd have to say that edition did little to cure Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit syndrome.



I think this would be a good time to post the video, so we can reminisce why the video is so biting. 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbzUfV3_JIA

It's not that the Wizard can out-damage the Fighter: that's a problem that can be corrected with changed numbers. It's that the Wizards can out-do everything the Fighter (Polymorph into a War Troll / Summon something tougher than a Fighter) and do things the Fighter can never try (go invisible / fly vertically / travel to another plane).   

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick


I would rather pull the Wizard down than build the Fighter up. Sure the dead levels for ftrs need to die. The hp, the ungodly damage, mind skills, and feats that allow them to shatter the laws of physics are style over substance. Uniform accuracy, damage, and other stats make for a boring class. Its basically the faceless MDD dude and its maneuver cards vs monsters. Now to make up for it the Wizard is even more powerful than before. They went from the slow elevation caster dominance to a glassy Diablo 3 build with many of the same dominant spells. The wizard uses few components, no casting time, no failure, has casting bonuses, cantrips that do more damage than swords, slot casting and even though there are multiple saves they now have the probability on their side.   


The interesting thing, though, is that people generally considered fighters and wizards to be balanced in 4th edition, even though the exact same thing was true of that edition too!

Can I see evidence for this assertion?  I see 4E called more balanced, but I know of very few people, even on these boards that would call 4E balanced in general.



Look up any of the threads over the years about what people liked about 4e, and the class balance is something that is commonly mentioned. Was it perfect? Of course not. But the balance problems people regularly bring up about 4e (like the expertise feat tax) are miniscule in comparison to the balance problems of previous editions. It's a night and day comparison.

Now you're moving the goalposts.  More balanced than any other edition is still not generally balanced.  More balanced is not balanced in general.  Wizards still do more damage than Rangers (as an example that I've done the math on and seen in roleplaying), despite the latter supposedly being a Striker class.

Cherubim Summoner is still more powerful than BMX Bandit by far.  That isn't balanced, it is only slightly less imbalanced than Elohim Summoner/BMX Bandit.
Considering a Wizard can still regularly out DPS melee Striker classes in 4E, I'd have to say that edition did little to cure Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit syndrome.



I think this would be a good time to post the video, so we can reminisce why the video is so biting. 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbzUfV3_JIA

It's not that the Wizard can out-damage the Fighter: that's a problem that can be corrected with changed numbers. It's that the Wizards can out-do everything the Fighter (Polymorph into a War Troll / Summon something tougher than a Fighter) and do things the Fighter can never try (go invisible / fly vertically / travel to another plane).

My point is that in no Edition, not even the "balanced" ones, has a Fighter ever been able to outdamage the Wizard in addition to all of the other things a Wizard can do yet a Fighter can't.  A spellcaster can potentially outclass a melee class in all arenas except for HP total (and in many editions use magic to mitigate damage taken to a greater level than a HP total can compensate for).
Now you're moving the goalposts.  More balanced than any other edition is still not generally balanced.  More balanced is not balanced in general.  Wizards still do more damage than Rangers (as an example that I've done the math on and seen in roleplaying), despite the latter supposedly being a Striker class.

Cherubim Summoner is still more powerful than BMX Bandit by far.  That isn't balanced, it is only slightly less imbalanced than Elohim Summoner/BMX Bandit.



Can we please not derail this thread with pointless arguments about 4th edition?
Considering a Wizard can still regularly out DPS melee Striker classes in 4E, I'd have to say that edition did little to cure Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit syndrome.



Regularly? I wouldn't call specific builds to achieve such a thing "regular".

Now you're moving the goalposts.  More balanced than any other edition is still not generally balanced.  More balanced is not balanced in general.  Wizards still do more damage than Rangers (as an example that I've done the math on and seen in roleplaying), despite the latter supposedly being a Striker class.

Cherubim Summoner is still more powerful than BMX Bandit by far.  That isn't balanced, it is only slightly less imbalanced than Elohim Summoner/BMX Bandit.



Can we please not derail this thread with pointless arguments about 4th edition?

While I think it is fair game to question postulates you make in your opening post, I will respect your wishes and move to end the topic.
Considering a Wizard can still regularly out DPS melee Striker classes in 4E, I'd have to say that edition did little to cure Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit syndrome.



Regularly? I wouldn't call specific builds to achieve such a thing "regular".

I'm not talking about specific builds.  I'm talking about optimized Rangers versus a "new to 4E but not D&D" Wizard specialized in AoE.
My point is that in no Edition, not even the "balanced" ones, has a Fighter ever been able to outdamage the Wizard in addition to all of the other things a Wizard can do yet a Fighter can't.  A spellcaster can potentially outclass a melee class in all arenas except for HP total (and in many editions use magic to mitigate damage taken to a greater level than a HP total can compensate for).



Er, this isn't really the case.  Blaster wizards just aren't all that good.
Considering a Wizard can still regularly out DPS melee Striker classes in 4E, I'd have to say that edition did little to cure Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit syndrome.



Regularly? I wouldn't call specific builds to achieve such a thing "regular".

I'm not talking about specific builds.  I'm talking about optimized Rangers versus a "new to 4E but not D&D" Wizard specialized in AoE.



Uh, an optimized ranger will be better than a blaster wizard every time.  A [i]lot[i] better.
Blaster wizard basically need to have his target stacked together in order to outdamage the strikers,...wish actually force them to spread and contribute to control aspect too unless they want to continue to be nuked together, so he basically would need help from other controller or party member to stack them together more easly...wish is freaking teamwork!. And only a specific race can reach sorcerer level (a striker) of Area attacks damage.
So what does BB/LG mean?
One thing I keep hearing is that wizards are/were "overpowered" because they can do so many things that other characters cannot. "How can a fighter and a wizard possibly be balanced when the wizard can do things like fly, teleport, and turn people into frogs?!"



Don't forget being able to cast the dreaded, completely game breaking, Knock spell....
 


So why is it then that people insist that wizards aren't or can't be balanced with fighters because they have a wider range of abilities (no matter how many drawbacks come along with it, like no armor, low hit points, the ability to have their powers disrupted, dispelled, etc.)?

I think there's alot of "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" envy going on here. Were spellcasters overpowered at high levels in past editions? Sure, I won't deny that. Of course, they were also underpowered at low levels. I would rather them be balanced at every level, personally. But that can be accomplished without taking away the wizard's cool toys. The reason wizards were overpowered at high levels in the past was mostly due to the fact that they just had so bloody many spells that the whole "limited resource" thing was no longer much of a limitation at all. Of course, there were some overpowered spells too, but those can be fixed on a case by case basis. We've already seen some good ways of balancing some of the more game-breaking spells of the past, like making it so that long range teleportation can only take you to a teleportation circle.



The problem doesn't really lie with the wizards being over-powered at ___ LV.  Or the druids.  Or the clerics.  Or whatever other caster class you want to complain about that week.
No, the real culprit in all of these "x is over-powered" sob stories has pretty much always been the DM. 
And always will be. 

Because no matter what the designers write?  It's the DMs that are actually responsible for virtually everthing that happens throughout a campaign.  Including:
Allowing wich spells are in the game they're running. 
Determining the effects of those spells. 
How much/what types of treasure get found. 
For allowing wich magic items exist, are found/bought, & crafted.
Wich types & how many foes to include per encounter.
Even when to stick with RAW or changing something.

Story pacing is also an essential skill.  Proper pacing takes care of most of the excessive crafting.
And speaking of story.....
The DM is responsible for crafting a story that challenges the players.  To do this they need to pay attention to & take into account the resources they've allowed the PCs to aquire.  And then?  Set the difficulty accordingly. 
    
DMs that have failed to do these things? 
They post threads about how over-powered ____ caster type is....
Their players?  They post threads about how over-powered ____ caster type is....
I'd be interested to hear some specific suggestions for exploration or social abilities for fighters.


Roleplaying. Nothing stopping you.
President of the OTTer Research Council on the Universe
The problem doesn't really lie with the wizards being over-powered at ___ LV.  Or the druids.  Or the clerics.  Or whatever other caster class you want to complain about that week.
No, the real culprit in all of these "x is over-powered" sob stories has pretty much always been the DM. 
And always will be.


I think the real culprit is you, and your fellow 'Fine with Casters as they are.' D&D consumers who somehow think they know what my problem with this game is better than I do. Because you're the reason it doesn't change. Which is understandable, because you like how it is and want to keep it that way. I can't fault you for that, but statements like the above are just insulting.

My problem with the differences between Fighters and Wizards arises from the mechanics, not bad DMing. I have different expectations of this game than you do. If it were really all about the DM and the mechanics didn't matter then there wouldn't be edition wars. Of course the mechanics matter.

Stop assuming that the people who have a problem with class balance are morons who are smacking their fingers with a hammer and wondering why their hand hurts.
I'm trying to figure out what the OP want. Does he want the Fighter also fly, teleport, and transform into a big scary monster as well? 
I'm trying to figure out what the OP want. Does he want the Fighter also fly, teleport, and transform into a big scary monster as well? 



No.


Uh, an optimized ranger will be better than a blaster wizard every time.  A [i]lot[i] better.



Yep, check any Char_Op board discussing DPR Kings and you'll see Rangers near the top (or at the top) in almost every one. It's the fact that Rangers can get multi-attacks ala Minor Actions + Twin Strike.

As for the OP, another thing about overpowered spells was their duration. Fly in 3E was 1 min/level where as 4E was a turn or 2 if you spent your Minor action sustaining it. It was also obtained at 16th level as opposed to 3E's 5th/6th level. Second, items such as wands and scrolls completely demolished the drawbacks of per-day spell slots. This was espically true when you ran published adventures. And I'll agree with Chakravant that  in most cases (namely pre-4E) spellcasters could out perform non-spellcasting classes at their own aspect. A wizard just needs the right spell selection and after some player mastery of the system, it's not hard to see what spells are useful 100% of the time (haste, fly, dispel magic, teleport, glitterdust, grease, color spray at low levels, ray of enfeeblement, level-draining spells, wall of iron, etc). And when they can self-sustain their spell supply by taking feats like Scribe Scroll, Craft Wand, Craft Wondrous Magical Items then it becomes clear that non-magical classes just don't stand up to them for versatily OR in their own little niché of the game. Even the "dubious" Tome of Battle classes only come out in the Tier 2-3 where as Cleric, Druid, and Wizard are ALL Tier 1 classes.

Reducing spells so they don't work all day or have hour durations. Allowing scrolls to provide versatilty but not work as spell batteries. Scaling the damage spells can deal so that they're comparable to other class options with weapons OR increasing them when used with a number of other resources where can they REALLY outdamage or out-perform other classes options. Plus giving Fighters options outside of 1 area of the game.   

 
While wizard is casting a spell the fighter can throw him half-dozen of axes, or a stone with a explosive rune.

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

+1 on skill tricks for fighters. I already suggested this on some other thread. Though I used the name "Martial Practices" like it was in 4th edition. There are lots of martial practice rituals that would still be very viable in D&DN (though they wouldn't be in the form of rituals obviously).
While wizard is casting a spell the fighter can throw him half-dozen of axes, or a stone with a explosive rune.



In 3e casting a spell is (usually; there are exceptions) a standard action. Throwing six axes is a Full round action. And it's a lot harder to interrupt casting than it was in AD&D, due to the "streamlining" of initiative.

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

I think I should clarify a few things, as I obviously did a poor job explaining myself in my original post.

First, I'm not suggesting that wizards should be just the way they were in past editions. I'm fine with reducing the number of spell slots, having concentration to limit spell stacking, and reducing the power of spells that were problematic in past editions. What I object to is the notion that wizards shouldn't be able to do things like fly or teleport at all. I think there are plenty of ways of balancing such powers without removing them from the game entirely.

Second, no, I don't want fighters to be able to fly or teleport (unless they have magic items, rituals or some other magical means of doing so, of course). What I want is for them to have thematically appropriate abilities for the other two non-combat pillars of play. Obviously they aren't going to do things like fly or turn people into toads. But there are plenty of things that they could do that would be amazing and powerful without being magical, such as skill tricks similar to those the rogue gets, but a different list of tricks that is thematically appropriate for the fighter class. The avantage these things would have over magic is their ease of use. You wouldn't see a fighter's "inspiring presence" have a daily limit or be able to be dispelled. That's where there's balance. Yes, a wizard can do things a fighter never can, but his powers also have limits and drawbacks that a fighter's powers don't.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />The problem doesn't really lie with the wizards being over-powered at ___ LV.  Or the druids.  Or the clerics.  Or whatever other caster class you want to complain about that week.
No, the real culprit in all of these "x is over-powered" sob stories has pretty much always been the DM. 
And always will be.



Of course it because using the system as written is JUST PLAIN WRONG!  And all us GMs who believe that the game system will be built along the lines of fairness are stupid and should be banned from GMing ever again.

Because no matter what the designers write?  It's the DMs that are actually responsible for virtually everthing that happens throughout a campaign.  Including:
Allowing wich spells are in the game they're running. 
Determining the effects of those spells. 
How much/what types of treasure get found. 
For allowing wich magic items exist, are found/bought, & crafted.
Wich types & how many foes to include per encounter.
Even when to stick with RAW or changing something.



Other than this is the 'Oberani Fallacy', do you know what Wil Wheaton says?  "Don't be a dick."  And you know what I have to BE when I restrict ONE CLASS, JUST ONE CLASS, so that everyone can play nice in the sandbox?  A dick.  A jerk.  Because I have to make ONE PLAYER SUFFER because he wants to play a Caster type (typically a wizard.)

And do you know what is hilarious?  YOU ARE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YES, THERE IS A SYSTEM PROBLEM WITH MAGIC!  "But, no," you'll say.  And I point out the fact that you are suggesting TAKING AWAY BROKEN MECHANICS under the guise of 'house rules/fixing'.

So you KNOW full well that Magic IS indeed broken and is indeed in dire need of fixing.  Because if it didn't need fixing, there'd be no need to restrict or remove.

Thank you very much for proving, once again, that Magic IS broken in D&D.
BB/LG: bend bars/lift gates

It's from 2e- when 'balance' occured because each class had a different xp requirement in order to level up; wizard being most expensive/slowest to gain new levels.
Wizards weren't underpowered at low level, they just weren't able to spam their overpowered spells (I'm not talking about damaging spells, of course).

The problem is the wizard being Master-of-all trades, even if it's once per day.
The specialist wizard should be the default, and generalists should loose something for their lack of focus.

Balancing the generalist vs the other classes and then adding features to reward specilization is a nonsense. 
I don't approve of focusing on balance above all else.

I agree with OP in that taking away the things from a wizard that make them feel like wizards is a bad thing.

One way I've seen this issue handled is by raising the level of abstraction.
For an example, if you can, generally speaking, change your environment, apply a status effect to object or creature, and affect from one to many objects in an area, you don't need much more than that.

A Fighter could create a Wall effect by guarding at some direction. A fighter might hit every enemy within reach- or within area -  by increasing the difficulty of succeeding. A fighter might apply a status effect to a creature by doing a contested roll. 

Flying opponent? throw a grappling rope at them and climb up to start hitting them. If that takes roughly the same time as a wizard casting a flight spell, it's quite fair. A wizard needs to prepare the fly spell, a fighter needs to prepare a grappling rope. 

Of course, some may feel that's too abstract for DnD, where the tactical wargaming IS part of the fun...

One of the things I think I will want to implicitly give by fighters is dispel by melee. I think this will be part of Next, by the way of forcing concentration checks, but, for an example, parrying a fireball or somesuch. After all, it's traditional fluff is that it's a flaming small sphere until it reaches it's target zone. 

(Hmm... an adamantite jar and a prepared action should have worked in 3e too, come to think of it...) 
Why does everyone seem to think that having "balanced" classes is all that important?
if wizards were really overpowered we would see all-wizards parties, yet we don't.
could it be that being fun to play is a more important balancing factor than simple threat elimination ?

People run around praising "balance" as if it's the most important thing for this game to be fun, yet what proof do we have that it is really something that's desirable?

And what is balance anyway?
Being able to do as much damage in the same amount of time? is that it?
how long are we talking? 1 round? (where the rogue is the clear winner) an encounter? a string of 10 encounters? (when those vancian spells begin to pale in comparison with the at-will goodness of the sharpened stick)
What about the risks? do they factor in ? (i'm talking about the no-armor clause and poor HD) If your "unballanced" wizard is dead, is he still more powerfull than the very-much-still-alive fighter?
what about what happends OUTSIDE combat? does that stuff matters to anyone?

Dnd is about a team, each with his own DIFFERENT capacities, working togetter to overcome obstacles.

I think it would be far more simple to just learn to live with the fact that a guy who bends the laws of physics to his will should be able to do stuff that is impossible for a guy who's top ability is "being good at swinging a blunt object."


I, for one,  would like the design team to try and work more on making each class as UNIQUE and FUN as possible, and less on trying to achieve a sort of artificial balance that wouldn't satisfy most players anyway.
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Balance in D&D shouldnt be THE goal. But D&D's balance should be there. And the main aspect of this should be "Balance for skill".

The issue with D&D is that there are extremely difficult to stay involved without being an awesome pole player or sacrificing effectiveness. And there are classes that can affect every scene with such ease that the player has to nerf themselves to be fair.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

The most important balance is at the table. When a player takes far more time than another player to go through, manage, or apply his options, there is a problematic imbalance.