New Packet: Early Report, Same Concerns about Martial +1

It's hard to be enthusiastic about this packet when the major flaws of the previous weren't addressed at all.  We are given Barbarian and what it does is point out, even more dramatically, what is cause for concern: Barbarian is just another step in the Martial Dominance direction.

Let's look at an average human barbarian at a few points along the way:
Stats:  STR - 18 (15+2+1), CON - 16 (15+1), DEX - 14(13+1), WIS - 12(11+1), INT - 10 (9+1), CHA - 9 (8+1)

Attack Roll: +5 (+4 +1) plus Reckless Attack (Get ADV, grant ADV) plus Rage (Get ADV, no reactions)
Damage: 1d12+4 (MDD: +1d6) (Rage: +2)

AC: 15, HPs: 15, Resist: Bludgeon, Piercing, Slashing (in Rage)

On average, the barbarian will be hitting probably 70% (or 91%) of the time for 14* damage. Toss in Rage, and the hit sits at 91% and the damage goes up to 16* per. (*not counting critical hits).  A limited use Magic Missile (2d4+4 for 9) that doesn't miss will not average as much damage as the average attack of a barbarian, much less a raging barbarian.  Since Rage will basically last an entire encounter, even at first level, they'll be hitting 91% for 16 each through many attacks possibly.  Half damage from every normal source will mean that the Barbarian's 15 HPs essentially doubles in that time.

By level 5, it'll be:

Attack: +6 with ADV
Damage: 1d10+5+3d6+4

AC: 15, HPs: 55, Resist: B/P/S (3x/day), 70% chance to avoid death blow
Advantage on Init
+10 to Movement Speed

Picking up an improvised chair leg, a level 5 Barbarian could go into a rage and have advantage on attacks doing 1d3+3d6+8 damage.

Keep in mind I didn't even bother with Feats which would improve the class even more.  But that holds true for every class.

Yes, the Barbarian is a very cool class.  In fact, it'll expect to see quite a few requests in my playtest campaigns to use one.  I suppose the only way to playtest it, though, is to compare it's relative power and enjoyability against the other Martial Classes because the spellcasting classes simply are far behind in comparison.

In fact, I could make a DEX based Barbarian as a ranged/finesse attacker.

DEX: 18, CON: 16... whatever on the rest.

(1st level)
Ranged Attack: +5, Damage: 1d8+1d6+4 (ADV with Reckless)
Melee: +5 (finesse), 1d8+1d6+4 (+2 rage) (ADV only with Reckless)
Dual Melee: +3/+3 (finesse), 1d8+4/1d6+0 (+1d6) (+2/+2 in rage) (ADV with Reckless)

AC: 18/17 (DEX+CON+TWD in melee), HPs: 15 (Resist: P/S/B in Rage)

Not bad.  Reckless from range wouldn't be all that bad (range would allow fewer return strikes), so those longbow shots at advantage would tear through a lot.  Two-Weapon Defense boosts that Dual Wielding format to an AC of 18, couple that with 15 HPs, and they are better defensively than the Fighter in melee.  Still better at range, really, because AC 17 and 15 HPs is an improvement.


Or maybe they pick up Rapid Shot and use Reckless for two attacks with advantage doing 1d8+4 each while Reckless.


At any rate, compared to the limited use Wizard, the Ranged Barbarian would still be a much more dangerous foe.  A couple of times a day of 1d4+2 (x2) attacks versus non-stop use of 1d8+4 (x2) that probably hits 91% of the time.  Even single target, 2d4+4 (100%) isn't better than 1d8+1d6+4 (91%).  Disadvantage you say?  AC 17 being attacked at Disadvantage vs +5 Attack gets hit about 70%.  The Wizard gets hit 30% (AC 15, with Mage Armor).  Pretty significant, yes, but the Wizard probably had 8 HPs, the Barbarian has 15 and will be taking half damage in any two battles they feel threatened in.  My money would be on the barbarian surviving better.  If the Barbarian plays it safe (no Reckless), they hit 70% for 1d8+1d6+4 which is still better, on average, than two no-miss magic missile - a limited resource.


Anyway, Barbarian looks very cool... but in the greater picture, I can't really give any true account of how it plays because I see Martial Classes as all being too good at the moment.

Reckless Attack can only be used with melee attacks.
Reckless Attack can only be used with melee attacks.

Good to know.  Not that it really makes a significant difference, but at least we know we won't have Barbarian Archers that dominate play.

Even without Reckless, though, a Barbarian is still a better ranged option than the Wizard.  Much better Defenses, Hit Points, and more consistant damage that hits harder.

Honestly, I think MDD should go back to being 1d4 and be a part of some sort of Weapon Training system where you choose a type you can use it with.  So you might have Martial Training in Light Blades or Polearms, Bows or Thrown, and then they can use their MDD and Maneuvers while employing those weapons.

In a recent test, we literally had characters picking up rocks and hitting for 20+ damage.

I also think Skill Dice should be removed from Parry so that the Fighter has a real decision to make when it comes to using their MDD if they need to consider defenses in a combat scenario.  Barbarian should have some sort of mechanic, too, that makes use of their MDD one of a choice between options.  Reckless Attack, Rage, etc., come only with the use of their MDD and so forth.

I love maneuvers and the intention behind Expertise Dice/Martial Damage Dice, but I currently do not like the application of the rules.  We could significantly boost the spellcasting classes, yes, but then it just adds to the arms race that is currently occuring where DMs would be forced to throw larger and larger numbers of creatures at parties or be forced to use creatures that aren't normally suitable for the party's level just to provide a challenge.

For instance, in one recent test, a mid-level group consisting entirely of Martial Characters encountered a creature that they were supposed to have to retreat from and avoid.  A beast of legend and significant power.  Played, as is, from the Bestiary and using the 12/17/12 packet rules for the characters, they managed to down it (granted, with a little luck) in 2 rounds.  Better Initiative, a critical hit charged up, and a lot of MDD (3d6) and modest boosts resulted in the terrifying beast of high level with 136 HPs into a pulp.  The value of the creature (XPs) was enough to level the entire group from the start of their current level to the next.

A group of Clerics and Wizards wouldn't had any chance (as was expected) against the same creature, much less been able to bring it down so swiftly.  Yes, we could make it so that Wizards could have the options to augment Magic Missile... say with a similar mechanic... so they could deliver 2d4+4+3d6 damage on a MM at level 5, for instance.  And let Ray of Frost go for 1d10 + 3d6 and it would look more balanced.. but to my thinking, ugh... they'd need to rewrite the entire bestiary to balance creatures against the upscaling of damage output.  Might as well play 4E where they did a wonderful job of giving us higher combat damages and tougher characters and creatures.  Instead of making 5E, why not just continue to evolve 4E along the Essentials line, allowing for more streamlined combat, more improvisational rules, and support that product instead?

I am sure players enjoy the big splashes involved with huge hits that do 5x more damage than necessary for a particular encounter.  And I know, as a DM, I am enjoying less cumbersome rules and more streamlined combat.  There is a need for balance, though, both between character classes and between characters and monsters.

5E has the potential to be a fast paced, roleplaying oriented, fun system with enough options to satisfy player need for creative license but with an elegance of simplicity to keep DMs sane.  Right now, though, it's a ho-hum martial dominated product that will quickly bore the unchallenged player or frustrate the DM who's forced to scale every encounter against the dominance of the MDD classes.

Yes, I realize this is BETA, but are we going to seriously go months before they make changes to balance out a significant flaw?  It's nearly unplayable as it exists RAW and has been for a long time now.
Hey all,

This is more of a critique of packet materials so I'll be moving it to Playtest Packet Discussion.

Thanks!

Monica
I think it is important to note that the recent playtest notes indicate that a KNOWN ISSUE is that certain player characters do too much damage.  Weren't MDD just added in December?  Haven't we haerd that the NEXT rules won't be released until at least 2014?  There is a long time to iron out potential problems.  I'd bet that we will see a MDD re-vamp in combination with an update to the monster math in the Bestiary in a playtest soon.
Well, Expertise Dice were added to Rogue and Monk well before that.  Wizard spells, etc., were also retooled, too, so that magic missile was no longer a cantrip, etc.

If the Core Rules (as MM states) is nearly complete, does it seems unrealistic to expect some movement in the near future towards addressing the imbalances?

In fact, if they are addressing it, why wasn't the Barbarian released with this in mind?  Couldn't they have simply applied what changes are in the work to this class so that we have a preview of what's to be expected?  In that case, then I think it's safe to say that Barbarian proves that MDD is working as expected, it's just that Wizard and Cleric are needing improvements to their damage output.  This, unfortunately, points to a movement towards power inflation, which again, says to me that we'll have to see the same inflation given to the Bestiary.  I am sure there are many who are wholeheartedly endorsing that movement, but it's not what I was hoping for out of 5E.
I agree with ShadeRaven, and I'm sure that they will address the damage glut. 

The entire idea of bounded accuracy should also keep control over damage glut.   If PC hit points increase, and they gain more HD of healing, and they gain more interesting maneuvers and options and skill tricks, and spells, there will be no need to scale damage so much.  Damage should scale enough so that higher level PCs do more damage than lower level ones, but the power creep needs to be contained. 1 or 2 round fights should not happen when a party of 4 attacks a major demon or devil or other horrible creature (even if they are equivalent level).   The battle should last at least 3 or 4 rounds.  

I like what Mearls was mentioning in the Google Hangouts Session about shifting damage increase to weapon modifiers at specific levels.   If they divide the 20 levels into 4 tiers, they can make x1, x2, x3, x4 damage with weapons and then they don't have to worry about adding MDD to damage. (Although doing 1d12 with the greataxe might be out of control when it gets x4 damage).  If MDD is based solely on level and weapon choice, players can make choices based on the maneuvers/tricks/feats their PCs have learned either using them for action or reaction in a single round. 

Another part of MDD that we found terrible and overpowered was the idea that fighters could use all of the MDD for attack damage and then if they were attacked in the same round, they could use all of the MDD for parry too.   That has to go.   At least the Barbarian won't parry.

I'm optimisitc that changes will be made and eventually the math will work better.  Like ShadeRaven, and others, I just wish we get a chance to play the playtest with damage under control as soon as possible.   


A Brave Knight of WTF

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 



In a recent test, we literally had characters picking up rocks and hitting for 20+ damage.

I also think Skill Dice should be removed from Parry so that the Fighter has a real decision to make when it comes to using their MDD if they need to consider defenses in a combat scenario.



A quick note: the rock would be considered an improvised weapon, and therefore, RAW, they wouldn't be proficient with it.  Attack bonus and MDD can only be considered when using weapons with which the character is proficient.

Also, right now, fighters don't have to consider anything for MDD for defense.  They get their MDD refreshed during their turn, and during the turn of the enemy that tries to hit them (even in the same round).  So, they can use them in full on an enemy during their turn, and when that enemy feels that turn about is fair play, the fighter can use them (again) in full to parry before his next turn even comes up.  Removing skill dice would have no impact on this ability except to reduce the amount they can parry as a reaction.

Edit: Sorry - didn't see that someone had already mentioned this.  Still there it is.
 
Still, I can't deny that martial characters are pretty powerful atm.  I'm not sure if they need to be toned down, or the other classes brought up.  I suppose it depends on how powerful people want their characters.

It's hard to be enthusiastic about this packet when the major flaws of the previous weren't addressed at all.  We are given Barbarian and what it does is point out, even more dramatically, what is cause for concern: Barbarian is just another step in the Martial Dominance direction.

Let's look at an average human barbarian at a few points along the way:
Stats:  STR - 18 (15+2+1), CON - 16 (15+1), DEX - 14(13+1), WIS - 12(11+1), INT - 10 (9+1), CHA - 9 (8+1)

Attack Roll: +5 (+4 +1) plus Reckless Attack (Get ADV, grant ADV) plus Rage (Get ADV, no reactions)
Damage: 1d12+4 (MDD: +1d6) (Rage: +2)

AC: 15, HPs: 15, Resist: Bludgeon, Piercing, Slashing (in Rage)

On average, the barbarian will be hitting probably 70% (or 91%) of the time for 14* damage. Toss in Rage, and the hit sits at 91% and the damage goes up to 16* per. (*not counting critical hits).  A limited use Magic Missile (2d4+4 for 9) that doesn't miss will not average as much damage as the average attack of a barbarian, much less a raging barbarian.  Since Rage will basically last an entire encounter, even at first level, they'll be hitting 91% for 16 each through many attacks possibly.  Half damage from every normal source will mean that the Barbarian's 15 HPs essentially doubles in that time.

By level 5, it'll be:

Attack: +6 with ADV
Damage: 1d10+5+3d6+4

AC: 15, HPs: 55, Resist: B/P/S (3x/day), 70% chance to avoid death blow
Advantage on Init
+10 to Movement Speed

Picking up an improvised chair leg, a level 5 Barbarian could go into a rage and have advantage on attacks doing 1d3+3d6+8 damage.

Keep in mind I didn't even bother with Feats which would improve the class even more.  But that holds true for every class.

Yes, the Barbarian is a very cool class.  In fact, it'll expect to see quite a few requests in my playtest campaigns to use one.  I suppose the only way to playtest it, though, is to compare it's relative power and enjoyability against the other Martial Classes because the spellcasting classes simply are far behind in comparison.

In fact, I could make a DEX based Barbarian as a ranged/finesse attacker.

DEX: 18, CON: 16... whatever on the rest.

(1st level)
Ranged Attack: +5, Damage: 1d8+1d6+4 (ADV with Reckless)
Melee: +5 (finesse), 1d8+1d6+4 (+2 rage) (ADV only with Reckless)
Dual Melee: +3/+3 (finesse), 1d8+4/1d6+0 (+1d6) (+2/+2 in rage) (ADV with Reckless)

AC: 18/17 (DEX+CON+TWD in melee), HPs: 15 (Resist: P/S/B in Rage)

Not bad.  Reckless from range wouldn't be all that bad (range would allow fewer return strikes), so those longbow shots at advantage would tear through a lot.  Two-Weapon Defense boosts that Dual Wielding format to an AC of 18, couple that with 15 HPs, and they are better defensively than the Fighter in melee.  Still better at range, really, because AC 17 and 15 HPs is an improvement.


Or maybe they pick up Rapid Shot and use Reckless for two attacks with advantage doing 1d8+4 each while Reckless.


At any rate, compared to the limited use Wizard, the Ranged Barbarian would still be a much more dangerous foe.  A couple of times a day of 1d4+2 (x2) attacks versus non-stop use of 1d8+4 (x2) that probably hits 91% of the time.  Even single target, 2d4+4 (100%) isn't better than 1d8+1d6+4 (91%).  Disadvantage you say?  AC 17 being attacked at Disadvantage vs +5 Attack gets hit about 70%.  The Wizard gets hit 30% (AC 15, with Mage Armor).  Pretty significant, yes, but the Wizard probably had 8 HPs, the Barbarian has 15 and will be taking half damage in any two battles they feel threatened in.  My money would be on the barbarian surviving better.  If the Barbarian plays it safe (no Reckless), they hit 70% for 1d8+1d6+4 which is still better, on average, than two no-miss magic missile - a limited resource.


Anyway, Barbarian looks very cool... but in the greater picture, I can't really give any true account of how it plays because I see Martial Classes as all being too good at the moment.


Yes, the Martial Damage add in is appalling as is continued inclusion of of the expertise dice escaltion. The idea of the expertise dice is excellent, it just escaltes out of control and makes the weapon used in a combat irrelvant. mabe they could try d6, d8, d10, d12, 2d6, d6d8, d6d10 up to d6d12. That's more than enough.

I also note that a Barbarian, like a Monk, can have a better AC buck naked than an armored knight.. and they move faster and can use both hands. Add in bracer of defense and an amulet and who wants to wear armor?

Barbars also ignore surpirse at certain levels - ruling out an entire suite of abilities and character choices for other players. Being hard to suprise - sure? But impossible? Same with being able to attack invisble creatures as if they are visible - these type of rules also attack other character groups abilities and negate them, not a great approach in game design.


The idea that the BArbar can't die, even at negative 5000 as long as he rages is also silly - and what half-smart barbar won't have a contigency heal etc on hand when he stops raging and will then go stright back to 1hp?

The flip side of all this damage escaltion is a party is toast if surprised (except the barbar - he can't be), so a clever party can't strategise their way out of a bad encounter - they die too fast.

Signs of 3.5 d100 damage creeping in guys... dial it back!           
I think when we look at just numbers we miss a lot of details. Fighters, Monks, and Barbarians do substantially more damage than clerics and wizards, but only under ideal circumstances where you have lazy encounters of monsters standing in doorways. But this isn't 4ed anymore. There are a multitude of challenges that are better handled by a wizard or a cleric. 

Every class has areas they shine. It is up to the DM to make a more dynamic adventure that can be approached in multiple ways, where charging each conveniently balanced room is not always the best way.

I forsaw a problem when I saw the sentence "rage will basically last an entire encounter." Rage ends when the barb does not attack. If your DM read that sentence and his head didn't start turning on how to exploit that, you have a terrible DM.
Except monk will probably do a better job than the wizard or cleric with ethereal body being available.  Our monk ruined our sessions once it got to around level 11, with no fault to the DM or player.  The DM had to customize traps to deal with the monk dealing with all the traps and tricky enemy with ease (monk in front, all the time, every time).

I agree every class has areas where they shine, except for the monk.  Our DM had to designed entire scenarios around the monk without making it too intrusive/anti-monk.  If every class is a star twinkling in the sky, the monk is the equivalent of the sun blocking them out.
Yeah, maybe. Monks seem to have a lot of utility that the other melee hitters don't have. Worse, flurry may not be as much of a problem now, since there are so few static mods, but eventually some version of Iron Armbands of Power or Lasting Frost will come along and monks will be trippling their rewards.

So I may be wrong about monks, but fighters and barbarians seem far too narrowly focused to edge out the usefullness of clerics and wizards. 
I dunno.  Every time I estimate Fighter damage output, I come to the conclusion that it is fine at low levels, and needs boosting by the upper teens. I'm not worried about melee dominance. I'm very actively worried that melee is going to get nerfed into the ground.
It's hard to be enthusiastic about this packet when the major flaws of the previous weren't addressed at all.

Considering this wasn't intended to be a major update, I'm not clear why you're upset.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition


I forsaw a problem when I saw the sentence "rage will basically last an entire encounter." Rage ends when the barb does not attack. If your DM read that sentence and his head didn't start turning on how to exploit that, you have a terrible DM.



This is something I'd like D&D Next to avoid.  As DM, I don't want to have to exploit the system/abilities to challenge the players.   If DMs have to do that, DMing will not be easy/fun.   DMs have enough to worry about and plan.  They have to develop the adventure, the world, the story/narration, keep players engaged, balance risks and rewards, multitask and communicate with and between multiple players, etc.   They should not have to expend time and energy devising ways to challenge PCs if the designers of the game can get it right by providing DMs with the proper tools and a system that sets a reliable challenge for leveled or above leveled encounters.    

In my experiences, over time, when DMs purposely "mess" with the system to take advantage of rules/abilities to harm or challenge their players, players start to feel used or manipulated.    There would be no point playing a a barbarian that rages if an unnaturally large number of encounters were forced to play out at a distance, or if foes ran away fast enough to escape the raging barbarian.   

A Brave Knight of WTF

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I dunno.  Every time I estimate Fighter damage output, I come to the conclusion that it is fine at low levels, and needs boosting by the upper teens. I'm not worried about melee dominance. I'm very actively worried that melee is going to get nerfed into the ground.



Um, that is not the case. I have run the numbers. At level 7+ magic users start evening out in capabilities against the martial characters (with martial characters still having the edge in damage over the course of 16-20 rounds, but magic users starting to be able to outdamage martial characters for a growing number of rounds until the 20th level wizard can outdamage a fighter for roughly 10 rounds. I would need to do the math again to find the exact number. From level 1-6 martial characters clearly outperform magic users. 
I think when we look at just numbers we miss a lot of details. Fighters, Monks, and Barbarians do substantially more damage than clerics and wizards, but only under ideal circumstances where you have lazy encounters of monsters standing in doorways. But this isn't 4ed anymore. There are a multitude of challenges that are better handled by a wizard or a cleric.



4E? You mean the only edition to actually care about movement and positioning to any real degree? The only editions that fully supports the ability of characters to lock down or severly hamper the ability of the enemy from being able to just run past any opposition WITHOUT them being stuck in a hallway? The only edition where nearly every single monster, even the ones that are traditionally "throwaway" like kobolds, have interesting, often unique mechanics that force the players to change their tactics or suffer? And where EVERY member of the party contributes to challenges in different ways and is best suited for handling specific types of threats to protect their allies or exploit enemy weaknesses, rather than a handful of them being able to warp reality and instantly solve basicly every problem while the rest can't even stop a kobold from running past them?

Trying to bash 4E for no reason did nothing but hurt your arguement, and I hope in the future you avoid doing that.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
I dunno.  Every time I estimate Fighter damage output, I come to the conclusion that it is fine at low levels, and needs boosting by the upper teens. I'm not worried about melee dominance. I'm very actively worried that melee is going to get nerfed into the ground.



Um, that is not the case. I have run the numbers. At level 7+ magic users start evening out in capabilities against the martial characters (with martial characters still having the edge in damage over the course of 16-20 rounds, but magic users starting to be able to outdamage martial characters for a growing number of rounds until the 20th level wizard can outdamage a fighter for roughly 10 rounds. I would need to do the math again to find the exact number. From level 1-6 martial characters clearly outperform magic users. 



I actually wasn't talking about Fighter vs Wizard balance.  I was talking about Fighter vs Monster balance.  Going back and rechecking my numbers, I'll admit I was slightly off.  The *current* Fighter, *when equipped with magic weapons* (which I hadn't included earlier) does *ok* (no more!) against the current monsters.

Fighters outdamaging Wizards (heavily) is where we want to be.  Here is a way to look at it: if in a "standard Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric" party, the Rogue and Wizard do about 80% percent of the Fighter's damage, and the Cleric 60%, then the party damage total is 320% of a Fighter.   But that means dropping the Fighter for another Wizard (or even Cleric if you want someone tankier) only drops the party offense by 6.25% or 12.5% respectively, with a massive gain in spell utility (and maybe healing).  If someone *really* wants to play a Fighter, well, he is only screwing over the party noteably (but not catastrophically).  Drop the Wizard/Rogue to 70% and the Cleric to 40% and things get a little bit better, as a Fighter->Wizard swap loses you a bit over 10%. Even then, the Fighter isn't pulling his own weight.

Or if you want to draw on RL experience, Fighters *absolutely destroyed* everyone else in damage in 1e/2e.  We are talking outdamaging Thieves and Wizards by over factors of 2 (3-5 by lvl9ish although Thieves could catch up some if the DM was lenient about backstab) and Clerics by up-to/over factors of 10.  Their defensive edge was *vast*.  Were they considered overpowered?  Heck no.
I also note that a Barbarian, like a Monk, can have a better AC buck naked than an armored knight.. and they move faster and can use both hands. Add in bracer of defense and an amulet and who wants to wear armor?

I might be misreading this, but the monk and barbarian do not simply add there wisdom/constitution to their AC.  Each of their class features redefines how their AC is calculated.  The barcer of defense also redefines the AC calculation for the wearer.  I do not recall reading any special rules for monks or barbarians who wear a bracer of defense.  So as I read it, they either get the AC calculation from their class or the one from bracer of defense.  Just my interpretation.

I dunno.  Every time I estimate Fighter damage output, I come to the conclusion that it is fine at low levels, and needs boosting by the upper teens. I'm not worried about melee dominance. I'm very actively worried that melee is going to get nerfed into the ground.



Um, that is not the case. I have run the numbers. At level 7+ magic users start evening out in capabilities against the martial characters (with martial characters still having the edge in damage over the course of 16-20 rounds, but magic users starting to be able to outdamage martial characters for a growing number of rounds until the 20th level wizard can outdamage a fighter for roughly 10 rounds. I would need to do the math again to find the exact number. From level 1-6 martial characters clearly outperform magic users. 



I actually wasn't talking about Fighter vs Wizard balance.  I was talking about Fighter vs Monster balance.  Going back and rechecking my numbers, I'll admit I was slightly off.  The *current* Fighter, *when equipped with magic weapons* (which I hadn't included earlier) does *ok* (no more!) against the current monsters.

Fighters outdamaging Wizards (heavily) is where we want to be.  Here is a way to look at it: if in a "standard Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric" party, the Rogue and Wizard do about 80% percent of the Fighter's damage, and the Cleric 60%, then the party damage total is 320% of a Fighter.   But that means dropping the Fighter for another Wizard (or even Cleric if you want someone tankier) only drops the party offense by 6.25% or 12.5% respectively, with a massive gain in spell utility (and maybe healing).  If someone *really* wants to play a Fighter, well, he is only screwing over the party noteably (but not catastrophically).  Drop the Wizard/Rogue to 70% and the Cleric to 40% and things get a little bit better, as a Fighter->Wizard swap loses you a bit over 10%. Even then, the Fighter isn't pulling his own weight.

Or if you want to draw on RL experience, Fighters *absolutely destroyed* everyone else in damage in 1e/2e.  We are talking outdamaging Thieves and Wizards by over factors of 2 (3-5 by lvl9ish although Thieves could catch up some if the DM was lenient about backstab) and Clerics by up-to/over factors of 10.  Their defensive edge was *vast*.  Were they considered overpowered?  Heck no.




Um, thieves were horribly underpowered in 2e. And, things were not balanced between wizards and fighters either. 2e was better, in terms of balance, than 3e, but it was not great. I find your logic backward. I want things to be balanced. But, I don't want the fighter to outshine everyone. And, this time around, while wizards do have versatility, they don't have nearly enough versatility to justify the kind of imbalance you seem to desire. Things are fine the way they are now, minus a few spells that need to be tweaked.  

Also, fighters are far better vs. monsters than you are giving them credit for. Between their DPR, HP, Def, and parry tey are very effective.

We will have to agree to disagree.