To me a rogue is a trickster not the same as skill monkey.
I could have accepted that design choice. But we apparently lost that battle. Classes (in general) are not merely confined to combat roles any more. So the fighter is the combatant and the rogue is the skill monkey.
You can have a combat wizard. And he can even overshadow the fighter for a time. But Wizards are about diminishing returns, the more encounters they face in a day the weaker they get. Where as the fighter remains just as effective in the last combat as the first. Balancing D&D wizards against the non-spellcasters in the party has a lot to do with the length of your adventuring day.
But, if somehow the fighter is the best one in combat, a combat wizard would be worse than the fighter, even if it is focused on combat.
Making one class better at combat than everyone else makes all other classes trap options if you want a combat-focused character, and this applies especially to combat-heavy campaigns.
Its only a trap if you feel insecure in not being "The Best." Not optimizing for maximum efficacy does not imply ineffectiveness.
If the fighter is the best at combat, the combat wizard is a trap option, because you will be worse than the fighter even if you specialize in combat. If one class is better at combat than the others, every other class is a trap option if you want a combat-focused character. This counts specially for combat-heavy campaigns.
There is one advantage in class design that it’s not mentioned very often. The short version is: being a Wizard actually means something. I will try to explain this. A class is formed by several parts: It has the mechanics, which is obvious. But it also has fluff, flavor, description and legacy. Basically there are the stories about characters of that class, the class’s identity and all of such. To better represent my opinion, I shall bring to the discussion another commercial franchise: Final Fantasy. In many FFs there exists the Job system, which is really just a class system. Many times the Final Fantasy’s games uses a system different from that, but usually it’s a system unique to the game, and even so references to the Job system exist, so the Job system wins as most common system used by FF. Thing is, many people recognize FF Jobs, from classical Jobs such as Black Mage, White Mage, Warrior, Ninja, Paladin, Dragoon to less iconic Jobs such as, I don’t know, Jobs that only appeared in one to three games. Thing is, with considered time, these Jobs have all sort of Fluff and Legacy with then. Many characters not only use one Job, but also marked the series. When people talk about the Black Mage, for instance, not only they will remember the concept itself, but they will also remember all the appearances made in Job based games (which, in that specific case, are many) and also many characters like Palom from FFIV or Vivi from FFIX or Lulu from FFX. Things is, these Jobs marked the series and being one of them actually has meaning, because this Jobs have strong identities attached to them. The problem with classless systems is that, they are classless. What is a Wizard in a classless system? This really matter? In a classless system, is there some meaning in being a Wizard? The problem with classless systems is that these identities are kinda of lost, because being a Wizard is not so important, because being a Wizard does not have any mechanical marks and basically in a classless system, there is no Wizard by default, this doesn’t have meaning in a practical way. With class bases D&D, however, that is different. Being a Wizard in D&D has meaning, an when people talk about Wizards in D&D they will not only remember the current version of the Wizard, they will also remember all versions of the Wizard, and all characters and NPCs that are Wizards, and now, they will also remember the mechanical difference and the flavor, identity difference between the Wizard and the other spellcasting classes. This is something really hard to put in words, there is my best shot.
Right now, I would make Vancian the standard magic system for most classes in D&D (including Wizard and Cleric). What people complained is the fact that the Wizard was Vancian-Only. If it was Vancian-Default, that would be different. I've long advocated supporting both the Points of Light setting and settings full of magic items. I had some thought on one spellcasting system. Spoiler:Show
It is basically composed of three parts: 1. The Standard System: The standard system would be classic Vancian. Wizard: classic Vancian, have to learn spells first, and then prepare them. All the 9 spells levels. Cleric: It would be Vancian, but with some differences, The Cleric would carry on the tradition of choosing spells directly from the class’s spell list, but it would have some old school disadvantages to compensate, such as 7 spell-levels for Clerics and Druids (and even less for Paladins and Rangers), and most divine’s spells would be about healing and support (the Druid and the Ranger can have more offensive spells), and, in general, they would have less spells, perhaps even having divine spells (Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Ranger) be worse than arcane spells, as I’ve told that it was like this in pre-3rd Edition. 2. The Flagships The Flagships are classes that represent one alternative magic system in the standard system. They, by default, are not Vancian, they use another system (with the possibility of using Vancian or other systems). Sorcerer: This Sorcerer would be a little different than the other casters. They would have the same spell list as the Wizard (a la 3.X) and they will use, by default, flexible spell-slots spellcasting (the current system. Very like 3.X Sorcerer, but with class benefits that make then different, a la 4th Edition. With regards to other classes, I would make Bards Vancian, but the Warlock is also a good candidate to some different spellcasting mechanics. Possibly the Witch (4e post-Essentials subclass) somewhere? 3. Modular Magic Systems And there would be a module that changes the way that the spellcasting works. This would be a module that has guidelines about altering the default spellcasting mechanics. The guidelines would consist of how the quantity of spells cast can be ported over, and from which spells they prepare, etc... Let’s give a proper example: The Wizard would be classic Vancian. Thing is, for alternative casting systems, the Wizard would have guidelines that would be something on these lines: “They always prepare spells from the list of know spells. In alternative spellcasting modules, he can prepare a number of spells equal to 1+ Wizard’s level, and the number of spells slots or equivalent is equal to the number of spells per level per day.” This is not something that will have problems of text space. All that you need is some short guidelines about which spells they can chose to cast and how much spells they cast. The rest of these mechanics would be stated only once, in the module of alternative magic system. The good points: • Not only every Vancian class would have an option to be non-Vancian, but also the non-Vancian classes would have the options to be Vancian. Why some classes in default would be Vancian while others not? Add some variety for the new players and players of things like RPGA and Encounter. That and many of the editions of D&D had it like that. • It manages to both being classic with classic Vancian and satisfy the non-Vancian fans with flagships and modules. The bad points: • Using alternative magic systems do not raise your raw power but make casters more flexible. The classes that are already flexible (such as Sorcerer) would need some more flexibility to keep up. No idea how to handle martial characters, although.
We should get rid of at-will cantrips. Spoiler:Show
Okay, now that you’ve got the first panic reaction, let me explain it. Yes, many people like at-will cantrips and they are popular. They have everything that it takes to be popular. However, I think we should remove them from the game, at least as an assumption to all caster classes. First: At-will cantrips blur up the distinction between casters and martial characters, and makes being a gish useless. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems there is an advantage in martial characters: the fact that they have abilities that they can always use. But if we give every caster at-will cantrips this blurs up the difference between classes, take out a huge advantage of martial classes. There is also the gish issue. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems, there is a huge advantage of being a gish over being a full caster. The advantage of have some reliable action when out of spells. At-will cantrips weakens that advantage. Just for you to have some idea I was talking previously about the possibility of the Wizard being weaker than the Cleric (some time ago), and when I quoted the fact that the Cleric is a gish, people talked that this is not important, that it doesn’t have such impact because it will use its at-will cantrips. Being a gish should matter. Of course when being a gish actually matters, we can rebalance the classes but it should matter.
Second: At-will cantrips go into the opposite direction of trying to balance casters. Really when we are trying to balance classic or neo Vancian casters, why give to all of them at-will cantrips? Why we cannot use the absence of at-will cantrips to provide a drawback to balance casters? Third: At-will cantrips weaken the challenge of resource management. Really when you always have magic a great part of the challenge goes away. The possibility in being out of magic is not a bug, it is a feature It is part of the system, and this challenge don’t have to go away because it is fun. The challenge of running out of magic is part of the system, and fun. Fourth: At-will cantrips do not fit properly under every system. Really is not that I don’t like at-will magic, but I don’t think we should bake in every spellcasting system. In 4e it worked because it was part of AEDU, but now, they don’t feel part of anything. They seem to be an arbitrary addition to the game. The 3.5 Warlock was special because it was a class with at-will magic in a game where it doesn’t exist, otherwise, at-will magic. We can have at-will cantrips but it should be done it right, and not being a default assumption for every caster class. I’m worried if they are going to launch a mana spell-point based magic system for spellcasters. This system should not have at-will, no mana cost magic as default for every caster class, because running out of mana is part of the mana system. In Final Fantasy they even have no MP cost magic, but they do it right, and when they use no MP cost magic, it is special because it is in a game that is otherwise MP based.
I expected that when thief became a background in the playtests and thieves tools as a class feature caught so much heat, rogues would be generalized more to a generic nonmagical skill monkey over a trickster, shrimisher, or thief.
I expect the bard to be the magical skill monkey and have the warrior or trickster aspects optional as well.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Today I thought about Sir Mandorallen, Baron of Vo Mimbre, Knight Protector of Her Majesty, the Queen of Riva, Ce'nedra, and generally acknowledged as the greatest knight on life (for those who don't know, he is an Arendish knight from David Eddings Mallorean and Belgariad).
The character if written up in D&D, is clearly one who dumped Int (and possibly Wis) for Strength, Constitution and Charisma. While he is regarded as undefeatable in one on one combat versus any non-magical foe (and some magical ones), capable of crushing man eating lions with his bare hands, having such an intimidating reputation that mind affecting magic is required to get foes who know who he is to attack him at an 8 to 1 advantage, that is not all.
He gives Belgarion, perhaps the most powerful being on the planet (including some gods), advice on rulership, war, tactics, law, weapons use and also stands in for him as a diplomat and, essentially Lawyer and Champion in one.
He is an equal partner with the rest of the non-magical members of the party (Belgarion, Belgarath and Polgara are in a class by themselves, as is Durnik when he comes back from the dead).
Silk (Prince Kheldar) handles most rogueish stealth duties, as well as being a potent combatantant (take that as being a given for all the following characters) and the party expert on Bluffing and Streetwise type skills (also appraisal and haggling, shared with Polgara).
Hettar is basically a mounted ranger, dealing with Nature, tracking, perception, and animal handling.
Leldorian is more of a archer fighter archtype, some woodsy skills but basically a master of shooting things lots with arrows and some seduction/charm skills.
I can't remember the name of the character who turns into a Bear when Belgarion is in danger but his main skills are messing things up two weapon style and sailing.
I'm sure I'm forgetting something but the thrust of my post is that they all contributed to more than just beat people up when they went to save the world (and they did it well, I want to emphasize this). I want my fighters to be that way when I play D&D as well.
The guy you first mention sounds like a dude that has main character syndrome (he does seem to be a titular character so that is my first clue). He basically does whatever plot requires of him. He basically can't be statted because no matter what he will eventually succeed no matter what the challenge is. Also if he is giving advice like that to the most powerful dude on the plane he doesn't have int and wis as dump stats. This more or less sounds like a few characters that can't be properly statted and explained by D&D standards because they have inconsistent stats. You say he used int like a dump stat then give evidence to the contrary. You say someone is nearly a god then indicate they need help and advice from a guy you say has int and wis as a dump stat. If anything that just means the writer has an inconsistent character, or possibly that the main character just didn't learn certain things, and you are confusing ignorance with a lack of intelligence. I haven't read the series though so maybe it is just inconsistent characters.
I expected that when thief became a background in the playtests and thieves tools as a class feature caught so much heat, rogues would be generalized more to a generic nonmagical skill monkey over a trickster, shrimisher, or thief. I expect the bard to be the magical skill monkey and have the warrior or trickster aspects optional as well.
I was hoping the rogue would be the lightly armored agile warrior and the fighter would be the heavily armored strong warrior. Then anyone could choose to be skill monkey and the classes would be more discrete in combat. Right now they all sort of blur together.
You can have a combat wizard. And he can even overshadow the fighter for a time. But Wizards are about diminishing returns, the more encounters they face in a day the weaker they get. Where as the fighter remains just as effective in the last combat as the first. Balancing D&D wizards against the non-spellcasters in the party has a lot to do with the length of your adventuring day.
But, if somehow the fighter is the best one in combat, a combat wizard would be worse than the fighter, even if it is focused on combat.
Making one class better at combat than everyone else makes all other classes trap options if you want a combat-focused character, and this applies especially to combat-heavy campaigns.
Its only a trap if you feel insecure in not being "The Best." Not optimizing for maximum efficacy does not imply ineffectiveness.
If the fighter is the best at combat, the combat wizard is a trap option, because you will be worse than the fighter even if you specialize in combat. If one class is better at combat than the others, every other class is a trap option if you want a combat-focused character. This counts specially for combat-heavy campaigns.
Ahh but worse than the fighter, where the system math is based around the fighter being an exception, not the expectation, means you are still effective in combat. In effect at that point there are very few trap options because you need not be the best to be effective. In previous editions you needed to be the best to be effective at all. That does not seem to be the case in this edition. You are not the best option but you are still an effective option. The wizard would always be a trap option in all respects were we to use your opinion regardless of how they balance the system because at some point the wizard is just no longer that effective because he has nothing left to bring to the table other than at wills and a signature spell, and if he prepared incorrectly for the day (meaning he preped for combat when today was all about exploration) his effectiveness is kinda blown a bit.
So in effect no not being as good as the fighter doesn't make it a trap option because you are still effective in the task. Like many have admitted here, perfect balance is impossible, the actual goal is making it so that the system mastered and non system mastered are not separated by a wide disparity. While the fighter may be the best no one is really that far behind him he just has that extra oomph to make him a bit better. He can last a bit longer, and his hitting stays more consistent, as does his damage.
Trap option means not properly effective even though it looks like it should be. The wizard is still properly effective just not as effective as the fighter, but the wizard also gets other toys and bonuses the fighter doesn't. In addition to that the wizard is the most flexible thing on the board. Even in a combat heavy game the extra utility brought by a wizard is valuable so you are still a valuable character. You didn't spend all of your options trying to fulfill a concept only to find something else builds the exact same concept but better. That is a trap option, when there are two different ways to build nearly the exact same thing that both look good, but one of them is identifiable as inferior once you do some math not everyone is willing to do. The warlock as a necromancer build from 3.5e is an example of a trap option because there are way, way, way, better ways to make a necromancer than that, but where you untrained you might think taking that power for the warlock would be worth it.
You can have a combat wizard. And he can even overshadow the fighter for a time. But Wizards are about diminishing returns, the more encounters they face in a day the weaker they get. Where as the fighter remains just as effective in the last combat as the first. Balancing D&D wizards against the non-spellcasters in the party has a lot to do with the length of your adventuring day.
But, if somehow the fighter is the best one in combat, a combat wizard would be worse than the fighter, even if it is focused on combat.
Making one class better at combat than everyone else makes all other classes trap options if you want a combat-focused character, and this applies especially to combat-heavy campaigns.
Its only a trap if you feel insecure in not being "The Best." Not optimizing for maximum efficacy does not imply ineffectiveness.
If the fighter is the best at combat, the combat wizard is a trap option, because you will be worse than the fighter even if you specialize in combat. If one class is better at combat than the others, every other class is a trap option if you want a combat-focused character. This counts specially for combat-heavy campaigns.
Ahh but worse than the fighter, where the system math is based around the fighter being an exception, not the expectation, means you are still effective in combat. In effect at that point there are very few trap options because you need not be the best to be effective. In previous editions you needed to be the best to be effective at all. That does not seem to be the case in this edition. You are not the best option but you are still an effective option. The wizard would always be a trap option in all respects were we to use your opinion regardless of how they balance the system because at some point the wizard is just no longer that effective because he has nothing left to bring to the table other than at wills and a signature spell, and if he prepared incorrectly for the day (meaning he preped for combat when today was all about exploration) his effectiveness is kinda blown a bit.
So in effect no not being as good as the fighter doesn't make it a trap option because you are still effective in the task. Like many have admitted here, perfect balance is impossible, the actual goal is making it so that the system mastered and non system mastered are not separated by a wide disparity. While the fighter may be the best no one is really that far behind him he just has that extra oomph to make him a bit better. He can last a bit longer, and his hitting stays more consistent, as does his damage.
Trap option means not properly effective even though it looks like it should be. The wizard is still properly effective just not as effective as the fighter, but the wizard also gets other toys and bonuses the fighter doesn't. In addition to that the wizard is the most flexible thing on the board. Even in a combat heavy game the extra utility brought by a wizard is valuable so you are still a valuable character. You didn't spend all of your options trying to fulfill a concept only to find something else builds the exact same concept but better. That is a trap option, when there are two different ways to build nearly the exact same thing that both look good, but one of them is identifiable as inferior once you do some math not everyone is willing to do. The warlock as a necromancer build from 3.5e is an example of a trap option because there are way, way, way, better ways to make a necromancer than that, but where you untrained you might think taking that power for the warlock would be worth it.
It is one class that is clearly better than the other. If I want to make a combat-focused wizard, if the fighter is the best at combat, it is a trap option, because I can choose another class that it is better at combat. It does not matter if I have access to Knock or some other utility spell, it is a combat-focused wizard. If the fighter is the best at combat, so making a combat-focused wizard is a trap option, because I can choose another class that it does better than this class. Trap option. It is a combat-focused wizard, he should good at combat, but if there is one class that it does better, why choose wizard? We end up in a game where every combat-focused character is a fighter, and where people are idiots if they choose something other than the fighter in a combat-heavy campaign. Actually, we would end up in a game where everyone that makes a combat-focused wizard will be making trap options, because they choose a class that is forced to be worse than the fighter in combat, in the way that I am forced to play a underpowered character, because he uses all the resources he get in combat, but somehow the fighter is still better. So why choose wizard anyway? In that case, a combat-focused wizard is a trap option, because the fighter can do much better. It is not a matter of being effective, it is about making my character the best at what he does. If I want a combat focused wizard, I want him to shine in combat, in the same frequency and intensity that the fighter gets to shine in combat.
There is one advantage in class design that it’s not mentioned very often. The short version is: being a Wizard actually means something. I will try to explain this. A class is formed by several parts: It has the mechanics, which is obvious. But it also has fluff, flavor, description and legacy. Basically there are the stories about characters of that class, the class’s identity and all of such. To better represent my opinion, I shall bring to the discussion another commercial franchise: Final Fantasy. In many FFs there exists the Job system, which is really just a class system. Many times the Final Fantasy’s games uses a system different from that, but usually it’s a system unique to the game, and even so references to the Job system exist, so the Job system wins as most common system used by FF. Thing is, many people recognize FF Jobs, from classical Jobs such as Black Mage, White Mage, Warrior, Ninja, Paladin, Dragoon to less iconic Jobs such as, I don’t know, Jobs that only appeared in one to three games. Thing is, with considered time, these Jobs have all sort of Fluff and Legacy with then. Many characters not only use one Job, but also marked the series. When people talk about the Black Mage, for instance, not only they will remember the concept itself, but they will also remember all the appearances made in Job based games (which, in that specific case, are many) and also many characters like Palom from FFIV or Vivi from FFIX or Lulu from FFX. Things is, these Jobs marked the series and being one of them actually has meaning, because this Jobs have strong identities attached to them. The problem with classless systems is that, they are classless. What is a Wizard in a classless system? This really matter? In a classless system, is there some meaning in being a Wizard? The problem with classless systems is that these identities are kinda of lost, because being a Wizard is not so important, because being a Wizard does not have any mechanical marks and basically in a classless system, there is no Wizard by default, this doesn’t have meaning in a practical way. With class bases D&D, however, that is different. Being a Wizard in D&D has meaning, an when people talk about Wizards in D&D they will not only remember the current version of the Wizard, they will also remember all versions of the Wizard, and all characters and NPCs that are Wizards, and now, they will also remember the mechanical difference and the flavor, identity difference between the Wizard and the other spellcasting classes. This is something really hard to put in words, there is my best shot.
Right now, I would make Vancian the standard magic system for most classes in D&D (including Wizard and Cleric). What people complained is the fact that the Wizard was Vancian-Only. If it was Vancian-Default, that would be different. I've long advocated supporting both the Points of Light setting and settings full of magic items. I had some thought on one spellcasting system. Spoiler:Show
It is basically composed of three parts: 1. The Standard System: The standard system would be classic Vancian. Wizard: classic Vancian, have to learn spells first, and then prepare them. All the 9 spells levels. Cleric: It would be Vancian, but with some differences, The Cleric would carry on the tradition of choosing spells directly from the class’s spell list, but it would have some old school disadvantages to compensate, such as 7 spell-levels for Clerics and Druids (and even less for Paladins and Rangers), and most divine’s spells would be about healing and support (the Druid and the Ranger can have more offensive spells), and, in general, they would have less spells, perhaps even having divine spells (Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Ranger) be worse than arcane spells, as I’ve told that it was like this in pre-3rd Edition. 2. The Flagships The Flagships are classes that represent one alternative magic system in the standard system. They, by default, are not Vancian, they use another system (with the possibility of using Vancian or other systems). Sorcerer: This Sorcerer would be a little different than the other casters. They would have the same spell list as the Wizard (a la 3.X) and they will use, by default, flexible spell-slots spellcasting (the current system. Very like 3.X Sorcerer, but with class benefits that make then different, a la 4th Edition. With regards to other classes, I would make Bards Vancian, but the Warlock is also a good candidate to some different spellcasting mechanics. Possibly the Witch (4e post-Essentials subclass) somewhere? 3. Modular Magic Systems And there would be a module that changes the way that the spellcasting works. This would be a module that has guidelines about altering the default spellcasting mechanics. The guidelines would consist of how the quantity of spells cast can be ported over, and from which spells they prepare, etc... Let’s give a proper example: The Wizard would be classic Vancian. Thing is, for alternative casting systems, the Wizard would have guidelines that would be something on these lines: “They always prepare spells from the list of know spells. In alternative spellcasting modules, he can prepare a number of spells equal to 1+ Wizard’s level, and the number of spells slots or equivalent is equal to the number of spells per level per day.” This is not something that will have problems of text space. All that you need is some short guidelines about which spells they can chose to cast and how much spells they cast. The rest of these mechanics would be stated only once, in the module of alternative magic system. The good points: • Not only every Vancian class would have an option to be non-Vancian, but also the non-Vancian classes would have the options to be Vancian. Why some classes in default would be Vancian while others not? Add some variety for the new players and players of things like RPGA and Encounter. That and many of the editions of D&D had it like that. • It manages to both being classic with classic Vancian and satisfy the non-Vancian fans with flagships and modules. The bad points: • Using alternative magic systems do not raise your raw power but make casters more flexible. The classes that are already flexible (such as Sorcerer) would need some more flexibility to keep up. No idea how to handle martial characters, although.
We should get rid of at-will cantrips. Spoiler:Show
Okay, now that you’ve got the first panic reaction, let me explain it. Yes, many people like at-will cantrips and they are popular. They have everything that it takes to be popular. However, I think we should remove them from the game, at least as an assumption to all caster classes. First: At-will cantrips blur up the distinction between casters and martial characters, and makes being a gish useless. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems there is an advantage in martial characters: the fact that they have abilities that they can always use. But if we give every caster at-will cantrips this blurs up the difference between classes, take out a huge advantage of martial classes. There is also the gish issue. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems, there is a huge advantage of being a gish over being a full caster. The advantage of have some reliable action when out of spells. At-will cantrips weakens that advantage. Just for you to have some idea I was talking previously about the possibility of the Wizard being weaker than the Cleric (some time ago), and when I quoted the fact that the Cleric is a gish, people talked that this is not important, that it doesn’t have such impact because it will use its at-will cantrips. Being a gish should matter. Of course when being a gish actually matters, we can rebalance the classes but it should matter.
Second: At-will cantrips go into the opposite direction of trying to balance casters. Really when we are trying to balance classic or neo Vancian casters, why give to all of them at-will cantrips? Why we cannot use the absence of at-will cantrips to provide a drawback to balance casters? Third: At-will cantrips weaken the challenge of resource management. Really when you always have magic a great part of the challenge goes away. The possibility in being out of magic is not a bug, it is a feature It is part of the system, and this challenge don’t have to go away because it is fun. The challenge of running out of magic is part of the system, and fun. Fourth: At-will cantrips do not fit properly under every system. Really is not that I don’t like at-will magic, but I don’t think we should bake in every spellcasting system. In 4e it worked because it was part of AEDU, but now, they don’t feel part of anything. They seem to be an arbitrary addition to the game. The 3.5 Warlock was special because it was a class with at-will magic in a game where it doesn’t exist, otherwise, at-will magic. We can have at-will cantrips but it should be done it right, and not being a default assumption for every caster class. I’m worried if they are going to launch a mana spell-point based magic system for spellcasters. This system should not have at-will, no mana cost magic as default for every caster class, because running out of mana is part of the mana system. In Final Fantasy they even have no MP cost magic, but they do it right, and when they use no MP cost magic, it is special because it is in a game that is otherwise MP based.
You can have a combat wizard. And he can even overshadow the fighter for a time. But Wizards are about diminishing returns, the more encounters they face in a day the weaker they get. Where as the fighter remains just as effective in the last combat as the first. Balancing D&D wizards against the non-spellcasters in the party has a lot to do with the length of your adventuring day.
But, if somehow the fighter is the best one in combat, a combat wizard would be worse than the fighter, even if it is focused on combat.
Making one class better at combat than everyone else makes all other classes trap options if you want a combat-focused character, and this applies especially to combat-heavy campaigns.
Its only a trap if you feel insecure in not being "The Best." Not optimizing for maximum efficacy does not imply ineffectiveness.
It's amazing how many people here don't understand that simple little fact.
