One problem that I've seen in my D&D games is what people usually call the "Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard" problem.
"The mage gap" is shorter - and, as we'll see, it is also a problem that affects thieves and other non-spell classes, not only fighters.
I've noticed this in B/X and 5e, and not in 4e. It was a very common issue in the 3e era, but I haven't played much 3e. I'll discuss this from a B/X perspective.
There are multiple descriptions of this problem, but for me the issue is:
Fighters are good at hitting stuff. As they level up, they get BETTER at hitting stuff.
Wizards are good at spells. As they level up, they get:
- BETTER at casting THE SAME spells (e.g., a 10th level mage casts a 10d6 fireball).
- BETTER SPELLS (e.g., fireball is more powerful than magic-missile).
- MORE spells (e.g., cast fireball more times per day).
- OTHER spells (e.g., they can pick fireball and fly, that are useful in very different situations).
On this last point, we notice mages have lots of options starting on level 1. Fighters can maybe choose weapons, but a shortsword is not significantly different from a mace (and both serve he exact same function), while "charm", "sleep", and "read languages" create completely different 1st level mages.
I've discussed several fixes for fighters before.
At the bare minimum, I think fighters deserve extra attacks so their attacks are not only better but also more numerable (and more effective due to extra damage).
We can give fighters several advantages (HP, better saves, etc.) and even make them "balanced" with wizards, but it is difficult to give them the same variety a wizard enjoys.
(Notice that thieves suffer a similar problem: they get better at skills, but their skills do not have better effects, nor do they get extra skills as they level up).
The most common "fix" for this is magic weapons. In B/X, there are swords that cast spells (or spell-like effects) such as light, charm person, locate objects and even wish.
Which is fine but mostly turns the fighter into a type of spell-caster.
I don't think you can do much better if you stick to the simplicity of the "fighter" concept. But if you expand it to include rangers, barbarians, paladins, etc., it becomes more interesting - now a "fighter" might be able to find food, sneak around, ride a horse with expertise, etc.
In skill-based system, this is easy to do. In D&D, I think the mere existence of rangers, etc., limit the fighter to one single role (hitting things). That is one of the reasons I prefer the Old School Feats approach of keeping the basic classes but giving fighters more options.
However, in my own games I've also been trying to limit wizards somewhat. This is not only because I prefer sword & sorcery and dark fantasy to high fantasy, but also because I feel wizards become too complex as they level up.
In Dark Fantasy Basic, mages get better at casting spells as they level up, but they don't automatically gain new spells. Instead, each new spell comes at the cost of a feat.
And, while it is possible they cast stronger spells as they level up, this is not automatic; a 10d6 fireball is harder to pull off than a 3d6 fireball.
DFB was published in 2017 and I know it requires a big update. The more I play RPGs - any RPGs, including B/X - the more I want to change them. On the other hand, the more I play, the more ideas I get, which causes me some analysis paralysis.
But anyway, I think it was a step in the right direction. Nowadays, I'm leaning towards something like:
- Mages get ONE new spell per level, and get +1 to spellcasting.
- Fighters get +1 to attack per level, but they also get extra attacks and, indirectly, more damage.
- And, while we're at it, thieves get new skills as they level up, in addition to becoming better at some skills.
Regarding new thief skills, a guy named Aaron Oliver (who used to post on Dragonsfoot as "Mr. Reaper") came up with an interesting expansion of thief skills that seems a bit like you're thinking about.
ReplyDeleteThieves have essentially the typical skills (he calls them Prowl, Climb, Hide, Decipher, Examine, Sense, Sleight, Disarm, and Unlock). All the skills are rolled as d20 + thief level + DEX bonus + or - other modifiers, and they have target numbers for increasingly difficult tasks--up to superhuman at the highest numbers. And being able to do those really difficult tasks is often like getting new skills.
For example, "Sense," his version of Detect Noise, has targets like this:
18 Hear faint noise 30'
20 Assess Opponent
22 Hear faint noise 60'
24 Sense Valuable
26 Hear faint noise 120'
28 Sense Solid Objects
30 Focused Hearing 30'
32 Sense Magic
34 Navigate Blind
36 Focused Hearing 60'
38 Fight Blind
40 Sense Curse
In his system, very high level thieves can walk on snow without leaving tracks, hide from mental searches like ESP, vanish into thin air, and climb on the underside of smooth surfaces.
You can find this in an html document on GitHub called the "Unofficial Rules Cyclopedia Companion." (it's here: https://caressofsteel.github.io/demos/dndrulescyclopedia/)
The new thief skills start on page 22b.
That is a great approach!
DeleteAnd a VERY detailed dive into the Rules Cyclopedia! Neat!
5e has the opposite problem, I think. Combat builds can be optimized to deal out huge amounts of damage non-depletably, while spellcasters struggle to keep up, and their more powerful control effects have been nerfed (mainly through repeated save opportunities and Concentration).
ReplyDeleteWell, I think 5e has BOTH problems...
DeleteI haven't found wizards in general to be weak in 5e, although I agree their ability to deal damage is significantly lowered.
But even in 5e fighters are only good at one thing (dealing/taking damage), while wizards can choose many.
One good thing is that fighters get more feats (more options), thus making them a bit more varied.
I'm wary of this. One of the largest difference in the two classes is in resource management. A fighter has basic but unlimited attacks that are equally effective on round one as round twelve. A wizard has a finite supply of attacks that are expended over the course of the day, and often get less effective (as higher level spells are cast). Furthermore, a fighter can be at peak from round one; a wizard rarely is. Thieves are the same; clerics straddle the line a bit better.
ReplyDelete4e, I think, in many people's minds went too far in homogenizing the classes by making them all wizards, with abilities and powers that were limited in quantity.
Does the wizard outshine the fighter on the 4th or 5th fight of the day? If so, then there's definitely room for adjustment. But if not, maybe there's also gameplay issues at work, and things can be tweaked to address that: ie, if the party always takes a long rest after two fights to keep the wizard top-notch, you can either look for ways to encourage them to keep going (carrot) or discourage them from resting (stick).
The fact that wizards have limited spells balances this somewhat, yes; but the fact that he recovers all spells overnight (while the fighter can take weeks to recover from a beating in B/X) makes it worse.
Delete"Does the wizard outshine the fighter on the 4th or 5th fight of the day?"
Usually not. However, B/X recommends one random encounter per day - and even if you check three or four times, you're unlikely to get 2 encounters let alone 2 fights.
But fighters can shine in dungeons with successive weak enemies, yes.
Both classes have HP; a fighter usually expends theirs faster but a wizard has fewer, so that's a wash in my opinion.
DeleteI'm not certain what you mean by referring to random encounters here (and repeating it below) - do you primarily use those over set encounters? Do characters in your games typically only have one combat per game day? If so, that's a big change to usual encounter frequency and yes, will absolutely let the wizard shine.
Also, successive weak enemies? Again, that sort of sounds like one fight and they go home for a nap.
Irregardless, increasing the rate at which fighters regain HP (base rate + d8/d10 per night; or base + level for slower but still better recovery) would bolster the fighter; keep them to their strengths; and not increase combat complexity.
"I'm not certain what you mean by referring to random encounters here (and repeating it below) - do you primarily use those over set encounters? Do characters in your games typically only have one combat per game day? If so, that's a big change to usual encounter frequency and yes, will absolutely let the wizard shine."
DeleteYes, I use random encounter in the wilderness as described in B/X: 1-in-6 to 3-in-6 chances per day, reaction rolls, etc.
Fighters shine a bit in dungeons - but if both fighter and wizards get lose 50% HP, the fighter will take longer to recover, while the wizard can recover all spells in one day, thus encouraging "going nova", or:
- Enter the dungeon;
- Fireball;
- Come back next day.
The 1E fighter has a bigger HD, a potentially higher bonus to HP due to CON, and multiple attacks. NWPs and subclasses provide versatility, but magic items are still more important to the fighters (and thieves). Maybe you should look at 1E?
ReplyDeleteAll of that said, this problem is exacerbated by having too few encounters per game day. If the MU can "nova" every encounter his weakness (a limited number of spells) isn't coming into play.
Fighters are better at combat - both offense AND defense - and wizards more versatile. NWPs just make fighters even better at combat, but not utility.
Delete"All of that said, this problem is exacerbated by having too few encounters per game day."
Definitely. As I've said above, B/X recommends one random encounter per day - and even if you check three or four times, you're unlikely to get 2 encounters let alone 2 fights. But fighters can shine in dungeons with successive weak enemies.
Just to add clarity (imo) what you said, fighters are ALWAYS better at combat, but wizards are more versatile...at first. Their versatility decreases over time in a game day.
Delete