Wizards should be better than fighters.

[AntiAuthority]

Personally, I doubt it was a deliberate choice. I think a lot of the martial constraints were done "because realism" while a lot of the limits were taken off of spellcasters "because this isn't fun." It feels strongly to me that the game had multiple design aesthetics going whose interactions with each other wasn't fully explored before implementation. Without more actual designer input, it is hard to say.

Based on what I'm seeing by glancing through 3E and 3.5E books... It looks like they were deliberately trying to buff up casters to god-like levels, not so sure about intentionally nerfing martials but there's mentions that "magic is better" (my post before this one) make me think that, on some level, they were aware they were giving magic users the spot light and relegating martial classes to the backstage... That or some cartoonish levels of obliviousness on their part...

[Rater202]

There's a homebrew class on the wiki that's thing is that it's supposed to be comparable to a sorcerer while using little to no magic(depending on what options you take you can gain a handful of spell-like abilities but for the most part it's extraordinary abilities.)

(The lore is that you have an affinity with vermin and are slowly mutating into a powerful sapient vermin yourself. It's actually something I really like and would like to play in a game at somepoint)

One person edited one of its support feats(the class is built around support feats) to completely alter what it does in a way that isn't compatible with the base chassis with the note that it seemed overpowered. (the original creator reverted the change)

And that was on the wiki, which tends to favor classes that are overpowered.

There seems to be a pushback in general against classes being powerful without using magic. I remember reading about how Martial Adepts used to be dismissed as Weabo Fighting Magic.

[Lucas Yew]

Based on what I'm seeing by glancing through 3E and 3.5E books... It looks like they were deliberately trying to buff up casters to god-like levels, not so sure about intentionally nerfing martials but there's mentions that "magic is better" (my post before this one) make me think that, on some level, they were aware they were giving magic users the spot light and relegating martial classes to the backstage... That or some cartoonish levels of obliviousness on their part...

Thank you for looking up all that evidence, and my own AMA question for MC and his answer. It sure brings back memories...

Although, said evidence really makes me want to facepalm a myriad times. What were they thinking of warrior archetype players especially in higher levels, some motley crew of tool stitched caddies for the mighty spellcasters? They aren't even worth their salt (= XP) in the current (discontinued) high level 3.X rules...

[AntiAuthority]

There's a homebrew class on the wiki that's thing is that it's supposed to be comparable to a sorcerer while using little to no magic(depending on what options you take you can gain a handful of spell-like abilities but for the most part it's extraordinary abilities.)

(The lore is that you have an affinity with vermin and are slowly mutating into a powerful sapient vermin yourself. It's actually something I really like and would like to play in a game at somepoint)

One person edited one of its support feats(the class is built around support feats) to completely alter what it does in a way that isn't compatible with the base chassis with the note that it seemed overpowered. (the original creator reverted the change)

And that was on the wiki, which tends to favor classes that are overpowered.

There seems to be a pushback in general against classes being powerful without using magic. I remember reading about how Martial Adepts used to be dismissed as Weabo Fighting Magic.

But you have to understand, magic is the only thing allowed to be cool! Anything else doesn't make sense!

And could you link the name of that Sorcerer Vermin class? I'd like to read it if you can find it.

---

Thank you for looking up all that evidence, and my own AMA question for MC and his answer. It sure brings back memories...

Although, said evidence really makes me want to facepalm a myriad times. What were they thinking of warrior archetype players especially in higher levels, some motley crew of tool stitched caddies for the mighty spellcasters? They aren't even worth their salt (= XP) in the current (discontinued) high level 3.X rules...

You're welcome, but I should be thanking you, it helped give context to how at least one designer's thought of the fighter archetype.

And apparently, yes, they were meant to just be caddies for the mighty spell casters. They were aware they have people with god-like power traveling around with "completely normal, but skilled warriors."

I mean, it's only logical to want to play a side kick. Who wouldn't want to be a regular person who is completely dependent on others next to someone who is basically a god, when you're both the same level?

---

For anyone who was still on the fence about if magic being so much stronger or more than martial prowess was intentional or not... This is the opening paragraph for the introduction for Tome of Magic. Make of it what you will.

Magic creates fantasy. Strange creatures and unusual characters can move a tale a step away from reality, but it takes magic—the dragon’s fi ery breath, the wizard’s powerful spell, or some other element beyond reality—to make the leap to truly fantastic tales. The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game provides countless ways for players and DMs to experience fantasy through magic, but it offers relatively few means by which characters can employ this essential element of the game

......... I'd have to say it was pretty intentional what with this being the opening paragraph for the entire book.

Between this hyping up magic as being an essential element of the game (along with listing the Wizard's spells as an example) and an earlier book noting that arcane spell users get powers to rival a deity and saying "all things are possible through magic"... I'm 100% convinced it was intentional with how powerful magic ended up being. Now if this meant nerfing martials, I might be wrong, but when the Wizard's class description is that their spells are stronger than weapons (and keeping in mind that "certain game choices are deliberately better than others")... I'm gonna also lean towards that also being intentional as well.

[Gnaeus]

I mean, it's only logical to want to play a side kick. Who wouldn't want to be a regular person who is completely dependent on others next to someone who is basically a god, when you're both the same level?

Honestly I’ve had fun with that character. But it’s very important that that be a choice made with full disclosure as opposed to just suddenly waking up and realizing that now you are a gimp compared with cleric and wizard.

But honestly, 1e is very well balanced compared to other early games. Compare with WFRP (where you roll your starting profession) you could have a party with a squire (good skills and gear), a scribe (good knowledge skills, maybe can advance to be a wizard someday) a leather worker (can make boots) and a rat catcher. Or Stormbringer, where rolling a melnibonean gave you an extra dice or more in every stat and automatically made you a gestalt warrior wizard. And rolling a beggar meant penalties on most stats and a crippling deformity. The point based balance systems like GURPS or WoD weren’t out yet (I guess champions was out). It was a lawless age, when you rolled well, you cheated, or you SUFFERED. The balance aspect was that you all had the same chance before the dice were rolled to have a powerful character.

[AntiAuthority]

Honestly I’ve had fun with that character. But it’s very important that that be a choice made with full disclosure as opposed to just suddenly waking up and realizing that now you are a gimp compared with cleric and wizard.

But honestly, 1e is very well balanced compared to other early games. Compare with WFRP (where you roll your starting profession) you could have a party with a squire (good skills and gear), a scribe (good knowledge skills, maybe can advance to be a wizard someday) a leather worker (can make boots) and a rat catcher. Or Stormbringer, where rolling a melnibonean gave you an extra dice or more in every stat and automatically made you a gestalt warrior wizard. And rolling a beggar meant penalties on most stats and a crippling deformity. The point based balance systems like GURPS or WoD weren’t out yet (I guess champions was out). It was a lawless age, when you rolled well, you cheated, or you SUFFERED.

I'd just play a lower level character or an NPC class to get the sidekick feel, but to each their own.

And yes, I think it should be obvious that "this class is much better than the other by X level" from the beginning (though Wizards technically do that in their description...).

[Gnaeus]

I'd just play a lower level character or an NPC class to get the sidekick feel, but to each their own.

And yes, I think it should be obvious that "this class is much better than the other by X level" from the beginning (though Wizards technically do that in their description...).

Did 1e have NPC classes? I can’t recall them but it’s been a minute.

And again, my preference would be to have all rolls represented at multiple tiers of play. So the fighter plays next to the hedge mage and the hero beside the wizard. Until you get to characters whose class powers include rolling on a disability table I don’t like the idea of walling things off as not for PC play. But I’ll admit the difference between calling kinfolk or ghoul an “NPC build” or a “lower powered PC” may be largely semantic. The difference in my mind is whether they were written with the idea that they would be played and therefore they have access to fun toys as they grow.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Makes the game more realistic.

Real life wizards make robots. Robots are better soldiers than human soldiers.
Real life wizards make Power Armor. Wizard in Power Armor is better than a human soldier.
Real life wizards make tanks, gunships, battleships, and fully automate them with drone or ai technology. They're better than a human soldier.
Real life wizards use genetic augmentations to turn themselves into super soldiers. Mutant super soldiers are better than human soldiers.
Real life wizards make automated mass production complexes manned by drones and robots that lets him build and churn out machinery of epic proportions quickly and by himself. Human soldiers have no idea where to even start.

In case you didn't notice, real life wizards are anyone in the intellectual fields, mainly technology and science. And a human soldier is someone who spends his life increasing his muscle mass or reflexes through training.

So why are people arguing that once a wizard hits high levels and have enough gold to buy a country, he should still be on par with a human soldier? Makes no sense. Wizards should be stronger than fighters. Because human bodies are fragile, weak, and inferior to even animals. Bears beat humans. Tigers beat humans. So people who dedicate their lives making their bodies stronger through training even fully knowing that they will never be able to beat a bear in strength should be weaker than people who dedicate their lives making their bodies stronger through anything but training like studying biology, chemistry, physics, robotics, etc.

Actually, humans are pretty hardcore when it comes to the food chain. We actually walk or stab things to death rather easily. Even without a lot of tech, we can eliminate pretty much anything on the planet without actively trying to. If humans were a fantasy race, we would be space orcs

But you got something wrong.

It's not that Wizards shouldn't be better than the fighter. It's that the fighter should keep up with the game.

Tome of Battle is amazing because it makes fighters (and fighter types) tier 3 easily. A DM doesn't have to hold the hands of tier 3 characters nearly as much as the lower tier characters. A player shouldn't be punished for choosing a class and neither should the DM be punished because players chose a certain class.

Which is why I went to 4e as soon as I could. Better as a player and as a DM. Everyone can keep up with the game and the punishment of the game is reserved for character choices while playing the game, not when making a character for the game.

5e has a lot of 4e in it, it's just sneaky about it. Sadly the 5e fighter is hyper focused on combat and gains nothing from the core class, and many subclasses, that help with anything other than direct combat. But at the very least, the fighter keeps up with the game in that regard. The 5e fighter isn't better than the wizard, but it keeps up with the game very well and it makes a lot of people happy.

[AntiAuthority]

Did 1e have NPC classes? I can’t recall them but it’s been a minute.

And again, my preference would be to have all rolls represented at multiple tiers of play. So the fighter plays next to the hedge mage and the hero beside the wizard. Until you get to characters whose class powers include rolling on a disability table I don’t like the idea of walling things off as not for PC play. But I’ll admit the difference between calling kinfolk or ghoul an “NPC build” or a “lower powered PC” may be largely semantic. The difference in my mind is whether they were written with the idea that they would be played and therefore they have access to fun toys as they grow.

Agreed about character roles evolving as they hit higher levels. Wizards start out as apprentices who know a few spells and Fighters are fresh out of boot camp or Fighter College or whatever. Thing is, I'm noticing a belief that "Martials become more skilled with leveling up, Magic users become more skilled and gain power." It seems fair to allow the martials to gain skill and power (options) as well through leveling up...

A Fighter starts as a beat stick and finishes as a beat stick (plus maybe some tricks if they picked up the right feats). A Wizard is versatile enough to have a bunch of different options from low levels (even Sleep can potentially make them more powerful than a Fighter at Level 1 in 3.PF) and ends up able to warp reality in a way that some mythological gods couldn't by the end.

My idea of an NPC is basically... I actually have a video to sum up what an NPC class would look like in a fantastic situation as a rough comparison. Crew Cut and the rest of the fodder soldiers getting massacred by mooks are what I'd consider an NPC, while Nero is what I'd consider a PC in this situation,. Crew Cut needed to be saved by a real hero (dude's probably like a Level 4 Expert and probably isn't normal human standards, but is just a normal guy getting wrecked by a bunch of fodder tier demons and would have died), and while Nero has a "magic item" (his prosthetic arm)... It's not something he particularly needs (except to get around a little bit), as he can cut through scores of demons that a group of well trained soldiers were getting decimated by, and the arm is replicating the one he lost in the beginning of the game (which also let him get around and toss around giant monsters as a bonus). He gets more equipment throughout the game, gets more skilled and it's clear his own power is growing instead of it just being the equipment he gets and by the end, it's pretty clear he doesn't need his prosthetic to be able to defeat things that would make the things killing trained soldiers look like fodder.

---

Actually, humans are pretty hardcore when it comes to the food chain. We actually walk or stab things to death rather easily. Even without a lot of tech, we can eliminate pretty much anything on the planet without actively trying to. If humans were a fantasy race, we would be space orcs

There's a reason this page exists... And this one exists as well...

[Gnaeus]

Crew Cut and the rest of the fodder soldiers getting massacred by mooks are what I'd consider an NPC, while Nero is what I'd consider a PC in this situation,. Crew Cut needed to be saved by a real hero (dude's probably like a Level 4 Expert and probably isn't normal human standards, but is just a normal guy getting wrecked by a bunch of fodder tier demons and would have died), and while Nero has a "magic item" (his prosthetic arm)....

The existence of higher power characters shouldn’t relegate weaker ones to NPC status. I played a campaign once in which D&D forces invaded WW1 and we were a German squad, so basically crew cut and company. Obviously, narratively there they were NPCs in that scene. But you could just as easily have a scene where they are heroes trying to drop a bridge on a demon to save a family.

I have no way to tell if Crew Cut’s character progression is interesting or not. He could speak 4 languages. He could be the face for his unit. He could have badass survival skills and useful contacts. All I know from that is that whether he is an NPC or Nero is a DMPC (and there’s no way to tell from clip), he doesn’t need to be in the same party as Nero.

If I made Dresden Files D&D style (and I wouldnt, it has its own workarounds for these issues) I could stat dozens of character classes. Angry cop. Investigative reporter. Psychic scam artist. Forensic Analyst. Wizard. Vampire. Fairy Queen. The first 4 are a perfectly good (Tier 4-6 by our terminology) group. The last 3 (tier 1-3) are also. In either group, the other group members would be NPC classes. Unless you have some good meta game reason for them to NOT be. Like maybe a group of players with a bunch of kids and a parent. Or a group with a player who has difficulty not out-optimizing his group playing down. Or just someone who likes playing commoners. The reason the D&D NPC classes (other than adept)isn’t because they get stomped by demons. It’s because their classes are boring.

[AntiAuthority]

The existence of higher power characters shouldn’t relegate weaker ones to NPC status. I played a campaign once in which D&D forces invaded WW1 and we were a German squad, so basically crew cut and company. Obviously, narratively there they were NPCs in that scene. But you could just as easily have a scene where they are heroes trying to drop a bridge on a demon to save a family.

I have no way to tell if Crew Cut’s character progression is interesting or not. He could speak 4 languages. He could be the face for his unit. He could have badass survival skills and useful contacts. All I know from that is that whether he is an NPC or Nero is a DMPC (and there’s no way to tell from clip), he doesn’t need to be in the same party as Nero.

If I made Dresden Files D&D style (and I wouldnt, it has its own workarounds for these issues) I could stat dozens of character classes. Angry cop. Investigative reporter. Psychic scam artist. Forensic Analyst. Wizard. Vampire. Fairy Queen. The first 4 are a perfectly good (Tier 4-6 by our terminology) group. The last 3 (tier 1-3) are also. In either group, the other group members would be NPC classes. Unless you have some good meta game reason for them to NOT be. Like maybe a group of players with a bunch of kids and a parent. Or a group with a player who has difficulty not out-optimizing his group playing down. Or just someone who likes playing commoners. The reason the D&D NPC classes (other than adept)isn’t because they get stomped by demons. It’s because their classes are boring.

What counts as interesting or boring is going to vary depending on who you ask. You can't really quantify fun or interesting as objectively true. If we're basing DMPCs, PCs and NPCs based on what you find interesting or not, I don't know what to say to that as it'll depend heavily on your personal viewpoint when I have a different one and it's purely subjective. At that point, the words PC, NPC and DMPC lose meaning to me, as it becomes impossible to differentiate between the three since interesting is going to vary depending on who you ask.

For me (just my interpretation)... A PC would be someone the story focuses on and has abilities to affect the plot in some form or another, such as Nero being capable of reaching the demons/Demon Lord behind the situation causing the plot. The NPCs would be those faceless, nameless background characters that the PC mows down/saves to make the PC look more competent, and their existence is to help prop up the PC up, but these characters are ultimately destined to be sidelined by the PC, like how Crew Cut is inconsequential to the plot of Devil May Cry 5 and would be a hindrance if he stayed in the plot and tried to fight even fodder tier demons. DMPCs are what I'd call a specific type of reality warper... Not necessarily like how a spell caster warps reality, but more how the universe itself loves this character so much that everyone loves them, they received the best training ever, they can redeem anyone by talking to them, they have ultra unique powers and outclass the PCs in every way and basically make the PCs think, "Why is my character even needed for this?" because they've turned what would be the Heroes of any other story into fodder tier characters that are just passive observers to the world because the DM just wanted to show off their precious baby and how they can do no wrong and could be likened to a parasite that's feeding on the fun of the other players (unless they're into being rendered ineffectual in terms of abilities...).

A character (PC or NPC) could be like Crew Cut, but it would depend on the type of story being told and how much they matter in regards to the plot... Crew Cut might be the main character of another (low level) story, but he's used to prop up the character of Nero. Crew Cut can't really affect this fantastic plot, as he's not really capable of defeating even the weaker level demons by himself and needs to be rescued, as he's pretty inconsequential to the story of stopping a demon invasion and would actively get in the way if he stuck around. Nero, however, can affect the plot and has the skill set to solve the plot is why he's a PC. The PCs/Heroes in stories tend to be more capable than the background characters/NPCs in the same stories.

With this in mind, to me, it makes sense for the BBEG to technically be NPCs in terms of role (since they're not someone a player character has access to and are used to prop up the player through defeating this incredibly challenging enemy) but have PC-tier abilities, as they have the power to affect the plot more than faceless fodder/props and can stand up to the people capable of affecting the plot. Then again, DMC lets you play as a BBEG and another former villain, both who were capable of affecting the plot through their abilities so they're currently PCs because of how much influence they have on the fantastic plot as it's how they'd be able to remain relevant in a story with demons that can tear through normal people like paper and the focus is usually revolving around stopping a demonic invasion in some form.

Basically, Nero is properly scaled to be able to affect this fantastic plot in terms of power, skills and such is why he's a PC (and has equally fantastic abilities to face the equally fantastic BBEG), while Crew Cut can't really do much to the fantastic plot except serve as a way to prop up Nero is why Crew Cut is an NPC (and has no real way to affect the plot/directly defeat the much more fantastic BBEG), if this makes sense.

Devil May Cry is entirely about combat and being stylish while you do it... D&D has combat in it because it spawned from war games, so having the key players/viewpoint characters (PC) be able to affect the plot in terms of combat makes sense... But D&D also has social elements, so being able to affect the plots in terms of social elements also makes sense... And crafting things, so being able to affect the plot through crafting... Things along those lines are what I'd consider a D&D PC to be able to do, affect the plot and not be a prop so that another character can shine by showing how they can affect the plot better than you.

My interpretation of what separates a PC from NPC and defining it into TRPG terms using a video game and storytelling anyway...

[Gnaeus]

The thing is, the DM sets the combat difficulty. And what combat is supposed to mean.

In an ordinary game, that fight could have been the result of a plan gone very wrong. Like a stealth mission that failed badly.
In a sandbox game, it could have resulted from careless characters going somewhere they shouldn’t have gone.
In almost any game, it could just be the result of a bunch of bad rolls at the beginning of combat.
In a dmpc railroad, and I’ve sat on that train, crew cut and crew could be on an exciting round the world tour where they get bailed out or otherwise bask in the presence of super NPCs from Nero to Baba Yaga.

Here’s a clip of a bunch of people getting stomped doesn’t mean they are NPCs. I’ve seen high tier PCs get stomped. I’ve seen NPCs save the day, usually as a heavy handed plot device to show “things are serious”. There absolutely could be a campaign about how a squad of normal soldiers fares in demon invasion. And if it involves more CR-1 challenges than CR+4 ones, there’s nothing wrong with that.

There is nothing wrong with warrior being a weak class. It’s fine to have weak (but clearly labeled) PC classes. The only thing wrong with warrior is that he can’t expect anything on level up. Compare with ninja or soulknife. Weak on the scale of PC classes, sure. But mechanically interesting members of a ninja soulknife adept soulborn party, which could absolutely be fun to play, and just as valid PCs as a tier 3 or tier 1 group.

[NigelWalmsley]

It seems to me that having weak PC classes is a design failure whether they're labeled or not. Sure, you could have a Soulborn/Adept/Monk/Ninja party. And that party could be fun to play. But it's not fun to play because those classes are weak. It would be just as fun to play if those classes could all play with the Wizard (or the Warblade), and you could have a wider variety of characters in it, and more consistent encounter guidelines. You can work with imbalance, but that doesn't mean the game shouldn't try to be balanced.

[Gnaeus]

It seems to me that having weak PC classes is a design failure whether they're labeled or not. Sure, you could have a Soulborn/Adept/Monk/Ninja party. And that party could be fun to play. But it's not fun to play because those classes are weak. It would be just as fun to play if those classes could all play with the Wizard (or the Warblade), and you could have a wider variety of characters in it, and more consistent encounter guidelines. You can work with imbalance, but that doesn't mean the game shouldn't try to be balanced.

1. That party is balanced. Pretty well. You can and should be able to play at any balance point. And it would also be just as fun to play if there was a warblade or wizard class that could play with them.

2. Yes it is fun to play because those classes are weak. It is a different but equally valid play style to “here is my giant bag of T1 abilities that I will search through until I get a win button”. I’m starting a game of Hackmaster, which has as its design goal levels about 1/2 power of D&D. My cleric has light armor, a staff, and 2 spells, one of which is a cure for 1-3 hp in a game with more hp than 3.5. He’s balanced with other PCs and I’m enjoying it. He’s probably actually too weak to play with the soulknife and ninja. But there absolutely should be a mechanically interesting cleric class that could.

3. The game is better for having (transparent) class imbalance. If I were playing with my 11 year old daughters group, having weaker class options to play could be beneficial. Some people like weaker classes as a challenge, or to show off their optimization chops without stepping on toes. 3.5 would be a much worse game if all classes were tier 1 or tier 3.

[AntiAuthority]

In a dmpc railroad, and I’ve sat on that train, crew cut and crew could be on an exciting round the world tour where they get bailed out or otherwise bask in the presence of super NPCs from Nero to Baba Yaga.
...
There is nothing wrong with warrior being a weak class. It’s fine to have weak (but clearly labeled) PC classes.

2. Yes it is fun to play because those classes are weak. It is a different but equally valid play style to “here is my giant bag of T1 abilities that I will search through until I get a win button”.

...

3. The game is better for having (transparent) class imbalance. If I were playing with my 11 year old daughters group, having weaker class options to play could be beneficial. Some people like weaker classes as a challenge, or to show off their optimization chops without stepping on toes. 3.5 would be a much worse game if all classes were tier 1 or tier 3.

... If I'm understanding this correctly, you're trying to tell other people what is and isn't fun because you enjoy being weak....?

Look, it's not quantifiable or anything but I don't find playing weak warrior types fun next to stronger classes, NigelWalmsley seems to be arguing against having weak PCs at all (and I'm on board with that) and the fact that iterations of "Warriors should be on par with a Spell Caster in terms of power and versatility" some such keep popping up shows that not everybody has your same idea of fun.

Honestly I’ve had fun with that character. But it’s very important that that be a choice made with full disclosure as opposed to just suddenly waking up and realizing that now you are a gimp compared with cleric and wizard.

3. The game is better for having (transparent) class imbalance. If I were playing with my 11 year old daughters group, having weaker class options to play could be beneficial. Some people like weaker classes as a challenge, or to show off their optimization chops without stepping on toes. 3.5 would be a much worse game if all classes were tier 1 or tier 3.

That I had to quote a bunch of stuff shows that it wasn't really transparent if that was even intentional or not for players. Nowhere in the rule book does each martial class have, "Weaker than magic" written next to it for players to read. To my knowledge, there is no, "Magic is superior to everything ever" in big bold letters in the Player's Handbook. This isn't transparent, and you yourself said it was bad form for a warrior to be "waking up and realizing that now you are a gimp compared with the wizard and cleric." I was playing 3.PF and the higher level we got, I was noticing how more and more useless my Fighter and Barbarian were compared to the magic users in the party beyond hitting things. Nowhere in Pathfinder either did it, to my knowledge, have a big title saying, "Magic is GOAT. If you want to play anyone that doesn't use magic and remain useful after X level, you're wasting your time!" next to every single none magical class. This isn't transparent, and it definitely isn't fun to me, or the other people on this thread that have voiced similar thoughts, but it seems like you're trying to defend your personal sense of fun as an objective truth for everyone else to strive to.

Once again, your definition of fun is not everyone else's.

---

It seems to me that having weak PC classes is a design failure whether they're labeled or not. Sure, you could have a Soulborn/Adept/Monk/Ninja party. And that party could be fun to play. But it's not fun to play because those classes are weak. It would be just as fun to play if those classes could all play with the Wizard (or the Warblade), and you could have a wider variety of characters in it, and more consistent encounter guidelines. You can work with imbalance, but that doesn't mean the game shouldn't try to be balanced.

Yeah... While fun is subjective, I'm fully in support of all PCs being strong. If I wanted to play weak characters, I'd just play a lower level character than the challenges we're facing or an NPC class or something.

[Psyren]

Nowhere in the rule book does each martial class have, "Weaker than magic" written next to it for players to read.

And? It doesn't have "ranged combat has inherent advantages over melee" spelled out either. No rulebook has room to state the obvious every time when there are more important things to lay out.

[JNAProductions]

And? It doesn't have "ranged combat has inherent advantages over melee" spelled out either. No rulebook has room to state the obvious every time when there are more important things to lay out.

The 3.5 rulebooks do not state that the classes are equal, as far as I know.

They pretty strongly imply it, though.

[Gnaeus]

That I had to quote a bunch of stuff shows that it wasn't really transparent if that was even intentional or not for players. Nowhere in the rule book does each martial class have, "Weaker than magic" written next to it for players to read. To my knowledge, there is no, "Magic is superior to everything ever" in big bold letters in the Player's Handbook. This isn't transparent, and you yourself said it was bad form for a warrior to be "waking up and realizing that now you are a gimp compared with the wizard and cleric." I was playing 3.PF and the higher level we got, I was noticing how more and more useless my Fighter and Barbarian were compared to the magic users in the party beyond hitting things. Nowhere in Pathfinder either did it, to my knowledge, have a big title saying, "Magic is GOAT. If you want to play anyone that doesn't use magic and remain useful after X level, you're wasting your time!" next to every single none magical class. .

Did I say 3.5 was transparent? No. But the error wasn’t in having a range of classes. It was in labeling them poorly and pretending they were even.

Once again, your definition of fun is not everyone else's.

If I'm understanding this correctly, you're trying to tell other people what is and isn't fun because you enjoy being weak....? .

Nowhere did I say that there shouldn’t be strong classes. I’ve repeatedly said there should be classes at the T1 and T3 as well as T5 levels. If you want to play a supergod on easy mode, fine. Heck some days I like playing with all the toys at once too.

Your argument however is incredibly hypocritical. I have no desire to remove your high power game. You should stop trying to gut the low power one. There’s one person here telling others how to “play the game right (well, 2 with Nigel)” and it isn’t me.

Yeah... While fun is subjective, I'm fully in support of all PCs being strong. If I wanted to play weak characters, I'd just play a lower level character than the challenges we're facing or an NPC class or something.

And again, if the NPC classes were designed for play that would be fine. But they are boring. Expert, Warrior, noble have no class features. I didn’t say I wanted the option of playing a blank sheet. And I pointed out several lower power classes that do have class abilities.

3.5 doesn’t actually support play froma wide variety of levels as well as it does class tiers. If I want to play a soulknife or a ninja in a higher tier party to allow for optimization or not outshine weaker players, I can’t as easily just play, for example, a 1/2 level cleric. The skill system and combat system both just shut you out.

Having to rely on skills and wits against higher power challenges can be fun. Instadying to level appropriate traps and aoes and not being able to have meaningful skills less so. Maybe I want to hit people with my shovel sometimes while the ninja throws forks at people. Or be 4 fat lazy hobbits roaming the wilds hiding from nazgul. Saying “I don’t think invisibility (from the actual bad guys) and teleport are things we want in this campaign” doesn’t mean that I might not want to make level appropriate stealth checks or have the bab to be able to stab the wraith in the final boss fight.

[Psyren]

The 3.5 rulebooks do not state that the classes are equal, as far as I know.

They pretty strongly imply it, though.

IMO, that inference is based on little more than wishful thinking. The only real way to make the classes equal would be for them to actually be equal, i.e. the same abilities/mechanics with a different coat of paint. Which if you want that, fine, you have all the tools you need to brew it - but the last time D&D itself got close to that ideal we got the worst-received edition in the game's history. I think repeating that attempt would be a bad idea on WotC or Paizo's part.

[Boci]

And? It doesn't have "ranged combat has inherent advantages over melee" spelled out either. No rulebook has room to state the obvious every time when there are more important things to lay out.

How is "martial is weaker than magic" supposed to be "obvious"? This sounds like you taking something you know about a system you've spent years playing and then claiming its obvious without realizing, the years part. In plenty of systems magic is weaker than martial options.

[JNAProductions]

IMO, that inference is based on little more than wishful thinking. The only real way to make the classes equal would be for them to actually be equal, i.e. the same abilities/mechanics with a different coat of paint. Which if you want that, fine, you have all the tools you need to brew it - but the last time D&D itself got close to that ideal we got the worst-received edition in the game's history. I think repeating that attempt would be a bad idea on WotC or Paizo's part.

Alright, replace "equal" with "close in power and usefulness" or "equal enough".

Yes, absolute, 100% balance between players is impossible as soon as you add a second player. But there's a HUGE difference between "A level 10 PC can be expected to take on a CR 10 challenge with about a 50% success rate, assuming basic competency in the build," and "A Level 10 PC can be expected to either absolutely dominate a CR 12 challenge, but another one can quite realistically fail to a CR 7 challenge."

[AntiAuthority]

Did I say 3.5 was transparent? No. But the error wasn’t in having a range of classes. It was in labeling them poorly and pretending they were even.

My mistake, the (transparent) gave off the impression you thought the imbalance was transparent.

Your argument however is incredibly hypocritical. I have no desire to remove your high power game. You should stop trying to gut the low power one. There’s one person here telling others how to “play the game right (well, 2 with Nigel)” and it isn’t me.

When did I ever say I wanted to get rid of the lower powered campaigns? I think they have their place, but they'd make more sense at lower levels (lower levels = lower powered, high levels = high powered), regardless of the PC class.

I'll try to explain my reasoning. You want a (I'm assuming) a character in the double digits level range (remember, Captain America can be replicated at Level 5 in Pathfinder) to also be low powered at the same time? When someone with 9 BAB is capable of deflecting boulders, you want them to simultaneously be a low powered character? When someone is capable of sending out damage to actual explosives in the game through just swinging a sword, you want them to also remain low powered? This isn't even a Level 10 character and they're already doing stuff that you would see in anime and comics.

The thing is, this sort of stuff is why I'm saying if you want to play a lower powered campaign, the feel would best be represented at lower levels when the characters are squishy (falling out of a plane being deadly instead of a mild inconvenience because of hit points) and not being expected to go punch out reality warpers because you have a big enough number next to your level.

---

How is "martial is weaker than magic" supposed to be "obvious"? This sounds like you taking something you know about a system you've spent years playing and then claiming its obvious without realizing, the years part. In plenty of systems magic is weaker than martial options.

Because magic.

[Willie the Duck]

... If I'm understanding this correctly, you're trying to tell other people what is and isn't fun because you enjoy being weak....?

I did not get that from their comments.

Once again, your definition of fun is not everyone else's.

I would suggest not making accusations of onetruewayism unless you're really sure that you understand someone's point. It has the tendency of blowing up in one's face, which I really think happened here.

Did I say 3.5 was transparent? No. But the error wasn’t in having a range of classes. It was in labeling them poorly and pretending they were even.

I agree that recognizing and being transparent regarding the class capabilities (along with the markers which imply that they are on equal footing, such as all being on the same XP table, CR-needed-to-challenge formulas, etc.) is the primary failure of the system. I'm not sure how I would want an implementation of the same game engine, but with different power levels to look like. 2E did it a little with the green-covered supplement books (Vikings Campaign Sourcebook, Celts Campaign Sourcebook, Charlemagne's Paladins Campaign Sourcebook, etc.), where spellcasters were nonexistent or exceedingly constrained. I'm not sure if 3e would have worked with a series of T1/3/5 classes in different sourcebooks or adventure series or the like.

If you want to play a supergod on easy mode, fine. Heck some days I like playing with all the toys at once too.

This was an equally hostile framing to what you were responding to. T1 isn't easy mode, in fact T1 against commensurate challenge is often more deadly than T4-5 against commensurate challenge, as you are less likely to be able to run away from the SoD/SoS effects. That said, you are right--all different levels of power are fun in their own ways (including the many many many playstyles not represented by either high- or low- tier D&D 3e/PF), and the only real fail-state is people not realizing that they aren't going to get the experience they intended.

The only real way to make the classes equal would be for them to actually be equal, i.e. the same abilities/mechanics with a different coat of paint.

I feel like this is dismissing the good for want of the perfect. That 3e/PF is so often noted as being on a far end of a spectrum (with 4e on the other side)* on this issue suggests that there is in fact a continuum of possible implementations, hopefully with some middle ground. 5e is one such thing, but there also exists a theoretical 3E-like system which also is better at this than 3.0, 3.5, or PF1.
*Note that this is only really the case if the only TTRPGs one is familiar with are D&D-alikes. The total spectrum shoots way off into the distance otherwise

[AntiAuthority]

I did not get that from their comments.

I would suggest not making accusations of onetruewayism unless you're really sure that you understand someone's point. It has the tendency of blowing up in one's face, which I really think happened here.

Fair enough, I might be misunderstanding, that tends to happen through text at times for me.

[ShurikVch]

Did 1e have NPC classes? I can’t recall them but it’s been a minute.

No, it have "Typical Inhabitants"

The bulk of the people met on an adventure in an inhabited area - whether city, town, village, or along the roads through the countryside, will be average folk, with no profession as adventurers know it, and no special abilities for clericism, fighting, magic, or thievery. They are simply typical, normal people (as you define typical and normal for the milieu, of course).

2E have "0-Level Characters"

[Bakkan]

The 3.5 rulebooks do not state that the classes are equal, as far as I know.

They pretty strongly imply it, though.

The rulebooks do, in fact, explicitly state that the classes are balanced through 20th level.

The classes of the D&D game are balanced at levels 1st through 20th, but simply continuing the power escalation of each class beyond 20th level would eventually unbalance the game system.

[Psyren]

How is "martial is weaker than magic" supposed to be "obvious"? This sounds like you taking something you know about a system you've spent years playing and then claiming its obvious without realizing, the years part. In plenty of systems magic is weaker than martial options.

Magic > Martial is the paradigm that I know works, that resonates with the most people and has seen the greatest acceptance and commercial success. Thus it answers the fundamental question of why D&D, even in its most recent incarnation, is designed that way. Those "other systems" you're talking about meanwhile haven't gone anywhere, people are perfectly free to go play them.

I feel like this is dismissing the good for want of the perfect. That 3e/PF is so often noted as being on a far end of a spectrum (with 4e on the other side)* on this issue suggests that there is in fact a continuum of possible implementations, hopefully with some middle ground. 5e is one such thing, but there also exists a theoretical 3E-like system which also is better at this than 3.0, 3.5, or PF1.
*Note that this is only really the case if the only TTRPGs one is familiar with are D&D-alikes. The total spectrum shoots way off into the distance otherwise

I agree, and I further agree that 5e is closer to such a middle ground that has both critical success and mass appeal. But even there, spellcasters have more capabilities and a higher ceiling than martial classes.

The rulebooks do, in fact, explicitly state that the classes are balanced through 20th level.

Balanced against the Monster Manual, not necessarily each other.

[Batcathat]

Magic > Martial is the paradigm that I know works, that resonates with the most people and has seen the greatest acceptance and commercial success. Thus it answers the fundamental question of why D&D, even in its most recent incarnation, is designed that way.

Saying that it "resonates with the most people" and "answers the fundamental question" based on the commercial success or failure on a couple of games seems like something of stretch at best. Especially since the unbalanced classes is something a lot of people keep complaining about.

[Psyren]

Saying that it "resonates with the most people" and "answers the fundamental question" based on the commercial success or failure on a couple of games seems like something of stretch at best. Especially since the unbalanced classes is something a lot of people keep complaining about.

Really, "a lot?" Because I think you'll find that a couple of threads per week on a single message board, often involving several of the same people each time, is not much of a representative sample. If you're truly looking for "stretches", you should start there.

As for it being a couple of games, those couple of games represent the most widely-played TTRPGs in the industry. It's the best mechanism we have of determining what real people at real tables want to see.

[Morty]

I agree that recognizing and being transparent regarding the class capabilities (along with the markers which imply that they are on equal footing, such as all being on the same XP table, CR-needed-to-challenge formulas, etc.) is the primary failure of the system. I'm not sure how I would want an implementation of the same game engine, but with different power levels to look like. 2E did it a little with the green-covered supplement books (Vikings Campaign Sourcebook, Celts Campaign Sourcebook, Charlemagne's Paladins Campaign Sourcebook, etc.), where spellcasters were nonexistent or exceedingly constrained. I'm not sure if 3e would have worked with a series of T1/3/5 classes in different sourcebooks or adventure series or the like.

Creating a balanced set of classes and then introducing optional rules to twist the balance this way or that seems far better than creating multiple classes. If nothing else, it doesn't require a pile of rulebooks. If classes that rely on magic are balanced with those that don't - that is to say, have roughly equal means of contributing and holding the spotlight, not the "they're identical" strawman that keeps cropping up - you can use a variant rule that removes some restrictions or costs from magic. Or applies an E6-style progression on non-casters so they don't accomplish feats that'd keep up with high-level spells. And so on. It's not going to happen in D&D, because it's still contrary to "the way things are done". But it could.

The rat-catcher example from Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay honestly isn't a very good one. Sure, you can start as a rat-catcher, but you won't stay a rat-catcher. You're going to earn XP the same as everyone else and eventually advance to another career, one that will develop other skills and talents. Besides, even the most powerful WFRP spellcasters aren't even close to the nonsense D&D casters are capable of and there are actual trade-offs to magic.