Why do fighters suck/wizards rule?

[Prophaniti]

Now this thread is not a direct discussion of the fighter class, but of melee classes in general and the seeming concensus that they're not worth playing (from a power-gaming pov) and I'm wondering why so many people so vocally think that.

First off, there's a fundamental problem I have with the view that magic-users and other classes SHOULD be balanced in the first place. We're talking about someone who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower and mental discipline vs someone who hits people with sharp metal. Any instance where the two are even comparable is most likely caused by some arbitrary increase to the metal-wavers abilities(ToB), decrease to the magic-users(SR/anti-magic zone), or special circumstances where magic is not very useful. Also as I've seen mentioned in some of the 'Wizard vs X' threads, the pc classes were never intened to be balanced AGAINST each other, but rather meant to complement each other, so everyone has a role in the group. That said, I've always enjoyed playing melee classes, and not just to avoid how convoluted spellcasting can become. We often have melee characters that outshine the casters of the party, espesially when our group's resident powergamer is running them. He likes to run casters too, but mostly as buffers.

Anecdotally, the party was ambushed once and his melee character hit in the first round for an insane amount of damage. I asked him to explain and he began listing the buffs he had on from his casting follower. I had to reign him in and explain that he really did have to take the full casting time for all those buffs, rather than automatically applying them at the start of an encounter. He was a good sport about it, though, just figured it was a wash-over, like encumberance and food usually are in our campaigns.

I personally find different ways to keep the wizard from ruling the kill scores. I tend to be very strict on application of spells, whether a given spell will work under special circumstances, and I try to put the party in more situations where spellcasting is impractical or not immediately useful. Negotiations, a fight in a city or building where magic is outlawed or monitered, things of that nature.

Another thing I like (and am implementing in my own campaign setting) is the idea that magic is very hard to do. You can't start as a 1st level caster (ex d20 modern) you have to work you're way up to it. Being a wizard involves nearly all of your free time and funds and takes a lot of hard work to be good at. It is NOT something you can do as a summer job. My dad's rule, somewhat inverse of mine, is that you cannot BECOME a wizard without years of training. If you don't start as one, you cannot multi-class as one without dropping out of the campaign for a while.

Anyway, my bottom line is this: A good DM can easily run a campaign where the wizard is a useful and valued member of the party without being an unstoppable, unequaled and immense Power who dominates every situation and combat. Fighters and other melee oriented classes CAN perform and shine (without ToB, though I do like the book) and can be interesting to play. Basically I'm saying I've never had the trouble everyone says goes on with wizards and clerics overshadowing the party and I'm trying to understand why so many people complain about it.

[AstralFire]

First off, there's a fundamental problem I have with the view that magic-users and other classes SHOULD be balanced in the first place. We're talking about someone who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower and mental discipline vs someone who hits people with sharp metal. Any instance where the two are even comparable is most likely caused by some arbitrary increase to the metal-wavers abilities(ToB),

Only two of the disciplines are really supernatural. If you've looked through Tome of Battle, calling those 'arbitrary' and not the simple fact that a naked Paladin 20 can last a few rounds in lava is crazy.

decrease to the magic-users(SR/anti-magic zone), or special circumstances where magic is not very useful. Also as I've seen mentioned in some of the 'Wizard vs X' threads, the pc classes were never intened to be balanced AGAINST each other, but rather meant to complement each other, so everyone has a role in the group.

When a full caster of any type played well can take hits better than the melee, deal more damage, and have better saves, then the PC classes aren't complementing each other and giving everyone a role, you just have stooge bodyguards for the things you're too lazy to put effort into. You seem to think that when people complain of balance, they're thinking of class versus class, purely. They're not. Nevermind that PC classes regularly show up as enemies, though.

That said, I've always enjoyed playing melee classes, and not just to avoid how convoluted spellcasting can become. We often have melee characters that outshine the casters of the party, espesially when our group's resident powergamer is running them. He likes to run casters too, but mostly as buffers.

I wouldn't be surprised if your powergamer plays casters like that and meleers so effectively in part because he's aware of what he could do if he tried to optimize a spellcaster. It's pretty common among powergamers who have any sense of party balance.

However, I guarantee you that anyone without gaming experience and rulesmastering who picks up a non-ToB melee character will not be able to contribute to a high level party without lots of DM Fiat or help from actual powergamers. A spellcaster can. That is, when you get right down to it, what is fundamentally most wrong with melee.

That along with the fact that melee is pretty much either a meatshield (Fighter) or a Skillmonkey-flawed-damage-bot. The same Wizard or Cleric or Druid can do both roles. At once.

I personally find different ways to keep the wizard from ruling the kill scores. I tend to be very strict on application of spells, whether a given spell will work under special circumstances, and I try to put the party in more situations where spellcasting is impractical or not immediately useful. Negotiations, a fight in a city or building where magic is outlawed or monitered, things of that nature.

While that's commendable, it's not easy to consistently do, and you can very easily reach a point where you're having to make arbitrary outlawing decisions, especially if any of your casters have any of the number of feats that let them cast undetectably. Not to mention the large number of spells that innately are hard to notice.

Another thing I like (and am implementing in my own campaign setting) is the idea that magic is very hard to do. You can't start as a 1st level caster (ex d20 modern) you have to work you're way up to it. Being a wizard involves nearly all of your free time and funds and takes a lot of hard work to be good at. It is NOT something you can do as a summer job. My dad's rule, somewhat inverse of mine, is that you cannot BECOME a wizard without years of training. If you don't start as one, you cannot multi-class as one without dropping out of the campaign for a while.

...Um, okay, how does that change anything? Most Wizard multiclasses prefer starting out as Wizard anyway, and they definitely will now. Not like Wizards *need* to multiclass. All that does is hurt the Fighter who wants to dabble a little, particularly since the bad-dangerous Wizard levels are once they hit 4th or 5th level spells.

Basically I'm saying I've never had the trouble everyone says goes on with wizards and clerics overshadowing the party and I'm trying to understand why so many people complain about it.

It's a problem that kicks in instantly if you have varying levels of game skill in your group and the skilled persons aren't trying to rein themselves in. It's also a matter of level. You won't notice it too much without someone actively trying for it before level 10, barring dumb things like the level 1 druid's animal companion being almost as good as a level 1 fighter on its own.

[Kurald Galain]

Many of these debates fall into the Oberoni fallacy: just because a DM can fix things with house ruling, doesn't mean the thing is not broken. That, and many message board people use the rules-as-written as a baseline for discussions, because it's one of the few valid comparisons we have.

A corollary of this is that quite frequently, people who play with the (good) kind of DM who fixes things, don't realize that they are broken. So there's a clash between people who argue from the special case of their personal experience, and those who argue from the general case of the rules-as-written.

[Azerian Kelimon]

I sense a great disturbance in the force...as if a million arguments and counterarguments were suddenly pointlessly brought up.

Any new "monk doesn't suck" threads up yet?

[AstralFire]

I sense a great disturbance in the force...as if a million arguments and counterarguments were suddenly pointlessly brought up.

Any new "monk doesn't suck" threads up yet?

Forgive me for responding. I'm waiting for my thread to get someone to care about it.

[Azerian Kelimon]

No, please continue. It's concerned, wise people like you who provide us with material to debate with. I thank you.


And that wasn't sarcasm. It's always good when we get new class debate threads.

[Solo]

Forgive me for responding. I'm waiting for my thread to get someone to care about it.

Wait longer.

[Maerok]

Because wizards have magic. It's rather simple. The ability to rain death from above or below in a few rounds notice is typically followed by a victory of some sort. The ability to stop time and summon otherworldly creatures helps too. I'm curious to see if using only ToB and ToM, for fighters and casters, would balance things out.

[Ditto]

I never like when people start with "Fighters hit stuff, wizards snap the rules of reality with their minds" line for the be-all 'duh' part of the answer. Obviously the wizard gets to that level as you move toward epic, but the reality is that the wizard has a number of *extremely specific* ways to bend the rules in short bursts. Most people also ignore that wizards decrease in usefulness rapidly as you approach the proper number of random encounters per day - wizards as put forth generally blow their end-all spells in about 1.5 battles. The same issue comes up in the 'Why psionics is/isn't balanced' argument, since psionics is balanced against a day's worth.

Just a minor gripe.

[Da Beast]

I personally find different ways to keep the wizard from ruling the kill scores. I tend to be very strict on application of spells, whether a given spell will work under special circumstances, and I try to put the party in more situations where spellcasting is impractical or not immediately useful. Negotiations, a fight in a city or building where magic is outlawed or monitered, things of that nature.

First of all, your kind of answering your own question here. If the DM has to go to great lengths to set up situations were the wizard isn't allowed to use spells, his only real ability, just to make the noncasters feel useful then there's something wrong with the way the game is designed. Second of all, the more splat books you add in the harder creating situations were spell casting is impractical becomes. Almost every new book adds at least a few neat little tricks for each party role, but spell casters (clerics druids and wizards at least) can pick a new set of neat little tricks every day and have a lot more neat little tricks to choose from. With enough books and some prep time there are almost no situations that the big three casters can't handle. Sure the DM can step in and outlaw material but then we're not talking RAW anymore and it goes right back to the Oberoni fallacy.

[Arakune]

I just think there is no problem for .... say... 30~35 level wizard to own anything below it's CR and 3~7 CR up, but a 10th lvl? 15lvl? Hell, even a 1st lvl wizard in times of despair can 'kill' that fully armed/armored (yet 1st, or 2nd ~3rd level if you're reasonably lucky) fighter with one spell! That's unbalancing.

And let's not enter in the CodZilla/DruidZilla section. (There is a druid that don't take the natural spell feat?)

[AstralFire]

I never like when people start with "Fighters hit stuff, wizards snap the rules of reality with their minds" line for the be-all 'duh' part of the answer. Obviously the wizard gets to that level as you move toward epic, but the reality is that the wizard has a number of *extremely specific* ways to bend the rules in short bursts. Most people also ignore that wizards decrease in usefulness rapidly as you approach the proper number of random encounters per day - wizards as put forth generally blow their end-all spells in about 1.5 battles. The same issue comes up in the 'Why psionics is/isn't balanced' argument, since psionics is balanced against a day's worth.

Just a minor gripe.

While this is true, as a psionics supporter I also have to admit that unless you're doing an old-fashioned dungeon crawl, it's frequently very hard to do the standard 4 encounters a day and not feel like the DM is just throwing things at you to throw them at you. There are instances where it works, but there are so many where it doesn't, either. Part of the reason I like ToB's per-encounter focus with a limited amount of per-day stuff.

[hamstard4ever]

First off, there's a fundamental problem I have with the view that magic-users and other classes SHOULD be balanced in the first place.

Yet you go on to say that in spite of this you take extraordinary effort as a DM to attempt to balance magic-users and other classes. If you assert that not only does no balance problem exist, but that there SHOULD be a power disparity between wizards and fighters, then all those situations you invent to rein in the wizards' power are just so much wasted effort.

Essentially, you have arrived at the same point as most of the "fighters suck/wizards rule" crowd: through your house rules and campaign construction you tacitly acknowledge that there is a disparity and attempt to correct it to the net benefit of your players. Part of the reason this issue draws so much noise, rather than simply getting quietly corrected on a group by group basis, is that some players think that this is a systemic problem which should be better addressed by the system instead of being left up to guesswork by the DM. To a large degree they're pushing for the same thing you are: making it so magic is very hard to do, because by the rules of 3rd edition D&D, magic is laughably easy to learn and advance. What people truly object to is not simply the idea that reality-bending archmages with 9th level spells can outperform a guy who's "really good" with a sword, it's that it's just as easy to learn reality-bending 9th level spells as it is to become "really good" with a sword. They, like you, often address this issue by houseruling limitations to slow down wizard progression, either by limiting the availability of spellcaster levels or simply weakening the progression of spellcasting classes.

[two_fishes]

First off, there's a fundamental problem I have with the view that magic-users and other classes SHOULD be balanced in the first place. We're talking about someone who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower and mental discipline vs someone who hits people with sharp metal. Any instance where the two are even comparable is most likely caused by some arbitrary increase to the metal-wavers abilities(ToB), decrease to the magic-users(SR/anti-magic zone), or special circumstances where magic is not very useful.

They should be balanced because D&D is a game, and the game should be structured to allow all player an even playing ground to participate.

D&D is partly a strategy game; the players work together to overcome the challenges presented by the DM. The rules should allow every player to contribute, not simply turn them into support mechanisms for a single player.

It is also a story-telling game, and the rules are also mechanisms for apportioning narrative authority. A rules system that allows one player to command a disproportionate amount of voice is a poorly written system.

All the stuff about "someone who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower and mental discipline" is just fun colour. Building a game system that gives each player the same authority to contribute to the game should come first.

[Prophaniti]

Don't think I was trying to dig at ToB, I actually like it. I just mean that it is fairly arbitrary, them being able to do things that only a wizard could really duplicate and claiming it's not magic.

I mentioned my Dad's rule merely as an example of different way's of approaching spellcasting, he is aware that it's not likely to come up very often.

Why do I always hear the idea that a wizard can out fight a fighter, out skill-monkey the rogue, and blast enemies into oblivion ALL AT THE SAME TIME? I have no disagreement that a wizard who wants to can outperform in any of these areas, but having run wizards and sorcerers RAW, even with expanded spell lists from Complete Arcane and Spell Compendium, I could never do it all at once. You are limited to a certain number of spells PER DAY, which means if you use so many buffing yourself to be a melee presence, your capacity for disarming/bypassing traps and your ability to zap enemies is significantly diminished.

Another mitigating factor to the supposed unstoppable power of wizards is a DM who enforces RAW on prepared spells. What, you didn't prepare the spell you need here? Deal with it. Need to ID a plot-significant item and didn't prepare it because he used all his slots on buff spells? Too bad, rest and re-do you're spells. The DM rolls a random encounter (on RAW tables) while the wizard was resting? I guess he better cower in the corner, comforted by his delusions of granduer. Please don't list how to get around each of these situations, these are examples. There's a way out of any and every situation if you know what's coming in advance.

I'm not saying casters are not very powerful and don't often rule the battlefield. They do, and they should IMO. They are not, however, the Alpha and Omega of the D&D world (not even by RAW) and can't replace the rest of the party at once unless the DM allows them to.

Sorry if some of you see these arguments as repititious and boring, to me they're new and exciting. Pull back the jaded curtain from your eyes and see through the eyes of someone who hasn't had all these discussions too many times

[AtomicKitKat]

When magic classes can fight as well as or better than the fighter, but all the fighter can do is fight, yeah, there's your problem.

[Dausuul]

Now this thread is not a direct discussion of the fighter class, but of melee classes in general and the seeming concensus that they're not worth playing (from a power-gaming pov) and I'm wondering why so many people so vocally think that.

First off, there's a fundamental problem I have with the view that magic-users and other classes SHOULD be balanced in the first place. We're talking about someone who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower and mental discipline vs someone who hits people with sharp metal.

This argument is totally illogical. Magic is one way of doing things; strength and steel are another. There is no reason why magic must be inherently more powerful just because it doesn't involve physical exertion.

Anyway, my bottom line is this: A good DM can easily run a campaign where the wizard is a useful and valued member of the party without being an unstoppable, unequaled and immense Power who dominates every situation and combat. Fighters and other melee oriented classes CAN perform and shine (without ToB, though I do like the book) and can be interesting to play. Basically I'm saying I've never had the trouble everyone says goes on with wizards and clerics overshadowing the party and I'm trying to understand why so many people complain about it.

As others have said--if you go to great lengths to rein in the wizard's power, then of course the wizard doesn't overshadow the fighter. No class imbalance is more powerful than Rule Zero. But if you have to invoke Rule Zero to make the system work, the system is broken... and it takes larger and larger applications of Rule Zero to keep things working once you get past level 9-10.

[Jerthanis]

I think a lot of the people who never notice real problems in their groups' balance simply play a different bracket of levels. I play levels 2-9ish, and only our longer campaigns get to 9ish, so we never see higher than 5th level spells, which our wizards have had for maybe two sessions before the game is over. In those levels, balance is perfectly fine. Wizards still run out of spells occasionally, Fighter types take out 3/5ths of the foes, Wizards can still make cakewalks out of difficult encounters, but that's more of a teamwork thing at that level than dominating the world. It's when you run high level games at level 12 and beyond that it seems like the caster domination starts to set in heavily.

So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if most of these threads got started by folks who have never seen a problem in years of gaming in the low to mid level range, and wonder how it could be such a problem for their fellow forumites.

[Kurald Galain]

wizards as put forth generally blow their end-all spells in about 1.5 battles.

I'm afraid that this (incorrect) statement is a perfect example of my earlier point.

I play levels 2-9ish, ... In those levels, balance is perfectly fine.

As Saph is wont to point out, most campaigns take place at these levels precisely because at these levels balance is good. This is what WOTC refers to at the "sweet spot", and they admit that the game breaks down at lower level (because most PCs can be one-shotted by a lucky monster) and at higher (because of power level disparities, and the prevalence of save-or-dies, et cetera).

Sorry if some of you see these arguments as repititious and boring, to me they're new and exciting. Pull back the jaded curtain from your eyes and see through the eyes of someone who hasn't had all these discussions too many times

Unfortunately, while the RAW may seem to provide the answers as you see them, experience with well-built characters proves those answers to be wrong.

[Fax Celestis]

Bottom-line: spellcasters are more powerful because they can do things no one else can.

[MrNexx]

Essentially, the problem is poor design.

D&D was designed so each character would be able to contribute something to a party. However, the designers didn't consider some of the ramifications of their design choices, leading to fighters and other non-magical melee characters being extremely limited combatants when compared to magical powerhouses; Swordguy had some information from an uncle regarding this, that much of the playtesting was done under "this is how we play" conditions, rather than "let's try to break the system" conditions. When you go outside the set parameters of their design (3-4 tough encounters per day, parties playing defined roles and not attempting to overlap roles of other party members except in extremis), it doesn't do poorly. If you do (CoDzilla, Batman, even a well-funded mechanic rogue), then the game breaks.

[AstralFire]

Don't think I was trying to dig at ToB, I actually like it. I just mean that it is fairly arbitrary, them being able to do things that only a wizard could really duplicate and claiming it's not magic.

I mentioned my Dad's rule merely as an example of different way's of approaching spellcasting, he is aware that it's not likely to come up very often.

Why do I always hear the idea that a wizard can out fight a fighter, out skill-monkey the rogue, and blast enemies into oblivion ALL AT THE SAME TIME?

Because he can. Sadly, Knock and Summon Monster I typically outperform the Rogue in two areas (unlocking and disarming - SQUEAL, Celestial Badger, SQUEAL), and Charming deals with most issues of diplomacy. The wizard kills stuff and it's not as conditional as Rogue sneak attack. And since he kills this stuff before they can harm him significantly, he negates the need for a fighter. I'm speaking of a Wizard doing these things at their essential roles, rather than actively attempted to be a skillmonkey or a tank.

What, you didn't prepare the spell you need here? Deal with it. Need to ID a plot-significant item and didn't prepare it because he used all his slots on buff spells? Too bad, rest and re-do you're spells.

That's not an issue if you make sure to prepare general use spells and make a few scrolls of the rarities. And there's no real problem for a wizard in staying behind the rest of the party a level constantly just by crafting. He benefits from more XP because he's lower.

[tainsouvra]

A good DM can easily run a campaign where the wizard is a useful and valued member of the party without being an unstoppable, unequaled and immense Power who dominates every situation and combat.

If, and only if, either the typical application of magic is dramatically different from the way the rules were designed. Please don't forget that little caveat, since it's not really so little.

Basically I'm saying I've never had the trouble everyone says goes on with wizards and clerics overshadowing the party and I'm trying to understand why so many people complain about it.

The answer is simple. You don't play with Wizards and Clerics the way the books describe. You play with a homebrew that is (hopefully) similar to the Wizard and Cleric.

Taking the tires off a racecar then putting it on a wet road doesn't mean that racecars are slower than walking. Fundamentally weakening spellcasters and putting them in situations where they are inherently less viable doesn't change what spellcasters are, either.

[Da Beast]

Another mitigating factor to the supposed unstoppable power of wizards is a DM who enforces RAW on prepared spells. What, you didn't prepare the spell you need here? Deal with it. Need to ID a plot-significant item and didn't prepare it because he used all his slots on buff spells? Too bad, rest and re-do you're spells. The DM rolls a random encounter (on RAW tables) while the wizard was resting? I guess he better cower in the corner, comforted by his delusions of granduer.

By RAW a wizard can leave spell slots open and fill them in with a few minutes of study later in the day. Maybe not a useful trick when ambushed but it's great for those situational out of combat spells (a lot of the ones that make skill monkeys worthless fall here) you wouldn't normally prepare. anything that doesn't require a high caster level to remain effective can be turned into a wand or scroll. A prepared wizard can be very hard send cowering to the corner.

[tainsouvra]

A corollary of this is that quite frequently, people who play with the (good) kind of DM who fixes things, don't realize that they are broken. So there's a clash between people who argue from the special case of their personal experience, and those who argue from the general case of the rules-as-written.

I quite agree with this, and am glad to see someone mention it. I like when the basis for contention gets highlighted so well.

[Prophaniti]

EDIT: ARRG! Did everyone miss the small print at the end of that paragraph? I said DON'T reply with ways out of each given situation, it was intended as an example of how a canny DM can limit the 'I Win' power of mages by RAW without having to fundamentally alter the game. Of course there are answers to each problem, but it's up to the player to think of them ON THE SPOT when they are not prepared for the exact situation they find themselves in.

Ok, a lot of people are tearing apart my example of ways to shift focus off the casters, and I admit something as arbitrary-sounding as 'magic is outlawed' was a bad example. The only time I ever do this is when it is required by the fluff of where they are. There are people and places who really don't like wizards.

Mostly what I mean is to use believable and realistic situations where spellcasting is not the best answer (these are usually not combat situations. It's hard to come up with a better solution that 'Blast the @#$! out of them' in combat, unless you want live prisoners, and my party loves to run blasters).

One example is in my current campaign. They are in some old Barrows, and each chamber of the burial mound is sealed with a very large block of stone. Now, the party wizard could simply cast 'rock to mud' or 'meld into stone' but that would use a lot of their spells, considering there are multiple barrows with multiple rooms. If they use their spells for that they are less likely to be useful when the party encounters something, so for the most part, it has fallen to the party melee'ers to further progress through the barrow. Sometimes they use there spells anyway, and that's fine, I try not to hamper them or penalize them for not doing what I expect, and it's fun to see them improvise. But if they run out at a critical moment, hey, they just need to find a way to deal with it.

As far as splatbooks go, I tend to be very selective in the ones I allow, as is my DM in the party I play in. This is because a lot of them were not very well written or play-tested and there are too many really cheesy spells out there. Generally speaking i allow Core+Spell Compendium, and any additional on a case-by-case.

There was a valid point made, though. We don't tend to adventure past level 15, so that does leave out some of the more 'world-altering' spells. We did play one Epic campaign, however, and it ended because the DM was having trouble finding encounters that challenged us without almost killing us every single time. As has been discussed, Epic D&D is really not playable, I view it as just some fun stuff to look at, like the DC for climbing a perfectly smooth, sheer verticle surface.

[hamstard4ever]

I'm not saying casters are not very powerful and don't often rule the battlefield. They do, and they should IMO. They are not, however, the Alpha and Omega of the D&D world (not even by RAW) and can't replace the rest of the party at once unless the DM allows them to.

You are making a crucial mistake. Of course a single wizard isn't going to be able to simultaneously fill the roles of three or four party members at once, barring extremely favorable circumstances for the wizard. However, three or four wizards can easily fill a very diverse set of roles and excel at them, handily outperforming a selection of three or four other classes under anything except the most extremely unfavorable circumstances.

Another mitigating factor to the supposed unstoppable power of wizards is a DM who enforces RAW on prepared spells. What, you didn't prepare the spell you need here? Deal with it. Need to ID a plot-significant item and didn't prepare it because he used all his slots on buff spells? Too bad, rest and re-do you're spells. The DM rolls a random encounter (on RAW tables) while the wizard was resting? I guess he better cower in the corner, comforted by his delusions of granduer. Please don't list how to get around each of these situations, these are examples. There's a way out of any and every situation if you know what's coming in advance.

Very well, I won't list how to get around each of these situations; instead I will state how to get around all of them. It's called the Scribe Scroll feat, and wizards get it at level 1. You mentioned that being a wizard "involves nearly all of your free time and funds": of course like most of your assertions this is not actually written in the rules anywhere, and yet this one is generally true in practice without requiring house rules. This is because a smart wizard busies himself between adventures scribing scrolls out the wazoo and attempting to procure scrolls of whatever spells he doesn't have. The wizard tries to get by on his prepared spells for the day as best he can, but has a stockpile of wands and scrolls to fall back on in emergencies.

Your perception on the rules seems to be skewed in general. You speak in a very matter-of-fact manner of implementing a number of house rules and deliberately tailoring your campaign with assumptions that are never actually spelled out in the rules, yet you assume that if wizards are allowed to run loose it must be because of very sloppy DMing and insanely pro-wizard house rules. Honestly, "a DM who enforces RAW on prepared spells"? You've got it precisely backwards: wizards do not get out of hand because of lax DM rulings that let wizards do things they're not allowed to by RAW; they are kept in check by strict and vigorous DMing that goes above and beyond the RAW to make sure the wizards stay under control.

If you've managed to keep wizards in control through vigorous DM effort (and without alienating your players with heavy-handed tactics), congratulations! You are a good DM, and your success rests in part on the fact that you agree implicitly with the premise that wizards rule and fighters suck and go out of your way to address this imbalance.

[AstralFire]

One example is in my current campaign. They are in some old Barrows, and each chamber of the burial mound is sealed with a very large block of stone. Now, the party wizard could simply cast 'rock to mud' or 'meld into stone' but that would use a lot of their spells, considering there are multiple barrows with multiple rooms. If they use their spells for that they are less likely to be useful when the party encounters something, so for the most part, it has fallen to the party melee'ers to further progress through the barrow. Sometimes they use there spells anyway, and that's fine, I try not to hamper them or penalize them for not doing what I expect, and it's fun to see them improvise. But if they run out at a critical moment, hey, they just need to find a way to deal with it.

When a full caster of any type played well can take hits better than the melee, deal more damage, and have better saves, then the PC classes aren't complementing each other and giving everyone a role, you just have stooge bodyguards for the things you're too lazy to put effort into.

This message must have at least 10 non-quoted characters.

[Roderick_BR]

(..)We're talking about someone who can fundamentally alter reality with sheer willpower and mental discipline vs someone who hits people with sharp metal. (...)

That's the primordial problem. In D&D, magic is TOO EASY to do.
An high level fighter (level 10+) is a veteran warrior, that fought thousands of battles, and, compared to younger fighters, is a force to be feared, as his abilities far surpasses normal mortal men.
A low to mid level sneezes and blows that experient fighter through the roof. At higher levels, he got so much power to his level, that DMs have problems to deal with one other than using antimagic zones and assassins with huge initiative counts.
Seriously, throw a demi god against a wizard, and the wizard can beat him if this demi god is not a caster.

A quote I like from Record of Lodos War (where the meelers are not wuxia, even if it's anime) is from one wizard that claims to dislike heavy physical exertion, and is very vulnerable in physical combat. That doesn't happen with wizards in D&D.

I think that one thing that unbalanced casters in 3.x is the ease to refresh spells, and their speed. A wizard rests for 8 hours, study for 1 and a half (all inside some magic hide-out), and he has all his 40+ spells re-memorized.
Then the wizard runs, jumps, tumbles, move through monsters, dodges attacks, roll on the ground, hops, stands up, and cast a quickened anything. In the first round of combat.

[sikyon]

Why do I always hear the idea that a wizard can out fight a fighter, out skill-monkey the rogue, and blast enemies into oblivion ALL AT THE SAME TIME? I have no disagreement that a wizard who wants to can outperform in any of these areas, but having run wizards and sorcerers RAW, even with expanded spell lists from Complete Arcane and Spell Compendium, I could never do it all at once. You are limited to a certain number of spells PER DAY, which means if you use so many buffing yourself to be a melee presence, your capacity for disarming/bypassing traps and your ability to zap enemies is significantly diminished.

Another mitigating factor to the supposed unstoppable power of wizards is a DM who enforces RAW on prepared spells. What, you didn't prepare the spell you need here? Deal with it. Need to ID a plot-significant item and didn't prepare it because he used all his slots on buff spells? Too bad, rest and re-do you're spells. The DM rolls a random encounter (on RAW tables) while the wizard was resting? I guess he better cower in the corner, comforted by his delusions of granduer. Please don't list how to get around each of these situations, these are examples. There's a way out of any and every situation if you know what's coming in advance.

Anwser: Items. Items, items, items (such as scrolls). Gives you much wider selection and can be stored for those very important but inopportune times.

Some people think that spending money on items is a waste, and play that way. In fact, the opposite is true. You are spending money to make money. By spending gold or exp on items, you can recoup your costs by advancing in level more quickly. You might not have your WBL, but you'll be a higher level anyways so you'll have a net positive gain.

Furthermore, the 1.5 encounter blowout is flawed. Wizards tend to blow out their spells in 1.5 encounters if, for example, they are level 15 and they face a CR 15 challenge. A CR 15 challenge is not appropriate for 1 character, it is appropriate for a party of 4 characters. 4 wizard party will anhiallate a standard day's worth of monsters.

And you know about being attacked while you're sleeping? All good wizards don't rest on the ground. All good wizards use rope trick or magnificent mansion. With a few other prepatory buffs that no wizard is usually without, they cannot be disturbed while sleeping.

No, this is not an anwser to each situation you provided. This is why each situation you provided will probably never happen (save DM fiat, in which case, there's nothing anyone can do).