Why is wizard always so poorly balanced? is it because it's the self insert class for developers?

Just give martials generous daily use of Save-or-Die powers. It won't really make them more versatile, but coming into a fight and straight up chopping off heads with a single blow (assuming they fail their fort or reflex saves) would feel good and pacify the stunted little martial minds they have.

It's because the designers of lot of settings don't allow free from physical actions like they allow free form magic usage, which is retarded. If the fighter doesn't need five fucking feats to use the bow and has the ability to one shot your ass with just line of site while having an initiative boost. Yeah, suddenly "mundane" classes are a hell of a lot more dangerous. This could go with literally anything, also not having shit magic systems helps out with this a shit ton as well.

It the original Jack Vance novels, the shit show that started all this. Fighters would regularly use magic. Or kill magic users with mundane methods that shored the edges that spell casters got.

>why is wizard always so poorly balanced?

It's because in the very early editions of D&D, wizards only had a few spells so they had to conserve them and play smart.

Later editions decided that wizards should be able to cast a spell every round.

Because their whole schtick is "can do shit that's outright impossible to do, and no other character can do this" and it's super easy to make that an unbalanced concept.

In older editions, wizards would eventually get a stupid number of spells. Complaints about magic users being overpowered have been around as long as the game has.

This is actually more realistic though. Most sources of historic melee duels show they ended in the span of a few seconds. Just watch a kendo tournament (not that I would compare modern swordsmen to actual ancient soldiers). Most end in a single swing. The idea that a barbarian wielding a 15lb anime greatsword is not biscecting enemies/lopping off arms on the first full hit is silly.

Realism does not belong in games, it's about balance. Letting martials and rogues throw a dagger in someone's eye as a save-or-die attack some arbitrary number of times a day is cool and wouldn't make things worse.

I think the main point is just making martial characters as deadly as they should be would go a long way in addressing the issue. Just look at Dungeon Crawl Classic. Martials have at will called shots that not only double their damage output, which is very fatal in that system, but open kill, mutilate, disable, or end single encounters in one exchange.

because people have this notion that fighter should be "dude with sword" rather than "nigh anime superhuman badass" at higher levels

Three major shifts happened during 3rd edition:
1. Wizards got lots of buffs, some deserved, some excessive.
2. Rise of the internet led to accessible minmax knowledge. The Batman and God wizard guides revolutionized the way people looked at and played wizards.
3. Shift in DMing style. Less cruel, more story-driven games make wizards' weaknesses harder to exploit.

It was just too much all at once.

I like the idea of combat-focused but still very situational mechanics being available to martials only, and without extremely heavy feat investment to be reasonably effective.

3.5 had a splatbook that let fighter give up some feats to smash enemies against walls for massive damage. That's cool, and should be part of baseline repertoire for any strength-heavy class.

Combat maneuvers tried to accomplish it in several editions of D&D, but they didn't go nearly far enough. Just the shitty editions (3.5 etc) would greatly improve martial gameplay if martials had free access to Improved combat maneuver feats.

>Just 3.PF and 5e
>Always
Broaden your horizons buddy.

Also worth noting that it's very easy to just write more wizard spells. By contrast, it's quite difficult to come up with new fighter mechanical options without them feeling silly and gimmicky, especially if you've tied yourself into a simple combat system like D&D's. Wizards usually have more options, so it's fairly predictable that they'd have more very good options.

No such problem in warhammer rpg, amount of op mages is less than 10 in the setting

...

because a wizard, who will generally have access to a lot of spells, will always be a lot harder to balance than someone who can
A. Punch harder
B. Punch faster
C. Punch more defensively
If you have a big selection of spells, you will have a lot of options for abuse and combinations that are overpowerd. If you have a small selection of "special attack ability" it will always be easy to balance and remove all the infinite attack combos that should not be there.
I want you to try something, make up 40 spells, just 40, and try to balance it and remove all the op combos. Now make up 10 CQC abilities and remove all the op combos. Now do the same with a few hundred spells and still like 10 CQC abilities

You see that's the problem. A conventional wound system would solve all these issues. Hey, that 10 points of damage you received? That's your fucking small intestine I just cut out of your stomach. Spend the next ten actions packing it back in in your body and screaming for your mother!

wtf, why are warhammer dudes in every fucking thread talking about how their game is more balanced? is it really, or am i being memed on

Maybe you should look in the archive and read the answers you got the last time you asked this question.

>A. Punch harder
>B. Punch faster
>C. Punch more defensively

Right accept you have the entirety of human action and the physical world to call upon. You can come up with something better than that shit.

If you stick with the entirely stupid magic school mechanic, wizards should only be able to use one of these. Cantrips, and one magic school, nothing more.

If you're the best illusionist in the world, you might try to scare someone to death. Or most likely you'll hide behind illusions and slip some perfectly mundane poison in someone's food, or shoot them with a crossbow. You do not get fireball.

Same goes for all other schools, and problem spells like most conjuring abilities get additional limits put on them.

Eh, kind of. It's more fucked than its fans would have you believe.

Psykers are still the gods of 40K, whether in fluff or crunch. The thing they try to balance god-like powers against(exploding into daemons) becomes increasingly less and less relevant as you build to minimize it.

>is it because it's the self insert class for developers?
>self insert class for developers
>for developers
>developers

Developers make software, designers make traditional games. Go back to /v/

even if you do go beyond, it will most of the time boild to thouse three, or "stun for x", "lower stat by x" or "one hit kill". The problem is that magic gives you a lot more bullshit that you can make up, and thus will always lead to wizards being more powerfull if the have a lot of spells to chouse from
even in one school you can do idiotic combos that brake the game. There are just too many spells, and a fix that shold be aded is limiting the amount of spells, and just upgrading them. You want to cast fire ball? Well you start with burning hands, which upgrades to fire ball, which gouse up to fire storm, bam, we add no more direct dmg fire spells to the game

He said warhammer, not 40k.

I spoke of fantasy, go back to reddi t

>even if you do go beyond, it will most of the time boild to thouse three, or "stun for x", "lower stat by x" or "one hit kill".

See, that's just limiting yourself. You can have zones of death, ranged cripples, grapples and throws. Zoning by tripping or throwing one enemy into another. Feints, that lead to counter that cause further damage to groups of enemies. Chemical changes in the fighter that allow for on the fly buffs, stances for entire states of gameplay. Group buffs by being a brave mother fucker. Enemy debuffs. Mounts and team attacks. Various physical actions to make in place of flat saves against saves. The list goes on and on. A fighter should have just as many options in a good setting as the mage, maybe even more.

Wizards are still stupid op in there as well, but the designers had the correct idea to not make those playable. You're stuck playing 3rd rate human dabblers restricted to one school of magic if they don't wanna go crazy. They're still powerful, but certain martials also get access to bullshit.

Shove the semantics. Developers can also reference a whole field of design craft, including real estate.

well, here is your problem, we dont have just two clases, we have many. Group buffs and de-buffs? That's the clerics job, faints and counters? The rouge. The problem stays the same, when you have too many options you will always have some unbalance, the more options the more unbalance you have. This is why i think class systems should either be very limiting, forcing you to pick a few things out of a lot, or be done with overall, allowing players to mix shit up

>A fighter should have just as many options in a good setting as the mage, maybe even more.
They should damn well have more for the simple fucking reason that there's an entire history's worth of material and concepts to mine from. Don't even have to restrict yourself to only what works either, go hog-wild on all the crazy concepts people had about combat and the martial arts.

So what fantasy game does this right?

The problem there is that the wizard wasn't also broken down into different classes. Even in worst edition, the pigeon-holed casters were tier-3 while the wizard that could do it all was god-like.

Dominions 4

>Group buffs and de-buffs? That's the clerics job, faints and counters? The rouge.

See, that's a shit excuse. The wizard doesn't get (LOL I CAN DO EVERYTHING) while the other classes have to take it up the ass. Even if there is a little crossover, the mundanes should have access to special abilities. Even if there is a little overlap, cost mechanics and situations can help keep the uniquely favorable. A fighter that just decapitated the bad guy's leader should be able to make a loud proclamation to the effect that the rest of them should give up, and they should have to fucking roll on it. Especially when I have to roll on something gay, like an anti paladin's "aura" or some shit.

I agree with you that the wiz is overpowered, i just dont think that we can solve the problem by bringing everyone up to the power of wizards, i think we solve it by bringing wizards down to the level of the others

What's it like being on the spectrum?

>Dominions 4
what tabletop rpg does this right?

5E wizards absolutely can not.

What is the most op thing wizards can do at the moment?

vtm

Except that its the most popular class, because of its variety. People want options, not restraints. Nobody wants the fighter to be as limited as it currently is, that's nuts.

create an army of dragon slaves (but no DM would let it slide in practice)

>maybe even some minor diety
Well wasn't he technically just that?

well wizards can use cantrips each turn

tbf damage cantrips are a lot stronger in 5e, and also infinite. You can't cast a spell every round, but you can cast a mini-spell that roughly approximates to a fighter's attack.

What system are you talking about? 3.5? They aren't usable past level 8 for most campaigns. 2.0, they aren't bad, but got out of hand later on. First, they were too damn weak. Currently, they are just a better class than most of the others and fuck over any kind of "mundane" themed campaign.

>Nobody wants the fighter to be as limited as it currently is, that's nuts.
I like your optimism user, but...

more like an angel but yeah

at which point that happens? and what system?
if the fighter is using some shit weapon like a rapier the wizard can deal even more damage but the wizard at lvl 1 mostly would die everyt time against a fighter

I really don't think Gandalf was as strong as people think he was. While the limits to his sorcery were never stated, they definitely existed. Otherwise he would have thrown down on everything like he did with the Balrog.

>t. virgin
just laugh at the funny picture, faggot.

>at which point that happens? and what system?

5e, level 18ish

Isn't that also because magic in LotR isn't that powerful or at least clear?
I thought that during LotR magic waned and became more subtle
I don't know though, never really read Tolkien's works, to my shame

Having actually played 5E a great deal in various classes: no, not really. Cantrips are kinda bunk. The fact that they're all-or-nothing means they only deal equivalent damage if you're actually hitting, but the problem arises that having your attacks split across several attacks is thereby more beneficial as you'll get more hits in. Sheer action economy makes martials much more reliable.
Also, only certain archetypes get to add their ability score to cantrip damage. Without those, even their damage is in insane flux turn per turn.

It means ultimately you won't run out of actions, but when you're down to fire bolts and only fire bolts, you're in an an extreme crisis.

There might be something too that. Because during the Hobbit Gandalf used lightening and fire to kill both monsters and spirits. However, by the time of LOTR he isn't doing that anymore. He's only using lightening magic against other magic users, and evil spirits of extreme power. Elves aren't even using magic anymore by the time of LOTRE.

...

A cantrip only deals a fourth to a half as much damage as a fighter's Attack action. What are you talking about?

I would let it happen, since this is my magical realm.

>Elves aren't even using magic anymore by the time of LOTRE.

Elrond did quite a number on the ringwraiths. Galadriel did a bit of fortune telling.

I think one important thing here is that by the time of LotR, those who wield magic know that the dark lord is watching, and Gandalf will also be wary of Saruman. Unless you have some significant magic at work specifically to hide you and your craft, using magic can attract very unwelcome attention, even if it's just to light a camp fire.

>'If there are any to see, then I at least am revealed to them.' he said. 'I have written Gandalf is here in signs that all can read from Rivendell to the mouths of Anduin'

That was Gandalf doing the Horse thing. I think only the ring holders could do anything like that.

No, that was lighting the camp fire during the blizzard before Moria.

There's nothing funny about Redditors misunderstanding and misappropriating dank memeage as is their bent, since they're too arrogant to lurk.

There's a bit of good in it, in that it drives new creation, but it still isn't very funny.

It's because they can both fill multiple roles, and frequently outperform other classes which specialize in one of those roles.

You both need to reduce the base power of the spellcaster, and to design your magic as such that there are things which he simply cannot do.

I have never seen a wizard outperform the other classes, mostly because they suck at playing them

i remember a 3.5 group that they ended the campaign early because the wizard player said he was dealing tons of damage

>Because their whole schtick is "can do shit that's outright impossible to do, and no other character can do this"
but how did it end up that way? in folklore wizards just do stuff like talk to animals or predict the future. where did the concept of the wizard that could do anything come from?

Spell components were a joke.

see

Play something other than D&D

I could accept that they have access to things other classes don't. After all I wouldn't expect anyone other than a wizard to be able to conjure inextinguishable light or transmute base metals into gold.

The operative thing here is that wizards shouldn't get buckets and buckets more abilities in what amounts to DLC to a storytelling game. Norse mythos basically listed 18 spells that Odin himself knew and a few other some giants tossed about, so I agree that wizards being given an endless toolkit while martials and others are given comparatively useless shit is bad.

I see no problem with that. If the party wants to be careful and smart about it that's their prerogative. Doesn't mean the rest of the world sits on its hands and waits for them to show up again. Part of the game is taking risks because there is a sense of urgency. An 8 hour nap in a dungeon is a good way to end up surrounded or walk into traps that weren't there yesterday, or end up with a dead hostage.

I agree, they should be rare or require personal subjective sacrifice for higher power spells. Resurrecting a person requiring you to sacrifice another person you value, etc.

FROM
D
&
D

Don't like fighter? Don't play one.

Balrogs are Maiar too, user.

>bat guano

Is there any other type of guano?

Technically insects and birds have guano.

>Start to contend that the maiar were basically gods with a mana bar they couldn't refill
>Realize what that makes angels in Christianity

>always
t. person who only plays D&D 3.pf and 5e

Realism does not, yes, balance does.

A wizard being able to drop a meteor from space onto a castle vs a fighter being able to clear a room really fast is not balance. You have to let wizards break reality to be useful (throwing lightning) but a lot of systems don't even allow martials to even reach basic reality deadliness. To make a martial balanced most people resort to giving them Not! Magic abilities that increase their speed or strength or create magical blades that slice reality. All that is fun, but you could get the same result by letting them kill a caster/archer instantly once reaching melee range because a trained fighter is not going to miss someone right in front of them. Unless they are also an outfitted fighter.

Thus you have martials become a necessary and important roll because your wizard just fireballed those twenty kobolds but the survivor just put a soar through his stomach and he has gone into shock (paralysis).

I'm not against berserk style fantasy martials. I'm against my fighter having to stab the humanoid enemy more than three times with a sword for them to stop moving.

A lot of Jack Vance and Fritz Leiber's books predate D&D.

That said, D&D pretty much invented a whole sub-genre in fantasy storytelling.

Nah, to make martials balanced you give them magical loot.

Also if you're old school you then pretend that when you do it it's because the players earned it and when anyone else does it it's monty haul DMs rewarding munchkins.

The Balrog also wasn't in the form of an old man. Of course, nothing indicates that Gandalf could have turned into something like that at his pleasure.

Exactly. You don't have to turn a martial into a gadget wizard or an anime character to make them competitive. Just literally let them to what their "real" versions do, and maybe make them slightly more durable than an actual human fighter. Slightly.

You'll find similar even in old stories, just to a lesser extent. Odysseus couldn't turn people into pigs, while Circe could.

There are good reasons to have combatants fairly durable though and if it's realistic, your fighter would be just as vulnerable. How do you feel about your character dying to a wizard in the process of bleeding out because he's still a threat for several seconds and got a lucky hit? That's realism and it sucks.

Realism caused Barbarossa to fall off his horse on the way to the crusades; it should be scorned utterly in gaming.

Let me guess, what you define as "anime character" conveniently is what the majority of mythological warriors are also like.

PC can have exceptional survivability and healing. You are still a fictional Übermensch.

No, what I define as an "anime character," is a fucking anime character. Some faggot operating under cartoon physics. See, the term "toon," for more details. When I think of PC warrior I think of Beowulf, Samson, Hercules. Still bleeding, still stronger than average, not jumping four hundred feet through the air having five minute long bouts of exhibition dialog as they do so.

Achilles was obviously anime trash.

>There are good reasons to have combatants fairly durable though and if it's realistic, your fighter would be just as vulnerable. How do you feel about your character dying to a wizard in the process of bleeding out because he's still a threat for several seconds and got a lucky hit? That's realism and it sucks.
>Realism caused Barbarossa to fall off his horse on the way to the crusades; it should be scorned utterly in gaming.

One, I never called for realism. Also the pc's will obviously be special people who are more skilled than the average enemy, that's the whole point of playing them (unless your one of those hardcore freaks, then you WANT every 1v1 to be a possible death). Your pc fighter should start at the level of a peasant with a spear and become fabled as a sword master who one faced 1v10 against trained warriors and won. Not flip a coin in every duel.

Two, if a wizard is bleeding out he is going to be focusing on holding his guts in and not concentrating on a death spell. Concentration checks are not something new.

I know it is not a tt, but the mmo dark age of Camelot had an casting system that was balanced. If you're a caster/archer being engaged in melee by a fighter, you can't cast/shoot. Time to scream and hope your fighters (you brought fighters right?) are not too busy to save you from being dumb enough to let the enemy close.