Or your fighter just carries a few different weapons for different occasions.

I love wizards, but I'm in the category of people who believe that a fighter who is well-equipped will most usually out-perform a wizard in the long run.

But I also believe that DnD 1.0-3.5 was not balanced class-to-class. It was built as a game that creates a multi-functional party through group participation. The fighter is better at fighting because he's a fighter. The wizard can do far more. In a DnD campaign I was in, I used a whisper spell and a lore check to get the party past 300 orcs. The fighter would have wound up dead or have an unsuccessful quest. And that's the beauty of DnD. It's not about combat only. It's about so much more.

Certainly wizards are vulnerable without support, but with the right preparations they have tools for every situation. They do benefit from having a damage-dealing front-liner, but they don't strictly need him. Now, the player can be a very big variable here. A naive wizard may not be using the right spells for the situation, or may not be using those spells very effectively, and such a player certainly will need other party members to back him up. Similarly, an experienced Fighter can really push the boundaries of his class. So individual experiences may vary. That doesn't change the fact that the wizard's upper bounds are way higher than an equivalent fighter.

My knowledge is more of the 3rd edition ruleset and its descendants, where I did a lot of lurking and research before jumping into PNP, so anyone with AD&D experience can correct me if it's different there. However, the 3.0/3.5 consensus is pretty damning for the Fighter/Wizard comparison. Note that the difference isn't as wide at low levels (they're mostly talking about high-level play in that thread) but it's still there.

While I agree in principle that D&D is a cooperative game about party-building and classes are not meant to be equivalent, the gulf between wizards and fighters is just so wide as to be intractable. Go look at the planar binding rules. An 11th level wizard has access to an improved version of the spell that can summon an Astral Deva, and if he rolls well on his charisma check (which he can boost with spells, remember) he can even convince it to work for free. To put it bluntly, the Fighter needs to be optimized just to outperform the wizard's free henchman, and this is just one tool in the wizard's toolbox. The wizard also has a mountain of other abilities that push boundaries like this.

As I mentioned, this isn't such a big problem in a tactical combat CRPG, with the more open-ended spells (like the aforementioned planar binding) either cut from the spell list or toned down, and applicability to combat being the primary value of any class features. In a tabletop game, this can cause tensions and problems when the fighter is routinely sidelined anytime "hit it with a sword" isn't the right course of action... and sometimes sidelined even when it is.

There are still the Wish and Limited Wish spells.

Not nearly as open-ended as what you can do in P&P, but the closest thing I've seen in a CRPG. They're fun, at least, and open up some neat side content. Plus, you can do some pretty interesting stuff with them sometimes.

My favourite application is the Limited Wish option to summon a giant horde of rabbits followed by the Wish option that casts Abi Dalzim's Horrid Wilting on every creature in the area.

Do the math. 20-30 bunnies, 20-30 overlapping area effect spells dealing 40-160 (guesstimate) damage or something each... only try this if you protected your own party from magic energy first.

From my experience a mage has got a solution for every situation whereas, a fighter will need the support of a spell caster or two in many encounters especially during the later stages of BG2 and ToB. On top of that, my mage can tank and dps better than my fighter. The only reason to have a fighter in the party is for those minor encounters where you don't want to waste any spell.

Not exactly truth, I remember duplicate Korgan with this "copy yourself ring", make 2 copies of him, and need no one else in the party to kill even Dragons...

With the right armors and weapons, fighters are much more reliable and fast to play than mages by far, with fast I mean that I really like to play in a more "realistic way". I find boring and really non-effective for a fast path gaming to "sleep" all the time, I dont like to easy play sleeping all the time because I find it unrealistic and boring, and is a thing mages need, and fighters dont. I allways play BG sleeping as much twice per day.

In computer games you can sleep all the times you want, but in D&D table RPG I never let mages sleep more than twice a day to memorize spells. Doesnt make sense at all.

"Let's set up camp. El Mister Sleepyhead needs his beauty sleep. Again."

Lurking and following the discussion with interest.

LOL, may we call mages sleepyheads! hahaha

There is no "copy yourself" ring. There -is- a helmet that lets you cast Simulacrum, an 8th level mage spell that gives you a weaker copy of yourself, but it is one of the collector edition bonus merchant items. They're rather cheesy and unbalanced, i.m.o. If you use that, mages get the Robe of Vecna which lets them cast most of their spells instantaneously. All bets are off once mages have that item.

Anyway, I don't doubt that Korgan could solo a dragon... if he's decked out in the party's best magic items, drinks some fire-resistance and Strength potions and/or is very high level. With spellcasters you can do it at much lower levels. As long as you have level 5 spells, you're good to go. (Lower Resistance. Lower Resistance. Lower Resistance. Greater Malison. Chromatic Orbs until the dragon fails his save. If you have 2-3 mages, this won't take more than a round or two.)

Now, I agree on lots of resting being immersion-breaking. Personally, I do quests while it's daylight, and sleep at night. Makes more sense and avoids vampire ambushes. If I run out of spells, I find something less dangerous to do until the day is over. And I never rest in dungeons. (Good thing Watcher's Keep lets you exit on each level, though, or else I'd be forced to.)

Playing like this does level the playing field between fighers and wizards some, but a balanced party will still have plenty of spells to win encounters a party without good wizards wouldn't be able to handle. Wizards typically only need a couple of spells to make a big difference, and they get dozens of spells a day once they hit high levels. A high level wizard can help out a lot by casting Slow and Web and Glitterdust for 80% of the dungeon and still have all his really good spells left to unleash on the dragon at the end.

Oh, and one more note on magic items: whilst they can and do make a huge difference, they're actually yet another argument for a balanced party. With a fighter, a mage and a paladin you can make use of the Flail of the Ages, the Staff of the Magi, -and- the Holy Avenger. With three fighters or three mages you'd run out of good stuff for your characters to use.

In a CRPG I totally agree, but in pen and paper this couldn't be further from the truth.

The thing about dragons is that they have one glaring weakness: magical weapons. Getting into melee with guys with non-magical weapons is all fun and games for them, and even the mightiest of warriors will barely scratch them, but as soon as a guy with a magical sword comes around they need to get off the ground immediately. Once in the air, their absurd move speed let's them easily play a game of keep-away while chipping away at targets with their breath weapons and thwarting approaches with their spells. Melee fighters are stuck playing goalie and preventing the dragon from charging at the squishy party members. If the dragon has any wind-based abilities or effects that block line of sight (many do) even archers are out of luck, leaving the mage as the only party member that can actually engage the dragon on any reliable basis.

A lot of game masters play dragons as more stupid opponents that waddle into melee with their relatively sluggish ground move speed, letting the fighter get clean shots against them. This will play out relatively similar to a CRPG, where the fighter acts as the crazy damage-dealer he is. However, this only serves to underscore the point: fighters only function well if the opponent engages on the fighter's terms. If the opponent chooses a method of engagement that doesn't suit the fighter, he's screwed.

And it's not just dragons; there are monsters with unlimited-use teleportation, invisibility, the ability to burrow underground, the ability to turn ethereal... and not to mention all the monsters with completely unique abilities. Fighters can certainly make a lot of headway with the right magic items, but (unlike a CRPG) they can't have every single magic item in the game. On the other hand, a wizard can have a fairly large chunk of the spell list in pen and paper.

In pen and paper, there is a minimum 24 hour wait period for each cycle of spell slot replenishment, so that actually is the rule. At low levels, wizards can be adversely affected by this, but the ability to completely trivialize encounters with a single spell (dare I say... sleep?) means they will completely dominate encounters where they do choose to expend their resources. At higher levels, they simply have too many spell slots for this to be an issue at all, and it's more likely that the fighter will run out of hit points than the wizard will run out of spell slots. Exactly where wizards surpass fighters for endurance-style slogs is a matter of debate, but by the time you're fighting adult dragons it has certainly been passed.

Once again, I reiterate my original comment: a lot of the "wizards rule" perspective comes from pen and paper.

Am I the only one who tries to go on until the game tells me the party needs sleep due to fatigue?

True, it means being much more restrictive with what spells I use, and typically the fighters and archers will have to take care of most foes, but it also feels more realistic than sleeping all the time. As mentioned above, I also try to sleep during the night. Of course, in difficult dungeons this won't really work, and I'll have to withdraw to sleep here and there (especially when playing Icewind Dale), but it seems a bit more fun to me, and it's kind of a mini-game to try to use up all spells sensibly, while sleeping at a more "human-like" rate.

Yes; it's very tough to do at lower levels but becomes quite manageable by higher levels. I cleared Throne of Bhaal with only four rests total (one per boss, basically), with a caster-heavy party to boot (4/6 were casters). BG1, on the other hand, would probably require either save-scumming or careful grinding against monsters that are of no threat to archers for your first few levels, since one (un)lucky attack roll is going to stop a low-level fighter in his tracks.

I finished Throne of Baal and BG2 many years ago, but I bet I copied Korgan with a "RING", all the time, not with a Helmet, anyway probably you are right because I got the BG2 Collector´s Edition. But what I am sure is that I "copy" him all the time, two Korgan were just TWO TANKS. And yes, Korgan with magic weapons killed anything... you dont know this because you all chosen the whiner "gorgeous" elf with broken wings... (I kick her out in the first complain "Korgan or me?, bye bye cutie..." LOL

PD: (Of course with the "you all choose the ..." I am teasing and kidding...

What you are not realizing is that I was playing with a Mage/Cleric, you still dont understand the POWER of a well trained and loyal Minion... Mwuahahhahahahaha yeah yeah, you been dating that whiner elf...

Goes under "grinding" I suppose, but it was fairly easy on low levels as well, by use of kiting (which I guess is dodgy in itself). As you say, at low levels one hit can be enough to take out your tank, so you need to be careful one way or another. But even at relatively low levels, it's manageable to rest quite rarely. In any case, I've never quite understood the habit of blowing a ton of spells on a bunch of enemies, rest, repeat, ad inf. It's easier I suppose, as you can use your best spells in every fight, but it sounds a bit boring to me, and I'd prefer some semblence of roleplaying or "realism" thrown in :)

Of course, it was a bit tough when we got waylaid at that damn bridge in the Underdark with a scattered party with few spells left, but we did somehow survive after all.

While I'm unclear on the AD&D mechanics on the matter, in 3E kiting is ineffective without having a significantly higher movespeed than your opponent or some kind of obstacle that prevents him from taking a charge action.

Anyways, the point here is relatively simple: a Fighter is limited by hit points just as much as a Wizard is limited by spell slots. The only Fighter that can keep going perpetually is one that has a tactic that renders him impervious to damage. That's certainly possible with kiting strategies in BG1, but as soon as you hit enemies who can hit back you're going to be limited by those hit points.

It's generally regarded as sloppy play. A wizard shouldn't need to use more than two or three spells per fight, and at low levels a single spell should more than suffice.

With that said there is one matter on which I must disagree with you: I find the "rest after fighting" mentality to be extremely realistic. Real life-and-death battles are emotionally and physically draining. Even the most seasoned warrior will prefer to rest and recover before seeking out another fight. Unless there is a reason why pressing onwards is time-sensative, it doesn't make sense to do so.

It's my opinion that the onus is on the GM to provide narrative or tactical reasons to have the party push forward even in the face of exhaustion. This isn't too hard in pen and paper, either: if the orc marauders are escaping with prisoners then a timely pursuit is critical; if you slaughter the evil wizard's minions then the last thing you want to do is give him 8 hours to prepare his defenses for your return; if there are several groups all racing after the same treasure then delaying is probably a bad idea. Of course, implementing any of the above would be difficult to the point of infeasibility in a CRPG; a human can improvise based on novel outcomes to a situation, a machine that plays to a script cannot... and there's a limit to how complex that script can be on a realistic budget.