JustinA wrote:This is based on the assumption that every PC is a special snowflake that needs a spotlight shone on them at all times.
And that's a strawman. The assumption it's actually based on is that every character should contribute roughly equally to the completion of adventures, not that every character should always be in the spotlight. Because that's a contradiction to begin with.
So let's take three two-person parties, 1) utility/combat wizard and fighter, 2) pure-combat wizard and fighter, and 3) utility/combat wizard and pure-combat wizard.
Party 1: This is the kind of party you're describing. The wizard dominates non-combat, because fighters are useless there. In combat, every single combat spell the wizard has is better than any action the fighter has. So the only thing the fighter can do is hope his hitpoints/potions last longer than his friends spells. This is rarely the case, so we'd probably also give wizard the combat, too. It certainly can't be better than a tie. Winning non-combat and at-least tying combat (and outright dominating it at higher-levels, despite utility), this one goes to the wizard at everything but low-levels.
Party 2: In non-combat situations, neither can do anything. They both contribute equal shares of nothing. In combat, there's no doubt who the winner is, at an even lower level than in party 1. To the wizard go the spoils.
Party 3: In non-combat situations, the utility wizard covers it. In combat situations, the utility wizard contributes slightly less pwnage than the combat wizard, and combat is usually the bigger part of the game so the fact that the combat wizard can't contribute in non-combat is made up for the fact that his contributions in combat are superior. A fairly balanced party.
JustinA wrote:Their success in mid-level play becomes very situational-dependent. And they tend to fall on their faces once you hit high-level play.
That was the assertion around the beginning of this debate. Around 8-12 (potentially even earlier, it really depends on optimization levels and player cleverness and playstyle), monsters stop being killable through hitpoint damage in reasonable time, and the wizard has accumulated enough save or dies that he can safely spam them, meaning combats are ended by failed saving throws, not the hitpoint mechanic. And the fighter has no way to contribute to the save-or-lose game.
Edit: So I'm no longer sure why this was a discussion at all. Oh, yes. I was expressing concern that L&L wasn't giving fighters any love and would be maintaining their level of suck in the hierarchy, with its stunt system failing to compare to first level spells and its high-level class features which are low-level feats. Does L&L make mid- or high- level fighter any more plausible with mechanics I am so far unaware of? (Genuine question/interest, not fishing for debate.)
Do your fighters never run into enemy wizards who might put a dent into their army of followers? Do your wizards never run into rogues who try to sneak into their camp to steal valuables or assassinate someone? In fact, as far as my experience goes, towards higher levels you need to rely more on classed NPCs and outsiders/dragons (which are fairly close to classed NPCs in terms of casting and equipment) to provide a suitable challenge, so you run into the class vs. class problem just when it's becoming the least balanced.