How is the Wizard vs Warrior Balance Problem Handled in Fantasy Literature?

[pemerton]

They all however interact with the game world / story in the same way now and the difference is in how they play on a tactical level.

<snip>

I think it boils down to whether someone's version of "fantasy literature" does indeed support a sorcery element that can be wholly different from the swords element and the story actually benefits from this difference.

I'm curious as to what you have in mind here.

In every version of D&D, both wizard spells and weapon attacks deal hit points of damage. So 4e is not special in this respect.

In every version of D&D, both wizards spells and ranged weapons have ranges specified in more-or-less the same fashion (feet in Basic, battlemap inches in AD&D 1st ed, yards (I seem to recall) in AD&D 2nd ed), feet again in 3E). So 4e is not special in this respect.

In AD&D both physical attacks (I've got in mind pummelling as per the appendix to Unearthed Arcana, or various martial arts manoeuvres in Oriental Adventures) and spells (eg Power Word Stun) could deliver various status effects (such as stun). So 4e is not special in this respect.

In 3E both physical attakcs and some spell attacks used to-hit rolls to determine whether or not damage was dealt.

The only significant departues I can see in 4e compared to earlier editions are (i) layout of class features/abilities, (ii) the encounter/daily structure (although even this is not really that different from 3E, where various Exceptional - which is to say non-supernatural - abilities, including some available to PCs, still had daily limits), and (iii) the granting of metagame powers to martial PCs in order to balance them differently against spell-using PCs.

I don't see at all, though, how this means that they all interact in the same way with the gameworld/story. Just to pick a couple of simple examples: in combat, the archer-ranger in my game deals with foes by peppering them with arrows, whereas the wizard does things like grab them with giant conjured hands or teleport them to disadvantageous locations on the battelfied; out of combat, the archer-ranger tracks and sneaks and spies and does wood-crafty things, whereas the wizard cogitates and draws on his great learning and performs arcane rituals. Where is the same-ness?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Because I don't believe that the problem is with D&D, nobody has demonstrated that the problem is with D&D, and the fix that got "close" that you're talking about (4E) damaged D&D in my opinion (and in the opinion of a big chunk of players who left the brand).

From what I understand, your problem with the 4e powers system is largely reserved to the idea that it makes everything play the same. I basically agree with that, but this is a problem that you can fix. Essentials and Psionics already show that the design team is indeed aware of it, and prepared to create classes that actually play differently.

The idea is to make progress toward a system that supports a solution for the problems that some groups have. If not something resembling the 4e powers system, what would you do?

No, nobody's forcing me to play 4E, or forcing me to play whatever "fix" you feel would be ideal in the next D&D, but I still really wish that people would take a step back and honestly question whether the problem is caused by something other than the game. It makes me sad that, because some players and DMs have issues, D&D is being Harrison-Bergeroned.

Looking at the rules myself, I can see it. Spellcasters get a cool sub-system to use, warriors don't. Spellcasters can be supernatural, warriors can't. Spellcasters get to control the plot with spells, warriors don't.

This isn't inherently a problem for every group. A good DM, a fun group, can solve any problem. A good DM and a fun group can run FATAL, and make it the most fun thing to do on a weekend.

"Make the DM better" isn't a very constructive solution, since WotC can't personally come to your house and give you DMing lessons, can't personally give you a better gaming group. The game's rules need to address this out of the box, as well as they can, in the structure of the thing itself.

Something resembling "fighter spells" is a pretty decent rules-based solution. I'm not entirely sure why there's such hostility toward the idea, especially when tweaked to keep fighters looking "normal" (which 4e mostly already does) and when tweaked to keep different types of characters playing differently (which Essentials strongly goes toward, through a forest of criticism from those who think that an identical structure is the only thing keeping the classes mechanically equal). WotC isn't saying you're playing the game wrong, they're saying that this is a way we might be able to bring along those who don't have a great DM and an ideal group that makes play fun even when the fighter doesn't have as many neat toys as the wizard. And it might give you a few toys that are fun to use, too, even if you were fine without them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My fundamental- but not only- issue with the A/E/D/U format for martial powers is that they make things that seem like they should be combat maneuvers open to any skilled combatant (as they are in most systems I've played in) into powers unique to sole classes. That really rubs me wrong.

 

[pemerton]

My fundamental- but not only- issue with the A/E/D/U format for martial powers is that they make things that seem like they should be combat maneuvers open to any skilled combatant (as they are in most systems I've played in) into powers unique to sole classes.

Well, this is the flipside of the fighter's metagame powers - every time your paladin (for example) tries a shield push while striking, s/he just does the damage but never pushes the foe far enough to count as a change of square (because you doesn't have access to Tide of Iron as a power).

How big a problem that is probably depens in part on more general attitudes towards the ingame/metagame divide, as well as other more practical questions like (i) how often did your paladin try shield push + attack in other systems? (ii) did it both you that only fighter's could train in weapon specialisation in older editions? (iii) did you ever find it unrealistic that only thieves got to do bonus damage when striking unseen from behind? etc etc. The more that someone put up with these oddities in prior editions, then presumably the more they'll cope with 4e. And vice versa.

 

[KahnyaGnorc]

Well, this is the flipside of the fighter's metagame powers - every time your paladin (for example) tries a shield push while striking, s/he just does the damage but never pushes the foe far enough to count as a change of square (because you doesn't have access to Tide of Iron as a power).

You could work it conversely. Both the Fighter and Paladin Bull Rush the foe, but the Fighter's specialized training allows him/her to also get in a weapon hit as well (as shown with the 1[W] damage).

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Hilariously enough, when 3e was coming out, I saw plenty of complaints that moving everything to a simple d20 meant that there'd be no difference between classes, except that some would cast spells.

Funny how the same complaints get repeated at every change.

 

[Harlekin]

Because I don't believe that the problem is with D&D, nobody has demonstrated that the problem is with D&D, and the fix that got "close" that you're talking about (4E) damaged D&D in my opinion (and in the opinion of a big chunk of players who left the brand).

No, nobody's forcing me to play 4E, or forcing me to play whatever "fix" you feel would be ideal in the next D&D, but I still really wish that people would take a step back and honestly question whether the problem is caused by something other than the game. It makes me sad that, because some players and DMs have issues, D&D is being Harrison-Bergeroned.

So, just out of curiosity, how many players and DMs need to have a problem with the imbalance of spellcasters and warriors for it to be a problem with D&D rather than a problem of the individuals?

I don't think anybody claims that it is a universal problem or an unsolvable problem, but claiming that an issue that comes up again and again and that clearly affect many groups is not (maybe among other things) a problem with the system may be a little onesided.

 

[Abraxas]

So, just out of curiosity, how many players and DMs need to have a problem with the imbalance of spellcasters and warriors for it to be a problem with D&D rather than a problem of the individuals?

I don't think anybody claims that it is a universal problem or an unsolvable problem, but claiming that an issue that comes up again and again and that clearly affect many groups is not (maybe among other things) a problem with the system may be a little onesided.

How many is many? I think that may be what JW is getting at.

I know that I haven't seen this problem and honestly, other than on message boards, hadn't heard of this being a problem.
Message boards tend to be self selecting and people gravitate towards experiences that mirror their own. So you get a thread with what seems like a lot of people having problem X, but that number of people is really relatively small compared to the whole - they're just all in one place. One of the things that keeps being trotted out around here is the idea of a vocal minority making a lot of noise about something - perhaps that's what's happening.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, just out of curiosity, how many players and DMs need to have a problem with the imbalance of spellcasters and warriors for it to be a problem with D&D rather than a problem of the individuals?

And

I know that I haven't seen this problem and honestly, other than on message boards, hadn't heard of this being a problem.

I have to say that's my experience as well- player since '77, played in Aurora, CO; Manhattan, KS, and in Austin, San Antonio and the D/FW Metroplex, TX- and I've never seen it happen in person after all those years and I don't know how many groups.

Not saying it doesn't happen, just saying I haven't seen it, which suggests to me it may be an issue of playstyle

...but what I've seen in the complaints is so well detailed that I can see its one that is amply supported by the mechanics.

IOW, despite the utter lack of it in my personal experience, my gut is telling me it's probably caused 50/50 split between mechanics & playstyle.

 

[Icyshadowlord]

Hilariously enough, when 3e was coming out, I saw plenty of complaints that moving everything to a simple d20 meant that there'd be no difference between classes, except that some would cast spells.

Funny how the same complaints get repeated at every change.

I know actual 2nd edition players who never really complained that way. Besides, when editions change, there will ALWAYS be people who will complain, and some of those complaints will be justified. This applies to 4e as well.

Anyway, getting back on topic. This topic seems to be a rather popular one, but despite it being rolled around time and again, people just can't seem to find a final answer. If I were to respond to the question in the thread's name, I would say that the balance problem is handled either with the Wizard being frail and sometimes just unable to cast defensive spells or it's not even bothered to deal with.

In some stories, no matter how good of a melee fighter you are, magic is just better...in EVERY WAY. Of course, in other settings the wizards look like they would be the ultimate power in that world, but they still get pounded to the ground over and over. But, like I said, it tends to vary a lot. I would provide actual examples, but I'm sure you can think of ones faster than I can (I'm suffering from a lack of sleep)