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

[Bluenose]

If this discussion had been framed as, "I prefer my fantasy RPG to have warriors and wizards capable of doing pretty much the same stuff at the same power level," I never would have even bothered to chime in. Instead, it was, "Your D&D is broken and unfun, because wizards are awesome, unstoppable, gods!" (Starting, NFK, at 1st level, according to one post!)

Do you think that's the case with 3rd edition? Because it's equally true if wizards are weaker at low levels and stronger at high levels as it is if they're stronger at all levels.

I'd actually take issue with "pretty much the same stuff", as well. Different, equally useful stuff, would be more my thing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If this discussion had been framed as, "I prefer my fantasy RPG to have warriors and wizards capable of doing pretty much the same stuff at the same power level," I never would have even bothered to chime in. Instead, it was, "Your D&D is broken and unfun, because wizards are awesome, unstoppable, gods!" (Starting, NFK, at 1st level, according to one post!)

FWIW, the reason 4e came up was because it has a way of ensuring that a fantasy RPG has warriors and spellcasters capable of doing pretty much the same stuff at the same power level.

Earlier editions don't have such a system, and so you get some people who experienced the problem of supermage/lamefighter calling it broken and unfun because for them, maybe it was. And maybe 4e fixes it, since it ensures that warriors and spellcasters are on equal footing. This, of course, didn't always happen to every table.

I personally think the 4e system is flawed, in a few ways, but I think it's a useful starting point going forward, and an example of a system that takes into account the problem that some groups had with warriors being conceived of on a "normal mortal" level of power, and Wizards being able to be powerful fantasy heroes from Day 1.

But you could have use another system, too: others were suggested. The important features of the system are similar to what they are in 4e: no one has any unique "plot-control" effects (spells and combat attacks are pretty strictly combat-related, OR everyone gets to tell the DM that they just made friends with the villain a la Charm Person), and they all pretty much are spent and recharge at a similar rate (so that everyone is playing the same resource management game). This isn't even a strict limit, more of a guideline to avoid extremes.

I don't think saying "PLAY WITH BETTER PEOPLE" is constructive at all, because, well, if you played with better people, it wouldn't matter if you're playing FATAL or just making stuff up in a group or rolling dice for D&D or even playing a videogame together. Better people are awesome, but there's no factory to make them, and sometimes no place to find them, and sometimes you're content with the people you have and you just want to pretend to be an elf for a few hours with them, and the game MANDATING that you find skilled people who are already players is a problem.

The game needs to work with the people in the middle of the bellcurve. Some of whom are experiencing the "wizards are awesome and fighters suck" effect. So the rules need to address it. Somehow.

 

[triqui]

vulnerability and rarity tends to do it.

The typical wizard is a greybeard whose spent most of his life studying musty old tomes (I don't remember "young" wizards coming along until the introduction of Raistlin, really - I mean, the starting age for a wizard in 1E was about 55 years old). This, and other factors tend to present wizards as frail.

Also, characters such as Conan may face hundreds of warriors in a given story, but likely only face one wizard in that same story. Wizards seem to be like ninjas; if you face one, they're a badass - if its a cabal, they die cheap (and are rarely ppowerful).

Belgarion is actually a child when he starts to cast magic in Chronicles of Belgarath.

In some books, there is no real difference between the warrior and the mage, they are the same person. Wheel of Time main character, Belgarion, or Elric of Melniboné are examples.

However, when there is a big difference in power between casters and warriors, it's becouse of level, not "magic". Gandalf is much better than Aragon, but that's becouse Aragon is just a man (lvl 6 or so) and Gandalf is a demi-god. However, some of the elven "warriors", like Glorfindel, are a match for Gandalf. Elron could had defeated the Balrog just like Gandalf did.

In Oddissey, Ulisses defeats Circe just fine, becouse they are similar "level".

 

[Hussar]

On the scarcity model of balance.

This is an extremely difficult way to keep wizards in check. It doesn't work at all for clerics and druids because they automatically get all their spells, but, even for wizards it's not all that cut and dried.

For one, every enemy spell caster the party defeats should have a chance of having a spell book. Presuming that you apply the same rules for NPC spell books, that means that there will be a fair number of randomly generated spells in that book - and at the very least, all the spells that that enemy MU had memorized.

Additionally, in 1e and 2e, scrolls were a pretty commonly rolled treasure. Many treasure types actually gave bonus scrolls as well, and randomly generated scrolls could easily have multiple spells.

By the book, it didn't actually take all that much for wizards to amass a fairly decent library of spells. A bit random true, but, then again, there weren't that many spells on the list on any given level. The odds of getting those really cherry spells were pretty high.

I've recently been replaying Baldur's Gate and I noticed that the casters really don't dominate in those games. And it's easy to see why - by and large they only have direct damage spells. Polymorph is very, very limited, charms last only a very short while and there are no divination spells to speak of. And transportation spells are absent completely.

This would certianly work to limit casters - direct damage only with some very, very limited utility type spells.

---------

Side note - DannyA - the fact that your group didn't use wands or scrolls I think really, really changes how 3e is played. I know that one of the biggest shifts in play I saw was when my bunch started using healing wands. Freeing up the druids and clerics from any out of combat healing duty meant they could go to town on other spells which REALLY jacks up their power level.

 

[billd91]

I've recently been replaying Baldur's Gate and I noticed that the casters really don't dominate in those games. And it's easy to see why - by and large they only have direct damage spells. Polymorph is very, very limited, charms last only a very short while and there are no divination spells to speak of. And transportation spells are absent completely.

Most of those would be very difficult to adjudicate by the computer DM. Damage spells (and other short term limited effect spells) are easy to handle by comparison. It's the difference between being limited to an algorithm to adjudicate a game event and using genuine human intelligence. The former's easier to balance because it's extremely limited in scope compared to the latter.

 

[KahnyaGnorc]

You may not see that much of a difference in these "oddities", but I do. Fighters got specialization and most other classes did not (rangers also did in 1e), but that's more of a question of degree of results not ability to get some result. The same is true for the thief's bonus damage with a backstab. Other characters could attack from behind (or flank) and get some benefit depending on the target. In earlier editions, the target would lose their Dex bonus to AC, shield bonus, and give up a +2 to hit and under 3e, without facing, they'd still probably give up a +2 to hit for flanking. That some character class was able to do even better wasn't a problem because my character would still get some benefit from the action, something the 4e class power system discourages.

Both the paladin and fighter can push a target (Bull Rush), but the fighter can do it better (Tide of Iron, can get an attack in as well).

 

[Mort]

I've recently been replaying Baldur's Gate and I noticed that the casters really don't dominate in those games. And it's easy to see why - by and large they only have direct damage spells. Polymorph is very, very limited, charms last only a very short while and there are no divination spells to speak of. And transportation spells are absent completely.

This would certianly work to limit casters - direct damage only with some very, very limited utility type spells.

Another, less drastic option: turn most utility spells into rituals (the 4e approach but it could very easily be added to 3e, just make casting times for certain spells much longer). This gives the caster versatility but at the expense of time and other resources. Knock as a ritual, for example (takes 10 minutes costs 50 gold or equivilant materials and fatigues the caster) means the wizard can open the door, but the rogue can do it faster and with less use of resources - a fair tradeoff. Eliminating what I and my players started calling the "six second solution" to most problems is IMO quite a good idea. And to actually go back to the OP, much of literature shows that magic has a cost, sometimes tangible, sometimes not, why not actually give it one?

 

[Raven Crowking]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]:

You forget that, in 1e at least, you had a maximum # of spells per level, and had only a % chance of learning any spell that you attempted to write in your book. On top of that, if the DM decided he had been overgenerous, a single fire (magical or not) or the lowly bookworm could restore the balance.

In 2e, they had magical maladies that could also be used to balance casters if needed.

But, both of these are only part of how those editions sought to achieve the desired balance in play (which is a far different desired balance than that sought by, say, 4e). Balance by scarcity (in 1e at least) is also reinforced by a high rate of turnover for low-level magic-users and illusionists.

Also, as a point of fact, in 1e, clerics and druids do not "automatically get all their spells", as it is explicit in the rules that the DM (acting as agent of the deity) may swap out any spells he likes for those he feels are more appropriate/will be needed more. This sounds very heavy-handed, and might not be to the tastes of all, but it usually works to the cleric's favour. If the DM (and hence the cleric's deity) knows that the party is heading to the Forest of Many Troll Encounters, the deity may very well swap out a few chosen spells for fire-based ones, and the cleric ought to take it as a sign that fire will be needed.

(As with any other system, a well-run campaign is a different beast from a poorly-run, or even mediocre, one!)

A lot of the best spells were also balanced by long casting times, casting requirements, expensive components, and real risks (including some that may well result in the death of the caster).



RC

 

[triqui]

I've recently been replaying Baldur's Gate and I noticed that the casters really don't dominate in those games. And it's easy to see why - by and large they only have direct damage spells. Polymorph is very, very limited, charms last only a very short while and there are no divination spells to speak of. And transportation spells are absent completely.

This would certianly work to limit casters - direct damage only with some very, very limited utility type spells.

It's not only Baldur's Gate. Almost every videogame has the same, one way or another. Casters get combat spells. Not necesarelly "direct damage" only spells, on Dragon Age you get several "paralyze" kind of spells, as well as buffs, defenses, debuffs, etc. But spells that completelly change the way of the fight (such as fly vs a melee monster), never see the light.

However, the plot-busting spells is what completelly and uterly DESTROY ... well... you know.... plot. If "divination" spells, "clairvoyance" spell and "teleport" spell is allowed, 90% of the videogames would last 5 minutes or so.

Just think on Lord of the Ring with Gandalf being a lvl 20 caster in a system where casting is not on par with "martial" (be it 3.5, or Rolemaster, just to avoid edition wars). The 3 tomes of awesomeness would be reduced to "i cast a divination spell, i get frodo and "protection from elements", and then i cast "teleport other" on him directly into the lava. Yeah, great plot...

Non-combat utility should be just that: UTILITIES. And that should judge out every single way to bust the plot, avoid the story, or shortcut to the end.

Judging from what I have read, assuming equal level of power between the "caster type" and the "fighter type" in the fiction, they are both balanced in power. Beowulf, Achilles, or Drizzt Do'Urden are on par with any similar level caster they can find.

 

[Mort]

A lot of the best spells were also balanced by long casting times, casting requirements, expensive components, and real risks (including some that may well result in the death of the caster).

RC

Quite correct. Haste and Polymorph for example had real costs in prior editions (certain aging and small but real posibility of death respectively) making the caster actually have to think twice before casting them on himself or anyone else.