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

[I'm A Banana]

If Michael Jordan represents an innate physical talent of 0.001% of the population of the world today, that means that there are approximately 6.5 million MJs out there.

Right.

Only, this is D&D, not real life. So when we say "Michael Jordan can fly!" we mean it literally, like he's been actually fathered by the God of Winds and given a magical pair of Nikes (by the actual Nike) that assure him victory in sports whenever they are worn.

The top .001% is capable of so much more in a fantasy world.

Fighters being Michael Jordan and wizards being Merlin is part of the problem - - they are very different power scales. You could make spellcasters suffer more for their limited powers, making a more "gritty," or low-powered game. Or you could let fighters be as magnificent, going more Wahoo. D&D has been more inclined to the latter, as evidenced by things like wizards being able to make a demiplane and vorpal swords that lop off heads when they hit things. For most of it's life, it's been able to be the former, too, but it hasn't been inclined to be the former ever.

But either you're Hercules and Merlin and Orpheus, or you're MJ and Stephen Hawking and Prince. A party including Hercules and Orpheus and Stephen Hawking is not going to work out well for the astrophysicist.

That's kind of the complaint here. I can get it. I don't think it's a "wizards are overpowered oh noes!" problem, but it's a real issue with not feeling as potent because of a lack of narrative control. Spellcasters get plot control as part of their class, and characters that don't cast spells don't get to be as proactive, and that's not so cool.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Add to that the fact that our 10th level PC is completely statted out, with his abilities included in his stat block, our 10th level PC is still head and shoulders above the 10th level NPC.

Coroval has all the stuff he needs to be used in combat- death attacks, gear, etc. They simply don't list his stats and non combat abilities because they aren't needed.

Ditto the unstatted spellcasters. They have their full complement of spells...no stats. You don't need them to figure out the spell effects*, so ditch 'em.






*'At least, not for any spell I noticed.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Only, this is D&D, not real life. So when we say "Michael Jordan can fly!" we mean it literally, like he's been actually fathered by the God of Winds and given a magical pair of Nikes (by the actual Nike) that assure him victory in sports whenever they are worn.

The top .001% is capable of so much more in a fantasy world.

<snip good points>

Sorry, not buying it.

The MJs & Hawkings of the fantasy world face the same sifting processes as the RW...only moreso. That still doesn't make them superhuman as some contend.

The truly superhuman ones are perhaps 1% of those MJs and Hawkings...and they aren't necessarily PCs either.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The MJs & Hawkings of the fantasy world face the same sifting processes as the RW...only moreso. That still doesn't make them superhuman as some contend.

Well, it kind of does. Astrophysicists and basketball players don't slay goblins or cast Magic Missile. A level 1 character in any D&D game, regardless of class, is already above and beyond the capabilities of anybody in reality.

That's kind of the motif of the fantasy genre. King Arthur isn't just a talented ruler, he's a legend, capable of things no one else could do. Merlin isn't just a smart cookie, he's an immortal amorphous creature of ancient mystery, a primordial trickster from a half-remembered pagan past. Even Frodo, though a "humble hobbit," was uniquely superior to every other entity on that planet. Luke Skywalker wasn't just a farm boy (though he didn't always know it!), and Han Solo was no ordinary scofflaw (though he frequently tried to resist it!), and Achilles and Agamemnon weren't just random Achaeans. They were all exceptional, unique, unprecedented individuals. Even the mere mortals among them (Odysseus or Han or Sam, Merry, and Pippin) were not just random mortals, but people with specific and unique roles to play in the heroic legend, with traits that make them stand out from others, things that only they could have done.

This is a well-worn trope that D&D sits snugly in.

As awesome as Stephen Hawking is, he's not a fantasy hero. That's why D&D doesn't assume your fantasy character is going to be Stephen Hawking or Prince. It doesn't think they're going to be level 1 commoners, or ordinary humans with d6 hit points. As exceptional as Michael Jordan is, he's still a normal human being by all standards. Fantasy heroes are not. Fantasy heroes are above and beyond.

The truly superhuman ones are perhaps 1% of those MJs and Hawkings...and they aren't necessarily PCs either.

The only case I'm really making is that D&D, by RAW, assumes that your fantasy hero isn't just a normal person, or even an especially talented normal person. In older editions, they are closer to "normal," but even in the earliest, they are superior. By the most recent, they are clearly an entirely different class of being.

What follows from this is that D&D characters need not be tethered to ideas about what actual people can do. This is important, because while spellcasters have never been tied to ideas about what actual people can do (magic breaks reality), characters without access to spells *have* been (there are swords in reality!).

And that sucks for anyone whose choice of class doesn't have access to those supernatural things.

One response to give those nonspellcasters access to supernatural things. Let them be dipped in the Styx, let them cut the tops off of mountains, let them eat the hearts of dragons, let them build or be given magical gear without having to depend on the DM to drop it for them.

This answer is supported by the idea that D&D characters have always been as fantasy heroes typically are -- exceptional, extraordinary, uniquely powerful individuals with special traits that they share with no one else in the world.

Such as a god's favor (Odysseus) or a powerful bloodline (Luke) or a nearly suicidal love (Samwise), or, maybe, the ability to forge magic swords themselves (hypothetical D&D fighter).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, it kind of does. Astrophysicists and basketball players don't slay goblins or cast Magic Missile. A level 1 character in any D&D game, regardless of class, is already above and beyond the capabilities of anybody in reality.

Only the spellcasters. Without the magic, I simply disagree with this statement.

The only case I'm really making is that D&D, by RAW, assumes that your fantasy hero isn't just a normal person, or even an especially talented normal person.

Still not convinced- saying it is so does not make it so. I'll grant you this is true for 4Ed, but the previous editions? Nah.

 

[pemerton]

It is too tacked on, instead of integrated from level 1 forward. It is "horizontal" design when it should be "vertical". It is the same problem that fate points and other such constructs have. I've used such constructs in games, and they can help. But if they are not intrinsically tied into the reward cycle, then you have to stay after them to make them work

<snip>

In my D&D, I'd rather have no such thing (and thus play old school style) or have something really thought through and robust, and thus play BW style. Ideally, in D&D, it would be optional. Otherwise, we get some muddled, weak, middle version that frequently turns into not heroic action, but saved as my "get out of jail free card", and about as exciting as playing that card in Monopoly.

Specifically, my objection along the above lines to paragon paths and epic destinies (and other similar things) is that they are trying too hard to be that middle ground. It would be better in my eyes if the whole bits were scrapped in favor of some paragon or epic thing that could develop in parallel with the fighting ability. It wouldn't even need to be the same rate as character advancement, either. If your epic destiny is to be a demi-god, start out that way. As you pursue your destiny, it unfolds. Or don't, and it doesn't.

I see what you're saying.

I think that the idea of the destiny quest - mentioned in various places in the rulebooks but never actually developed - was meant to do some of the work of addressing this issue - of integrating the epic destiny into the heart of play, rather than the weak, "get out of jail free" think that you describe.

I don't have any worked-out mechanical ideas that would persuade you (or me, for that matter) that what I suggested could be done. But I think that, starting with what the game already has to offer, a lot more could be done with those existing elements to at least make possible something more exciting and engaging.

For example - the skill challenge design guidelines - which are currently so completely abstract and spartan (look at the discussion of advantages in the Rules Compendium, for example - how is any GM not familiar with other RPGs meant to work out what to do with them?) - could be enriched in all sorts of ways, including with discussions about how to draw upon PC's PPs or EDs in building or resolving a skill challenge. Or PPs and EDs could have suggestions as to skills the use of which is amplified or emphasised by that path, analogous in certain respects to what is currently done with backgrounds.

The design, as it currently stands, seems to go out of its way to make PPs and EDs irrelevant to the actual content of the gameworld fiction. In which case, why have these aspects of character development at all? Are they only meant to be a distraction from the threatened boredom of nothing happening but the numbers getting bigger?

 

[SkidAce]

That's kind of the complaint here. I can get it. I don't think it's a "wizards are overpowered oh noes!" problem, but it's a real issue with not feeling as potent because of a lack of narrative control. Spellcasters get plot control as part of their class, and characters that don't cast spells don't get to be as proactive, and that's not so cool.

This is the part I agree with. Good point!

The DM should be tailoring the world/adventure so the fighters get some narrative control. Not the "best" example, due to the magical flavor, but a fighter in my Moorcock styled campaign was creating land by pushing back the boundaries of Chaos, by defeating guardians at the edge of the world. The fighter was the one driving that story so he had the most influence and control in those particular adventures.

 

[Dioltach]

One way that might provide balance between wizards and fighters is to make wizards physically weaker. As in, one blow can kill them, even at high levels.

In the Conan story mentioned by the OP, the wizard died from a single hit from Conan's axe. Conversely, in a 2e AD&D game I was running at the weekend, one of the magic-users in the party took full damage from a dragon's breath weapon and still had enough hit points to run away, while another magic user took bite damage from the same dragon and barely felt it.

One solution would be to introduce the wound point/vitality point system. Critical hits don't do multiples of standard damage: they go straight to the opponent's wound points. Seeing as most characters' wound points are the same as their CON score, regardless of level, even powerful wizards will only have a few WP, say around 10. This encourages fighters to invest in Improved Crits. In fact, I'd say Conan has an incredible critical threat range, lobbed his axe at the wizard and took him for all his wound points. Even if he hadn't killed him, in game terms the wizard would now be suffering significant penalties.

Of course wizards still have an array of protective spells, but they do in fantasy too. Non-magical opponents have to find ways around those protections, like magical weapons.

I'm not saying that the WP/VP system completely solves the problem, but it would definitely make any wizard think twice before putting himself in harm's way.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The only case I'm really making is that D&D, by RAW, assumes that your fantasy hero isn't just a normal person, or even an especially talented normal person.

I honestly can't tell if I'm misunderstanding you, or what, but I think I disagree. (I'm less certain I disagree for 4E, but leaving 4E aside.)

D&D -- as a game -- assumes that your character has the potential to be a world-shaker. But D&D -- as a game, and at least as we've understood and played it for 30 years -- doesn't say or imply you're not "normal" as a starting character.

I put "normal" in quotes because maybe that's where we disagree. I believe that even though most fighting men in 3E are warriors, you can start as a fighter and still be "normal." Even though most orc spellcasters are adepts, an orc can be a cleric and still be "normal." Clerics and fighters are more powerful than adepts and warriors -- the heroic array versus the standard NPC array is a tiny giveaway -- but not by so much that an origin story of "I'm really just this guy, you know?" rings false.

If pressed to pull a baseline out of my hoop, I'd say that a starting hero would need to be 10 times more powerful (an order of magnitude) than a "commoner" before "normal" becomes BS.

But, again, that may be because I consider "normal" -- in the real world and extrapolated to D&D -- to be a very broad range. At 6'5" tall (98th or 99th percentile), I don't consider my height to be normal, but if I were 6'2" tall (95th percentile, or taller than nine-out-of-ten taller-than-average men), I would.

(FWIW: I agree that, by default, full spellcasters -- perhaps especially wizards -- in pre-4E D&D were more powerful and/or had narrative control not available to the other classes. But it simply was never a problem for us. We literally never have people clamoring to be the wizard or bitching about the wizard's power. Not once, in 11 years now of 3E and Pathfinder.)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm fairly certain that the "normal or talented normal or more than that" issue is another one of those muddled middle of the road things. But I am not as sure that this is a bug instead of a feature. D&D writers have left this somewhat ambiguous so that you could impose your own ideas upon it. You can't go completely realistic (and Gygax in 1st ed. DMG makes clear why). And in every edition, there are limits to how crazy on the upper end you can go (though often weak ones, and not the same ones by edition).

But the range is very broad. All it takes to jump the gap between the playstyles expressed by Danny and Kamikaze, is the desire and will to do so. That is, you can turn D&D into something resembling what either have said, if you want to. It is simply that the ability to ramp up or down with wizards is not as obvious as it is with fighters. Thus the OP starting this topic. And it is not as if there aren't ways to rein in wizards. The problem is rather that there are many ways, some of them mutually exclusive, some draconian, some not quite effective enough.