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

[LostSoul]

I don't know, DA. The protagonist is the one who drives the plot; it doesn't ask anything of him. It just throws things in his way and sees how he will deal with it.

All Die Hard means is that a guy, down on his luck, can beat tremendous odds (with no help or thanks to those in authority) when he's trying to win back his wife.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't know, DA. The protagonist is the one who drives the plot; it doesn't ask anything of him. It just throws things in his way and sees how he will deal with it.

Right, but nothing in "The Narrative" says that a protagonist be the ne plus ultra of humanity- except in those rare cases when it does- just that he or she be good enough.

To put it differently, he doesn't have to be the strongest if he's smart enough to beat the strongest with his wits. He doesn't have to be the smartest if he can use a surprising bit of strength and brutality to win the day.

When they fought, Hercules was not stronger than Antaeus. Despite not known for his wit, it was nonetheless Hercules' reasoning skills that let him carry the day. He deduced Antaeus' weakness and defeated him. Had he not used his mind, reliance on his muscles would have left him defeated...and given Antaeus' proclivities, dead.

 

[LostSoul]

Right, but nothing in "The Narrative" says that a protagonist be the ne plus ultra of humanity- except in those rare cases when it does- just that he or she be good enough.

Yeah, I agree, when we're talking about heroic fiction.

Hmm...

What does this have to do with RPGs again?

 

[Celtavian]

re

Did you?

Limited Wish is cast all the time for the same reason magical items are made. The XP cost is laughably small, and XP is like a river - you get it back faster then you can spend it.

Not in campaigns where a DM controls xp flow. I don't imagine you were in many campaigns of this kind where the DM did this kind of planning. In my campaigns my players were reluctant to expend xp to make magic items or expend it on spells because they would fall behind in levels. You know, like the 3.x system intended.

And looking at the "tactics" your spellcasters use, it's painfully obvious they're really bad at playing their characters. They obviously read somewhere online that "save or die" spells are good and read no further! Like, ok, I'll agree that 3e is more balanced when your wizard is really bad at being a wizard and your martial characters are really optimized, but you aren't proving crap there.

I've already proved what I've said over twenty plus years of gaming. I can prove you wrong over and over and over again. I've done it as both a DM and player. Things are not as you claim they are, never have been, never will be.

D&D is a team game. You are trying to boil it down to "wizards do everything because their overpowered and fighters can't do anything because the wizard ends the fight".

My contention was never a prepared fighter can stand toe to toe with a prepared wizard. They can't.

My contention is that fighters are an equally integral part of the game in the 3.x system.

They are not overshadowed by wizards.

The fighter does not need to be able to take on a wizard one on one for the game to be balanced. Doesn't need to be that way at all.

In fact a fighter should not be able to take on a wizard one on one. It is a common trope of fantasy that a wizard will generally be stronger than the fighter in a one on one situation.

D&D is a group game in which multiple character types are expected to interact to make the whole is stronger than its parts.

It is up to the DM to ensure that challenges take into account this group structure without letting one part overshadow the others.

In fact, that's what all these examples end up coming down to.

"Look, 3e is balanced. See, my fighter is incredibly optimized and my wizard just derps out whatever spell looks pretty. See! Balance!"

Is that your ignorant interpretation? I gave you real game examples of a wizard doing nothing useful while the fighter butchers what they're fighting.

And I can show you examples of the wizard landing a spell to end a fight.

And it could go on and on.

3.x is balanced. Fighters and melee-types were a useful part of the game. My players enjoyed playing them.

I see no reason why one class should be balanced against another in terms of one on one combat. Is that the only type of balance you're concerned with?

I'm far more concerned about flavor and simulating the fantasy fiction I enjoy. I find 3.x does a far superior job of modeling fictional archetypes. I don't need a game system where the fighter is balanced in a one on one fight against the wizard. That would seem inappropriate to the fantasy genre.

I don't play these games to have the wizard go one on one versus the warrior. I play these games to tell a story. I have never in all my years of DMing and play found a campaign where the fighter was not present.

If as you say the fighter was vastly overshadowed by the wizard and didn't feel like an integral and exciting part of the game, then no one would play the class. That is the type of balance I'm looking for.

 

[Celtavian]

So? So did crafting. Look up "XP is a river" for why this didn't matter. The question with Limited Wish was would you gain more than the XP cost.

Not a river at all if your DM is doing his job. I guess you keep forgetting the DM involved in the campaign who controls the encounter flow. I guess the DMs you were with handed out endless xp well above and beyond what was needed so that wizards spending xp on spells weren't falling behind in level.

Is that so?

I don't know who was implying that. But an optimised wizard beats an optimised fighter. (If the wizard is using mostly evocation, I'll grant the weak fighter beats the weak wizard).

Yeah. An optimized, prepared wizard beats an optimized fighter. So?

And an optimized fighter and optimized wizard rolling initiative in the same round close enough for the warrior to close might kill the wizard before he gets a spell off. And?

Uh-uh. All it takes to make a good wizard is a smart use of a spellbook. A fighter takes a lot of planning and knowledge of the build in advance. Start with Int as your dump stat? You're locked out of Expertise. Wizards don't have this sort of problem.

How is this a problem? A warrior doesn't need expertise to beat a wizard. Raw weapon damage will do it against most creatures faced.

And there is no save against weapon damage.

So you're already handicapping the wizard. Right there. By reducing the game to a hack and slash fest you are arbitrarily favouring the class that does hack and slash and almost nothing else.

What are you even talking about? The game is combat-based.

Oh, I'll agree with that. Mostly because you've effectively hogtied the wizard before you've started. Wizards take skill to dominate with. With skill they beat the fighters in combat and make them look completely and utterly pointless out of combat. Your rules are someone who doesn't know how to play well against someone who does on his best territory. You'd need an anti-magic sphere to rig things much harder in favour of the fighter.

You're the ones handicapping the fighter by assuming he can't prepare, right? He has no resources to prepare at all, right?

Apparently you are as combat centric as some people accuse 4th ed of being. Try the following steps first if the wizard is semi-competent.

-4: Long term buffs
-3: Scrying
-2: Monster knowledge
-1: Short duration buffs
0: Surprise round.

Who is he scrying on? So now every wizard goes into the dungeon knowing exactly who and what is in the dungeon and gets to scry on them? And they always know in advance exactly who is there and when to buff for them? None of the enemies ever prepare against such things in your world eh?

It's always Mr. Wizard is always ten steps ahead of his enemies. They can't possibly do anything but wait for Mr. Wizard to destroy them.

What campaigns are you playing in?

What are they doing without self-buffs already up? There are few combat self-buffs worth casting (Haste, possibly). Because time is critical. And if the attack was, for instance, Evard's Black Tentacles or Glitterdust then the turn might be over but the spell isn't. And remember both those spells get an area of effect, so the more the merrier.

What does a dragon care about either of those spells? Does the evil lich care about either of those spells? Does the Horde of high level demons even notice those spells? No. They don't.

What lvl D&D do you usually play?

Or Fighter misses. Fighter's turn over. Once more you aren't comparing like with like.

Fighter usually gets three or more attacks at higher level. And does insane damage where even one round can kill almost anything he faces including Mr. Wizard.

Mr. Wizard better pray he never lets Mr. Fighter get near him because stoneskin isn't very effective against Mr. Fighter.

Indeed. System mastery is necessary for 3.X. But the wizard and the cleric with system mastery are going to make the fighter look silly.

Maybe a fighter they are prepared for, I can agree with that.

But a fighter they come upon in the dungeon that they have no idea what magic items he has or what he is capable of, not so much. And Mr. Wizard has very little room for error. He makes an error in tactics and Mr. Fighter wil have him dead right quick.

And the gods help the wizard that is faced with an archer fighter. Dead wizard walking unless he is very well prepared, especially in Pathfinder.

You've never heard the term "CoDzilla"? Clerics and druids are absolutely overpowered. Top tier with the wizard and artificer. They just aren't overpowered if they play as healbots rather than healing after the combat using crafted Wands of Cure Light Wounds.

I tried this CoDzilla thing. Didn't work in my campaigns. Too many spells to cast to power up.

Our powerful enemies rarely gave me enough time and/or stripped me of all my power with one dispel magic or the fighter had annihilated the enemy by the time I was buffed up.

The DMs I'm used to playing with don't have their bad buys sit in their room waiting for everyone to buff up, scry on them, and then teleport in. They are usually played as though they are intelligent and capable, not pinatas with hit points that the PCs get to break open for magic items.

What do you mean "No decent DM falls for"? That you arbitrarily give monsters high saves in order to nerf wizards? It's not a matter of falling for the spells. Save or die spells are not traps. They are open abilities - and if you're talking about "falling for" them you're deliberately screwing over the wizard. You might as well talk about monsters falling for three feet of steel in the gut.

If you are taking steps to nerf the wizard against the RAW by deliberately jacking up the monster's saves even when you have inexperienced wizards, that's a clear demonstration that even in your games the wizards are overpowered.

I create challenges for my players. That's my job as a DM, right? I jack up ACs too because fighters hit too easily doing too much damage. What of it?

I certainly don't discriminate when creating challenges.

What do you do when you DM? Run the module exactly as the module was designed without regard for the players ability? Even though a module is designed as a framework for you to run an adventure. And you as a DM are expected to customize it to challenge your players?

I don't artificially jack up saves. I use the RAW to raise their saves. Give an outsider a resistance item and his saves are already jacked up. Toss a feat here or there to an NPC enemy to raise their saves.

The only artificial non-RAW item I increase is hit points. That's it.

I'm a 20 year plus DM. I know how to challenge my players using the rules. Probably a major reason I had no trouble with any system challenging my players including 4E when I ran it.

And even in 4E my players were trying to game the system, min-maxing to make solo's a cake walk. So I jacked up numbers and custom made encounters to challenge my players running 4E because it was necessary.

It will always be necessary for a DM to plan for the players he deals with.

That if the DM rigs a scenario that it can be best done one way and you don't do it that way you aren't going to get very far. You deliberately gave the monsters high saves so the wizard couldn't do what he wanted to. And something else arbitrary to do.

No. I did not give them high saves. They had high saves.

"Rig"? You mean plan an encounter to challenge the capabilities of my players. Yes, I did.

Do you seriously consider that wrong? Seriously?

Oh! I get it! You can simulate Hercules if you house rule. And mysteriously can not house rule other games.

Yeah. To simulate Hercules or anything of the kind, I would have to house rule. The game does not allow for it innately.

So you can't actually play them under the rules of 3.X - you need to make stuff up. And can't in other games. Special pleading at its finest. Especially as supposed flexibility is meant to be a strength of 3.X

Yes. I would have to make stuff up. I would have to make stuff up 4E to play Hercules. I would have to make stuff up to play Hercules in 1E and 2E as well.

What are you even saying?

Whereas a fighter can't withstand a spell vs will. And can't heal himself either - but should be taking damage because he's on the front lines.

He can take the most damage hands down. The barbarian in our group is nearly 250 hit points. The strongest wizard has 110. The fighter has 211.

Or do the wizards in your campaigns along with high intelligence have high cons and enormous hit points too? Is that it?

They're so omnipotent that the fighter is a little lap dog to them? Same hit points. These wizards make fort saves easily against death attacks, poisons, and the like. And they get to scry in advance of every fight. And get at least 4 rounds to buff or it just isn't fair.

Is that it?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

For someone who talks about how others don't get how 3e works, you aren't so hot at the rules.

If you are a lower level then anyone else, you actually gain more XP. That's how experience is like a river. You outright get free experience for being a lower level.

I won't go down your list bit by bit because that's really tiresome, but you really, really don't understand 3.5 rules or optimization. Like, at all. Point in fact: an optimized wizard isn't rolling initiative the same round the fighter is, and even if he was, he has access to things like Nerveskitter.

You aren't dumb or somehow less for it, and I'm not trying to insult you, but you're honestly arguing something you don't fully understand.

 

[Celtavian]

What do they do when the encounter isn't about how much damage you can do?

Since 90% of D&D experience is based on how much damage you can do aka killing things, never really came up.

If some skill-based or trap challenge came up, usually they left it to rogue.

If someone required magic, they left it to the wizard.

Same with cleric.

I'll reiterate. D&D is a team game. So whichever class had something to use to shine with, they were allowed to do it.

And the fighter shined butchering things. He did that a whole lot.

I was never in these games like Professor Cirno speaks of where the wizard always had the right spell, always had hours to scry and tons of rounds to buff, and was able to buff himself up into a melee monster while maintaing the spell diversity to handle other types of problems at the same time.

In my campaigns, spell slots were limited. We did not always know what we're fighting. The BBEGs plotted agianst us including using their own wizardly power and what not. The enemy encounters were designed to challenge our specific group whether that group was made up of one of each class, four wizards, four fighters, a single wizard, or a single fighter.

Any system is only as good as the DM running it, even 4E. I DMed 4E. My players tore that system up too with their group tactics same as 3E and 2E and 1E. I prefer the 3.x system because it best fits my narrative style and my opinion of what D&D is, not because it is an inherently better system.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not a river at all if your DM is doing his job. I guess you keep forgetting the DM involved in the campaign who controls the encounter flow. I guess the DMs you were with handed out endless xp well above and beyond what was needed so that wizards spending xp on spells weren't falling behind in level.

Is that so?

Did you even read "XP is a river." Crafters fall 1 level behind. At which point they gain more XP which they turn into items. So they just sit that 1 level behind. And more powerful.

Yeah. An optimized, prepared wizard beats an optimized fighter. So?

And an optimized fighter and optimized wizard rolling initiative in the same round close enough for the warrior to close might kill the wizard before he gets a spell off. And?

And what was the wizard doing to let the fighter get that close?

How is this a problem? A warrior doesn't need expertise to beat a wizard. Raw weapon damage will do it against most creatures faced.

Look at the PHB. Look at the feats you can grab without Expertise. Stupid trap.

And there is no save against weapon damage.

Sure there is. AC. Mirror Image. Being out of range.

What are you even talking about? The game is combat-based.

Depends on your edition. In Gygaxian D&D, combat is what happens when you up.

You're the ones handicapping the fighter by assuming he can't prepare, right? He has no resources to prepare at all, right?

Nothing the wizard doesn't have. He has money. Less than the wizard because the wizard is a crafter. The wizard has a spellbook, and money. And more useful skills.

Who is he scrying on?

Why is he in the dungeon?

None of the enemies ever prepare against such things in your world eh?

Of course they do. It's the arms race.

What does a dragon care about either of those spells?

Seriously? What does a dragon care about being blinded? Um... a lot.

Does the evil lich care about either of those spells?

Yes. Liches have poor grapple skills and again, blinding screws over the lich. Oh, and spells are hard to cast when grappled.

Does the Horde of high level demons even notice those spells? No. They don't.

You're facing a horde of high level demons? Depends what sort of demon. And how many. Black Tentacles doesn't do well against big guys. But Glitterdust - 10ft radius, blind, no SR. That works.

What lvl D&D do you usually play?

I don't go above e6 in 3.X due to actually understanding how to use the system and giving the DM nightmares.

Fighter usually gets three or more attacks at higher level. And does insane damage where even one round can kill almost anything he faces including Mr. Wizard.

Mr. Wizard better pray he never lets Mr. Fighter get near him because stoneskin isn't very effective against Mr. Fighter.

Mr. Wizard better pray he never lets Mr. Fighter get near him because even if Mr Fighter likes him, Mr Fighter's will defence is crap.

Maybe a fighter they are prepared for, I can agree with that.

But a fighter they come upon in the dungeon that they have no idea what magic items he has or what he is capable of, not so much. And Mr. Wizard has very little room for error. He makes an error in tactics and Mr. Fighter wil have him dead right quick.

Fighters have low will defence. Means you don't need much in the way of tactics.

I tried this CoDzilla thing. Didn't work in my campaigns. Too many spells to cast to power up.

Druids don't need many. And Czilla works best with Persistent Spell.

And even in 4E my players were trying to game the system, min-maxing to make solo's a cake walk. So I jacked up numbers and custom made encounters to challenge my players running 4E because it was necessary.

They've fixed solos. And bumped up monster damage. With good reason.

They're so omnipotent that the fighter is a little lap dog to them? Same hit points. These wizards make fort saves easily against death attacks, poisons, and the like.

As easily as the fighter makes his will save against mind control. But mysteriously you don't do that to fighters. And the fighter is nearer the bad guys so is easier to hit.

And they get to scry in advance of every fight. And get at least 4 rounds to buff or it just isn't fair.

Your men, they are made of straw. Bypassing fights and bringing down dungeons is far more effective at high level than actually fighting your way through.

As for what your comments about what you claim to do say, they differ from your specifics. You apparently challenge the players - but mysteriously kill off parties with new mages. Dungeons may not be bypassed. Wizards don't cast smartly.

 

[Hussar]

The biggest eye opener I got for how weak fighters were at high levels came a while back. The group had a bard with some pretty good feats for buffing (from Eberron IIRC) and a orc barbarian who was death on toast.

Then, one fight, the barbarian gets mind controlled and turns on the party. The bard drops the buffs. Suddenly, the barbarian can no longer hit anything with his maxed out power attack. So, he switches to just straight attacks. Now, to be fair, he'd hit with his primary attack, maybe his secondary, but his third attack? Not gonna connect.

The cleric then turned around and beat the orc barbarian silly.

I had thought the barbarian was really keeping up with the other characters. He wasn't. It was two characters combined that was keeping up with the cleric. Never mind that the cleric was getting most of those buffs too.

Personally, I think the most telling point is this: Which would your players rather face, a 16th level fighter, a 16th level cleric or a 16th level wizard in a straight up combat encounter?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hussar, I assume you are talking 3e? I agree that 3e is blech at higher levels.