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

[pawsplay]

The problem is that people are getting extremely caught up in the "world" and they either ignore or don't understand the "narrative."

Is that "the problem?" Who is "people?" What is your evidence for this assertion?

In the "world" of Die Hard, JMC is a normal man. He has no magical powers. He has no mutant abilities. He can't cast any spells. He is an "average human."

In the "narrative" of Die Hard, JMC is the protagonist, which in of itself imbues him with ability that no other person in the "world" of Die Hard has. You cannot compare JMC to the 6.5 billion other people in the world because they don't exist in the narrative. The narrative is not on "the planet Earth," the narrative is on one part of New York City. Asking if John McClane is better then those 6.5 billion people isn't just missing the point, it's a nonsense question. Those people don't exist.

Although JMC is a "normal human," because he is the protagonist, he can take more pain, shoot with better accuracy, and is just plain smarter, faster, and more versatile then the cops and SWAT are. By being the protagonist, JMC is inherently extraordinary because the narrative is focused on him. In the narrative, that level of being extraordinary is focused through his ability to take more punishment, outsmart a man who has just about everything fully planned, and go from standard detective to a one man terrorist murdering army.

Of course, none of that's true in D&D. One 1st level fighter has as much chance as another.

And really, it's not true in Die Hard, either. Those are conventions, but authors can and do fool their audiences.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm serious. I'm truly interested in how you're going to (a) give them abilities that you feel can "compete" with a wizard's, while (b) keeping them "normal" enough that people like me, who aren't interested in a magical Batman or Conan at all, playing the game.

There's some really interesting and effective ideas upthread by others, though to see how this can be done, you don't even need to see what I or others on this board can come up with. You just need to look at 4e.

4e's powers are essentially all spells. A fighter's powers are no different. Martial powers in particular are mostly done with the "martial is not magical" motif in mind. With a few unfortunate exceptions like Come And Get It (which is heavily criticized for it), a fighter's martial spells are competitive with what a wizard's arcane spells can do.

Part of that is, of course, that 4e limits what a wizard can do. There's fireball and lightning bolt, but there's not travel teleportation, scrying, instant death, action-granting spells or summons, nothing plot-affecting.

I think this is a step in the right direction. For combat abilities, this is pretty much the ideal solution. We could use some calibration, but the principle is sound: warrior abilities and spellcasting abilities are on the same scale of how they can affect the world.

If you take it out of context of the powers system, it's clear that there's a lot of places that principle could apply.

My guess is that you don't care about (b). Which is fine, and will save a lot of time if you just say it outright.

If you'd like to have this discussion with yourself, you're more than welcome to. If you'd like to have it with me, don't presume that you can read minds.

Listen.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You just need to look at 4e.

4e's powers are essentially all spells. A fighter's ... martial spells are competitive with what a wizard's arcane spells can do.

Yes. One of several reasons I don't like 4E, and that we didn't play it beyond 3rd level.

If you'd like to have this discussion with yourself, you're more than welcome to. If you'd like to have it with me, don't presume that you can read minds.

My bad, I did forget a choice: "or (c) just make all the classes play exactly alike."

You choose (c). That's cool. It's not what I want from D&D, though. Y'all can continue to insist that those of us who enjoy playing fighters in 3E have been doing it wrong -- or, alternatively, y'all can continue to insist that when we play wizards, we play them as if we have mental deficiencies -- and I'll continue to insist that the real problem isn't the system.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My bad, I did forget a choice: "or (c) just make all the classes play exactly alike."

No, you forgot "None of the above."

You choose (c). That's cool.

Also, you forgot to stop telling me what I think.

There's a reason I'm a big fan of Essentials. Part of the reason? One of my huge criticisms of 4e was that the powers system was a samey mess.

A Slayer is a far, far different beast than a Sorcerer, but they're pretty much on equal footing, without the Slayer doing anything more magical than swinging a sword (and dealing ROCKSTAR damage).

There's much more you can do with this, too. I said 4e was a step in the right direction, not The Best Solution For Everyone.

It's not what I want from D&D, though. Y'all can continue to insist that those of us who enjoy playing fighters in 3E have been doing it wrong -- or, alternatively, y'all can continue to insist that when we play wizards, we play them as if we have mental deficiencies -- and I'll continue to insist that the real problem isn't the system.

You're lumping everyone together, you're oversimplifying, and you're not listening to what I'm actually saying.

This makes it very, very difficult to have a constructive conversation.

You can put spellcasters and warriors on even footing without making them play the same. But that's not what you asked me to post about. You asked me how they could be on equal footing. If you want to wade into the intricacies of how 4e in particular handles this, I'm more than willing to engage that thread (as I have many times in defending Essentials already!).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

There's much more you can do with this, too. I said 4e was a step in the right direction, not The Best Solution For Everyone.

You're lumping everyone together, you're oversimplifying, and you're not listening to what I'm actually saying.

You continue to insist that I am not listening to you. Yet I have said, over and over, that I have not seen any evidence that the problem some people seem to be having is with the system, and that I have never -- ever -- seen the problem described.

And yet you continue to say things like, "A step in the right direction," as if it is settled that that step is actually needed or desirable.

This makes it very, very difficult to have a constructive conversation.

Yes. Yes, it does.

I am willing to concede that some people have experienced a lack of fun playing fighters because wizards were too powerful by comparison in their game.

Are you willing to concede that some people have not experienced that lack of fun? Are you willing to concede that some people have not experienced the difference between wizards and warriors as a problem? And are you willing to concede that it's possible that the reason some people do have the problem, and some people don't, is because of the players and/or DM involved, and not because of the system?

If so -- God knows i don't want to assume anything -- can you understand why those of us who don't have the problem object to others who insist that "the problem must be fixed"? Especially when that "fix" destroys something we actively, affirmatively like about D&D?

 

[Mort]

Yes. One of several reasons I don't like 4E, and that we didn't play it beyond 3rd level.

My bad, I did forget a choice: "or (c) just make all the classes play exactly alike."

I've seen this argument leveled at 4e before and to me it seems misplaced. There's a big difference between "all classes play exactly alike" (which is, of course, bad) and all classes play using the same mechanic but play very differently (which is good and extremely laudible from a system perspective). From what I've seen in 4e (both in cons and my own game): the wizard plays nothing like the fighter which plays nothing like the ranger which though he has the same role plays nothing like the rogue. In other words, same mechanic - very different play experience.

Yes. Yes, it does.

I am willing to concede that some people have experienced a lack of fun playing fighters because wizards were too powerful by comparison in their game.

Are you willing to concede that some people have not experienced that lack of fun? Are you willing to concede that some people have not experienced the difference between wizards and warriors as a problem? And are you willing to concede that it's possible that the reason some people do have the problem, and some people don't, is because of the players and/or DM involved, and not because of the system?

If so -- God knows i don't want to assume anything -- can you understand why those of us who don't have the problem object to others who insist that "the problem must be fixed"? Especially when that "fix" destroys something we actively, affirmatively like about D&D?

As you said yourself players and DM involved can certainly mitigate/eliminate the problem. I ran a game from 1st to epic level without any player in my campaign complaining of imbalance or seeming to show a lack of fun. But, I know the issue is there because when I let go of the reigns for a bit and played a wizard I had to constantly restrain myself from actively outsripping the rest of the group, in and out of combat, and that annoyed the heck out of me.

That said, we're in a situation where you can have your cake and eat it to. 4e exists (as do other systems) right along side 3.5 and pathfinder bith receiving good levels of support (well pathfinder is anyway 4e support seems to be floundering quite a bit in recent months, hope it finds it's way).

 

[Fifth Element]

I've seen this argument leveled at 4e before and to me it seems misplaced.

Indeed. 4E classes read very samey. But they don't play that way.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yet I have said, over and over, that I have not seen any evidence that the problem some people seem to be having is with the system, and that I have never -- ever -- seen the problem described.

You didn't ask me to describe the problem, you asked me to give an example of a system that I saw as not having the problem, yet still had martial characters that didn't feel "magical."

Several posters, including me, gave you such a system.

Would you like me also to describe the problem? Because you haven't asked anyone to do that yet.

I've also conceded that not everyone has the problem. I haven't had the problem. That doesn't mean that there isn't a problem, though. The world's full of problems that I don't personally have.

I am willing to concede that some people have experienced a lack of fun playing fighters because wizards were too powerful by comparison in their game.

Great! You understand the problem!

Are you willing to concede that some people have not experienced that lack of fun? Are you willing to concede that some people have not experienced the difference between wizards and warriors as a problem? And are you willing to concede that it's possible that the reason some people do have the problem, and some people don't, is because of the players and/or DM involved, and not because of the system?

Absolutely. I've never had the problem (and I don't think my players have, either). Tables differ, good DMs can solve anything, everyone's D&D is different, etc, etc,.

If so -- God knows i don't want to assume anything -- can you understand why those of us who don't have the problem object to others who insist that "the problem must be fixed"? Especially when that "fix" destroys something we actively, affirmatively like about D&D?

I don't understand why you are so against a middle ground that doesn't destroy what you like about D&D.

4e currently has a system that almost meets that. Why not take a closer system, and tweak it until it fits what you want?

Or rather, why shouldn't The Dungeons and Dragons Game do that? You're free to play your game however you want, but given that this is a problem for some players, why shouldn't D&D try to solve the problem? You don't need to.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Or rather, why shouldn't The Dungeons and Dragons Game do that? You're free to play your game however you want, but given that this is a problem for some players, why shouldn't D&D try to solve the problem?

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.

 

[CuRoi]

Indeed. 4E classes read very samey. But they don't play that way.

I think I see both sides of the issue here - they do look rather vanilla on reading and from my experience (albeit limited compared to many others here), I know they do play very differently. 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.

Something got lost in translation IMO that some people really liked and some people really disliked. It was a bigger deal than any one designer could really anticipate a reaction to. If it were possible to honestly discuss what was lost, we might get somewhere, but people get too touchy and irrational about it for whatever reason.

At any rate, for the topic at hand - 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. For others, I think they want the two aspects to be essentially the same thing for comparison sake and they'll work the story around it.