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

[Jeff Wilder]

The problem is that your so-called "better people" are people who have been together a long time, have a shared and unwritten code of conduct, and know each others' gaming likes and dislikes.

See, not so much. In our current Pathfinder game, we have two core players, one player who has been playing M&M with us for about a year (but no D&D), and three players who are new to the group. (They've been around less than three months.)

No problems so far. (One of the new guys might end up being a bit of a problem: in M&M, he went unerringly for about ten different unbalancing power/feat combos, and in Pathfinder he chose the very strong Inquisitor class. But he'll dial back his tendencies -- if they are tendencies -- or he won't make it in our group.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm sure that's part of it. For example, allow unfettered use of the the Spell Compendium in your game? Prepare for a massive ramp up in power.

But.....but.....but......"Say Yes!"

 

[Argyle King]

If I may be so bold, I think of the problems with this conversation is that it focuses too much on D&D. There are other games which -in my opinion- do a fairly good job of allowing non-mages to shine on the same level as mages.

 

[billd91]

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.

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.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Another part is player mentality to scrolls, wands etc, especially with easy spell access. I've noticed games where the wizard's player has time and/inclination to scribe scrolls and craft wands greatly increase their power level.

Yep- and I almost never see PC created Scrolls or Wands. Rings, Weapons and Staves are more common.

 

[Harlekin]

Several posters have pointed out one of the key playstyle sources of the problem, IMHO, namely cherry-picking all the best spells.* I think I mentioned it in this thread that we always used the spell rarity/randomizer rules as written in 1Ed-2Ed, and pointed out it's a decent sim of the way people learn things, esp. if they are self-taught or their learning depends on independent research.

This fits pretty well with my pet theory: Many GMs that play/played D&D for a long time had to deal with this problem (in much smaller form) since 1st edition and they learned how to adapt. At this point they have multiple tricks/table rules/ unwritten agreements that control the problem. Many of these solutions are applied without thinking too much, for example Danny houseruling in spell access from earlier editions.

And clearly it is possible to fix the problem in a home game, especially when staying under lvl 12 or so. In my home game I handled this by forcing sorcerors to take of-class levels and making the wizards spellbook disappear. But those solutions require a lot of trust between GM and players and they also require a lot of system mastery (or trial and error) by the GM.

 

[Mort]

But.....but.....but......"Say Yes!"

Not "always say yes" - "try to say yes" as in not a knee jerk no. For me this is much more applicable to in game situations (swing on the chandalier - sure, throw the table at 2 mooks to nock them over - try it and quite likely - etc.).

When I ran 3e/3.5 my general policy for allowing spells etc. was - core assume it's ok unless I say otherwise, non-core get my permission to use it.

 

[billd91]

Yep- and I almost never see PC created Scrolls or Wands. Rings, Weapons and Staves are more common.

I actually do and I don't follow any kind of randomized scarcity to the spells a spellcaster can pick up as he levels up. And I still don't see significant problems with casters being super-powerful compared to melee characters... with one exception. And that exception is a player who pushes at the boundaries of power while the rest don't. So I'm totally on board with the issue mainly being one of play style.

When my players make wands and scrolls but do so from a support character point of view (making healing, general buffing, or protecting wands and scrolls), they're not being a problem. When the player starts to view the item creation/buying rules as being a rudimentary point-buy system for personal power-ups, then we start to run into problems, particularly if that player views the game as competition between himself and other players.

 

[Harlekin]

See, not so much. In our current Pathfinder game, we have two core players, one player who has been playing M&M with us for about a year (but no D&D), and three players who are new to the group. (They've been around less than three months.)

No problems so far. (One of the new guys might end up being a bit of a problem: in M&M, he went unerringly for about ten different unbalancing power/feat combos, and in Pathfinder he chose the very strong Inquisitor class. But he'll dial back his tendencies -- if they are tendencies -- or he won't make it in our group.)

You are right, most gamers are not douchebags and will not intentionally ruin other people's fun. However, you may have to boot one in five players, because it is possible for him to overshadow everybody else. I would say that is enough of an issue to call it a problem.

 

[Fifth Element]

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!)

Well, you seem to be framing the discussion not only as "3E is fine" but also as "4E is bad." That seems like the same attitude you're attacking here.

I guess what I'm asking is, if you just want to explain why you find 3E fine in this regard, why do you have to attack 4E to do so? Unless, of course, you mean "Harrison-Bergeroned" to be a compliment, which I assume you don't.

3E is clearly not broken or unfun in any meaningful way. It can be ill-suited to certain people's playstyles, just as 4E can be. But neither is it broken or dumbed down, as you seem to imply with your comments.