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

[triqui]

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.

That, however, does not make it any more balanced. Just like having fallout does not make a nuclear weapon balanced out compared to a shotgun.

 

[Mort]

That, however, does not make it any more balanced. Just like having fallout does not make a nuclear weapon balanced out compared to a shotgun.

Knowing you will destroy yourself as wel as your enemy is indead a form of balance, when he's 30 feet away most would rather have the shotgun. Having a weapon you are reluctant to use (like haste) means you will likely go with less powerful, but also less dangerous options. In other words the balancing factor (between party members) is the reluctance to use and costs involved.

That said, I don't think it's the best option, or always appropriate, and frankly I wasn't even approacing RCs post from a balance perspective. I was approaching it with: powerful magic should have powerful costs, as it does in literature.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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...

"But Sauron is a Maia, and would detect and counter such uses of magic. Not only would we not appear on Mount Doom, but we may well appear before his black throne in Barad Dur. Worse, the attempt might well alert him to what we plan, and then all chances of success would fail."

and

"If you think lighting a little fire to keep us from freezing to death is going to draw unwanted attention, what do you imagine attempting to teleport is going to do?"

The plot of LotR is predicated in no small amount on its magic system, and vice versa. That this is true doesn't mean that another magic system will prevent all other plots....or even a LotR-like plot, with a bit of work.

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.

I suppose that rather depends upon what you want from the game, doesn't it?

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.

Curiosity compels me to ask, which castersa are you referring to with Beowulf and Achilles, and how do you know their levels?

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.

That, however, does not make it any more balanced. Just like having fallout does not make a nuclear weapon balanced out compared to a shotgun.

I suppose that rather depends upon what sort of balance you want from the game, and whether or not using the nuke and/or shotgun kills me as well as you, doesn't it?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

[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.

This keeps getting trotted out in these discussions, but I'm not really sure I buy it.

1) How many people really, really played Wizards with less than a meaningful intelligence score? (And by that I mean, "On this messageboard, I will totally claim that I played an Int 12 Wizard," as distinct from, "Yeah, I rolled him up, he died in the second room of the first adventure, and then I rolled up another one who just happened to have a 17 starting Int score.") Once you hit, what, 16 or 17 Intelligence your failure chance to learn spells and your limit on spells per level were rendered fairly meaningless.

2) Yes, you *could* make the Wizard absolutely useless. You could also put the fighters into dugeons filled with Rust Monsters and take away everything. I don't think that arguing that older editions included "Oops - press the reset button!" rules is a particularly powerful way of claiming that they were somehow "more balanced."

Also, bookworms? Man, that would be proof positive that you were just being a jerk.

 

[billd91]

This keeps getting trotted out in these discussions, but I'm not really sure I buy it.

1) How many people really, really played Wizards with less than a meaningful intelligence score? (And by that I mean, "On this messageboard, I will totally claim that I played an Int 12 Wizard," as distinct from, "Yeah, I rolled him up, he died in the second room of the first adventure, and then I rolled up another one who just happened to have a 17 starting Int score.") Once you hit, what, 16 or 17 Intelligence your failure chance to learn spells and your limit on spells per level were rendered fairly meaningless.

Fairly meaningless? I'm going to guess you haven't refreshed your memory by looking up the 1e tables. A character with a highly respectable 16 Intelligence had a 35% chance to be unable to understand a given spell and was limited to 7 per level. With a 17, his chance to be unable to understand a spell was 25% and he got at most 8 per level.

Those figures allow for a lot of flexibility, it's true. But that 17 Int character had a 25% to be unable to cast fireball, charm monster, fly, invisibility, and a whole lot of very useful spells. That's a substantial failure rate, not meaningless at all.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Actually, no - I don't own any 1E rulebooks, I've only got 2E.

And, assuming your numbers are correct, while there's a 25% chance he won't be able to cast any individual spell from that list, the chance that he won't be able to cast any of them is rather minute.

Moreover, you aren't accounting for the ability to pump up your prime requisite by reducing less important stats. I'd say starting with a 16 Int for your wizard - at least, one you meant to play for awhile - was pretty rare in practice (especially given the numerous chances to reroll, create new characters, etc., that I've run into across the years).

 

[billd91]

Moreover, you aren't accounting for the ability to pump up your prime requisite by reducing less important stats. I'd say starting with a 16 Int for your wizard - at least, one you meant to play for awhile - was pretty rare in practice (especially given the numerous chances to reroll, create new characters, etc., that I've run into across the years).

That's assuming I have the ability to pump up my prime stat. I saw quite a few wizards in my day with 16s and 17s for Intelligence. As scores, they're quite respectable.

But you can't really expect one balancing tool to work at its full effectiveness if another one its related to is relaxed. If you thought the limits on spell knowledge were too weak, it may have been because you were in games that were too lax on having high stats. In other words, it's hard to credibly complain that the fence was ineffective at keeping the horses in when you left the door to the barn wide open.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actually, no - I don't own any 1E rulebooks, I've only got 2E.

And, assuming your numbers are correct, while there's a 25% chance he won't be able to cast any individual spell from that list, the chance that he won't be able to cast any of them is rather minute.

Moreover, you aren't accounting for the ability to pump up your prime requisite by reducing less important stats. I'd say starting with a 16 Int for your wizard - at least, one you meant to play for awhile - was pretty rare in practice (especially given the numerous chances to reroll, create new characters, etc., that I've run into across the years).

Nah, my best 1e magic-user had a 15 Intelligence.

Once you got your starting spells (random ala the DMG), you were stuck learning what you could find. If you topped out before you found the spells you wanted, too bad. If you didn't learn the spells you found, then you could save the spots for the spells you wanted, but there was no guarantee of ever finding them. And even if you found them, you might not be able to learn them.

The method by which PCs were made could make a difference, sure. I always allowed 4d6, subtract the lowest die, arrange as desired. That's the method I allowed in 1e. And in 2e. And in 3e. And in RCFG. So you can tell it has resonance with me!

The DM could make a real difference. There is a world of difference between a well-run campaign and a mediocre one, and an even greater difference when one takes the possibility of a craptacular DM into the mix.

Oh, yeah, and you didn't have the huge number of castings per day that you got in 3e, so most casters had to marshal their spell resources carefully, IME. When I was playing a magic-user, the ability to give intelligent advice during exploration + whatever uncast spells I had left were always of greater value than whatever spells had already been cast.

IOW, it wasn't what I had already done that I had to be prepared for, it was what was yet to come. With wandering monsters and the potential for wilderness encounters en route home, it was always wise to have a few spells reserved.

Which is another thing -- in 1e, a magic-user had to have access to his spellbooks to regain spells, and regaining spells took a loooonnnngggggg time. The more spells you had, the longer it took. The NPC wizard who was also exploring the dungeon probably didn't have his spellbook with him for the same reason you didn't -- carrying it around was foolish, and there was almost no chance to regain spells until you reached a base of operations anyway.

The need for uninterrupted rest meant that a single wandering monster spelled doom for our spellslinger's recovery, too. For the magic-user, that allotment of spells was most often what you had for the adventure. If you were lucky, you could replenish some of your lower-level spells the next day.

Counting on being able to do so was a good way to get yourself killed.



RC

 

[CuRoi]

Well, I should probably just not respond - we keep talking over each other and I think there is a very clear hang up on "minor terminological differences", to which I can only say I am not speaking about theory but actual gaming experience. Terminology be damned .

I also think you're underestimating the contribution to the fiction made by the 4e wizard's mechanical features of spellbook and rituals.

It's entirely possible that I am. However, it reinforces the point. Rituals IMO, is where they shunted actual Magic aside from zapping stuff (yes, I know the powers include Utility stuff, but many of those seem very focused on being tactical powers. Bad thing? Possibly - if you don't want to define magic in that way in your game. )

And before you say I'm just knocking 4e - I had a problem with 3.5e when they decided to reinterpret several spells by applying a "how powerful are these spells in combat" measuring stick and killing duration of spells that could be very useful in a non-combat sense. As a 2e DM, I had absolutely no problem with Invisibility lasting 24 hours or until you attacked. Players could actually use the spell for detailed reconnaissance and not just ambushing for instance. 4e takes that forcing everything to fit the "tactical measuring stick" even further IMO which just irks me.

But as to powers all being the same - I am really coming to think that this is more and more a layout issue.

I don't buy it. I don't think simple placement would have fractured a community for years on end.

And in Pathfinder, I believe that wizards and clerics have at-will powers (orisons/cantrips)

I don't play Pathfinder but the example you give feels flawed though. Does pathfinder say "these are at will, standard action powers"? or does it say "these spells can be cast unlimited times using the standard 3.5 spellcasting rules?"

This is what I am still curious about. Why would a common layout and rules terminology for class abilities and features, that nevertheless preserves a number of key distinctions within the fiction (what is the source of the ability, what happens when it is used - both to the PC and to the target, etc), have this effect?

I think you are right. And I think as you describe it, it would not have that effect. However, clearly it did have some sort of effect on how people can tell their stories and how they play the game, thus the obvious divide. Therefore I think "common layout and rules terminology" isn't the only problem. I have no problem recognizing there is a clear difference, but you seem less interested in recognizing it for whatever reason.

The differences are so obvious, to us at least, that the idea that they would not matter to the fiction is almost self-evidently absurd.

Great, again, whatever works for your group. However, the differences between what a fighter does and a wizard does in 3.5 are not just obvious to the players watching the story unfold. Those differences are also coded into the system in such a way that allow players to interact differently and at a different level with the game world. That works better for my group.

Bottom line is - my game thrives with Magic defined as more separate from melee abilities. It thrives when magic is not limited by a system seeking mainly to provide mechanical balance which I had really little issue with to begin with.

In a big nutshell -

[sblock]I don't want a system to define a list of powers for casters that focuses on tactical movement and the like and shunts much of the "magic" to a separate ritual system.

I don't need a system to "save me" from "I win DnD" spells like divinations, and high level summonings cause I can spin a whole session or even campaign around those spells (whether cast by PCs or NPCs). They keep me on my toes and provide for a good game where players feel they can take some ownership and power over the fiction.

I don't need a system to save me from Illusions which allow players to be wildly creative (beyond using simple tactical creativity).

If a player wants to summon a mount and feed it to a Giant Beetle as a distraction, sounds disturbing, but ten years later, I still remember it.

If my players want to band together and memorize a host of earth churning, creation bending, craftsmanship focused spells and create an impormptu fortress in the middle of enemy territory, more power to them.

If a player wants to be a cleric and trademark the summoning of multi-armed monkeys as his MO, thats annoying, but memorable. If an ape demon takes exception to the constant "borrowing" of his minions, hey, all the better.

If a player wants to "Wish" the party back to town with the Dragon's horde so they don't have to walk back through the frozen wastelands with it all and then the giant shelf of ice all the treasure was frozen into is transported along with them, arriving at said town at the same altitude it was previously at, it then falls, crushing part of a city block forcing a whole bunch of compensation claims, fines, etc. I am more than happy to oblige.

If the players want to try a blind teleport to shortcut the main quest, for the love of Pelor, PLEASE try it. Cause when they fail said roll and find themselves in a "similar" location - a location "similar" to the lost continent overrun by insidious evil which they were aiming for, the gloves are off.[/sblock]
​

Could a great DM work all the above into a 4e game? Absolutely. But not without expanding "magic" beyond what is given in the system as presented. However, in previous editions, from my experience, all the above examples are par for the course and there's no need to work the system around any of those events. The rules automatically suggest these situations and encourage players to think outside the box through broad spell definitions and a broader magic system with capabilities to interact with the game world that simply dwarf those found in 4e.

Sitting down thinking "can I recreate the same experience I have at my table right now using 4e" my answer is an unequivocal, No. So I won't play it (though to be fair, have tried). For others, I'm sure they can answer yes or they can make stories that fit their group playstyle even better using 4e. Great, awesome, enjoy your game!

Rather, this is about whether or not the fictional differences can survive regimentation in rules layout and terminology. The claim that it can't is one that I find very strange..

I never said it can't survive, obviously it does but it works to provide a very different experience which some people enjoy and others very obviously reject. These differences are obviously so fundamental that YEARS later people are still drawing the line and not "crossing over" to the new edition. Again, simply arguing the differences don't exist doesn't make them go away.

 

[CuRoi]

Moreover, you aren't accounting for the ability to pump up your prime requisite by reducing less important stats. I'd say starting with a 16 Int for your wizard - at least, one you meant to play for awhile - was pretty rare in practice (especially given the numerous chances to reroll, create new characters, etc., that I've run into across the years).

Just to understand - are you saying starting with a 16 Int for a wizard is poor? A 16 anything is pretty impressive from my experience. I know everyone says "mileage may vary" but assuming gameplay by the vanilla rules, a 16 is fairly uncommon from 3d6. Sure, house rules will usually be in play for stat generation, and I have seen quite a few that generate some very high stats to start. Perfectly legit way to play, but the only issue is people forget to differentiate their game is a "high powered" game and we hear balance complaints and such...