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

[pemerton]

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.

I don't think your figures here are correct - perhaps you're citing the minimums rather than the maximums. Max spells known for 18 Int was 18, and I think for 17 Int may have been 14 (I haven't got my PHB here, but this is the number given in a letter to the Forum in Dragon #122).

The time requirements in 1e were, let us say, tougher than in any later edition. Now, I don't have my books on me, but I am sure I will be corrected if I misspeak: Our magic-user needs 8 hours of uninterrupted rest followed by 1 hour of uninterrupted study in order to regain his single spell.

The spellcaster needs a certain amount of rest to regain spells based on the highest level of spells he wants to regain. It starts at 4 hours for 1st and 2nd level spells, 6 hours for 3-4th level, 8 hours for 5-6th levels, 10 hours for 7-8th, and 12 whopping hours for 9th level spells.

And that's not all. Each spell level to be recovered requires 15 minutes. For first level spells, that's 15 minutes each. Second level spells 30 minutes each, etc.

I can't find anything about interruptions but I think I've looked long enough to make the point that recovering spells in 1e takes a LOT longer than 3e. Fire off a bunch of spells and you'll be spending substantial amounts of time recovering them.

Billd91, you pre-empted my reply to RC.


But I don't entirely agree with your last paragraph. As a 4th level wizard in 1st ed AD&D I have 3 first and 2 second level spells. At 5th level I get a new 3rd level spell. So time to rest and memorise all spells at 4th level is 4 hours + 7*15 minutes is a bit less than 6 hours. I think that's less than 3E, which I believe for arcane casters requires 8 hours (though I think RC is right that it's less harsh as far as interruption is concerned). At 5th level it's 6 hours + 10*15 minutes which is eight-and-a-half hours. That's not very much more than 3E. I can't remember the spell table past this level - but even supposing that 6th level adds both a 2nd and a 3rd level spell, that's still a little less than 10 hours, which isn't hugely more onerous than 3E.

And once we get above 6th level, we're getting into the zone where 1st ed MUs are pretty strong - multiple fireballs or lightning bolts, stinking clouds or webs, and multi-target magic missiles, and often a wand or two to use in combat as well. Plus the utility options available. In my experience 7th+ level AD&D MUs were pretty potent characters regardless of the % chance to learn mechanics.

 

[triqui]

Walk with me for a moment.....

Your 1st level 1e magic-user? He has one spell. When he uses it, it is gone.

And he selects that from four spells, one of which is read magic, and the other three of which are determined randomly.

I repeat. When he uses it, it is gone.

As for travelling spellbooks, 1e has a little something called "item saving throws", which mean that, come fireball or fall, equipment can and will be destroyed. Even a little dip in the underground pool at the end of that chute can mean the end of your travelling books. And why do you carry them into the dungeon, anyway? The best thing to do is leave them at your base camp, with your full set at home, hidden and guarded. It isn't as though you are likely to gain 8 hours of uninterrupted rest, or the chance to memorize them afterwards (or, at least, not once you become a level where they are affordable).


RC

I agree with you, (didn't play 1e, but played 2e extensively), 2e magic was much controled than 3e. To begin with, high level spells ussually had high initiative, and there was a real chance to interrupt them.

However, sleeping in the dungeons was a staple for the era. (It was for us, at the very least). I won't blame the casters, though. I remember sleeping in a dungeon in a "all martial types" campaign, becouse we were trapped on it, and had very low hp. So we took a rest (2 days of rest, actually), to recover a little bit. Spellcasters were the main offender of the dungeon-sleeping absurdity, but not the only ones.

And sleeping in the dungeon is not a pre-4 edition only issue. I also have seen extended rests inside a dungeon. Some 4e official adventures even have "sleeping spots", or places in the dungeon that are described as "this would be a safe place to have an extended rest"

 

[pemerton]

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. )

Actually about half the Warlock and Wizard utilities in the PHB are non-tactical combat spells (I make it 10 non-combat, 8 combat for Warlocks and 10, 11 for Wizards, counting small-distance single-target teleport effects as combat and counting invisibility as useful outside combat).

But that probably is not the main issue.

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.

As a Rolemaster GM one thing that I did, in the transition from our first long-running campaign to our second, and with the agreement of my players, was to significantly reduce the duration of Invisibility from 24 hours, on the grounds that our group had found it brokenly overpowered, completely dominating over other interesting options.

I think this is getting closer to the main issue.

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?"

As far as I'm concerned this is mere terminology, unless you mean by "standard spellcasting rules" to include the need for Conentration checks if hit while casting. If that is what differentiates spellcasting from martial prowess, in my view it's not a lot of difference that is being drawn. (And 3E has SU powers as well as SP ones, and SU ones can't be disrupted - so even in 3E disruption is not inherent to magic-use.)

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]​

Well, in your list of things that magic does in your game that it can't do in 4e, I don't see anything that turns on issues like the different way that 3E presents martial powers compared to the scholarly way in which a wizard learns magic (as you suggested in your post upthread).

What I tend to see is the use of magic as narrative control which is the whole premise for this thread - in a game where magic is doing those sorts of things, and in this respect is different from martial prowess, how are warriors to avoid being overshadowed?

Sitting down thinking "can I recreate the same experience I have at my table right now using 4e" my answer is an unequivocal, No.

And that's fine. And probably true. Because in 4e no PC can exercise the sort of control over narrative exhibited by most of your examples. All I'm contesting is that this shows that 4e has collapsed the distinction between magic and martial capabilities. In my view, at least, what makes magical abilities magic isn't the fact that they give wizard PCs a degree of narrative control that warrior PC's can't match. And as evidence for this I'll offer LotR - as is frequently noted (eg by triqui in this very thread), Gandalf doesn't use narrative-control magic to get the ring to Mount Doom, but nevertheless there is a manifest difference in the story between (for example) Gandalf fighting Nazgul by (in 4e terms) blasting them with radiance, and Eowyn and Merry fighting them by stabbing them with swords.​

 

[triqui]

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.

I did have a problem with Invisibility as a rogue, back in the 2e, though. Not only with invisibility, but with Knock too. It completely step on my toes as the "party explorer". Sure, I can still get a cookie here and there, and get a chance to infiltrate in places when it doesnt matter or if stakes aren´t high. But if it is something really important, then the real character (also known as the wizard) step in and do the real job. That was frustrating for me (although made the wizard player very happy). YMMV, though.

I guess this makes to a fundamental aspect of the situation. When in a "magic can do everything" style of play/fiction, there are some players that don't like the situation, becouse the spotlight is never on them, except when it doesn't matter, and they feel themselves as second-grade characters or guest starrings. Those players can't really do anything about it, except rolling a character that has the qualities needed to be the one who shines (so, a spellcaster). Other players, though, are just fine with it. They either like to play spellcasters, or are confortable with a co-starring. Not all the players want the same from the game, lot of them just want to meet, chat with friends, take pizza, laugh a lot and have fun (which is really a great stance, btw), and aren't really involved in creating the fiction, moving the plot or starring the game.

4e has a design that contain a clear flaw. It's fundamental stone is that all the players *want* balance, and all the players *want* to share the spot light. And that's simply not true. Some players doesn't really want to get involved that much (either in the narrativity, or rules-wise, or both), and are perfectly fine with being surpassed by other character's power. And that's 3e (and specially 2e) real power: it can acommodate such players much better. In 4e, those "casual players" have a tough time. Even if they become fighters, they still have options. They have powers, feats, and utilities just as much as everyother guy (or close to. Wizards still have more, becouse of rituals). And that can be frustrating for them.

On the other hand, 3e had a problem for players that wanted balance, or a fair share of spotlight, *and didnt want to roll a spellcaster* for whatever reasons (like simply liking Arthur more than Merlin as an archetype). So it bassically sums it up as: "what are the majority of your players up to?" If your group is fine with having 2 separated levels of importance (ie: "bob is the one that stealths into orc's camp, but when you plan to stealth into the Orc King Throne Hall you need Mike's invisibility spell", or "bob rolls gather info, but if the matter is really important, then Jack cast Commune"), then 3e, or Rolemaster, is your game. However, if you want all the players to share the spotlight and/or being balanced, then 4e, or Legends of the Five Rings, are better choices.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"not really, Sauron was aware of it's surrounding pretty much only at the end of the story, when he was closer to reform, and only around Mordor.

It should be noted that, within the novel, both the forces of Saruman and Mordor converge on the Fellowship shortly after the battle with the Balrog. The Fellowship gets a respite in Lorien, but then the orcs of the Red Eye, of the White Hand, and of Moria all know the rough area they are in.

So, one could say that Gandalf's magic did, indeed, alert both Sauron and Saruman as to his whereabouts.

I could go into the string of coincidences that prevents Sauron from noticing Frodo creeping into Mordor.....certainly the film version screwed these up. Once the Fellowship parted, Gandalf was freer with the magic because he wanted to draw Sauron's attention, rather than avoid it. He wanted the Eye looking where he was at. The whole point of the last march to the Black Gate was to prevent Sauron from paying attention to his own back yard.

"don't really worry, he won't be able to react. Just like when he was aware of Frodo in Mount Doom, he wasn't really able to do anything, but setting the alarms on and calling the Nazguls back. So if I, Gandalf, start a teleport in, say, Bree's Tavern, long before the Nazguls came to me, we'll be into Mount Doom"

We know that Sauron's power is greatly increased within the confines of Mordor. I am not at all certain that, should Gandalf even know "teleport without error", that Sauron could not bend it to his will.

I want a game that can't have it's plot busted, the story avoided, or the narration shortcut to the end, which is exactly what I said.

Yeah. And that's fine.

For my tastes, though, I'm not writing a novel when I play a role-playing game. There is no Chapter 1 or Chapter 19, or Chapters 2 to 18 in between. The narrative is what happens in the game, how the players choose to interact with the situations I (or they) have set up.

Success, failure, life, death, wealth by level .... None of these is known until it happens.

I agree with you, (didn't play 1e, but played 2e extensively), 2e magic was much controled than 3e. To begin with, high level spells ussually had high initiative, and there was a real chance to interrupt them.

There are days, as I am working on my own version, when I wonder why I don't just go back to 1e.

And sleeping in the dungeon is not a pre-4 edition only issue.

No. There have been modules going back to 1e that suggested there was a place nearby (or even hidden within the dungeon) that was safe. But, of course, the DM knowing it is safe =/= the players knowing it is safe.

There is a major difference (IMHO; YMMV) between sleeping in a dungeon as a tactical decision ("Guys, we might get eaten by a grue, but I think we're going to have to take our chances") and sleeping in a dungeon as the only smart thing to do ("We take an extended rest. Guards? Why would we set guards? We're not in an encounter area, are we?")

And I don't blame 4e for the latter; the blame lies squarely with 3e.

Once a game's combat system takes so long to resolve anything that GMs are being advised to drop wandering monsters and other "unimportant" combats, there is no real decision involved. There's no reason not to burn everything in every encounter, then sleep it off/reset before the next.

In turn, this means that to be "challenging" an encounter must be "challenging to PCs at full strength", which further reinforces the nuke-sleep-nuke style of gameplay.

(And if I am not careful, I am going to begin to discuss in great detail how this gives rise to the "lets-control-all-variables-of-encounters-because-balance-and-challenge-are-otherwise-difficult-to-achieve" Delve format that arose in 3e and continues into 4e.)

Actually, how well balanced is something, if it cannot survive large changes of its variables and remain intact? I.e., would something really open like Keep on the Borderland or Steading of the Hill Giant Chief work in 4e without massive changes? Has anyone tried? Want to fork a thread about your experiences?


RC

 

[billd91]

I don't think your figures here are correct - perhaps you're citing the minimums rather than the maximums. Max spells known for 18 Int was 18, and I think for 17 Int may have been 14 (I haven't got my PHB here, but this is the number given in a letter to the Forum in Dragon #122).

Whoops. Wrong column. My mistake. Note however that the maximums are still fairly modest 11 spells for 16 Int, 14 for 17.
And the learning mechanic still limits the wizard's assurance that he'll have the right spell for all occasions. A lot of 3e-era theorycrafting becomes a lot more theoretical.

And once we get above 6th level, we're getting into the zone where 1st ed MUs are pretty strong - multiple fireballs or lightning bolts, stinking clouds or webs, and multi-target magic missiles, and often a wand or two to use in combat as well. Plus the utility options available. In my experience 7th+ level AD&D MUs were pretty potent characters regardless of the % chance to learn mechanics.

And that's right at the time when re-memorizing all those spells, by the rules, becomes a serious chore. A wizard's got a lot of potential power, true. But in order to have an effect on the game, he has to use it, and that comes with a cost.

All this said about the rules used to balance wizards and other spellcasters in 1e, 3e did change a lot of them. But I think, realistically speaking, a lot of those changes reflected how people were actually playing the game. I played in 1e campaigns in which we largely ignored the chance to learn based on Intelligence. We simply weren't that worried about it and we really weren't particularly bit by unbalanced spellcasters - within the bounds of what we considered balanced to be. It was perfectly reasonable for a wizard to have strange, reality altering powers that other characters didn't have because that's an inherent property of magic. We simply made sure that fighters and thieves had plenty of things to do as well.

 

[Neonchameleon]

4e has a design that contain a clear flaw. It's fundamental stone is that all the players *want* balance, and all the players *want* to share the spot light. And that's simply not true. ... In 4e, those "casual players" have a tough time. Even if they become fighters, they still have options.

This has been changed a lot by Essentials. The Slayer and the Knight deliberately have few enough options that in play they can be put onto auto-pilot, and the thief is little different.

 

[triqui]

It should be noted that, within the novel, both the forces of Saruman and Mordor converge on the Fellowship shortly after the battle with the Balrog. The Fellowship gets a respite in Lorien, but then the orcs of the Red Eye, of the White Hand, and of Moria all know the rough area they are in.

So, one could say that Gandalf's magic did, indeed, alert both Sauron and Saruman as to his whereabouts.

As I said, so what? Sauron wasn't able to do nothing at that range, other than sending minions. Gandalf start to cast Teleport without error. Sauron notice it. Sauron sends Nazguls. 6 seconds later, Gandalf has cast the spell, and Frodo is sent into the lava, with his "protection from elements" on. End of a wonderful story

We know that Sauron's power is greatly increased within the confines of Mordor. I am not at all certain that, should Gandalf even know "teleport without error", that Sauron could not bend it to his will.

Which leaves us to "the only way to avoid magic completelly overshadowing story, is through the use of more magic". Specifically, hand weaving magic.

Even if you cant "shortcut" it to Mordor, spells like "mass flight" or "mass teleport" to Gondor would render useless 85% of the books. And the only way to avoid it, is avoiding magic enterelly. That's why, in fictions, Magic does not really play a large factor with "plotbusting" spells that D&D do have (such as teleport, scry, detect alignment, etc). We don't know if Gandalf is unable to cast "D&D pre 4e" style magic, or if he is theoritecally able, but can't do due to plot design (ie: Sauron's will). In any case, the story itself does not have magic. Becouse if it does have, then the story loses steam. Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli awesomeness would be dwarfed completelly. There would be no adventuring through Moria, no skirmishes near Lorien, no diplomacy with Rohirrim. Just an Arcane Gate from Rivendel to Gondor.

Yeah. And that's fine.

For my tastes, though, I'm not writing a novel when I play a role-playing game. There is no Chapter 1 or Chapter 19, or Chapters 2 to 18 in between. The narrative is what happens in the game, how the players choose to interact with the situations I (or they) have set up.

So do I. Chapter 3, 7 and 10 aren't writen. They don't need to happen as I wrote them (actually, I never write it before hand). But that does not mean you should be able to jump from 1 to 19. You can solve (or fail) chapter 3 as you wish. But you (the players) should *build* a chapter 3, not just skipping it.

I remember a game with a murderer. We were investigating who killed a countess inside his chariot. There were a lot of betrayal, diplomacy and investigation involved. However, our druid just Speak with animal, asked the horse in the charriot, and the count was caught. Quite anticlimatic. Yes, there are ways to make those spells not work. But what's the point to have them, if you have to hand-weave to counter them? When you start needing to give every single hidden spy/traitor a talisman of non-detection, a headband to avoid mind-probing ESP, and "nystul auras" to avoid such magic items being detected, then you have flawed magic system. Sames goes when every single assasin in the world needs some magic way to avoid magic ressurection, or is fired from his guild: Anyone worth killing, has enough money to pay for raise dead. Anyone worth poisoning, can pay for a Neutralize Poison.

Remember once too, (I was DM) that players were doing a "run" against a pirate ship to find the spot where a sunken city lied. The players choose to cast some Clairvoyance on the pirate ship, then teleport into it, and sunken it, and teleport back. I really wasn't able to avoid it, other than adding the pirate unreasonable countermeasures that they, story wise, shouldn't have. So there you go, anti-climatic sunk of the pirate vessel, and half of the story shortcut. Where did it end? When the drow wizard, who was paying the pirate, did the same to players unsuspecting ship. And next day, when they were in a beach, nearly defenseless, the wizard cast scry-teleport, and killed most of them.

Magic is like nuclear weapons. If it's allowed, then everything is built around it. There's no point to buy ships, tanks, airplanes.... Once the nukes start flying, only the nukes matter. And that's quite sad.

Back to the OP, I have seen few, or none, fiction where magic is omnipressent, everything is done with magic, and all problems are solved with spells. Gandalf still needs to go to Gondor *walking*, and needs to learn about the ring, *reading in a library*

 

[Kerranin]

This might already have been mentioned on this thread, my apologies if it has.

One of my favourite ways of limiting spell-casters is to have some form of backlash rules built into spell casting. The more powerful the spell, the more likely and more severe the backlash could be, perhaps sending them unconcious, insane or possibly even killing them outright. Increasing experience might allow you to reduce chances of backlash on weaker spells...

I suspect this sort of rule has already been implemented somewhere.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This might already have been mentioned on this thread, my apologies if it has.

One of my favourite ways of limiting spell-casters is to have some form of backlash rules built into spell casting. The more powerful the spell, the more likely and more severe the backlash could be, perhaps sending them unconcious, insane or possibly even killing them outright. Increasing experience might allow you to reduce chances of backlash on weaker spells...

I suspect this sort of rule has already been implemented somewhere.

Two systems I've seen used do this - the second works really well even if you give wizards plotbusting magic.

1: Gurps Unlimited Mana. You get a pool of X mana recovering at a rate of Y and if you go above that value you start taking backlash based on your total amount over (so after that big spell, everything gets risky). Blow waaay through it and yu could die or worse. This is designed to allow big spells. If the wizards want to risk it...

2: Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e. You get a number of magic dice equal to your magic stat (1-4) and can roll any or all of them when trying to cast, aiming the total at a static target number. If all the dice roll 1 you burn out for a while. On a double you take a minor but obnoxious backlash irrespective of whether the casting succeeded. A triple is a major backlash. And a quadruple does things like accidently summoning a greater demon. (The exact effect is based on the number you rolled with all 1s not being as bad as all 10s). Being a WHFRP wizard may be powerful, but it's also scary.