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

[triqui]

There isn't enough information to go on here, but let us discuss.

I am assuming that this was a Teleport Without Error? Otherwise, so sad to end up in another ship's bilge (perchance, for without actually going topside, how does the teleporter know what ship he is on?).

You left out how he sunk the pirate ship. Did it sink instantly? Were there no bilge pumps, and no materials for emergency repairs? Was there no chance of a pirate discovering our caster augering out the bilge? Was there no time for the pirate ship to turn and try to capture the PC's ship to replace their own?

RC

It was like an age ago, but i think it was regular scry+teleport. They INSIDE the ship, near the cargo, and made a hole in the base (can't be arsed to remember how, I think Desintegrate). The hole was big enough to make me conclude the ship sank, unless serious and heavy handweaving (which I dont like). They did it at midnight, most pirates were sleeping, and really, if a ship at midnight with a huge hole just in it's base does not sink, then it wont sink EVER. Sure, the pirates made some efforts, and the main NPC there saved their lives. But the race for the sunken city was over.

The pirate ship was a TON of miles away, so no chance to get to the players ship before it sunk

 

[Raven Crowking]

It was like an age ago, but i think it was regular scry+teleport. They INSIDE the ship, near the cargo, and made a hole in the base (can't be arsed to remember how, I think Desintegrate). The hole was big enough to make me conclude the ship sank, unless serious and heavy handweaving (which I dont like). They did it at midnight, most pirates were sleeping, and really, if a ship at midnight with a huge hole just in it's base does not sink, then it wont sink EVER. Sure, the pirates made some efforts, and the main NPC there saved their lives. But the race for the sunken city was over.

The pirate ship was a TON of miles away, so no chance to get to the players ship before it sunk

Out of curiosity, once the water started gushing in, did that make it harder for the PC spellcaster to concentrate enough for his own getaway?

Anyway, if the players were clever, it is entirely fitting that they should succeed in ending the chase, IMHO.

I am not saying that magic is not a game-changer. I am saying that it need not be a game-breaker.


RC

 

[Harlekin]

nvm

 

[triqui]

Out of curiosity, once the water started gushing in, did that make it harder for the PC spellcaster to concentrate enough for his own getaway?

Anyway, if the players were clever, it is entirely fitting that they should succeed in ending the chase, IMHO.

I am not saying that magic is not a game-changer. I am saying that it need not be a game-breaker.


RC

They preemtively casted some buff spells. Among them, invisibility and fly. So they werent touching the floor, no balance or concentration check needed. Being able to concentrate to cast an spell in a situation like that is only hard if you arent a caster, oddly.

Yeah, they would had won one way or another. Thats the point, actually. They just chosed to win in a completelly anticlimatic way, and with most of the players being rendered useless. Only the wizard and sorcerer did matter

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, they would had won one way or another. Thats the point, actually. They just chosed to win in a completelly anticlimatic way, and with most of the players being rendered useless. Only the wizard and sorcerer did matter

3e?

In any event, the important point is that they chose. And, when they chose that, they probably felt good about "winning".

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

3e?

In any event, the important point is that they chose. And, when they chose that, they probably felt good about "winning".

Actually, I'd imagine:

1) If anyone felt good about winning, it was probably the wizard and the sorcer.

2) They might not have felt that good, anyway. I know that the one time I seriously flexed my Wizard's powers to, essentially, tell the DM and physics and "the plot" to sit down and shut up it ... well, it all felt really anticlimactic. I felt like I'd cheated. Yes, we'd won in the sense that our goals had been accomplished, but as far as actual gameplay was concerned (and, especially, the other players at the table who ended up largely sidelined) it was a bust.

(Also, yeah - 3E.)

 

[pemerton]

One of my favourite ways of limiting spell-casters is to have some form of backlash rules built into spell casting.

<snip>

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

Rolemaster has rules a little like this. So does HARP.

But they don't work all that well, in my view, for the reasons that triqui has given in his/her recent posts upthread: it's not a very effective balancing mechanism to have one player have access to great power at the risk of losing his/her PC. If the player doesn't use the power, then it may as well not be there. If the player uses the power and gets away with it, then that player's PC is over strong (and hence unbalanced). If the player tries to use the power and suffers the backlash then the game for that player (and perhaps the rest of the players also, depending on the details of the backlash rules in question) is disrupted in a serious way.

Would we think it was a good game if the player of the fighter, in a hard combat, said to the GM "Let me toss a coin - heads I win the fight, tails I lose, my PCs dies and I sit out the rest of the session"? Doesn't sound very good to me. But this is what magic backlash rules approximate to.

 

[pemerton]

You have a murder mystery, where the Count is the killer. The horse says so, to the druid.

<snip>

Sure, the adventure changes with the horse's testimony. But it also changes with the stable boy's testimony.

The problem with magic is that it offers "revealed knowledge", and while the value of that knowledge might be greater than that which is mundanely gathered, the mundane knowledge is perhaps more sure. I mean, do we actually expect the King to hang the Count because a druid told him a horse said he was the murderer?

Yes, those things make it easy for the PCs to know the truth. For them to prove what they know? That's a different kettle of fish.

<snip>

Because those spells only tell the PCs what they should be looking for. They know the Count did it, now how do they convince everyone else that the Count did it?

But the game has now turned from an investigative one (who did it?) to a social/political one (how do we persuade XYZ of the truth?). That's a non-trivial impact of the magic right there. I'm not saying that this is a self-evidently bad thing - but one thing all my Rolemaster players wanted done when we ended our first long RM campaign and started a new one was to eliminate most of the divination magic, precisely because they didn't like this sort of effect it had on the way the game played.

The players now have the knowlege, and can act acordingly, bypassing completelly the game of diplomacy, betrayals, accusations and friendship the story was about.

Exactly.

EDIT:

In any event, the important point is that they chose. And, when they chose that, they probably felt good about "winning".

Well, as well as divination the other magic that was removed, by popular demand, was teleport. So at least for my group, when the magic rules were such that the rational/expedient choices they produced led to anti-climactic episodes in play, they changed the rules. Then they could play their PCs rationally without having that rational play produce anticlimaxes of the scry-buff-teleport-ambush variety.

 

[Argyle King]

Rolemaster has rules a little like this. So does HARP.

But they don't work all that well, in my view, for the reasons that triqui has given in his/her recent posts upthread: it's not a very effective balancing mechanism to have one player have access to great power at the risk of losing his/her PC. If the player doesn't use the power, then it may as well not be there. If the player uses the power and gets away with it, then that player's PC is over strong (and hence unbalanced). If the player tries to use the power and suffers the backlash then the game for that player (and perhaps the rest of the players also, depending on the details of the backlash rules in question) is disrupted in a serious way.

Would we think it was a good game if the player of the fighter, in a hard combat, said to the GM "Let me toss a coin - heads I win the fight, tails I lose, my PCs dies and I sit out the rest of the session"? Doesn't sound very good to me. But this is what magic backlash rules approximate to.

I like the way GURPS handles it. Casting magic is physically tiring, so it requires you to use FP (fatigue points.) Tougher spells are more physically draining. Losing too much FP might mean you pass out. I think that's a good way to imitate what I see in movies and read in books with the wizard giving one last ditch effort to save the day; putting his own body at risk to weave powerful arcane energies.

Also, if the caster wishes to do so, he may choose to use HP instead of FP if his FP is too low. It's a gamble, but sometimes you need to get a spell off.

IMO, this creates a system in which the mage may indeed have awesome power, but it doesn't come without drawback. More importantly, the drawback isn't so crippling so as to make casting useless. It's done in such a way that it becomes a tactical choice - much like using different melee weapons or ranged weapons might be a tactical choice.

Though, to be fair, it's also worth mentioning that mages in that system aren't forced to be physically frail and/or use crap weapons. It's perfectly viable (supported) to play a physically robust wizard or a sorcerer who is equally skilled in swordplay.

None of this is to suggest the system is perfect. It too occasionally has its oddities. However, overall, I think it does a fairly good job of presenting a plethora of options -magic among them- in way in which they each have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, those things make it easy for the PCs to know the truth. For them to prove what they know? That's a different kettle of fish.

They go to the king and say the count did it because their god told them so. The king turns to his three top clerics and they all cast Divinition and get the same result. Count is convicted and suffers the punishments.

Well, it at least has the bonus of completely bypassing all those boring bits of investigation or whatnot.

See, even though DNA alone isn't enough to convict, I'm fairly certain that conviction rates went up after DNA evidence came into the toolbox. And, DNA evidence makes a really good point. All procedural police shows now must deal with DNA. ((Assuming they are set in current times of course - a procedural set in 1920 deals with the issue a different way)) Every single police procedural and crime drama now has to take DNA evidence into account.

Just in the same way that every single D&D game has to take these spells into account. Sure, it doesn't have to end the plot, but, you can't ignore the fact that the existence of these spells have an immense impact on the plot.

Interestingly, I found myself at something of a loss in a 4e game when a mystery came up and we couldn't just hit the magic buttons. There was a doppleganger sabateour hidden in our midst before an invading force came to lay siege to the fortress we were holed up in. We discovered the sabotage and deduced the existence of the doppleganger (not terribly difficult, the adventure had featured dopplegangers before) and set about trying to track him down.

Guess what? Suddenly not having things like Detect Evil, True Seeing, and various other spells meant that we had to actually engage the setting rather than turn to the cleric/wizard to solve the problem. Turned into a rather interesting skill challenge that we failed. The doppleganger escaped.

In 3e, this likely wouldn't have happened. 1e probably would have worked well here since there are so few divination type spells. 2e is iffy either way.