• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

Pem, it's not that I disagree with you. In some respects, I would mostly agree. However, I disagree that 4E necessarily fixed the problem.

I would say that magic specifically is a little more controlled in 4E. I would disagree that players can't sidestep the game world. I would also say that there are indeed player options available which require a GM to change how he designs a scenario or a setting. However, now most of them aren't confined to mages.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


The thing which first springs to mind for me is the comparison of the numbers a PC can regularly generate (even with just at-will powers) versus the numbers which the 'physics engine' the rest of the game world is built with. For example, it's far easier for a group of PC to destroy a trap than it is to bother with a skill challenge to disarm one.

When I was first learning 4th Edition, I tried to create encounters which I thought would be cool. One such encounter involved having the PCs on one gondola while the enemy was on another. In my mind I envisioned how I thought it would play out. In actual play the PCs just targeted the gondola. Looking at what HP the books suggested I give to an object, I was surprised to find how easy it was for a player to destroy something like that. Needless to say, there was what I felt an extreme anticlimactic end to the battle in little more than a round.

While I did anticipate it would be a tactic they would try, I did not think it would be so easy. After a few other attempts which ended in a similar fashion, I changed how I was trying to build encounters to be more in line with ye olde basic dungeon crawl. Granted, this example is probably outside of exactly what we're talking about, but -in a sense- it falls in line with some of the non-combat spells a mage once had. Also, in a similar manner, I've seen a few skill challenges skipped over by applying brute force via powers.


Other examples would include the way in which the orb wizard originally worked. Knowing that it was possible to load an impossible save onto a creature during an encounter was something a GM often had to take into consideration. In particular, it often meant needing to stop using solos or it meant giving a BBEG a sidekick who could grant save bonuses. After errata, it has gotten better, but it can still be something which causes problems.


If we're focusing on powers only, I've seen Magic Circle used quite a few times in a manner which had the potential to derail an encounter. One included taking the time to draw one around the BBEG's lair. This lead to him not being able to get out of his uber-fortress.

If I look back through my notes*, there are others, but those are the ones which are fresh in my mind.

*I often mark down in my notebook things which seem to work oddly, unique situations which arise in game, and etc.
 

Unfortunately, I never got to experience 2e. I grew up in a small rural town during the 'D&D is causing suicide and devil worship' era. I actually remember saving money to buy it from Toys 'R Us only to go in the next day and be told 'sorry, we're not allowed to sell it anymore.' It's a shame too; even if I were to find I didn't like the mechanics, I've come to find -from reading a friend's books- that I enjoy the style of the fluff and various other things of that nature. Sadly, the friend who has the books says he'll never go back to Thac0 again.

Anyway, I agree. It does cause a caster to be more choosy. As I said in my previous post, it makes casting become a tactical choice. Do I want to use my uber spell right now? What I like about how GURPPS handles it (and D&D 2e from what you've told me) is that it doesn't cripple me either. It may hinder me, but it doesn't completely prevent me from doing other things. I'd suggest reading over how GURPS handles it sometime; even if you never plan to run the game, I've found that their books tend to be good reads; eye openers as to how things can work differently, and excellent sources of information. As it pertains to the current conversation, the second reason applies.

If you still play 3.5, you may want to look for the supplement "Legends of Sorcery" by RPG Object. They have a channeling spell point system.

Instead of slots, you get points. You use points on your spells but have to make a successful roll to case your spell. Conceivably you can cast high level spells than you'd expect, but the more you "stretch" yourself, the more expensive the spell, the less likely it succeeds, and the more significant the cost if you fail....consequences of failing to cast a spell can range from suffering fatigue to taking lethal damage of 1d6 x spell level.

It works fairly well to simulate the channeling system from 2nd Ed. And it lets you do things like have a lvl 3 caster attempt a lvl 4 spell. It might use up all his spell points for the day if he succeeds, it would be a difficult roll to make, and if he fails, he could strain himself so much he dies. Similarly you could have a lvl 20 character case a whole whack of low level spells.....like magic missile 30 times. To me, this is almost an ideal system in a way.

It's available as a PDF, and I think it's like $9.

Banshee
 

That's my point. If Magic is so powerful, it permeates everything. If magic "can do anything", then EVERYTHING must be done with magic. Why would any BBEG hire an assasin to enter into King's room and poison him at night? First, that would be useless: neutralize poison and raise dead and there you go. Second, it would be non-efficient. It's way easier to hire a caster that cast scry+teleport at night, kill the king, and teleport back. Sure, the king's room might be teleport-protected. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. In order to "survive" in a magic setting, the king *has* to be a magic user, or use a magic user hireling. It kills the freedom of choice from the setting author (the DM). You can't have a king that mistrust Magic (like Conan the King). If he does, he's doomed. Becouse Magic is the end-all nuclear weapon. Either you have magic, or you don't matter. At all.

I disagree....generally, magic (assuming arcane magic) is being used only by characters with INT or CHA scores of 11 or higher *and* the training to use it. That's basically like 1/6th of the population at most, and the majority of them will have low level magics anyways.

You can bet that not every character with an INT of 11 is going to be learning magic. Because some of those guys with INT 11 might also have STR 14 or DEX 14, and thus be better off training as rogues or fighters.

So yeah, magic might be powerful in certain circumstances....but I don't think it would be the bygone conclusion for every situation. It would be reserved for those who can afford to pay someone to use it on their behalf. Maybe you can't afford a wizard bodyguard...but you can afford a fighter or rogue.

I *am* kind of surprised that D&D never went to having a dual stat system for calculating ability to use magic......add a 7th ability score....Magic. Ranges from 3-18, and determines the highest level of spell you can cast, and it *never* changes. Thus, if your Wizard has a 14 magic score, he'll only ever be able to handle low to mid level magics. His INT might cover things like Save DC, # of bonus spells, etc. Immediately, this would significantly limit the prevalence of spellcasters in the world. Most players who wanted to become powerful spellcasters would thus dump their highest ability score into Magic.......but it wouldn't be like that for all NPCs....you'd have your guys with Magic score of 11 or 13 or whatever. But it would also explain the presence of sages and other characters with high INT who choose not to study magic. You could have a sage with 18 INT who teaches at a university and knows a bunch of languages, and serves as a source of info for PCs....but he can't even cast a cantrip, as his magic score is a 7.

Banshee
 

Johnny3D3D, thanks for the reply. Everything you say makes sense. The orb wizard and Magic Circle problems I would see as errata-bait. The other one you mention is more interesting:

The thing which first springs to mind for me is the comparison of the numbers a PC can regularly generate (even with just at-will powers) versus the numbers which the 'physics engine' the rest of the game world is built with. For example, it's far easier for a group of PC to destroy a trap than it is to bother with a skill challenge to disarm one.
I think this is part of what the rules envisage the GM will handle via the "may" target objects - unfortunately, I don't think enough guidelines are given. But I don't see it so much as a place for errata, as for better guidance on how to resolve attempts to damage objects.

(My first 4e encounter also involved the PCs on a boat and enemies on a raft, but with a sandbar inbetween them, which is where most of the fighting took place. So the destruction option didn't come up.)
 

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.

The rules for AD&D state:

As a rule of thumb, allow 15 minutes of game time for memorization of one spell level, i.e. a 1st level spell or half of a 2nd level spell. Such activity requires a mind rested by a good sleep and nourished by the body.

I used to play the Gold Box TSR computer games, including Pool of Radiance. In my experience, spell memorization was a big issue, as this computer game brought to life in a way more prominently than a human-mediated game. Taking into account the prevalence of wandering monsters, which could occur hourly, it was difficult to find the 2-3 hours needed to rememorize. If you were lucky, you might be able to replenish. However, after a couple of memorization periods, your characters would tire, and need to sleep again.

The way this usually played out was that, generally, I would head out with a wide selection of spells, go as far as I could before they were exhausted, then try to head back to a "safe" location (i.e. low wandering monster area, like the bottom of a well, or one or two completely closed rooms, or the inn in town). OTOH, when I knew I was heading into trouble, I tended to load my magic-users up with all the stinking clouds and fireballs I could, arm each cleric with one hold person and all the cure spells I could carry, and attack my opponents fresh. If my cleric were rendered unconscious, I would sometimes have to resort to cheating on my save games, as it was sometimes necessary to rest for days for an unconscious cleric to revive, and then be able to heal themselves. Ultimately, I tend to fall back on a two cleric, one magic-user, one elf fighter/magic-user as the mainstays of my party.

3e is a picnic by comparison. All you need is eight hours of sleep, and if you get interrupted, you can make up for some lost time. Memorization doesn't take all that long. OTOH, if you run out of spells completely, you are kind of screwed, but you really aren't any worse off than your AD&D counterparts who had to try to squeeze in an extra period of memorization in a day. My PCs always just use staggered shifts (generously configured for the benefit of casters) and camouflaged their position. Sleeping in "dungeons" was almost unheard of, though a couple of times they did construct a small improvised vault inside of a "clear" dungeon.

Ultimately, clerics and magic-users in AD&D were very interested in acquiring wands and staves. By comparison, 3e clerics and wizards have a fair amount of juice, and can make items with fairly little fuss at low levels.
 

You can bet that not every character with an INT of 11 is going to be learning magic. Because some of those guys with INT 11 might also have STR 14 or DEX 14, and thus be better off training as rogues or fighters.

And what has that to do with the price of fish in the market? If we assume 3e character with Int 11 and Str 16, that's IIRC 2 first level spells per day. How often is he likely to need to use his fighter weapon proficiency? One fight for his life every day would be high. On the other hand few people would not find a use for unseen servant every day.

Assuming one fight with danger of death/day is incredibly high (or the population would die off fast), who's better off in a fight? The fighter with str 16? Or the person with Sleep (or Expeditious Retreat) prepared and another spell slot to use? Who makes the better bouncer? The guy with big weapons or the burly and imposing guy who can finish bar fights with Cause Fear, Hold Person, Hypnotism, or Sleep? (And can prevent them breaking out with the 0th level Daze spell at the right time).

Even professional soldiers. Which do you want beside you in a fight? Twenty fighters? Or twenty people who go into fights with crossbows and spells like Silent Image to provide concealment/false targets and Colour Spray for when things get up close and personal? Fighters only start coming into their own when you get more than two serious fights per combat day. Which yes, adventurers do. But almost no one else does - not even soldiers.
 

Johnny3D3D, thanks for the reply. Everything you say makes sense. The orb wizard and Magic Circle problems I would see as errata-bait. The other one you mention is more interesting:

I think this is part of what the rules envisage the GM will handle via the "may" target objects - unfortunately, I don't think enough guidelines are given. But I don't see it so much as a place for errata, as for better guidance on how to resolve attempts to damage objects.

(My first 4e encounter also involved the PCs on a boat and enemies on a raft, but with a sandbar inbetween them, which is where most of the fighting took place. So the destruction option didn't come up.)


The clarify a little bit. In my encounter, I was using the type of gondola which is suspending from a cable in the air... similar to a ski lift.

The only reason it lasted as long as it did was because I fudged the HP of it a few times. I normally hate to fudge numbers. Eventually I just allowed it to be destroyed because it quickly became apparent that many of the players were knowledgable about the rules enough to know it should have broken already.

I think the only thing in that encounter which was more anticlimactic than most of the enemy dying from the falling gondola was when the party fighter used Come And Get It to cause some of the enemy to lemming walk off the side to their collective dooms.

I suppose, in hindsight, as I look at my previous post, the point I was trying to make is that -sometimes- merely by being a PC in 4E, it's expected that you sidestep some of the gameworld. You're built on rules which are above, beyond, and often outside of the rules which the rest of the game world is built upon.
 
Last edited:

It's probably been mentioned, but Discworld handles it like this:
1. Everything is magical. In fact, Carrot's sword is notable as being the least magical known object on the Disc.
2. Everything runs on stories

These two things mean Mr Fighter Face can go toe to toe with mad mages and abominations without breaking a sweat.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top