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

[pemerton]

That just tells you how few people- writers, designers & gamers alike- actually think through all the consequences magic would have in a world.

Magic is basically indistinguishable from tech. It's the flipside of Arthur Clark's aphorism.

Or, the presence of magic will make the social structure (itself) less stable. I suppose that this could be one role of Wizard's Guilds (to create a social structure for mages to prevent a power struggle between the nobility and the mages).

I had a post on this upthread[/rul].

To reiterate - a lot of D&D is fundamentally confused as to what it's setting is. It wants the world to be quasi-mediaeval, but with a lot of anachronism (eg reading more modern values into the world, disregarding the relationship between mediaeval social forms and militarily and politcally aggressive Christianity, etc). This is the world of Conan or the Lord of the Rings. It is a historical/sociological impossibility. Just as flying dragons or walking giants are (without magic) a biological/physical impossibility.

The way that flying dragons can nevertheless work in the game is because we ignore the natural laws violations. Likewise, for setting, we have to ignore the sociological impossibilities.

A problem sets in for some approaches to D&D play, however, because they in fact encourage us to pay attention to the sociology of the gameworld. They encourage us to bring those absurdities to the foreground. And nonsense ensue - or, if it's not nonsense, the consequence does not look anything like a mainstream fantasy RPG setting.

It's the sociology equivalent of a game in which the players take a Decanter of Endless Water to a desert and become millionaires (this is the result of making economics part of the game mechanics rather than just a backdrop) or use Fire Elementals to make perpetual motion machines (the result of making thermodynamics part of the game mechanics rather than just a backdrop).

My preference is to keep these parts of the setting as backdrop rather than mechanics. Some of this depends on player buy in. But that player buy in is helped by mechanics that don't encourage the players to look for ways to foreground these elements of the mechanics.

(This also relates, to some extent, to Johnny3D3D's problem of the players being pushed by the mechanics just to smash traps and cable car gondolas rather than engaging with them in a more cinematic fashion.)

 

[Kasoroth]

I haven't read through the entire thread (only the first and last few pages), but I haven't noticed any mention of The Kingkiller Chronicle by Patrick Rothfuss. It takes a rather interesting approach to magic. There are several basic types of magic:

Alchemy, is basically what you would expect, except that many of the materials used are extremely toxic and dangerous to work with, so a moment of carelessness can easily lead to a painful death.

Sympathy allows the user to link similar or related objects over a distance and transfer energy (heat or motion) from one to the other. The efficiency of the transfer is related to how closely related the objects are. Getting a drop of someone's blood lets you do some mean things to them and is strictly forbidden. The interesting thing is that it seems to obey basic laws of thermodynamics, so the caster has to either expend their own body heat, resulting in hypothermia ("binder's chills"), or link to some external source of energy, such as a fire, with the risk of having some of that energy cooking them rather than doing whatever they're trying to do if their link is inefficient.

Sygaldry is basically a "written" form of sympathy that establishes permanent sympathetic links through engraved runes. this is often combined with more mundane elements to create more complicated "magic items", for example using energy stored in springs to deflect arrows through a sympathetic link. As with alchemy, this sometimes involves working with dangerous and/or highly toxic materials.

Naming seems to be the hardest to learn, and requires tapping into a deeper understanding of things at a subconscious level. While the other forms of magic seem to be learned though normal academic teaching methods, naming functions on a more intuitive level. It is harder to learn to use reliably, and though it seems more powerful, it is less practical for everyday use.

Magical learning is restricted primarily to a single University, which generally imposes fairly strict rules about how magic should be used, and what magical items are allowed to be made for sale to the general population. They don't want a popular uprising against mages, because as scary as it is that someone could boil your blood if they got a drop of it, it's still quicker to kill someone by knifing them in an alley.

Magic is powerful, and quite frightening to those who lack it, but mages are far from invincible, especially if they are caught unprepared. Part of a mage's power comes from keeping the non-mages from knowing the limits of what magic is capable of, and thus how to counter it.


In general I like it when authors and DMs try to take the effects of magic into account when developing the cultural and political structures. I also like it when magic itself is limited enough that it's possible to contemplate these political and cultural consequences and not simply be overwhelmed by magic eliminating any commonly understood real-world motivations.

If everyone automatically respawns on death like in an MMO, then fear of death (a pretty significant motivator for most people in most real-world cultures) goes away, and it becomes very hard to imagine what society would be like.

-Kasoroth

 

[Beginning of the End]

Even pretty vanilla urban adventuring gives the players much more control over pacing than is being suggested here (on the assumption that, in a verisimilitudinous world, the chance of a random assassination attempt against the PCs in their houses/upmarker inn rooms is not all that high on any given night - especially as the higher the PC level, and hence the greater the issue of wizard-warrior balance, the more likely those houses are to be well-defended by magical as well as mundane means).

A few points:

(1) The general principle, as you say, is that you need to create a situation in which the PCs do not have complete control over the pace of encounters.

(2) Random encounters are the most traditional (and perhaps obvious) way of accomplishing this, but there are lots of other ways to achieve the effect: Schedules that have to be met; unpredictable encounter mixes (instead of just "all combat all the time"); unexpected job offers; and so forth. It should be noted that many of these techniques can be employed as carrots instead of sticks.

(3) Nor do you have to do this ALL THE TIME. It is sufficient to merely raise the possibility that it can happen upon occasion in order for the spellcasters to diversify their resource pool and avoid the destructive nova tactics.

(4) Once you start looking at the vast array of options available for achieving this play, you quickly discover that they can be generalized into a simple maxim: Have an active campaign world in which the PCs have the choice of many options that they can pursue.

Honestly, that's just good advice regardless of the balance benefits that come with it.

(5) Shortly thereafter you realize that it is not, in fact, the case that you have to play the game in one specific way in order for it to work. Quite the contrary. You need to play the game in a very specific way in order for the balance problems to show up.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I agree pretty much 100% with that- I've made many of those comments before in threads regarding the 15 minute workday...and why I've never seen it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So my answer is: so what if magic is the deciding factor in every battle? Magic is basically indistinguishable from tech. It's the flipside of Arthur Clark's aphorism.

And to continue the analogy, only a few people can use technology. The rest are restricted not to guns, but to bayonets and sharp steel.

(Re: The colour spray example, remember that Colour Spray is an AoE spell).

A few points:

(1) The general principle, as you say, is that you need to create a situation in which the PCs do not have complete control over the pace of encounters.

No downtime in 3e. Right. Because that's one place where casters power ahead of everyone else.

(2) Random encounters are the most traditional (and perhaps obvious) way of accomplishing this, but there are lots of other ways to achieve the effect: Schedules that have to be met; unpredictable encounter mixes (instead of just "all combat all the time"); unexpected job offers; and so forth. It should be noted that many of these techniques can be employed as carrots instead of sticks.

Of course. But this is just Nova-handling. It doesn't get to the heart of the problem.

(3) Nor do you have to do this ALL THE TIME. It is sufficient to merely raise the possibility that it can happen upon occasion in order for the spellcasters to diversify their resource pool and avoid the destructive nova tactics.

And this misses the problem as well. Novas are a self-correcting issue with any sort of pressure. It isn't the nova spellcasting that breaks the game - it's the Batman Wizards. It's the ones who cast one or two spells like Glitterdust selected for their target's weaknesses then let the fighters handle the mop-up.

It's the 9th level wizard who instead of novaing neutralises the Drow with one well-placed application of Evard's Black Tentacles the casters are very unlikely to escape and the soldiers need to get lucky for. Followed by Glitterdust on the poor soldiers to keep them blind as well for 9 rounds just in case. At that point the enemy fighters can't see (and may well be grappled as well) and the casters can't cast because they are grappled. Two spells, neither of the highest level and what was meant to be a really tough fight has just been made laughably easy (at which point the wizard's buddies start cutting throats). And why those two spells against drow? Because they ignore spell resistance so the Drow's special defence against magic isn't going to work.

Two spells for a 9th level caster and the fight's become a joke. Wearing him out of spells is going to take work because he's an actually smart spellcaster (well, his character sheet does have an Int in the 20s).

4) Once you start looking at the vast array of options available for achieving this play, you quickly discover that they can be generalized into a simple maxim: Have an active campaign world in which the PCs have the choice of many options that they can pursue.

Sufficient to handle a nova-er. Possibly. But utterly insufficient to handle a Batman. The Batman owns the fight with just one or two spells (especially at high levels) meaning he can easily outlast the Barbarian. Or the fighter unless you're handing out healing like water (or just allowing the cleric to make Wands of Cure Light Wounds).

(5) Shortly thereafter you realize that it is not, in fact, the case that you have to play the game in one specific way in order for it to work. Quite the contrary. You need to play the game in a very specific way in order for the balance problems to show up.

You list four specific constraints, and your conclusion is that you need to play the game in a very specific way in order for the balance problems to show up. Based on the constraints you yourself are imposing you have this backwards. You need to play the game in a very specific way in order for the balance problems not to show up. Because the 15 minute workday isn't the only problem.

 

[BryonD]

You are cherry picking examples.

I've been playing 3E for a decade now. I assure you that the "problem" you identify is NOT a defacto truth. The specific examples can be, most certainly. But you are failing to describe the entire game experience.
You MAY be describing YOUR game experience. I don't know and I don't challenge that either way. But you seem convinced that no other experience may possibly exist. And that is where the break down lies.


I have many, many times seen a spellcaster dominate a situation. In my experience your examples, with context removed, are perfectly valid. But once they are placed into context, they become features, not bugs.

I've seen many times when the fighter/barbarian player turns to the wizard players and goes "Hell YEAH!!!! That was awesome!!". If the wizard was trampling the warriors contributions, that would not be the reaction. It certainly would not be a reaction seen over and over for year after year.

But the thing is, I see the wizard character go "Hell Yeah!!!!" to the warrior player just as often.

I'm not at all interested in the idea that everyone needs to contribute equally at every given moment. The wizard shines; the warrior shines; the rogue shines.

I HAVE seen the 15 minute warkday. But it is an exception that I now tend to notice with an "hey, that just happened here" attitude. It is far from routine.

Pointing out that under the right circumstances the wizard can be awesome doesn't say much to me. OF COURSE HE CAN! That is why we play. And under the right circumstances every character can shine.

But when your argument is founded on telling others that their experience does not exist, then you are goign to end up being wrong.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And to continue the analogy, only a few people can use technology. The rest are restricted not to guns, but to bayonets and sharp steel.

So what?

Not much of a diff between that and modern combat. I might be able to handle a blade in a fight to harm someone else who is untrained, but a trained knife fighter could take me down without a scratch.

If forced to shoot at someone, I might have problems remembering to turn the safety off, maintaining a proper grip, or controlling recoil, making me a danger to everyone around. And the better, more powerful the gun, the more of a problem I'll have, in all likelihood.

More powerful weapons of combat- flamethrowers, bombs, missiles, tanks, planes, submarines- all mosly useless to the untrained.

 

[Raven Crowking]

More powerful weapons of combat- flamethrowers, bombs, missiles, tanks, planes, submarines- all mosly useless to the untrained.

I spent 4 years in the US Army, and I have to laugh at the way modern weapons work in many movies. The biggest problem I have is with the LAW (Light Anti-tank Weapon), which has a back-blast when it launches that is approximately 10 feet long.

Rambo fires one in an enclosed space (helicopter) and the people behind him cheer.

I guarantee you, they would not be cheering.

If you want to see the back-blast of a LAW, the best film I know of for doing so is Jewel of the Nile, where you see a LAW fired from profile. Here is an image I found on the InterWeb:

RC

 

[Hussar]

Wasn't it one of the Swartzeneger movies, that one with Jamie Lee Curtis, where the guy uses a LAW rocket from a truck and blows the driver out the front?

So my answer is: so what if magic is the deciding factor in every battle? Magic is basically indistinguishable from tech. It's the flipside of Arthur Clark's aphorism.

But, what if I don't want it to be? What if I want to play a game where magic isn't the deciding factor in every battle? D&D often sweeps these things under the carpet. As you say, the fantasy D&D castle would not look like a medieval castle.

But, what if I want more traditional fantasy? In D&D, as soon as you start scratching beneath the surface, you realize how poorly D&D does traditional fantasy, at least out of the box. Sure, you can start making all sorts of changes to the ruleset to make it do that, but, that's kinda the point. You have to radically alter a lot of the ruleset in order to do it.

And this gets back to the idea of balance. In a balanced system, no choice is obviously superior to another choice. A 4 cleric party should not be the best party from a rules standpoint.

See, I do disagree with BOTE here that it requires a very specific playstyle to have these issues. These issues are inherent in the system. I mean, DannyA, you chose to play without wands. That's going to make a huge difference, and, IMO and IME, something that the 3e ruleset certainly doesn't assume. If it assumed that you were going to play without wands, why make them so cheap and easy to make?

 

[Diamond Cross]

But, what if I don't want it to be? What if I want to play a game where magic isn't the deciding factor in every battle?

Instead of trying to change the game you might want to try finding the game that has the right system for you.

Most of the times the rules are actually fine as is. Sometimes there's a real error that needs to be fixed, but usually any argument about changing the rules is because "that's the way i prefer it". There is a big difference between fixing an error than just arbitrarily changing the rules just because a person can't play the class right.