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

[billd91]

Again, nice strawman. If you want to say "I don't want to have a party with BMX bandit and angel summoner" (literally in the second case) and that D&D supports this, that leads to the conclusion that D&D is broken. It's not about the casual flight. It's about the casual flight on one side and the sole ability being to swing a sharp piece of metal moderately hard on the other.

I always get a chuckle out of people who criticize strawmen while trotting out BMX bandit and angel summoner.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

3.X goes beyond that. It not only mixes the two, it claims [fighters and wizards] are the same power level.

Where?

I, for one, think that wizards are capable of bringing far more power to bear than fighters. I'm not sure anyone in this thread would dispute that.

I don't remember D&D saying that wizards and fighters are equally powerful, explicitly or by implication. I may have missed it. (Really, I may have. If I did, I think it's clearly a bogus claim.) What I remember, and the way we've always played the game, is that wizards and fighters are both given opportunities to be in the spotlight.

Is it possible for a wizard to hog the spotlight? Sure. It's also possible for a fighter to do so. Or a rogue. Or a cleric.

Douchebags exist. I just don't have much interest in a game that purports to eliminate douchebaggery because, you know, the GM and players are helpless to not be douchebags all on their own.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Where?

I, for one, think that wizards are capable of bringing far more power to bear than fighters. I'm not sure anyone in this thread would dispute that.

They are claimed to be equal across the course of a four encounter day by the XP/ECL/CR system. Yes, it's broken. But it's what 3.X claims. Swap a fighter out for a wizard and by the mathematics of 3.X the fair challenges for the day will be entirely unchanged.

 

[Aus_Snow]

It's been awhile since I read the original trilogy, but wasn't there some sorta "balance" issue that restricted wizards? IIRC, Sparrowhawk was told that when he created rain in one place, it was dry somewhere else and vice versa.

One of my favourite fantasy series. Trilogies, just to be clear.

Also, I quite liked the rather similar aspect "magic" had in Carnivale. Cut short though it was - grr.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I always get a chuckle out of people who criticize strawmen while trotting out BMX bandit and angel summoner.

But they aren't made of straw, they're made of WIN!

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Douchebags exist. I just don't have much interest in a game that purports to eliminate douchebaggery because, you know, the GM and players are helpless to not be douchebags all on their own.

This pretty much sums up most of the arguments refuting that problems exist in a given ruleset (note that I'm not being specific).

"Douchebags exist, but we don't play with douchebags, so we've never seen these "problems" that you're referring to, therefore the problem must be YOU."

Sorry, that doesn't mean there aren't problems, it just means that you're wise and/or fortunate enough to play with like-minded individuals. So am I, but it doesn't mean that countless gamers aren't so fortunate. I used to be in that boat. Some people are stuck in small towns, only play at events held at game stores (where you play with whomever is there or you don't play), small circles of friends, or otherwise don't know that there are other ways to play.

We are, of course, all free to continue doing what makes us happy. I want you to continue playing the game you like with the people you like playing it with. I'm not trying to convert anyone. I don't particularly care what other gamers that aren't at my table are doing.

There is, however, nothing at all wrong with wanting a game that is more douche-resistant, because you know, douchebags exist, and some gamers have a choice to play with douches or not at all.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

This pretty much sums up most of the arguments refuting that problems exist in a given ruleset (note that I'm not being specific).

Nobody has convinced me that the "problem" is the rules set. The problem is deliberate misuse of the rules set, apparently combined with permissiveness from the other players and GM.

You can be a douchebag player as a wizard. You can be a douchebag player as a fighter.

The solution isn't to change the wizard, if the problem is that a player is a douchebag.

It sure as hell isn't the solution to change the entire game for everybody because that guy games with a douchebag.

Fix the actual problem.

Yes, it sucks that some people have no choice but to game with douchebags, if they want to game at all. It does. I sympathize. But changing the rules will not change the douchebag. To paraphrase Ian Malcolm, "Douchebags find a way."

(BTW, none of my protests against changing the game should be taken as implicit claims that there's nothing wrong with the game, or with certain aspects of spellcasting. Glitterdust is a broken spell. If it is used exactly as intended, on its own, without any search for ways to abuse it, it is too powerful. There are many other examples.)

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Nobody has convinced me that the "problem" is the rules set. The problem is deliberate misuse of the rules set, apparently combined with permissiveness from the other players and GM.

That's fine, I'm not trying to convince you. I've already stated that beyond continuing to do what makes you happy as a gamer, I don't care what you do.

So for you, the problem isn't with the rules. For others it is. It's a pretty subjective thing.

You can be a douchebag player as a wizard. You can be a douchebag player as a fighter.

Yep. Sure can.

The solution isn't to change the wizard, if the problem is that a player is a douchebag.

It sure as hell isn't the solution to change the entire game for everybody because that guy games with a douchebag.

That solution didn't work for you, but there are lots of folks that it did work for, and a fair number more that, even though they didn't necessarily have a problem, found that they quite liked a different approach to balance.

That doesn't make them wrong. That doesn't mean those changes were necessarily a bad idea. That makes them different, and makes those ideas interesting to perhaps a different crowd. That crowd doesn't include you, apparently.

Fortunately, you have found a solution that works for you. Others will keep looking, or move on, or whatever.

Fix the actual problem.

Yeah, stop playing with douchebags. Great if you can, sucks if you can't. Gaming companies can't stop players from being douchebags. They have no control over that, but they do have control over rules and systems, so that's the only angle they can approach the problem from.

So that's what they did. Some liked it, some didn't. That's life, and that's business.

Yes, it sucks that some people have no choice but to game with douchebags, if they want to game at all. It does. I sympathize. But changing the rules will not change the douchebag. To paraphrase Ian Malcolm, "Douchebags find a way."

No it won't, but if there are less chances for douchebaggery, it follows that people forced to play alongside douchebags will have a better time of it.

It also follows that douchebags, when faced with less opportunity for douchebaggery, will choose to stick with what gave them the more opportunity to do what they liked. A lot of the douchey 3.x players I knew didn't move on for precisely that reason.

Beyond that, live and let live; game and let game. Not everyone wants to play the same game. There's nothing wrong with that, and fortunately there are many games to choose from to suit whatever your fancy.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

That solution didn't work for you, but there are lots of folks that it did work for, and a fair number more that, even though they didn't necessarily have a problem, found that they quite liked a different approach to balance.

And I'm absolutely good with that.

My objections began because certain posters specifically started saying that 3.5/PF sucked because the wizard makes the fighter useless and stupid. If those posters hadn't brought 3.5/PF into it, I wouldn't even be in this discussion.

 

[triqui]

Where?

I, for one, think that wizards are capable of bringing far more power to bear than fighters. I'm not sure anyone in this thread would dispute that.

I don't remember D&D saying that wizards and fighters are equally powerful, explicitly or by implication. I may have missed it. (Really, I may have. If I did, I think it's clearly a bogus claim.)

It does, explicitly. Take a lvl 1 goblin. Give him 19 lvls of fighter. Now take a lvl 1 goblin. Give him 19 lvls of wizard. The games tries to tell you they are balanced (both have same Encounter Level), while they are obviusly not.