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

[Jeff Wilder]

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.

There's so much wrong with this (not the least of which is an apparent misunderstanding of the word "explicit") that I'll just point out one:

You are equating "game mechanical balance" with "power." This is problematic because, while I agree that the wizard can bring more power to bear, whether it is balanced with the fighter has to do with a huge number of factors. As the simplest proof possible, which (a wizard 20 or a fighter 20) would more easily defeat an orc warrior 1?

 

[triqui]

You are equating "game mechanical balance" with "power." This is problematic because, while I agree that the wizard can bring more power to bear, whether it is balanced with the fighter has to do with a huge number of factors. As the simplest proof possible, which (a wizard 20 or a fighter 20) would more easily defeat an orc warrior 1?

Which is tantamount to say that a nuclear carrier and a single marine are balanced, becouse the marine will beat the nuclear carrier cooking an omelette

(EDIT: plus in this case, the nuclear carrier also cooks the omelette better. I'm pretty sure the wizard can win a lvl 1 ork without doing ANY action at all. His familiar can kick the lvl 1 orc ass just fine, while the wizard can employ his turn fliping the omelette)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Which is tantamount to say that a nuclear carrier and a single marine are balanced, becouse the marine will beat the nuclear carrier cooking an omelette

If you cannot think of reasonable situations in which a single marine is more useful than a nuclear carrier, it explains a lot.

And D&D is all about those situational disparities.

 

[triqui]

If you cannot think of reasonable situations in which a single marine is more useful than a nuclear carrier, it explains a lot.

I can. Already told you one example (a single marine is more useful than a nuclear carrier if you want to cook an omelette to the Commander in Chief). However, I'll argue all day that this does not prove they are balanced. It just prove that the single marine can have some niche moments where he can do things a nuclear carrier can't. Fliping an omelette or mop up the floor, for example. That, however, is not even a ressemblance of balance. That's just a job for Aquaman. Which does not make Aquaman balanced with Superman. Or Batman, for that matter.

Note: I firmly advocate you can have balanced characters with asymetric approach. Batman and Superman are balanced. Both have different strengths and weaknesses. You could achieve asymetric balance between arcane and martials (opposed to the symetric balance achieved in 4e). Just that 3e failed at the task.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You could achieve asymetric balance between arcane and martials (opposed to the symetric balance achieved in 4e). Just that 3e failed at the task.

3E didn't fail at that task, because 3E didn't attempt that task.

What 3E attempted to do was make a game in which a DM and a number of players could cooperatively create and play through situations in which playing a fighter was just as "useful" and just as much "fun" as playing a wizard, all else being equal.

You keep talking about these things as if the DM and the players don't exist. Other people keep talking about the game as if the only wizard players that do exist are douchebags.

And, unsurprisingly, neither of you can understand that it just doesn't matter that the wizard "out powers" the fighter. All that matters is that the DM (and the players) give the fighter just as many moments to look and feel cool as they give the wizard.

My DM and players do so. Perhaps yours don't. That is a shame, and it's a problem, but it's not a problem inherent to 3E. It's a problem inherent to your DM and players.

 

[Beginning of the End]

It's Ars Magica. The wizard solved the encounter then sent the other PCs in with mop and bucket to be the cleanup crew after things were resolved. That's a hireling's job.

I suspect this is most of your problem right here: For some reason you're privileging the wizard's contribution as being the only contribution that "counts". I'm not entirely sure on what basis you're making that value judgment, but it reads as fairly tautological.

If you want to say "I don't want to have a party with BMX bandit and angel summoner"

You've made a massive leap from "I cast glitterdust and then the fighter makes his contribution" to "I cast summon angels and the fighter does nothing".

And even the latter is only problematic if the wizard can do that for every single encounter or if it sucks up a disproportionate amount of table time.

 

[triqui]

3E didn't fail at that task, because 3E didn't attempt that task.

Fair point. I fully agree 3e did not even try to get balance. Then I do not know why we are arguing that 3e fighter and 3e wizard aren't balanced at all. We both agree they aren't.

And, unsurprisingly, neither of you can understand that it just doesn't matter that the wizard "out powers" the fighter. All that matters is that the DM (and the players) give the fighter just as many moments to look and feel cool as they give the wizard.

If those moments are "jobs for Aquaman", I disagree they are equally cool. It's like having an impaired charater and your DM making Paraolympic Games every now and then.

My DM and players do so. Perhaps yours don't. That is a shame, and it's a problem, but it's not a problem inherent to 3E. It's a problem inherent to your DM and players.

Ad Hominem fallacy never proves anything at all. Get off your high "I play the game right, you don't, that's why you don't find it so cool as I do" horse. I play with the same DM and players in 4e than in 3e, and that problem did not arise. So maybe the system has something to do with it (EDIT:sure, other problems DID arise. 4e is NOT superior to 3e in every aspect. However, we are talking about Wizard vs Warrior balance in this thread)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Get off your high "I play the game right, you don't, that's why you don't find it so cool as I do" horse.

And you still don't get it.

How about you try reading it as, "My friends and I play the game in a way in which fighters are as cool as wizards"?

Do you and your friends play the game that way? If not, why not? Is there something inherent to the game that is preventing you?

 

[triqui]

Do you and your friends play the game that way? If not, why not? Is there something inherent to the game that is preventing you?

Yes. Lack of options. And no, selecting how much Base Attack Bonus I trade to armor or damage does not make for it.

If you take a look at my 5th edition thread here, in the opening post I explain a bit of what is not working of 4e for me, what I would change, and how I would try (probably without sucess, I admit) to do so.

Briefly:
I do not want warriors and wizards to be *mechanically symetric*, but I want them to be balanced in power -something 3e does not try to achieve-

I want them to have both viable options in and out of combat

I don't want (some) magic to completelly trump over non-magic characters (greater invisibility, fly, or reverse gravity come to mind)

I don't want relying on magic to solve most, if not all, group challenges and encounters when the group reaches lvl 9+ (I remember my group casting Levitate to everyone to "climb" the magic beans, for example)

And 3e has something that bassically exclude me to do what I want. To be fair, 4e has things that exclude me, too. Just that they are different ones, and not related to this thread (which talks about warrior vs wizards balance in fiction, where I find them quite balanced. Ulises wasn't worse than Circe. And 3e does not simulate that rightly, imho)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Briefly:
I do not want warriors and wizards to be *mechanically symetric*, but I want them to be balanced in power -something 3e does not try to achieve-

That's awesome. Don't you already have that in 4E?

Why do you insist that I agree with you and that I must want that, too? Because all I want is for wizards and fighters to be balanced in their ability to be cool, and I've got that in 3E. And 4E's approach actually damages that balance for me.

So ... you've got what you want. What is compelling you to insist that 3E sucks because it does what I want it to do?

And, while I'm thinking on it, what in the world keeps those of you who want super-duper magical special fantastical wuxia warriors from simply creating a wizard and skinning it to be the warrior you want?