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

[Diamond Cross]

but I want them to be balanced in power -something 3e does not try to achieve-

They are, actually.

You just want a short sword to do 1d6 points of damage per level just like a fireball spell does, maximum 10d6, modified by metasword feats that can up the damage by half and do maximum damage per swing.

They are far more balanced than some people realize, because you only see the spells in comparison to the fighter, and are completely ignoring the weaknesses of a wizard, along with everybody else. As well as ignoring the situations and opponents that require these spells to be this way.

A summon monster spell is not for replacing the fighter, it is for a bodyguard for the wizard and to beef up the party against a larger party that can outnumber them three to one, for instance. Such as six characters going up against twenty Orcs. Or having a firewall against a small army of ten trolls. You know the regenerative power of trolls right? They regenerate all damage except fire and acid. BUT a troll is too powerful for a wizard to fight on his own in close quarters so he needs a fighter and a summoned monster to keep the troll off of him while he casts his fire or acid spells to defeat it.

A fighter is comparable to a wizard and in many cases can actually out perform a wizard. Any player worth his salt will beat a wizard without having to resort to dirty tricks to limit the wizard's magic in favor of the fighter.

All it boils down to is is experience, imagination and intelligence, the way a class is played. It has nothing to do with balance. That's just a lame excuse to favor one class above all else. If a player can't beat another player, it is because the other player is a better player and knows how to play their class really well. It has nothing to do with game balance but everything to do with intelligence, experience and imagination.

 

[joela]

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

LOL. I know what you mean. I tried to read the, uh, "sequels". Ugh. Tell me a story, not some thinly veiled New Age/Feminist* essay.



*In the negative sense of the word.

 

[triqui]

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

Not really. While they are balanced, they are built symetrically. I don't want them to be the same, just balanced.

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?

That we are in a discussion forum talking in a thread which is titled how is warrior and wizard balance problem handled in fiction. I find that RPG mimic fiction, and that some versions of the rule do it better than others. I dont see Gandalf teleporting to Mordor, I don't see him flying out of Saruman tower, I don't see him solving everything with Batman Utiity Wizard Belt (tm). And thus I discuss my opinion, becouse, you know, that's why this is a discussion forum to begin with.

Plus this is not only a chat between you and me. Other folks might come, read, and see my (and yours) opinions, and work around them, plus their own experience. That's the whole point of having a forum, you know.

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?

In 3e you mean? That it does not feel as a warrior. Not with 1d4 hp, no armor, low BAB... It does not feel martial, at all.

PS: I don't know why you think I want warriors to be wuxia, but that's a completelly different issue.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

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.

Yeah, I read the whole thread, so I know where/how it all started. Likewise though, if someone slams your game, why get into it with them? You should know by now that no good will come of it (and by 'you' I mean the proverbial 'you,' which can just as easily apply to 'them,' and it is, in any case a rhetorical question).

I don't know where all this edition hate comes from. It'd be nice if people could just be happy using whatever works for them, and let others be - without gettng all evangelical about it. Human nature, I guess.

I like "live and let live, game and let game," better, myself.

Cheers, and good gaming to you.

 

[triqui]

They are, actually.

That's your opinion. I was quoting Jeff Wilde, so it seems not everybody thinks the same, including some that play 3e.

You just want a short sword to do 1d6 points of damage per level just like a fireball spell does, maximum 10d6, modified by metasword feats that can up the damage by half and do maximum damage per swing.

Not really. Fighters do enough damage, that's not the problem. A sword that can stun or daze or blind, a sword that can kill on a failed save, that would be nice place to start.

However, that's only about combat. I'd like to have some out of combat goodies too. For example, something named "lift bars" that automatically open/breaks a door (just like Knock does) might be nice, or something named "Awe" where they can use magnetic charisma to get a weaker "Charm person" or some kind of "sense the truth" that give him a weaker "zone of truth", or some "warrior's resolve" that allow them to briefly be inmune to mind compulsions (only a portion of what protection from evil does), or some "Find the path" equivalent for a Ranger, for example. I don't really see any reason for spellcasters (clerics in that case) to be better pathfinders than rangers (even if it's only once a day)

A fighter is comparable to a wizard and in many cases can actually out perform a wizard. Any player worth his salt will beat a wizard without having to resort to dirty tricks to limit the wizard's magic in favor of the fighter.

Let's assume you are right. So what? This is not a PvP game, so the point is moot.

That's just a lame excuse to favor one class above all else. [/I]

If there's a class that is favored among all else, that's the magic users. Most people agree they are more powerful in 3e than fighters. Even Jeff Wilde does. Some does not have a problem with that unbalance, and some others do, that's a different beast. But "spellcasters" are above "warriors" in power in 3e, by far.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I don't want them to be the same, just balanced.

Now this is interesting.

How about giving me an example 9th-level spell (of your invention) juxtaposed against a balanced ability a fighter might acquire at 17th level?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

That's your opinion. I was quoting Jeff Wilde

Who?

so it seems not everybody thinks the same, including some that play 3e.

Just to be clear, you seem to insist -- as do many other people -- on equating "balance" with "power." I disagree with that, but if that is your metric, I concede that the wizard can bring more power to bear.

I'm with Diamond Cross, though: IMO, the classes are balanced fairly well for how the game is intended to be played.

A sword that can stun or daze or blind, a sword that can kill on a failed save, that would be nice place to start.

Both PF and (later) 3E have all of those.

For example, something named "lift bars" that automatically open/breaks a door (just like Knock does) might be nice

Doesn't your next post say that you aren't interested in wizards are warriors being "symmetrically balanced"? But it's be "nice" if fighters can do knock? And charm person? And mind blank? And find the path? Seriously?

Make a wizard and skin it as a fighter, man. Jesus.

Most people agree they are more powerful in 3e than fighters. Even Jeff Wilde

Who?

does. Some does not have a problem with that unbalance

And there it is again: "power equals balance." If the wizard is fighting the fighter, maybe so. If the wizard and the fighter are for some reason competing against each other, maybe so. But in a game where the DM actually, you know, exists, and creates challenges for both of them, "power" and "balance" aren't the same.

 

[triqui]

Now this is interesting.

How about giving me an example 9th-level spell (of your invention) juxtaposed against a balanced ability a fighter might acquire at 17th level?

Disclaimer: I'm not a game designer. And I'm doing this on the fly, so no playtest, or so, involved.

I assume you mean in 3e terms (if I were to build a game from scratch, might end looking more like Robert J Schwalb "a song of fire and ice" with magic)

But in D&D style, and high level, I would do something in the way:

Combat, offensive:

Wizard: Mass petrify. 1 target, plus 1 target each 2 levels, at close (25'+5'x lvl). Fortitude save DC 19+int or petrified (note: I would change most save or suck spells to have 2 saves, one instantly, one at the end of the target's turn, to give a chance to react)

Warrior: heartseeker. standard action (so your only attack). Does normal weapon damage + 1d6 x lvl. Creature saves vs Fort, or dies (2 saves too). Within 3e, I would make this 1 per day, but I would change all (including wizard spells) to be recharged per encounter or something similar (like mana that refreshes, or whatever).


Combat, Deffensive:
Wizard: Deflect spell. Reaction, change the target of a single target spell.

Warrior: Unstopable. Swift action. Last for 10 rounds. You get a fortitude saving throw at begining of your turn against effects that hold, stun, daze, dominate, fear or nauseate you.

Out of Combat:
Wizard: Summon Major Planar Ally: Invokes a Outsider that is bind to help you in one task (this is not my favourite taste of powers, but we are talking lvl 17 here)

Fighter: Awesome Majesty: Permanent. that are below your level are Shaken when fighting you. You are inmune to fear. You add your level to Intimidate and Diplomacy skills.

Something like that

 

[triqui]

Doesn't your next post say that you aren't interested in wizards are warriors being "symmetrically balanced"? But it's be "nice" if fighters can do knock? And charm person? And mind blank? And find the path? Seriously?

Yep. Becouse I would strip those powers from the spellcasters (or most of them). Wizard do not need to have knock, that's rogues (with subtetly) and fighters (with blunt) job. They don't need find the path, that's rangers job. They don't need charm person, that's Bard's job. They don't need mind blank anymore than anyone else (and arguabily less than a rogue). Just like "identify", "dispel Magic" and

That's my point: wizards are supposed to do EVERYTHING (and actually, everything better than anyone else, but spending a spell slot. Pick lock might fail, Knock does not), and that's what I find unfair.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Yep. Becouse I would strip those powers from the spellcasters (or most of them).

What, generally, would you leave wizards able to do? From what I can tell from your example powers, everything is combat-oriented. (I'm not real clear on the summon, since you don't indicate what the outsider can do for you. I assume it can fight, if nothing else?)

So a wizard can turn an entire courtyard of gawkers to stone ... but he can't enthrall a single target. A wizard can deflect a spell ... but he can't magically unlock a door. A wizard can summon a celestial ... but he can't ask the celestial to scout ahead and "find the path" for him.

Is that about right? Wizards in your book can kill stuff real good? Kinda like fighters?

Pick lock might fail, Knock does not), and that's what I find unfair.

Now how sure are you of this? Because I'm willing to bet you I can design a completely reasonable door that a 1st-level rogue can open that a wizard with a knock spell cannot.