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

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, I can see that. And, to be fair, we certainly played that way. By and large, most of these things were just handwaved away as much as possible.

However, I do find it rather refreshing to play a version of D&D where I don't have to do that quite so much. It doesn't actually take that many changes to make the D&D magic system not have so much of an impact on world building really - just remove a lot of the permanent effects, particularly at low levels.

On the basis of a lot of posts, from a lot of posters (yourself included), I would argue that you still aren't playing a version where less handwaving is required. Instead, you are playing a version where the onus of the handwaving has changed from handwaving the effects of magic to handwaving the causes of supposedly non-magical effects.

Which is fine; a choice of where the handwaving occurs is a good thing. But, AFAICT, and on the basis of many, many threads and many, many posts, there is not actually less handwaving. It's just been moved around some.

I am not actually convinced that a reduction in handwaving, without a resultant reduction in options, is possible. And I don't mean options as in "What can magic do?" but rather options as in "What actions can the players choose to have their characters undertake?" It seems to me that handwaving, in nearly every instance, is the result of the players pushing against the boundaries of the GM's preexisting work and the limitations of the logic thereof. The only way to avoid it is to deny the players a chance to push up against those boundaries. IMHO, that isn't good for either players or GM, but YMMV.


RC

 

[BryonD]

Catching up on this thread, and this one stuck out for me.

Don't you see a bit of a contradiction here? "There's no problem with the ruleset" vs "There are many other examples of problems with the ruleset"?

If there weren't any problems with the ruleset, shouldn't there be, well, no problems with the ruleset and not a shopping list of problems? Particularly when all the problems come from the same source - spells and the magic system?

I don't see any contridiction in what he said.
Tabeltop roleplayers certainly *should* know coming into the game that this isn't chess and the rules are not ever going to satisfactorily cover every contingency. A bad chess players just plays badly, but the rules are not hamred by that. For roleplaying games the rules and the GM blur. That doesn't mean the GM breaks the rules, but being talented at applying them is critical.

I think that is on the list of reasons 4E and its attempt to service beginner DMs is not a prime choice for some people.

 

[TwoSix]

Gandalf and Merlin were not singing cowboys.

Wasn't Gandalf famous for his horse?

More seriously, Gandalf and Merlin were known for not casting flashy magic, and the bard's focus on divination and enchantment magic would seem to qualify. And it's easy enough to replace most of the bard's singing buffs with alternate class features.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Wasn't Gandalf famous for his horse?

More seriously, Gandalf and Merlin were known for not casting flashy magic, and the bard's focus on divination and enchantment magic would seem to qualify. And it's easy enough to replace most of the bard's singing buffs with alternate class features.

To say nothing of Bardic Lore, which, in any edition that I played extensively, really well represents the knowledge characters like that had.

This is something that I grasped in late 2nd edition, and that is the Bard is not necessarily just a minstrel. If you re-flavour and/or ignore the instrument / singing part, they can fit a lot of concepts.

And if I'm not mistaken, Gandalf was awfully fond of songs and poetry, even if he didnt' belt them out at every opportunity.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Gandalf and Merlin were not singing cowboys.

No. Which is why the best thing about the 3.X bard was Perform (Oratory). If your bard is either singing or playing a lute in 3.X that is a personal choice, and there is nothing preventing bards from being tone deaf and just very good at speaking. And just because you stereotype otherwise doesn't make it so.

Gandalf and Merlin were primarily known for knowledge. Not for flashy magic, but for knowing things. Bards have Bardic Lore, Wizards do not. Also bards have a lot of skill points. Then they were both tricksters. I don't know if Gandalf used fascinate or just a simple bluff in The Hobbit to deal with the trolls. I do know it wasn't presented as spellcasting, but the bard abilities suit it perfectly. Bardic knowledge, and the charisma and trickery heavy bardic skill list suit both characters perfectly. The wizard fails here. But Fascinate, Inspire Competence, Suggestion, and even Inspire Courage/Greatness are all close matches for what they actually do. (With the reverberating duration of Inspire Courage, just naming a weakness is sufficient to grant it for the rest of the fight).

Then we look at their spells. Neither cast very many (indeed it's debatable that without his Ring even Gandalf could cast too many). And when they do, what is it? Some fire from Gandalf, but normally illusion, divination, or enchantment. In other words the sort of spells that are on the Bard list rather than flashy spells like Wall of Stone, Black Tentacles, and Overland Flight (the latter of which would have made Lord of the Rings very different). Also neither of them is ever mentioned to be Vancian. So I find bardic casting a much better representation of both Gandalf and Merlin than wizardly casting.

More accurate skills, more accurate magic, knowledge that actually works. In just about every way I can think of both Merlin and Gandalf are 3.X Bards whereas the D&D wizard is mostly a D&D wizard.

While on the subject, some of the myths, Merlin was quite literally a bard.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While on the subject, some of the myths, Merlin was quite literally a bard.

And/or a Druid.

 

[TwoSix]

And/or a Druid.

Well, a bard is just a fighter dual class thief dual class druid anyway.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Have any of you people bitching about knock even read the damn spell?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Have any of you people bitching about knock even read the damn spell?

Yes.

Did you have a point to make?

The knock spell opens stuck, barred, locked, held, or arcane locked doors. It opens secret doors, as well as locked or trick-opening boxes or chests. It also loosens welds, shackles, or chains (provided they serve to hold closures shut). If used to open a arcane locked door, the spell does not remove the arcane lock but simply suspends its functioning for 10 minutes. In all other cases, the door does not relock itself or become stuck again on its own. Knock does not raise barred gates or similar impediments (such as a portcullis), nor does it affect ropes, vines, and the like. The effect is limited by the area. Each spell can undo as many as two means of preventing egress.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Did you have a point to make?

Apparently not one you'd get, no.