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

[Fifth Element]

Indeed. I think the point some are trying to make is that the wizard can make his teammates irrelevant sometimes, which certainly doesn't make sense for a game based on teamwork.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Indeed. I think the point some are trying to make is that the wizard can make his teammates irrelevant sometimes, which certainly doesn't make sense for a game based on teamwork.

Even if that were true -- even if -- it's not a problem with non-douchebag players and a decent DM.

In other words, the problem isn't the game system.

 

[Fifth Element]

Even if that were true -- even if -- it's not a problem with non-douchebag players and a decent DM.

In other words, the problem isn't the game system.

That's rather dismissive. Why do you assume that these guys only play with dbags and that their DM is subpar?

Not everyone has to have the problem for it to be a problem for a significant number of people. I've never had the problem myself, but that might be because I've never played 3E above 15th level or so. Or maybe I wouldn't have it at all. Who knows. But I find no reason to dismiss those who do have the problem.

 

[billd91]

Indeed. I think the point some are trying to make is that the wizard can make his teammates irrelevant sometimes, which certainly doesn't make sense for a game based on teamwork.

And to belabor the point a bit more...
Even if this is true from time to time, it's typically not true all the time. D&D has traditionally offered a variety of ways to accomplish tasks - some via magic, some not. This is a good thing because it allows groups of players to configure their parties of PCs in different ways while still taking on challenges DMs come up with.

(I'll admit, some classes like the cleric have a pretty high level of relative indispensability, but we managed to get through Shackled City without one thanks to the druid and paladin. So even that's possible.)

 

[Mort]

Even if that were true -- even if -- it's not a problem with non-douchebag players and a decent DM.

In other words, the problem isn't the game system.

That doesn't really follow though. A great DM and great players can make any system fun. As I said upthread, one of the best campaigns I've ever had the pleasure of playing in was DMed using RIFTS. The DM was great, the other players were great. Everyone had an absolute blast. Does not change the fact that the rules system was to put it delicately sub par.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Right, any excuse to not take the challenge.

That means you lose the entire argument.

The claim was a prepared wizard can easily handle the encounter.

The quote is this:

Stop right there. The drow might have spell resistance, but that should not even slow a prepared wizard. The spells mentioned for taking out drow (Evard's Black Tentacles, Glitterdust) ignore spell resistance. So all the drow having spell resistance does is means you need to prepare the spellbook. Your objection here is irrelevant.

For the record, the claim quoted was not that the wizard could beat the drow in a fair fight. The claim was that the Spell Resistance of the drow wouldn't hinder a properly prepared wizard. Which I stand by. Spell resistance isn't a problem to a wizard expecting it because there are enough powerful spells that ignore it for it not to be a problem. And spell resistance is all the paragraph quoted talks about. It was not talking about whether a Level 15 Wizard could handle a CR 18 challenge with a wide range of additional constraints to further handicap him.

With that I'm bowing out of this conversation.

 

[rkwoodard]

I suspect this is the crux of the issue. What does it take to avoid the problem. I am not looking directly at 3.5 or 4th, so bear with me as I put my thoughts on paper:

If the issue is avoided with a Decent DM and Non-douchebag players, it is not a system problem.
If the issue requires a Good DM and Really Good Players, it is a system problem.

Where on the spectrum is 3.5 ? I don't know. I think it is closer to the system problem side, but I have always had pretty good players, so I have no evidence to form a strong opintion.

RK

 

[Neonchameleon]

And that's what it comes down to.

It's not enough for y'all that a fighter be interesting to play, and a contributor to a D&D party, in the game as it's intended to be played.

No, y'all look at the fighter and, for some reason I can't understand, insist that he be able to whoop-ass against the wizard and against every situation in which the wizard can whoop-ass. And in measuring this bizarre goal, you ignore the fact that the DM and the other players exist. For y'all, it's all about how bad-ass you can be, and whether you can "win" D&D.

That's just a fundamental difference in how we view the game, and a fundamental difference in how we want to play the game.

There's really nothing more to say.

Other than that I roleplay PCs in challenging situations. I don't care about playing weak characters. I do care that if I'm playing a character fighting for his life, I don't need to engage in doublethink to hold him back. I don't want to seriously overshadow the other PCs, and I don't want to have to fight myself not to by treating what are in character life-threatening situations as not that serious. So I can't play 3.X wizards at high level.

(I'll admit, some classes like the cleric have a pretty high level of relative indispensability, but we managed to get through Shackled City without one thanks to the druid and paladin. So even that's possible.)

The Druid being the other 9th level divine caster in the PHB who can cast Heal. And in AD&D a subclass of cleric...

If the issue is avoided with a Decent DM and Non-douchebag players, it is not a system problem.
If the issue requires a Good DM and Really Good Players, it is a system problem.

Where on the spectrum is 3.5 ? I don't know. I think it is closer to the system problem side, but I have always had pretty good players, so I have no evidence to form a strong opintion.

Honestly, I think it depends what level you are at. E6 works because it's before it becomes a system problem.

In AD&D (1e certainly) clerics got temples at either 8th or 9th level, fighters got keeps at 9th level, wizards got towers and the ability to make items at 11th level, and thieves got guilds at 10th. Which means that in the playtest group that's where the game changed - and the spells had a lot less empirical playtesting above that level because the characters were often playing with their big toys. In 3.0, fighters and thieves lost their keeps and guilds. Clerics lost their temples - but gained high level spells to make up for it. And Wizards lost their towers (the weakest/least influential of the buildings) but gained the ability to craft scrolls from level 1. So I think that that's around when the game goes wonky. The plot power that fighters and thieves were meant to gain in AD&D to make up for the wizard's (and cleric's) increasing plot power from better spells never shows up in 3.X. Around the time the Wizard had 5th level spells, the fighter had a castle and men at arms - whereas in 3.X the wizard gets 5th level spells with fewer restrictions and the fighter ... can swing his sword slightly better.

Eyeballing, I'd have said the barbarian (and possibly the fighter) could about hold their own until 4th level spells showed up. And if you gave fighters free keeps and castles as in AD&D they'd probably balance 5th level and 6th level spells... E6 works - and in AD&D the fighter dipped behind a bit until their keep showed up, when they put on a surge to overtake for another couple of levels before falling behind again.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

And that's what it comes down to.

No, it really isn't. This is a silly sidebar on the real issue.

It's not enough for y'all that a fighter be interesting to play, and a contributor to a D&D party, in the game as it's intended to be played.

Lord Almighty, man - take the chip off of your shoulder.

My point is that a well-played "wizard" (which incl. clerics and druids) can, quite easily, make having a fighter around fairly irrelevant -that a party would, generally, be better off ditching the fighter and adding another Cleric.

At high levels, this becomes even more extreme.

I know this because I have done it before. In one game, I took a moderately-high-level Wizard (actually a wizard this time) and, in what was supposed to be a pretty epic series of battles, sidelined basically the entire rest of the party and "won" the encounter all on my own.

This was possible due to a couple reasons:

1) I know the rules better than just about anyone else at my table.
2) My table's full of people who like to play fighter-types.
3) The number of spells I knew, which could be put into scrolls or wands, and other pretty standard items let me punch really far above my weight class.
4) The spells themselves made it easy to tell large swathes of the encounter to sit down and shut up.

So, what was supposed to be a series of "fun for the whole party" encounters turned, instead, into "PoE shows off."*

Did I do everything? Of course not - the party fighters and the rogue still fought some enemies, and did some damage, but everyone at the table knew who really won the encounters. They only fought the enemies I left for them to fight, and we bypassed a couple other encounters (where they might have played a larger role) through some scrying and transportation magic. The other party members were, essentially, my sidekicks for a pretty significant portion of the adventure.

And you know what?

It sucked.

It was a complete anticlimax. Not only were the other players not having a particularly large amount of fun, I wasn't either. It wasn't, "Hey, PoE's been holding back a bit, now it's his time to shine."

It was, "Hey - PoE's been holding back a bit, now it's his time to trivialize everyone else for a bit."

Which is why, ever since, I don't play Wizards to their full abilities. Since then, I've played an Artificer who focused on improving everyone else's stuff rather than taking the CharOp route of buffing myself beyond all reason. I've played a Fighter / Rogue duelist type with no magical capabilities whatsoever. We played a short Star Wars game and I deliberately didn't pick a Jedi. I'm currently playing a Pathfinder Magus because all he gets is blasty-type spells, which are by far the weakest option, along with some self-buffs to sorta maybe equal or exceed the Fighter some of the time.

No, I'm not just a player; I've actually been the DM for the past two years. No, my goal isn't to prove that the Wizard is the bestest class evahlol. No, this isn't about me grandstanding about how I totally "won" D&D.

It's just me recognizing, "Hey - there's kind of a problem here. The easy solution is for me to just play dumb. I'll do that."

* Actually, I've done this twice. The other time, more recent, was while playing Warhammer Quest, of all things, and I used a really good Magic Winds roll to collapse the floor of the last chamber under a balrog and send it, temporarily at least, into the pit to let us all escape.

Yes, this one sucked, too.

 

[TwoSix]

Indeed. I think the point some are trying to make is that the wizard can make his teammates irrelevant sometimes, which certainly doesn't make sense for a game based on teamwork.

Exactly. This is my chain of thought on the matter, I'd appreciate seeing where people differ so I can figure out why there's such a disconnect.

1) D&D is both a game and a social exercise.
2) We play D&D for both elements.
3) The point of socializing is to have fun.
4) The point of a game is to challenge ourselves and thus achieve satisfaction from our mastery of the game's required skill set.
5) Proving mastery can only be obtained by comparison to measurable criteria. In D&D, these criteria are encounters.
6) The socializing skill set of D&D is distinct from the "game mechanic" skill set of D&D.
7) The game mechanic skill set has a character building skill subset and a table-play skill subset.
8) One demonstrates mastery of the entire "game mechanic" skill set by overcoming encounters(table-play) with a character you've designed (character building).
9) D&D is a team game.
10) The goal of a team is to prove mastery of the game's skill set.
11) In D&D, the effectiveness of a team is measured by defeating encounters.
12) To demonstrate mastery of the character building skill subset, one should make a character that contributes to the team.
13) The team will be most successful at overcoming encounters the more skill sets the character can provide via his character building.
14) The skill set of a team is not just the sum of individual skill sets, but also the sum of all synergies of overlapping skill sets.
15) Providing more options provides more synergies.
16) Necessary skill sets in D&D are damage, damage mitigation, encounter control, and narrative control. Every ability provides or modifies these base sets.
17) Fighters provide high damage and moderate personal damage mitigation.
18) Wizards provide moderate-to-high damage, high damage mitigation (blur, mirror image, invisibility), high encounter control (fly, invisibility, solid fog), and extremely high narrative control (teleport, scry, planar binding, astral projection).
19) By providing all required skill sets, a wizard provides only benefits to the party.