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

[Jeff Wilder]

Let's say a new player in a new campaign took color spray, for example. He uses it in several combats, which turns some potentially difficult combats into a cakewalk (cast colorspray incapacitate 2-4+ opponents, everyone beats them to a pulp etc.) - Is it wrong of him to continue to use one of the most powerful 1st level spells?

Not necessarily. Maybe it's wrong of my GM not to provide opponents that can't be turned into "cakewalks" by the use of one spell.

Color spray (and the wizard player) does not exist in a vacuum! Why is that so hard to understand? The entire point of the GM is to provide interesting challenges for the players, and you keep saying, "Well, what if the GM doesn't provide a challenge? Isn't it a problem that the game isn't a challenge?"

How exactly do you people play D&D?!

 

[Fifth Element]

Not necessarily. Maybe it's wrong of my GM not to provide opponents that can't be turned into "cakewalks" by the use of one spell.

If the DM has to build the encounters around the capabilities of one character to avoid the problem, then that's a problem, if you know what I mean. First it's more work for the DM (the module says this, but the wizard will cream those guys, so I have to change it to that.)

And then you have a potential problem with the wizard's player: what's the point of having these cool spells if the DM's always throwing enemies at me that they don't work on? Why does the DM take away my ability to do things, but not the others?

 

[TwoSix]

How exactly do you people play D&D?!

Dice, books, and a fair amount of beer.

Not necessarily. Maybe it's wrong of my GM not to provide opponents that can't be turned into "cakewalks" by the use of one spell.

What low-level opponents do you use against wizards with color spray? Right off the bat, humanoid opponents become a lot less troublesome.

Color spray (and the wizard player) does not exist in a vacuum! Why is that so hard to understand? The entire point of the GM is to provide interesting challenges for the players, and you keep saying, "Well, what if the GM doesn't provide a challenge? Isn't it a problem that the game isn't a challenge?"

Tailoring an encounter to a well-played wizard is...difficult. Not impossible. Just difficult.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

If the DM has to build the encounters around the capabilities of one character to avoid the problem, then that's a problem, if you know what I mean. First it's more work for the DM (the module says this, but the wizard will cream those guys, so I have to change it to that.)

And then you have a potential problem with the wizard's player: what's the point of having these cool spells if the DM's always throwing enemies at me that they don't work on? Why does the DM take away my ability to do things, but not the others?

I think there's a spectrum here that is not as black and white as you present. What's wrong with the middle ground? What's wrong with a mix of encounters that provide challenges as well as time to shine, as well as times for the entire team to have a field day? I thought this was DMing 101? Know your PCs strengths and weaknesses and look for the things in different encounters that emphasize both.

Re: Color Spray - yes it is occasionally a highly effective spell. That is useless against mindless opponents or opponents immune to mind-affecting effects, that requires the wizard to get within proximity of their targets (thus being useless at range), is difficult to cast when your allies are in the range of the spell, is a spell and thus with a readied action a wizard's casting can be interrupted (pertinent here due to the range of the spell), and as a 1st level spell will have a lower DC anyway. There's enough here that it should not be difficult to get the wizard to choose alternative spell tactics without needing to spam color spray as a solution to everything. Occasionally it is really effective, other times less so. Let it work sometimes and challenge it at others. There are bigger fish to fry in my opinion re: wizard versus fighter in 3e.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What low-level opponents do you use against wizards with color spray? Right off the bat, humanoid opponents become a lot less troublesome.

Archers. Trap setters. Ambushers with good tactics. Tucker's Kobolds.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Archers.

Very true.

They also happen to be pretty good against all low-level characters.

EDIT: The rest of your list, too.

 

[pawsplay]

What low-level opponents do you use against wizards with color spray? Right off the bat, humanoid opponents become a lot less troublesome.

Skeletons. Warriors who charge. Javelineers. Spider swarms.

 

[pemerton]

Why are these players incapable of having elements in the game that they don't seek to abuse to "win" D&D?

A story that (these days) my group tends to laugh about quite a bit:

A friend is running a high-level D&D one-shot. I decide to play a cleric, because I've never played one at high levels before! And I think it will be awesome.

<snip>

my cleric wins initiative, and not even realizing what would happen, I try out my high level spell - Holy Word.

And in a single standard action, kill/disable every enemy in the adventure vulnerable to sneak attack.

MrMyth's story doesn't sound to me like someone abusing game elements to "win" D&D. It sounds more like someone using a high level spell that hasn't been balanced either by mathematical calculation or by extensive playtesting. It's a problem in some other systems too (Rolemaster clerics, as written in the rulebooks, get access to far and away the best save-or-suck/die spells in the game, even though there is a whole other class - the sorcerer - that's meant to be about that.)

I've had plenty of fun with D&D. I've had heaps of fun with Rolemaster. It doesn't get in the way of me diagnosing poorly-designed rules elements, though. I mean, these rulesets were just written up by ordinary people. There's nothing sacrosanct about them. And there's no reason to think they're inherently the best that can be done for delivering the play experience that they're aimed at.

 

[Beginning of the End]

There's a good deal of talking past each other happening in this thread. (Although that whole "my spherical cow vs. your spherical cow" challenge match a few pages back was precious.)

Here's the facts as I see 'em:

(1) Wizards are designed for some mixture of (a) blowing up a handful of encounters per day or (b) softening up a slightly larger number of encounters per day. (With the latter usually taking the form of some early blow that sets the party up for a safe victory; or a late bailing out of the party in a situation that has gotten out of control.)

(2) If the wizard is allowed to control the pace and/or content of encounters, this starts becoming problematic around 10th-12th level. (Possibly a little lower if the DM is really just letting the wizard walk all over them.)

(3) It will be perceived as more "problematic" from your POV if you consider softening up to be inherently more interesting than delivering the KO. (If this is your opinion, then you should definitely play wizards and not fighter. But not everybody agrees with you.)

(4) It will also be perceived as more "problematic" from your POV if you consider every encounter to have some sort of "ideal outcome", so that when the wizard blows through one of your encounters with a huge expenditure of magical firepower you think that something has gone wrong because the encounter was "too easy". (It wasn't. The speed at which the wizard burns through resources is, IMO, a feature, not a bug. It's not a spotlight problem and it varies encounter pacing.)

#3 and #4 have nothing to do with the game system being "broken". The only "problem" here is that the game isn't catering itself to your taste. (Or, more accurately, certain sections of the game aren't catering to your taste.)

#2 is a problem, but it requires a very specific and very narrow style of play for this problem to exist. (Whereas, on the other hand, there are a multitude of playing styles in which it doesn't exist.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

Which is really just saying it's hard to get through without some form of magical healing. Just like it's hard to get through without some way of finding and disabling traps. Or opening locked doors. Or identifying magic items. And so on.

Yes. What it isn't hard to get through without is someone who swings a sword and doesn't do anything else that an extra warm body wouldn't. Someone who can swing a mace pretty well, and wear plate armour, and get spells could cover that role without trouble.

I'm really not sure what you mean by that. No one on the "casters are better" side of the debate are happy about caster superiority. It's not like "Neener, neener, you fighter players are so duuuummmbbb."

We simply want to be able to play any class without feeling like we have to play poorly to not come across as game-wrecking douchebags.

I don't often do this, but QFT.

You don't have to play poorly to not be a glory hog. If there's a rogue in the party who wants to invest in opening locks, don't plan to rely on knock. Or if he says he's interested in investing his skill points elsewhere, go ahead with the knock wand. Coordinate your builds and plans to complement each other, not dominate the encounter.

Of course. But how does it end up? The rogue defeats all the easy locks - and then comes running to the wizard for help when he fails on one. And at mid levels or above either the wizard is stupid and hasn't added knock to his spellbook (and probably prepared a couple of scrolls of knock) just in case something happens to the rogue or when the rogue gets into trouble doing what he does best he turns to big brother (the wizard) for help. And big brother smiles and steps in.

Note that this isn't as big a problem with the sorceror. With the sorceror you can easily avoid adding spells to your spellbook without having to justify it. And you can't make scrolls for spells you don't know. A 15th level wizard in a high magic campaign without as useful and cheap a spell as Knock in their spellbook should just add the letter D to their pointy hat.

From what I'm seeing here, you approach the game as if it's all about problem solving - defeating the encounter as efficiently as possible. But some players don't approach the game like that. I think it's a lot of fun to roll crits as a fighter and I know a lot of other players who have fun just slinging the dice to see what happens rather than try to find the fastest way to defeat the encounter.

Oh, indeed. And when the encounter isn't a seriously threatening one that's fine in character and out. But when the encounter is an actually dangerous one, not defeating it quickly and efficiently is risking their life, your life, and very possibly the fate of the world just to give the fighter an ego-rub. Thatis the sort of wizard you need to play to play the way you want him to.

And frankly I refuse to play that sort of semi-suicidal jackass. I'll play a wizard who buys the fighter flowers, complements him/her on his/her appearance, and even throws games of cards to him on occasion. But there are limits. And those limits are long past when there's a Balor in the house.

If you've got fellow players like that and you're always trying hit the "win button", you're pretty much swinging your dangly bit without caring about the teamwork involved in having a fun game regardless of whether you took out the bad guys in the fastest way or not.

OK. Here is the scenario you are insisting on in character. You are going into high risk situations to take on scary creatures like Dragons and Balors with very high stakes on the line.

Limiting your options so the fighter can have fun (and possibly die) is your recommendation. And doing that as a sorceror (or other spontaneous caster) is fine. Sorcerors don't get to pick their spells in character. Wizards, druids, and clerics do. And neither wizards, druids, nor clerics can be both stupid and unwise. (Wis or Int as casting stat). What this means is that In Character your non-spontaneous caster knows he is quite literally patronising the fighter. And knows that he is risking the fighter's life and his (or her) own just to give the fighter an ego trip. That ... is an intense character restriction.

This leaves me with two options for high level wizards. Roleplay a patronising and more than slightly suicidal idiot or roleplay and be a jerk.

I like the wizard archetype and want to play one. But with that choice above for mid level and above 3.X wizards, I refuse to pick either option. Which doesn't stop me wanting to play a wizard.

Does this explain the problem? And do you have any solutions other than to object to people pointing out the problem?