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

[Neonchameleon]

And, once again, we see that the player simply has no choice in the matter. Because he must pick every broken spell and feat in the game. It's imperative. Poor player. Life is hard.

Feats? No. But there is an imperative to a wizard to pick the best spells. Being prepared as well as possible can quite literally be a matter of life or death for the wizard. Poor adventurer. Life is dangerous.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

In the end, the issue is this - if you think there is a problem with a player choosing these spells (even if they do so without intending to take the 'best' spells available), isn't the problem with the system that makes those options available more than with the player who chooses them?

No. In a system as sprawling as 3.5/PF, there is broken material. There is broken stuff in every class.

A player who deliberately chooses broken material, to the point where it negatively impacts enjoyment of the game, is a douchebag.

A GM who allows a novice player to choose broken material, to the point where it negatively impacts enjoyment of the game, needs to improve as a GM (and often, but apparently not always will).

The system has flaws and broken bits. In an ideal world, there would be none of those. In a non-ideal world, one of the jobs of the GM and the players is making choices (and guiding choices) partially for the enjoyment of others. This is true no matter what class one is playing.

That some players and GMs are apparently incapable of doing this job is not a reflection of the system. If it were, there wouldn't be such a large number of people who use the system just fine.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Life is dangerous.

Well, sure. (Except for the wizard, of course.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm the only one in the game group who thinks wizards are a problem. The rest of the players have no issue that the wizard in the party ends a tough fight with one Black Tentacles. To them, that's the expectation of how play should be, and they have fun with it.

So why is it an issue for me? I just don't like that level of swinginess, I guess.

Which is fine, and points to what is happening in this thread.

Is the "problem" a result of the rules? No. Is the "problem" the result of a set of expectations? No. Is it a result of the rules interfacing with specific expectations? Yes.

How much of that is rules, and how much is expectation? Dunno....that's sort of like asking "What are the right expectations to have?", where the only right answer is to unask the question.

And, once again, we see that the player simply has no choice in the matter. Because he must pick every broken spell and feat in the game. It's imperative. Poor player. Life is hard.

Nonsense. The player can pick the spells and feats the rules allow him to pick, and still have a fine time with the game.

Or, at least, IMO and IME. I mean, aren't we having this discussion with the same people who championed the 4e magic system because the wizard was too weak? Am I the only one to remember that? Once he ran out of his paltry spell allotment, the was reduced to flinging darts or plinking away with a crossbow? Anyone? Bueller?

Within that context, this thread feels like: My hat of d02 wizards know no limit. It is too strong and too weak all at the same time.

I remember arguing quite strenuously that the wizard had all sorts of things to contribute to the party; I am exceedingly happy to note that some of my prior detractors have now agreed with that position (even if I do feel they went overboard somewhat).

I am very much looking forward to 5e, so that I can discover which of the many things about 4e, which I am now absolutely wrong about, I might be discovered to be less wrong about then.

(Although I still say that now is not the right time for 5e, and WotC should wait until they have produced several 4e adventures that really kick-ass. A new edition should come on the waning of a sales crest -- when people are excited about your products and the buzz is good. IMHO.)

RC

 

[Beginning of the End]

Both of which are against the guidance given by the DMG (the four encounter adventuring day being what the game is "balanced" around indicating you shouldn't do things you do like toss wandering monsters in to pressure the PCs).

You've said this several times now. I suggest you review your DMG. It specifically tells you NOT to run your game around four balanced encounters per day.

But, yes. Your insistence on running a string of "balanced" My Precious Encounters(TM) is contributing to your problems with wizards. It is the very specific and very narrow style of play I was talking about.

you require a small range of specific and narrow playstyles for #2 to not exist

You say that. But you're the one who keeps insisting on analyzing everything through the context of a single style of play you (erroneously) claim is required by the DMG.

Give the PCs the initiative and 2 runs rampant.

IME, when players are free to set their own goals in a rich and active environment, those goals quickly expand to the capacity of their resources to achieve them.

It specifically requires a non-reactive environment with an artificially limited number of goals for the PCs to pursue in order for the typical group to habitually elect to perform below capacity. And it's only when the party is performing below capacity that the wizard can dominate every challenge.

This is why it's so trivial to find campaign structures where wizards don't cause problems before 15th level (or even higher). You have to very specifically set out to create a limited number of My Precious Encounters(TM) before the wizard becomes inherently disruptive.

 

[MrMyth]

No. In a system as sprawling as 3.5/PF, there is broken material. There is broken stuff in every class.

A player who deliberately chooses broken material, to the point where it negatively impacts enjoyment of the game, is a douchebag.

A GM who allows a novice player to choose broken material, to the point where it negatively impacts enjoyment of the game, needs to improve as a GM (and often, but apparently not always will).

So, just to be clear - in my previously shared anecdote, in which I played a cleric with the Good domain who thus took the spell holy word, that was being a jerk? And the DM was at fault for not specifically forbidding that spell from the game?

Seriously, I think you are going way too far in your expectations for both players and DMs. Are you truly not willing to recognize that (1) players can end up taking these options without realizing their effect, and (2) even once aware of how potent certain abilities are, would find that deliberately setting aside all of their useful powers (or deliberately not using them each day) would disrupt their own enjoyment of the game?

That some players and GMs are apparently incapable of doing this job is not a reflection of the system. If it were, there wouldn't be such a large number of people who use the system just fine.

I still don't get this viewpoint. Some people don't run into these problems and/or are perfectly find expending the effort to develop/implement solutions to them and/or are willing to overlook the problem area due to enjoying other elements of the system. Sure, that's fine.

But saying that this means that whenever other players do run into these issues, it isn't a flaw in the system itself, but instead their own personal failings... that's just... incomprehensible to me. That's the sort of thing edition wars are built on - saying not, "I accept you prefer a different style of system, but I am fine with this one and it works for me," and instead saying, "You don't like my system because you aren't good enough to use it right."

 

[MrMyth]

Or, at least, IMO and IME. I mean, aren't we having this discussion with the same people who championed the 4e magic system because the wizard was too weak? Am I the only one to remember that? Once he ran out of his paltry spell allotment, the was reduced to flinging darts or plinking away with a crossbow? Anyone? Bueller?

Within that context, this thread feels like: My hat of d02 wizards know no limit. It is too strong and too weak all at the same time.

Well, I've only been in the conversation here briefly, but I'm not sure I see the two arguments as being actually at odds. Wasn't the usual criticism specifically that balancing a class by making it inferior at level 1, but superior at level 15, being a poor form of design? (At least in the opinion of some gamers).

Hence... yes, the wizard was too strong and too weak, but not at the same time, but instead at different points over the course of the game. No one was complaining that a 15th level wizard was reduced to flinging darts, as far as I know.

Now, there has been mention of low-level spells like Color Spray that do quite potent things. But I think that is an issue more of the spells themselves - is it really appropriate that if I take the right Level 1 spell, I might trivialize an encounter... but if I took Magic Missile instead, I instead get one round of being almost as good as the archer is every round?

And, even with the 'best spells', a style of play that involves trivializing one or two encounters a day, but spending the rest of the day firing a crossbow, is not one that some players enjoy.

Now, much of the above remains personal preference and involves issues that have been no doubt debated to death in many other threads before now. I'm not trying to start up those entire discussions again!

But I do think it a bit simplistic to reduce all of that to simply saying, "Wizards are too weak" or "Wizards are too strong", and then to point at this very different sorts of criticisms without the context to make clear that, yes, both of these are valid concerns for one personto have.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

So, just to be clear - in my previously shared anecdote, in which I played a cleric with the Good domain who thus took the spell holy word, that was being a jerk?

Did you do it intentionally?

And the DM was at fault for not specifically forbidding that spell from the game?

Uh, yes. And next time he'll know better.

This is why pre-gen PCs are best created with spells already chosen.

Seriously, I think you are going way too far in your expectations for both players and DMs.

Well, that explains our differences. I expect people to play in a way in which the game is fun, and you think that's too much to expect. Fair enough.

Are you truly not willing to recognize that (1) players can end up taking these options without realizing their effect, and (2) even once aware of how potent certain abilities are, would find that deliberately setting aside all of their useful powers (or deliberately not using them each day) would disrupt their own enjoyment of the game?

Yes. A non-douchebag player will quickly realize and correct for something like this. The douchebag player thinks his enjoyment trumps everybody else's.

instead saying, "You don't like my system because you aren't good enough to use it right."

If the shoe fits. If it pinches your toes, nobody's forcing you to wear it.

What I'm actually saying is, "If it doesn't work for you as you play it, either change the way you play it, or find a different system." How in the hell that is the least bit controversial is just mind-boggling.

 

[MrMyth]

This is why it's so trivial to find campaign structures where wizards don't cause problems before 15th level (or even higher). You have to very specifically set out to create a limited number of My Precious Encounters(TM) before the wizard becomes inherently disruptive.

Well, I'll say that I've seen campaigns that don't quite fit that sort of structure, in which high level casters still can be problematic. What sort of campaign structures are you envisioning in which the wizard's capabilities at higher levels are not an issue, and why are they immune to the potential problems being presented?

 

[TwoSix]

Or, at least, IMO and IME. I mean, aren't we having this discussion with the same people who championed the 4e magic system because the wizard was too weak? Am I the only one to remember that? Once he ran out of his paltry spell allotment, the was reduced to flinging darts or plinking away with a crossbow? Anyone? Bueller?

Within that context, this thread feels like: My hat of d02 wizards know no limit. It is too strong and too weak all at the same time.

Sure, but there's no discrepancy or worse, hypocrisy, in those statements. Wizards are simultaneously too strong at high levels (by virtue of number of spells + scrolls), too strong at low levels (by use of encounter ending spells + cheap scrolls), and too weak/boring at low levels (once your 2-4 spells per day are used, and you don't have an opportunity to make scrolls).

The goal, at least for me, is always the same. Encounters should be challenging and not boring. If it isn't a challenge, why bother running it? Ending a challenge with a spell is boring. Shooting a crossbow is boring. I'd rather cast 6 spells in an encounter and help out then cast 1 and win.