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

[MrMyth]

Did you do it intentionally?

I said, "Hey, I've never really tried out the alignment domains, that seems like an interesting option for a high level cleric!"

I didn't say, "Hey, I bet this spell will completely destroy an encounter, and I want to be the 'winner' of this game."

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

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

Again, though, this level of system mastery just doesn't seem a reasonable expectation. Wanting a system to not have these 'trap' options - either ones too strong or too weak - seems an entirely legitimate point of view to me. Yes, you have pointed out that no system will be perfect - but that isn't reason to not even try and present a balanced system.

And how do I - as a player or DM - define the line between 'effective' and 'overwhelming'? Shouldn't I have some guidance in the system to do it for me? Especially because this isn't simply one or two spells that can be problematic. There are quite a few - and more with every supplement released for the system.

It would seem a reasonable expectation to be able to simply play the game and enjoy the options it presents. Asking for a level beyond that, in which the player and DM need to self-edit to ensure that they choose effective options, but not too effective options... I mean, yes, it is a solution. But not, to my mind, a reasonable one.

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.

I think that this conversation has covered a number of useful topics, and I've seen insightful posts from several posters I often disagree with, such as Raven Crowking and BryonD. I'd really rather not see the thread locked, and towards that end, I would appreciate it if you might refrain from comments along these lines, which seem needlessly antagonistic. (Including, perhaps, the depiction of those you are arguing with as 'douchebags'.)

My expectation is that I would like a system which allows a group to play the game as it is written to be played, and expect that to be a fun experience. I think it would be nice if it was simply a trivial matter to find and excise all elements that detract from the experience, but that doing so can, in fact, be quite a bit of work.

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

Again, it is the lack of any room in-between that I don't quite get. How many sessions before I realize that my effective spell (Evard's Black Tentacles) is frustrating the fighters who get to watch enemies die helplessly before they reach us. I mean, shouldn't they be happy they aren't going to take any damage?

Or what is the easy option when I realize this sort of thing? Try out some other spells and see if they are less effective, but still effective enough for me to feel like I am contributing? And how many sessions will these issues come up before I find a perfect balance? What about when it happens in a one-shot? Sure, maybe the next time the DM will be prepared. But that doesn't salvage that session, and the fault wasn't with players and DMs who assumed that the options the system was presenting to them were acceptable ones.

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.

Because, often, they might like the system, but object to specific aspects? And discussion and debate over those elements might offer a chance to see improvement in the future and/or find solutions to the overall problem (as they perceive it)?

Basically, some folks have come forward and said, "Hey, we see these flaws in the system, and here are our concerns about them." Others have offered reasons why those flaws can be benefits for them, or discussion on ways to address those flaws or campaign styles in which they may be less of an issue.

But your statements above come across more as saying, "Here is what you need to do to not have these flaws. And if you can't or won't do that, it is because you either aren't a good enough gamer or are actively a jerk."

And... yeah, I think people are going to feel that such a statement is controversial.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

And I can't XP MrMyth.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

that isn't reason to not even try and present a balanced system.

The reason is that what you call "balanced," I call "Harrison Bergeron." I don't need the "balance" that you apparently need. The stuff that you consider "unbalanced," I consider a feature of the game that I like.

But you keep insisting that because you need the "balance," I should have to accept it. I don't.

Instead, I choose to play as someone, and with others, who are smart enough to recognize when they're being abusive (intentionally or usually not), respectful enough to share the knowledge of the abusable rules that may exist, and non-douchey enough not to whine about helping to make the game fun for other people.

And how do I - as a player or DM - define the line between 'effective' and 'overwhelming'?

Howzabout by, you know, "are people having fun"? The whole point of this is that you folks keep talking about how the wizard being over-powered ruins your fun. God forbid you take responsibility for the way you choose to play.

Shouldn't I have some guidance in the system to do it for me?

If you need it, absolutely. We don't. (Or, more precisely, the guidance that does exist, coupled with our desire to foster fun, has always been enough for us.)

Especially because this isn't simply one or two spells that can be problematic. There are quite a few - and more with every supplement released for the system.

Hint: Broken stuff isn't limited to spells.

It would seem a reasonable expectation to be able to simply play the game and enjoy the options it presents.

Seriously, do you even realize that every time you complain about something it's in the framework of how it impacts how you want to play, with never a mention of anybody else at the table?

I mean, yes, it is a solution. But not, to my mind, a reasonable one.

Well, of course not. It involves evaluations and attitudes that go beyond, "Hey, what can I do?"

"Here is what you need to do to not have these flaws. And if you can't or won't do that, it is because you either aren't a good enough gamer or are actively a jerk."

And... yeah, I think people are going to feel that such a statement is controversial.

And, as I said, that is mind-boggling, even with the spin. If you're not having fun with System A, you can (a) use a different system, (b) adapt the way you play so you do have fun with the system, or (c) complain about how you're not having fun with the system, and insist on changing it despite the protests of people who are using the system, as intended, just fine.

I personally think (a) and (b) are reasonable. All I'm seeing from folks in this thread, though, is (c).

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

And yet in a system with 30 or so classes and tons of powers, the designers can actually do their job and errata broken stuff. I pay the designers to give me a good product, not a half broken collection of ideas. I can come up with ill thought out ideas myself. If it's that broken then it's not worth paying for.

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

A character who has broken material and does not use it to the point where it severely negatively impacts bad guys is a suicidal idiot. But because the designers screwed up, you apparently need to look at each spell on a case by case basis and ask "Is this broken?"

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).

Apparently the GM is meant to do the designers' and playtesters' job for them. Why the hell pay WoTC or Paizo for half finished product?

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.

Take a system like GURPS. It's dead easy to break if you try. But you need to be trying. And that is the difference - in 3e you can easily break the system accidently. More easily than in any other version of D&D.

That some players and GMs are apparently incapable of doing this job is not a reflection of the system.

That GMs and players need to do this job is absolutely a reflection of the system.

If it were, there wouldn't be such a large number of people who use the system just fine.

Oh, 3.X has a lot of advantages. Tons of material, a massive embedded player base that have worked off the rough edges at their table (what one table considers fine, another one considers munchkin), excellent production values. It has many, many advantages - just about everything except the system.

I can tell my players at heroic tier in 4e "Design your own characters and just send me the background" without trouble. At Paragon I need to give people the once-over. In GURPS I just need to give the once-over unless we are playing at Supers levels (when I'd use another system...). Wushu ... isn't a problem. Dread? How do you break a Dread character? Dr Who? The main thing to resolve is who plays the Time Lord. Spirit of the Century? I don't need to worry about things being broken. Cold City? Likewise. Paranoia and AD&D I will be suspicious about extremely high rolls (and restrict to something resembling core). But that's about it.

Yet 3.X I need to go through the character sheets and spell lists looking for an arbitrary and home made definition of broken. And you claim this isn't a problem with the system? 3.X is the 2003-era Microsoft Windows of the roleplaying world. It has many advantages that make it the dominant OS of the time. But the programming isn't one of them.

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?

Oh, ffs. And I doubt it was me. But the situation is Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard. The wizard gains in power significantly faster than the fighter. Saying high level wizards are too strong because they have plot power and ridiculous overkill doesn't mean that level 1 wizards are too weak. This argument is about high levels, not level 1. And could you please tell me who claimed that 3.X fighters were too strong?

(And for that matter, there's a difference between too weak and feels like a chump. At Will Ray of Frost feels more wizardly than having to fall back on a crossbow even if the crossbow is stronger).

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.

If and only if a wizard is level 1 and level 20 at the same time.

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.

It also says it's balanced around that. Which means it should be able to handle that easily - it can't. (And IIRC you claim that the modules that came out after that were balanced round it).

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.

Would you kindly stop running your "My precious encounter model model" in message board threads? It is a specific, narrow, and irrelevant style of argumentation.

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.

I claim it's suggested. Because it says it's what the game is balanced round. And many new DMs are going to be cautious breaking far from basic patterns and for good reasons. You erroniously claim I claim it's required.

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.

And the wizard achieves a hell of a lot more than the fighter does. Possibly the bard achieves more still - unlike the fighter he has both skills and magic. (The fighter, of course, doesn't have one and doesn't have much of the other). And can therefore get a lot done.

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.

Now bring the fighter in please. What's he got to contribute? A sword. he must fight to do something he's better than a commoner at (a commoner gets a better skill list). Or the Barbarian - better off than the fighter, but not great. The wizard massively overperforms until you compare him to his high-casting bretheren. The fighter massively underperforms unless you're running a combat stomp.

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.

Once more you are fitting things to the My Precious Encounter Model model. Break outside your relentless focus on combat and encounters and the wizard can completely change economies with spells like Fabricate or by crafting. The fighter, in exchange, has a double handful of ranks in Craft (Basketweaving). (He doesn't even have Profession (Basketweaver) on his skill list). He can also glower at people threateningly. Or work in the stables as long as they don't care that he's not a professional.

To sum up, a good DM can make 3.X sing. Or any other system. And a lot of people have put a lot of time into doing so. But it takes a hell of a lot of work to fix the failures of the system.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't think I understand 3.x well enough to come to any conclusions on its balance. That being said, I have a few questions:

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.

Player skill being equal, don't wizards have more resources to draw on than fighters when trying to achieve their goals, especially in a rich and active environment? (Quick thought - would this make the fighter more important? The more the wizard's resources expand the scope of his goals, the more he needs the fighter to back him up. Does that make sense?)

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

I'd guess the controversial bit may be the "...and if you have problems with 3E it's just because you play with douchebags" part.

 

[BryonD]

Take a system like GURPS. It's dead easy to break if you try. But you need to be trying. And that is the difference - in 3e you can easily break the system accidently. More easily than in any other version of D&D.

I think I agree with this.
There are absolutely burdens and expectations that come with 3E.

The thing is, those burdens bring with it a more rewarding play experience than any other system out there. If any other game system could reach the standards that 3E has set for what I want out of a game AND be more resilient, then I'm sure I'd be there.

For example, GURPS is good for the more low key stuff.

But the thing is, I don't see accidental breakage of 3E ever impacting play at the table. I've never been surprised by the system. At least, not in so long that I have any memory of it.

And I think part of that has a lot to do with what defines breaking the system. Things that can be more challenging to handle, like high level magics in general, can seem broken, but as long as they are doing what they are intended to do, then that is not broken. If the DM can't handle it the the experience *at that table* will be "broken".

Its like the guy who misses the target and declares the rifle broken. The next guy grabs the rifle and nails the bullseye, and you know it wasn't the rifle.

Yeah, 3E doesn't have a safety net. But it can do awesome when done right. And it does not require any super tier of DM. If it did then it would have not been the massive success it was, much less the massive success it continues to be. It certainly isn't as beginner friendly as 4E marketed itself as being, and apparently truly is. But unless you are a beginner, who cares?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Player skill being equal, don't wizards have more resources to draw on than fighters when trying to achieve their goals, especially in a rich and active environment?

Not IME or IMHO. Wizards gain the benefit of a few powerful resources by not having as many good "all the time" resources. Fighters have better "all the time" resources to draw on.

In a team environment, the fighter will draw upon the wizard's fewer (but powerful) resources in order to meet his goals, just as the wizard will draw upon the fighters "all the time" resources to accomplish hers.

I will agree that 3e makes this more difficult in higher levels than, say, 1e does. For example, the fighter in 3e needs to plan ahead more to become a mover and shaker in the game world, because he must select feats that increase his temporal power (and therefore limit his personal power), i.e., Leadership, to gain what a 1e fighter gains as a class feature.

The 3e rules for item creation, the implication some gain about what sort of encounters should occur during a game day, and the increase in spells (and the increased difficulty in saving throws) also make spellcasters more powerful than they were in 1e and 2e.

But these increases were, AFAICT, a direct result of complaints that the 1e & 2e wizards were too weak. Just as the 4e changes were driven by complaints about the balance changes 3e made, and 5e will no doubt be driven by the complaints about 4e.


RC

 

[Mort]

Not IME or IMHO. Wizards gain the benefit of a few powerful resources by not having as many good "all the time" resources. Fighters have better "all the time" resources to draw on.

In a team environment, the fighter will draw upon the wizard's fewer (but powerful) resources in order to meet his goals, just as the wizard will draw upon the fighters "all the time" resources to accomplish hers.

I will agree that 3e makes this more difficult in higher levels than, say, 1e does. For example, the fighter in 3e needs to plan ahead more to become a mover and shaker in the game world, because he must select feats that increase his temporal power (and therefore limit his personal power), i.e., Leadership, to gain what a 1e fighter gains as a class feature.

The 3e rules for item creation, the implication some gain about what sort of encounters should occur during a game day, and the increase in spells (and the increased difficulty in saving throws) also make spellcasters more powerful than they were in 1e and 2e.

But these increases were, AFAICT, a direct result of complaints that the 1e & 2e wizards were too weak. Just as the 4e changes were driven by complaints about the balance changes 3e made, and 5e will no doubt be driven by the complaints about 4e.

RC

One of the more counterintuitive things about 3e especially with all the talk of how wizards require a higher level of system mastery etc.: IME It is much harder to design an effective mid-high level fighter than to design an effective mid-high level wizard.

Edit: Also as you mentioned your response is more applicable to 1 & 2e over 3e. By mid-high level 3e play wizards have enormous "staying power" usually more than sufficient to keep up with the fighter. It's one reason if/when I run 3e again I might consider spontaneous casters only as I have not observed the same issues.

 

[Votan]

But these increases were, AFAICT, a direct result of complaints that the 1e & 2e wizards were too weak. Just as the 4e changes were driven by complaints about the balance changes 3e made, and 5e will no doubt be driven by the complaints about 4e.
RC

While there may have been complaints about the strength of AD&D wizards (and clerics?), I wonder if they really reflect the reality of the class. If nothing else, the one place that the class seemed to underperform (very low levels) was where the changes had the least impact (as the extra spells really assisted high level wizards in boosting endurance more than they made a 1st level wizard better able to contribute to a part).