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

[Neonchameleon]

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.

What "all the time" resources? The ability to swing their sword better in combat? Nope, that's an in combat resource. The extra feats? Nope. The fighter's extra feats are specifically combat oriented. (Actually, that does free up slots for extra non-combat feats) That leaves ... skills? For the fighter? *snicker*

The fighter doesn't have "all the time" resources. He has "permanent combat" resources.

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.

It's actually far worse than that for two reasons. 1: Anyone can take leadership and it's the most overpowered feat in the game (even for personal power - one feat for a cohort?). 2: The fighter isn't very good at it. No better than anyone else, and fighters have almost no other synergy with charisma, meaning that sorcerors, bards, clerics, paladins, and rogues are all trivialy better off taking it.

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.

The root problem is Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard. With a system like that, if the two are balanced at level 1 there is a massive disparity at level 20 and vise-versa. 3e attempted to balance them at low levels - and made the difference enormous at level 20. In 2e they were probably balanced somewhere between level 7 and 9 - which meant that the fighter was massively stronger at level 1.

 

[Banshee16]

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.

Weird that we had multiple wizards in our game over the 10 years we played 3E, and I rarely saw those spells ever get used.

My players apparently had no idea that they "had no choice in the matter".

Banshee

 

[BryonD]

The root problem is Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard.

I don't agree that this is a valid assessment.

Yes, the fighter is primarily oriented toward combat. He is called a "fighter", after all.

But a decade of playing has demonstrated that a fighter can easily hold his own as a valuable player in a campaign. Comparing them point by point to other classes, wizards in particular, is difficult to do because they are so different.

If you want to say that you can't do it and therefore other games are better for you. But when you claim that things others routinely do can not be done by anyone, you just sound ill informed.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

Two things:

1. "In a team environment" - I highlighted this because I think there's something about that idea that I'm missing. I have a gut feeling that this is what keeps the game from becoming unbalanced... but I'm not sure how or why. ("Balance", to me, means: all players, over the course of the campaign, have regularly-occurring, meaningful choices to make.)

2. Does the wizard really have fewer resources? He can draw on scrolls and magic items of his own devising, specifically tailored to meet his goals (and add some "just in case" items). This won't be the case if the wizard has limited GP + Time (system resources the wizard needs to draw on), but a campaign with no downtime + GP seems to be a pretty specific one.

It's interesting that Time is not really a resource that the Fighter needs to draw on - not past level 2, when Wands of Cure Light Wounds become available. However, and this might tie into 1. above, Time can be seen as a party resource... This gets me thinking - when Beginning of the End said 'a rich, active environment', was he talking about limiting/putting pressure on Time as a resource?

 

[Mort]

I don't agree that this is a valid assessment.

Yes, the fighter is primarily oriented toward combat. He is called a "fighter", after all.

But a decade of playing has demonstrated that a fighter can easily hold his own as a valuable player in a campaign. Comparing them point by point to other classes, wizards in particular, is difficult to do because they are so different.

If you want to say that you can't do it and therefore other games are better for you. But when you claim that things others routinely do can not be done by anyone, you just sound ill informed.

I ran a group from 1st-21+ level and everyone had a blast the whole time (we retired the campaign and moved on but consider doing more epic stuff - though frankly I don't have the time anymore to run epic 3.5 properly).

But one reason I think everyone had no noticeable problems was because the group played so well together: the casters supplemented the non-casters, the non-casters protected the casters etc. There where no glory hounds or big egos in the bunch. This was because the group treated the game as a cooperative team game (IMO the only way it should be treated barring one shots etc.).

That's not to say that the actual power levels were anywhere near the same especially out of combat. I just can't see a valid argument that the power levels are "different but equal" as levels increase.

The reason for this is simple, while a high enough level of technology is indistinguishable from magic, the inverse is also true: by mid to high levels the wizard essentially has access to modern or even near star trek levels of tech as a class feature, while the fighter still has the same features he started with - just ramped up a bit (as access to items is equal that part balances out):

When things start (at 1st level) the mage and the fighter are close, with maybe the fighter having an edge b/c higher hitpoints, better to hit and not being dependant on a few shots per day. But as the levels increase, the fighter hits better, hits harder, has more tactical options etc.

The mage, on the other hand, gets more and more access to essentially star trek level technology:

-Need to get the party somewhere fast (really fast)? the fighter can't do it. The mage has several options from fly to teleport and others.

- Need to scout a location but the rogues not there? The fighter likely can't do it. The mage has diviniation that can, prying eyes for example is essentially a modern reconaissance drone! Or the mage can make the fighter invisible to help him out.

- Need to talk to a group encountered on the road but don't know the language? what's the figher going to do? the mage casts comprehend languages or tongues and off you go.

that's a small sample - there are many others.

All of the above btw - can be relegated to scrolls - the mage does not have to worry overmuch about memorizing the spells and wasting precious resources.

The kicker to all of the above: they take 6 seconds and no other real resources (again why I like rituals, they at least require time and money).

All of which is not saying that a well rounded group is not necessary or that a player will have not fun playing a fighter. Since the goal is a cooperative game, all the things the wizards player does can benefit the fighter and everyone shares in the exploration, butt-kicking and other campaign experiences. The fighter in turn can do things to benefit the wizard, but to say the level of resources after mid-level is remotely equal - that's a tough one to swallow.

 

[BryonD]

I ran a group from 1st-21+ level and everyone had a blast the whole time (we retired the campaign and moved on but consider doing more epic stuff - though frankly I don't have the time anymore to run epic 3.5 properly).

But one reason I think everyone had no noticeable problems was because the group played so well together: the casters supplemented the non-casters, the non-casters protected the casters etc. There where no glory hounds or big egos in the bunch. This was because the group treated the game as a cooperative team game (IMO the only way it should be treated barring one shots etc.).

Certainly that is a great start.
I don't recall Aragorn ever wishing he was Gandalf.

I don't recall Lancelot wishing he was Merlin.

And I've never had trouble with fighter players wishing they were the wizard player. As I said way upthread, I've absolutely had times when the wizard dominated the situation. But I've also had times when the fighter did.

The fighter in turn can do things to benefit the wizard, but to say the level of resources after mid-level is remotely equal - that's a tough one to swallow.

I didn't say equal. I specifically said they are so different they can't be compared. Setting aside magic items, (which clearly are not the point here) fighter characters absolutely have less "star trek" -esque tricks. Or, better said Wizards have those and fighters do not.

But the fighter's ability to "be cool", "be fun", and contribute to the game experience hangs in there just fine.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But a decade of playing has demonstrated that a fighter can easily hold his own as a valuable player in a campaign. Comparing them point by point to other classes, wizards in particular, is difficult to do because they are so different.

Then possibly you'd care to deal with the clarification of my claim. What does a fighter bring to the table out of combat that an equal level commoner with equivalent gear doesn't? I am not denying that an additional warm body with the contacts and brain of a PC can be useful.

Certainly that is a great start.
I don't recall Aragorn ever wishing he was Gandalf.

I don't recall Lancelot wishing he was Merlin.

Agreed. I also don't recall either Merlin or Gandalf creating walls of stone out of thin air or using long distance teleports. Merlin and Gandalf, as I said earlier, were Bards. The Wizards were something else. The only serious candidate I can think of in Lord of the Rings for the Wizard class is Sauron. And I can imagine Gandalf wishing he was a Wizard.

And I've never had trouble with fighter players wishing they were the wizard player. As I said way upthread, I've absolutely had times when the wizard dominated the situation. But I've also had times when the fighter did.

Would they play a fighter if they did?

I didn't say equal. I specifically said they are so different they can't be compared.

And I seriously disagree here. In situations that don't involve sticking a pointy bit of metal into someone, the commoner is more useful than the fighter except in a drinking or poison swallowing contest. It has all the non-combat feat allowance, and a better skill list. The fighter gets nothing else.

But the fighter's ability to "be cool", "be fun", and contribute to the game experience hangs in there just fine.

Indeed. Mascot characters can be great fun to play - and even without skills you can roleplay pseudo-diceless. I just wish that the fighter class was open in saying "This class is weaker than almost all others with the possible exception of the Monk. And is challenging to build effectively for combat. If you want a challenge or simply don't care, play a fighter."

 

[Beginning of the End]

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.

It says that it's balanced around the thing it specifically tells you NOT to do?

That sounds... highly implausible. I've just skimmed through the Encounters section of the 3.5 DMG again and I'm not seeing anything to back you up on this one.

When you make ridiculous, non-factual claims like this, it makes it very difficult to discuss anything with you.

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?

Several points:

(1) The game isn't really designed to handle player-vs-player competition. It's designed for group play with group goals. So it's not really a question of "who's better at achieving their goals"; it's about everyone having a chance to share the spotlight.

(2) Above 15th level, I would tend to agree. Back in OD&D and AD&D1, high-level fighters used to get dozens, hundred, or even thousands of followers. This was a class feature. But whereas the high-level wizard kept his high-level toys; the fighter lost his. It's why I think the game starts to show stress fractures around 12th and starts to break down around 15th.

(3) In general, the attitude from NeonChameleon seems to be, "All the fighter can do is fight!" Well... yeah. It's right there in the name of the class. If that's not what you want to be doing, then you should play a different class.

It's like he's got a screwdriver in his hand and he's caterwauling about how awesome nails are and how lousy the screwdriver is at pounding them.

It's obviously true for him. But what he seems to have difficulty understanding is that not everyone shares his particular, narrow tastes.

(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?)

Now you're getting it.

 

[BryonD]

Then possibly you'd care to deal with the clarification of my claim. What does a fighter bring to the table out of combat that an equal level commoner with equivalent gear doesn't? I am not denying that an additional warm body with the contacts and brain of a PC can be useful.

I'll start with a disclaimer that you may simply consider a dodge, but I do not. In a great game, everyone should have times to shine but there is no need whatsoever for everyone to shine equally at all times. If you play a fighter and want to be equal to a bard in social events then you are either being foolish, or you are setting up an interesting distinct challenge for your self.

But, you didn't say "equal to the bard", you just said better than a commoner.
D&D game are generally about conflict. I think we can agree with that. And generally, the idea of physical combat is near. You may be talking with enemies for whom a fight is potentially imminent. You may be talking with allies about an upcoming fight. You may be talking with a neutral third party about any variety of issues. And in any case the fighter brings being a serious force in combat to the non-combat situations.

But you could further ask about puzzle solving or truly non-combat related conversations. To that I would say: "the fighter brings nothing the commoner doesn't bring." Then I would add: "Hurray!". He is a fighter mixing in a bunch of other crap would be just that: crap. You want a fighter with a special build, there are a ton of ways to get there in 3E.

I don't WANT fighters being implicitly good at non-fighting things. I don't consider arguing that they are not a meaningful point.

It may be interesting to point out that in the flickering moments between when I first heard that 4E was coming and when I first discovered it was not going to reach my standards, one of the wish list items I threw out was a hope that Wizards would lose their BAB (or whatever equivalent 4E was to have). I specifically said that commoners, imo, have no implicit reason to improve in combat ability and every class should be commoners, except for where they get better as part of the class concept. Wizards who want to get better at actual fighting have ways to do that. Fighters that want to get better at non-fighting have ways to do that. But the core class concepts are just what they are. (You can probably imagine my reaction to the "all classes get the same bonus" reality.)

Agreed. I also don't recall either Merlin or Gandalf creating walls of stone out of thin air or using long distance teleports. Merlin and Gandalf, as I said earlier, were Bards. The Wizards were something else. The only serious candidate I can think of in Lord of the Rings for the Wizard class is Sauron. And I can imagine Gandalf wishing he was a Wizard.

I disagree that you have covered all versions of Merlin that have been generally accepted. But I could also point to Pug and Thomas, or any vast number of D&D novels which are steadily consumed. I think you are missing the forest point for the minor details of a few trees.

And I seriously disagree here.

You disagree that my games exist? Again, my games demonstrate that you are wrong in declaring these things objectively unequal.

Indeed. Mascot characters can be great fun to play - and even without skills you can roleplay pseudo-diceless. I just wish that the fighter class was open in saying "This class is weaker than almost all others with the possible exception of the Monk. And is challenging to build effectively for combat. If you want a challenge or simply don't care, play a fighter."

Well, if "mascot" or your general description apply for you here, then 3E clearly is not the game for you.

The "pseudo-diceless" point is interesting. The tone I read into what you say there is negative on this. And I think this fits in with my disappointment in 4E's attempt to cover everything with +1/2 levels and the such and my earlier comment about 3E not having a safety net. (And even the whole "board gamey" complaint against 4E, with the whole idea that the answer is in the book and relying on a good DM to interpret and judge gets into this taboo "pseudo" game land.)

Yeah, pseudo diceless happens all the time. A commoner and a fighter may have exactly the same *game system quantified* skill in Intimidate. So they have the exact same chance of successfully intimidating an orc. But if they both threaten the orc with direct physical violence, then I probably won't even let the common roll. Or, if they are both there and the commoner threatens the orc with violence, from the fighter, then that is just as good. But the commoner needed the presence of the fighter, so the difference stands.

Maybe to you this an an unacceptable hand wave and a failure of the system. I've never seen a great roleplaying game that didn't assume that quality GM intervention and quality rules need to meet somewhere and trade back and forth. Circumstantial bonuses and deciding what rules are even allowed in the first place is a huge part of it.

And really, to roll that all up, I believe my system allows me to have my cake and eat it to. The raw skills of the default fighter are basically the same as the raw skills of the commoner and that is great. And the fighter has a consistent and fun impact on non-combat situations, and that is great.

 

[Votan]

Above 15th level, I would tend to agree. Back in OD&D and AD&D1, high-level fighters used to get dozens, hundred, or even thousands of followers. This was a class feature. But whereas the high-level wizard kept his high-level toys; the fighter lost his. It's why I think the game starts to show stress fractures around 12th and starts to break down around 15th.

I also think some of the balancing factors of the wizard (in terms of risk) were removed. My favorite example is teleport, all versions of which have a chance of instant death in the AD&D PHB (and contemporary systems like Rolemaster). Memorizing a spell with a (albeit small) chance of instant death makes the decision to avoid obstacles a real dilemma. Do it often enough and you'll end up dead. And even having the option (as a quick escape) eats up resources.

This makes the spell good for last minutes escapes from hopeless battles more than anything else.

By 3E, there are a lot more spell slots (due to bonus high level spells due to intelligence and , possibly specialization), routinely available low cost scrolls, wealth per level guidelines to make sure said scrolls are plentiful and a risk or damage (as opposed to instant death) or, with a higher level spell, no risk at all.

On the other hand, having a small army and a fortress (and the political contacts that come with it) would give a high level fighter some serious out of combat muscle. This was even more true in AD&D where there was no particular reason fighters would be bad at diplomacy (for example). So the fighter got to be King Arthur while the wizard was Merlin.

I think noting these changes points to a lot of my issues with 3E and power balance. I do not believe that, in 1E AD&D using the PHB, DMG, MM as sources, that there is a serious class balance issue (except possibly at very low levels where small tweaks are possible).