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

[Votan]

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.

I seem to remember Thomas, the fighter, being bonded to a demigod and able to do significant magic (like using illusion on some sort of undead creature). If high level D&D fighters could do the same tricks than I would be forced to agree with you.

 

[BryonD]

Actually, unless my memory has completely failed me (which is possible, it has been some years since I read it) I'm pretty certain it was Thomas who played the part in that scene, but it was Pug who provided the illusion.

Certainly over the series of books Thomas was "the fighter" and did a lot of ass kicking while Pug was "the wizard".

But, whatever, I still know that it CAN be done, because it has been done over and over at tables I've been at.

The fact the you are nit picking a stray example, the point of which really was that it ISN'T about the stray examples, says more than your rebuttal does.

 

[Hussar]

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 other issue that made fighters (and fighter types) considerably weaker was the massive boost that the baddies got to hit points and defenses.

In AD&D, your mid to high level fighter could drop that monster in a round or two because it only had 40 hit points (up to about a max of 100 for any non-unique creature). So, even if the wizard was blowing up the odd encounter, the fighter types could still shine quite well by turning some poor giant into a fine red mist with a couple of well placed hits.

I do recall, back in the day though, that there was considerable concern over the power of casters at higher levels. But, it generally wasn't an issue because so few campaigns actually played those levels. You didn't have that many campaigns where people played 15th level wizards or clerics.

3e did change that signficantly with the presumption that a campaign actually should be played at those levels instead of simply putting your characters off to pasture once they hit double digit levels. Which, in turn, really highlights where the problematic spells and whatnot came in - many of them were holdover spells from earlier editions which didn't see play back in the day but started to see a lot more daylight in 3e.

-------------------

I have a question though. Why does a caster player have to be handicapped? Jeff Wilder has repeatedly claimed that the issue isn't with the system, but rather with players abusing hte system and that if a spell or effect is too disruptive at the table, the players should be self-policing.

I believe an earlier example was that if I see the rogue player pumping up his open locks, I should hold off on that wand of knock.

Why? Actually, two why's. First Why is why should I have to deliberately choose options that are weaker? Wouldn't it make more sense to remove those options in the first place? Secondly, why does playing the caster mean I have to play pity party for Bob sitting next to me? "Oh, gee Bob, I guess I should let you play your character, I won't buy that wand of knock."

If I was Bob, I'd be pretty annoyed. I get to play my character because the caster player condescends to let me play it? Gee thanks.

Again, I'd much rather simply change the system so that the caster character doesn't step on my toes.

 

[Mort]

Actually, unless my memory has completely failed me (which is possible, it has been some years since I read it) I'm pretty certain it was Thomas who played the part in that scene, but it was Pug who provided the illusion.

It certainly does not read that way. It seems to be all Thomas.

Certainly over the series of books Thomas was "the fighter" and did a lot of ass kicking while Pug was "the wizard".

If you want to continue calling a near godlike being with access to ridiculous powers a fighter then go ahead.

But, whatever, I still know that it CAN be done, because it has been done over and over at tables I've been at.

What's been done exactly? You are being extraordinarily vague. Noone is arguing the players of the fighter cannot and do not contribute. I don't believe anyone is arguing (and I'm certainly not) that the communal play experience cannot be loads of fun, for everyone including the fighter players. What's being argued, is that at mid+ levels the power differential, by any measure, is enormous and gets bigger as levels increase. Not different but equal, as you seem to be arguing.

The fact the you are nit picking a stray example, the point of which really was that it ISN'T about the stray examples, says more than your rebuttal does.

He's just pointing out that your "stray example" of a straight fighter was anything but.

 

[pawsplay]

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.)

Much has been made of the wizard's great powers. However, wizards have significant vulnerabilities. Sometime's the wizard's best move is casting D-door to escape from a grapple. Sometimes wizards get taken down by large damage.

As powerful as a druid's pet or a wizard's summon may be, a fighter is even more powerful. As powerful as a self-buffing cleric is, a fighter buffed by the cleric is even more powerful.

In order to shine, both the fighter and wizard need support of other players. However, since's the fighter's contributions are often almost automatic (just having more hit points and being in front is a good start) it is a little easier for the wizard to purposefully steal the spotlight. And yet there are games where the fighter is the spotlight stealer, monopolizing the caster's powers in order to receive powerful buffs, then delivering the big hits.

3e has shifted things slightly toward casters (clerics with full casting, wizards with easy access to scroll) yet the fighter remains viable. The problem is not raw power, but what in Shadowrun is called the "decker problem." The decker is basically a computer hacker, and while he is doing his thing, it's possible other characters may be left "standing guard." The wizard's ready access to knock, dispel magic, and fly mean that adventures can, and therefore do, make use of obstacles such as difficult to open doors (which only a wizard or a concentrated rogue is likely to be able to handle), magical traps and barriers, trange monsters, and physical chasms and other barriers. If the wizard weren't there, the fighter would just do something different, but since they are there, the fighter "stands guard" while the wizard casts a spell. While almost all characters have something to do, most turns, in most fights, not everyone is equipped for specialized obstacles.

OTOH, give the fighter the Leadership feat and an adamantine mace, and he becomes an effective problem-solver, too, in the wizard mode. Now, when the party comes upon a locked door, the party "stands guard" while the fighter smashes it to pieces, and when they need to sneak past enemies, his sorcerer cohort casts invisibility.

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.

Short answer, yes. Even stacks of 1st level scrolls are a significant expense until very high levels.

 

[Raven Crowking]

One other issue that made fighters (and fighter types) considerably weaker was the massive boost that the baddies got to hit points and defenses.

Absolutely.

And it had a real secondary effect in making combats last longer than necessary, IMHO. 3e is not my "perfect system"!

I have a question though. Why does a caster player have to be handicapped? Jeff Wilder has repeatedly claimed that the issue isn't with the system, but rather with players abusing hte system and that if a spell or effect is too disruptive at the table, the players should be self-policing.

I don't endorse that viewpoint.

Why? Actually, two why's. First Why is why should I have to deliberately choose options that are weaker? Wouldn't it make more sense to remove those options in the first place?

1. You should not have to.
2. Yes. BUT (a) not everyone experienced those problems where (1) is concerned, and (b) there are many ways of doing this; the 4e way is not objectively better than the 1e way. I prefer the 1e way, myself.

Secondly, why does playing the caster mean I have to play pity party for Bob sitting next to me?

You should not have to.

If the interaction between your playstyle and a ruleset creates these problems, pick (or create) a different ruleset!



RC

 

[BryonD]

It certainly does not read that way. It seems to be all Thomas.

Again, it is been a long time since I read it. But on center stage it is "all Thomas" doing the acting, because Pug is on the sideline doing the magic part.

If you want to continue calling a near godlike being with access to ridiculous powers a fighter then go ahead.

Near godlike at kicking ass. There are times when Conan's asskicking becomes every bit as massive as Hercules or Thor in their various, and be design "godlike" but still Fighter abilities. I think a very high level fighter could easily be role played as Thomas.

What's been done exactly? You are being extraordinarily vague. Noone is arguing the players of the fighter cannot and do not contribute. I don't believe anyone is arguing (and I'm certainly not) that the communal play experience cannot be loads of fun, for everyone including the fighter players. What's being argued, is that at mid+ levels the power differential, by any measure, is enormous and gets bigger as levels increase. Not different but equal, as you seem to be arguing.

That is double talk.

If the power level of the wizard dwarfs the power level of the fighter, then the fighter will no longer be able to contribute. And frankly, if we all agree that the fighter can contribute, then what is the point of the conversation?

The wizard has a wide range of flashy powers. No doubt. I agree with the "star trek" point. But the fighter can and does carry his weight in equal proportions.

He's just pointing out that your "stray example" of a straight fighter was anything but.

I still say he is wrong and, far more importantly, if both of you now are stuck trying to fixate on the nit pick as a means of ignoring everything else I said, then that is the real answer.

 

[Mort]

Again, it is been a long time since I read it. But on center stage it is "all Thomas" doing the acting, because Pug is on the sideline doing the magic part.

Near godlike at kicking ass. There are times when Conan's asskicking becomes every bit as massive as Hercules or Thor in their various, and be design "godlike" but still Fighter abilities. I think a very high level fighter could easily be role played as Thomas.

I've just been reading The Hour of the Dragon and have an interesting take on your Conan example - but you'd just say I'm nitpicking, so what's the point?

That is double talk.

If the power level of the wizard dwarfs the power level of the fighter, then the fighter will no longer be able to contribute. And frankly, if we all agree that the fighter can contribute, then what is the point of the conversation?

The wizard has a wide range of flashy powers. No doubt. I agree with the "star trek" point. But the fighter can and does carry his weight in equal proportions.

What double talk? My position is absolutely clear. The mechanics of the system give the wizard more options and allow the wizard more power (in or out of combat) than the fighter. The wizard in 3e is mechanically more powerful at mid-high levels than the fighter and impacts on the fighter's ability to contribute from a strictly mechanical sense (Another way to say this is, the player's contribution is limited because of the limits on the character). This is a bigger power differential than it was in either 1e or 2e (and obviously 4e). There have been mutiple examples provided both in this thread and others along with many suggestions on how to equalize things from a mechanical point of view.

Take Conan for example (ok so I'm sneaking it in anyway), settting aside the fact that in Conan the wizards are plot devices, from a game point of view - the universe seems to favor "action and bold deeds" over wizardry. This can easily be modeled by giving fighters fate points or somesuch (Conan seems to use lots of them - he is always barely surviving fatal injury, or just happens to find himself in the exact place or with the exact item he needs, things just seem to go his way - after the universe has had its fun with him of course) while wizards have none and make do with their spells etc.

I have had and have fun playing 3e but I'm not simply going to turn a blind eye to the issue.

I still say he is wrong and, far more importantly, if both of you now are stuck trying to fixate on the nit pick as a means of ignoring everything else I said, then that is the real answer.

I am not picking nits, you are fixating on a nit and refusing to answer anything on the actual issue other than vague generalities.

 

[Votan]

Again, it is been a long time since I read it. But on center stage it is "all Thomas" doing the acting, because Pug is on the sideline doing the magic part.

I still say he is wrong and, far more importantly, if both of you now are stuck trying to fixate on the nit pick as a means of ignoring everything else I said, then that is the real answer.

I removed the middle because I want to focus on the example for a moment (not to nit pick but because I think Pug and Tomas is a very good example). Tomas merges with a mythical being (the greatest of the Valheru, Ashen-Shugar) and even the language of the Valheru is a domination effect.

This is very different than a simple man at arms who happens to be very powerful and it makes him an excellent compliment to Pug (who makes a very powerful archmage). If Fighters or Barbarians gained these types of supernatural powers at high levels then they'd be a very good match for the Wizards and Clerics.

One of the things that I found frustrating in 3E was that the Fighter ended up with very weak social skills (in contrast with an AD&d fighter where this was not necessarily true).

Consider Diplomacy and Sense Motive. A 15th level Fighter who does not purchase cross class skills will have somewhere between -1 and +2 in these skills (plus any cross class ranks). Her will save is base +5 (making her susceptible to domination effects).

Best case, imagine a fighter who commits one skill point per level to either diplomacy or sense motive. One would expect between a +4 and +7 bonus in these skills.

A cleric has these as class skills and is likely to have a high wisdom modifier (maybe +6 at that level). So Sense Motive might easily reach +24 and Diplomacy (with an 8 CHA) could easily be + 17. Will Save is around +9 (with another +6 for wisdom) making her much harder to dominate.

A DC 20 skill challenge (Diplomacy or Sense Motive) would be easily for the diplomatic cleric and nearly impossible for most fighters. Consider the simple ability to detect if somebody is dominated (critical for a leader). The cleric will nearly always succeed (if not always with a DC25 check to sense enchantment) whereas few fighters have a chance.

So, ironically, the fighter no longer makes great sense as a leader of men in 3E (lacking many of the basic skills). Rogues, Bards and Clerics do much better in this (classically fighter based) role, the later two of which are much harder to control by an evil doer. And they are better judges of character and so forth.

Tomas, or King Arthur or Conan, as literary examples are quite capable of judging people, leading men or resisting mind affecting magic. I was concerned that the 3E fighter did these roles poorly.

 

[Mort]

I removed the middle because I want to focus on the example for a moment (not to nit pick but because I think Pug and Tomas is a very good example). Tomas merges with a mythical being (the greatest of the Valheru, Ashen-Shugar) and even the language of the Valheru is a domination effect.

This is very different than a simple man at arms who happens to be very powerful and it makes him an excellent compliment to Pug (who makes a very powerful archmage). If Fighters or Barbarians gained these types of supernatural powers at high levels then they'd be a very good match for the Wizards and Clerics.

One of the things that I found frustrating in 3E was that the Fighter ended up with very weak social skills (in contrast with an AD&d fighter where this was not necessarily true).

Consider Diplomacy and Sense Motive. A 15th level Fighter who does not purchase cross class skills will have somewhere between -1 and +2 in these skills (plus any cross class ranks). Her will save is base +5 (making her susceptible to domination effects).

Best case, imagine a fighter who commits one skill point per level to either diplomacy or sense motive. One would expect between a +4 and +7 bonus in these skills.

A cleric has these as class skills and is likely to have a high wisdom modifier (maybe +6 at that level). So Sense Motive might easily reach +24 and Diplomacy (with an 8 CHA) could easily be + 17. Will Save is around +9 (with another +6 for wisdom) making her much harder to dominate.

A DC 20 skill challenge (Diplomacy or Sense Motive) would be easily for the diplomatic cleric and nearly impossible for most fighters. Consider the simple ability to detect if somebody is dominated (critical for a leader). The cleric will nearly always succeed (if not always with a DC25 check to sense enchantment) whereas few fighters have a chance.

So, ironically, the fighter no longer makes great sense as a leader of men in 3E (lacking many of the basic skills). Rogues, Bards and Clerics do much better in this (classically fighter based) role, the later two of which are much harder to control by an evil doer. And they are better judges of character and so forth.

Tomas, or King Arthur or Conan, as literary examples are quite capable of judging people, leading men or resisting mind affecting magic. I was concerned that the 3E fighter did these roles poorly.

In The Hour of the Dragon Conan winds up on a ship. He needs it to go where he wants, so within minutes he incites a revolt, takes control of the ship and goes on his merry way. The bard, and (of course) the wizard have means to do this outside of combat easily. The fighter has no such means, even though he really should be the leader of men (or at least have the potential). And lets not bring in, roleplaying and player skill as these are, obviously, not exclusive to any class.