How is the Wizard vs Warrior Balance Problem Handled in Fantasy Literature?
- Thread starter Iota
- Start date
To me, that is suggestive of "fighter as mascot/henchman". That's highly viable mode of play. But obviously it's not the only way that reasonable people might want to play.
I'm a little sceptical of the handwave. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a failure of the system - but in a game in which other players might be spending character building resources on Intimidate, Leadership etc giving the player of the fighter free plot coupons seems to me to raise some issues (does the player of the rogue get them too, or does s/he have to spend skill points on Gather Information and the like?).
One thing I like about Rolemaster, and which is one of the reasons I prefer it to 3E, is that there are enough character build resources available that players of fighters have more options in terms of building those social or similar skills into their PCs, and so need to rely a bit less on GM handwaving.
But as I said, I'm only a little sceptical of the handwave. I'm not fully sceptical. Because RM still has a warrior/wizard balance issue, I've done similar handwaving, although at a slightly more abtract level of resolution - allowing the players of fighter PCs to have a stronger embedding of their PCs into the poltical/social situation than is the case for the wizard PCs (luckily I've rarely had players play priests, so the issue that they are both good casters and plausibly socially well-embedded hasn't normally come up).
But I would never suggest that this is a strength of RM. It's a weakness that in the past I've put up with because the system offered other features that were worth the trade off. It's one of the reasons that I would probably now be quite happy never to GM RM again (despite retaining much residual fondness for the system).
Turning to the example of the commoner and the fighter - that works for me, but again it is suggestive to me of fighter as mascot, or means-to-an-end, wheras the wizard remains the end-in-itself.
I think that the issue is about the mode of contribution. When the fighter contributes by providing the muscle that the wizard needs, or the mopping up after the spells are cast, then there is an issue of tone/story - again, it starts to look like the fighter is a mascot/henchman rather than a protagonist of equal worth. (I think this is also why Ars Magica has been brough up more than once on this thread.)
There are various ways to try and compensate for this - and in principle the inner life of the henchman can be just as rich, if not richer, than that of the master, and hence make very satisfying gaming material (My Life With Master is one sort of take on this!). But that's perhaps tending to stray a little away from typical D&D play.
I think this is a good point which highlights the sort of elements of a game which can start to put a bit more mechanical flesh on the handwaving of the fighter's social situation and status. And thereby also reduce the sense that the fighter is just a henchman of the wizard. (Of course, it gives rise to other issues - particularly, that party play may become increasingly difficult when the PCs start to be defined in such different mechanical terms, and have a natural inclination to engage the gameworld in such different ways; and also, the whole gameworld-as-focus-for-mechanical-interaction-rather-than-background that was discussed upthread.)
Last edited:
I cannot agree with the last sentence. If a novice player and/or novice GM, simply by playing the game out of the box and using the options presented can break the game that easily, then there is (in my view) the paradigm of a system problem. It's not as if Colour Spray is some spell from an optional supplement that only the die-hards will know about, and hence will adjust their game to take account of. It's there in the PHB. If the system is well-designed, there ought to be no basis for being accused of douchebaggery simply by picking up the books and using them to build a PC and then play the game.
To put it another way - if this doesn't count as a system problem, what would?
(Now if someone wants to argue that Colour Spray, or Holy Word, or whatever is not game breaking, that's a different matter.)
Or in other word, this.
If it's OK for you to have the game system you like, such that others have to do (b) for it to be playable by them, then what is wrong with them in fact doing (c), so that the game system becomes one they like, leaving you free to do (b) in turn. Or, in other words, why is your desire for preservation more important than someone else's desire for change?
I would have though that the answer is - neither person's preference is inherently more valuable than the other's, and hence that discussions along those lines may not be very profitable.
There was a general weakening of lethal consequences, but I'll admit that, in this regard, I think the designers of 3E were largely modifying the game to match the common practice at many game tables. (I don't think I ever saw a lethal teleport at the actual table; largely because none of the groups I played in ever thought that would be much fun.)
And, OTOH, 3rd Edition also saw the power of a lot of spells significantly decreased.
In this, 3E was largely following trends that were first started back when OD&D morphed into AD&D. (The weakening of powerful spells and the softening of lethal consequences.)
Next section is going to be a little "quote choppy" as I address each point separately...
Looking at the actual historical numbers:
OD&D: 7/7/7/7/7/7/3/3/2
AD&D1: 5/5/5/5/5/4/3/3/2
BECMI: 6/5/5/5/4/4/3/2
D&D3 (Int 25): 6/6/6/5/5/5/5/4/4/4
They aren't that far out of whack. And most of the skew happens around 18th level (where the 3E wizards pick up more 8th and 9th level spells).
Quite a few scrolls in AD&D were actually cheaper than their 3E equivalent. (The cost of a scroll was basically 300 gp per level. Obviously 1st level scrolls are considerably cheaper in 3E, but higher-powered stuff outpaces the linear 1E guidelines.)
Somewhere I read that Gygax suggested that the proper ratio of treasure-to-monster XP was 3:1. If that's true, then one can see that AD&D1 characters would have a lot more treasure than their 3E counterparts.
People have also analyzed the published 1E modules and discovered a treasure acquisition rate that closely mirrors the wealth by level guidelines of 3E. Those numbers weren't plucked out of nowhere.
In general, I think if you badly misread the DMG (as NeonChameleon has done) and create small packets of My Perfect Encounters(TM), then 3E breaks down badly. If you just use old school encounter design, 3E plays pretty much like every other edition of D&D from 1974-2008.
YMMV.
You do realize that doesn't say anything about the game being balanced around "the four encounter adventuring day", right?
Like I said: When you make ridiculous, non-factual claims like that, it makes it very difficult to discuss anything with you.
When you try to back up those ridiculous, non-factual claims with quotes that have absolutely nothing to do with the claim you made, it makes it very difficult to even take you seriously.
Allow me to repeat myself: The DMG not only doesn't say that the game is balanced around the "four encounter adventuring day", the DMG specifically tells you not to design your adventures like that.
I think we can all agree that when you play the game in the very narrow, very limited fashion that you say you play it, that the game doesn't work very well. But since the DMG specifically tells you not to play that way, I don't think the problem is the game. The problem is you.
To be clear: There are other people participating in this thread who are discussing legitimate problems with the game. I don't think anyone in this thread is claiming the game is perfect, either.
But you, AFAICT, are just spouting non-factual nonsense. I don't know if that's because you honestly never read the DMG or if you're just hoping nobody will notice. But, seriously, crack a book.
Neonchameleon
Legend
And not those needed to be *an adventurer*. Someone who does something other than face people with pointy bits of metal on a training salon.
So is the Bard's. So is the Rogue's. So is the Cleric's. But that's not all they can do. Far from it. The problem here is that casting spells is not all the wizard or cleric can do. Playing the lute is not all the bard can do. Yet mysteriously you think that fighting should be all a fighter can do. I see this as a double standard.
No. Commoner is an illustration not a goalpost.
And I know a lot who were keen on the Bo9S because it finally gave fighters a way of keeping up. Trying to defend that the fighter is a decent class is ... challenging.
If I wanted an utterly flexible game I'd play GURPS. The designs I'm thinking of represent modelling what happens in most actual games. 4e is more tightly focussed than 3.X. But I have serious problems looking at a class and level based game and seeing something generic in there.
Your way penalises the concepts I describe. It penalises representing what I consider actual adventurers - what almost all groups play in 3.X.
Then you misunderstood - and I was using your terminology. BAB is one component of actual fighting. If two people are mostly the same but one has a higher BAB then clearly one is better at actual fighting. So are other things. Damage is another component. As I said, the tenth level (adventuring) wizard (high int, low strength) is better at fighting than the first level adventuring wizard. His BAB has gone up by 5. But even restricting the fighter to a staff, with the strength the average 1st level PC fighter gets the fighter is better at clobbering people over the staff than the wizard - he gets about the same to hit bonus, can use At Wills rather than a melee basic attack, and does far more damage per hit. Where is the practical problem?
Oh, games should always go there some of the time. But people should not be forced to go there as a default because of bad class design.
I have not misread the DMG in the slightest. I am pointing out the definition of CR. And the DMG then tells you not to use that number in the most basic way possible because it will be dull and annoying.
I have actually seen a teleport have a lethal outcome in both AD&D and Rolemaster. Multiple times, in the former. It made us see teleport as a special resource to be used in emergencies and left one with a fair degree of gambler's high. It never made the spell disliked but it sure as heck made us unwilling to cast it for routine travel or such.
Raven Crowking
First Post
I include that as a subset of picking/creating a new ruleset.
Batman has access to such technology that it may as well be magic. He would not be a straight fighter in 3e, he would be something like a gestalt fighter/artificer.
I think there were one or two unique creatures with ACs of -11, at least one being a demon lord (or possibly an archdevil). Of course, there were other big changes hindering fighters as well.
Charisma may be less important than demonstrated courage and ability. Fighting men want someone they can stand beside... perhaps even behind.Charisma may be useful for leading armies and founding dynasties, not so much for convincing someone to follow you into the south of France.
Tactical knowhow *is* related to being able to swing a sword well. If you don't have both tactics and physical ability, you are not going to survive to 3rd level.
Being a general officer is a different skill from being a fencer, but being a fighter isn't a different skill from either; it encompasses and requires both. Musashi was renowned, not because he was Mr. Popular, but because if you were on his side, you won and lived, and if you were on the other side, you lost and died.
William Marshal is a pretty good example. Being the baddest of badasses got him a position in the royal household, contacts with royalty, a marriage to a heiress, a noble title, the rank of Marshal of England, and eventually a position as regent. He doesn't seem to have had much difficulty dealing with soldiers and nobles on level terms, or to have been unpopular. While there were undoubtedly exceptional warriors who weren't leaders, there doesn't seem to be any reason why an exceptional warrior wouldn't also be a leader too. And indeed in 1e/2e, they could be.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Indeed. Calling Thomas a 3.X fighter is highly questionable. The class I'd use as the 3.X best guess would be the Psychic Warrior. If Thomas is a fighterthen he's a ridiculously house-ruled one. Which means that he's a good exception that proves the rule - in order to keep Thomas relevant, he needs to be given some pretty extreme magical empowerment.
Indeed. And because they are cross-class skills with an awful rate of return most fighters don't invest in them. Which means that despite having travelled across the plains, faced doppelgangers and demons, and who knows what else, a 15th level fighter is no better than a first level fighter under the rules as written at seeing through Nigerian 401 scams and games of three card monte. The main thing he takes from having travelled all this way and been part of events few mortals ever are is ... the ability to swing his pointy bit of metal a bit better.
He's hung round with a thief so good he's either legendary or no one even knows his name. But he's no better at noticing when bob the first level street urchin picks his pocket than he was when he was fresh off the farm (Spot/Listen). And he's seen the thief vanish into shadows more times than he cares to count - but still hasn't picked up the first clue about what makes a good shadow to hide in. The party wizard has probably cast more combat spells over the course of a dozen levels than most mages do over a lifetime. And he's been right there beside it. And that's not even counting enemy spellcasters. But does he get better at recognising spells? Does he gain some rudimentary spellcraft? Does he heck. For all he knows about spellcraft he might as well never have met a wizard in his life. And religion? He's faced worshippers of more cults than most people have even heard of. He's had more divine magic cast on him than most clerics. And has very probably spat in the eye of demons and possibly even met the gods themselves. But knows no more about religion or the divine than kids in sunday school
There is no assumed competence. There is no assumed observation. The fighter's the worst case here (fewest skill points, worst skill list, fewest means of getting round these restrictions) but every class except the bard suffers from it.
Charisma may be less important than demonstrated courage and ability. Fighting men want someone they can stand beside... perhaps even behind.
In that case under 3.X rules what they should want is not a fighter, but a cleric. Also stands beside them, is tough, and unlike the fighter is able to heal them or provide magical support. (And fwiw, Charisma is exactly what you need to recruit a volunteer army in my opinion - although logistics is vastly more important for making it effective).
Tactical knowhow *is* related to being able to swing a sword well. If you don't have both tactics and physical ability, you are not going to survive to 3rd level.
Subodai, arguably the greatest general the world has known, was carried into battle on a litter. Napoleon was known as "The Little Corporal" and I may be wrong but I don't recall evidence that he was a great hand to hand fighter. Wellington was a notoriously poor shot. I see little evidence that any of these men was a fighter. Yes, they could wield weapons. But that was about it. And classes other than fighters can wield weapons - so why insist that generals need to be fighters? There is, so far as I can tell, little mechanical support for this.
And on the other hand there are people who are fighters. The general's bodyguards. Very few generals will have been better fighters than their bodyguards. Which means the bodyguards are better fighters than the general - but somehow the general needs to be a higher level fighter than his bodyguards to be a general?
And if you look mechanically, so far as I can tell in all the skills required for generalship the bard is at least as good as the fighter - better at inspiring his troops, better at knowing the mind of his people and the enemy generals, better at knowing the terrain. And a bard with Perform (Oratory) gives great speeches. He just gets beaten round the training ring by his bodyguards (as you'd expect).
So why do you insist that the general should be a fighter? I see no scrap of mechanical support for this. And a lot of mechanics indicating that bards and clerics both do a better job.
Similar Threads
