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

[Dannyalcatraz]

A haversack's 1,000gp to make yourself, and is ridiculously useful for all sorts of things, besides.

True, but then you have to factor in the opportunity cost of taking the Craft Wonderous Item Feat...and not everyone plays crafted mages- I've only seen Craft feats taken by a couple of PCs in all these years.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sorry, you said "magical scrollcases".

So I did.

In fact, I meant to write "sealed scrollcases,"* and have no idea how that turned into "magical" 'twixt head and keyboard. Probably, as you surmised, because of "magical scrolls."

* These might be "masterwork" quality, so they might be more expensive than normal scrollcases. PF gives us a masterwork backpack, which gives you a +1 bonus to your Strength score for determining your encumbrance value. This costs 50gp, versus a normal backpack's 2gp. The rules also have waterproof bags - at 5sp each - which allow for compeltely immersion for up to 10 rounds before water damage occurs.

So, basically, a waterproof scrollcase is going to be pretty cheap.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So I did.

In fact, I meant to write "sealed scrollcases,"* and have no idea how that turned into "magical" 'twixt head and keyboard. Probably, as you surmised, because of "magical scrolls."

No worries.

I'd agree that a waterproof scrollcase is going to be pretty cheap (although I'd also suggest that "waterproof" is a matter of degree IME [real-world experience, not in-game!]).....assuming that a scrollcase is waterproof. Is "waterproof" part of the rules, or are you Rule 0ing that? Also, what sort of action is removing the scroll from the tube in 3.x? I couldn't find it using my Google-fu, and it's been a while since I quit playing 3e.


RC

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well, if worse-comes-to-worst, then a waterproof scrollcase is just a [potentially-refluffed] waterproof bag (5 sp, 10 rounds of immersion before water damage occurs).

Retrieving a stored item is a move action that provokes an AoO. So, if your scroll case is in your backpack, you'd need to spend two actions to retrieve a scroll, but if it's on your belt, you can do it in one.

 

[Salamandyr]

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.

You know, reading this thread, it seems like every fictional character brought up who fights for a living can't actually be described by the fighter class. I think that's a pretty good indication that the 3rd edition fighter class is woefully inadequate.

 

[pawsplay]

So why do you insist that the general should be a fighter?

I didn't. I said the fighter might be a general, in line with his vocation as a fighter. The general does not have to be a fighter.

 

[Votan]

EDIT: If you want to bag on some of the boneheaded changes made in the 2e --> 3e transition, I've got no problem with that. Indeed, I have a long history of that......going back to when 3e was the new shiny, and bagging on it was not so popular. So much do I dislike parts of 3e (and 4e, and 2e, and, yes, 1e) that I have given up on Official Versions altogether! (If I did go back to an Official Version, right now it would be 1e).

I think that the warrior/wizard problem is at its most extreme in 3E. In 1E and 2E, the fighter was simply a lot tougher (relatively more hit points, relatively much faster attach progression, equal or better saving throws, multiple attacks) relative to the AD&D magic user. In 4E, the fighter is much, much more effective with powers whereas magic (at least wizard-specific magic) has been weakened considerably.

 

[His Dudeness]

I play 2E and as a fighter I do not feel there is a balance problem between me and my mate the wizard.

I mean, he finished off a fire elemental with a prismatic wall, but I killed the dragon with an arrow of slaying. He has more proficiencies than me, but they are mostly the academic kind, I have more practical stuff.

Most of the problem solving does not revolve arround using spells to do stuff since the spell capacity if fairly limited.

I honestly don't see where this is coming from.

 

[Mort]

I play 2E and as a fighter I do not feel there is a balance problem between me and my mate the wizard.

I mean, he finished off a fire elemental with a prismatic wall, but I killed the dragon with an arrow of slaying. He has more proficiencies than me, but they are mostly the academic kind, I have more practical stuff.

Most of the problem solving does not revolve arround using spells to do stuff since the spell capacity if fairly limited.

I honestly don't see where this is coming from.

The spell capacity of the 3e wizard (over vs. prior edditions) is dramatically higher (especially for utility purposes) with extremely easy access to cheap scrolls and wands.

Again why I'm leaning more and more toward spontaneous casters on my next 3e go around.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I have not misread the DMG in the slightest.

What your originally said: "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). (...) It also says it's balanced around that."

What you are now saying: "The CR System is based on the level of threat needed to use about a quarter of your resources."

Those are not the same statements. Pretending that you said the latter when you actually said the former is not clever or smart. It is transparent and dishonest.

And why do you think the advice in the DMG is needed to not design your adventures round the X equal level encounters if there isn't that inherent temptation in the system?

Well, at least you're now willing to admit that you were 100% wrong in claiming that this was "against the guidance given by the DMG". As you now correctly articulate, the DMG specifically tells you NOT to play the game the way you say you play it.

Now, let's see how long it takes you to figure out that "you shouldn't do that" and "we designed the game around doing that" are basically never going to be logically applied to the same thing at the same time.