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

[Banshee16]

Well, the same thing applies here. If you tell me this happened to you, then fine, I believe you. But when you foolishly extrapolate that it also has to happen to everyone else, you are simply wrong.

Exactly. This is basically an edition war in all but name....except we're all being polite about it...which is pretty incredible, given the thread is now 70+ pages.

I get frustrated to no end to get told that for the last 10 years I haven't been running the game properly, since described problems haven't occurred in my game.

Wow....I've been wrong all this time. I don't know how to play or run a game at all, since I haven't had issues with these items.

I never knew....maybe I should just quit and find another hobby...

Seems like, based on whatever edition people like they'll just go out of their way to find problems with the editions they don't like. Which is their prorogative. Doesn't mean it's "true" (whatever truth is).

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

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.

Are we talking fantasy characters? Comic books? Or "historical fiction"? There are plenty of historical fiction characters who classify very well as fighters.

Banshee

 

[Mort]

Exactly. This is basically an edition war in all but name....except we're all being polite about it...which is pretty incredible, given the thread is now 70+ pages.

I get frustrated to no end to get told that for the last 10 years I haven't been running the game properly, since described problems haven't occurred in my game.

Wow....I've been wrong all this time. I don't know how to play or run a game at all, since I haven't had issues with these items.

I never knew....maybe I should just quit and find another hobby...

Seems like, based on whatever edition people like they'll just go out of their way to find problems with the editions they don't like. Which is their prorogative. Doesn't mean it's "true" (whatever truth is).

Banshee

It's not really an eddition war though. It's a discussion of the relative power level of the fighter vs. the wizard (or at least that's what it has morphed into). Having issues here does not mean you dislike 3e, it means you might like 3e a lot but are having a very specific problem and would like to see some insight, possible fixes etc. (many of which have been suggested in this thread and others)

If you do not have the problem, then ok, you're doing great - play the campaign the way you've been doing and continue having fun. Not everyone has the same issues with their games, does not mean they are not issues (for example I've never seen the 15 minute adventuring day rear its ugly head, but I've seen enough people complain about it on this board that I recognise it's an issue that could come up - just not for me).

Simply put this board now has a lot of members. This is great, but the problems encountered within the system will not crop up for everyone (as groups differ greatly in outlook, playstyle etc.), Even though everyone involved in the discussion loves to game and loves D&D.

 

[Fifth Element]

I get frustrated to no end to get told that for the last 10 years I haven't been running the game properly, since described problems haven't occurred in my game.

Wow....I've been wrong all this time. I don't know how to play or run a game at all, since I haven't had issues with these items.

From what I've read, there has been very little "you're doing it wrong" flying around, primarily from one source, and that was directed at those who do have the stated problem with 3E: blaming the players and the DM.

It's one thing to not have the problem yourself. It's quite another to assume there's something wrong with a person who does. I'm not saying you've done this, but it's been done in this thread.

 

[Banshee16]

If you do not have the problem, then ok, you're doing great - play the campaign the way you've been doing and continue having fun. Not everyone has the same issues with their games, does not mean they are not issues (for example I've never seen the 15 minute adventuring day rear its ugly head, but I've seen enough people complain about it on this board that I recognise it's an issue that could come up - just not for me).
D&D.

This I can see. Everyone is going to have different findings. I *do* think that part of it has to be affected by bias. But it goes in support of different systems depending who you talk with. Play whatever is fun for you.

Personally, I didn't like the loss of item saving throws. This was a big risk in earlier editions.

I did think of another fiction author's method of limiting spellcasters. Melanie Rawness had a series where the wizards drew power from the sun. I think they could only cast during the day and if they were in the middle of casting when they were touched by cold steel their spell would be interrupted and they'd take a lot of damage.

Banshee

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

But the fighter isn't very good at being a general. And that's part of the problem.

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."

The CR system. That part of the game that provides the DM with his guidance on strength and pacing. The part that is supposed to tell you how strong a monster is and therefore how much you can throw without it being either boring or a TPK.

Monsterstherefore are balanced around the four encounter day. Because that is what the CR system means. That's how the game balance involving monsters is set. And it's what the system implicitely tells the DM to throw - which is precisely why the DMG needs to say "Don't do this".

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.

When have I said I play the game that way? I say two things. First the CR system is balanced one way - and second using it to always throw balanced encounters is tedious. The advice not to always use balanced encounters is there for a damn good reason. This is another example of your "My Precious Encounter Model" model.

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.

You miss something huge. Balance is Information. A balanced system should provide a lot of information to the DM about the expected result of any given fight. And what a fair fight is. Being balanced round that tells you when you are being fair - and when you are being unfair how unfair you are being. What's being said is "We designed it to provide this information to the DM. This information should not be used in the most simplistic way possible."

What the guidance in the DMG we are arguing about therefore says is "It is all right to be unfair. Making PCs run is fine. Making PCs think their way through what are on paper overwhelming situations* is better. And lots of small encounters play faster than a few big ones and produce a nice effect." And that advice is needed because the game is balanced round CR = 1/4 of the resources of a party (which means the four encounter adventuring day) of that level and new DMs in particular are often conservative.

* As mine have been doing for the last three sessions - a fort with 30 bandits including five elites against five PCs. They spent a week (in game time - two and a half sessions real time) terrorizing the place, and were then charismatic enough to turn one of the elites while the mooks ran.

 

[Votan]

It's not really an eddition war though. It's a discussion of the relative power level of the fighter vs. the wizard (or at least that's what it has morphed into). Having issues here does not mean you dislike 3e, it means you might like 3e a lot but are having a very specific problem and would like to see some insight, possible fixes etc. (many of which have been suggested in this thread and others).

I should also point out that the 3E fighter is an odd creature. I find the Paladin and Ranger less of an issue at high levels than the Fighter as they can both fulfill their archetypes better.

I never did enjoy the weak will saves of the core martial classes (with the notable exception of Paladins) but I can easily imagine games in which it never really came up. In my first 3.5 E game I used a lot of vampires (DC 13 domination) so it appeared like a massive flaw in class design. But that could also have been a poorly chosen type of opponent.

I did find, in real play, that wizards tended to disappoint a bit. This was especially true if their spellbooks were targeted. I never really managed to make a cleric disappoint, though.

The most raw fun we ever had involved a ranger, a psion, a paladin, and a cleric. No wizard to be found. [Earlier in the game, replace psion with Druid].

The most optimized party that I ever DMed did have two wizards (and nothing close to a fighter) -- that was the closest I ever got to seeing issues.

My most enjoyable 3.5 character (as a player) was an Elf Druid (archer more than anything else).

In real play, the wizard as "Batman" was rare. But the poor performance of the Fighter persisted and the class seemed to never really shine in actual play. I observed this in several cities across a long period of time, so if I misunderstood the class it wasn't a rare misunderstanding. But I see this as an issue with 3.X, rather than evidence that 3.X was bad. While my favorite edition is likely 1E, there is a lot to like and enjoy about 3.X (and these days I DM Pathfinder so I am hardly an opponent of the system).

 

[BryonD]

But the fighter isn't very good at being a general. And that's part of the problem.

Good to see I haven't missed anything in the past three pages....



Just as before, I'll happily accept that this is a problem to you.

But the opposite would be a problem to me.
The raw concept of a fighter is a guy who fights. Being good at being a general is nowhere to be found in this.
Now, a guy who is great at fighting may also be a great general. An lo and behold, this concept is easily created in 3E.
But a guy who fights may also just be a seriously tough and skilled combat machine. When you start presuming that the fighter as a class implicitly carries with it the "good at leading" component, then you are reducing the options.

I want fighters who can lead and fighters who can't. You are saying you are not satisfied unless they come with it.

I want bad ass staff swinging skull crushing wizards AND I want 16th level tower sheltered wizards who suddenly find themselves thrust into the position of reluctant adventurer. Or maybe the scrawny guy who just always makes good use of meat shields and intends to keep it that way. You said that the wizard needs to be fighting with the staff along the way and must gain this skill. In effect my reluctant adventurer is not permitted within your design space.

It is cool that you are thrilled with your game of choice.

But if the fighter class is required to be capable at leading, then I'll pass. There are wider options to be explored than that.

 

[Fifth Element]

But if the fighter class is required to be capable at leading, then I'll pass. There are wider options to be explored than that.

I think the point is not that all fighters must be capable leaders; just that it should not be too much trouble to make a fighter who's a good leader, given the numerous archetypes of such. And in 3E, a fighter will never be the best leader, and it eats up resources to even make him a passable one. You say the concept is easily created in 3E, but only to some extent.

The leader-fighter does not really fit in the 3E design space. That's an issue to some. You're content with all fighters only being good at fighting, but there are wider options to be explored than that. Why do we restrict the fighter with boundaries that don't apply to other classes? Why does he get fewer options?

 

[Hussar]

That is a VERY edition-dependent observation. And another example of things 3e got wrong (IMHO)....If I'm caught in a dragon's fiery breath while holding a scroll, the scroll should be the first thing to go up!

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).



Perhaps, but if so, they must be added to the cost in order to carry Hussar's point.


RC

But, even in earlier editions, this sort of thing was ridiculously easy to get around. Metal scroll tubes with screw caps - there, fire and water no longer are an issue. You'd have to fail several saving throws, even by 1e rules, before you lose your scrolls.