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

[Neonchameleon]

And, frankly, if anyone NEEDS the bar lowered, then they are probably never going to be a great DM anyway.

Most people are probably never going to be great DMs. But that's no reason to throw caltrops in the way of some that might be. Or to give the DMs arbitrary problems just because they've always been so.

Sure, 4E will compensate for their lack of skill. I do agree with that. But I'd vastly prefer to play with a quality DM than play a system that is designed to be a security blanket because it presumes the DM is scared.

I'd rather play just about any system with a quality DM than a better system with a mediocre DM. (There are exceptions - mediocre Dread or Wushu beats a good DM trying to run FATAL but you need to be of that sort of order). However different DMs find different parts of games problems. And a system that supports them rather than hinders and causes masses of prep time will help bring good things out of DMs.

(And even if I played 4E, I'd rather play with a DM who didn't find other systems scary. Compensating for not being a good DM is not the same as being a good DM.)

If the system compensates properly to the point that the players don't see the difference, then how isn't it? To take an example I'll never be more than a passable horror DM. Horror isn't my thing. But if I put down the GURPS rules and use Dread instead, I can run a very good horror game.

And apparently you want there to be only two types of people. Great DMs and no DMs. But like most other skills, DMing takes practice, and has barriers for entry. It's much easier to become a competent DM in 4e than 3.X - and this means that many more people will give it a go. (Which has the side effect of helping weed out the poor but bull headed DMs who do it because no one else wants to). In all my current games, more than half of each table DMs. And thus has the opportunity to become good or even great. And I've yet to see two DMs with exactly the same range of skills. Would otherwise talented DMs not DM with a higher barrier to entry? I think so.

Edit:

Caesar might be a fighter/aristocrat (I'd question that - aristos can fight pretty well and I don't think Caesar was often on the front lines), but in that case it's the aristocrat part that provides any mechanical generalship in 3.X. That means that levels in fighter are actively holding him back.

Of course a house-rule to fix the fighter to make a military commander would be a line of commanding and leadership feats that also counted as fighter feats. And that stacked effectively.

 

[Votan]

"Can't"? "Hopeless"? First you are way overstating the case here.
Just comparing classes straight up the fear save is only 4 points behind any other class at 10th level through 13th level. "Can't" is not remotely accurate.

One feat, which the fighter has plenty of, and you erase half the difference right there. And if you design a grizzled NCO (defined in this case by ability to resist fear) with an 8 WIS, then you are not making an effort to design what you claim. So the disadvantage is quite minor and quite acceptable. The claim of "can't" is either poorly considered or disingenuous.

(As an aside, the fighter in Pathfinder gets a bonus specifically to fear saves that keeps them at or just -1 behind a good will save at every level)

When you talk about skills you are apparently presuming a generic build fighter and then declaring him poor at given specialties. You can easily build these options. Certainly I've always found it common that gaining a class skill is easy. But even without that an appropriate character build for the concept and simply taking skill focus goes a long way. Depending on how you build it, there may be no difference, or the pure fighter may lag slightly. But, again, "incompetence" is either an incredibly poor choice of words, or is not an honest presentation.

But then we get to the real issue, because all this above is just playing with a deck stacked in your favor.

Well, let us consider a 15th level Fighter, then. Elite Array is the design statistics for 3rd edition (let's ignore Pathfinder for a moment and look @ 3.5E).

So S 15 (+3 leveling) D 13 Cn 14 I 10 W 12 C 8

would be a normal array. Presume you have spent a feat on Iron Will (you have a lot of feats) and have a +3 save item. I would expect a will save of +5 (base) + 3 item +2 feat and +1 stat. That is +11.

What are some level appropriate challenges to will? A Horned Devil is about the right CR has a DC 23 fear aura (need a 12 to save), just walking into the aura. And that is with a strong focus on saving throws, taking the extra feat and focusing on wisdom instead of intelligence or charisma. Without the feat and with a wisdom of 10, the odds are much worse (needs a 15 to pass) and that isn't a ridiculous fighter build. A level appropriate Red Dragon is worse (DC 24) although I amdit the consequences are minor.

The wizard, on the other hand, also gets bonus feats (from a different slect list) and has a +9 base save at this level (which is picked to make the save difference minimal; it's worse one level up or down) so, with a 10 wisdom is better than the fighter at standing his ground despite lacking a feat and having a weaker wisdom score (presuming that the wizard also invests in save boosting items).

But the killer is a dominate person spell from a level appropriate NPC wizard (DC is 10 + 5 + between 5 and 7 for INT) = 20 to 22 (roughly even odds).

Or what about social skills? Sense Motive is DC 25 to detect a charmed person. Even with 2 ranks in the skill (even if humn, we are talking only 48 skill points total), the fighter can't ever make this check. For a DC 15 domination effect, he has a +3 (and that is with actually investing in it).

Or what about spot and listen? A CR 11 Dread wraith has a Hide of +24 (versus a spot of +1, maybe plus +3 with a couple of ranks).

A 15th level rogue with 8 wis would likely have spot +17, listen +17 and would be quite competent to spot the Dread Wraith (impossible for the Fighter).

It is true that saves are not as bad as the skills (and I apologize for any hyperbole). But the skills are pretty bad. Some of this is niche protection (the rogue is really needed to detect problems upfront). But it also means that the fighter lags way behind the rest.

Consider, spot and listen. A rogue with normal wisdom will still likely have a +18 to spot a hidden foe. A Fighter who wants combat expertise is unlikely to have more than a 10 in wisdom and might well have a +0 spot modifier. Rolls of 1 or 2 by the rogue are as effective as rolls of 19 or 20 by the fighter. That slowly makes things that challenge the rogue, impossible for the fighter.

Even worse happens if the skill aligns with a attribute that the class pushes. Imagine a Druid investing in spot (likely with a 22 wisdom by level 15) or a bard investing in diplomacy. Since a "1" is not an automatic failure, these classes can do better than a fighter with a modest investment in the skill (say 5 ranks) without even rolling. And 5 cross class skill ranks is 10 skill points from a class with a base of 2 and few advantages to intelligence (and which benefits from being a dwarf, for example).

It's not that this is necessarily unrealitic nor that the class is unplayble but that it does seem to fit fictional archetypes poorly. There are some exceptions (the Iliad seems to be one, Roman gladiators would be another).

This, by the way, is not a comment on the power level of the class. It's capable of being really brutally strong, especially if the full array of 3.5E feats are permitted.

But it is an odd design space for the class, especially since other classes in 3.5E don't have the same issues (Rangers and Monks, for example).

But your mileage may vary.

 

[Salamandyr]

Dark Agnes de Chastillon, Solomon Kane, and Fafhrd.

Don't know the first one, but Solomon Kane's skillset is considerably broader than the vanilla fighter, his knowledge of both religion and dark beasties is considerably greater than a vanilla fighter, and his bravery is considerably more than the average fighter (really, do you think Solomon Kane is even capable of failing a will save?)

As for Fafhrd, a character I know considerably well; No, just...no. Off hand, Fafhrd needs Perform, Stealth, Spot, Listen, Search, Diplomacy and Bluff, Climb (okay the fighter gets this one), Knowledge (Nature) and Survival, tracking, multiple languages, and regional knowledge skills. I don't think he ever picked a pocket or picked a lock, after all he hung out with the Gray Mouser, but if the Mouser was off on his own, I bet he could at least try. He also never failed a will save when it mattered. Fafhrd can't be simulated without at least a smattering of rogue and bard levels...all to make a character whose primary schtick was being a fighting man and slayer of beasties.

 

[Hussar]

Assumes the equipment exists. It certainly doesn't in the 1e PHB!

This is a bit later in history than the implied setting of 1e D&D: Kilner jar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


RC

But isn't that where player skill comes in?

One doesn't need to go all the way to jam jars to find this. A screw top tube is not exactly a huge technological jump.

Or, for that matter, a cork.

My point is, while you can certainly destroy equipment, there are some fairly simple ways around it as well. Then again, if my MU is getting fireballed, I'm probably more concerned about the whole dying thing, more than losing my scrolls.

Leather backback to store stuff has to fail save vs fire, then whatever container I put the scrolls in has to fail the saves, then the scrolls themselves have to fail their saves. That's a pretty low chance of losing scrolls.

And, of course, that's assuming that my scrolls are using paper. Vellum works so much better, looks cooler and doesn't matter if it gets wet. Bamboo sheafs, similar to the way Buddhist texts are written work as well, although, they are a smidgeon easy to burn. But, whack them inside a metal case and you're good to go.

The problem with this becomes the constant upping of the ante between the antagonistic DM and player. I have no interest in this style of game anymore.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But isn't that where player skill comes in?

One doesn't need to go all the way to jam jars to find this. A screw top tube is not exactly a huge technological jump.

Actually, AFAICT, the screw-top lid was invented by Kilner. So, yes, it actually is a larger technological jump than might at first be apparent. The pieces have to match properly, which in and of itself implies a post-industrial level of technology.

You are better off with a cork, as you suggest.

Which is fine for utility spells, but the more you protect a combat spell scroll, the less at hand it is for actual combat.

(Although, of course, I'll readily agree that, in 1e, the largest difficulty comes from in having the scrolls in the first place.)

Even so, equipment saves in 1e are not based on character level, so it would not be at all unusual for a leather backpack, a scroll tube, and a scroll to be incinerated per RAW......from normal fire, let alone magical fire.

In some cases, post-fireball, the real trick is to seperate out the precious metals from the rest of the slag!

Re: Vellum, it must be remembered that danger to a scroll comes from both loss of the scroll itself, and loss of the writing (i.e., ink running or being lost). Although, again, the level of danger of losing scrolls is milieu-dependent. The map found in Area 2 of the 1e DMG sample adventure (which is the basis for the 3e sample adventure) is in a scroll tube which has leaked somewhat, obscuring part of the map, so the idea isn't completely foreign to 1e.

The problem with this becomes the constant upping of the ante between the antagonistic DM and player. I have no interest in this style of game anymore.

While I won't dispute that this may be true, I would certainly dispute that it must be true.

IMHO and IME, the goal is to provide an engaging and interesting situation to explore (regardless of the type of exploration) in which both good and bad things may happen. I much prefer the 1e model, in which the game is intended to challenge both players and characters, and in which the RAW is designed to facilitate interesting things happening without proscribing what may happen within the game milieu.

I certainly do not consider myself an adversarial GM.



RC

 

[Banshee16]

The problem here is that you're conflating "fighter" with "3E fighter". In 1e or 4e I'd agree with you that they are generally fighters. (This includes Slayers and Knights). In 3e, the Warblade class does a far better job of mythological fighters than the fighter does.

Warblade? All the classes from BoNS utilize nigh magical type melee abilities. Warblade is likely the least mystical of them, but many of the abilities in the Diamond Mind school and Stone Dragon school are pretty magical in nature.

I thought we were talking about fighters here....not throwing every optional class conceived in 3E into the mix. Because if we want to do that, there are a heck of a lot of really useful feats for fighters in the Players Handbook 2 and a few other books. And they would alleviate the difference. Yes, the Warblade could take those feats too...but the fighter gets more of them.

The 3E fighter is perfectly capable of representing most of the characters I listed. And that's what it was intended to do. Again, I do think a hypothetical Cavalier class (not even considering WotC's terrible Knight class) might represent several of them better. The warblade? I don't know what it's supposed to be. It and the other classes in that book appear more inspired by anime than anything else. I mean, I'm not blasting the book....I think it's neat....but one of the things I was disappointed about with it was how everything was kind of mystical, to one degree or another. I thought Swashbuckling Adventures, with feats for Beat, Parry, Counterattack, Riposte, Sidestep, Lunge, and all that kind of thing, in some ways accomplished what I'd like to see in terms of options in combat far better than the BoNS did (IMO). I'd never even conceive of trying to use a Warblade classed character to convey a knight in shining armor (for instance).

The other kind of fix would have been, instead of having a Knight class, have some kind of Noble class....that way you could get your character that has a strength in Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, etc. etc. while retaining some capability in combat. Then your Knights would be Noble/Fighter multiclasses. But, as others have posted...the Fighter is intended as a broad class....it has to cover the Knight, the gladiator, the yeoman archer, crossbowman, mercenary soldier, heavy infantry, etc. etc. Most of those roles don't require a skill in diplomacy etc.

To me, it's quite obvious my games games have been very different from those described by some others in this thread (I'm not saying they're wrong....just we had different experiences). I haven't found fighters ineffective at all. My main criticism is likely the weak will save. But there has to be a weakness somewhere. It's not going to be Fortitude. And I'm pretty sure they were trying to simulate the concept in fantasy literature that the fighter can chop the wizard apart, if he can get to him, but the wizard uses a spell, and the warrior's big muscles amount to nothing. Of course, there's a save....but in my experience, most of my players tried to shore up the save, instead of using WIS as a dump stat in fighters.

At least in how they read (given I haven't found players willing to try them), the two d20 based systems for martial combat I find most fascinating are the ones used for the Conan D20 game, and the A Game of Thrones game by Guardians of Order. However, neither is used with standard D20 type spellcasting either. Conan, in particular, with armor as damage reduction, and then particular weapons being better at penetrating particular armor seems to have the best "feel". It's actually kind of reminiscent of the AD&D optional rules in the PHB for armors giving particular bonuses against particular weapon types (slashing, piercing, bashing). In that edition, Full Plate might be AC 1, but it also applied a -7 to hit rolls by slashing weapons for instance, and I think a +0 to hit rolls by bashing weapons....so it was better to use a mace against plate armor, instead of a sword. But, that stuff is all optional, anyways.

But that's getting way off topic.

Banshee

 

[Fifth Element]

And I'm pretty sure they were trying to simulate the concept in fantasy literature that the fighter can chop the wizard apart, if he can get to him, but the wizard uses a spell, and the warrior's big muscles amount to nothing.

Frigging Bargle.

 

[Banshee16]

Frigging Bargle.

Yes....Bargle set the paradigm

I'm pretty sure even in earlier editions, fighters were still the ones more succeptible to charms and other types of magic. I think anything System Shock related (ie. Save vs. Petrify/Polymorph) they had better saves than Mages and others....but for Save vs. Spells they were worse. I could be wrong though....my 2nd Ed. books are all boxed up.

So I think the precedent of fighters being vulnerable to spellcasters was always there.

In my experience, yes, fighters are succeptible to charms etc.....but if the fighter passes that save against charm, he could conceivably kill the spellcaster in 1 round. Depends on things like the presence of Contingent spells, Quickened Dimension Doors for escape etc.....but still.

I'm not advocating that spellcasters are weak. They're not. It's just that I feel sometimes the "I'm a fighter, I suck" card gets overplayed at times. If one can contest that fighters are no good without their equipment, one can equally contest that wizards aren't nearly as good without a bunch of scrolls and bracers of armor and all that.

As to Warblades......they don't even have Heavy Armor as a feat, nor are Handle Animal or Ride class skills for them...thus, they're really no good for representing many of the sample characters I suggested in my earlier post. Of course, that's labouring under the assumption that we're not modifying the warblade...just as the discussion seems to involve using a stock fighter.

Banshee

 

[Neonchameleon]

Warblade? All the classes from BoNS utilize nigh magical type melee abilities. Warblade is likely the least mystical of them, but many of the abilities in the Diamond Mind school and Stone Dragon school are pretty magical in nature.

Iron Heart and White Raven on the other hand are as far as I can tell meant to be (Ex) rather than (Su) or (Sp) in theme. And the Diamond Mind counters are also (Ex).

The 3E fighter is perfectly capable of representing most of the characters I listed.

The ones with iron wills? The ones requring lots of skill points.

And that's what it was intended to do. Again, I do think a hypothetical Cavalier class (not even considering WotC's terrible Knight class) might represent several of them better. The warblade? I don't know what it's supposed to be.

The empowered warrior. Ranging from the beyond merely humanly good to the supernaturally empowered. The sort of character that appears in myths all the time.

I mean, I'm not blasting the book....I think it's neat....but one of the things I was disappointed about with it was how everything was kind of mystical, to one degree or another.

You IMO confuse mechanisms with effects in the same way many 4e detractors do. The swordsage is always mystical. The Crusader is ... a Paladin. But the Warblade ranges from the extraordinarily good warrior to the empowered warrior.

I'd never even conceive of trying to use a Warblade classed character to convey a knight in shining armor (for instance).

I'd be more likely to pick a Crusader for that.

The other kind of fix would have been, instead of having a Knight class, have some kind of Noble class....that way you could get your character that has a strength in Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, etc. etc. while retaining some capability in combat.

I can cover nobles with bards most of the time. You have some fighting talent, strength in the skills you name, knowledge of the court, and you can use coincidental spells to justify them.

I haven't found fighters ineffective at all. My main criticism is likely the weak will save. But there has to be a weakness somewhere. It's not going to be Fortitude. And I'm pretty sure they were trying to simulate the concept in fantasy literature that the fighter can chop the wizard apart, if he can get to him, but the wizard uses a spell, and the warrior's big muscles amount to nothing.

I think that should be the difference between a warrior and a fighter. Protagonist character's big muscles very seldom amount to nothing when push comes to shove. But NPC warriors can be puppeted easily.

It's actually kind of reminiscent of the AD&D optional rules in the PHB for armors giving particular bonuses against particular weapon types (slashing, piercing, bashing). In that edition, Full Plate might be AC 1, but it also applied a -7 to hit rolls by slashing weapons for instance, and I think a +0 to hit rolls by bashing weapons....so it was better to use a mace against plate armor, instead of a sword. But, that stuff is all optional, anyways.

Aggghhhh! 0IMO Too complex for too little extra realism. Honestly, the best way I've seen to do this is Rolemaster with tables that give different feels to different weapons - and different crits. Far more controllable.

Edit: And from memory low level fighters had among the worst saves in the game, high level fighters had the best saves.

 

[Hussar]

While I won't dispute that this may be true, I would certainly dispute that it must be true.

IMHO and IME, the goal is to provide an engaging and interesting situation to explore (regardless of the type of exploration) in which both good and bad things may happen. I much prefer the 1e model, in which the game is intended to challenge both players and characters, and in which the RAW is designed to facilitate interesting things happening without proscribing what may happen within the game milieu.

I certainly do not consider myself an adversarial GM.

Oh sure, it doesn't necessarily have to happen, but, at some point, one side or the other has to throw in the towel and accept things. If the player devises a scroll tube where the two tubes simply slide over each other tightly, that pretty much does away with water issues, for example.

Either the DM accepts that and he can no longer challenge with water damage, or he ups the ante and starts chucking other stuff at the player. Which the player responds to by closing down that avenue. On and on. It's a very, very easy slope to slide down.

As far as the saving throws go, well, the character has to fail his saving throw first, then each container has to fail the save (leather vs fire isn't a bad save, and metal vs fire is very good) and then the scroll has to fail. ((Just googled a bit and discovered that items only have to make saves when the character fails his save, is that correct?)) That means you have to fail about four saving throws before you lose the scroll. The odds here are pretty good that you're going to keep that scroll.