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

[Hussar]

Something that occurs to me about this entire conversation. Every element that gets brought up focuses on one single game element - how to keep the casters from dominating the game. This single thing influences so much of the game.

I mean, take this sidebar about item attrition. No one really worries about the fighter's items because, well, it doesn't really matter that much if he has a +2 or +3 sword by and large (other than those occassions where you REALLY need a +3 weapon. ) But, we're stuck focusing on the idea that we have to enforce item destruction rules targetted pretty specifically at the casters (after all, their items are the ones that break the easiest) simply to keep the casters in line.

((On a totally side note, scrolls weren't all THAT rare in the treasure tables - many included scrolls in addition to random magic items, and, scrolls often contained multiple spells, something you don't see in 3e. It's not like we're talking about something that never occurs. But, let's not lose sight of the fact that what brought this up was the discussion of the caster using about 10% of his wealth to create ONE HUNDRED scrolls - mostly a 2e and higher (2e allowed clerics to craft scrolls at 6th level) issue))

Sorry about that sidebar.

Look at the things that have been brought up in this thread. The idea of tying doors shut, not to stop the rogue, but specifically to stop the Knock wand wielding wizard. The rogue is fine, we want him to be able to open locks. But, we have to go out of our way to make sure that the wizard isn't doing a better job of it than the rogue.

Or, for another example, look at random encounters. Why have random encounters if not to interrupt casters from regaining their spells. People have specifically mentioned that 3e, with its lack of random encounters, has promoted the nova-caster. But, the main reason we have random encounters in the first place isn't because it makes the setting more dynamic, because while there may be situations where having a random encounter check every ten minutes makes sense, there are many other situations where it doesn't, is to limit the casters. Take the casters out of the equation, and you no longer need random encounters as a balancing mechanic.

This informs adventure design as well. The idea of time constraints and whatnot to make sure the casters don't take lots of time to rest between casting. This has nothing to do with the non-casters. A time constrained or non-time constrained adventure doesn't affect the non-casters whatsoever. But, if we don't add in something like a time constraint, the casters can totally dominate many encounters.

In other words, everything in this thread is in service to one thing - how do we limit the casters? Do we really want the magic system to play such a massive role in the game? Sure, you can continuously patch over the magic system - this thread shows lots of ways to keep the casters on par, but, at the end of the day, that means that the casters are the ones driving the campaign, even if it's only because the roadblocks are there to catch the casters.

For my money, I'd much rather simply change the magic system in the first place. Make it so that the game doesn't need to continuously try to patch over the casters dominating the game. Sure, the wizard can cast Knock, fair enough. But, Knock should give you Level +3 on a single Open Locks check. There, now you gain the abilities of an equal level Rogue (almost) for the price of a spell. Charms should whack on a great Diplomacy check, not be mind control (which they do eventually become). Clerics don't really need the whole "I'm a better Fighter than you" spells to remain competitive. Give them buffs, or better yet, group buffs, but ease up on the whole thing and let the fighters shine.

Spells should not make you better than other classes at doing what those other classes do best. They should bring you up to the same level for a little while, no problems there, but they shouldn't make me BETTER than the other classes.

 

[Hussar]

Using scrolls, esp. in TSR-D&D, is less of a problem because (1) scrolls are much harder to come by (let alone the specific scrolls you want) and (2) there is always a strategic tension between keeping said scrolls handy and keeping them safe. I.e., the more you do to keep your scrolls safe, the less handy they are when needed quickly.

I fully accept that there are people who had problems with the warrior/magic-user divide in TSR-D&D, but I would also argue that (1) these were probably a smaller percentage of groups, because (2) TSR-D&D provided more tools to deal with the problem should it arise and/or prevent the problem from ever arising in the first place.

You are making some rather serious presumptions there. Why am I using scrolls in combat? That's what my memorized spells are for. Scrolls are for all those things where you have a bit of time, but not necessarily the right tools for. A scroll of Fly and Invisibility aren't really needed in combat (usually) but they are great when you have a bit of time.

In TSR-D&D, isn't it written right in the rules that the wizard is going to achieve Great Cosmic Power? Isn't that the whole point of the class? It's right there in the book after all. Mike Mearl's quotes this:

In the original D&D rulebook (Volume 1: Men & Magic), this sentence leads off the description of the magic-user:

“Top level magic-users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long, hard road to the top, and to begin with they are weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magic types until they have worked up.”

The imbalance between the classes wasn't a bug, it was built right into the rules. Claiming that it wasn't there seems a bit strange after the fact.

 

[pawsplay]

Name three. Seriously, name three fantasy characters, or, heck, even with your caveat of historical fiction, characters that can be modeled well using a plain jane 3e fighter.

Sir Percival, Ajax, Madmartigan, Boromir, Prince Talon, Blackbeard the Pirate, Goliath, John Carter, Caramon, Red Sonja, Groo the Wanderer, Paksenarrion (early career), and Miyamoto Musashi.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Sir Percival, Ajax, Madmartigan, Boromir, Prince Talon, Blackbeard the Pirate, Goliath, John Carter, Caramon, Red Sonja, Groo the Wanderer, Paksenarrion (early career), and Miyamoto Musashi.

Minor nitpick - Madmartigan had a few levels of thief or some roguish class. He was crazy and kind of dumb, but he had some charisma skills (bluff at the least) as well.

 

[pawsplay]

Minor nitpick - Madmartigan had a few levels of thief or some roguish class. He was crazy and kind of dumb, but he had some charisma skills (bluff at the least) as well.

He was able to bluff a meathead. He was unsuccessful at bluffing two desperate Nelwyn, even after hours if not days of cajoling. I think a few cross-class ranks cover this bluffing ability well enough. Especially since he's like 12th level or something.

 

[Votan]

I mean, take this sidebar about item attrition. No one really worries about the fighter's items because, well, it doesn't really matter that much if he has a +2 or +3 sword by and large (other than those occassions where you REALLY need a +3 weapon. ) But, we're stuck focusing on the idea that we have to enforce item destruction rules targetted pretty specifically at the casters (after all, their items are the ones that break the easiest) simply to keep the casters in line.

One of the ironies of 15+ level 3.E D&D is that Mage's Disjunction shows up. It's based on a will save. Fighters and Rogues have a hard time making such a save whereas Clerics and Wizards are pretty decent. Winning a fight without magical gear is a lot more viable for the wizard than the fighter at that level. But the impact on the Fighter is much higher.

[and, when you consider a 17th level wizard is an appropriate encounter and that he can surely tell he is wildly outnumbered plus has a high intelligence, the use of a debuff like this makes total sense. If you gave the players a CR+4 or higher encounter with NPCs they would consider it too]

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ajax,

Stupid meathead, granted. I'd have said Barbarian from memory. And didn't he have a tangle with the gods?

Boromir

Aristocrat rather than fighter IMO. Yes, he could fight well. But so can other classes. And Boromir wasn't centred on fighting to the exclusion of all else. Which fighters ... pretty much are. Boromir was persuasive (not quite good enough for Frodo backed by the ring).

Blackbeard the Pirate

Too much of a leader. This requires skills not on the fighters' list. And precious few things that being a fighter helps with. Remember that in a world where third level is average, a third level fighter stands out - but only has the BAB of a fourth level bard.

Goliath,

NPC put in there for one battle and given a rep. Possibly a fighter. But I'd just say "Ogre" and have done.

Caramon

A D&D fighter This I'll grant.

Paksenarrion (early career),

She's a down the line Paladin. I can make a case for Aura of Good, for Divine Grace, for Aura of Courage, and even for Lay on Hands happening very early on (through the medallion). I can see the case for a Prestige Paladin who started out as a fighter.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Something that occurs to me about this entire conversation. Every element that gets brought up focuses on one single game element - how to keep the casters from dominating the game. This single thing influences so much of the game.

If I continually mentioned how giant spiders dominated the game, and you continually gave reasons why giant spiders did not, I could then say

Something that occurs to me about this entire conversation. Every element that gets brought up focuses on one single game element - how to keep giant spiders from dominating the game. This single thing influences so much of the game.​

but that would still not make it true.

Yes, I could run a game dominated by giant spiders. That would not mean that your game was dominated by giant spiders, even using the same ruleset.

I mean, take this sidebar about item attrition. No one really worries about the fighter's items because, well, it doesn't really matter that much if he has a +2 or +3 sword by and large (other than those occassions where you REALLY need a +3 weapon. ) But, we're stuck focusing on the idea that we have to enforce item destruction rules targetted pretty specifically at the casters (after all, their items are the ones that break the easiest) simply to keep the casters in line.

Um, no.

Scrolls came up specifically because, being made of paper (or similar) they are fragile. The same is also true of the party map, should the party be creating/carrying one. It is a truly sucktacular moment for a group to be miles below ground in the Twisting Caverns of Doom when their map is burned to ashes.

However, one has only to look at the TSR Modules of Yore to see that fighter gear was targetted by such things as Heat Metal conditions, strong magnetism, etc. And let us not forget the humble rust monster. The beginning of Module A4 is as hard on fighters as on casters....harder in some ways, because a few spell components (pinch of sand for Sleep, for example) are trivially easy to find.

No, in early D&D, everyone is more-or-less targetted equally.

On a totally side note, scrolls weren't all THAT rare in the treasure tables

Cool.....As long as you don't make the mistake of treating a limited resource as an unlimited resource. Much of the strategic play in early D&D is about how and when you use your limited resources.....Something that is certainly "softened" in 3e, and largely removed (intentionally) from 4e.

Look at the things that have been brought up in this thread. The idea of tying doors shut, not to stop the rogue, but specifically to stop the Knock wand wielding wizard. The rogue is fine, we want him to be able to open locks. But, we have to go out of our way to make sure that the wizard isn't doing a better job of it than the rogue.

It's never come up in any game I have either run or played in.

This is, IMHO, similar to "Look how many reasons you have to come up with to keep giant spiders from dominating the game! There's antivenom in the equipment list!"

Pointing out how trivially easy it is to solve a problem should never be taken as proof that a problem is widespread. Actually, it should be taken as evidence to the contrary, if anything.

Or, for another example, look at random encounters. Why have random encounters if not to interrupt casters from regaining their spells.

Hold on there, Tex.

Random encounters occur for the specific reasons of (1) verisimilitude and (2) strategic resource management. Spells are a strategic resource, but they are hardly the only one.

Without (2), there is no reason not to throw everything you have at every encounter. You do not need casters for this to be the case. If a party consists entirely of fighters, and those fighters can rest enough to heal all damage between encounters, hit points cease to be of strategic importance, and are only of tactical importance within each given encounter.

As soon as this happens, the GM needs to adjust encounters so that every encounter is designed to potentially use up the party's total strategic resources, lest every encounter otherwise become trivial. This means that the fights have to last long enough to use those resources (leading to long, grindy combats) and that they have to be all roughly the same in terms of challenge (leading to long, boring, grindy combats).

You might add some kind of easily defeated creature into the mix, to give the illusion of numerical superiority on one side without unbalancing the combat. They might also allow you to control the pace of the combat a little, so as to make it less boring. And you might design some powers specifically to counter these easily defeated creatures, to give the players an illusion that their characters are effective.

(The reason this must be illusory is that the combat system, designed to use all resources without resulting in a TPK, must reduce swinginess, and must therefore occur over a greater time frame. This greater time frame means that the cost, to the players rather than their characters, in time for any fight in which the characters can truly demonstrate effectiveness is greater than the gain, to the players, for that fight. Thus fights where the characters are truly effective are largely tossed to the wayside.)

If you are going to design commercial adventures for such a game, you need to know, therefore, what the party's strategic resources are likely to be to a very high degree of accuracy. Let's call this the "party balance point". This means you need to know how much wealth they have per level, and you need to remove anything that potentially "unbalances" the "party balance point".

If, at the same time, you expect the PCs to level during an adventure, it then becomes critically important that the PCs face the encounters in a set order, so that they meet only those encounters that are balanced for the strategic resources at their level. Otherwise, again, the game is no longer balanced around the "party balance point" and you end up with either a TPK or GM intervention to prevent the same.

These last two factors lead to railroady adventure design, possibly along some kind of path or format that controls how the encounters are handled, possibly down to the starting position of each individual piece.

Now, I'm not exactly sure what such a game would look like, but if that was the cost of resolving the warrior vs. wizard "problem" (which has never been a problem for me), it is a cost I am entirely unwilling to pay! So, I will hold fast to my strategic resources, thank you!

People have specifically mentioned that 3e, with its lack of random encounters, has promoted the nova-caster.

Now, this is true specifically because the design of the casters in TSR-D&D, from OD&D on, is designed around strategic resources. But, as shown above, this is true for all classes if the strategic resource element is removed. Certainly, evening out the casters and warriors can result in a game where everyone's resources feel more "balanced", but in practice this actually limits the kinds of "balance" a game can achieve to a rather narrow focus.

Again, if you have no problem with giant spiders, modifying everything else to resolve that "problem" makes little sense, and can damage the things you do enjoy about the game.

Which doesn't mean that a ruleset shouldn't be created to help folks who have problems with giant spiders......but it does mean that those folks shouldn't assume (A) that their problems are universal, or (B) that their solution is going to be universally applauded.

Take the casters out of the equation, and you no longer need random encounters as a balancing mechanic.

Again, as described above, this is simply not true.

If there was a game that had attempted this, with the predicted results of long grindy combats and micromanaged railroady commercial adventures, I would point it out as an example of the results of removing (or largely removing) strategic resource management. Unfortunately, no such game exists at this time.

You are making some rather serious presumptions there. Why am I using scrolls in combat? That's what my memorized spells are for.

You are right; I am presuming a game that deals in strategic resource management, such as Dungeons & Dragons (any TSR edition) or RCFG. There is also, as you note, the fact that TSR-D&D scrolls are random and contain more than one spell. If you have a scroll of Fireball and Invisibility, do you store it with your combat-ready scrolls, or with your better-protected utility scrolls? That is the sort of strategic decision that makes play interesting, to me. YMMV.

“Top level magic-users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long, hard road to the top, and to begin with they are weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magic types until they have worked up.”

Interestingly enough, this quote doesn't say

“Top level magic-users dominate the game, but it is a long, hard road to the top, and to begin with they are weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magic types until they have worked up.”​

It doesn't even say that they are the most powerful characters, it qualifies that they are perhaps the most powerful characters.

That is, I agree, an interesting counterpoint to your argument.


RC

 

[billd91]

People have specifically mentioned that 3e, with its lack of random encounters, has promoted the nova-caster. But, the main reason we have random encounters in the first place isn't because it makes the setting more dynamic, because while there may be situations where having a random encounter check every ten minutes makes sense, there are many other situations where it doesn't, is to limit the casters. Take the casters out of the equation, and you no longer need random encounters as a balancing mechanic.

I really don't know where people get the impression that 3e did away with random encounters. They're right there in the 3.5 DMG on page 77, followed by several tables. And then we encounter more encounter tables in the section on the wilderness several pages later, including a detailed treatment on page 95.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I really don't know where people get the impression that 3e did away with random encounters. They're right there in the 3.5 DMG on page 77, followed by several tables. And then we encounter more encounter tables in the section on the wilderness several pages later, including a detailed treatment on page 95.

I think that the time frame for completing a combat, especially as levels increase, was/is a major disincentive for some folks. And then there was a WotC web column that suggested dropping wandering encounters.

I think the actual argument that Hussar is talking about is "IF you choose not to use wandering encounters, THEN there is little reason for the characters not to go nova." It doesn't presuppose the IF part of the statement, and offers a solution as well: "IF you use random encounters (i.e., if the characters cannot predict an ability to restore all used resources between encounters), THEN the characters are likely to hold something in reserve (i.e., not nova)."


RC