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

[Bluenose]

In the rogue's case, killing quickly is part of the expected skillset, since- absent an assassin class- that is the class expected to take up that role.

I thought Fighters were the people who were supposed to be expert at fighting. Isn't killing quickly part of that skill set?

Look at the fiction that inspired the games and you'll find that spellcasters of all cultures were able to do things beyond the ken of mortal men: heal with a touch, fly, become invisible, summon otherplanar beings, turn sticks to snakes, start fires without fuel. It's the nature of spellcasting.

Are there noncasters in myth & legend that can do some of this stuff? Sure- some of which is explained by their supernatural nature or the aid of others- but they're the exception rather than the rule. In contrast, ALL spellcasters are like this.

No, they're not all like that. In fact, I have some doubt whether you could find a single one who could do all those things. Gandalf doesn't, Merlin doesn't, Circe doesn't, Koschei doesn't, I don't think even Harold Shea manages it. Possibly there are some in superhero comics, I don't know because I don't follow them. But the skill set of most spellcasters is a lot narrower than you're suggesting.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I thought Fighters were the people who were supposed to be expert at fighting. Isn't killing quickly part of that skill set?

There is overlap, to be sure.

Fighting is the business of fighters, and since that covers a lot of things- ranged combat, melee, delaying engagements, versus single or multiple targets and so forth- they are generalists in the realm of combat. But killing quickly, with precision, stealth & speed, against single targets with a minimal chance of retribution, is a different skillset.

It's the difference between a bastard sword and a straightrazor...or a commando with an AK-47 and some grenades who kills everyone in sight and a sniper with a 50 cal single-action rifle who takes out the Colonel...and nobody else.

No, they're not all like that. In fact, I have some doubt whether you could find a single one who could do all those things

My apologies for being unclear- I wasn't saying that they all fly, produce fire ex nihilo, etc., but rather that they all break the rules of normal physics. Whether its a broad bag of tricks or just a few things they do very well, they're all rulesbreakers and reality benders who have more options than a normal Joe.

 

[pawsplay]

Given all a fighter's bonus feats, they are probably in the best position to spend a feat or two on skills or other abilities. Blackbeard, above, should still have no problem grabbing Power Attack, Cleave, Improved Critical and anything else he wants down the road.

 

[Stormonu]

or a commando with an AK-47 and some grenades who kills everyone in sight and a sniper with a 50 cal single-action rifle who takes out the Colonel...and nobody else.

I agree that this should be the way the rogue and the fighter work in combat. However, with the way hit points work, I feel this isn't how it works in actual play. The rogue is popping enemies one by one with sneak attack, while the fighter's got to lay his whole clip into a single enemy, instead of spraying everyone in sight. They're both taking down one enemy at a time, but the fighter's got to throw a lot more at his opponent at once. And he certainly doesn't have any grenades - that's in the wizard's toolbox.

Also, I think several things happened in 3E that the designers didn't really think about how they negatively impacted the fighter class, which created so much hate for it in 3E. Giving multiple attacks to all classes, relaxing the setup the rogue needed to perform sneak attack as the edition went on (the rogue's schtick was supposed to be skills, with sneak attack a secondary ability - not sneak attack being the classes primary ability) and not giving fighters access to feats that had requirements beyond 6th level (nor being powerful enough as even a 1st level spell) hurt the fighter class in many ways. In a manner of speaking, the fighter's schtick was passed out to all the other classes so he had nothing unique.

4E found its own solution, but I don't think 3E ever really fixed the problem (and I think Tome of Battle was the wrong direction to go). And I can't say (or at least remember) that being a fighter was a problem back in basic/1E/2E days.

I also think that is one of the sticking points of this argument. Since the fighter's thing is to fight, and since all the other classes can do that to some extent, why would you classify a literary figure as only a fighter? If the fighter class had something unique to it - say combat tricks such as tripping, bull rushing, hitting multiple enemies at once - then we can point at literary figures much easier and say "yup, he had to be fighter, because only fighters can do that."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I agree that this should be the way the rogue and the fighter work in combat.

In a way, it does.

Fighters damage output is rarely decreased; it's a fairly consistent flow due to their better to-hit numbers and so little of their damage being conditional.

In contrast, to get his full damage output- moreso prior to 4Ed- the rogue types need to have a positional advantage and hope they're not facing beings immune to their bonus damage (constructs, undead, etc.).

This is analogous to the commando and the sniper: the former can spray rounds everywhere and toss his grenades as he sees fit, any old time, but if the sniper cannot get a clean shot, he can't do his job, and in certain situations, his expensive sniper rifle, while awesomely powerful, is inferior to the cheaply made AK-47. (A single action rifle is not what you want fighting in close quarters, against large numbers of foes, in a moving firefight...)

 

[WayneLigon]

How have you seen warior characters in fantasy books overcome spellcasters?

Usually by being faster than they are, and getting off an arrow or sword blow before the wizard can do much of anything. Or they have a McGuffin that lets them escape the brunt of the wizard's power in time to finish him off.

'Need' is a good example of that in the Tarma and Kethry books. It's a minor artifact that makes a warrior almost invulnerable to magic (and conversely makes a wizard the equal of a superb warrior), as long as the warrior is working towards that sword's special purpose ('Protect all women').

So, in that case, spellcasting probably took more than the typical "Standard Action" and the wizard had *very* low Hit Points and no protective magic in place (even though he was anticipating the encounter).

Most magic in fantasy books is not the all-combat-oriented magic you see in D&D. I've seen very, very few mages in books with any sort of shielding spell against physical attacks except items they've created. The ones that do (Harry Dresden's shielding charm comes to mind) have limited charges or effects. They'll provide perfect protection from 1, 2 maybe 3 attacks and then it goes down.

Spellcasting in classic fantasy is almost never quick stuff useful in combat. In modern fantasy, you'll see it a lot but it's usually inversely proportional - quick spells do little damage or they are over soon as well. Usually there will be dire 'in game' penalties for using magic to kill, so a lot of magic stuns, blinds or paralyzes people.

There are some times that mages tap into hidden forces or deep emotions to do large, quick, devastating combat magic. In those cases, warriors run or they die, no question about it. Typically this is not something someone can just do off the cuff, though, and comes at major climaxes. And a lot of times the mage in question pays for it by either being powerless for a time thereafter or other side effects.

Characters in books never have the huge buckets of hit points they do in D&D, so a fist to the jaw or a dagger in the back is enough to put down or kill pretty much any normal person. Think if you had the hit points you had in AD&D (fighter, maybe 12; mage, 3-4) and then it never, ever got any better. You'd be closer to the way most books work. People live through fights by having good armor, avoiding blows, or by never letting a fight occur in the first place.

Another 'balancing' thing you'll see now and again is 'all spells are not created equal'. In D&D, every spell is just as easy to learn as any other. In most books, that's just not the case. In a series I just finished 'A Young Man Without Magic' by Lawrence Watt-Evans, glamor and illusion magic is very rare because it requires a very powerful sorcerer to create them. Any hedge witch can do a little healing and some simple beguilement, but a major gut wound is beyond them. Similarly, in most books the death-dealing combat spells are usually rare; hard to find and/or hard to learn.

 

[Hussar]

This is a feat regularly accomplished by orc war leaders. Does this involve anything more than Intimidate, maybe a rank or two in Diplomacy, and being tougher than the other pirates?



So? He doesn't need a +30 Profession (Shiphandling) bonus. In fact, all he really needs is bare competence, since crew members likely supplied expertise in navigation, shiphandling, and so forth. Primarily, he is known for being extremely scary, shrewed in his political dealings, and requiring multiple major wounds to finally defeat.

Given that he started his career as a Jamaican sailor, Blackbeard could be:

Edward Teach
Human Fighter 1
Str 14, Dex 10, Con 15, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 11
Feats: Skill Focus (Profession[Sailor]), Negotiator
Skils: Balance +2, Climb +4, (Diplomacy +2), Intimidate +4, Profession (Sailor) +5, (Sense Motive) +2, Swim +4

Umm, would you sail with a captain that can't read a map? He still doesn't have Knowledge Geography. And, would you sail with a captain that has no way of knowing if anyone is lying to him? And, would you sail with a captain that gets washed overboard every time there are high seas? A +2 balance check isn't going to cut it.

And, really, what's he doing with a +2 Diplomacy check? OOooo, he has about a 50/50 chance of getting a friendly person to help him.

Let's see you raise him up to about tenth level, and make him an effective captain. It's all very well and good to make a poor sailor with no more combat effectiveness than the average warrior, but, let's see him as a captain.

 

[BryonD]

Umm, would you sail with a captain that can't read a map?

I think you are missing his point.

Primarily, he is known for being extremely scary, shrewed in his political dealings, and requiring multiple major wounds to finally defeat.

Now, I don't know that this example does *that* either, but Blackbeard was not a Captain because he was the most awesome of map readers. He was captain because he was a scary, tough badass who could get people to do what he wanted. That included getting people to just give up and hand over their stuff. But it also included getting that really good map reader to understand that he was now a pirate and was going to read the damn map for him.

Again, there is a real interest in playing games in which characters need not be masters of all things in order to be very good at what they do.

(not to mention that most of the guys sailing with Blackbeard were not exactly asked if they would like to sail with him....)

 

[Neonchameleon]

Edward Teach
Human Fighter 1
Str 14, Dex 10, Con 15, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 11
Feats: Skill Focus (Profession[Sailor]), Negotiator
Skils: Balance +2, Climb +4, (Diplomacy +2), Intimidate +4, Profession (Sailor) +5, (Sense Motive) +2, Swim +4

Um. That isn't Edward Teach. That's Roger the Cabin Boy. First level fighters have no more BAB or hit points than second level rogues; they simply aren't that good at fighting. And he's not going to scale well at all - he has feat bonusses to diplomacy, profession, and sense motive. He's more or less capped on these cross class skills. And for another skill Roger is lacking, Use Rope. A pirate captain with only a 50% chance of tying a firm knot? (Plus a balance of +2 is going to make him a joke on a ship with a rolling and slippery deck).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Again, there is a real interest in playing games in which characters need not be masters of all things in order to be very good at what they do.

And again I can't think of a game where people get to be masters at all thigns short of exalted. I've already demonstrated that you need to be a level 18 wizard or fighter if your starting dex is 10 to match a competent first level thief at stealth. That isn't mastery, nor is being a good dozen points lower on a d20 roll for things you'd expect to be facing.

It does not take mastery of bluff to bluff the villiage idiot. Or to bluff the hick from the sticks.

Now, I don't know that this example does *that* either,

It really, really doesn't.

but Blackbeard was not a Captain because he was the most awesome of map readers.

Who said he had to be even the best map reader on his ship? That's why he had a navigator. He just needs to know something about mapreading. (Although I'd rank that little something under the Profession skill).

He was captain because he was a scary,

Intimidate +4? *snicker*

tough badass

12 hit points? *snort*

who could get people to do what he wanted.

Diplomacy +2?!? Bluff +0!

That included getting people to just give up and hand over their stuff. But it also included getting that really good map reader to understand that he was now a pirate and was going to read the damn map for him.

He really needs those social skills. Which he sucks at.

(not to mention that most of the guys sailing with Blackbeard were not exactly asked if they would like to sail with him....)

Which means he needed a damn good diplomacy skill to get them to not stab him in the back - after all they were all armed.

Honestly, the descriptions of teach to me aren't saying fighter. They are saying Barbarian/Rogue who was raging when he was brought down. That's because the fighter might be good at combat. But so is everyone else.

And honestly? Unless you want heavy armour for some reason (as Blackbeard emphatically does not) the fighter is no match for the barbarian at low levels; rage, uncanny dodge, and fast movement are all worth at least a feat each. And the barbarian gets more hit points and more skills per level (even after buying off illiteracy). Part of the problem we're discussing is that wizards (and other primary spellcasters) are insanely fast casting. Another part is that fighters suck. Without heavy armour, barbarians are tougher, fitter, stronger, and generally better at beating people to a pulp. And have more hit points. The very things the fighter is meant to be good at.