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

[Rel]

Do not respond further to Jeff Wilder. He won't be responding back.

 

[TwoSix]

OK, so now that's all sorted out, with everyone apologizing and hugging, can we finally get back to the important topic... which is *MY* posts?

I'm kidding, I'm kidding, my Enworld level is now "Minor Trickster", I'm just roleplaying...

Well, I did think your last post was very nice, actually. I don't feel the same way you feel about a lot of the issues, but it was expressed very nicely.

 

[NoWayJose]

Well, I did think your last post was very nice, actually. I don't feel the same way you feel about a lot of the issues, but it was expressed very nicely.

Thanks! Just... too bad about that other bit, huh? Bit of a party killer

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Well, I did think your last post was very nice, actually. I don't feel the same way you feel about a lot of the issues, but it was expressed very nicely.

Yeah, I agree with this assessment. That post was pretty nice; it expressed your opinion and your point of view well, and did so without being harsh or "douchey" at all (can we still use that word in the context of this thread?).

Like TwoSix, I don't agree on a lot of your points, but they were well articulated (though I don't really get the UFC references, as I haven't watched it since it was in the single digits and low double digits).

But I understand where you're coming from. I spent a lot of time playing D&D where the paradigm you describe was the default, and I enjoyed it, for the most part, immensely. I like gonzo magic as much as the next guy, and I don't think that there is really a lack of it in 4e, it just takes a different form (rituals). It's not a solution that everyone will be happy with, and I can respect that PoV, but I like it, and so does my group, so that's good enough for me.

I would still probably play any other edition, or PF, or E6, or other games with similar balance. I would probably even DM them. Even 3e, despite what I said in another thread about that. I just wouldn't go past level 12.

 

[TwoSix]

Thanks! Just... too bad about that other bit, huh? Bit of a party killer

Yea, it might be the straw that breaks the back of this 7 week old, 1450 post thread. Glad to have played my part in it!

Oh, and as N_D said, I don't hate 3e either. Heck, I'm in a game now because that's what my group likes. I just prefer 4e.

 

[NoWayJose]

Like TwoSix, I don't agree on a lot of your points, but they were well articulated (though I don't really get the UFC references, as I haven't watched it since it was in the single digits and low double digits).

The UFC fighter was simply a reference to a highly combat-oriented class and the chef was a reference to the 3e "kitchen sink" make any type of PC you want whether it's optimized for battle or not.

I would still probably play any other edition, or PF, or E6, or other games with similar balance. I would probably even DM them. Even 3e, despite what I said in another thread about that. I just wouldn't go past level 12.

I'm with you on that. I played high-level 3e once, and I found it interesting but too rules-complex for me at that level.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Can we actually drop "douche" and all related terms?

 

[Plane Sailing]

This thread is getting very close to the point of being closed because it is causing more problems than fun. Please be careful, people.

Thanks

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

The UFC fighter was simply a reference to a highly combat-oriented class and the chef was a reference to the 3e "kitchen sink" make any type of PC you want whether it's optimized for battle or not.

Ah, I understand. Thanks for clearing that up. I miss a lot of pop culture references because I don't watch TV (at all - literally), so things that "everyone" gets simply go sailing straight over my head.

(I don't feel left out.)

I'm with you on that. I played high-level 3e once, and I found it interesting but too rules-complex for me at that level.

As DM, I found it just took way too much time to plan, and the story started to suffer for it. I haven't played "high level" since, even under 4th, so I don't know if it's "fixed" that issue or not.

I suspect that it has - to a point - but I'm not going to find out unless I have a story that needs telling in that context. When I ran that high level game, I was itching to try it. Had been ever since they took the level charts to 20th in 2e (or was it first in UA?). Not all it's cracked up to be, IMHO. I have a whole new appreciation for 'Heroic' -type adventures now. I understand why 1e levels went to 12. I get the point of E6. The grass isn't always greener, or so experience has taught me.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

This thread is getting very close to the point of being closed because it is causing more problems than fun. Please be careful, people.

Thanks

+1 and which is a shame. I have followed this thread and have occasionally posted to it and have found that it (occasionally) drives at the heart of what makes certain versions of the games we love tick (or not tick and that can be just as interesting). It has also taken quite a few tangents some very very interesting (others perhaps less so).

And so...

Can we collectively make sure that this thread is not closed but slowly and eventually fades (to be more than likely necromancied a couple of times in the near and distant future). And thus a plea also to the moderators for them to encourage it's continued existence rather than its closing.

Just saying.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise