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

[TwoSix]

That wouldn't be in line with my personal subjective vision at all. Magic causes things to happen in spite of reality. A door opens because of magic, despite the fact that it was locked.

Do I insist that a wizard could theoretically learn to wave a hand and open a door? Based on movies and novels, probably yes. Do I insist a wizard be able to wave a hand and open a locked door? No, not necessarily. Perhaps a moderate sorcerer uses telekenesis to open an unlocked door (altering reality a little bit), and a great sorcerer just magically opens anything (altering reality a lot).

See, that's interesting. To my mind, a D&D mage shouldn't bother with locks. If he needs to open a lock, he uses a fire ray on the doorknob.

I guess never liked the archetypal image that pre-4e mages presented. Wimpy guys who can do weird stuff a few times a day, like knock or locate object, but can occasionally fly like Superman.

I prefer mages more of the Harry Dresden archetype. Combat magic is blasts and shields, telekinetic force and fire. If I had to put what I want a D&D mage to be in pre-4e terms, it would be access to evocation, abjurations, and maybe some conjurations. Other effects would take longer, or require crafting items.

I feel D&D magic is better overall if specific schticks are separated into different classes, rather than grouped under one wizard class umbrella. That's why I'm a fan of classes like the beguiler, dread necromancer, and warmage. They feel to me what magic should be about. You have an area of expertise, and a ton of versatility within that field. But you can't be good at everything.

 

[NoWayJose]

See, that's interesting. To my mind, a D&D mage shouldn't bother with locks. If he needs to open a lock, he uses a fire ray on the doorknob.

That's totally fine too. The rules have to allow for it though (do locks have hit points and can fire damage destroy it?)

I guess never liked the archetypal image that pre-4e mages presented. Wimpy guys who can do weird stuff a few times a day, like knock or locate object, but can occasionally fly like Superman.

These 'weird stuff' draws upon common book and movies scenes, etc. where a magic guy waves his hand and the door opens. (Anyway, pre-4E had many evokers, etc. too)

I prefer mages more of the Harry Dresden archetype. Combat magic is blasts and shields, telekinetic force and fire.

I agree. I'd just like to see a universe or ruleset that allows for both paradigms. For example, I believe there are utility spells in the Dresden universe as well.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

For myself, magic that literally states "+1 to lockpicking" (if I understood you correctly) feels more gamey than fictionally magical. If that makes any sense?

What if it is +5 or +10 to the skill? Just because it is limited to buffing existing skill, it does not imply that the buff is minor. It is pretty magical that, say, a wizard can turn a person with a bit of Dexterity but no training, into the equivalent lockpicker as a 5th or 6th level rogue.

In the particular context of d20, remember the problem this is trying to solve: You want casters to be magical at all levels, but you don't want them so overpowering at higher levels. At low levels, limits on spell casting per day still matter a lot. So in practice, a one-time +10 to skill is not stealing from the rogue's spotlight. If anything, it lets the rogue get through a really tough lock with the help of the wizard. However, if the rogue is missing, the wizard can get through a lock. OTOH, by the time you hit higher levels, the dedicated rogue's skill has dwarved even a +10. The magic is still a great boost, and it still lets the untrained recipicient get through a simple lock, but it doesn't scale.

Note that you are free to explain the magic any way you want with such a system. If you want to say that the +10 to skill mechanical effect is really lowering the lock's DC by 10 (by changing its shape or whatever), then you can write the spell that way.

And scaling really is the overall issue here. You could solve the specific "knock" problem by saying, for example, that there are multiple versions of the "knock" spell, and more complicated locks require more power to get through magically. The "boost mundane skill magically" design idea is simply a more comprehensive means to that end.

 

[NoWayJose]

What if it is +5 or +10 to the skill? Just because it is limited to buffing existing skill, it does not imply that the buff is minor. It is pretty magical that, say, a wizard can turn a person with a bit of Dexterity but no training, into the equivalent lockpicker as a 5th or 6th level rogue.

+5 or +10 doesn't matter to me in that context (did you catch my edit?)

It's not the power of the thing. I never cared about wizards dominating. It's about the magic of the thing.

I can't imagine a wizard with access to so much potential would choose such an obscure geeky narrow-minded spell like that.

If scaling and balance is such an issue that there is no other way to duplicate a knock spell, then I wouldn't include it all. +x to lockpicking is so fictionally the opposite of magical to me, I feel it ruins immersion and it's not worth it.

Instead, just blast the lock with fire like TwoSix suggested. If that doesn't work, then the lock is probably half-ruined and the thief can't pick it anymore. So then the fighter moves in and smashes the lock. If he can take down a 30' tall golem, he can smash a fire-slagged lock too.

 

[TwoSix]

I agree. I'd just like to see a universe or ruleset that allows for both paradigms. For example, I believe there are utility spells in the Dresden universe as well.

I'd like to see D&D set up with some base guidelines (sort of a SRD minus races, classes, and spells). Then the rest of the game can present D&D with everything that makes the world D&D, not trying to present some sort of toolkit level of races and classes.

In my mind, D&D magic (as opposed to D&D modeling specific literary sources) should be able to do these kind of effects:

Blasting (elemental, and raw force) [fireball]
Conjuration of effects (elemental, force) [wall of force]
Summoning and Binding extraplanar forces [planar binding]
Shapeshifting and Identity changing [disguise self, wild shape(limited)]
Control over the dead [animate dead]
Environmental control [shape stone]
Mind control [geas, charm person]
Extradimensional access [magnificent mansion]
Healing of physical trauma [cure X wounds, neutralize poison]
Control of existing magic [break enchantment, dispel magic]

My personal feeling is that each of these groupings is enough to support a class built around it.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I don't know how much this will contribute to the current discussion, but the mention of Arcana Unearthed / Arcana Evolved reminded me.

It's funny, I remember reading AU/AE and the revisions it made to all the utility and buffing spells, and thinking, "wow, that's quite a nerf!" I felt like (at first) I wouldn't want to play with those changes, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that those changes were necessary. At least, necessary toward what the designer was trying to achieve (which, ultimately I agree with).

Since I play and DM in equal measure (more or less), that's always been an internal struggle for me; my player side wants gonzo-powerful spells and items, and yet my DM side likes to keep things under control and in balance. When things get toned down, my initial reaction is (or was, until I began to realize the true nature of the issue) always to complain or disregard the nerfs. It took a while for me to come around, but I'd usually realize why they happened, and why they were a good idea. That realization comes much more quickly now, and the knee-jerk backlash to nerfing is much more subdued. Though, I still veto some nerfs when their clear intent is to un-break some theorycraft CharOp nightmare with respect to organized play scenarios. In home games this stuff matters a lot less. That said, I still have to be conscious of it, because I have a player in the group who really likes to optimize and find broken combos (though he is quite an excellent roleplayer, too).

 

[pemerton]

From my point of view, the only really important balance element a game cannot do without is spotlight balance

<snp>

as a DM, I can work toward balancing opportunities so that all my players get their chances to shine, be the center of attention, and be cheered on by their peers.

I guess it depends on what is meant by "spotlight balance". The notion I had in mind, introduced upthread, is that the warrior is balanced against the wizard because, after the wizard has fireballed the heck out of the trolls or mummies, the fighter still has to go in and mop up. To me, this verges on fighter-as-sidekick.

I don't object to "spotlight balance" at the level of story/scenario, in the sense that from time to time one or other PC will be at the centre of the story (although I do my best to have my scenarios engage multiple PCs at one time). Of course, this is also affected by wizard vs warrior issues - for example, a wizard PC with narrative-controlling spells has a great capacity to make the scenario be about him/her.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I like a high-level spellcaster with world-shaking powers.

I also like a high level warrior with world-shaking powers.

You can have both, or you can have neither, but picking one or the other leads the un-picked archetype a clear second banana at best (with an Ars Magica scenario, for instance).

See, that's interesting. To my mind, a D&D mage shouldn't bother with locks. If he needs to open a lock, he uses a fire ray on the doorknob.

If I zoom out from that a little, to look at the idea of a "fire ray" as a game mechanic, this is what I see: you want a spell to be a tool, not an effect. This is something that 4e abandoned (attacks damage creatures and doors are not creatures!), but something every other edition has had. 3e said "Your fire deals X damage against a target. Shoot it at a wall, it deals X damage to the wall."

I'd actually agree that tools are more fun than effects in a tabletop RPG. Tools, by their nature, are useful for more than one thing. They encourage creativity. If my ability is "I shoot fire rays," then I will use that ability to overcome whatever problem my party faces, from the charging ogre to the locked door to detecting the sneaking assassin to winning over the noble who controls the roads in town.

The thing is, this can create an imbalance. If a wizard can both kill an ogre and open the trapped door, what does the thief do? If the wizard can also detect an assassin, what's the fighter do? If the wizard can also win over the noble, what's the cleric do?

This is part of why 4e describes effects. "Your ray of fire can kill an ogre, but it can't do anything else unless the DM makes a special exception, since the DM knows best!" It lets DMs do things like say "No, you can't light the forest on fire with your fire ray," rather than having to deal with the consequences of a player that gets too creative. It also MAKES a DM do this, which is something that cramps my personal style. I really want my players to be able to be powerful enough to make plots happen. Makes DMing much easier.

I'm not personally a fan of the "balance by strict definition" approach, but it does balance things, by rigidly defining what they're capable of. Your ray of fire can't melt that lock. You'll need someone with Thievery (or a high Dex anyway) to do it.

 

[rkwoodard]

anti-pro balance

This thread, and the recently closed Video-gamey thread have been very enlighting for myself.

I realize that I want one of the older systems. I have bought up a bunch of basic modules and will soon start DMing a play by post Savage Coast/Isle of Dread campaign. If I can get my old friends on board.


But, one thing I have figured out about myself. I don't care about strict balance, what I care about is having all players have a vested interest in most encounters. IE having interesting things to do.

Our groups longest campaign was V&V. We played by the book, stat yourself, roll 1d6+2 for powers. We were not balanced....at all. I was on the mid-to-low power end, but I had high dex and darkness control. I got to do a ton of really cool stuff. I got beat up....a lot.

I think a lot of modern games try so hard to have interesting stuff to do, that it makes it way too easy for a smart/lucky/or dedicated player to end up with stuff that makes it less interesting for the other players.

So, I will go back to my B/X and rely on more player skill than character mechanics.

Regards,

 

[NoWayJose]

If I zoom out from that a little, to look at the idea of a "fire ray" as a game mechanic, this is what I see: you want a spell to be a tool, not an effect. This is something that 4e abandoned (attacks damage creatures and doors are not creatures!), but something every other edition has had. 3e said "Your fire deals X damage against a target. Shoot it at a wall, it deals X damage to the wall."

I'd actually agree that tools are more fun than effects in a tabletop RPG. Tools, by their nature, are useful for more than one thing. They encourage creativity. If my ability is "I shoot fire rays," then I will use that ability to overcome whatever problem my party faces, from the charging ogre to the locked door to detecting the sneaking assassin to winning over the noble who controls the roads in town.

That's a good way of articulating it. For both versimilitude and creativity, I do like spells as a tool. To extend this a little further, I'd like to see D&D, for example:
a) define the effects of cold magic, for example, so you know that cold does x damage and numbs (=slow) living creatures, or if applied directly to the ground, causes slippery terrain, etc.
b) keeps cold effects more or less consistent, so that any cold spell shares the same traits (as applicable). You've defined that family of magic and how it interacts with the world, and the various cold-spells are variations of shape, power, etc.

The thing is, this can create an imbalance.

In all fairness, did D&D ever really truly tried, and I mean honestly tried, to implement a balancing mechanism that does not take away the fun and flexibility of the spell-as-a-tool approach? Or did 4E swing sharply towards the spell-as-an-effect and other 4E paradigms because it was easier, convenient, etc.? I'm just asking, if anyone actually tried? People often accuse WoTC of not making the best adventure modules, but that doesn't mean that amazing adventures haven't and can't be developed. So just because D&D went with the 4E approach, it doesn't mean that the alternatives cannot exist. Maybe it doesn't, maybe it's impossible to have fun magic and no balance, but I'm not sure I want to rely on WoTC to give me a final answer. Maybe a 5E or another system will come around that proves it wrong.

If a wizard can both kill an ogre and open the trapped door, what does the thief do? If the wizard can also detect an assassin, what's the fighter do? If the wizard can also win over the noble, what's the cleric do?

I could argue that if a fighter can slaughter his enemies and smash locks, then what does the thief do? If a charismatic rogue can sweet-talk the noble, what's the cleric to do? But somehow that's not a problem.

Since all this is theoretical, at least on my end, I don't have any hard answers, and it would take an essay to cover every possible corner case, so I won't even try.

I do think it's a sacred cow that somebody decided in 1e/2e that fireball, for example, should do massive amounts of damage. What if magical fire is more like a flamethrower. If you're roleplaying a modern rpg, nobody claims that the guy with the flamethrower is hogging the spotlight with his worldshaking weapon. Ya, the flamethrower is unique and intimidating, but you can sneak from behind and knife him, or shoot him from a farther distance, or rush at him while he's firing up his flamethrower.

I'm not invalidating anyone's concerns about balance. I'm just wondering if people are too quick and hasty to give up on cool spells and sacrifice that potential fun because they never really thought it through.