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

[I'm A Banana]

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?

Kinda. "Balance" is a difficult thing to pin down, even for 4e, which is the most fetishistic about it. Pre-3e's balance was "Wizards are rockstars at high levels, Fighters get to wail at early levels, XP's are different so fighters get more levels." That didn't quite work. 3e's balance was "Everyone can help kick a given monster's butt," but that didn't quite work. 4e's balance is "Every Role X class has ability Y in combat," and that has its own problems.

4e's move was a reaction against some abuses in 3e that arose from taking some "tool" and using it to hugely outsized effect. Pun Pun was a creation like this. Take the (repitilian) keyword (a rule designed to have the effect of giving Rangers more things to apply their bonuses against) and a particular ability (a rule designed to give a villainous enemy some lackeys), and change up how they are used (it's a PC!), and you have abuse. Open-ended effects like Polymorph and Wish and other tools without well-defined limits (or intentionally lacking them) gave a lot of effects that were unintended and unbalancing.

I personally think that there's a sweet spot between "Polymorph can turn you into anything from the MM" and "you can't fire ray a door because it's not a creature" that both ideas miss by a pretty wide margin.

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.

You're hitting one of the narrative problems of the "all-powerful spellcaster" on the head.

The thing is, adventuring parties in D&D generally face four broad types of challenges:

• Combat (vs. monsters)
• Exploration (vs. an environment)
• Interaction (vs. an NPC)
• Knowledge (vs. a hidden element)

A 3e spellcaster can do all of these better than a nonspellcaster. Save-or-die (and healing) wins combats. Flight and teleport win Exploration. Charm and Dominate win Interaction. Scry and Truesight win Knowledge.

I think that every player should be able to contribute to any party in these four ways in a unique and class-specific way, personally. I like wizards who can burn things, teleport, charm, and scry, so for me, the best solution is to make these things roughly equal to what a rogue can do (sneak attack, speedy movement, sliver tongue, and perception abilities) or what a fighter can do (hit it with a sword, climb up that cliff in fullplate, impress the locals with reputation, and always be prepared for an ambush!).

That means, I think, giving them all tools that can be compared to each other, and balanced against each other, so that no one tool is "the best" at doing any one thing.

4e really only concerns itself with the first element there. That's where the "powers as effects" idea comes from, and the "roles" system comes from, and where "fighters have daily powers!" comes from, too. The other three elements are mostly demoted to "everyone is equal and DM fiat rules how hard these things are." I'm not a fan of that latter solution, and there's problems with the former, too, for those who don't like the way the tools are presented.

 

[NoWayJose]

"Balance" is a difficult thing to pin down, even for 4e, which is the most fetishistic about it.
<snip>

I agree with everything you wrote, about the contrast between 3e vs 4e, and a theoretical sweet spot inbetween, and that 4E is somewhat fetishistic about balance, which is a really good way of articulating it for me, because if someone has a "fetish", it's very difficult to sway them (although one could argue that I have a "fetish" towards versimilitude, immersion, fiction-first, etc. which is possible, except that I didn't successfully force my fetish on anyone, I just stopped playing). Maybe that's not WoTC's onus if players themselves analyze and report every imbalance, but maybe the players wouldn't analyze every imbalance if 4E wasn't so naked in its balancing mechanism. A chicken and the egg thing.

A 3e spellcaster can do all of these better than a nonspellcaster. Save-or-die (and healing) wins combats. Flight and teleport win Exploration. Charm and Dominate win Interaction. Scry and Truesight win Knowledge.

A 3E spellcaster could theoretically do all of these better with magic, but practically, a) needs access to the applicable spells, b) has to prepare for those spells in advance, c) requires spells components, d) and risks spell-casting being interrupted.

If I'm strong, I can open a jar with pure strength. If I'm weak, I can still open the jar with a towel, a sink, and hot water, in the right place and time. In modern life, those 2 approaches are net-balanced.

I see a wizard as a "cheater" of nature, using magic to open that jar, but needs to prep for it in advance and doesn't always succeed. Whereas a thief is naturally and immediately and consistently able to be sneaky, pick locks, etc. Theoretically, I see that as balanced, and it's just a question of tweaking the dial, rather than removing the entire kitchen.

Personally, subjectively, IMO, I won't play 4E if it acts like a communist teacher who perceives unfairness in the playground and reacts by taking away all the toys, (then charging 10,000 gp for one use of a toy).

 

[Votan]

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,

I think that one trick that B/X does have is to make the range of power between characters (at least at low to middle levels) is relatively insensitive to design decisions and very sensitive to player cunning. That means that the concerns are different and these questions did not seem to come up very often.

 

[LostSoul]

"you can't fire ray a door because it's not a creature"

I don't think that's the rule in 4E.

A couple of years ago I was running a game. Goblins were shooting at the PCs from a rickety wooden balcony. One PC used a fire burst power - I forget what it's called, it's the 3rd level wizard burst one - and specified that he wanted to burn that balcony. At first I wasn't sure if he could do it, but he was the rules guy and so, blammo! Balcony fell, goblins massacred.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I agree with everything you wrote, about the contrast between 3e vs 4e, and a theoretical sweet spot inbetween, and that 4E is somewhat fetishistic about balance, which is a really good way of articulating it for me, because if someone has a "fetish", it's very difficult to sway them (although one could argue that I have a "fetish" towards versimilitude, immersion, fiction-first, etc. which is possible, except that I didn't successfully force my fetish on anyone, I just stopped playing). Maybe that's not WoTC's onus if players themselves analyze and report every imbalance, but maybe the players wouldn't analyze every imbalance if 4E wasn't so naked in its balancing mechanism. A chicken and the egg thing.

We've all got our kinks. One of Mearls's big themes in his Legends & Lore column is that there's a lot of types of people who play D&D, who are looking for different (and often incompatible) things from it.

I think it's important to pay attention to balance, but I also think balance is bound to be subjective to a huge extent, so you can't proof your rules against imbalance without dictating how people are to play the game. Which goes against what D&D is about, to a large extent (that is, playing the game how YOU want to play it).

I see a wizard as a "cheater" of nature, using magic to open that jar, but needs to prep for it in advance and doesn't always succeed. Whereas a thief is naturally and immediately and consistently able to be sneaky, pick locks, etc. Theoretically, I see that as balanced, and it's just a question of tweaking the dial, rather than removing the entire kitchen.

I agree with "tweaking the dial" rather than "removing the kitchen." But this ties into what I said about subjectivity in balance. In a heavily player-driven game, that wizard might functionally, in play, be able to always prep and always roll until they succeed, making the thief feel really boned. In another game, that might not happen, so everyone's happy. It might be balanced in theory, and in practice in some games, but without telling people that they HAVE to play in a way that challenges the wizard, you're going to see a possible abuse at some point.

Which is why, for me, codifying each of the four main challenges for a heroic adventuring party is one step toward the solution. If all of them have a consistent way of being addressed, it's easy for a DM to judge the power of the tools used to solve them.

I don't think that's the rule in 4E.

It was mentioned by one of the designers themselves in a play session. It was also used rather consistently by my DM when I was playing a pryomancer to avoid me pulling stunts like "setting this forest on fire." Which was probably a smart use of it.

That might not be how many people mostly actually play, especially under adroit DMs, but it's part of the thought process behind 4e's power design: to narrowly define a specific, limited implementation. Which, IMO, isn't nearly as fun as an open-ended toolbox.

 

[NoWayJose]

I agree with "tweaking the dial" rather than "removing the kitchen." But this ties into what I said about subjectivity in balance. In a heavily player-driven game, that wizard might functionally, in play, be able to always prep and always roll until they succeed, making the thief feel really boned. In another game, that might not happen, so everyone's happy. It might be balanced in theory, and in practice in some games, but without telling people that they HAVE to play in a way that challenges the wizard, you're going to see a possible abuse at some point.

Some brainstorming ideas:

1) if a party doesn't include a thief, having a utility wizard would actually be net-beneficial to the party

2) if the party has or later gets a rogue, the rules for the wizard might allow and even encourage changing his spells (ie., not a 3e sorcerer) so that they're not redundant with the thief. Why waste a slot on a knock spell when there's a thief around?

3) consider common-sense rules that discourage wizards from using magic when there's a mundane approach, ie., if a wizard tries to slag a lock with fire, it may or may not succeed, but if it doesn't, it ruins/melts the lock such that it cannot be picked. Then the thief can't pick the lock. Therefore, the wizard will always want to wait for the thief to go first. If a wizard tries a Jedi mind trick on an NPC and it doesn't succeed, perhaps a side-effect/backlash turns the NPC more hostile, thus it's always wiser to allow another party member to try conventional persuasion first.

4) reconsider sacred cows of magic. There's no reason why a fire ray needs to be so hot and sustained that it can melt locks, in fact, that amount of intense radiation sounds like a much higher level damage output. Assume that low-level spells evoke a brief half-second instance of magical fire, enough to flash-burn living tissue, but not enough to set fire to hardened wood.

5) consider novel approaches to resource-management of magic, like mana points, longer casting times, deducting a healing surge and/or hit points if a wizard exceeds a standard mental strain of casting spells too frequently or 'too hot', etc.

6) tweak rules such that wizards are quite vulnerable when casting magic in melee and rely on companions to tactically protect them during casting. A wizard without such strategic shielding can instead use magic wands for firepower, which are safer to use but wouldn't be overpowering vs a mundane weapon.

Where there's a will, there's a way. In 4E, if there wasn't so much negativity about un-balance, perhaps there could be a will and a way. If after real effort, it turns out that negativity is completely justified in hindsite, then I'll accept a metaphorical lashing. Until then...

 

[LostSoul]

That might not be how many people mostly actually play, especially under adroit DMs, but it's part of the thought process behind 4e's power design: to narrowly define a specific, limited implementation. Which, IMO, isn't nearly as fun as an open-ended toolbox.

I have no idea if it's part of the thought process behind power design. It doesn't really matter, though; it's not a part of the game. Maybe they intended powers to have specific, limited implementations, but they forgot to put that in the rules.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I have no idea if it's part of the thought process behind power design. It doesn't really matter, though; it's not a part of the game. Maybe they intended powers to have specific, limited implementations, but they forgot to put that in the rules.

By a strict interpretation, it is in the rules.

The target line of every power is something like "Target: One creature."

Unless that target line says you can target something else, you can only affect a creature with that power.

A few powers (like Force Orb, forex) do specify that you can affect objects, but most of 'em don't.

Again, a lot of DMs are much more flexible than this strict reading would indicate. And the game is hardly monolithic about it.

But, really, the point is that, in order to achieve balance, 4e prefers to define specific effects rather than general tools. This is part of how things like refluffing powers work: The effect is important, and how you describe that doesn't matter one bit.

 

[LostSoul]

Page 107 of the Rules Compendium deals with targeting objects:

At the DM's discretion, a power that targets one of more creatures can target one or more objects, as long as the number of targets does not exceed the number specified by the power.​

This is part of how things like refluffing powers work: The effect is important, and how you describe that doesn't matter one bit.

I'm with you there. That's one of my "pet topics".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

At the DM's discretion

Those are the key words, and they're out of the Rules Compendium, not the PHB.

IOW, the targeting limitation IS part of the rules. It's just that later rules have given DMs "permission" to alter this.

Ha ha- I know, most DMs you or I or others might know aren't afraid to HR things like this anyway, so they don't need permission. That language is there for those who otherwise wouldn't.