Fighters vs Wizards - A New (?) Look at Balance...

[DnD_Dad]

Check out the 2nd edition boxed set for forgotten realms. Even if you don't play 2nd or the realms there is a lot of good info to be found from the time of troubles where the gods were cast down, and the wars they created, and what was left after they departed faerun. You never knew what you were walking into or if magic would even work. Lots of fun!

 

[Shayuri]

My thoughts on this are divided.

I can totally see the argument that a well made wizard, with a reasonable notion of what to expect (or a sorceror who's made wise spell picks) tends to step on toes a lot. They do more damage than warriors...and with defensive spells can be surprisingly durable as well. They can potentially sneak better than rogues, provide the party with food and shelter better than a ranger, control the minds of monsters to gain access to their knowledge and power...or just become one themselves. A smart player can do a LOT with a wizard or sorceror, potentially.

The key word is 'potentially.' A lot of the problems I've seen involving wizards come as much from how games are played as from the mechanics of the classes. Allowing easy and consequence-free rest and refreshes, for example. Giving players telegraphs as to what to expect, allowing them to cherry pick the perfect spells/scrolls/wands to cover it. Not using mechanics meant to limit spellcasting's effectiveness, like interrupt attacks or counterspells. Golems and other magic-resistant threats. Exploiting periods of memorization and unrest, where a caster's full spell alotment isn't available.

I don't say this as a criticism of how people play though. Using these mechanics a lot is frustrating for players and often feels punitive. It also adds complexity to encounters that are often already pretty complex. There is considerable incentive to ignore them for ease of play, and for many of the same reasons why few GMs use things like Sunder or Disarm on a fighter's weapons. It's frustrating to be 'shut down' in a fight, and most GMs don't want to frustrate their players...it's fun to be challenged, but frustration is something else.

4rth Edition's solution was to try to equalize the field a bit...making powers of equal level be (roughly) balanced regardless of class. The degree to which they accomplished that is debatable...and Rituals can still lead to some of the same problems in the hands of a determined and clever player...but I think they did succeed at least nominally in reversing the notion that "Sucking is the price low level wizards pay for dominating everything later on," which was essentially the philosophy that ruled D&D in its previous editions.

 

[Fetfreak]

I've played forgotten realms some time ago. The Godswar was great but my friends and I moved from the idea of high fantasy and gods walking among men and so on.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

The ego-contest from back on page 3 is now declared OVER. Who knows the rules better is irrelevant if you can't carry on a polite conversation. We expect everyone to drop that line of conflict.

Questions on this can be taken to e-mail or PM with the moderator of your choice. Thank you.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The key word is 'potentially.' A lot of the problems I've seen involving wizards come as much from how games are played as from the mechanics of the classes. Allowing easy and consequence-free rest and refreshes, for example. Giving players telegraphs as to what to expect, allowing them to cherry pick the perfect spells/scrolls/wands to cover it. Not using mechanics meant to limit spellcasting's effectiveness, like interrupt attacks or counterspells. Golems and other magic-resistant threats. Exploiting periods of memorization and unrest, where a caster's full spell alotment isn't available.

How can you stop telegraphs though? If your world is consistent or has reoccurring elements, most players can predict what's gonna happen some of the time. And what if the players are active in scouting and spying on the enemy?

As for resting, while making it hard to do was built in older games, it isn't so much now. Is every campaign or adventure a massive time crunch with no time to prepare? How many 3.5 adventures advised the DM to ambush the party at night?

Also, the game is built with the intention that wizards can pick whatever spell they want to add to their spellbook. Every level or two a wizard can add any two spells he wants. The book never says you can't add this spell or that spell. Also, the magic item system more or less allows you to buy whatever you need assuming you can get to a big enough city with enough gold. Of course, your world could simply not have large cities that be easily accessed or you could deny your party gold (but that would also run counter to how the rules run).

OF COURSE, you can alter the game to compensate for the class imbalance, but isn't that the same as saying that the classes are imbalanced with the normal rules? Would you expect every DM to have enough system mastery to understand that and know how to fix it?

 

[Shayuri]

I was thinking more of OOC telegraphs. Most games I'm in, the GM spills stuff in tabletalk...often pregame and postgame. And I don't mean to say it's a bad thing either...but it does play to the strengths of the wizard.

I also never meant to say that the things I listed were bad, or that I was judging them harshly. I was just pointing out that there are standard game practices...that exist for good reasons...that tend to increase the 'effective' power of wizards and other spellcasters, even if the game rules provide the means to reduce that power.

I suppose it's fair to say that my point...to the extent I had one, which is questionable...was that it is possible to address the question of class balance via game practices. Whether or not it's practical to do so, or even desirable, is a question left to the individual GM and gaming group.

 

[Fetfreak]

I agree with both of you.
Still, when you look at the classes only on paper (with feats, spells and skills) spell casters leave others biting the dust. This was quite the problem for me when I was first introduced to d&d. Later on when I started controlling the casters (sleep time, spell rarity, strictness on components etc.) more than few players were displeased since they felt I was attacking them, their character or their favorite class and their main argument was:
"What I'm doing is in the rules, what you are doing isn't."
and in a way they were right.

 

[Shayuri]

It's definitely the kind of thing a GM would want to mention to players before the fact. Of course, sometimes a GM doesn't realize there's a problem until the game's already started. And sometimes there -isn't- a problem. I've been in plenty of games where the imbalance didn't really impede gameplay. There's a lot of variables involved.

It's one of those situations where clear, open communication is necessary. If a problem exists, the GM needs to talk to the players as a group...share his or her concerns, get the input of the players, then make a decision about how to handle it.

The system won't help that happen, but it doesn't get in the way of it either. It's a group/GM dynamic.