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

[pemerton]

The area of effect for Tentacles is too big for that. Unless you're in a very large area, you have to pick one or the other, usually. Also, there's a good chance high level Drow can cast spells or have a good Escape Artist bonus.

Fair enough.

 

[Diamond Cross]

First, I don't think this really answers the point. Because if the answer is "bring along a few cleric, wizard and druid henchmen" then we haven't really shown that the fighter is as viable a PC class.

The point that was made was a wizard is so powerful he doesn't need anybody else he can just solo everything. Which means a Wizard doesn't need anybody to help him. You obviously missed that context.

Which is a bunch of hooey. Because a wizard alone can't possibly defeat five Drow all by himself, unless the wizard is several levels higher than the Drow. The Drow have spell resistance, and whenever a wizard casts a spell it automatically provokes an attack of opportunity. And if the Drow have another wizard in the party, that Drow can counterspell. Which means the Drow party has a lot of chances to disrupt the wizards' casting.

People who say things like that have never fought monsters like a Beholder. They simply do not know what they're talking about when they make stupid claims like a wizard is so powerful they can soloe the entire game. Hogwash.

You see, that's the thing about D&D, power is relative, and saying that a wizard's spells are just too powerful ignores all the other circumstances and situations they were created to address, and is very disingenuous.

Those people just don't have a leg to stand on, but thanks to their envy, they're never going to change their minds and do whatever they can to limit the wizard so their favored class can win.

 

[Mort]

The point that was made was a wizard is so powerful he doesn't need anybody else he can just solo everything. Which means a Wizard doesn't need anybody to help him. You obviously missed that context.

The "solo the game" post was phrased in way too general a manner. It's pretty obvious that any one class can or can't "solo" the game solely at the wim of the DM. The question isn't (or shouldn't be) one of character against the world but character relative to other characters. Not in a PVP perspective but in a "does this character overshadow the others" if the answer is no - then there's not much of a problem. But if yes, then a deeper look is needed. Is it the mechanics? Is it the group dynamic and playstyle? Or, as is quite likely, is it a combination of factors, and if so what can be done to swing it back to "everyone at the table is having fun." (as at the end of the day, that's what matters).

Which is a bunch of hooey. Because a wizard alone can't possibly defeat five Drow all by himself, unless the wizard is several levels higher than the Drow. The Drow have spell resistance, and whenever a wizard casts a spell it automatically provokes an attack of opportunity. And if the Drow have another wizard in the party, that Drow can counterspell. Which means the Drow party has a lot of chances to disrupt the wizards' casting.

Throwing out these kinds of examples doesn't help much because they are so context dependant. For example, no wizard player with any tactical knowledge is going to take an attack of opportunity due to easy 5' steps. Spell resistance is really relative in 3e/3.5 because it depends what the DM allows in the game, if it's later 3.5 supplements spell resistance is a bit of a joke, and even core a smart player can get around it easily. And counterspelling, while perhaps a good idea initially is such a clunky awful mechanic thay I saw it used maybe once in a 6 year campaign.

Again though saying a wizard can or can't solo a game is the same as saying a fighter can or can't do it - it's up to the whim of the DM. Frankly if you have a solo player then it becomes quite a bit more like a novel and the thread OP question becomes quite relavent. In a party context, however, not so much - because it's the relationship between the players that matters not so much their relationship to the world (from a balance perspective anyway).

People who say things like that have never fought monsters like a Beholder. They simply do not know what they're talking about when they make stupid claims like a wizard is so powerful they can soloe the entire game. Hogwash.

Again I think the "solo the entire game" tangent is a bit silly. The correct question is does the wizard step on the toes of the other classes to the extent that the players of the other classes are having less fun. You'll note, if you care to slog through many of the responses, that the answer tends to be "yes the class can, but we don't let it" which is not the same as "no the class does not."

Also your responses have been from a 1e-3.5e perspective. The problem is 1e and 2e did not have some of the same issues 3e spellcasters can have: in particular the easy (ridiculously so) access to scrolls etc. which (IMO of course, but it's backed up) ramps up power level considerably.

You see, that's the thing about D&D, power is relative, and saying that a wizard's spells are just too powerful ignores all the other circumstances and situations they were created to address, and is very disingenuous.

It is not the least bit disingenous to say WoTC got carried away with some of the spells they gave the wizard. For example, the cheesy conjuration "ball spells" (added around complete mage?) that do decent damage and completely ignore spell resistance. Even some of the core spells are a bit much. Just because the problem is easy to address, does not mean it shouldn't be pointed out.

Those people just don't have a leg to stand on, but thanks to their envy, they're never going to change their minds and do whatever they can to limit the wizard so their favored class can win.

You're painting with too broad a brush here (not that everyone else, likely myself included, isn't also being overly broad), saying the problem isn't world shattering is not the same as saying there is no issue period. For what it's worth BTW, my favorite 3.5 class happens to be the wizard (well right next to the crusader for Bo9S which is just a fun awsome class but that's neither here nor there). It's just that having played one, seeing many of these issues arise (and having to constantly restrain myself from overpowered play) I tend to be vocal about it.

To those pointing out the thread has realy wandered. Yes it has, but the orignal point was answered pretty well (and succinctly) several times by about page 3.

 

[Bluenose]

Those people just don't have a leg to stand on, but thanks to their envy, they're never going to change their minds and do whatever they can to limit the wizard so their favored class can win.

Should the wizard have no limits at all, then?

I want something closer to 1e/BECM play, where problems required solutions that just as often involved cleverness as they did casting a spell at the problem. Even then many supplements introduced more spells, but there weren't as many spells and the limits were more noticeable. 2e saw a massive expansion in the range of spells and some reduction in the limits on those spells. 3e then increased the amount of spells available to spellcasters, the availability of magic items, and reduced everyone's saving throws as well. There's a reason some people derisively call 3e 'Caster edition', and it's not because they think it's just like earlier editions.

 

[pemerton]

The point that was made was a wizard is so powerful he doesn't need anybody else he can just solo everything. Which means a Wizard doesn't need anybody to help him. You obviously missed that context.

Well, I think you may have missed the context - the "solo" phrasing was an exaggerated way of pointing out that there is almost no significant species of challenge in the game that wizards can't handle better than warriors - they have more powerful movement options (Teleport, Knock etc), more powerful stealth options (Invisibility etc), more powerful knowledge options (better skill list and skill points, divination, scrying etc), more powerful control options (wall spells, Evard's Black Tentacles, etc), more powerful defences (Mirror Image, Displacement, etc) and so on.

The fighter in 3E is probably better at dealing direct damage, and is not completely hosed by anti-magic. On the other hand the wizard is less hosed by item destruction than the warrior, so on this latter point things are perhaps a wash. So that leaves the fighter with one species of challenge at which s/he is clearly better. And it's not a capability that, on its own, is enough to do very well - there are very many challenges that can't be overcome by dealing direct damage - whereas it's a capability that a wizard can often render unnecessary (eg clever movement or control can make the dealing of direct damage, in order to attain one's goals, unnecessary).

I think this is what was meant by the "solo" point, and I think it stands. The wizard actually has sensible things to do to try and deal with the five drow - teleporting out being the obvious last resort - whereas I'm not sure that the fighter does. It only takes one darkness spell to go a long way to shutting down the fighter, after all.

The Drow have spell resistance, and whenever a wizard casts a spell it automatically provokes an attack of opportunity. And if the Drow have another wizard in the party, that Drow can counterspell. Which means the Drow party has a lot of chances to disrupt the wizards' casting.

Mort tackled this fairly well. 5' step to avoid the AoOs. Counterspell (unless it's Dispel Magic style counterspell, which requires an opposed check) depends heavily upon spell preparation and Spellcraft checks (do by-the-book drow have good Spellcraft? I don't know). And none of the spells I mentioned - Glitterdust, Evard's Black Tentacles or Teleport as a last resort - is subject to spell resistance. And only Glitterdust grants the drow a save.

You know what I find unfair?

That a fighter can use a shield and a sword and have multiple attacks in a single round of combat and have a higher BAB that the wizard.

Wizards do not get this. They can only use a dagger and only get one attack per round.

Well, arguably wizards don't need it. For the reasons I gave, the one significant ability that wizards lack - namely, the ability to deal significant amounts of direct damage - is one that in many circumstances there other abilities permit them to do without.

People who say things like that have never fought monsters like a Beholder. They simply do not know what they're talking about when they make stupid claims like a wizard is so powerful they can soloe the entire game. Hogwash.

You see, that's the thing about D&D, power is relative, and saying that a wizard's spells are just too powerful ignores all the other circumstances and situations they were created to address, and is very disingenuous.

Those people just don't have a leg to stand on, but thanks to their envy, they're never going to change their minds and do whatever they can to limit the wizard so their favored class can win.

Well, the envy accusation could equally be turned upon (and frequently is turned upon) defenders of the 3E status quo.

And I'm not sure I follow the point about "other circumstances and situations". There is only one significant circumstance in which fighters outshine wizards, which is in the direct delivery of damage. Wizards have the capacity to outshine warriors in more-or-less all other respects. I don't see how it is disingenuous to point this out.

And the thing about knock is this:

What if you're in a party that doesn't have a Rogue in it and you come across that chest that has that +5 Holy Avenger Vorpal Sword of Vampiric Regneration in it your fighter's been wanting for 22 years? Knock is the only solution to that dilemma. And knock doesn't even undo traps. Heck, it doesn't even open doors either.

The only other option is to bash the chest open. And that has certain dangers and risks.

They are far more balanced than some people realize, because you only see the spells in comparison to the fighter, and are completely ignoring the weaknesses of a wizard, along with everybody else. As well as ignoring the situations and opponents that require these spells to be this way.

A summon monster spell is not for replacing the fighter, it is for a bodyguard for the wizard and to beef up the party against a larger party that can outnumber them three to one, for instance. Such as six characters going up against twenty Orcs. Or having a firewall against a small army of ten trolls. You know the regenerative power of trolls right? They regenerate all damage except fire and acid. BUT a troll is too powerful for a wizard to fight on his own in close quarters so he needs a fighter and a summoned monster to keep the troll off of him while he casts his fire or acid spells to defeat it.

Why is the wizard the solution to the absence of a rogue? Why is the fighter not that solution? There's no reason, in principle, why the game should favour the use of a knock spell over the fighter bashing the chest open.

Likewise if the party is too small. Why is the wizard's summoned monster the solution? Why doesn't the player of a fighter have a "summon sidekick" or "muster irregulars" ability? And the same could be said about your troll example, with the added point that it makes the fighter look very sidekick-y if his/her job is to hold off the trolls while the wizard defeats them.

All it boils down to is is experience, imagination and intelligence, the way a class is played. It has nothing to do with balance. That's just a lame excuse to favor one class above all else. If a player can't beat another player, it is because the other player is a better player and knows how to play their class really well. It has nothing to do with game balance but everything to do with intelligence, experience and imagination.

My problem with this sort of claim is that, in the absence of more detail about what exactly you envisage a fighter doing that puts him/her on a par with a wizard, it is far too abstract and general to really engage with. I mean, you could say the same thing if the wizard had access to one XP-free wish spell per level per day - sure, you might say, the player of the fighter can match that if s/he has sufficient experience, imagination and intelligence. But would that sort of wizard be no more powerful than, or balanced with, a fighter for typical D&D play?

 

[Neonchameleon]

The point that was made was a wizard is so powerful he doesn't need anybody else he can just solo everything. Which means a Wizard doesn't need anybody to help him. You obviously missed that context.

It's an only slightly hyperbolic claim. And happens to be quite true once he gets Gate and decides to gate in a Solar.

Which is a bunch of hooey. Because a wizard alone can't possibly defeat five Drow all by himself, unless the wizard is several levels higher than the Drow. The Drow have spell resistance,

Stop right there. The drow might have spell resistance, but that should not even slow a prepared wizard. The spells mentioned for taking out drow (Evard's Black Tentacles, Glitterdust) ignore spell resistance. So all the drow having spell resistance does is means you need to prepare the spellbook. Your objection here is irrelevant.

and whenever a wizard casts a spell it automatically provokes an attack of opportunity.

Unless the wizard takes a 5 foot step or is simply not in melee. Is your question really "How can a wizard take out five drow when the drow are already surrounding him and have their swords to his throat?" Your objection here is irrelevant.

And if the Drow have another wizard in the party, that Drow can counterspell.

A counterspelling wizard? Really? One who just happens to have prepared the same spell as the PC wizard? And to see him casting? Unless the PC wizard is deliberately giving the drow a chance your objection here is, once again, irrelevant.

Which means the Drow party has a lot of chances to disrupt the wizards' casting.

Sure. If they start with their swords pressed against his throat. If not, and the wizard gets the drop on them, they are in trouble. The wizard might not necessarily win. But start off with the wizard flying and buffing himself with greater invisibility. Then casting Black Tentacles. The drow are grappled and at a huge disadvantage. They can't see the wizard and don't know where he is. Their wizard is not going to escape if he doesn't have spells he can cast without somatic components and without material components - the difference in grapple checks is huge. The tentacle's just going to slowly crush him. One down. (Even the L10 Str 22 fighter is trying to escape at a disadvantage).

And the wizard was the dangerous one. Non-spellcasters are simple. Trap them in with a wall of force and drop a cloudkill on them. With tentacles already in there and the wall they aren't going to escape. Their spell resistance is worth nothing - it doesn't work on any of the spells you've just cast. (The real question is how long it will take the Cleric to escape the Black tentacles and whether he is likely to successfully dispel magic).

Will this work against every group? 100% of the time? No. No more than a fighter will always hit. But assuming the already invisible and flying wizard gets the drop on the drow it stands a good chance. Which fits yor challenge.

And that's assuming you take defeat to mean kill, not defeat to mean bypass. A simple flight + invisibility or teleport will work to bypass the drow.

People who say things like that have never fought monsters like a Beholder.

You mean monsters with an anti-magic eye? Why do I think that that wasn't chosen at random.

You see, that's the thing about D&D, power is relative, and saying that a wizard's spells are just too powerful ignores all the other circumstances and situations they were created to address, and is very disingenuous.

And this thread is about the Wizard vs Warrior Balance. Power is relative. And relatively, the wizards, clerics, and druids have a lot of it. Relatively non-casters don't.

Those people just don't have a leg to stand on, but thanks to their envy, they're never going to change their minds and do whatever they can to limit the wizard so their favored class can win.

So you yourself admit that wizards win and other classes don't. A telling admission.

But you have my motivation completely backwards. I want to play a wizard. However, if I play a mid-high level wizard in 3.X I feel dirty. I feel as if I've started using cheat codes. I want to play a wizard class that feels challenging and I want everyone else at the table to have fun too. I do not want to leave the DM in a situation where they have three choices - challenge my character, challenge everyone else and give me a very easy job, or set anti-magic fields everywhere. Even my low level 4e wizard is giving my DM headaches (but then so does my 4e monk and my 4e warlord).

My second motivation is that I like upending situations and scenarios but I want to feel a sense of accomplishment. The overwhelming out of combat power of the 3.X wizard takes that away from me. It feels cheap.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Stop right there. The drow might have spell resistance, but that should not even slow a prepared wizard. The spells mentioned for taking out drow (Evard's Black Tentacles, Glitterdust) ignore spell resistance. So all the drow having spell resistance does is means you need to prepare the spellbook. Your objection here is irrelevant.

Then put up or shut up.

Here's what I challenge.

I will create a party of 5 12th level Drow against your 15th level wizard. In open terrain.

This challenge uses 3.5e rules because I have not read 4e rules and don't know anything about 4e.

Your wizard has to follow these rules: No monster summoning, no hirelings of any sort. And no golems. You have to do this completely alone without any help at all.

Other than that, the Wizard can have any items he wants up to his level wealth limit.

Your wizard can even have maximum hit points. With an 18 Constitution. That means 120 hit points.

This will be in open terrain. With an encounter start of one hundred feet.

The caveats are you can't run away from the fight. You have to destroy the entire party, all by yourself. And you're limited in spell knowlege to the wizard spell tables in the PHB. That means you know:

4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 spells per day. That's all you can cast.

And you can not use any help at all.

However, this doesn't mean that you can't have wands or scrolls or potions.

My caveat is I can have any classes and class combinations and equipment limited to wealth by level I want.

If I win, you owe me one hundred XP and you'll admit you were wrong and owe me a public apology. If you win, I'll owe you 250 xp.

Are you game?

This is a real put up or shut up challenge.

The gauntlet has been thrown.

Rules addendum: I will limit my classes and class combination to the PHB. And I won't use Prestige classes. You can have any Prestige Class you want as long as you qualify for it and let me read up on it first.

 

[Mort]

Then put up or shut up.

Here's what I challenge.

....

A CR20 (for a party of 4) challenge? Plus the Drow can also have spellcasters? This would depend so much on situation that it's extremely difficult to play out though again the conditions favor the drow (plus too much would depend on who goes 1st especially considering you artificially gimped the wizard) - also the smart wizard here is a) running or b) never got himself into this situation in the first place.

D&D is a team game - I've always seen this solo pant dropping stuff (hopefully that gets accross the non-grandma friendly concept) complete nonsense.

That said, I maintain the wizard would have a passing chance at this scenario, and but for the arbitrary "no runnning" condition could evade rather easily if neccessary.

The correct question, if you're going to ask it - is not how would a wizard fare in this scenario. It's how would a wizard fare compared to a rogue, or a fighter (or heck a cleric or druid)? Now that would be interesting put the classes in this supposed Kobiyashi Maru scenario and see who fares best.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Then put up or shut up.

I might put up if your challenge wasn't rigged in your favour. But it wasn't me making claims that a wizard could solo everything. Simply that the fighter is near-pointless and that the wizard can solo your drow under the right conditions, with your defences being bypassable. Not will, but can.

Here's what I challenge.

I will create a party of 5 12th level Drow against your 15th level wizard. In open terrain.

Because a smart wizard tackles his foes head on. What next? You want me to use an int 8 wizard? Or do you really use PCs who try to kick in the front gates of the enemy castle?

This challenge uses 3.5e rules because I have not read 4e rules and don't know anything about 4e.

In 4e it would be a silly challenge. The wizard would be annhiliated and with good reason.

Your wizard has to follow these rules: No monster summoning, no hirelings of any sort. And no golems. You have to do this completely alone without any help at all.

On my own in terrain not of my choosing where the action economy can cut the wizard to ribbons. I think all PC parties have demonstrated this one on both wizards and dragons.

Your wizard can even have maximum hit points. With an 18 Constitution. That means 120 hit points.

You look as if you're trying to give the wizard an advantage despite doing almost everything short of a handy antimagic field to neuter him. Cute.

This will be in open terrain. With an encounter start of one hundred feet.

And you really haven't got it, have you. The biggest advantage a wizard has over a fighter - and, for that matter, a high level wizard over a low level wizard is Plot Power. The ability to set the scene to favour them. Open ground and everyone knowing where everyone else is strips the plot power from the high level wizard. If the high level wizard is fighting on even terms, he's an idiot.

The caveats are you can't run away from the fight.

And why would any self-respecting wizard agree to that? If both sides survive then things are a draw - especially if you are trying to solo. If just one of the enemy dies and the wizard escapes then the wizard wins. The remaining drow are strategically weakened and the wizard isn't.

You have to destroy the entire party, all by yourself. And you're limited in spell knowlege to the wizard spell tables in the PHB. That means you know:

Bwuh? That's not the spells a wizard knows. That's the number of spells a wizard can prepare. Assuming no intelligence bonus.

However, this doesn't mean that you can't have wands or scrolls or potions.

Of course. I assume you want to use them. The action economy favours you after all.

My caveat is I can have any classes and class combinations and equipment limited to wealth by level I want.

Given that the simple solution to an arena duel is a bard to fascinate as no one can match a perform check with a save, I don't think so.

Are you game?

This is a real put up or shut up challenge.

The gauntlet has been thrown.

The way a wizard wins fights like the ones you propose is to attack suddenly using overwhelming odds and the local terrain. And the ability to retreat (preferably with a Contingency spell linked to Teleport if 15th level) is one of the reasons a wizard can solo but a fighter can't.

Your so-called challenge therefore seeks to strip almost every substantive advantage the wizard has and turn a battle of options into one of brute strength. As it fundamentally misses the point of why the wizard is powerful, at best it can serve as an illustration of how not to play an effective high level wizard.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Yep I figured you guys would weasel out of the challenge any way you could.

You guys make the claim that any prepared wizard could easily handle this encounter. And now you're complaining about the conditions.

What, do you want the drow to be 5th level each to ensure your victory?

Put up or shut up. These are the conditions I offer.

Any other arguments show you're wrong.

Your solution to run away is laughable.

You made the claim, now put up or shut up. That means take the challenge. Anything else means you're wrong, and are just trying to be argumentative to win the argument.

The drow will win, you just don't want to lose and will make any weaselly excuse you want to not take the challenge.

Put up or shut up.

I've given you guys many advantages so you'll win. Heck, it'll even be in daylight so that means further penalties for the drow.

Take the challenge, or stop the nonsense. prove me wrong or shut up.

No more arguing, no more being argumentative just for the sake of argument.

No weaseling out of it either.

You made the claim that a wizard can easily handle this situation.

PROVE IT!