How is the Wizard vs Warrior Balance Problem Handled in Fantasy Literature?
On this point I tend to agree with MrMyth and Nemesis Destiny.
Part of the issue is the way the the D&D rules are presented. Because it is the gateway game, the rulebooks tend to have very little "meta"/"toolkit" discussions - quite unlike Rolemaster rules, for example, which are notorious for being presented as a tookit for building a game, rather than as a game.
If the D&D rulebooks said "OK, if you want to play a game in which high level non-spontaneous spell casters dominate, then put spells XYZ on the spell list; otherwise, keep them off" it might be a different kettle of fish. But the rulebooks are written as if there is nothing problematic about playing (for example) a cleric who uses Holy Word at the first opportunity. Whereas in fact there might be (as the anecdote upthread illustrated).
I don't agree with this. I think the idea is not that you would deliberately play your character weakly, but that at the metagame level the player and GM would "edit" the PCs spell list/spell selection, and then at the ingame level the PC would do the best with that edited suite of abilities.
(Ingame, you could rationalise it however you like - "the wizard library was shut the day I went there to learn Knock", "the stars aren't properly aligned for me to memorise Passwall today", etc etc. Or maybe these spells don't exist in the gameworld at all.)
I think this is a good post, and a reason why the toning down of the non-spontaneous casters probably has to happen at the metagame level, and not as an element of actual play.
I find this interesting, because the issue of wizard dominance tends only to arise in higher level play. So this may explain why you haven't had the experience.
It also links back to the question of players vs designers. My view is that 3E is the first time high level spells saw any serious playtime over a wide number of groups. They were introduced into earlier editions, and AD&D, (i) to fill gaps that existed in the theoretical framework of PC-buidling, and (ii) to be abilities for high-level spell-using NPCs (especially evil wizards, liches and high priests). In practice, they weren't used by players for their PCs.
3E copied most of them over holus bolus, removed the AD&D-era constraints on their use (which in my view were in any event not quite as strong as some on this thread have suggested), and it was then that people discovered that in fact, in many cases, they're broken. Look at how every major revision to 3E (Pathfinder, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, etc) has handled them. Always by powering down.
I don't have any particular interest in playing 3E, either as player or GM. But 3E is not the only game with the problem - Rolemaster has it also, for example, and that's a game that I am interested in. So for me, discussing the issue and possible solutions isn't merely idle speculation. It has relevance for how I idle away my hours by RPGing!
Mearls' view, worldshaking magic and "spotlighting"
In one of his Legends & Lore columns, Mearls explained the wizard vs warrior issue as one of easy (warrior) vs hard (wizard) mode for playing the game - which makes sense to me in light of the game's wargame roots, and also has some resonance with how I played the game when I first started playing back in the mid-80s.
These days, however (and according to Mearls), in the era of character building and attachment, by players, to those characters doing the schticks that they have been buit to do, different considerations are pertinent.
This thread has suggested some further considerations, though, which may complicate Mearls' analysis somewhat.
First, Mearls analysis is primarily from the point of view of the player's engagement with the PC as a game element. But the notion expressed by many on this thread - that they like the "truthfulness to fantasy fiction" of worldshaking magic in their wizards - suggests that PC-as-game-element is not the only thing in play. There is also the player's experience of the fiction.
My (tentative) hypothesis is that the D&D rules, which were originally conceived of and implemented in more of a "game-element" way, gave rise to aesthetic preferences about exploration which reflected the play produced by use of those game elements (including the power of wizards), but which now exist among some members of the RPGing community independently of their origins. That is, there is now a distinctive aesthetic preference, detached from its reflection of the early AD&D play that Mearls describes, for a fantasy game that delivers the "worldshaking magic" experience, but that also involves somewhat mundane warriors.
Second, but related, it seems that at least some fantasy RPGers reconcile that aesthetic preference with the shift in gameplay to focus on each PC as a distinct and important character in the fiction (rather than primarily a mere game element) by focusing on "spotlight balance" rather than the balance of comparatively equal mechanical capacity to contribute to resolution of typical ingame situations.
I'm personally not the biggest fan of spotlight balance - as others have also pointed out on this thread, it can rather easily turn into "a job for Aquaman" or "fighter-as-bodyguard/sidekick".
Still, from the point of view of Mearls' professed goal of discussing the evolution of the game, I think his failure to consider these additional factors perhaps paints an incomplete picture - because a complete picture has to explain how the early AD&D game tropes have survived, and indeed remain highly valued by many players, well past the approach to play in which they have their origins (at least according to Mearls).
In one of his Legends & Lore columns, Mearls explained the wizard vs warrior issue as one of easy (warrior) vs hard (wizard) mode for playing the game - which makes sense to me in light of the game's wargame roots, and also has some resonance with how I played the game when I first started playing back in the mid-80s.
These days, however (and according to Mearls), in the era of character building and attachment, by players, to those characters doing the schticks that they have been buit to do, different considerations are pertinent.
This thread has suggested some further considerations, though, which may complicate Mearls' analysis somewhat.
First, Mearls analysis is primarily from the point of view of the player's engagement with the PC as a game element. But the notion expressed by many on this thread - that they like the "truthfulness to fantasy fiction" of worldshaking magic in their wizards - suggests that PC-as-game-element is not the only thing in play. There is also the player's experience of the fiction.
My (tentative) hypothesis is that the D&D rules, which were originally conceived of and implemented in more of a "game-element" way, gave rise to aesthetic preferences about exploration which reflected the play produced by use of those game elements (including the power of wizards), but which now exist among some members of the RPGing community independently of their origins. That is, there is now a distinctive aesthetic preference, detached from its reflection of the early AD&D play that Mearls describes, for a fantasy game that delivers the "worldshaking magic" experience, but that also involves somewhat mundane warriors.
Second, but related, it seems that at least some fantasy RPGers reconcile that aesthetic preference with the shift in gameplay to focus on each PC as a distinct and important character in the fiction (rather than primarily a mere game element) by focusing on "spotlight balance" rather than the balance of comparatively equal mechanical capacity to contribute to resolution of typical ingame situations.
I'm personally not the biggest fan of spotlight balance - as others have also pointed out on this thread, it can rather easily turn into "a job for Aquaman" or "fighter-as-bodyguard/sidekick".
Still, from the point of view of Mearls' professed goal of discussing the evolution of the game, I think his failure to consider these additional factors perhaps paints an incomplete picture - because a complete picture has to explain how the early AD&D game tropes have survived, and indeed remain highly valued by many players, well past the approach to play in which they have their origins (at least according to Mearls).
I'm not sure... That was a 20th level adventure, and yes, I abused the hell out of shape change, etc. (not because I wanted to "win" or cheat, but because it was fun to be an uber-mage). Everyone else still had fun and felt they made their own significant contribution.
If we had continued an entire 20th+ level campaign, then maybe the players would have begun to gripe about the unfairness of wizard dominance, but I don't know, because it wasn't a warrior-wizard imbalance that stopped our game, it was the rules complexity and long, long sessions.
So if people are complaining about 3E wizard dominance at 20th level, well, I think that's a valid complaint IMO but, whether others agree or not (much like the pirate captain), I don't know how important that is considered that 20th level play is/was occuring in a small minority of campaigns. Plus, other bottlenecks like rules complexity at 20th level might be the real bottleneck for enjoyment.
If, however, one perceives wizard dominance at 10th or whater level, then that's a different story, although I don't find it fun to debate at exactly which level the wizard dominance starts to become a problem for some people.
Well, I have a possible idea for a solution to the various issues that have been raised. Of course, people don't seem to agree with me, but it won't stop me from trying!
I would suggest (again!) that magic be different than mundane feats. Not necessarily better, not dominating, just feels different and (literally) magical. ie., you have one rules paradigm for melee/ranged combat, and another rules paradigm for magical effects. This means that there are things you can do mundanely that cannot be duplicated by magic, and there are things you can do magically or supernaturally that cannot be duplicated in the mundane world.
This doesn't mean that playing a pure fighter is boring. There are many interesting combat maneuvers and combat stances (a concept from Jester's D&D Jazz) and other tactical advantages. A fighter should always feel useful and significant. At the end of the day, a sword thrust into the belly is always going to the most reliable way to kill someone.
It would, however, probably mean that 4E fighters lose any wushu-style feel... at least at low levels. At high levels, a warrior might do mundane but extraordinary feats, but it wouldn't be magical. It would be impossibly improbable, like always splitting an arrow with a second arrow shot.
Conversely, magic would truly feel unique, a power source from another world, which is what it's supposed to be according to literature and archetypes. This contrast to the mundane would allow players of wizards to feel "special" without necessariy being dominant. This does NOT mean casting magic missile every round like it was a mundane crossbow. It means casting a magic missile that swerves left and right and up and down as it bears down on the enemy like a heat-seeking missile, an effect that's not merely improbable but mundanely impossible. It also means having access to versatile utility spells and rituals without necessarily tons of gold as a meta-balance mechanism.
It would also mean that wizards don't get access to magic all the time, because nothing feels truly magical or dramatic when it's continously watered down for the sake of balance. That means that wizards probably should be semi-capable fighters, like Gandalf, during any 'magical downtime'.
If you want to have a bit of both, then you play a class that combines magic and mundane, like a shadow thief or divine paladin or rune-warrior concept.
For me, it also requires sometimes coloring outside the 4E lines. Magic needs to spill outside the box to reach its full creative potential. If you create a new plant-and-vegetable mage, you don't have to create a Fruit-to-Veggie teleport power ("if you hold a fruit in one square, you may teleport to any vegetable within 6 squares"), simply because 'teleport' is one of 12 pre-programmed allowable actions. I would imagine what a plant-and-vegetable mage could do, and then create new rules for it if necessary, and if it's truly unbalancing or truly incompatible with the current ruleset, I think it's better to completely ditch the concept, instead of catering to public health demand and producing a sub-par plant-and-vegetable mage.
I suppose that, if mundane and magical rulesets are not directly comparable, the pro-balance side will have fits trying to mathematically measure for balance issues, and the only way to balance is through old-fashioned playtesting. I just don't have much sympathy for the approach of making everyone "the same" so that you feel more certain about measuring for balance.
Finally, as pemerton kinda touched upon, it would be nice to have a tweaking mechanism for how the magic ruleset layer meets the core mundane ruleset. This would allow for a gritty low-magic campaign or a high-magic superhero/wushu campaign.
All of this, of course, is entirely theoretical. I have no idea how it would play out in practice, or if other game systems take this approach.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
Well, it is not as if the wizard (or cleric or druid) dominance exists in a vacuum. The rules complexity and other factors can certainly factor into who and when it bothers.
Looking back on it, I think the problem for our group was that it was a gradually worsening problem. If it had been more sudden, we would have been more aware of it at the time, and either fixed it (metagame) or simply stopped. For us, the wizard dominance started around 7th, but it wasn't a huge problem until sometime around 11th or 12th. Also, it is rather a challenge for the DM and players to manage this. Challenges can be fun. This one was for awhile. But as it gradually became more of a challenge, it began to dominate the focus of play, to the exclusion of other things.
Finally, we don't usually have these kind of issues with our games, because we will quite happily switch campaigns or systems. But we ran into the circumstance where the players had voted to experience higher level play--explicity. So I felt obligated to keep trying in the face of the disintegrating play experience. And I suppose one could say that having muddled through as we did, we are better positioned to try again, but we look at it, and it simply isn't worth it. Even before the launch of 4E, we had already decided that any future higher level play would either be D&D RC or Fantasy Hero.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
This preference has always been there. It is why some people think of Gandalf as being more impressive in the old, "deliver magical oompah" than he actually is. It is why Feists' Pug has been described as, "what readers wanted Gandalf to be."
When given a choice in the matter by the system (e.g. Fantasy Hero, GURPS, etc.) our group has naturally gravitated towards getting the "worldshaking magic experience" through the party as a whole--plot device, shared equipment, ritual, whatever. This is one of the reasons that 4E is a more natural fit for us. We are rather neutral on the "mundane warriors" part, on average, though our preference move around freely from campaign to campaign on that. All other being equal, we want the option to have mundane warriors right alongside not so mundane warriors. And then we still want the worldshaking magic not tied to a particular character.
Thus for you analysis, you have to separate those who simply want worldshaking magic, versus those who specifically want it embedded in specific character abilities. The second is far more design constricting than the first, but also likely to be more firmly held when held at all.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
Arcana Unearthed/Evolved took some steps towards that idea. I think it is generally acknowledged that the "metamagic" replacements and change to the casting system, done in part to compensate, created a very interesting and fun system, but did not manage to achieve the goal of reining in the scope of the casters.
One of the big steps that AU/AE took was to change a lot of the utility magic to be bonuses to skills, instead of replacements for them. Its version of "knock" doesn't open a lock. It makes it easier for someone with lockpikcing ot open a lock. This can allow a caster to open a simple lock (which is fine), but the tougher locks (at a given power level) are outside the scope. The really tough locks will require a dedicated lock picker and the caster, which is not a bad effect either.
In general, I think that approach is how most utility magic should work in D&D. If it is a mundane effect, the magic can make you better at it, but can't entirely replicate it. These effects should always be castable on others. If it is something that the world dictates is outside mundane ability, then it should be doable by magic, and this may or may not be castable on others. In such a system, "make whole" lets someone repair far faster than normal, but someone, not necessarily the caster, must provide the mundane repair skill.
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).
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?
Edit: I want to clarify that I don't have a problem with a spell that boosts strength, for example. You have a skinny guy and suddenly he's stronger, maybe his arms and biceps bulge, maybe not.. either way, that's cool. It's magical enough too, you cannot duplicate instant +1 Strength without magic. It's just the +1 to lockpicking idea. It's not cinematic. What did the magic do exactly? Did it half-shatter the lock? Did it speed up his fingers and not the rest of his body? Did it slow time so that the thief appears to quickly the pick the lock? Why does the spell effect (lock shatter, nimble fingers, super speed or slow time) only working for lock picking? How does that make any fictional sense? Why not pour more skill points into lock picking and let the wizard do something more magical or different?
2nd Edit: How about a wizard spell that grants temporary knowledge of a particular skill. Like the Matrix... Do you know how to fly a helicopter? [pause] I do now. Now THAT's magic.
Last edited:
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
From my point of view, the only really important balance element a game cannot do without is spotlight balance (or at least spotlight opportunity - the player should have the option to decline the spotlight as desired). Why? Because that's the only form of balance that really treats a diverse group of players fairly.
If all of the balance is managed at the mechanical level, there's no control for player ability or personality. The better or more dynamic player will achieve substantially more than other players who aren't as good at holding their own in similar ways. The game becomes a star vehicle for them and not an ensemble driven story. But 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. And RPGs have been great for that because I can emphasize that they're cooperative within the party, not competitive.
Maybe I've come to this stand in part because I did a lot of Superhero gaming in my salad days. And there are ways to run games in which a supergroup has Thor and Hawkeye together and each has something to do.
