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

[Nemesis Destiny]

That language is there for those who otherwise wouldn't.

This is so key to the DM experience... I've known too many DMs who took the "ain't on the page, ain't on the stage" approach. In organized play and tourneys and such - fine. In your home game though? Come on.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've been playing 34 years and in a variety of systems- I don't have a problem with GMs who want to run things RAW. It isn't how I do things, bit I don't find it making a serious dent in my fun.

 

[Celtavian]

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.

I like this idea as well. I wouldn't at all mind seeing this in future D&D design.

I also think the sorcerer class can accomplish this same type of limitation. Sorcerers are very limited in the type of spells they can acquire, which limits their versatility and ability to do all things. Yet at the same time well-designed sorcerers can be potent whether a standard blaster or something stranger like a shapechanger focused on melee.

If they did away with the generic wizard and focused more on specialized casters, I think it would make world building and magic more interesting. Imagine if teleport wasn't at every wizard's beck and call. Or wish. Or enervation. Or hold monster.

If you wanted to do certain things, you would have to pick a certain magical discipline with far more limiations than specialization. While at the same time not limiting magic in the fashion that 4E did. I think this would be an excellent option from both game design and revenue generation. There would need to be an entire book dedicated to magic very, very early to supply options for casting.

I can't stand the inherent limitations of 4E magic. I still want to see the variety in magic of previous editions. But limiting areas of magic to certain classes wouldn't bother me at all. Why should a necromancer be able to teleport? Why should a conjurer be able to control minds? Why should a wizard focusing all his time on transmuting materials be able to manipulate the dead?

The Pathfinder wizard specialties was a step in the right direction. But I'd like to see them take it even farther if whenever they decide to do somethng different down the line and make specialization much more limited.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

Re: The DM's discretion. Those are the key words! They make the game an RPG, they make the imagined content matter. (That is my "pet topic.")

Earlier rules were not definitive on the subject (see "Bursts" in the PHB, "Object Properties" in the DMG, and "Vehicles" in the AV). They cleared that up. Well, that's my reading. The in-play example I posted earlier was based on content from the PHB - it happened before Essentials was released. (I probably wrote it up in one of my game threads.)

Since we're talking about the thought process behind 4e's power design, I think that they wouldn't have clarified things to work against their own desires. Maybe that wasn't the original intent; I have no idea. It doesn't really matter, since powers can be used as "tools" and not simply defined effects.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Re: The DM's discretion. Those are the key words! They make the game an RPG, they make the imagined content matter. (That is my "pet topic.")

To me, it is the players' role play that is more crucial to making a game an RPG than the DM's discretion.

Earlier rules were not definitive on the subject

I disagree...but were I ever to run 4Ed (don't hold your breath), I'd probably allow certain powers to target objects on a case by case basis.

 

[LostSoul]

To me, it is the players' role play that is more crucial to making a game an RPG than the DM's discretion.

If the RP doesn't feed back into the economy of the game, I would not call it an RPG (the old "You can RP in Monopoly" argument). I am not sure there's a way to do that without having "DM" discretion.

I disagree...but were I ever to run 4Ed (don't hold your breath), I'd probably allow certain powers to target objects on a case by case basis.

Yeah, I'm not sure I totally agree either! It seemed pretty clear back in '09 when that "burn down the balcony" moment happened, but looking at it now it seems a little weak. It brings up some confusing issues. A melee basic attack targets "One creature"; does that mean you can't swing your sword or fist at an object?

 

[I'm A Banana]

It brings up some confusing issues. A melee basic attack targets "One creature"; does that mean you can't swing your sword or fist at an object?

It means you have to ask your DM pretty please with sugar and cherries on top can I maybe use my waraxe to cut firewood, please, o great and powerful Master of All Dungeons and Controller of Reality.

All right, that's blatant hyperbole, but "Mother May I" gameplay gets under my skin.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Because "System may I|?" is soooo much better.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Popping back in for a sec. Can't resist. And, taking a bit of time off seems to have been a good idea.

I think that the issue here is with RPGA play. I've long contended that 4e is the RPGA edition where the mechanics are built around the idea that you have only a very flimsy social contract at the table (how much social contract do you have with someone you met ten minutes ago, will play with for the next four hours and likely never see again?) and that tables and groups will change very regularly.

So, we make the baseline very restrictive because in RPGA play, that's pretty necessessary. Then we add in bits for the home player where the rules can be relaxed and responsibilities for the game dumped back into the DM's lap, where it mostly belongs in a long term group.

Note, also, some powers do specifically target objects, so, it's not all that out of line to insist on the divide here.

Although, to be honest, I think this was simply an oversight on the original writers part. Meh.

 

[billd91]

It means you have to ask your DM pretty please with sugar and cherries on top can I maybe use my waraxe to cut firewood, please, o great and powerful Master of All Dungeons and Controller of Reality.

All right, that's blatant hyperbole, but "Mother May I" gameplay gets under my skin.

ALL refereed games are ultimately "Mother, May I?" no matter how much the rules define. That's just a question of relatively insignificant detail. There isn't a single RPG with a game master setting up the campaign settings, playing NPCs, and adjudicating rules that doesn't ultimately come down to the same hyperbolic point.
If you don't trust your GM's judgment, you don't trust your GM's judgment.