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

[Dannyalcatraz]

So sure the rifle won, when magic was specifically taken away. Butcher takes extreme pains to catch Harry essentially with his pants down.

Not sure which story we're talking about, bit the Dresden story I'm thinking of, the magic of his duster saves him from a sniper...just.

"If Buzz had shot me six inches lower, only a single layer of leather would have been between the round and my hide.* A few inches higher, and it would have taken me in the neck, with absolutely no protection. And if he'd waited a quarter of a second longer, until my foot had descended to the first step leading down to my door, he would have sprayed my brains all over the siding of the boardinghouse."

This in a story in which he was already aware of danger and on guard.






* Harry is examining where a high-caliber sniper round was flattened against the inner collar of his jacket. The sniper round passed through one layer of magic-reinforced leather, only to be stopped by a second. As it was, it still incapacitated him to the point that the sniper was almost able to finish him off.

 

[Mort]

Not sure which story we're talking about, bit the Dresden story I'm thinking of, the magic of his duster saves him from a sniper...just.

"If Buzz had shot me six inches lower, only a single layer of leather would have been between the round and my hide.* A few inches higher, and it would have taken me in the neck, with absolutely no protection. And if he'd waited a quarter of a second longer, until my foot had descended to the first step leading down to my door, he would have sprayed my brains all over the siding of the boardinghouse."

This in a story in which he was already aware of danger and on guard.i






* Harry is examining where a high-caliber sniper round was flattened against the inner collar of his jacket. The sniper round passed through one layer of magic-reinforced leather, only to be stopped by a second. As it was, it still incapacitated him to the point that the sniper was almost able to finish him off.

I'm talking about the most recent Dresden novel Changes,

Spoiler

where he unforunately does not, barely survive the bullet (details in the next book).

 

[Beginning of the End]

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 one of the things that make the "edition wars" so fruitless/entertaining: If you bought a 4E PHB, DMG, and MM in 2008, played a dozen sessions, and decided that the game wasn't for you, it's fully possible that the stuff you didn't like is no longer part of the game. Entire core mechanics have been completely rewritten; monster design has been radically changed; and so forth.

People who are immersed in the ever evolving "current version" of 4E feel that its critics are ignorant because they're not discussing what "4E is really like"; 4E's critics feel that the fans are being disingenuous because they keep claiming things about the game which were patently not there when the critics played it.

OTOH, I think NoWayJose makes a good point when he says:

For what it's worth, this leads up to a summary of my subjective position over the last 10 pages:

4E Essentials: Hynotism
* The target uses a free action to make a melee basic attack against a creature of your choice
* Slide the target up to 3 squares

This is a classic case of 4E metagamey spell-as-an-effect ¹ design philosophy that makes little or no narrative/fictional sense.

For those who expect that spells be designed with a fiction-first cinematic approach, Hypnotism fails spectacularly: By the letter of the rule, you can't use hypnotism to cause them to drop an item, say something, fall prone, stick their head in a bucket, etc.

There is a lot of general advice in the DMG which doesn't seem to have influenced the actual design of 4E in any way. This doesn't seem to have gone away.

For example, LostSoul's quote from the Rules Compendium feels as if it was written in direct response to forum criticisms that sprung up around Chris Perkins' decision in a celebrity podcast session of D&D to not allow a particular power to target an object because it specifically targeted only creatures.

(I think it was Chris Perkins. If it was another WotC employee working as DM, I apologize.)

But while it narrowly addresses this particular aspect of non-flexibility in the rules, it doesn't actually alleviate the fundamental principles of design which create the problem in the first place (as the example of hypnotism demonstrates; simply changing the target doesn't fix the problem).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There is a lot of general advice in the DMG which doesn't seem to have influenced the actual design of 4E in any way. This doesn't seem to have gone away.

For example, LostSoul's quote from the Rules Compendium feels as if it was written in direct response to forum criticisms that sprung up around Chris Perkins' decision in a celebrity podcast session of D&D to not allow a particular power to target an object because it specifically targeted only creatures.

(I think it was Chris Perkins. If it was another WotC employee working as DM, I apologize.)

But while it narrowly addresses this particular aspect of non-flexibility in the rules, it doesn't actually alleviate the fundamental principles of design which create the problem in the first place (as the example of hypnotism demonstrates; simply changing the target doesn't fix the problem).

1) QFT.

2) I was thinking of the exact same podcast when I read that quoted revision.

 

[NoWayJose]

There is a lot of general advice in the DMG which doesn't seem to have influenced the actual design of 4E in any way. This doesn't seem to have gone away.

On a vaguely related note, I just saw this article "Your Gritty Antihero and You"
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Your Gritty Antihero and You)

The good news: Despite the cheekiness, it's one of the most honest articles I've read on wizards.com about marrying the class rules to the roleplaying narrative.

The bad news: The author is a guest writer from outside WoTC (!!!) and, as per above, there's still a noticeable (at least for some people) disparity when you get down to certain mechanics.

If people like Jared von Hindman were part of the design team for 4.75E, we might have a beautiful lovefest between 4E mechanics and narrative!

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's not relying on the DM's agency, which I suppose is the clincher. It doesn't ask for permission to do things you probably should be able to do.

Um.....You seem to be confusing who decides that axes can chop with how that decision is made.

Also, I specified "human agency" not "the DM's agency"........while the second is a subset of the first, the terms are not co-equal.

Sometimes, an illustration of an extreme position that no one is actually taking can contribute to the understanding of the discussion.

This is not one of those times. IMHO.

You are entitled to your opinions, however misguided they may be.

Seriously, though, the extreme juxtaposition of "Mother May I" vs. "System May I" came about specifically due to an attempt to claim that relying on GM agency to make rules calls turns the game in to "Mother May I".

I take KM's post as evidence that he disagrees with that position as well (if not as much) as I do, and, therefore, I would say that there was definitely some value.

At the very least, we now have "System May I" as a term to counter "Mother May I"........which will hopefully keep the use of both terms to a minimum, as we seek something that lies happily in the middle.

This happened in the other thread too. You can't coup de grace a stunned creature, it needs to be helpless.

Also, this is spoken like someone with little or no experience with the game. Is that not correct?

I have over 30 years of experience with Dungeons & Dragons. What game are you referring to?

 

[LostSoul]

This thread moves fast.

Thanks for this, KM! I think we're on the same page. If I'm reading you right, you don't want to constantly appeal to whatever human authority makes these decisions. The system should never result in the question "Can I chop a tree with my axe, DM?"

I think 4E has the unfortunate effect of making this a question that needs to be asked. I personally don't think that was intended, but it doesn't matter what I think!

This is one of the things that make the "edition wars" so fruitless/entertaining: If you bought a 4E PHB, DMG, and MM in 2008, played a dozen sessions, and decided that the game wasn't for you, it's fully possible that the stuff you didn't like is no longer part of the game. Entire core mechanics have been completely rewritten; monster design has been radically changed; and so forth.

People who are immersed in the ever evolving "current version" of 4E feel that its critics are ignorant because they're not discussing what "4E is really like"; 4E's critics feel that the fans are being disingenuous because they keep claiming things about the game which were patently not there when the critics played it.

Yep. I got caught up in trying to make a point, which was a stupid thing to do. I was pretty sure there was something in the rules that specifically dealt with targeting objects, since that question came up in a game. After looking through the rules I didn't find anything conclusive. The Rules Compendium did, and instead of saying, "Yeah, you're right; here's what I read back when that issue came up in my game, and why I made the decision I did," I posted that rule from the RC.

 

[LostSoul]

Nice post, NoWayJose! I can't rep you for it at this time.

For those who expect that spells be designed with a fiction-first cinematic approach, Hypnotism fails spectacularly: By the letter of the rule, you can't use hypnotism to cause them to drop an item, say something, fall prone, stick their head in a bucket, etc.

Like many 4E powers, for me, the title of the spell ('Hypnotism') and the fluff ('Your piercing gaze and whispered word let you seize momentary control of your enemy's mind') hints at marvelous possibilities, but the actual mechanics are a straightjacket. Expectations raised and dashed, promises and lies, all in the same breath.

I agree with this. As a DM in 4E I wouldn't have had a problem letting the spell result in momentary control of the target¹, doing all the things you list in the first paragraph I quoted - and more! (Post-hypnotic suggestion, for example.)

My problem: even when I'd explicitly tell players they could do these things, they never tried. That was why I decided to write my hack.

¹ I wouldn't let it work on non-sentient objects, though.

 

[Hussar]

To answer the OP, warriors and wizards are balanced by the warrior's powers being "always on", while the wizard's powers require the correct timing, a lot of luck or forethought, and are often dangerous to the user as well as to the target. You can model this in a broad-base support game; I have yet to see it modeled well in a knife-edge balance game.

See, this is where I disagree. Take 3e for example. We've already shown in this thread that a minimal expenditure (10% of character wealth) grants me one HUNDRED scrolls. Remember, I can blow all those every level and reasonably expect to have that same amount of gold to play with next level as well.

Make a few assumptions - 15 xp awarding events (after all, why am I burning scrolls on a situation that isn't garnering me xp?) per level. That's 7 scrolls PER EVENT, in addition to my memorized spells.

What luck do I need? I've got so much depth to my resources, that I can very reasonably expect to have any spell I need for any situation that comes up. I memorize combat spells exclusively, giving me more than enough depth in combat and then out of combat, either pre combat or between, blow my scrolls.

Even in earlier edition D&D, sure, you had random encounters. But, that pre-supposes I'm adventuring only in dungeons. Outside adventures have a much, much less punishing (although possibly more dangerous) rate of random encounters. Now it's entirely possible that I can have one encounter per day, which means I no longer have to worry about saving spells for the next encounter.

Never mind that the only reason we have these random encounters is to spackle over the problems with the magic system in the first place. Sure, there might be places where random encounters might go the way the DMG states, but, there are lots of other dungeons where they really shouldn't and it actually strongly breaks verisimilitude to have that many random encounters.

If you remove clerical healing from 1e, suddenly random encounters become mostly meaningless. If you have a group of non-casters, all with rings of regeneration, then random encounters are just bonus xp. They don't grind away any resources (other than maybe arrows I suppose).

Instead of fixing the magic system in the first place, they just slapped on this "random encounter" stuff that grinds away spells and makes it hard to regain spent spells. It would have made a lot more sense to fix the magic system in the first place and then make random encounters actually follow the logic of the in game reality, rather than a fixed 1 in 6, checked every ten minutes, whether that makes any sense or not.

I mean, how much more gamist can you get? The random encounters have nothing to do with what's actually IN the adventure, and the timing is completely arbitrary based on what's going to grind away at the casters.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I mean, how much more gamist can you get? The random encounters have nothing to do with what's actually IN the adventure, and the timing is completely arbitrary based on what's going to grind away at the casters.

Well...my only response to this is that every random encounter I've ever been a part of HAS been based on the content of the adventure and they've been as big a challenge for the non-casters as the casters themselves.

Your milage has obviously varied.