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

[Raven Crowking]

As I said, so what? Sauron wasn't able to do nothing at that range, other than sending minions.

We actually have no clear idea of what Sauron can and cannot do.

Your point is taken, though; now let me counter:

You have a murder mystery, where the Count is the killer. The horse says so, to the druid. According to the druid, who may also be the killer, or in league with the killer to frame the Count, as far as any of the NPCs know. For that matter, for all the druid knows, the Count may whip the horse from time to time, and the horse has it in for him. Or the killer may have been wearing the Count's cloak, thus carrying his scent.

Sure, the adventure changes with the horse's testimony. But it also changes with the stable boy's testimony.

The problem with magic is that it offers "revealed knowledge", and while the value of that knowledge might be greater than that which is mundanely gathered, the mundane knowledge is perhaps more sure. I mean, do we actually expect the King to hang the Count because a druid told him a horse said he was the murderer? What makes the horse's testimony so special? What makes the druid's?

In such a world, the villians need say nothing more than "A pigeon saw the PCs conspiring against the King!" and every hand will be against them!


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Remember once too, (I was DM) that players were doing a "run" against a pirate ship to find the spot where a sunken city lied. The players choose to cast some Clairvoyance on the pirate ship, then teleport into it, and sunken it, and teleport back. I really wasn't able to avoid it, other than adding the pirate unreasonable countermeasures that they, story wise, shouldn't have. So there you go, anti-climatic sunk of the pirate vessel, and half of the story shortcut. Where did it end? When the drow wizard, who was paying the pirate, did the same to players unsuspecting ship. And next day, when they were in a beach, nearly defenseless, the wizard cast scry-teleport, and killed most of them.

There isn't enough information to go on here, but let us discuss.

I am assuming that this was a Teleport Without Error? Otherwise, so sad to end up in another ship's bilge (perchance, for without actually going topside, how does the teleporter know what ship he is on?).

You left out how he sunk the pirate ship. Did it sink instantly? Were there no bilge pumps, and no materials for emergency repairs? Was there no chance of a pirate discovering our caster augering out the bilge? Was there no time for the pirate ship to turn and try to capture the PC's ship to replace their own?



RC

 

[Hussar]

Fairly meaningless? I'm going to guess you haven't refreshed your memory by looking up the 1e tables. A character with a highly respectable 16 Intelligence had a 35% chance to be unable to understand a given spell and was limited to 7 per level. With a 17, his chance to be unable to understand a spell was 25% and he got at most 8 per level.

Those figures allow for a lot of flexibility, it's true. But that 17 Int character had a 25% to be unable to cast fireball, charm monster, fly, invisibility, and a whole lot of very useful spells. That's a substantial failure rate, not meaningless at all.

Swimming a bit upthread, but, a minor nitpick.

That chance of being unable to cast a particular spell can be rerolled every level. It's quite possible that you might not get the spell this level, but, get it a couple of levels later.

Just to understand - are you saying starting with a 16 Int for a wizard is poor? A 16 anything is pretty impressive from my experience. I know everyone says "mileage may vary" but assuming gameplay by the vanilla rules, a 16 is fairly uncommon from 3d6. Sure, house rules will usually be in play for stat generation, and I have seen quite a few that generate some very high stats to start. Perfectly legit way to play, but the only issue is people forget to differentiate their game is a "high powered" game and we hear balance complaints and such...

Another minor nitpick. The standard method of stat generation in 1e was 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste, not 3d6.

 

[Hussar]

We actually have no clear idea of what Sauron can and cannot do.

Your point is taken, though; now let me counter:

You have a murder mystery, where the Count is the killer. The horse says so, to the druid. According to the druid, who may also be the killer, or in league with the killer to frame the Count, as far as any of the NPCs know. For that matter, for all the druid knows, the Count may whip the horse from time to time, and the horse has it in for him. Or the killer may have been wearing the Count's cloak, thus carrying his scent.

Sure, the adventure changes with the horse's testimony. But it also changes with the stable boy's testimony.

The problem with magic is that it offers "revealed knowledge", and while the value of that knowledge might be greater than that which is mundanely gathered, the mundane knowledge is perhaps more sure. I mean, do we actually expect the King to hang the Count because a druid told him a horse said he was the murderer? What makes the horse's testimony so special? What makes the druid's?

In such a world, the villians need say nothing more than "A pigeon saw the PCs conspiring against the King!" and every hand will be against them!


RC

The problem isn't when the horse says the count did it because, you are absolutely right, the horse is simply another actor in the ongoing story.

However, when I hit the Divination button, because I'm a 7th level cleric, and my GOD tells me that the Count did it, that's a bit stronger. Or various mind reading spells. Or, Zone of Truth and simply ask everyone. Or or or.

There's a million and one different plot asploding spells out there. Speak with animals is a pretty minor one. Commune is a tad stronger.

Whoops. Wrong column. My mistake. Note however that the maximums are still fairly modest 11 spells for 16 Int, 14 for 17.
And the learning mechanic still limits the wizard's assurance that he'll have the right spell for all occasions. A lot of 3e-era theorycrafting becomes a lot more theoretical.

Sort of. Look at the actual list of MU spells in the PHB. 11 spells covers nearly the entire list for anything over 4th level. 1st level has what, 20 ish spells? With a 16 Int, I've got most of the bases covered and anything more than that is gravy.

But, that does speak a lot to your second point. A lot of the 3e era spells simply don't exist in 1e D&D. They're not an issue.

But, as far as DM's dictating the cleric's spells, doesn't that cut both ways? If the DM knows that they are heading into a murder mystery situation, shouldn't he tailor the cleric's list to be the most useful? Isn't that actually worse than letting the player pick his spell list? Unless, of course, the DM is being a bit of a dick and deliberately withholding spells that would be the most useful.

 

[billd91]

Swimming a bit upthread, but, a minor nitpick.

That chance of being unable to cast a particular spell can be rerolled every level. It's quite possible that you might not get the spell this level, but, get it a couple of levels later.

That was not the case in 1st edition. In that edition, there's no provision for being able to retry unless you end up being able to understand fewer than your minimum number of spells for that level.

 

[Mort]

We actually have no clear idea of what Sauron can and cannot do.

Your point is taken, though; now let me counter:

You have a murder mystery, where the Count is the killer. The horse says so, to the druid. According to the druid, who may also be the killer, or in league with the killer to frame the Count, as far as any of the NPCs know. For that matter, for all the druid knows, the Count may whip the horse from time to time, and the horse has it in for him. Or the killer may have been wearing the Count's cloak, thus carrying his scent.

Sure, the adventure changes with the horse's testimony. But it also changes with the stable boy's testimony.

The problem with magic is that it offers "revealed knowledge", and while the value of that knowledge might be greater than that which is mundanely gathered, the mundane knowledge is perhaps more sure. I mean, do we actually expect the King to hang the Count because a druid told him a horse said he was the murderer? What makes the horse's testimony so special? What makes the druid's?

In such a world, the villians need say nothing more than "A pigeon saw the PCs conspiring against the King!" and every hand will be against them!

RC

Your point depends on the view of the society in question. If magic is not trusted, then the testimony is going to be a bad idea at best; if talking to animals is a known quantity (and maybe even has precedent in the legal system) then procedures are in place and it's just another form of testimony.

Same for Druids. If they're shadowy figures not trusted by society - one situation; If they are advisors, scholers and counselors then another one entirely.

I think it can be reasonably certain though: high access to divination magic will make significant impact on a campaign - making the DM at the very least have to consider it when designing scenarios.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The problem isn't when the horse says the count did it because, you are absolutely right, the horse is simply another actor in the ongoing story.

However, when I hit the Divination button, because I'm a 7th level cleric, and my GOD tells me that the Count did it, that's a bit stronger. Or various mind reading spells. Or, Zone of Truth and simply ask everyone. Or or or.

There's a million and one different plot asploding spells out there. Speak with animals is a pretty minor one. Commune is a tad stronger.

If you have a chance, watch the second episode of Medium. It deals directly with the question "Yes, I understand that you know....but are you sure?"

Yes, those things make it easy for the PCs to know the truth. For them to prove what they know? That's a different kettle of fish.

Ex. Bob the Devotee of Asmodeus pretends to be a cleric of the One True Faith, then, after chanting and praying, says the Count did it. Did the Count do it? Do you know?

A cleric's god might not be wearing blinders (like the horse), but the Court isn't being asked to take the god's word; it is being asked to take the cleric's.

Zone of Truth is powerful, but it is possible to lie in the Zone. Is it possible to be Cursed to always lie in a Zone of Truth? When the Count claims that the PC caster made him somehow lie, and is trying to frame him, is that beyond what magic can do? Does the King know? Does the Court know?

Using magic raises as many problems as it resolves, unless that magic is used to help in the grunt work of finding actual evidence. And even then.......There's an Astro City story where a mobster gets off because, hey, he has enemies, and can the court prove that a shapeshifting alien or rival supervillian wasn't setting him up? If the defense works for the good guys, it should work for the bad guys as well.

But, as far as DM's dictating the cleric's spells, doesn't that cut both ways? If the DM knows that they are heading into a murder mystery situation, shouldn't he tailor the cleric's list to be the most useful?

Yes!

Isn't that actually worse than letting the player pick his spell list?

No!

Because those spells only tell the PCs what they should be looking for. They know the Count did it, now how do they convince everyone else that the Count did it?

Your point depends on the view of the society in question. If magic is not trusted, then the testimony is going to be a bad idea at best; if talking to animals is a known quantity (and maybe even has precedent in the legal system) then procedures are in place and it's just another form of testimony.

Nah. It just presumes that the society has no way to say "Treat PCs different than NPCs".

IF "a horse told me" works for the PCs, THEN it also works for their enemies.

IF their enemies cannot just say "My god told me the PCs are guilty", THEN neither can the PCs simply say "My god told me that the Count is guilty."

Knowing that Dracula is a vampire changes where Van Helsing stands, but unless Van Helsing can convince Victorian London that Dracula is a vampire, it is not a "I Win" button. A lot of novel happens after Van Helsing is convinced.

In the same light, DNA evidence doesn't always result in a conviction.


RC

 

[Mort]

Nah. It just presumes that the society has no way to say "Treat PCs different than NPCs".

How is this relevant? if there is an NPC druid who is highly regarded by the community and the druid says "Bob the horse saw the PCs kill this man!" the PCs may well be in seriously hot water.

IF "a horse told me" works for the PCs, THEN it also works for their enemies."

Of course. Magic changes the way things work; both in the PCs favor and against them. I personally would find it a bit humorous if the PCs were witnessed doing something bad by a donkey and it came back to bite them in the appropriate organ.

IF their enemies cannot just say "My god told me the PCs are guilty", THEN neither can the PCs simply say "My god told me that the Count is guilty."

But their enemies can. How seriously this is taken depends on the society in question. Heck, could lead to some very interesting adventure possibilities. Wouldn't it be interesting if the PCs finally confront the main villain and learn that the reason he has been hounding them through the levels is "because my god told me?" Perfect inversion of the usual scenario in my book.

Knowing that Dracula is a vampire changes where Van Helsing stands, but unless Van Helsing can convince Victorian London that Dracula is a vampire, it is not a "I Win" button. A lot of novel happens after Van Helsing is convinced.

But just knowing Dracula is a vampire is valuable information, how valuable depends on the situation but it's certainly better than not knowing.

In the same light, DNA evidence doesn't always result in a conviction
RC

Perhaps not, but it can certainly narrow the field of suspects.

I'm really not seeing your point here. While magic may not be an "I Win" button in all or even most situations, it certainly changes the playing field (both for and against the PCs).

 

[triqui]

We actually have no clear idea of what Sauron can and cannot do.

We know for sure that when Frodo was a few feets away to throw the Ring, he didnt zapp him with a death ray of doom. All he did was calling his nazguls back, which didnt came in time. So I assume that if, in the very face of being defeated, he couldn't do anything better than summon his minions, that is what he was able to do.

So few ways to avoid Gandalf using the I WIN button, other than the storyteller not giving him that button in the first place (and hence, Gandalf dont have "movement" powers, and need a horse to go to Gondor and need the Eagle lord to escape from Saruman.

You have a murder mystery, where the Count is the killer. The horse says so, to the druid. According to the druid, who may also be the killer, or in league with the killer to frame the Count, as far as any of the NPCs know. For that matter, for all the druid knows, the Count may whip the horse from time to time, and the horse has it in for him. Or the killer may have been wearing the Count's cloak, thus carrying his scent.

Sure, the adventure changes with the horse's testimony. But it also changes with the stable boy's testimony.

Big, difference, the horse SAW the crime, the stable's boy didnt.

The problem with magic is that it offers "revealed knowledge", and while the value of that knowledge might be greater than that which is mundanely gathered, the mundane knowledge is perhaps more sure. I mean, do we actually expect the King to hang the Count because a druid told him a horse said he was the murderer? What makes the horse's testimony so special? What makes the druid's?

That might be a counter, if, and only if, the king is needed. Which depends on the social implications of the players killing the count themselves, which have nothing to do with magic. Would the players had been part of a Guild of Thieves, which the Countess was the leader, that concern is trivial. The players now have the knowlege, and can act acordingly, bypassing completelly the game of diplomacy, betrayals, accusations and friendship the story was about.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, you have to ask what the courts think of magically produced evidence. Is it considered reliable on it's face (like DNA or fingerprints) or is it just an investigative tool (like a polygraph).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven Crowking
In the same light, DNA evidence doesn't always result in a conviction
RC

Point of fact- DNA evidence alone won't get anyone convicted. You need additional evidence beyond its mere presence at the scene of a crime.