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

[Celtavian]

re

Mostly in fiction the wizard vs. warrior problem is handled by making magic rare and very dangerous. Usually arcane caster types go through a rigorous and dangerous path to power that can possibly leave them dead. But if they live, they become amongst the most powerful and dangerous people in the world.

Let's explore some different individual stories.

Arthurian Legend:

Arthur had Merlin to aid him. Merlin helped him obtain a powerful magical sword which made him king.

The wizard-types in Arthurian legend usually were enchanter-types clouding the minds of men and enslaving them. They kept doing what they were doing until some great knight came along and defeated them. The great knight was usually more resistant their magic by some virtue of their person such as Launcelot being the most bad to the bone knight alive. Even he was taken in by enchantment magic and made to love another to escape.


Narnia Chronicles:

The wizard type (aka the White Witch) was an all powerful figure who ruled the land of Narnia for a long time until the prophesied children came to save the land with the help of Aslan, a god-like lion figure. So they handled the wizard vs. warrior story with the help of divine intervention of some kind usually in the form of help coming for the person from out of nowhere, Help prophesied and fated to thwart the wizard type and lead to their downfall.


Tolkien:

Tolkien engaged in a sort of arms race with magic. Both sides were armed with magic of a sort. But the evil magicians generally gained the upper hand for a time by being willing to do dark things to enhance their power that others would not do. But the good side always had the aid of fate aka the gods to assist when times were dark. To do a bit here and there to turn the tide of the battle along with the courage and tenacity of the common good people like Frodo and the like. They also usually had their own wizards to help them deal with wizards.

Like you never saw Saruman against Aragorn or Frodo. It was always Gandalf against the other wizard type be it Saruman or the Witch King of Angmar. The one time Aragorn did go against he was only able to drive him off and Frodo almost died. The only reason Aragorn was able to drive them off is because they were harmed by fire.


In A Song of Ice and Fire, magic is just returning. But the wizardly types are in service to the fighter types. Stannis had his wizard kill his brother with a shadow. The Red Priest is ressurecting people. The Others are some kind of undead menace. Bran can communicate and control beasts. The Faceless Men can shapechange and take on new forms. The Targaryen blood of Daenrys is allowing her to control dragons and bring them back to life.

I could go on and on.

The way the wizard vs. warrior imbalance is solved is using the narrative. Making magic rare. Making the goals of the wizard types as something other than killing the warrior types. Usually the warriors with a destiny have their own wizard helping them or they have wizard or special powers themselves.

Wizards cannot do everything alone. Thus they employ many of the fighter types or they help many of the fighter types. Magic is rare, but a sword is always there for the swinging.

But one has not changed in the majority of fantasy and that is that wizards are the baddest dudes in all the world. The fighter types cannot hope to stand against them unless they get close enough to lay hands on them with a sword which would not happen to often if they straight up ran at them and tried to swing. If you are a fighter type, you better have a plan, you better bring friends, and you better have some magical help of your own.

That is fantasy.


In fact, D&D is kinder to fighter types than most books. At least in D&D fighter types do the most damage at higher level. Wizards can't deal near as much damage to a single target as a fighter type can with feats like power attack and the like.

Heck, I just put a 1200 hit point hydra against my party. The melees did 90% of the damage to it. The barbarian did 500 plus points of damage by himself.

Fighter-types do fine in D&D. Just because a wizard can take them out in a one on one battle doesn't mean there is something wrong with either class. It's ridiculous that people think in a fantasy game a fighter should be on par in a one on one fight to a high level wizard. Totally against the tropes of fantasy.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Unless you want to not be a wizard, at which point balance matters quite a bit more.

No. Balance doesn't matter unless the characters are going against each other in a PvP environment.

Because this isn't balance.

Hey guess what fighter? Level 1? That's it. That's as good as it gets. Really! Because the game is "balanced" over levels. So enjoy level one, because every level afterwards you get closer to being obsolete.

Incidentally, your job is to be personal bodyguard to the wizard. Yeah, you get to be a hireling! Doesn't that sound fun?

You make ridiculous, untrue statements all the time.

Never have I been in a game like you claim exist. Never have I played the hireling of the wizard.

I have made plenty of bad to the bone melee types in every edition of D&D that were useful and an absolute blast to play.

Know what it doesn't sound like? Any story, ever.

Read mythology. No, I'm serious, go read a few myths, read some fiction. Go read Greek mythology or Japanese mythology, read up on the Three Kingdoms and on Roland and on Gilgamesh. Now point out the number of "meatshields" who do nothing but protect the wizard. And point out the number of godly superpower wizards that are the protagonist.

I'll wait.

Now point out how many stories are "And this this rediculously awesome warrior guy did something way over the top and basically impossible and it was really rad."

I think the comparisons support me far more then they do you.

Let's see. Elric of Melnibone was a ridiculously powerful wizard protagonist.

I've read tons of mythology. They have lots of children of gods and gods themselves or favored of gods doing things. Usually the warrior types have competing gods helping them out against any wizard types they might face.

But wizards were fairly rare in mythology as good or bad guys. It was mostly gods. But the few wizards in mythology like say Baba Yaga or Circe were bad to the bone.

Only if you want the game to be Wizards and Wizards: A Wizardplaying Game.

Stupid statement.

I have far more experience than you with all editions of D&D. I know for certain that wizards never have and do not now dominate at the D&D table. They are a useful part of the narrative, but they are far from the end all be all that you make them out to be.

Once again I say you have been playing with DMs that don't know how to create encounters to challenge a complete party. I don't have the problems you have at all. In fact, I find it more difficult to challenge the melee characters in my parties than than the wizard types.

In my groups wizards get one action a round. If the enemy makes their saving throw, their turn is over. They basically did nothing. Then the melees go with their three and four attacks with power attack and magic weapons stacked with bonuses and there is no save against damage, creatures start dying.

Obviously your campaigns consisted of some weak, low save creature completely unprepared for dealing with a wizard enemy who allowed the wizard type to teleport in followed by it missing all its saves and dying in the first round to the first spell cast by the wizard.

Sorry if I don't share your experience, but I don't. Your experience is as absurd as those that claim wizards are balanced with fighters one against one.

 

[Celtavian]

re

How do I handle the balance problem of warrior vs fighter vs cleric vs rogue in D&D?

I focus on developing a narrative where each character feels an important part of the story first and foremost. I expect each of my players to provide me with background information I can build on. I also read the modules in advance and try to think of different ways to tie the story into a character's motivations.

I develop encounters that I know will give each of my players something to do or be a serious challenge. If it's a big, tough beast I give it a ton of hit points and high saves so that it isn't easily defeated. If it is a single, tough BBEG NPC I provide him with enough help to engage a party in a challenging battle with something for the melees to do and something for the wizard to do.

It's all about carefully planning the challenges and the narrative to involve all players in the story and give them a sense of immersion.

I consider my job as DM to be storytelling first. I want all that I do including the development of the challenges to develop the story and push it along. I want the players to feel a sense of danger, while at the same time feeling a sense of victory and development.

My friends and I get together to game to be part of a fun story as well as build a strong character. If all we wanted was some game where all characters were balanced against each other we would stick with MMORPGs like WoW or EQ. We're interested in stories like the ones we read. One guy likes Terry Brooks. I'm big into Tolkien. Another guy likes A Song of Ice and Fire. But all the people I know ultimately play D&D for the story first and everything else is secondary to trying to capture the feel of being involved in an epic fantasy story and bringing a character to life.

 

[Victim]

That's a rubbish way to write fantasy. Orson Scott Card would box your ear for saying it. You can certainly take that approach. You can also have espionage organizations that don't have a defined adminstrative structure, they just do secret and espionagey things. You can have fights in which the warriors just do a little of this and a little of that until you decide it's time for one of them to drop. You certainly don't need geography.

The problem is that the result will be bloody stupid.

Of course it will be when you make it stupid. OTOH, if the author works backwards, deciding what he wants to have happen and then making up rules to support that, it should be reasonably consistent.

It's just as arbitrary though.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

But one has not changed in the majority of fantasy and that is that wizards are the baddest dudes in all the world. The fighter types cannot hope to stand against them unless they get close enough to lay hands on them with a sword which would not happen to often if they straight up ran at them and tried to swing. If you are a fighter type, you better have a plan, you better bring friends, and you better have some magical help of your own.

That is fantasy.

No, you are factually incorrect. You prove such in your very post.

In every example given the wizard is one of two things: a bit player or a bad guy. They are never the top dog, nor are they ever the protagonist.

Also your "experience" in D&D is worthless, and if the enemy is making their saving throw in the first place you've never seen a well built wizard, which is what these arguments always come down to.

Edit: If your wizard is doing damage in 3e then you've already lost the argument.

 

[GreyLord]

Mostly in fiction the wizard vs. warrior problem is handled by making magic rare and very dangerous. Usually arcane caster types go through a rigorous and dangerous path to power that can possibly leave them dead. But if they live, they become amongst the most powerful and dangerous people in the world.

Blah...blah...blah...

Like you never saw Saruman against Aragorn or Frodo. It was always Gandalf against the other wizard type be it Saruman or the Witch King of Angmar. The one time Aragorn did go against he was only able to drive him off and Frodo almost died. The only reason Aragorn was able to drive them off is because they were harmed by fire.

Blah...blah...blah

I'm not taking sides really...but the first paragraph is one reason I actually like the idea of rituals in 4e. Makes Magic powerful, but it can cost money (NOT XP typically mind you) AND time. Time can be one thing you have precious little of (like in a dungeon with the Kobolds knocking at the door...and the spell you want to cast takes 10 minutes minimum...)

However, the second paragraph kind of rattles my old bones. I could have sworn the Wytch King was killed by a warrior...a Woman in fact. And I could have sworn right before that he was wounded by none other than a little halfing thing called a hobbit.

Furthermore I could swear that Saruman came to an untimely end at the point of several many non-magical weapons. No wizardly interference in killing him that time around...just some rather bad assistance by a one time hand puppet of another court and bad fate.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I could have sworn the Wytch King was killed by a warrior...a Woman in fact. And I could have sworn right before that he was wounded by none other than a little halfing thing called a hobbit.

You've got the right of that... but in what way was Angmar a witch? He was called that, but I saw precious little evidence of it.

 

[kenjib]

That's a rubbish way to write fantasy. Orson Scott Card would box your ear for saying it. You can certainly take that approach. You can also have espionage organizations that don't have a defined adminstrative structure, they just do secret and espionagey things. You can have fights in which the warriors just do a little of this and a little of that until you decide it's time for one of them to drop. You certainly don't need geography.

The problem is that the result will be bloody stupid.

I'm sorry if I'm not being very clear. Those limitations you are talking about are exactly what I mean - magic is only limited if the author limits it. What you are talking about is a way in which the author limits it. Now - why does he do it? Because otherwise there is no tension in the conflict: Magic guy can always know everything that's happening and then just snap his fingers and the whole plot resolves as soon as any conflict appears, and you're right, that is bloody stupid.

So then why do these limitations exist? Heightening the risk of conflict and avoiding the deprotagonization of the hero are two reasons that I brought up. These same reasons (among others) are part of why I also mentioned earlier that the protagonist is more often the warrior than it is the wizard. Making him facilitator instead of protagonist further limits him.

 

[Dausuul]

You've got the right of that... but in what way was Angmar a witch? He was called that, but I saw precious little evidence of it.

The Witch-King was described as "a powerful sorceror." And in the books, the Nazgul made aggressive use of magic during the battle for Gondor--the Black Breath, and the fear and despair they spread, took a heavy toll among the defenders.

Did they use their magic in personal combat? No. But that's exactly the point: In Middle-Earth, being a wizard does not make you invincible against a warrior. Gandalf had more effective "battle magic" than most (his specialty was fire, after all), but he still carried a sword and used it often.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The Witch-King was described as "a powerful sorceror." And in the books, the Nazgul made aggressive use of magic during the battle for Gondor--the Black Breath, and the fear and despair they spread, took a heavy toll among the defenders.

Did they use their magic in personal combat? No. But that's exactly the point: In Middle-Earth, being a wizard does not make you invincible against a warrior. Gandalf had more effective "battle magic" than most (his specialty was fire, after all), but he still carried a sword and used it often.

Heck, Gandalf used his sword more often then his magic. He is, again, the archangel Michael, after all!

Here's my example:

Here are the visually distinctive elements of a Balor: HELL SWORD! HELL WHIP! FLAME HUGS!


Here is how you run a 3E wizard, wait no dragon, wait no pit fiend, wait no Balor in a mechanically optimal fashion when magic is given preference over everything else: summon minions to harass the party, continually teleport out of range of them, spam various save-or-HA-HA! unlimited-use spell-like abilities.


Here is how you run a Balor in a mechanically optimal fashion when magic isn't given preference over everything else: HELL SWORD! HELL WHIP! FLAME HUGS!