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

[pawsplay]

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.

No, it's the opposite of arbitrary. When you work back from the results you want, and develop a consistent plan for getting there, the result is logical. And logic works really well in a codified RPG.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

Actually, between the sword, the ring of fire magic, and his Istari Paragon Path/Prestige Class, Gandalf was quite the D&D character.

 

[SKyOdin]

Actually, between the sword, the ring of fire magic, and his Istari Paragon Path/Prestige Class, Gandalf was quite the D&D character.

Not really. All most all of Gandalf's powers are vaguely defined and subtle in their effects. He uses his ring to inspire courage in people's hearts in an undefined way. Most magic in Lord of the Rings is more subtle influence than flash and bang.

In D&D on the other hand, all spells, powers, classes, and equipment are very well defined in their effects, and usually pretty showy. Saying that Gandalf is very much like a D&D character is only true if you can reasonably describe what his stats would be in D&D rules, which I don't think is possible.

 

[pawsplay]

Not really. All most all of Gandalf's powers are vaguely defined and subtle in their effects. He uses his ring to inspire courage in people's hearts in an undefined way. Most magic in Lord of the Rings is more subtle influence than flash and bang.

Gandalf creates pyrotechnic pinecones in The Hobbit, and summons holy light in LOTR (conceived in the movie as a literal beam). I guess that the ring of fire also guarded him to some extent in his battle with the Balrog. He alters creature's perception of time in The Hobbit in the troll scene.

The power of the One Ring is pretty flamboyant. Sting and Orcrist both glow in the presence of Sauron's servants.

The sublety of magic in LOTR is often emphasized to contrast it with something like Dragonlance or Sleeping Beauty, but it's possible to overstate it. While being more subtle, it isn't all that subtle, or it wouldn't be magic at all.

 

[nightwyrm]

Most fantasy literature has its magic be limited in certain ways depending on how the author wants magic to be used (or not be used) in its setting. If the works is defined by political intrigue, the author may choose to make mind-reading, dominate and other such mind-affecting magic impossible (or not be available to the protagonists). In another setting where the protagonists have to make a long trek, teleportation magic may be impossible. The magic system in that world is defined in such a way that it doesn't become an easy button for the central conflict in those works. In literature, the plotline comes first and then magic is then designed to accomodate and facilitate that plotline via limitations and drawbacks to the magic system. If ability X is detrimental to the plotline, then magic simply cannot do ability X by author fiat. Another character with skills similar to ability X is then not overshadowed by the magic character.

D&D magic system is not designed that way. It tries to pack every magic caster archetype with abilities covering every magical ability in all myth, legends and literature into a single class. Thus turning the wizard into an easy button.

 

[Dausuul]

The power of the One Ring is pretty flamboyant.

Wha? The only power the One Ring manifests in any immediately obvious fashion is turning the wearer invisible, which I wouldn't call "flamboyant" particularly. And that seems to be just a side effect. The Ring's other demonstrated powers are extending the Ringbearer's lifespan, messing with the Ringbearer's head, and saying "YO! BUDDY! OVER HERE!" to any Ringwraiths who happen to be passing by.

We never see what it does in the hands of a powerful wielder, but the implication is that it's mostly mind-control; all the other Rings, and their wearers, and everything that was ever accomplished with them, falls under the sway of whoever wields the One. Very powerful, but not very pyrotechnic.

 

[pawsplay]

Wha? The only power the One Ring manifests in any immediately obvious fashion is turning the wearer invisible, which I wouldn't call "flamboyant" particularly.

Immediate and unlimited invisibility, plus nigh-immortality, is pretty much the apex of the magic pyramid in terms of magicalness. It is the Ring of Giges and the curse of the Wandering Jew, rolled into one. The wielder is essentially a cursed superhero.

 

[fanboy2000]

A lot of people agree that D&D has historically heavily favored spellcasters after about a third of the way thru leveling and the classes we drastically unbalanced at the endgame. I'm trying to brainstorm an approach to correcting this inbalance in a way that maybe makes more sense than the 4e "make everyone a Vancian caster" approach. So, I'm thinking of look at fantasy source material: the novels and epic tales that inspired fantasy roleplaying games in the first place.

That's a good idea. Remember though, that the stories were written with a different mindset than an RPG, or even RPG based fiction, is written.

So, since I don't have the time to read all the great fantasy literature in one setting, I thought I'd ask everyone here:

How have you seen warior characters in fantasy books overcome spellcasters?

Yes, but the next part of your post sugests that you're already on the trail.

I recently read a Conan story where Conan's encounter with a wizard was a bit anticlimatic - he just threw a dagger at him and killed him in one shot while the wizard was trying to cast a spell. So, in that case, spellcasting probably took more than the typical "Standard Action" and the wizard had *very* low Hit Points and no protective magic in place (even though he was anticipating the encounter).

To be fair, Conan kills a lot of people, not just spellcasters, like this. It's kind of a speciality of his. Not only that, but Howard (writing fiction in the 1930s, not RPGs in the 2010s) understands that people often die after one hit. A lot of the tension in Howard's stories comes not from the fight (though there is certainly a lot of that) but from the circumstances surrounding the fight. (I.e., the situation that leads to fight, the necessity of preparing for for, or getting to a point where you can win.

Conan also has a tendency to lose and then need help getting out of whatever hellish situation he's in. I just finished a story where the villain actually had Conan crucified. [spoil]It wasn't a good saving throw that got him out.[/spoil]

I'm going to recommend a book. Hour of the Dragon it's Howard's only Conan novel, and I just read it for the first time recently. I really enjoyed it. More important to your research, it contains at least 4 spellcasters: Xaltotun, a recently awaked 3,000 year old 'necromancer'; Orastes, a former priest of the Mitra who turned to black arts; Zeiata, an old witch (more like a D&D druid, really or even a spellcasting ranger); and Hadrathus a priest of the cult of Asura. Each of them approaches magic in a different manner. Some aid Conan, other's oppose him. Seeing the different approaches in one story is kind of interesting.

Also, it contains a great line towards the end of chapter 20: "Magic depended, to a certain extent after all, on sword strokes and lance thrusts." In fiction and RPGs, I think that's probably the best outlook on magic one can have.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Most of the great warriors of mythology & legend are not mere mortals. Either they have been bestowed with offensive and/or defensive blessings by divine entities or are semidivine themselves.
...
So yeah, they're going to be a bit more resilient than a mere mortal who picks up a sword and sets out to become a great warrior. They are going to have an edge from the very start.

There's a case to be made that D&D characters are not mere mortals, either.

No D&D character is just a dirt farmer done good. The editions vary to the degree this is true (1st ed's "just a typical fighting-man, sir! just happen to be better than most fighting-men, sir!" to 4th eds "You are all 1st level demigods in the making!"), but it's pretty true in any edition.

D&D, especially modern D&D, isn't about Samwise Gamgee the Gardener Turned Hero. It's about Aragon and Gandalf and other epic-from-the-start characters.

Not that it has to be, just that it IS. Which means that Achilles and other mythic fighters are not out of the realm of choice for heroic archetypes for the game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

D&D, especially modern D&D, isn't about Samwise Gamgee the Gardener Turned Hero. It's about Aragon and Gandalf and other epic-from-the-start characters.

Maybe your games, but that does not describe my history with D&D at all.

Sure, I have some special-from-the-start PCs, but they are far and away the exception, not the rule.