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

[Dice4Hire]

Demi-gods in the making or local boys done good is a play style, mostly having to do with the type of adventures and the max level and rate of level gain in the game.

I think earlier editions of D&D were more aimed at the local boys and 4E at the demigods, but the rules do not stop you from going either way.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

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.

Not if you have wizards!

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Actually, farmboy vs hero is interesting. And it's tied to skills!

You go back to original, old-as-it-gets-school D&D, and adventurers weren't farmboys. The Fighting Man was a seasoned veteran. The Magic User had finished his apprentice training. They weren't wet behind the ears sops, they were professional thieves and looters that went into a dungeon to rob the hell out of it.

Likewise, skills were generally acted out rather then rolled for - and at most you rolled your attribute. The game was highly narrative, not "simulationist." There was no tie ropes skill - you were an adventurer, you knew how to tie a damn knot!

Slowly - and I think it peaked in 2e - the general idea reversed. I attribute this in part to skills. When 2e gave us NWPs, it was amazing to see how many adventurers suddenly couldn't tie knots or swim since they didn't have the NWP for it. There were rules for everything, and the basis of the game was built on "simulationism" more then anything else.

In 3e we had the same skill problems, where level 20 fighters couldn't tie a knot or knew how to swim, but the game was drifting away from "everyone's a level -1 NPC at the start." You had NPC classes to illustrate how the PCs were different - and better - then they were.

4e is if anything far closer to the super old school then 3e/2e is. Adventurers are already seasoned veterans to some point, and the skills the roll are the ones you need actual conflict resolution for. You don't need a separate "tie knots" skill because, as was so long ago, you're an adventurer! You don't need a "know how to hitch together rope" skill, that's something you already have.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Your assumption that "seasoned veterans" know how to do common sense things is laughable. When the US Army deployed to Iraq the 1st time, several units DX'ed (that means got rid of for the non-military minded) hundreds of tents (the GP small, medium and large style - not shelter halves) because the rope tighter was missing.

Infantry Soldiers that had been career military men didn't know how to tie a bowline or a taught line. Sorry, even the real world proves that you can get by without a certain set of skills as long as other skills get you to that point. Maybe the reason the "seasoned veteran" isn't still in is because they could kill, but couldn't keep their equipment clean or maintained.

Medieval armies (on which our fantasy worlds are usually based) were lacking in discipline, structure and training with the exception of the noble elite who could afford such training, and equipment.

All that being said a good DM can keep ANY world from being overpowered, it sounds to me like you play with someone (or group of someones) who has/have no self-control. And if you are the DM, it's time to do some studying.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Your assumption that "seasoned veterans" know how to do common sense things is laughable. When the US Army deployed to Iraq the 1st time, several units DX'ed (that means got rid of for the non-military minded) hundreds of tents (the GP small, medium and large style - not shelter halves) because the rope tighter was missing.

Infantry Soldiers that had been career military men didn't know how to tie a bowline or a taught line. Sorry, even the real world proves that you can get by without a certain set of skills as long as other skills get you to that point. Maybe the reason the "seasoned veteran" isn't still in is because they could kill, but couldn't keep their equipment clean or maintained.

Medieval armies (on which our fantasy worlds are usually based) were lacking in discipline, structure and training with the exception of the noble elite who could afford such training, and equipment.

All that being said a good DM can keep ANY world from being overpowered, it sounds to me like you play with someone (or group of someones) who has/have no self-control. And if you are the DM, it's time to do some studying.

What does this in any way have to do with what I said?

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Then I'd say you weren't playing in the style the rules assumed. Which is fine, and worked fine with earlier eds, and I really want that good D&D variant where levels represent some sort of actual increase in competence from "inexpert" to "OMG HOLY WOW," instead of just "Woah" to "OMG HOLY WOW," to encapsulate the Heroic Journey in levels 1-20.

But even in 3e, PC's have ability scores that aren't all 10s and PC classes instead of NPC classes, simply because they're better than other folks. Even in 1e, you were a seasoned veteran. 3e characters also lived in a world where there were other "Übermensch" around, which reduced the feeling of that "awesome from the start"-ness, but they weren't, rules-wise, gardeners, dirt farmers, and hedge mages. Level 1 heroes were badasses in comparison to 99% of the population, by default assumption.

That's just the default assumption, of course, and nothing stopped you from playing in a world where everyone was 10th level by the time they were adults, but the game didn't assume that.

Playing Achilles is a pretty valid D&D character archetype by default, but the rule set mostly assumes that the whole "dipped in the Styx" thing will come up in play, given out by the DM at an "appropriate level" (probably right about the time wizards are getting stoneskin or something). But I'm not sure fighters should have to depend on DM Fiat any more than wizards and clerics and other spellcasters do...

 

[JoeGKushner]

What does this in any way have to do with what I said?

"Likewise, skills were generally acted out rather then rolled for - and at most you rolled your attribute. The game was highly narrative, not "simulationist." There was no tie ropes skill - you were an adventurer, you knew how to tie a damn knot!"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not if you have wizards!

Yes, even with wizards.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Then I'd say you weren't playing in the style the rules assumed.

Were you there when they wrote 'em up? Psychic?

The rules in no way assume that you're "special" beyond the fact that your PC has a modicum of training. That you have an extraordinary stat or two isn't all that unusual. According to D&D Str charts, I have a 14-15 in that stat, and I'm 5'7", 43years old, am a lawyer, and don't work out anymore.

A "1st lvl Ftr" can describe a talented farmboy brawler, an avg. Joe fresh out of basic training, a 45 year old veteran whose skills have atrophied with age & injury or Hercules at age 5. A "1st lvl Wiz" sounds like a graduate if a private HS or college student in terms of education.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

I agree with you on D&D design including everything. But IMO, the wizard only becomes and "easy" button when you allow all those abilities. In literature and D&D, the worlds should be designed for people (readers or players) to enjoy their adventure.

Its always been my thought that D&D was a kit, you didn't need to use everything from it all the time.