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

[ProfessorCirno]

So wizards are common and don't rely on magical items in D&D? Ironically enough, the characters I am referring to actually own only a handful of magical items, with the possible exception of Turjan.

I'm less familiar with Dunsany, but Vance, Leiber, and Moorcock all cast spellcasters in protagonist roles. Turjan, from Vance, knows over a hundred spells. Leiber's Grey Mouser is a magic-user/thief; I don't know how many spells he knows, exactly. The Lankhmar stories in which he appears virtually defined the D&D urban environment. Moorcock had several fighter/magic-user protagonists, including Elric and Corum. One of Elric's adversaries was a powerful sorcerer who used no magical items, and could cast a startling variety of spells by bending reality, at the snap of a finger. I'm not sure what you're using for reference, but those stories are clearly some of the most infulential stories which inspired D&D, and have been stated as such by Gary Gygax.

Turjan knew four spells. Certainly he had a wealth of them in his library, but he could memorize four of them. The vast majority of Vance's books were on swashbuckling and magic items and people who had just enough power to get themselves into enough trouble that they couldn't get out of.

Grey Mouser was a thief who also knew a handful of spells. The emphasis was never on the spellcasting.

Elric never cast fireball. He could do a grand and powerful ritual that was hilariously draining to do magic, certainly! But he was never anywhere close to a D&D wizard. Oh sure, his antagonists could cast plenty of spells with no magic items, but they weren't PCs, were they?

I never read Lankhmar, so you have me there!

Maybe you know better than Gary what D&D is.

You were doing better when you were using the tragic death of a NASCAR racer as an example.

 

[Aldarron]

The whole idea of the OP is wacked. There is no balance or character parity. Period. Why would any author even attempt such a deterministic idea!?!?

 

[pawsplay]

Turjan knew four spells. Certainly he had a wealth of them in his library, but he could memorize four of them. The vast majority of Vance's books were on swashbuckling and magic items and people who had just enough power to get themselves into enough trouble that they couldn't get out of.

So you've just demonstrated that the term "Vancian" is often stretched beyond what it should properly denote. Not sure I'm seeing your point.

Grey Mouser was a thief who also knew a handful of spells. The emphasis was never on the spellcasting.

I know, right? Makes it all the more remarkable that a PC who is basically a fighter-thief just so happens, casually casually, to know a few spells. Suddenly being a wizard doesn't seem all that special.

Elric never cast fireball. He could do a grand and powerful ritual that was hilariously draining to do magic, certainly! But he was never anywhere close to a D&D wizard. Oh sure, his antagonists could cast plenty of spells with no magic items, but they weren't PCs, were they?

So... you're belittling the magical power of a guy who gets really tired summoning gods. Okay, then. According to the BECMI rules, summoning an Immortal Demon requires magical knowledge beyond even the mightiest mortal magicians, coveted by the most powerful and the most mad.

You were doing better when you were using the tragic death of a NASCAR racer as an example.

That's a hard one to top, I'll admit.

As the saying goes: "Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - G.B. Shaw

I sincerely hope none of the man's family post to this board. Beyond that, I hope the point was succinctly made.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I will contradict my previous statement based on a different interpretation of 1e DMG, p.35 - in case anyone needs reminding:

Human and half-orc characters suitable for level advancement are found in a ratio of 1 in 100

The emphasis is mine, as this quote says nothing about the level of characters who are unsuitable for advancement - i.e. it does not mention '0-level.'

In fact, sergeants, captains etc. are characters with levels who are incapable of advancement. This represents a third category between Normal Men and "PC-Types" - for want of a better term - which muddies things. It is also explicitly gamist, as it is not saying "this character has reached 2nd level," it is saying "we are using a 2nd level fighter to model a lieutenant."

I think, for me, it comes back to the notion of potential (to become a superman) in 1e. All PCs have it; NPCs determined to be "special" enough by the DM also might have it. But the default assumption is that regular people don't have it.

I think 3e diluted the meaning of levels too much; it gave them a "reality" which extended them to all and sundry, and made it tempting to link them to the evolution of specific NPCs (historically, within the context of the game world). I remember reading posts about how many xp a farmer would gain every year from dealing with poor crops, hop weevil and droughts ("overcoming challenges"), and what level he'd be when he reached 40 years old. (IIRC, the consensus was about 5th). In any event, this exercise seems silly to me: oversimulation gone mad, I say.

And what is a 20th-level commoner? I mean. Really. Or 10th? Honestly, I even struggle with 5th.

 

[the Jester]

A lot of the talk in the last couple of pages about how you can justify high-level fighters cleaving mountains in half completely misses the point.

It doesn't matter how much mythic history there is supporting it, nor does it matter how much genre support there is. Some people don't like to play that way. Some guys want to play a fighter that fights, who is a bad ass with a sword and wears bitchin' +5 plate mail once he's high level. But who doesn't jump across the Grand Canyon, leap up and hit the dragon flying 100' above his head, hurl a weapon thirty miles or wrestle a river.

It matters not at all that myth and fiction have lots of this. Some people really do want their fighters to be as cool as Batman or Captain America, and not as strong as Thor and as fast as the Flash. Some people don't find the over the top stuff believable, no matter how many times it has happened in Greek or Norse or Sumerian mythology.

Tastes vary. I don't want my non-supernatural fighter to be able to cleave mountains, no matter how much some of you might want me to. There are a lot of other guys out there that feel the way I do, too. And while there's nothing wrong with a game where the fighter cleaves mountains, there is something wrong with insisting that everyone play that way.

Edit: And asserting that anyone that wants to play that way should go play Ars Magica is pretty one-true-wayish and insulting. Come on now, D&D always had the fighter as a non-supernatural character until very recently. If you want to go cleave mountains, why don't you go play Mutants and Masterminds or something?

 

[the Jester]

And what is a 20th-level commoner? I mean. Really. Or 10th? Honestly, I even struggle with 5th.

In a low-magic campaign I ran during 3.5, I fully detailed the pcs' starting area and the town's eldest elder (who was either a half-elf or a dwarf- there were no elves) was IIRC a12th level commoner.

She was a font of knowledge and skills, but very frail, with a very low Con and pretty close to 1 hp/die.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

A lot of the talk in the last couple of pages about how you can justify high-level fighters cleaving mountains in half completely misses the point.

It doesn't matter how much mythic history there is supporting it, nor does it matter how much genre support there is. Some people don't like to play that way. Some guys want to play a fighter that fights, who is a bad ass with a sword and wears bitchin' +5 plate mail once he's high level. But who doesn't jump across the Grand Canyon, leap up and hit the dragon flying 100' above his head, hurl a weapon thirty miles or wrestle a river.

It matters not at all that myth and fiction have lots of this. Some people really do want their fighters to be as cool as Batman or Captain America, and not as strong as Thor and as fast as the Flash. Some people don't find the over the top stuff believable, no matter how many times it has happened in Greek or Norse or Sumerian mythology.

Tastes vary. I don't want my non-supernatural fighter to be able to cleave mountains, no matter how much some of you might want me to. There are a lot of other guys out there that feel the way I do, too. And while there's nothing wrong with a game where the fighter cleaves mountains, there is something wrong with insisting that everyone play that way.

My rebuttal is that this is fine and, frankly, a sometimes awesome way to play. Low magic, sword and sandals, bronze age games can be tons of fun.

...If everyone is on board.

The problem with D&D is that fighters are playing a low magic, sword and sandals, bronze age game, and the wizards are playing a high fantasy, everything is flying, magic is regular game, and the two don't mesh well together. You want to be a non-supernatural fighter that grits his teeth and slices apart an orc, in a daring fight, and that's really cool, but the wizard is playing a game where he's a flying teleporting dragon that can wave his hand and kill All The Orcs.

So you've just demonstrated that the term "Vancian" is often stretched beyond what it should properly denote. Not sure I'm seeing your point.

I don't even know where the goalposts went. You claimed "No see in this fiction wizards are D&D wizards!" Are you admitting you are wrong?

I know, right? Makes it all the more remarkable that a PC who is basically a fighter-thief just so happens, casually casually, to know a few spells. Suddenly being a wizard doesn't seem all that special.

Wherever the goalposts went, they just got farther away.

So... you're belittling the magical power of a guy who gets really tired summoning gods. Okay, then. According to the BECMI rules, summoning an Immortal Demon requires magical knowledge beyond even the mightiest mortal magicians, coveted by the most powerful and the most mad.

Goalposts have now ceased to exist.

I'm not belittling anyone. I'm saying that Elric's magic is a one time super draining ritual. He doesn't throw magic missiles and fly as an invisible teleporting dragon. He can on occasion summon horrible spirits and elder gods with unspeakable names. That's not a D&D character.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Edit: And asserting that anyone that wants to play that way should go play Ars Magica is pretty one-true-wayish and insulting. Come on now, D&D always had the fighter as a non-supernatural character until very recently. If you want to go cleave mountains, why don't you go play Mutants and Masterminds or something?

What D&D is and what D&D calls itself are two different things.

D&D calls itself the game where you can be - and I will quote directly from the 2e PHB here - "Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad...El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius"

The problem is that when you actually try to be almost any of the above, you find you can't be after all. You can't be Hercules, or Beowulf, or Siegfried.

It sounds like your conflating D&D's failure to be what it wants to be with what it actually wants to be. Certainly D&D has for a long time been about very boring fighters who are mortal men and can't actually do a whole lot. But that's not a feature, it's a bug. And it's not what D&D has wanted to be, nor what it's advertised itself to be.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Elric WAS a D&D caster* in one book...for which TSR got in a little trouble.







* and was both powerful and of little resemblance to the Elric of Moorcock's stories...

 

[pawsplay]

My rebuttal is that this is fine and, frankly, a sometimes awesome way to play. Low magic, sword and sandals, bronze age games can be tons of fun.

...If everyone is on board.

The problem with D&D is that fighters are playing a low magic, sword and sandals, bronze age game, and the wizards are playing a high fantasy, everything is flying, magic is regular game, and the two don't mesh well together. You want to be a non-supernatural fighter that grits his teeth and slices apart an orc, in a daring fight, and that's really cool, but the wizard is playing a game where he's a flying teleporting dragon that can wave his hand and kill All The Orcs.

And high action, flying swordsmen, mountain-cleaving stuff can be lots of fun... if everyone is on board.

I don't even know where the goalposts went. You claimed "No see in this fiction wizards are D&D wizards!" Are you admitting you are wrong?

Wherever the goalposts went, they just got farther away.

Goalposts have now ceased to exist.

I'm not belittling anyone. I'm saying that Elric's magic is a one time super draining ritual. He doesn't throw magic missiles and fly as an invisible teleporting dragon. He can on occasion summon horrible spirits and elder gods with unspeakable names. That's not a D&D character.

You seem to be claiming that each of those sources must map to specific D&D tropes. Obviously, D&D is a pastiche of various sources, and a little something of its own. Don't ask me to defend a point I didn't make. I never claimed Elric was a level N wizard, so don't act like I did. In return, I'll politely not inquire what specific 4e power allow's a fighter's hallowed touch to burn the flesh of the Grendel.

I was simply offering examples of a very specific point: that D&D is based heavily on sources where PC magicians are relatively common. The saga of Beowulf is not something on which D&D is heavily based.