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

[Raven Crowking]

But, even in earlier editions, this sort of thing was ridiculously easy to get around. Metal scroll tubes with screw caps - there, fire and water no longer are an issue. You'd have to fail several saving throws, even by 1e rules, before you lose your scrolls.

Assumes the equipment exists. It certainly doesn't in the 1e PHB!

This is a bit later in history than the implied setting of 1e D&D: Kilner jar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


RC

 

[Votan]

You mean guys like Charlemagne, Beowulf, Sigurd, Ivanhoe, etc.? What about Arn Magnusson?

Now, some of these guys I'd term "Cavaliers"......but that's not a class in core 3E......so, fighter.

Then there's Lancelot, Gawain, and several others of the Knights of the Round Table. Some, such as Galahad would be more like paladins....but Gawain wouldn't have been.....most of them were fighters or cavaliers, without a stitch of spellcasting ability.

Cuchulainn, I assume, would be a barbarian, rather than a fighter.

Myth is full of powerful warriors....

That having been said, I think the game lacks by not having a social class/nobility type aspect, knights, politics, and proper use of strongholds etc. This stuff really wasn't there in 3E, aside from optional supplements. I do think the inclusion of such would have helped to establish fighters as natural leaders. Back in 2nd Ed. it was the fighter who gained the most followers out of anybody. And that meant something. It was cool to have a castle and your own personal army. I kind of missed that.

Even so....unless the fighter is competing against a bard in diplomacy, he can hold his own against commoners. It's not likely he's going to be competing against lvl 15 commoners to command people. Thus, he might be c ompeting against commoners of lvls 1-4, and for that, his limited diplomacy ranks will likely do fine. And that's without even changing any of the rules.

Banshee

I think that the issue is partially who the fighter competes against. A cleric who decides to be a leader is infinitely better suited for the role than a fighter (despite the weak skill points of the cleric). Ignoring spells that can assist, the presence of diplomacy and sense motive as class skills plus a strong will save make the clergy way better commanders than then the fighters. In a Drow city that simply makes sense. But it does not necessarily make it easy to model common "fighting man" archetypes.

Consider:

The grizzled NCO (who can't make a fear save)
The officer (who is a poor leader compared to the court musician)
The noble knight (who is tongue tied next to the cut-purse)
The seasoned mercenary (who is a poor judge of men next to the Druid)
The sentry (who has weaker perception skills than a commoner)

Even the barbarian (with will save adds in rage and 4 skill points per level) can be better at these roles.

In a sense, it is like phased in incompetence. A fighter will be hopeless at level appropriate challenges compared to the classes with a focus here. It's not that any of these is a particular issue -- it is that all of them are.

Now you could multi-class in Bard or Rogue. Few fantasy characters can actually be modeled without doing this and still have them as capable as they are.

Now why am I picking on the Fighter? Because it is the one class that seems to have been carefully slotted into a very narrow role whereas the other core classes do neat things in battle plus more.

The real competition is the rest of the party (at the levels that we are discussing where the fighter breaks down, the fighter is a fine class from levels 1 to 8). At 15th level, the CHA 8 rogue could still have a +17 Diplomacy check (making her easily able to do checks that the fighter cannot do). Level 4 commoners could easily have a +8 spot, that would be a major skill investment for a level 15 fighter. A wizard can't spot but they can use spells (e.g. Alarm, foresight, Moment of Prescience) to compensate.

Not to mention the Paladin or the Cleric who might be looking at a +25 sense motive check (18 ranks plus a 24 wisdom) ; the fighter will never be able to compete with this. EDIT: Only the Paladin and not the Cleric. Other Sense Motive classes were the Monk, the Bard and the Rogue. Of thsse, the Monk is the most obvious example.

I used to argue that (if there were not prestige classes of great merit floating around or anything special in epic) that a Fighter 16/Rogue 4 was superior to a Fighter 20 by so much it was painful. It also models a lot of historical warriors way, way better (giving some some competence at stealth or perception or judging people or diplomacy).

 

[BryonD]

I think the point is not that all fighters must be capable leaders; just that it should not be too much trouble to make a fighter who's a good leader, given the numerous archetypes of such. And in 3E, a fighter will never be the best leader, and it eats up resources to even make him a passable one. You say the concept is easily created in 3E, but only to some extent.

The leader-fighter does not really fit in the 3E design space. That's an issue to some. You're content with all fighters only being good at fighting, but there are wider options to be explored than that. Why do we restrict the fighter with boundaries that don't apply to other classes? Why does he get fewer options?

I disagree that it is that hard in 3E. As a matter if fact, I know it is not. If you want to talk about improving the 3E skill system, I'm interested. It can certainly be improved. But making a a great leader fighter easily fits in the 3E design space using pure fighters. And, on top of that, since the 3E design space presumes the existence of multi-class and PClass characters, the challenge quickly becomes trivial. The fighter fights. That is a good thing. And part of the reason it is a good thing is it is a base piece that you have tons of tools for building on. You want pure combat machine? Then that core is there without leadership automatically tacked on, you can add it or not.

I also disagree that you are accurately characterizing "the fighter isn't very good at being a general". And, this all gets back to one of my long time complaints about 4E in general in that a foundation design assumption is that everyone is capable at everything. Every fighter gains in skill at leading. Every single one.
Just as every single wizard gets better at hitting things with a stick and climbing walls and picking locks.

 

[BryonD]

The grizzled NCO (who can't make a fear save)
The officer (who is a poor leader compared to the court musician)
The noble knight (who is tongue tied next to the cut-purse)
The seasoned mercenary (who is a poor judge of men next to the Druid)
The sentry (who has weaker perception skills than a commoner)

In a sense, it is like phased in incompetence. A fighter will be hopeless at level appropriate challenges compared to the classes with a focus here.

"Can't"? "Hopeless"? First you are way overstating the case here.
Just comparing classes straight up the fear save is only 4 points behind any other class at 10th level through 13th level. "Can't" is not remotely accurate.

One feat, which the fighter has plenty of, and you erase half the difference right there. And if you design a grizzled NCO (defined in this case by ability to resist fear) with an 8 WIS, then you are not making an effort to design what you claim. So the disadvantage is quite minor and quite acceptable. The claim of "can't" is either poorly considered or disingenuous.

(As an aside, the fighter in Pathfinder gets a bonus specifically to fear saves that keeps them at or just -1 behind a good will save at every level)

When you talk about skills you are apparently presuming a generic build fighter and then declaring him poor at given specialties. You can easily build these options. Certainly I've always found it common that gaining a class skill is easy. But even without that an appropriate character build for the concept and simply taking skill focus goes a long way. Depending on how you build it, there may be no difference, or the pure fighter may lag slightly. But, again, "incompetence" is either an incredibly poor choice of words, or is not an honest presentation.

But then we get to the real issue, because all this above is just playing with a deck stacked in your favor.

Now you could multi-class in Bard or Rogue. Few fantasy characters can actually be modeled without doing this and still have them as capable as they are.

The system was designed with multi classing and prestige classes from the start. The presumption that these tools are there to complete a concept is a core element of the game. So taking that away isn't a quality assessment of the system.

I'd quibble over the bard because there is plenty of merit in avoiding any magic in a lot of concepts, and even if we assume you can simply reskin the abilities of a couple levels of bard, that is still a whole separate discussion.

But there is nothing whatsoever wrong in taking a few levels of rogue or barbarian or ranger or, of course, a PClass. It is assumed.

The fighter fights. That is what he does.

Frankly, if you just want to say that a Fighter16/Rogue4 is a better character than a Fighter20, you could quite possibly find me in agreement with you. But the pure fighter does put all his eggs in the "I fight" basket. And at very high levels you can also say that feats get a diminishing return.

But that doesn't hold nearly as true at 8/2 and 10. Not that there is anything wrong with a F8/R2, but the F10 works just fine and can be designed with a variety of concepts in mind, all before you get into the presumed idea of multiclassing and PClasses.

But when you say "can't", "tongue-tied", "hopeless", "incompetent", then you are way off base.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You're actually trying to claim that the DMG contains an unwritten subtext which is 100% diametrically opposed to what the written text actually says?

Dude. That's tinfoil hat crazy.

But if you've reached the point where you're honestly reading "you should do X" to mean "you shouldn't do X" (or vice versa), than I can only imagine what horrific mutilations your subconscious must be inflicting upon posts here at ENWorld.

Which makes any further attempt to discuss this with you pointless. I hope others will follow my lead in simply ignoring anything else you have to post in this thread.

Ciao.

Apparently you have no interest in listening and learning. D&D is not the only thing to give you instructions and then encourage you not to use them. I wonder why you bother discussing things at all rather than just post your sometimes interesting material on your blog.

To take another example that does exactly the same thing, think of lego. When you buy lego, you buy a kit with a specific model on the front and a set of instructions. If you follow the instructions on the packet of lego you bought you get a pre-packaged single model. Which is equivalent to following the instructions on the meaning of the CR system and getting four CR-equivalent encounters per day.

But is following the instructions to get the pre-packaged result the most fun way to play with lego? Although tastes differ, I know no one who just follows the instructions. It's dull. This is despite the instructions in the box. Everyone I know who has or had lego might have followed the instructions once - but after that the lego would always end up in a big tub. Because making your own stuff is far more fun. And every kid would do so whatever the instructions said. And the makers of lego know this - they neither expect you nor want you to follow the instructions on the box of lego. The subtext and expectation in lego (throw all your legos into a tub and make whatever you want with them) is therefore diametrically opposed to the instruction leaflet to make this one specific toy with the lego you bought. Call this tinfoil hat crazy if you like.

D&D is slightly different but along the same lines for a lot of reasons. Like Lego it pre-packages monsters with their instructions for the most basic use. That's the CR. It is also much more fun if you mix things up and do other things than the most basic one the designers laid out.

However unlike lego there's a penalty for screwing up. The penalty being boring or irritating your friends - and destroying their toys. As far as I know in order to get lego wrong you have to feed it to people (or make a crossbow, but that's another story). This means that new DMs are going to be much more worried about messing up than kids playing with lego. So they need a second set of guidance - this saying that varying within a given range is a good idea and that you don't always have to follow the very basic instructions. It also itself gives a set of instructions for how much to vary what's printed on the box. This is because starting to DM is scary and structures and instructions give you some sort of security. And it's abstract. Any idiot can stick two lego blocks together.

You effectively have concentric circles of instructions about balance. Circle 1: "This is what the game is balanced around." (The four encounter day) Circle 2: "Mix it up. Here's a way that works." (The encounter range in the DMG). Circle 3: "Pitch to your PCs and if everyone's having fun that's the goal." Note that circle 2 is in tension with circle 1 and if you take circle 1 as gospel (rather than a part of the game) you are going to see those in circle 2 as heretics. And Circle 3 is in tension with circle 2 and if you treat circle 2 as rigid you're going to have problems with circle 3. It's not crazy to accept that all these rings of guidance are within the game - and aimed at different people.

One of the marks of mastering a skill is knowing how tightly to stick to the guidance. And when you teach you sometimes contradict later. What happens if you take four from three? Ask a young kid who's started to learn arithmetic and he'll (or she'll) tell you you can't. It's only later you teach about negative numebrs.

 

[BryonD]

This means that new DMs are going to be much more worried about messing up than kids playing with lego. So they need a second set of guidance
...

This is because starting to DM is scary and structures and instructions give you some sort of security.

This is an idea I have heard numerous times since 4E was announced. And it makes me wonder how these people think we ever reached a point of having a *fourth* edition.

For decades now we have done just fine. There is no need to go lowering the bar now.

And, frankly, if anyone NEEDS the bar lowered, then they are probably never going to be a great DM anyway. Sure, 4E will compensate for their lack of skill. I do agree with that. But I'd vastly prefer to play with a quality DM than play a system that is designed to be a security blanket because it presumes the DM is scared. (And even if I played 4E, I'd rather play with a DM who didn't find other systems scary. Compensating for not being a good DM is not the same as being a good DM.)

 

[Fifth Element]

I disagree that it is that hard in 3E. As a matter if fact, I know it is not. If you want to talk about improving the 3E skill system, I'm interested. It can certainly be improved.

It's possible, but of course at the expense of fighting ability. 3E Fighters need Strength, Constitution, Dexterity. They can't afford high Intelligence or Charisma, unless they want to give up some combat effectiveness. Their usually low Intelligence means they have few skill points, and the good leader ones are cross-class. They can improve skills with feats, but this again reduces their combat effectiveness.

It's also true that you can multiclass to make up some of the difference, but why should the fighter have to multiclass to reach a well-established archetype when the wizard can just keep going in his class and do whatever he likes? If you want to talk about exploring options, the fighter probably has the least of them: he's good at hitting things. If you want to do more than his primary schtick, unlike other classes you have to find some work-around rather than just doing it.

 

[Fifth Element]

This is an idea I have heard numerous times since 4E was announced. And it makes me wonder how these people think we ever reached a point of having a *fourth* edition.

For decades now we have done just fine. There is no need to go lowering the bar now.

If I'm reading this part of the discussion correctly, you've completely missed Neonchameleon's point. He's saying that there are two sets of guidelines: one for new players and one for experienced ones, and that it's not incongruous for both to be in the same game. It's not that the bar is lowered and must stay lowered for everyone; it's that the guidelines offered for new players are not necessarily the best ones for experienced players to use.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You mean guys like Charlemagne, Beowulf, Sigurd, Ivanhoe, etc.? What about Arn Magnusson?

Now, some of these guys I'd term "Cavaliers"......but that's not a class in core 3E......so, fighter.

Then there's Lancelot, Gawain, and several others of the Knights of the Round Table. Some, such as Galahad would be more like paladins....but Gawain wouldn't have been.....most of them were fighters or cavaliers, without a stitch of spellcasting ability.

Cuchulainn, I assume, would be a barbarian, rather than a fighter.

Myth is full of powerful warriors....

The problem here is that you're conflating "fighter" with "3E fighter". In 1e or 4e I'd agree with you that they are generally fighters. (This includes Slayers and Knights). In 3e, the Warblade class does a far better job of mythological fighters than the fighter does.

Little support if you change the milieu from fantasy swords and sorcery to real world history without changing any of the details. Guys like Wellington were aristocrats. Napoleon, however, having come up the ranks could easily be a fighter - with a good intelligence and feats/weapons based around artillery and using a whole new set of fighter bonus feats geared around the weapons of 18th-19th century war rather than fantasy.

Fine. I simply know more more modern military history. How about Julius Caesar (a politician as much as a general), Belisarius, Subodai, Charlemeign (sp?), Hannibal? Being a general in antiquity was more about being a politician than being a fighter.

And, this all gets back to one of my long time complaints about 4E in general in that a foundation design assumption is that everyone is capable at everything. Every fighter gains in skill at leading. Every single one.
Just as every single wizard gets better at hitting things with a stick and climbing walls and picking locks.

To put this into perspective, first it's not every single wizard. It's every single PC wizard. NPC wizards use whatever rules the DM likes. And second, the rate you gain ability is slow. A first level PC with skill training and a 18 basic stat has +9. (E.g. a 1st level thief). A wizard with dex 10 and no training needs to reach level eighteen before he can match that thief. I fail to see why it's a problem that an 18th level wizard can point at a simple lock and order it to open. Or why the charisma 10 fighter who has literally been through hell and back and can take on half the enemy army single handed shouldn't inspire people by his very presence as much as the sociable first level bard. The fighter is after all a living legend by that point and having him on their side should be incredibly inspiring.

These skills don't come up in play because there's always someone in the party who can actually do it well. But I feel the character is more rounded for having them.

 

[billd91]

Fine. I simply know more more modern military history. How about Julius Caesar (a politician as much as a general), Belisarius, Subodai, Charlemeign (sp?), Hannibal? Being a general in antiquity was more about being a politician than being a fighter.

Guys like Caesar and Pompey would have started out as aristocrats without a doubt. But, particularly in Caesar's case, I have no doubt he'd be well written up in 3e D&D with a few aristocrat levels and a few fighter levels as well. Roman officials frequently spent years with legions, often fighting with them. So fighter levels would definitely be a complement to most Romans officers even if they were fundamentally aristocrats.