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

[Jeff Wilder]

Bill Laimbeer? Dude, how old ARE you?

I deserved that. I really did. (Old enough to root against Bill Laimbeer.)

And, BTW, I really do understand. As an anal-retentive, very mildly OCD guy, I have real -- as far as I'm concerned -- issues with the utter stupidity -- as far as I'm concerned -- of 4E's diagonal movement, for instance. I spent a lot of time here, and elsewhere, trying to get people to see how very, very wrong it is, and when they'd shrug (or worse, talk about how great it was in its simplicity), I'd grit my teeth and try again, because surely if I have a problem with it, it's a real problem with the system.

But eventually I figured out two things: (1) Maybe it's not a problem with the system; maybe it's a problem with me, (2) Even if it is a problem with the system, I just plain don't have to play that system. And if I don't have to play that system, not only do I no longer have the "problem," but I no longer "need" to evangelize about the "problem."

Well, except for now. (Excuse me while I make a call to my sponsor.)

BTW, if "the other players don't notice," assuming this includes the GM, then why resist the urge? If everybody's having fun, what exactly is the problem?

 

[TwoSix]

Well, no ... maybe you do. Many, many, many of us do not.

For some reason, you feel that of three alternatives -- (a) stop playing the way you play, (b) find a game that suits you better, or (c) force the rest of us to accept (or just acknowledge some need for) a change we don't need -- you guys go for (c).

Again, this isn't a coincidence.

Already did b), it's called 4e. Or alternatively, a heavily houseruled 3.5. (Getting rid of all the Tier 1 and Tier 2 classes, as a start.)

Also not trying to force you to change. If you're happy, that's fantastic. I just want to understand why the archetype of the do-everything spellcaster is necessary for you to enjoy a fantasy game. Would a D&D 3e where the wizard spell list is replaced with the bard spell list dilute your enjoyment? If so, why?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Cool.

Hey, just out of curiosity, how exactly does one "win" at D&D?

In character? Complete the quests, make a shedload of money, rescue the princess (or prince), and/or save the world without either themselves or their allies dying. Out of character is a different matter and the answer is everyone having fun.

See, I was talking about playing the game as intended, and then all of the sudden you're talking about winning the game. And, well, that seems to be a common factor in the "teh wizzard is b0rken" crowd. And, well, I don't think it's a coincidence.

And this is where you have been completely missing my points to you throughout the thread. I believe I am playing the game as intended if and only if my character is playing to win.*

And the wizard is the biggest problem here because the wizard chooses his/her spells and gets to research them in character. Which mean that with the exceptions of their basic stats, wizards get to optimise themselves. And almost invariably have a high Int to work out what the right optimisation choices are.

* And the whole history of D&D that differentiates it from other tabletop RPGs involves playing to win, a transposed wargame, and tournament play. But that's a side issue.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

No, the players have as much, if not more resposibility than the designers. Why are we relying on the designers to make rules against face-dribbling when players should have perfect sense not to do so themselves?

This is where your example becomes really obviously counter-intuitive. Face dribbling is obviously harmful to the player and, not advantageous in any way to the team.

Playing a spellcaster like, as some like to say, a douche, is not harmful to the player, and is, in fact, quite advantageous to the team, or at least their goals in-game, if not their fun as players.

Which spells cause this is not always obvious, certainly not as obvious as face-dribbling.

Why shouldn't it be a design issue? Why put something there if using it makes you a douchey player or a failure of a DM? If you want to houserule all over the place, fine, but why is someone getting paid to design stuff that's overpowered and broken (read: abusable)? I know a lot of that stuff is legacy, back from the days when spellcasters had actual balance baked right in.

Somewhere along the way though, people started arguing the wizard was broken because he could things like this any and every time it came up, often forgetting that D&D isn't played as one encounter per day and the wizard whose blown his all his spell allotment on these kind of things is going to get eaten by the grue on the other side of the door.

That wasn't the issue. Spellcasters in games where this was problematic didn't waste precious spell slots on this stuff. They used wands and scrolls - cheap and plentiful, no slots required.

This thread has already discussed why allowing such things in the first place is a bad idea, and I agree fully. However, all that potential is in the game to be used, and many, many, many groups use it. Quite a few games are all in, and there is nothing in any of the books to suggest that isn't the way the game was meant to be played. After all, why would a game company write books and then tell you not to use them? That makes no marketing sense.

So you're left to figure it out on your own. Fair enough, I guess. Having a good DM and a social contract not to play like a douche doesn't mean that there isn't a problem with the system, it means that you've found the problem and actively avoid it. It's still a solution, and if it works for you, a good one, but that doesn't change the nature of what it is.

Don't get me wrong; I'm all about the social contract and not being an asshat at the game table. Not everyone is, and sometimes it can't be helped, as I've argued before. Insisting that the problem is entirely with the players is dodging the issue.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Already did b), it's called 4e. Or alternatively, a heavily houseruled 3.5. (Getting rid of all the Tier 1 and Tier 2 classes, as a start.)

See, I don't even know what classes are "Tier 1 and Tier 2," although I suppose at this point I can guess at a few pretty accurately.

Also not trying to force you to change.

Well, no, you're not. I'm not even sure you have a lot invested in making me "acknowledge the problem." But a lot of folks sure seem to.

I just want to understand why the archetype of the do-everything spellcaster is necessary for you to enjoy a fantasy game.

It's not.

You seem to have conflated, "I enjoy the way it is, and don't see a reason to change" with "This is the way it has to be for me to enjoy it." Hopefully, being a reasonable guy, you can acknowledge how different those things are.

That said, I really do enjoy the idea of spellcasters with world-shaking supernatural power that simply cannot be matched by normal men (including by their warrior peers).

And as long as the game is played cooperatively, and all players get a chance for their characters to have the spotlight, I simply don't have the need for perfect "balance" between characters. Balance is vitally important between PCs and monsters or in PvP environments or in games run by computers; it can be much less strict in a game played cooperatively by reasonable people with a decent GM.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

And this is where you have been completely missing my points to you throughout the thread. I believe I am playing the game as intended if and only if my character is playing to win.*

Oh, I'm not missing your point. I'm ignoring you, because I have no doubt that you, as you describe your desired and preferred play-style, have the problems you describe.

So you can rest easier.

 

[TwoSix]

I deserved that. I really did. (Old enough to root against Bill Laimbeer.)

Well, I do know who Bill Laimbeer, so I'm not texting this during recess either.

But eventually I figured out two things: (1) Maybe it's not a problem with the system; maybe it's a problem with me, (2) Even if it is a problem with the system, I just plain don't have to play that system. And if I don't have to play that system, not only do I no longer have the "problem," but I no longer "need" to evangelize about the "problem."

Having a problem with the system isn't a binary proposition, though. For example, I don't play Vampire because I have no interest in role-playing a Vampire. That's obviously not a problem with the system.

Maybe there's a group of Vampires in the game, though, that are a lot stronger, objectively, than all the other groups. Like Superman to Aquaman levels of difference in capability. Perhaps this is due to a design decision that made them stronger, even though the game's fluff says that this group of Vampires isn't very strong. I would view that as a big problem with the system, because design intent doesn't match the design result.

But, maybe this Vampire game says explicitly that this group of Vampires is supposed to be stronger. Maybe they have other rules or narrative situations that give other Vampires a chance to shine(sparkle?). That's not a problem with the system, then. Maybe they don't have rules to control this powerful group, but still have stated their expectation upfront. I feel better about the game because intent matches results.

Now that's for a game I don't like. For a game I do like (say, D&D), I'll argue about whether intent matches results (which I don't think it does for 3e), and I'll argue about whether I believe the intent was a correct decision to make (some assumptions of 3e I disagree with, like spotlight balance and low-level suck/high-level rule is OK).

And I keep arguing because we're all a part of a community, and I want to make my voice heard just like everyone else. I don't need anyone to change, but I want as many pro-balance voices expressing themselves as possible.

BTW, if "the other players don't notice," assuming this includes the GM, then why resist the urge? If everybody's having fun, what exactly is the problem?

"Good enough" != "good". That's why people started houseruling in the first place. Hell, if wargames had been "good enough", would RPGs even have started?

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is where your example becomes really obviously counter-intuitive. Face dribbling is obviously harmful to the player and, not advantageous in any way to the team.

Playing a spellcaster like, as some like to say, a douche, is not harmful to the player, and is, in fact, quite advantageous to the team, or at least their goals in-game, if not their fun as players.

And this absolutely nails it. If my character is the best team player he can be then I am going to get called a douche for playing a team player. If I am deliberately holding back my character and making weak choices to allow others to have fun then my character is either an idiot or the sort of douche who enjoys seeing his so called friends suffer and die.

When the system forces you to chose between play many consider douch-y and playing a character who is an idiot who needlessly risks the lives of his so-called friends and allies, then it is the system design that is at fault.

Why shouldn't it be a design issue? Why put something there if using it makes you a douchey player or a failure of a DM?

Not only put it there but encourage its use and never warn you about it. That is the truly damning part of the equation.

If you want to houserule all over the place, fine,

No. Not fine. If you need to houserule for this it is because someone ed up.

That wasn't the issue. Spellcasters in games where this was problematic didn't waste precious spell slots on this stuff. They used wands and scrolls - cheap and plentiful, no slots required.

Absolutely! And in order to prevent this you need to allow PCs not much more down time than in the average episode of 24. Creating a wand of a first level spell takes 1 day. So does a scroll. You can't allow PCs a lazy month at all.

This thread has already discussed why allowing such things in the first place is a bad idea, and I agree fully. However, all that potential is in the game to be used, and many, many, many groups use it.

The potential is not only in the game. It is hard coded into the PHB that all wizards get Scribe Scroll. All wizards are crafters.

Quite a few games are all in, and there is nothing in any of the books to suggest that isn't the way the game was meant to be played.

And bits in a number of the books to suggest it should. IIRC the quote that springs to mind is that "If it's in D&D it has a place in Eberron."

So you're left to figure it out on your own. Fair enough, I guess. Having a good DM and a social contract not to play like a douche doesn't mean that there isn't a problem with the system, it means that you've found the problem and actively avoid it. It's still a solution, and if it works for you, a good one, but that doesn't change the nature of what it is.

It not only does that. It highlights that the system is ed up. I can add a drop-in player I've never met to a level 8 4e game without trouble and with limited making sure we are on the same page; the social contract basically boils down to "Don't be a jerk". In 3e, because there's a hideous imbalance, what's considered douchy varies from group to group. Some embrace the high magic. Some ban items. Some tinker with spells. What counts as being a jerk varies grop to group. This just demonstrates the system problem. Not that a good group of players can't get round it. But the problem is baked in to the system.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Oh, I'm not missing your point. I'm ignoring you, because I have no doubt that you, as you describe your desired and preferred play-style, have the problems you describe.

So you can rest easier.

In which case do you mind if I ask what your characters are trying to do? If not to survive and get whatever their goals are then why do they bother doing anything except sitting at the pub and having a beer with each other?

 

[TwoSix]

See, I don't even know what classes are "Tier 1 and Tier 2," although I suppose at this point I can guess at a few pretty accurately.

Well, I can't link it because of work firewalls, but this is what Tier 1 and Tier 2 involve. (and I'm not going to get into defense/arguments of the tiers, been there, done that).

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

Examples: Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, Binder (with access to online vestiges)

You seem to have conflated, "I enjoy the way it is, and don't see a reason to change" with "This is the way it has to be for me to enjoy it." Hopefully, being a reasonable guy, you can acknowledge how different those things are.

Absolutely. Hopefully, you can see where I am in the middle ground of "I like parts of this, and if it just had some more of this, it would be awesome!"

That said, I really do enjoy the idea of spellcasters with world-shaking supernatural power that simply cannot be matched by normal men (including by their warrior peers).

Fair enough. Fortunately for both of us, you have core 3e and I have houseruled 3e and 4e.

And as long as the game is played cooperatively, and all players get a chance for their characters to have the spotlight, I simply don't have the need for perfect "balance" between characters. Balance is vitally important between PCs and monsters or in PvP environments or in games run by computers; it can be much less strict in a game played cooperatively by reasonable people with a decent GM.

Also fair enough. Lots of games get along just fine with spotlight balance. Not my cup of tea, personally, and I'm glad 4e moved towards a more rigorous approach. Again, IMO, YMMV, etc, etc.