Vancian? Why can't we let it go?

[Jeff Carlsen]

Pre 3e, the save against a 1at level spell and a 9th level spell was no different. So wizards had a lot of options. 3e went awry with the scaling dcs imo.

In that, I completely agree. If a spell's DC was based on the caster and not the level of spell, the problem would nearly vanish.

 

[pemerton]

Long story short- the wizard who is extremely outclassed by the warrior who closes on him is a very common trope in fantasy. Make that melee proficiency gap too small and you lose that from the game.

Sure. So set the gap at an appropriate level. (CJ suggested 8. I think that's too big, personally, but I'm not going to have any say over the final design!) But why does the gap have to get bigger over levels? That's what I don't get.

And to preempt one possible response (I'm not sure if you're inclined to it or not): at a certain point, an ever bigger gap doesn't do anything further in the interests of balance. Once the gap is big enough that the wizard is, in effect, irrelevant in martial combat - and I think a gap of 8 ticks that box - it makes no practical difference for it to get bigger.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But why does the gap have to get bigger over levels? That's what I don't get.

Well, it's not purely about balance or me, it's also about fluff/mechanical sim.

As a kid, I played soccer in the same league as some of Germany's great players of the 1990s. I mainly played fullback (and a bit of goalie), and I shut down my portion of the field. Even as late as college, I was playing at a very high level of competence- high enough to be recruited for my college's team. But I didn't live, breathe and eat the game, so I passed on it. I turned to things like art, philosophy, and economics.

Meanwhile, the guys I played against as a kid learned to do things I simply could not do. OTOH, there are things I can do they cannot even hope to match.

Similarly, the warrior and the wizard represent 2 kinds of extreme specialization, and the more you specialize in something, the more other things suffer.

As the wizard learns the deeper mysteries of the arcane world, the understanding comes harder; it takes more time and effort to truly grasp what is being revealed to his mind. While the warrior may understand a creature is vulnerable to a spear made of hawthorne, the wizard understands why, and may be able use that knowledge to find a more efficient way of killing it.

And while he's poring over the tomes, the warrior is learning the finer points of combat. He'll be mastering feints, thrusts and parries that a casually trained combatant will never see until its too late. And that's for starters. From there he'll learn how to shift his weight to gain leverage, head & body fakes that seem to suggest a vulnerable opening which will disappear as soon as a foe commits to strike there. And more besides...

IOW, the gap should increase in the game because the gap would increase IRL given analogous dedication to a specialized field of study.

 

[pemerton]

the gap should increase in the game because the gap would increase IRL given analogous dedication to a specialized field of study.

But there are all sorts of ways to model this other than just making the numbers bigger. Examples include the AD&D rule about fighters' multiple attacks vs less-than-1HD foes, or 4e style close bursts, or giving fighters access to tricky manoeuvres. As long as you don't allow multiple attacks to stack on a given foe, these sorts of things can reflect a fighter's competence without increasing raw output in a way that renders the wizard irrelevant.

To some extent, I also think concessions to the game need to be made.

I'm confident in saying, for example, that no amateur philosopher could find objections to the reasoning in my best published work (they might reject the premises, but that's a different matter). But I'm sure that Frank Jackson or Jeff McMahan or some other serious philosopher could - not knockdown ones, necessarily, but ones that I would have to take seriously if I were to try and rebut them.

But to make the game work, I think we have to admit the conceit that is common in fiction, that even little-trained amateurs are occasionally capable of great insight or worthwhile contribution (like Sam(?) with the frying pan in the LotR movie). And if this is going to happen at all, then the numbers are going to have to be better than (for example) 1 in 100 or even 1 in 20, or else we'll almost certainly never see it come up in play.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But there are all sorts of ways to model this other than just making the numbers bigger.

So? "Other" doesn't mean "better", just different. (And it's not like the wizard's combat prowess was exactly significant in 1Ed or 2Ed, despite having that fighters vs low HD rule.)

To some extent, I also think concessions to the game need to be made.

I respectfully disagree.

...even little-trained amateurs are occasionally capable of great insight or worthwhile contribution (like Sam(?) with the frying pan in the LotR movie)

That's why we roll dice.

In my first ever game of D&D, the human MU and my Human Fighter- the last survivors of the party- wound up facing a Purple worm near the exit of the dungeon.

After he hit it with his last spell- Magic Missile- the MU proceeded to whale upon the big nasty with his stick. I, OTOH, was a maelstrom of whiffing metal despite all my strength, attack bonuses, and a big ole 2 handed sword.

It wasn't until the worm engulfed the MU- targeted because he was actually damaging the thing- that my fighter began to match the MU's melee damage output.

I finally whittled it down to 4 HP, just as it had me a few rounds previous. The DM and I rolled simultaneous initiative.

...I whiffed, it Nat20ed for its second meal of the day.

No joke- were it not for the Mage's melee output, the encounter's finale would not have been the photo finish that it was. But that kind of thing should be the über-rare exception.

 

[jbear]

A slightly tangential question from someone who shares your distaste - where does this image come from? Is it a 3E thing? In AD&D wizards could use daggers, darts and staves, and UA added slings. I can't remember the 2nd ed AD&D weapon list for wizards, but did it really include crossbows?


In AD&D, any dart-thrower could throw 3 per round. With 1d3 damage per dart, this could actually be quite effective at low levels! (Although still not very wizardly.)


Adding to what Crazy Jerome said, there is also the difficulty of framing engaging challenges in which a PC's contribution is primarily an intellectual one, but not an intellectual one that the player him-/herself is able to make (give that, in the typical game, the GM is the custodian/crafter of this sort of lore). This issue tends not to come up as strongly with Mr McFace, whose player - even if not all that charming - can still at least talk with the GM, and explain what sort of social/emotional responses his/her PC is trying to generate.

The wizard PC in my 4e game has been built by his player primarily to be a loremaster-type character, and while I'm not saying that the challenge I've described is impossible to overcome, GMing for that PC is certainly making me aware of it.

I think you have the right of it. I'm thinking about 3.5e wizards, which are freshest in my mind.

I don't find fast dart throwing jarring at all. Actually I think its pretty cool. 3 darts per round. Now you mention it the memory is coming back. That is decent. Even something along those lines I'd be alright with. It also means the wizard has to risk getting a bit closer to the fray, which I enjoy.

This moves to something that I can enjoy more. Darts: not as jarring as a crossbow, the kind of thing a sneaky wizard might have hidden in the fold of his robes. Sure, why not.

Fighter still superior in the fisticuffs stuff but wizard contributes (both players having fun) The wizard occaisionally pulls out some big guns that can sometimes turn the tide of battle in an instant (sure, I'm okay with this as long as its done in a way that take into account breaking the game,making the game unwieldy for the DM and the player isnt overwhelmed with options) but the fighter should be able to do this or at least cooler stuff than "I swing my sword ... again ... oh but with power attack ... again" as well.

 

[jbear]

Well, it's not purely about balance or me, it's also about fluff/mechanical sim.

Do you think your imagination of how a wizard and a fighter should work or be based on your own real life experiences could be in a way, limited?

You don't want to make concessions but would you concede that I might perhaps imagine how a fighter and a wizard should/could be different based on my real life experiences which I'm sure are vastly different from your own, but no less valid (keeping in mind we are talking about a fantasy world and hence none of our assumptions about realism need be accurate whatsoever, real life experiences or not)?

Or do you think you have the truth?

I don't think I have the truth, just how I prefer the icons that populate my fantasy world to be able to act, which are influenced, I will admit, by the fact I enjoy a game to be acknowledged for what it is (a game), and hence as a DM, I want everyone to be enjoying themselves all the time (even when they are suffering). Here I am sure our opinions will diverge as to what makes an enjoyable game for everyone all the time, but I'm sure, at the bottom we have loads more in common than it would seem from the difference of opinion expressed in this thread.

I'll concede that.

So my hope is that the diamond at the centre of this iteration as til now yet unnamed is so simple, basic and slick that it cuts to exactly what they want to get at, which is the adventure. And then, once revealed, we can all participate building on the layers that we personally enjoy, which reflect how we imagine our fantasy world to be. Hopefully it will be flexible enough that each of us can run it in the way we enjoy a game to be run. Hopefully making the points raised in this thread, on both sides of the argument, completely moot.

Fingers crossed

 

[Hassassin]

While the difference in combat prowess grows in 3e when the wizard and fighter level up, the wizard's need to use it does the opposite. I think this is actually a very enjoyable form of character growth, where the combat "roles" change in time.

At first level the fighter is significantly better in melee, but his skills grow so that the wizard can't hope to match him later. Mean while at first level the wizard often has to join the fray or use ranged weapons. As his magical ability grows he he no longer has to do that so often - he can instead use some of those low level spells.

The particulars may be imperfect. E.g. the wizard might need to be slightly better at using weapons at first, or the wizard's most powerful spells should be less powerful, or maybe the wizard's low level spells should grow more in power with time.

Nevertheless, I really think the concept works in 3e.

 

[mmadsen]

But to make the game work, I think we have to admit the conceit that is common in fiction, that even little-trained amateurs are occasionally capable of great insight or worthwhile contribution (like Sam(?) with the frying pan in the LotR movie). And if this is going to happen at all, then the numbers are going to have to be better than (for example) 1 in 100 or even 1 in 20, or else we'll almost certainly never see it come up in play.

Rolling a natural 20 really isn't that rare. It only feels too unlikely to matter when the resulting damage is too small to matter and you'll need multiple natural 20s to make a difference.

Compare needing a natural 20 in order to do 1d4 damage with needing a natural 20 to decapitate your foe with an old-school vorpal weapon.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You don't want to make concessions but would you concede that I might perhaps imagine how a fighter and a wizard should/could be different based on my real life experiences which I'm sure are vastly different from your own, but no less valid (keeping in mind we are talking about a fantasy world and hence none of our assumptions about realism need be accurate whatsoever, real life experiences or not)?

Not only will I concede that there may be different conceptions than the one I associate with D&D past, I believe I already said as much before. I've read too much fantasy and played too many different RPGs to think otherwise. My unwillingness to concede alteration on this point- namely, the way in how I believe the gap between magical and martial competence between warrior and wizard should be- is to be taken to read "within the context of D&D."

Because unless we are talking about generic systems like HERO, GURPS, etc., any given game can only reliably model a few kinds of supernatural stuff before things start to break down.

For example, D&D would be a horrible game in which to model casters of the kind you find in Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion cycle of books because nearly all of their magic is based on pacts with or the ritual summoning and binding of otherworldly beings. And putting that on context of this discussion, that also means that how good a martial combatant a wizard is depends entirely upon the wizard himself...but also as a flipside, whether you can be a wizard at all depends upon your bloodline & race. So the spellcasting is the wrong kind AND "classes" model the characters poorly.

Other authors also adopt the "magic is in the blood" limitation to whether one can be a caster or not...and often, those casters are nigh unto gods. (At least the antagonists are.)

In the Shanarra books, the use of magic is a learned skill, but the use of certain magic items is limited by heritage. Whether you learn how to fight is up to you, but the setting includes very little D&D style high-power combat magic, so many casters are competent.

Ditto to a great extent Harry Turtledove's Darkness saga.

In Thieves' World, there are a few different paths to magic, most visibly the Blue Star Adepts. The Adepts gain their powers in part from being subject to a magical taboo- each unique to tie particular Adept- and the Adept is powerless against the being with knowledge of that taboo. Again, each Adept's combat skill is independent of his magical ability.

And I like all of those.

But those kinds of wizards are poorly handled by D&D...and I don't think D&D's core Wizard needs to be fiddled with to make modeling those kinds of spellcasters any easier. Better, IMHO, to model those kinds of casters with different classes and possibly mechanics (IOW, different spellcasting systems).