Encounter balance and the warrior/wizard problem

[Alefiend]

Inspired by this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226099) thread, I've been doing some thinking about how and where the balance between melee and magic goes belly-up. By coincidence, I found an essay that touches the topic here (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/wandering-monster.html).

I think the author has some good points—a lot of the perceived gap is because of bad GMing habits, and ceding the ability to set the pace of the game to the players. He acknowledges that there is a power imbalance, but it doesn't necessarily become a problem until later levels. Melee's advantage—reliability all day long if they have the HP—disappears when the party is able to retreat and rest without fear of ambush, reinforcement, wandering monsters, or other consequences.

Just because the author's experiences and feelings seem to match my own doesn't mean they're the only argument, though. What does the Playground think about all this?

[Mantarni]

Having played in a game based entirely around testing the limits of the system, magic can have an advantage. That said, it is heavily based on DM choice for encounters -- you can easily throw in some enemies who are simply immune to magic/magical effects, have dispel/anti magic and levels in warblade (those f****ing concentration checks). Another thing is inventive landscaping for the encounter -- most DMs don't seem to bother with much more than a room with some debris or obstacles, but inventive environments can make an impact on balancing perceived usefulness.

And in the natural progression of the slippery slope these theoretical discussions tend to go on, you can make meleers who deal literally thousands of damage on all average dice rolls (pre-epic, this is based on natural weapon screwery but you can do lesser versions with some weapons), crazy saves/DR/SR and free movement/pounce attacks whenever they drop an enemy. At a certain point in that slippery slope, no amount of magic on either side will change a thing. It was kinda funny having freaking Gods going down in one round though. Giving Gods stats = bad idea. Makes them fallible.

I honestly think none of that matters in a good game. If you're arguing tier levels and usefulness in your game, you may need to rethink your group.

[Treblain]

Retreating to recharge your spells is a logical tactical decision for a wizard to make whenever there's no strict time limit to achieve your objective. And placing a time limit on every adventure or creating story consequences to punish the wizard for taking their time gets irritating. Restricting the wizard from resting becomes arbitrary and unfair. And at higher levels, wizards get so many spell slots that they take far longer to run out than the fighter's hit points, and so many ways to apply their spell slots that they never become useless.

And you can't just ignore the imbalance and say, "oh, that's just high levels." High levels are part of the game, too. Saying that the system falls apart, but only at high levels, is not something to be proud of.

Wandering monsters have nothing to do with the story the players and DM are creating. OOTS has made tons of jokes at their expense, at the sheer illogic of bandit tribes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0158.html) and monsters attacking adventurers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0210.html), how random encounters are a tedious waste of time (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0145.html), et cetera.

So to sum up: solving the warrior/wizard problem in 3.5 doesn't work on all three levels of RPGs.

Simulationist: In a world where wizards run out of spells and become squishy meatsacks, why don't they do everything in their power to recharge them?
Gamist: In this game, not all the players can contribute to game challenges in a fun way.
Narrativist: Wandering monsters, extra encounters, and ambushes that exist to "balance" parties by providing warriors something to excel at interrupt the flow of the story by interposing pointless segments of hack 'n slash designed to tax the resources of the casters.


The Alexandrian blames GMs for abandoning wandering monster tables, and then admits he doesn't use them much; he's just such a superior GM that he doesn't need them. He's basically just trotting out the "well, I never had imbalance in my games, so it doesn't exist" idea that gets thrown out on the forums now and then, but in a more sophisticated way.

[illyrus]

Really its not just limited to the wizard about coming back to fight another day either. A rogue could sneak attack, run out of the room and hide, then come back later to repeat it. Any intelligent critter isn't going to stand around and let the rogue do that every few rounds without any sort of reaction. Nor should any sort of organized force find a 3rd of their number wiped out then calmly sit by in groups of encounter level -2 to encounter level +2 of the party's level and wait x hours for the adventurers to return to finish the job.

The critters should go proactive at that point and if that means when the party returns they're facing an encounter level +12 ambush because every critter in the organization banded together in the intervening hours instead of sitting there staring at the moss growing on the walls then so be it. I'd suggest going for a less severe form of this as a GM but if the characters are seeking to solve every problem with an "optimal" solution and arguing "that's how the world works" then have the world also seek an "optimal" solution.

Ideally, you know, just talk to the players at the table and explain that the bad guys are going to react to hit and run tactics and will not remain static. Probably a consensus can be reached where you have encounters that can be challenging as opposed to one sided affairs (for either the players or the GM).

[Flickerdart]

Having played in a game based entirely around testing the limits of the system, magic can have an advantage. That said, it is heavily based on DM choice for encounters -- you can easily throw in some enemies who are simply immune to magic/magical effects, have dispel/anti magic and levels in warblade (those f****ing concentration checks). Another thing is inventive landscaping for the encounter -- most DMs don't seem to bother with much more than a room with some debris or obstacles, but inventive environments can make an impact on balancing perceived usefulness.

And in the natural progression of the slippery slope these theoretical discussions tend to go on, you can make meleers who deal literally thousands of damage on all average dice rolls (pre-epic, this is based on natural weapon screwery but you can do lesser versions with some weapons), crazy saves/DR/SR and free movement/pounce attacks whenever they drop an enemy. At a certain point in that slippery slope, no amount of magic on either side will change a thing. It was kinda funny having freaking Gods going down in one round though. Giving Gods stats = bad idea. Makes them fallible.

I honestly think none of that matters in a good game. If you're arguing tier levels and usefulness in your game, you may need to rethink your group.
Terrain isn't a problem to a spellcaster, who has many movement modes at his disposal, and can often summon minions with movement modes of their own. Mundanes, on the other hand, can often be utterly screwed - the very same Uberchargers you mention are hilariously useless when they cannot reach their enemy. Saying that no amount of magic can stop them is quite simply wrong, because magic can do whatever it wants with them - stop them from charging, misdirect their attacks or deflect them entirely, mind-control them to turn on their allies, and so on.

Spell slots are also not a problem. Past level 7 or so, a Wizard won't run out of spell slots for a long long time, while the muscle will find their hit points running low without intervention from the casters. The 15 minute adventuring day argument against caster power is an amusing misconception based around the perceived "unlimited" number of times a warrior can attack per day.

[Alefiend]

Spell slots are also not a problem. Past level 7 or so, a Wizard won't run out of spell slots for a long long time, while the muscle will find their hit points running low without intervention from the casters. The 15 minute adventuring day argument against caster power is an amusing misconception based around the perceived "unlimited" number of times a warrior can attack per day.

I believe this is only true when every encounter is at or above party CR. Of course the party will retreat to rest after a major battle that depletes its limited resources. The 15-minute day is a problem when the only concern is whether the wizards and clerics have blown their best spells, and they do so whether the encounter calls for it or not.

The casters will find their slots and HP running low as well without intervention (by way of AoO, sheer damage, or just being a meat shield) by the fighters. The wizard might wipe out or block 100 kobolds with one spell, but the second hundred who act after them or come from a different direction will tear him to shreds.

[Flickerdart]

Except not, because casters have many ways of defending themselves that are difficult for melee to access - powerful defensive buffs, exotic movement modes, minions, illusions, mind-control spells - in addition to HP and AC defenses. Many of these last all day, and sometimes multiple days.

[ericgrau]

Uses/day is one issue, yes. Dungeons with no easy way out, plot deadlines and intelligent high level monsters that can pursue hiding PCs are common ways to avoid rapid recharge. So common in fact that if the monsters are played intelligently these should be the rule not the exception.

Though I think the main issue is: can the encounter be overcome with a sharp piece of metal? 90+% of monsters can be as-is. Avoiding such foes is a common mistake, I'd think. The flipside of this is the boredom of merely hacking at foes. The occasional unusual foe and features like (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm) terrain (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/wildernessWeatherEnvironment.htm) that vary up the encounter without making it immune to sharp metal are a couple ways to keep things interesting.

[Zale]

I believe this is only true when every encounter is at or above party CR. Of course the party will retreat to rest after a major battle that depletes its limited resources. The 15-minute day is a problem when the only concern is whether the wizards and clerics have blown their best spells, and they do so whether the encounter calls for it or not.

The casters will find their slots and HP running low as well without intervention (by way of AoO, sheer damage, or just being a meat shield) by the fighters. The wizard might wipe out or block 100 kobolds with one spell, but the second hundred who act after them or come from a different direction will tear him to shreds.

What kind of idiot caster lets the kobolds get close enough to harm them? With enough spells, you can fly, teleport, turn intangible or turn into a kobold-eating monster.

If they don't want to fight, what's keeping them from fleeing? Other than the potential abandonment of teammates..

[Tyndmyr]

Just because the author's experiences and feelings seem to match my own doesn't mean they're the only argument, though. What does the Playground think about all this?

Well, let's break it down.

1. Death of Wandering Monsters. Meh. I use wandering monsters still, when appropriate. I don't like overusing them, because it tends to feel like padding. However, getting attacked while resting is a problem everyone faces, not just mages. Fighters need to rest up too, ESPECIALLY if they're not reliant on casters for hp and ability healing. Moreover, casters are best at avoiding wandering monsters. Illusions, rope tricks, teleport, whatever. Melee are much less likely to have access to such things.

2. Control of encounters. See, there's a reason PCs spike damage. Well, attacks in general. Killing an enemy rapidly takes less total resources. Every additional round you leave the enemy up means another chance for them to inflict more damage, etc you need to heal. In short, the PCs have a finite amount of resources regardless*. The caster does run dry on spells eventually no matter what you do. Adding the possibility of wandering monsters just mean the casters better quit for the day about an encounter earlier. This makes the 15 minute workday MORE of a problem, not less.

3. Damage? Wizards are not reliant on damage to win encounters. His use of this repeatedly and direct comparisons to fighter damage leads me to believe he somehow thinks that the caster/melee gap is due to the caster doing more damage than the melee. This is...not really the problem at all. A charger can crush mage damage. It's that the mage can do MORE than just damage.

Summary: Like usual, the author of this blog has no idea what he's talking about. His comments to other commemorators on this post further proves this.

*Usually. Yes, I'm aware that we can munchkin this away.

Edit: He also gets an extra fail for saying that bags of holding are not safe in a rope trick. This fails both the RAI and RAW tests for entirely different reasons. If anyone is sufficiently pedantically interested, I'll get into them.

[Mantarni]

Mundanes, on the other hand, can often be utterly screwed - the very same Uberchargers you mention are hilariously useless when they cannot reach their enemy.

Saying that no amount of magic can stop them is quite simply wrong, because magic can do whatever it wants with them - stop them from charging, misdirect their attacks or deflect them entirely, mind-control them to turn on their allies, and so on.

When did I ever mention charging? No charging involved, just a hilarious abuse of natural attacks and feats with a simple low-LA monster template, a bloodline and the fighter/warrior class. Terrain wasn't an issue, and it did come up, thanks to some other obtainable racial abilities/movement modes that circumvented it. One teleportation item fixed any other issue by using it with those movement modes.

And yes, you can get very close to magic immunity. On the most shallow level, large amounts of SR is easy enough to obtain, and immunity to mind affecting things is reachable. It takes a lot of digging around and some imagination, it's not likely, and probably wouldn't be allowed in most games, but it is doable. Yes, you could counter it, but doing so would require basing every encounter around countering it. By RAW, unless you are totally BSing it, they either get SR or a save -- both of which were high by level 12 (saves in the high 20s) and then got astronomical. All without infinite or finite loops, I should add.

I would ask for the build used in that game, everyone including the DM looked around trying to find something he did wrong but it was totally WoTC-RAW-compliant. The guy who did it went missing a while ago, though. I wish I could, our last encounter before the game stopped involved about 21 great wyrm red dragons that went down in about 3 rounds, at level 15ish. Difficult terrain, lava and everything. And that was when we all said '**** it' and stopped competing to beat that build and the game ended.

[bloodtide]

This type of stuff is all theory. You will not see it in a well run game. But guess they are fun to talk about.

The so-called imbalance comes from the idea that every single character must be fair and equal in every single way, just different somehow. So if you were playing a high level character, each would have as many 'options' as all the other characters. Or to put it simply, all classes should be the same.

Then you add on the planning. Sure a wizard character can take tons of time and energy and then 'effortlessly' defeat an encounter. But only if the plan ahead.

And sure wizards can be optimized and have builds....but they will fall into the one trick pony trap.

And lots of DM's do 'low magic' type games, so that wizards get a free hand in domination as there is no magic to oppose them. And often 'low magic' also equals 'low fantasy' to most people.

And the final cheery on top are things like point buys, auto HP, and 'safety nerf' type settings where the DM does not believe in character death.

[olentu]

Eh I would think that wandering monsters would increase the 15 minute adventuring day.

[Flickerdart]

Eh I would think that wandering monsters would increase the 15 minute adventuring day.
Only for mundanes. Casters can Rope Trick to safety and prepare their spells again as soon as level 5, whereas monsters capable of doing anything about that don't really start appearing until after Teleport is available.

[olentu]

Only for mundanes. Casters can Rope Trick to safety and prepare their spells again as soon as level 5, whereas monsters capable of doing anything about that don't really start appearing until after Teleport is available.

Ah yes I probably should not have assumed that everyone would realize that generally casters have ways not to be bothered by such things. In fact considering the nature of the thread it seems rather clearly a bad assumption.

[W3bDragon]

I agree that bad GMing habits tend to magnify the warrior/wizard gap. I disagree that its mainly because of the 15 minute workday, though it is part of the equation.

Firstly, the comparison is being taken in isolation, which isn't true. Comparing a warrior to a wizard without measuring the impact of the rest of the party gives an inaccurate picture. Its true that by about mid levels, a warrior's HPs will run out much sooner than a wizard's spells. However, a few charges from the druid's wand can get the warrior and the rogue back to full power, while the same cannot be said about wizards. One (very cheap) wand of lesser vigor can see a standard party through 10 or more encounters, with the warriors and rogues functioning at full potential every fight, while the wizard's resources dwindle to nothing if he doesn't carefully measure his usage of spells.

Of course, its unrealistic to assume that every day will have 10 encounters with no chance to safely rest in between. However, its just as unrealistic to assume that it won't happen either. In fact, in its most basic level, a dungeon crawl is exactly that. You enter a hostile environment where you have to beat many many encounters with little to no chance of resting safely.

If your players are guaranteed to be able to rest safely after a set number of encounters, this number being set by the remaining spell slots of the wizard rather than the circumstances of the situation, then this will allow the wizard to apply his most powerful magics more frequently in encounters, which directly increases his power.

I understand that its logical for the wizard to go rest when he's out of spells. However, just because the wizard wants to, doesn't mean that he'll always be able to. I'm not talking about contrived methods to level the playing field. I'm talking about actual game circumstances that don't favor resting. Adventurers usually frequent the most dangerous locales in the game world. There will be times when safety is an issue. There will be times when time is an issue.



Another issue that could be attributed to bad GMing habits is the "PCs don't die" attitude that some GMs have. I understand why some would have that attitude, and I've been guilty of that myself on occasion. However, it can affect one of the main differences between a warrior and a wizard, which is their margin for error.

A warrior can completely misplace himself in combat, then walk through 4 attacks of opportunity and 2 traps because of his mistake, and still keep going. Whereas a wizard misstepping is usually lethal. Its true that a well prepared wizard will put a warrior to shame in the survivability department, but a wizard caught unprepared or one who simply makes a mistake in his assessment of the situation is much more likely to die because of his error. An untimely save by a monster or an untimely failed check on the wizard's part could easily be the death of him. However, in games where PC death simply doesn't happen, this danger is mitigated, further increasing the power gap between the warrior and the wizard.

I'm not even getting into the whole scry'n'die wizards and the general power of linear fighters/quadratic wizards. These are just a couple of bad GMing habits that unintentionally further increase the power gap.


tl,dr: A wizard will be stronger if he's guaranteed to rest whenever he's out of spells, and his squishy nature isn't an appropriate balance in games where PCs don't die.

[Phaederkiel]

One thing about the "warrior runs out of hp"-Problem:
It is the Casters darned JOB to make sure this does not happen.
So in reality its more like:

Enconter 1: wizard does crowd controll, relies on allies to mop up
Encounter 2: Warrior gets beaten down, Cleric heals him at expense on own pwnage...
Repeat.

not doing so would mean the same as warrior sitting by while wizard gets charged. Without taking AoO.



The other thing is about the narrative:

Why would you ever play a campaign without a timeline? PC´s are at heart reactional. You present them with a Problem, which they solve. And which has probably a time limit. even if your quest only includes getting bread at the bakery, resting in between will make you come late, shop is already closed.

You need no wandering monsters, a dynamically changing set of problems is enough to balance a lot.

for example: your guys decide to scry on the enemy big gun. They find out about his tactics, plan how to defeat him... And on Day 7 of your Timeline, mr. Big gun dies to a plot of his second in command. Pcs cannot scry anymore, get nervous, have wasted time. Spring their Trap anyway, but now the prey has a skillset which they are badly prepared for.

[Greenish]

And yes, you can get very close to magic immunity.Not even Magic Immunity makes you immune to magic. :smallamused:


By RAW, unless you are totally BSing it, they either get SR or a saveThat's just not true. Many spells allow for neither, either by not affecting you directly (summons, planar binding, polymorph line, time stop etc.) or by just being that good (instantaneous conjurations, mostly).

If you go for high OP, you can't really expect mere SR or high saves to help you.

[gkathellar]

The 15-minute day is a problem when the only concern is whether the wizards and clerics have blown their best spells, and they do so whether the encounter calls for it or not.

Sure, but a smartly played caster doesn't need a fifteen-minute day, unless they're fighting other casters every encounter — which is all the more encouragement to turn the campaign into a grand war between dimension hopping, spell-slinging titans.


The casters will find their slots and HP running low as well without intervention (by way of AoO, sheer damage, or just being a meat shield) by the fighters. The wizard might wipe out or block 100 kobolds with one spell, but the second hundred who act after them or come from a different direction will tear him to shreds.

Except for how casters have better defenses than warriors, and can also become warriors with a variety of spells.


By RAW, unless you are totally BSing it, they either get SR or a save -- both of which were high by level 12 (saves in the high 20s) and then got astronomical.

This is just completely false. True Strike + Orb, for example, but the list really goes on.


The so-called imbalance comes from the idea that every single character must be fair and equal in every single way, just different somehow. So if you were playing a high level character, each would have as many 'options' as all the other characters. Or to put it simply, all classes should be the same.

No, it's the belief that all classes should be able to contribute evenly, and even at the early levels they simply can't. Even at 1st level, the only real difference between a fighter and a wizard with Mage Armor is a few points of attack bonus, 6 HP and that the wizard can end the encounter with one standard action. This problem only becomes more aggravated at high levels.


Then you add on the planning. Sure a wizard character can take tons of time and energy and then 'effortlessly' defeat an encounter. But only if the plan ahead.

And sure wizards can be optimized and have builds....but they will fall into the one trick pony trap.

Are you joking? I've walked into a room with a CR-appropriate encounter, triggered a pre-scribed Symbol of Sleep, and ended the encounter with one spell that I didn't even cast that day. Symbol of Sleep isn't even a particularly good spell, all the optimization it takes to prepare it is "be a cleric, sorcerer or wizard."

No, casters don't have to be "one-trick ponies." And when they are (mailman), it's because their one trick can kill just about anything.


And lots of DM's do 'low magic' type games, so that wizards get a free hand in domination as there is no magic to oppose them. And often 'low magic' also equals 'low fantasy' to most people.

So your answer to "casters are powerful" is "oppose them with other casters?" That's not much of an answer to the fundamental imbalance, is it?


And the final cheery on top are things like point buys, auto HP, and 'safety nerf' type settings where the DM does not believe in character death.

Point buy and auto HP benefit melee far more than they do casters, guy.