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

[Raven Crowking]

1: Mythically, narratively, equipment is inherent to a character's ability. Arthur without Excalibur is just a squire. It's also a way that "normal" fantasy heroes equalize themselves with the creatures around them. Without some augmentation, they aren't "normal" anymore.

It might interest you to know that, in earlier forms of the story, Excalibur and the sword in the stone are not the same weapon. It was later attempts to tighten the stories that equated the two.

So, mythically, narratively, Arthur without Excalibur is still the rightful King.

Even drawing the sword from the stone isn't what makes Arthur the rightful King. You put the cart before the horse. Mythically, narratively, being the rightful King is what makes Arthur able to draw the sword.

Finally, within the context of the myth, the sheath is probably more important/wondrous than the sword.

Also, for the "supernatural heroes who cannot lose" crowd, Arthur's trajectory epitomizes the hero who ultimately loses everything: His queen, his best friend, his sister/mate, his kingdom, his son, and the hopes of his people.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Pretty much since the genre has existed, there have been superheroes who are not superhuman.

Indeed.

 

[nightwyrm]

It might interest you to know that, in earlier forms of the story, Excalibur and the sword in the stone are not the same weapon. It was later attempts to tighten the stories that equated the two.

So, mythically, narratively, Arthur without Excalibur is still the rightful King.

Even drawing the sword from the stone isn't what makes Arthur the rightful King. You put the cart before the horse. Mythically, narratively, being the rightful King is what makes Arthur able to draw the sword.

Finally, within the context of the myth, the sheath is probably more important/wondrous than the sword.

Also, for the "supernatural heroes who cannot lose" crowd, Arthur's trajectory epitomizes the hero who ultimately loses everything: His queen, his best friend, his sister/mate, his kingdom, his son, and the hopes of his people.


RC

I think what Kamikaze was getting at was that Excalibur and its shealth is always linked to Arthur. You don't have Arthur giving his sword and shealth to the better fighter Lancelot so the Camelot party can have an uber character. Just like Ironman doesn't give a copy of his suit to Batman or Batman sharing his gadgets with the rest of JLA. Ironman is defined by his suit. Batman is defined by his toys. If you have an adaptation of the Arthurian legend and both Arthur and Excalibur is in it, you're not gonna have some other dude permanently wielding the sword.

All this talk about heroes and their weapons brings to mind the visual novel/anime Fate/Stay Night. The plot is essentially modern mages summoning historical/mythical heroes for a battle royale. The summoned heroes have access to the weapons associated with them in their legends. Those weapons are treated as part of the heroes' skill set rather than D&D-style magic items that they can trade around with.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I think what Kamikaze was getting at was that Excalibur and its shealth is always linked to Arthur. You don't have Arthur giving his sword and shealth to the better fighter Lancelot so the Camelot party can have an uber character. Just like Ironman doesn't give a copy of his suit to Batman or Batman sharing his gadgets with the rest of JLA. Ironman is defined by his suit. Batman is defined by his toys. If you have an adaptation of the Arthurian legend and both Arthur and Excalibur is in it, you're not gonna have some other dude permanently wielding the sword.

The reason only Arthur uses Excalibur in legend is because its his magic sword to wield. Lancelot has his own and so do others. Think of it as the party was rolling for treasure and Arthur won Excalibur and its sheath.

All this talk about heroes and their weapons brings to mind the visual novel/anime Fate/Stay Night. The plot is essentially modern mages summoning historical/mythical heroes for a battle royale. The summoned heroes have access to the weapons associated with them in their legends. Those weapons are treated as part of the heroes' skill set rather than D&D-style magic items that they can trade around with.

But remember every one of the servants had comparable "magical items" better suited for their style of fighting.

This talk of about magic items vs inherent bonuses is probably better suited for another topic.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Which is pretty much how the word is used in everyday English. Since when is a superhero not superhuman in some way?

The very next paragraph: "By most definitions, characters do not strictly require actual superhuman powers to be deemed superheroes..."

Rule of thumb: When your own sources disagree with you, you're wrong.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think what Kamikaze was getting at was that Excalibur and its shealth is always linked to Arthur.

Except that it is not.

Excalibur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The name Excalibur apparently derives from the Welsh Caledfwlch which combines the elements caled ("battle, hard"), and bwlch ("breach, gap, notch").[1] Geoffrey of Monmouth Latinised this to Caliburnus (likely influenced by the medieval Latin spelling calibs of Classical Latin chalybs "steel"), the name of Arthur's sword in his 12th-century work Historia Regum Britanniae. Caliburnus or Caliburn became Excalibur, Escalibor, and other variations when the Arthurian legend entered into French literature.

Caledfwlch appears in several early Welsh works, including the poem Preiddeu Annwfn and the prose tale Culhwch and Olwen, a work associated with the Mabinogion and written perhaps around 1100. The name was later used in Welsh adaptations of foreign material such as the Bruts, which were based on Geoffrey. It is often considered to be related to the phonetically similar Caladbolg, a sword borne by several figures from Irish mythology, although a borrowing of Caledfwlch from Irish Caladbolg has been considered unlikely by Rachel Bromwich and D. Simon Evans. They suggest instead that both names "may have similarly arisen at a very early date as generic names for a sword"; this sword then became exclusively the property of Arthur in the British tradition.[2] Most Celticists consider Geoffrey's Caliburnus to be derivative of a lost Old Welsh text in which bwlch had not yet been lenited to fwlch.[3] In Old French sources this then became Escalibor, Excalibor and finally the familiar Excalibur.

In Chretien de Troyes's Perceval, Gawain carries Escalibor and it is stated, "for at his belt hung Excalibor, the finest sword that there was, which sliced through iron as through wood"[4] ("Qu'il avoit cainte Escalibor, la meillor espee qui fust, qu'ele trenche fer come fust."[5]). This statement was likely picked up by the author of the Estoire Merlin, or Vulgate Merlin, where the author (who was fond of fanciful folk etymologies) asserts that Escalibor "is a Hebrew name which means in French 'cuts iron, steel, and wood'"[6] ("c'est non Ebrieu qui dist en franchois trenche fer & achier et fust"; note that the word for "steel" here, achier, also means "blade" or "sword" and comes from medieval Latin aciarium, a derivative of acies "sharp", so there is no direct connection with Latin chalybs in this etymology). It is from this fanciful etymological musing that Malory got the notion that Excalubur meant "cut steel"[7] ("'the name of it,' said the lady, 'is Excalibur, that is as moche to say, as Cut stele.'").​

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.


RC

 

[pawsplay]

Indeed.

In fact, the word predates the comic book genre, including Action Comics. And Batman predates (1939) the vast majority of superhuman comic book characters. The term superhero only refers to mutants and magicians and such because it refers to superheroic characters. Certainly, Dracula is not a "superhero," even though he is superhuman, highly competent, and driven by operatic forces.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Not quite on my point, which was if all PCs can make their own actual magic items- if it's built into the classes- then there is a commonality to magic; it simply isn't as big a deal.

It sucks the magic out of the magic

Well, that's something of the point. A fighter's equipment becomes a class ability. It's no more magical than a wizard's spells or a cleric's prayers or a druid's friendship with a hulking predator. Batman's cape isn't exactly a unique object of superscience in the universe he inhabits. Having a deity as a parent isn't exactly something that gets you noticed among the Greek heroes.

That said, the fact that things that the DM hands out can be more random, more chaotic, more unpredictable, more destructive, more rare, and more powerful goes a long way to sticking the sense of awe right back into its hole. Glorath's +1 sword isn't special, but this Sphere of Annihilation just became a bigger ping on the radar specifically because it isn't a class feature, so it's not an assumed part of your power, so it could behave much more erratically.

Edit: It's also true that while equipment can be a class feature for a fighter, it won't be for a town guard or a farmer or even the village blacksmith. Taking the "Fighter" class signifies that you are a fantasy hero. I don't think it's too much for D&D games to assume that PC's are fantasy heroes. Even if Glorath started life as the spoiled son of a noble, with some combination of skill, grit, luck, madness, determination, and Protestant Ethic, he has taken the "Fantasy Hero" job, and he does not need to have abilities in line with what a town guard or a farmer does any more than Batman has abilities in line with what the Gotham police officers have.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Just FYI, the feats required to use weapons of legacy were actually given to the bearer free. The complaint against weapons of legacy were that the sacrifices (e.g., loss of hit points, penalties to saves) were too much. (I disagree, but I'm solidly in the minority.)

Part of that though, may be WoTC own OGL come to bite them back in the ass via The Game Mecahnics books where such sacrifices were not standard but other sacrifices, the taking of a specific PrC with slightly reduced ability gains in core class, were slightly lessened, among others.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Are you aware of what you're doing here?

Batman is not extrahuman or superhuman. Batman is a superhero.

"Superhuman" and "superhero" are not the same thing. If you and others continue to use the words as synonyms, of course you're going to continue to misunderstand.

No, he's superhuman. None of the nameless characters in the comics surpass him. He is superior to the average human. He is better then they are. He is superhuman.

See, he keeps getting compared to other superheros. Some of them are stronger then him, some are better at martial arts. Well ok, but they're other heroes! But the nameless human civilians don't regularly match him, because he's simply better then they are.

You continue to argue semantics rather then the point.

James Bond does not end his movies with "And then the villains won, THE END." James Bond isn't defeated by the nameless mooks the supervillain sends out at him.

Heroes certainly undergo loss, nobody but the strawman you have constructed is arguing against that. But the movies end with his victory. He isn't wordlessly gunned down followed by the roll of the credits.

Once again, people are confusing in-universe power for in-narrative power. Batman is a "normal man" in universe who "just happens" to always have a gadget, or be able to use martial arts, or have several plans in back up. In narrative, he's flat out better then the non-characters who represent humanity. His ability to always have a gadget, or be able to use martial arts, or have a back-up plan, makes him better then human. His ability to be a protagonist means he can be "The Greatest Detective."

James Bond is a "normal man" who just happens to be better at karate chopping then everyone else, or is more suave and charismatic then everyone else, or always has a gadget at the ready, or can jump off a skyscraper and live by "holding onto the banner" as it rips. But nobody else does this. In-universe he is a "normal man." Narratively he is very starkly not.