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

[Jeff Wilder]

Because in 3.x what swiftly happened is that there was a spell for everything, literally. Even the best class abilities were, at best, aping a different spell. The best fighter is a wizard who casts fighting spells. The best rogue is a wizard who casts rogue spells. Etc, etc.

Well, that happened for you. For some reason. It didn't happen to a lot of us.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why do the D&D fighters need to rival the warriors in literature?

Because D&D spellcasters rival the spellcasters in fantasy literature.

D&D is a game of fantasy heroism -- it's got a genre. Part of what D&D is selling is "You get to pretend to be a fantasy hero!"

If it's only doing that for spellcasters, then we have a problem. There's a whole swath of fantasy heroes from Batman to James Bond to Odysseus that aren't getting the support one might expect from a game of heroic fantasy.

The difference between a turnip farmer who is S17 D13 C16 I12 W10 Ch 10 and a fighter with the same stats is Achilles' Choice.

Well, by the time 3e rolls around, turnip farmers (and town guards and militia members) have Str 10 Dex 10 Con 10 Int 10 Wis 10 Cha 10, and before that they don't even have stats for the most part, after that their stats are fairly meaningless to their combat ability, but that's not the thrust of the counterpoint.

The thrust of the counterpoint is that the functional difference between Batman and Commissioner Gordon or some jarhead marine isn't a choice, it is the quality of being a fantasy hero.

It may be fluffed away as a choice in the background story information, but by the time the story opens, they're already different.

By the time the first d20 is rolled, the fighter is already different from the turnip farmer.

Just because you're big & strong doesn't mean you want to be a warrior. They may get all the glory, those fightin' boys, but they tend to die young and far from home, far away from sweet Marie, the milkmaid...

A PC isn't just some grunt trooper. They are a fantasy hero. Their kind has not been seen for years, will not be seen easily again, and will be spoken of in legends, simply by virtue of them being a fantasy hero.

The difference between Random Soldier Boy and a fantasy hero is as immense as the gulf between a Gotham City five-oh, and Batman. And it needs to be that way from the start if you're interesting in playing a fantasy hero. It certainly is that way from the start if you're a wizard or a cleric. The local priest cannot close wounds; the local potion-witch cannot will people to feel pain.

So one slab 'o humanity learns to farm and farm while the other learns to farm & fight- then leaves town, a marginally better warrior than his rival. After he returns from his first campaign, though, he's probably the baddest thing they've seen in a decade.

If he's not already different by the time he sets out, he is going to be eaten by that dragon, killed by that orc, and mutilated in his sleep by that goblin. That is the fate of normal soldiers, of town guards, of beet farmers, of Gotham City Donut Jockeys, of trigger-happy NPCs who think they're going off to become the next Big Hero only to be impaled on the first kobold's spear as the battle begins.

That's part of what makes the heroic fantasy genre. When the dragon's breath incinerates everyone else in the world, it requires a hero to stand against it. When the Joker is terrorizing Gotham, it requires a hero to stand against him. People who are just beet farmers and beat cops get killed, in massive waves. That's why a hero is needed. Heroes don't get killed by dragons, beet farmers do.

So D&D makes beet farmers, militia members, marines, cops, and all those people who will be unable to stop the Great Evil statless (DM fiat can kill them!) or low-level Commoners or Warriors (Maybe they'll get lucky and save and survive, due to their extensive combat training but probably not...). Heroes will probably survive. Because they are the heroes.

Early D&D varied in this, because early D&D largely didn't really try to emulate a genre, it just tried to give you interesting things to put in a dungeon, to kill PC's in droves.

Of course, early D&D had a bigger problem with the wizard vs. warrior balance, too.

These problems are not unrelated, I think. If the only difference between a beat cop and Batman is that Batman went off to fight the Joker and got lucky enough to survive, Batman could not fight Superman, or fight other supervillains on a regular basis.

The difference is that the Joker gets to automatically kill beat cops. But Batman, favored by luck, enhanced by superheroic, godlike levels of tech, practice, and skill....Batman has a good chance to survive. The Dragon gets to kill as many beet farmers as they want, but the Fighter -- the Fighter has a good chance to survive.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

The difference between a turnip farmer who is S17 D13 C16 I12 W10 Ch 10 and a fighter with the same stats is Achilles' Choice.

Just because you're big & strong doesn't mean you want to be a warrior. They may get all the glory, those fightin' boys, but they tend to die young and far from home, far away from sweet Marie, the milkmaid...

So one slab 'o humanity learns to farm and farm while the other learns to farm & fight- then leaves town, a marginally better warrior than his rival. After he returns from his first campaign, though, he's probably the baddest thing they've seen in a decade.

Danny if you are using those stats and a level of Fighter for a turnip farmer, he's not just a turnip farmer he is the best damned turnip farmer in the area. If a bull gets ornery and breaks out of his pen, he is the guy that they go get to catch him. If a fight breaks out between 2 guys in the market, he can stop it by smacking their heads together. He might not be the guy that regularly grows the turnips that takes top position in the local fair, but he is the guy a lot of people look up to.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

[Fighters] aren't getting the support one might expect from a game of heroic fantasy.

Well, that seemed to happen to you. For some reason. It works fine for a lot of us.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Danny if you are using those stats and a level of Fighter for a turnip farmer,

Please reread what I wrote: 2 guys, both extremely big and fit. Both are farmers by birth, but one leaves to become a warrior while the other remains nothing more than a farmer...IOW, one has a level of fighter and one does not. They are fairly evenly matched when one leaves town, but not after the warrior has some more training.

As for those stats, I just plucked them out of the air. But have you ever worked on a farm or known someone who did? Pitching 50lb bales of hay around will make you pretty damn big- it's why Nebraska farmboys- as well as their counterparts in other states- do so well as linemen in college & the NFL.

Well, by the time 3e rolls around, turnip farmers (and town guards and militia members) have Str 10 Dex 10 Con 10 Int 10 Wis 10 Cha 10, and before that they don't even have stats for the most part, after that their stats are fairly meaningless to their combat ability, but that's not the thrust of the counterpoint.

The 3.5 DMG's breakdown for a hamlet of 200 people (p139):

• One 1st level Aristocrat (mayor)
• One 3rd level Warrior (constable)
• Nine 1st level Warriors (two guards, seven militia members)
• One 3rd level Expert smith (militia member)
• Seven 1st level Expert crafters and professionals of various sorts
• One 1st level Adept
• One 3rd level Commoner barkeep (militia member)
• One hundred sixty-six 1st level Commoners (one is militia member)
• One 3rd level Fighter
• Two 1st level Fighters
• One 1st level Wizard
• One 3rd level Cleric
• Two 1st level Clerics
• One 1st level Druid
• One 3rd level Rogue
• Two 1st level rogues
• One 1st level Bard
• One 1st level Monk.

Clearly, some of those NPC townies have some interesting stats. And the DMG makes no assumption as to whether they have those PC class levels by dint of being former adventurers or merely talented & gifted persons who found being a big fish in a small pond was more than enough for them.

In addition, nowhere in the section about NPC stats does it say that average NPCs have 10s across the board. What it actually says is this:

3.5 DMG p110
All PCs and all of the NPCs described in this section are "elite," a cut above the average. Elite characters (whether they are PCs or not) have above average ability scores and automatically get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die. Average characters, on the other hand, have average abilities (rolled on 3d6) and don't get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die...Likewise, some fighters, wizards, and so on are average people rather than elites; they have fewer hit points and lower ability scores than the NPCs described here.

(Emphasis mine.)
That section is the preamble to a series of charts designed to generate unusual NPCs, but simultaneously anticipates the question about the "Average Joe."

IOW, they may have unusually high stats, equal to those of a PC, its just not likely. But straight 10s? That's a handy bookkeeping rule, but it isn't what is in the DMG. They may even have "PC" base classes without being adventurers.

Then there's this, from the section about NPC classes:

3.5 DMG p107
Its possible for NPCs to multiclass, and even to obtain levels in PC classes if you so desire...Keep in mind, though, that dangerous areas are more likely to produce higher-level NPCs than peaceful, settled lands. A commoner who must regularly fight off gnolls trying to ransack his farm or burn his crops is likely to be of higher level than one who rarely encounters a challenge of this sort.

Which confirms what I said earlier about NPCs in tough, strife-plagued regions.

Even commoners that are "skilled warriors" (town guards, trained militia, even three-star generals advising kings who once won decisive military victories) aren't FIGHTERS,

The 3.5 DMG would appear to disagree.

 

[Celtavian]

I think the problem is actually that if your turnip farmers (or militia members or even town guards) have fighter stats, your fighter doesn't feel like a Fantasy Hero, he feels like a turnip farmer (or a militia member or a town guard).

Which is part of the problem of a wizard vs. warrior separation -- your wizards never feel like they are turnip farmers. Even at their least powerful, they are able to will an enemy to be hurt (magic missile!). And pretty quickly they can blast fire, fly, teleport, scry, make universes, turn into monsters, and summon demons to do their bidding.

But your fighter...well, he's a turnip farmer. Maybe even a well trained turnip farmer. Oh yipee.

This is part of why the fighters need to feel more like Batman and James Bond and Conan than like turnip farmers, militia members, or town guards.

Fighter levels are a lousy mechanic to model NPC commoners, which is why mechanics like the commoner NPC class were invented, and why 4e advises you not to bother statting up NPC commoners at all, and gives you rules like Minions for when you do.

Even commoners that are "skilled warriors" (town guards, trained militia, even three-star generals advising kings who once won decisive military victories) aren't FIGHTERS, just like even Commissioner Gordon is not BATMAN.

Now, there might be NPC fighters who are rivals, foils, antagonists, allies, underlings, etc. Batman needs his Robin, and, eventually, retires and is replaced by another Batman.

All these characters are much more powerful than a trained militia member. They are fantastic and unrealistic. That is what D&D fighters need to be if they are to rival the warriors in fantasy literature. That is part of why beet farmers, militia members, and town guards shouldn't be fighters (though a fighter could have been any of these in her past).

Isn't that why they created the NPC classes warrior, commoner, aristocrat, expert, and adept? To create NPCs that can have some ability, but at the same time aren't on par with PCs.

Heck. Right now I have a wizard who started off as a village boy. That's his background.

I can't believe this strange argument went on for this many pages. It's obvious if your player feels like saying his character started off as a turnip farmer, that's his option. If he one day ends up the greatest warrior the world has ever seen, it's his option how that came to be whether through training or divine providence.

There is nothing within the rules or any assumptions for a given world other than what the DM and players create together. If you want to assume in your world that the average fighter or even wizard is as common as turnip farmers, by all means that you're option. If you want to make the PCs super rare individuals along the lines of Batman or Conan, that's your option. You can make any of those scenarios occur within a given world.

D&D default is the PCs are the stars. Not by virtue of what class they choose. There are plenty of high level fighters, super powerful wizards, insanely powerful monsters, and friggin gods. It's a vast world for pete's sake. They are the stars because they are the PCs of the given campaign. It's your job as DM to make them the stars.

I'm not even sure what you guys were trying to debate with this turnip farmer talk. If a PC wants to say his guy was a turnip farmer, spend skill points in profession (farmer) or what not, that's his option. Some DM going to tell him "Dude, you can't be a great fighter with that turnip farmer background. It's not working for me." I mean, really? Really, really? You going to do that as a DM?

 

[Celtavian]

Well, that happened for you. For some reason. It didn't happen to a lot of us.

Truth to counter Professor Cirno's lies.

I have a barbarian with 271 hit points. No wizard, on his best day, buffed to the gills, will have that many hit points.

And I have yet to see this naked fighter with no magic items that is the wizard's punk.

The two-hander fighter in my Pathfinder campaign does damage the wizard can't touch and with his Ring of Free Action (you know, magic items that grant supernatural abilities), he's pretty hard to stop. He even gets one round on the wizard, the wizard is pretty much dead. One round even with stoneskin up. The guy crits for 130 points plus 3d12 damage.

Whenever I hear these strange complaints, I seriously wonder who they were playing the game with. The barbarian in my group with Come and Get Me outputs something like 250 points of damage a round if something swings at him.

It's pretty ridiculous this talk that melee type characters can't do much. The greatest damage weapon the wizard has is a buffed up melee character.

Now if you want to talk rogues being the red-headed step child of 3.x editions of D&D. Then we can talk. But fighters, paladins, barbarians, and the like. They were damage hammers second to none. No wizard could let one of those guys in his range or he was equally dead.

A prepared wizard can most likely take out a fighter. But a high level fighter gets one round on the high level wizard, that wizard was more than likely dead man walking.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, that seemed to happen to you. For some reason. It works fine for a lot of us.

Actually, I haven't had many problems in this regard, personally. I never found the fighter appealing as a class, really, and those in my games who played warriors I always made sure to emphasize how they could be special. Nothing beats the gnome barbarian in 3e who fell, terminal velocity, directly into a pool of lava, and managed to crawl out, without dying. No turnip farmer, that.

But it's a problem that many players have experienced, and it's a solution that makes the game even more enjoyable for me, and it's a phenomenon that certainly exists, even if it missed me, personally.

So D&D would benefit as a whole from having rules that helped warriors feel more like the warriors in fantasy literature, like how the spellcasters feel like spellcasters in fantasy literature already, I think.

It's not my personal crusade for my personal game. It's a crusade for a broader, more fun, more accepting game.

And I don't quite understand what value can be found in the model of "At level 1, your spellcaster is like unto a god, but your fighter is a lucky beet farmer." No one has yet really explained what is so awesome about that. They've denied they've experienced that, but if others have experienced that, and D&D wants to include a lot of people in its umbrella, I don't understand what you loose by stopping others from experiencing that.

Please reread what I wrote: 2 guys, both extremely big and fit. Both are farmers by birth, but one leaves to become a warrior while the other remains nothing more than a farmer...IOW, one has a level of fighter and one does not. They are fairly evenly matched when one leaves town, but not after the warrior has some more training.

The difference between a Level 1 Minion and a Level 3 Minion is still less than the difference between a Level 1 Minion and a Level 1 Fighter.

The fighter class does not effectively represent normal combat training. It represents Being Batman. Being a fantasy hero.

As for those stats, I just plucked them out of the air. But have you ever worked on a farm or known someone who did? Pitching 50lb bales of hay around will make you pretty damn big- it's why Nebraska farmboys- as well as their counterparts in other states- do so well as linemen in college & the NFL.

"Pretty Big" is not effectively modeled with a Str of 17. "Pretty Big" might be a Str of 11 instead of 10.

You seem to be taking the assumption that low-level D&D somehow models normal people in the fantasy world, instead of modeling low-level fantasy heroes.

This is a problem, because a low-level wizard is not a normal person in a fantasy world, they are capable of truly heroic, impossible things, and they go on to do even more impossible things. Low-level fighters should be comparable -- capable of truly heroic, impossible things, and going on to do even more impossible things.

The difference isn't going off to war -- that's just nobodies fighting nobodies. People who will be forgotten fighting people who will be forgotten. The difference is going off to fight a villain. That's a narrative trope fighting a narrative trope, and then you're in the realm of fantasy heroism that D&D best emulates.

 

[Celtavian]

Actually, I haven't had many problems in this regard, personally. I never found the fighter appealing as a class, really, and those in my games who played warriors I always made sure to emphasize how they could be special. Nothing beats the gnome barbarian in 3e who fell, terminal velocity, directly into a pool of lava, and managed to crawl out, without dying. No turnip farmer, that.

But it's a problem that many players have experienced, and it's a solution that makes the game even more enjoyable for me, and it's a phenomenon that certainly exists, even if it missed me, personally.

So D&D would benefit as a whole from having rules that helped warriors feel more like the warriors in fantasy literature, like how the spellcasters feel like spellcasters in fantasy literature already, I think.

It's not my personal crusade for my personal game. It's a crusade for a broader, more fun, more accepting game.

And I don't quite understand what value can be found in the model of "At level 1, your spellcaster is like unto a god, but your fighter is a lucky beet farmer." No one has yet really explained what is so awesome about that. They've denied they've experienced that, but if others have experienced that, and D&D wants to include a lot of people in its umbrella, I don't understand what you loose by stopping others from experiencing that.

I'll admit 3.x didn't give the melees types much but insane damage output.

Pathfinder changed that dramatically. Now melee-types can do all kinds of crazy stuff.

Rogues can do strength damage now. Dispel Magic with their attacks.

Fighters are the undisputed master of weapons. They can do crazy stuff llike keep creatures stunned or crit some so viciously as to blind them.

Barbarian rage powers make them freaking unstoppable death machines.

The monk feels a great deal more like a master of the martial arts. They are better at combat maneuvers. Have more combat style options per additional feats. Their ki pool grants them tangible cool abilities that allow them to operate like a supernatural martial artist.

The Paladin is pretty unreal in overall power. An unstoppable holy force that any caster would fear.

And the Inquisitor is freakishly strong.

Pathfinder made melees a lot more interesting. It clearly shows that the D&D system did not need the kind of completel overhaul it got in 4E to make melee characters more interesting. Pathfinder used the 3.x system to upgrade every melee character and turn them into the types of warriors you read about in literature capable of extraordinary feats of combat prowess no commoner could possibly equal.

They did a great job. My players, even the guy who enjoyed 4E, loves Pathfinder. They made melee characters that are fun to design. No longer is it only fun for a caster character to spend hours mulling over his feat and spell build. Now it is fun for a barbarian to mull over his rage power build. Or a fighter to mull over his feat build with tons more options. Or a rogue to mull over his rogue talent build. Pathfinder did what people were asking for in 3.x without scrapping the entire system and destroying the flavor of previous editions of D&D.

So if you're looking for melee characters with supernatural type combat abilities, Pathfinder has it in spades.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"Pretty Big" is not effectively modeled with a Str of 17. "Pretty Big" might be a Str of 11 instead of 10

Dude- what ARE you smoking? "Pretty Big" doesn't start until you're hitting the mid-teens in stats.

I'M a Str 14 in D&D terms, I'm 5'7", 250, and I don't do the kinds of things my big relatives on the farm in Covington do*. My first cousin Kev is just a shade over 6'2" and has a bench of 400lbs. (We're both 43 years old, btw.) You know what he does? He's a trucker.

I didn't even start at Nose Guard on the football team at my private school (total team size, just under 40 guys). Our average lineman weighed 180lbs, and the guy in front of me benched 300lbs at age 18, 5'7" 175. I didn't get that beefy a bench until my junior year of college. One guy on our team was pressured to play because of his size. He had no talent, but he was big. I lined up against him one day. He threw me 5 feet. For the record, there were running backs at public schools bigger than most of our linemen.

And my kind of strength wouldn't cut it in college ball. College linemen routinely average nearly 400lb bench presses, and the linebackers are in the low-300s. NFL linemen? Guards and Tackles: 535 lbs, Center: 500 lbs, a typical DE: 440 lbs and your MLBs and OLBs: 370 lbs.

Fighting men do NOT have the monopoly on being big hunks of humanity. Not even in D&D.




* I'm not even the strongest guy in my game group.