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

[Beginning of the End]

And it's what the system implicitely tells the DM to throw - which is precisely why the DMG needs to say "Don't do this".

You're actually trying to claim that the DMG contains an unwritten subtext which is 100% diametrically opposed to what the written text actually says?

Dude. That's tinfoil hat crazy.

But if you've reached the point where you're honestly reading "you should do X" to mean "you shouldn't do X" (or vice versa), than I can only imagine what horrific mutilations your subconscious must be inflicting upon posts here at ENWorld.

Which makes any further attempt to discuss this with you pointless. I hope others will follow my lead in simply ignoring anything else you have to post in this thread.

Ciao.

This is rude and unwelcome. - Rel

 

[Hussar]

Are we talking fantasy characters? Comic books? Or "historical fiction"? There are plenty of historical fiction characters who classify very well as fighters.

Banshee

Name three. Seriously, name three fantasy characters, or, heck, even with your caveat of historical fiction, characters that can be modeled well using a plain jane 3e fighter.

The spell capacity of the 3e wizard (over vs. prior edditions) is dramatically higher (especially for utility purposes) with extremely easy access to cheap scrolls and wands.

Again why I'm leaning more and more toward spontaneous casters on my next 3e go around.

It's interesting to note that every single caster after core is significantly weaker than core casters and significantly more limited in capabilities. I'd point to this as pretty solid evidence that there is something to the idea that 3e casters were a tad overpowered.

I mean, the non-caster classes got big power jumps in splats. Yet the caster classes all got turned into things like War Wizards (blasting only), Warlocks (blasting only), and that cleric sorcerer variant whose name escapes me right now - soul forged? Something like that.

I think the point is not that all fighters must be capable leaders; just that it should not be too much trouble to make a fighter who's a good leader, given the numerous archetypes of such. And in 3E, a fighter will never be the best leader, and it eats up resources to even make him a passable one. You say the concept is easily created in 3E, but only to some extent.

The leader-fighter does not really fit in the 3E design space. That's an issue to some. You're content with all fighters only being good at fighting, but there are wider options to be explored than that. Why do we restrict the fighter with boundaries that don't apply to other classes? Why does he get fewer options?

Just to add to this. It's not that fighters must be good leaders. But, it would be nice if they could be good leaders AT ALL. Sure, I can make a likeable fighter if I sacrifice all my skill points into that one thing and burn a feat or two. But, at the same time, I cannot tell a lie to save my life, cannot intimidate anyone and cannot tell if someone is lying to me. Plus I have absolutely no tactical knowledge, no education and eat with my fingers.

Sure, if you're happy with a fighter being a guy that swings a lumpy metal thing, then fine. But, that doesn't change the fact that you have one class that is limited to one single schtick - swing lumpy metal thing, while every other class can encompass a large variety of concepts.

 

[fanboy2000]

Name three. Seriously, name three fantasy characters, or, heck, even with your caveat of historical fiction, characters that can be modeled well using a plain jane 3e fighter.

Dark Agnes de Chastillon, Solomon Kane, and Fafhrd.

 

[pemerton]

I don't know the Fafhrd and Mouser stroies outside of D&D's interpretation of them - but those interpretations always gave me the impression of Fafhrd being able to skulk (Stealth skill, on in 1st ed AD&D thief levels, as per DDG - which, from memory, also made him a ranger rather than a fighter, suggesting that he's also a tracker).

And doesn't Solomon Kane have reasonable religious/historical knowledge?

 

[Mort]

Dark Agnes de Chastillon

Not familiar with this one [edit: apparantly I should be - love Robert E. Howard, well now I know my next set of stories to read!]

Solomon Kane

The fighting abilities maybe. But not the sense motive or the tracking abilities and the religious knowledge - the fighter would never have enough skill points to keep up. A spell-less ranger is a much closer fit.

and Fafhrd.

Skald (Bard)/barbarian is a closer fit. You could do it with a fighter - but again you'd be missing out on the skill points (Fafhrd does a lot of rogue things that would be very difficult to model with the fighters 2 skill points even with a high int).

In the above cases both could be better modelled with a fighter by the simple expediant of giving the fighter a few more skill points and some more class skills (then again in my game I abolished class skills entirely and gave each player an extra "signature skill" to boot- and it only seemed to add to players enjoyment of the game).

 

[Hussar]

I wonder if Mike Mearls reads Enworld:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Fighters vs. Wizards)

 

[Banshee16]

Name three. Seriously, name three fantasy characters, or, heck, even with your caveat of historical fiction, characters that can be modeled well using a plain jane 3e fighter.

You mean guys like Charlemagne, Beowulf, Sigurd, Ivanhoe, etc.? What about Arn Magnusson?

Now, some of these guys I'd term "Cavaliers"......but that's not a class in core 3E......so, fighter.

Then there's Lancelot, Gawain, and several others of the Knights of the Round Table. Some, such as Galahad would be more like paladins....but Gawain wouldn't have been.....most of them were fighters or cavaliers, without a stitch of spellcasting ability.

Cuchulainn, I assume, would be a barbarian, rather than a fighter.

Myth is full of powerful warriors....

That having been said, I think the game lacks by not having a social class/nobility type aspect, knights, politics, and proper use of strongholds etc. This stuff really wasn't there in 3E, aside from optional supplements. I do think the inclusion of such would have helped to establish fighters as natural leaders. Back in 2nd Ed. it was the fighter who gained the most followers out of anybody. And that meant something. It was cool to have a castle and your own personal army. I kind of missed that.

Even so....unless the fighter is competing against a bard in diplomacy, he can hold his own against commoners. It's not likely he's going to be competing against lvl 15 commoners to command people. Thus, he might be c ompeting against commoners of lvls 1-4, and for that, his limited diplomacy ranks will likely do fine. And that's without even changing any of the rules.

Banshee

 

[billd91]

Subodai, arguably the greatest general the world has known, was carried into battle on a litter. Napoleon was known as "The Little Corporal" and I may be wrong but I don't recall evidence that he was a great hand to hand fighter. Wellington was a notoriously poor shot. I see little evidence that any of these men was a fighter. Yes, they could wield weapons. But that was about it. And classes other than fighters can wield weapons - so why insist that generals need to be fighters? There is, so far as I can tell, little mechanical support for this.

Little support if you change the milieu from fantasy swords and sorcery to real world history without changing any of the details. Guys like Wellington were aristocrats. Napoleon, however, having come up the ranks could easily be a fighter - with a good intelligence and feats/weapons based around artillery and using a whole new set of fighter bonus feats geared around the weapons of 18th-19th century war rather than fantasy.

Trying to build Napoleon as a fighter using the feats in D&D is like buildilng the Empire State Building using the materials of the the Lighthouse of Alexandria. While the materials of the lighthouse may have produced impressive results back in their day, they aren't up to the different environment of Depression-era New York City. New materials have to be added or the comparison becomes not only futile but foolish.

 

[billd91]

Name three. Seriously, name three fantasy characters, or, heck, even with your caveat of historical fiction, characters that can be modeled well using a plain jane 3e fighter.

Most of the principle Greek characters from the Iliad could be done as fighters quite easily.

 

[pemerton]

You mean guys like Charlemagne

<snip>

Then there's Lancelot, Gawain, and several others of the Knights of the Round Table. Some, such as Galahad would be more like paladins....but Gawain wouldn't have been.....most of them were fighters or cavaliers, without a stitch of spellcasting ability.

<snip>

Myth is full of powerful warriors....

I agree that myth is full of powerful warriors. I'm not sure a 3E fighter does them full justice though. As someone noted upthread, the poor Will save is at odds with the mythical presentation of at least the Christian heroes as very strong-willed, able (in most cases) to resist the lures of witches etc.

There is also the issue of Charisma. These historical figures tend to have a lot of it, whereas 3E fighters who are optimised for fighting will tend to have less of it.

I don't think that in core 3E there is a way for a fighter to use Charisma to boost Will saves and to debuff opponents (eg by intimidating them). That sort of feat or class feature would go a long way to letting the 3E fighter model a Knight of the Round Table.