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

[Fifth Element]

This is sounding almost like a variation on the "no true Scotsman" argument; if the person in question has abilities beyond being able to fight in decent armor and with a sword, "they can't really be a fighter, they have to be something more".

That's based on the fact that 3E fighters are really good at fighting with armor and a sword, but little else. And if they invest their feats to make them a bit good at something else, they're no longer really good at fighting with armor and a sword.

 

[billd91]

That's based on the fact that 3E fighters are really good at fighting with armor and a sword, but little else. And if they invest their feats to make them a bit good at something else, they're no longer really good at fighting with armor and a sword.

Depends. How many feats do you think it takes to be really good at fighting with armor and a sword?

 

[Fifth Element]

Depends. How many feats do you think it takes to be really good at fighting with armor and a sword?

Going on the assumption that fighters need their feats to even keep up with buffy clerics or what have you at higher levels (a fairly common position I think), then any feat invested in Skill Focus or what have you detracts from their fighty ability.

But rogues get to their thing in combat and still have many options outside of combat, even if they don't invest their resources heavily there. Same with the casters. Fighters are the most restricted in this regard. Invest too much in out-of-combat effectiveness and you've lost your in-combat effectiveness. Other classes do not face this choice to nearly the same degree.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's as if nobody ever heard of dual-classing/multiclassing/gestalting...

Oh, we have. But these lead to the same fundamental result - the way to make a fighter able to do the sort of things a fighter ought to be able to do is ... not be a fighter. And as even medium BAB classes are pretty good at fighting, this underlines the problem in 3.X. (In 2e of course, fighters are leaders).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Oh, we have. But these lead to the same fundamental result - the way to make a fighter able to do the sort of things a fighter ought to be able to do is ... not be a fighter. And as even medium BAB classes are pretty good at fighting, this underlines the problem in 3.X. (In 2e of course, fighters are leaders).

A fighter should be able to fight. End of story. Everything else is gravy.

Sure, you can assert that a fighter should be able to lead, but leadership is a rarer commodity than fighting skill. You need only to look at the ranks of a military organization to get an inkling of how rare it is.

Or look at pro sports, into which we have a much better window. Many athletes try the fields of coaching or management after their playing days are over, but few have any true success. Even great ones fail to translate their on-field experience into sideline success. That's because the ability to do something does not necessarily translate into the ability to train others; to lead.

 

[Fifth Element]

A fighter should be able to fight. End of story. Everything else is gravy.

But why should that only apply to fighters? Shouldn't a rogue be happy with his sneaky skills? Why should he be able to do buckets of damage with his sneak attack as well? Why should he be able to put skill points in to so many different things other than being sneaky?

And this doesn't work at all with casters. Even if all casters could do it cast, the variety of things they can do simply by casting is vast compared to the range of "swing a weapon".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But why should that only apply to fighters? Shouldn't a rogue be happy with his sneaky skills? Why should he be able to do buckets of damage with his sneak attack as well? Why should he be able to put skill points in to so many different things other than being sneaky?

In the rogue's case, killing quickly is part of the expected skillset, since- absent an assassin class- that is the class expected to take up that role.

And this doesn't work at all with casters. Even if all casters could do it cast, the variety of things they can do simply by casting is vast compared to the range of "swing a weapon".

So what?

Look at the fiction that inspired the games and you'll find that spellcasters of all cultures were able to do things beyond the ken of mortal men: heal with a touch, fly, become invisible, summon otherplanar beings, turn sticks to snakes, start fires without fuel. It's the nature of spellcasting.

Are there noncasters in myth & legend that can do some of this stuff? Sure- some of which is explained by their supernatural nature or the aid of others- but they're the exception rather than the rule. In contrast, ALL spellcasters are like this.

 

[Fifth Element]

In the rogue's case, killing quickly is part of the expected skillset, since- absent an assassin class- that is the class expected to take up that role.

If you expect it to, sure. And if you expect the fighter only to fight, then that's what you'd expect as well. But what if you don't expect that from either class?

That is, if this happens to meet your expectations, you won't see a problem. But each player's expectations are not the same, and there's a quite a wide range of reasonable expectations here. For example, if you look at the definition of the word 'rogue', it in no way implies killing quickly as a part of it. Especially if you know the class developed from the 'thief', another term which does not include quick murder.

Are there noncasters in myth & legend that can do some of this stuff? Sure- some of which is explained by their supernatural nature or the aid of others- but they're the exception rather than the rule. In contrast, ALL spellcasters are like this.

And that's great, for fiction.

 

[billd91]

Going on the assumption that fighters need their feats to even keep up with buffy clerics or what have you at higher levels (a fairly common position I think), then any feat invested in Skill Focus or what have you detracts from their fighty ability.

But rogues get to their thing in combat and still have many options outside of combat, even if they don't invest their resources heavily there. Same with the casters. Fighters are the most restricted in this regard. Invest too much in out-of-combat effectiveness and you've lost your in-combat effectiveness. Other classes do not face this choice to nearly the same degree.

So your answer is "all of them?" With 11 bonus feats over 20 levels, the fighter doesn't have even one of his 7 general feats to spare?

 

[BryonD]

Going on the assumption that fighters need their feats to even keep up with buffy clerics or what have you at higher levels (a fairly common position I think)

I'd not agree that is a common position.

I *would* agree it is a common position if you only talked to people who have significant issues with 3E. But you have to wonder about the quality of the understanding that would bring.