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

[BryonD]

And again I can't think of a game where people get to be masters at all thigns short of exalted. I've already demonstrated that you need to be a level 18 wizard or fighter if your starting dex is 10 to match a competent first level thief at stealth. That isn't mastery, nor is being a good dozen points lower on a d20 roll for things you'd expect to be facing.

And I like that about D20.

But the quote I was responding to seemed concerned that Blackbeard was not a master of quite a list of things. So that was my point and we seem to at least somewhat agree on this.

It really, really doesn't.

I completely agree.

Who said he had to be even the best map reader on his ship? That's why he had a navigator.

Hussar questioned whether someone would sail with the captain. He didn't say "unless he had a good navigator with him". He challenged the idea that anyone would sail with him unless he personally was a good enough map reader.

Intimidate +4? *snicker*

12 hit points? *snort*

Diplomacy +2?!? Bluff +0!


He really needs those social skills. Which he sucks at.

I agree that this example sucks. I already said I didn't think it did a good job and you agreed. So bothering to point out the details just wastes time.

Which means he needed a damn good diplomacy skill to get them to not stab him in the back - after all they were all armed.

Depends. In a seriously gritty e6 type campaign, the example might even be passable. I certainly would still not do it that way, but maybe. But if you are in a mid level traditional D&D campaign, then yes, I agree with you very much.

Honestly, the descriptions of teach to me aren't saying fighter. They are saying Barbarian/Rogue who was raging when he was brought down.

I buy that also.

That's because the fighter might be good at combat. But so is everyone else.

Again, this is just deception. By design and intent every class is very worthwhile "in a fight". The fighter concept is about individual martial combat. It works just fine.

And honestly? Unless you want heavy armour for some reason (as Blackbeard emphatically does not) the fighter is no match for the barbarian at low levels; rage, uncanny dodge, and fast movement are all worth at least a feat each. And the barbarian gets more hit points and more skills per level (even after buying off illiteracy). Part of the problem we're discussing is that wizards (and other primary spellcasters) are insanely fast casting. Another part is that fighters suck. Without heavy armour, barbarians are tougher, fitter, stronger, and generally better at beating people to a pulp. And have more hit points. The very things the fighter is meant to be good at.

You can have a very reasonable debate about the balance between the fighter and the barbarian. I'd actually agree with that issue far more readily than the fighter/wizard "issue".

 

[Raven Crowking]

Umm, would you sail with a captain that can't read a map? He still doesn't have Knowledge Geography. And, would you sail with a captain that has no way of knowing if anyone is lying to him? And, would you sail with a captain that gets washed overboard every time there are high seas? A +2 balance check isn't going to cut it.

Ah, so suddenly you need to roll a skill check to do something ordinary, rather than something extraordinary. I see. And, no doubt, when your players want to map the space they are in, you demand Knowledge Geography checks for them to do so.

Equally obviously, Sense Motive is (or should be) reserved for when there is a real question as to whether or not someone is lying, and anyone with an Intelligence over 6 is likely to be able to guess circumstantially (this is a cargo ship, therefore there is likely to be a cargo, even if Seaman Bob says there is nothing belowdecks) with a relatively high degree of accuracy.

Really, you are making the "There is no Profession: Soapmaker skill in 4e, therefore no one in 4e can make soap" argument here. Pardon the pun, but it just won't wash.



RC

 

[Hussar]

(not to mention that most of the guys sailing with Blackbeard were not exactly asked if they would like to sail with him....)

You do realize that pirate captains were elected democratically don't you? That kidnapping crew was something that the Royal Navy did, not typically pirates. Most pirates were entirely free to come and go. That's why they were pirates.

Hussar questioned whether someone would sail with the captain. He didn't say "unless he had a good navigator with him". He challenged the idea that anyone would sail with him unless he personally was a good enough map reader.

Again, would you sail with a captain that CANNOT read a map? Not, kinda sorta can read a map, but, has absolutely no idea how to read a naval chart that shows all sorts of dangers like sandbars and shallows. And knows things about tides and currents and whatnot?

Map reading is a basic skill of ANY naval captain of the period. You would never dream of having a captain that is incapable of reading a map.

Ah, so suddenly you need to roll a skill check to do something ordinary, rather than something extraordinary. I see. And, no doubt, when your players want to map the space they are in, you demand Knowledge Geography checks for them to do so.

Equally obviously, Sense Motive is (or should be) reserved for when there is a real question as to whether or not someone is lying, and anyone with an Intelligence over 6 is likely to be able to guess circumstantially (this is a cargo ship, therefore there is likely to be a cargo, even if Seaman Bob says there is nothing belowdecks) with a relatively high degree of accuracy.

Really, you are making the "There is no Profession: Soapmaker skill in 4e, therefore no one in 4e can make soap" argument here. Pardon the pun, but it just won't wash.



RC

I'm really not sure where you're going with this RC. Kn Geography is a trained skill. Without at least one rank in it, you cannot do it at all. Again, reading a map on a ship is a basic skill requirement for the captain. I certainly don't want to sail with some guy that cannot figure out a naval chart.

As far as sense motive, again, basic skill for a PIRATE captain. Considering there is no price list for stolen goods, how does the captain know if he's getting screwed over or not? Again, I don't want to sail with a captain that has no idea if 3gp per bale of cotton is a good price or not.

And I really don't want to sail with a pirate captain that is so naive that he would entrust the details to someone else.

But, at the end of the day, we're quibbling here. Even BryonD, who never agrees with me, agrees that this is a piss poor example of a pirate. The why isn't quite so important I suppose.

 

[Hussar]

Rolling back to the main issue.

Really, the evolution of the game has led to this issue, at least IMO.

In AD&D and older versions of the game, there wasn't such a large discrepancy between the usefulness of classes because so little of the stuff outside of combat was codified. A fighter was just as good as a cleric at being a pirate captain (to use the current example) simply because the DM said so. You didn't have skill lists and whatnot getting in the way. The fighter was just as good as any class outside of combat, outside of certain elements that were the purview of the thief (open locks etc.).

Could your character bluff the guard? Play it out and let the DM decide. Could you tell if the merchant was screwing you on the price of wool? Again, play it out and let the DM decide. Your class didn't really matter here.

On the other side of the street, the casters were also MUCH more limited. For one, their spell lists were a heck of a lot shorter. Not just the spells known, but, the actual number of spells available. I just opened my Expert rules and took a look. 12 spells per spell level and that was it. TWELVE spells. That's tiny. There's more 1st level spells in 3e than there were in most of the Expert rules. That has a large impact. Additionally, memorization was problematic and casters lacked the deep resources (scrolls, wands, etc) available to 3e casters. All these things keep the casters largely in check.

2e changed this a bit by giving casters a great deal more spell choices and adding in things like Sphere spells and specialist wizards, which did give them more spells per day. But, the skills rules were still very rudimentary and, really, the fighter was no further back than anyone else - 3 NWP vs 4 NWP to start and NWP didn't really deal with things like bluffing the guard or in-character talky stuff. That was still mostly ad hoc by the DM.

Plus, let's not forget, fighters got a HUGE bump in firepower in 2e with weapon specs and two weapon fighting rules. The monsters, by and large, didn't change that much from 1e to 2e (with giants and dragons being the exception) so the fighter getting a big offensive bump makes a large difference.

But, then 3e comes along. 3e takes away the free form roleplay that characterizes earlier D&D and replaces it with skills. But, the idea that "Fighters only Fight" stays with us and fighters get pretty much no skills related to talking. So, now the fighter is way behind the other classes when it comes to out of combat stuff. And, as the levels go up, the disparity gets even longer.

Suddenly, instead of modeling archtypal big assed dudes as fighters, now we model them with multiclasses to make up for their lack of social skills (or any skills outside of combat really).

Add to that, the monsters get a HUGE bump in firepower compared to AD&D monsters and suddenly the fighter isn't dominating combat so much anymore either. The fighter isn't obliterating demons in a single round, by and large, which was possible in AD&D. And the bad guys are quite capable of ripping the fighter a new one very, very quickly. Having double digit hit points doesn't help when the baddies are doing triple digit damage.

On the other side of the street, all the limitations that casters operated under become much less stringent. Casters gain bonus spells, casters can choose their spells (2/level for wizards) and gain a spell list longer than anything that came before. Additionally, you can add in feats to make your spells even more effective. Plus, the casters gain the possibility of very, very deep resources (10% of PC wealth gains about a HUNDRED scrolls, so much for not having the right spell all the time).

Additionally, the non-casters gain direct access to all the non-combat skills. While clerics might not have lots of skill points to burn, wizards, with their high int, certainly do.

And the power disparity gets very wide. As you go up levels, that disparity gets even wider.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm really not sure where you're going with this RC.

It's pretty simple. Knowledge Geography isn't needed to read a map, you would not require your PCs to have the skill to read a map, and the entire line of reasoning is about as questionable as possible.

And, honestly, I think we both know that.


RC

 

[BryonD]

You do realize that pirate captains were elected democratically don't you? That kidnapping crew was something that the Royal Navy did, not typically pirates. Most pirates were entirely free to come and go. That's why they were pirates.

Actually, that is a myth. I mean, yeah, the navy was really really bad and a lot of pirates "choose" that as a lesser evil, but it was still a miserable life that few people with better options selected for themselves.

but whatever....

Again, would you sail with a captain that CANNOT read a map? Not, kinda sorta can read a map, but, has absolutely no idea how to read a naval chart that shows all sorts of dangers like sandbars and shallows. And knows things about tides and currents and whatnot?

I see Prof: Sailor 5 ranks.

I also really hope that this line of thinking doesn't describe your DMing style.

 

[BryonD]

Even BryonD, who never agrees with me, agrees that this is a piss poor example of a pirate.

Wrong.

I said it was a poor example of Blackbeard.
It is a perfectly valid "pirate".

 

[pemerton]

Some others even have gods taking an active interest in their futures, tipping the scales this way and that...mechanically, that's just having a powerful ally, not a class ability.

Well, isn't this exactly what is up for grabs?

Wizards and clerics, after all, do get powerful divine or similar allies as class abilities: Commune, Contact Other Planes, Summon, Gate etc.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, isn't this exactly what is up for grabs?

Wizards and clerics, after all, do get powerful divine or similar allies as class abilities: Commune, Contact Other Planes, Summon, Gate etc.

Not really- in the cases of heroes (read as "non-spellcaster warriors") of myth who had allies of that sort...well, they had them because of who they were, not what they did. Their parents or the agents of their parents tipped things in their favor, sometimes from before they had reached the age of reason, sometimes interceding as they adventured.

They didn't so much ask for help or bargain for it like wizards & priests, it was their birthright. That isn't really something you put in a class; it's your ancestry in some cases, your connections in others.

IOW, it's one thing to study tomes and scrolls to become "Angel Summoner", and quite another to be the son of the greatest god in the pantheon and the apple of his eye so that he sends help whenever you need it.

If magic as a force were dropped from the game and replaced with wealth, the same issue would crop up between the Noble class and everyone else- why has he got so much gold and we don't? He can solve any problem with GP that it infringes in the roles of other PCs. Etc.

 

[Mort]

Not really- in the cases of heroes (read as "non-spellcaster warriors") of myth who had allies of that sort...well, they had them because of who they were, not what they did. Their parents or the agents of their parents tipped things in their favor, sometimes from before they had reached the age of reason, sometimes interceding as they adventured.

They didn't so much ask for help or bargain for it like wizards & priests, it was their birthright. That isn't really something you put in a class; it's your ancestry in some cases, your connections in others..

Why should "magic" be the only method built into any class to trancend normalcy? While myths can and should be built through roleplaying and campaign progression, why not have a few options, built into the classes themselves, that allow this to be done mechanically (build wise) other than through magic? For example allow an option for rogues to build a network of informants as they go up in level, and/or give fighters some kind of mythic renown score that may provide aid - even in a foreign land. Where the spellcasters can have access to magic the non-spellcasters may have access to other mythic, but not necessarily magical options. Heck this was the way it was done 2e back, with fighters gaining followers etc. and rogues (I believe I don't have access to my older eddition books at the moment) gaining access to a thieves guild etc. through mechanics of the game.

If magic as a force were dropped from the game and replaced with wealth, the same issue would crop up between the Noble class and everyone else- why has he got so much gold and we don't? He can solve any problem with GP that it infringes in the roles of other PCs. Etc.

In 3e spellcasting power is quite a bit more immediate gratification than ability to buy stuff. The mage can do all the stuff himself - usually in 6 seconds or less. If there were more constraints placed on magic - well then there would not be this argument (as has been mentioned repeatedly 3e took many of the constraints of prior edditions away).

That said, your analogy has merit and it kind of illustrates the point. 3e takes pains to equalize wealth between the classes as levels progress - and stresses over and over that one must watch the unequal distribution of wealth between PCs because it can lead to a serious power differential (note I'm not arguing it should never be done, simply that there are consequences that need to be kept in mind).

Yet the progression of the wizard vs. the fighter as levels increase is treated as equal, despite the fact that the wizard gains exponentially more abilities and options. A level 18 fighter and a level 18 mage are treated as the same CR rating for ex. when clearly this is not remotely the case.

Essentially, going with your analogy, the classes are "equal" well except the fact that by mid-high levels some have 1000x the gold of the other classes (but we'll pretend that makes no difference).

And on another note: what exactly is wrong with giving high level fighters "mythic" options beyond "I hit it pretty hard?" Options could be "leader of men" or "mythic combatant" or "slayer of beasts" (with appropriate bonuses) essentially stuff that truly suits a high level fighter but may/or may not be magical depending on the flavor of the campaign. I suppose that that's what prestige classes/multi-class options are for, and they work ok for the purpose. But it irks me that the mage doesn't really need prestige classes or multiclassing (heck most multi-class options are bad choices for the mage) to do his schtick while the fighter can't get far beyond "big bruiser" without using means other than progression in fighter levels.