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

[pawsplay]

Oops, I forgot to give Edward his 1st level Fighter feat. Let's go with Weapon Focus (cutlass).

Blackbeard the Pirate
Human Fighter 9
Str 14, Dex 10, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 12
Hp 81
Feats: Skill Focus (Profession[Sailor]), Negotiator, Alertness, Skill Focus (Intimidate), Leadership, W Focus (Cutlass), W Spec (cutlass), Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Quick Draw
Skils: Appraise +2, Balance +3, Climb +4, Diplomacy +4, Intimidate +16, Knowledge (Geography) +2, Listen +3, Profession (Sailor) +5, Sense Motive +3, Spot +3, Survival +4, Swim +4

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Another observation: you might not need to spend skill points on Swim. Most people, including sailors, didn't know how to swim. And most of those who did, didn't do it well.

 

[pawsplay]

Another observation: you might not need to spend skill points on Swim. Most people, including sailors, didn't know how to swim. And most of those who did, didn't do it well.

True, I just wanted to make sure Edward here would die of five pistol wounds and at least twenty saber cuts, and not from falling overboard.

 

[pemerton]

A more "pure" example of a fighter to test might be the likes of Beowulf, King Arthur, Charlemange, Roland, Achilles and similar characters. Can even these live up the expectation of "fighter" without having to dip into other classes to express their out-of-combat skills or abilities?

The first three are great kings - two legendary, one historical although well-embellished by fiction.

Presenting a King of the Geats, King Arthur or Charlemagne without real ability in Diplomacy, Insight/Sense Motive and in the latter two cases also Riding and Religious Knowledge wouldn't strke me as very plausible. Depending on how your particular game handles it they might also need ability in History/Genealogy/Heraldry.

Some of this can be handled by giving them raw mental abilities that wouldn't be available to PC fighters under points-buy rules. I'm not sure whether or not that resolves the issue, though.

 

[Bluenose]

A more "pure" example of a fighter to test might be the likes of Beowulf, King Arthur, Charlemange, Roland, Achilles and similar characters. Can even these live up the expectation of "fighter" without having to dip into other classes to express their out-of-combat skills or abilities?

Beowulf has some pretty supernatural abilities. Diving down to Grendel's underwater lair and remaining there for quite some time suggests he could breathe water, beating Grendel with his bare hands isn't exactly normal. Maybe a fighter.

Roland is surely a Paladin, isn't he? One of the prototypes for the class.

Achilles is perfectly solid as a fighter. Except for the slight problem of his invulnerability to weapons, unless you can hit his heel.

King Arthur might be. Note though that he's famous for his courtesy, his hospitality, the splendour of his court, he's a succesful general, a law-giver, diplomat, and administrator as well as a pretty solid warrior in his own right. Some of those of course he develops over the course of his reign, rather than having them from the start. Charlemagne is actually quite similar to Arthur, another who is a competent warrior but better known for kingship.

It's notable that a lot of elite warriors (Knight, Samurai, Ghulam, Yeni-Ceri, etc) train from youth and are expected to be capable of a lot more than just fighting. Egil Skallagrimson, poet extraordinaire and highly skilled warrior, is a Icelandic example.

 

[BryonD]

Profession Sailor does not allow you to read a map according to the rules. Now, since we're bringing in DMing style, I changed the rules and allowed Profession Sailor to do much more than simply let me make xdx sp/time period, which is what the rules say.

But, thanks for the cheap shot. If you want to discuss BryonD&D, I'm more than willing to start a new thread, but, I thought we were actually discussing the rules and not what you think they are.

I'd say that is missing the forest for the trees.

To me, and I'd daresay anyone else I've ever gamed with, the ability to "make xdx sp/time period" implies that the character actually has the associated competencies that contribute to that earning. To go through the rules and detail every skill that is associated with every profession skill would be a massive waste of space, as well as a bit of an insult to the DM.

I mean, seriously, are you claiming that the skill is supposed to represent a supernatural capacity to generate revenue without actually doing anything?

And that is where you started your case. You said that people would not want to sail with this guy.

If you want to call it BryonD&D, fine. But it is also everygooddmeverD&D.

Good DMs are not slaves to the space limits of the rule books and don't demand that writers of the books explain obvious cause and effect matters.

 

[BryonD]

Diving down to Grendel's underwater lair and remaining there for quite some time suggests he could breathe water

You are the first person I have ever heard suggest that he was able to breathe water. The assumption that he simply held his breath a really, really long time is pretty standard.

Not that a 1-20 fighter can hold his breath that long. But that isn't really relevant because one could very easily argue that Beowulf is the icon of "epic" fighter.

Anyone can hold their breath. Beowulf does something anyone can do, just to epic proportions.

And, really, I don't think that adds anything to the wizard / warrior debate. He just certainly doesn't need to be assumed to have a water breathing ability.

I also really liked the 13th warrior spin on it in which he swims down to a cave and holding his breath was just the impression the story teller gets from the sideline.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd say that is missing the forest for the trees.

Yup. And obviously so.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]: I am still waiting to hear if you tell your players that their characters need Knowledge Geography to read a map.

I'm betting that you do not. I'm betting that you didn't answer that because we both know you do not.

That entire line of argument is wrong; it is pretty easily established that you can make a fighter (even if he happens to be a pirate) using the fighter class.


RC

 

[Votan]

Sadly, I have read little. Most of my knowledge in the area comes from reading NON-fiction books about the Age of Sail, including a big stack of books on pirates I read in high school for my history report on the Age of Piracy.

So, here's my challenge to you. Stat me Blackbeard's crew. 2nd level human warriors.

Why can't they be 2nd level rogues? Or Warrior 1/Expert 1?

The issue with Pirates, which makes them a bad example, is that they are classes that are focused on a highly skilled profession (sailing in the age of sail was an incredible mix of technology and skill). They need skills like use rope because keeping a sailing ship going during a storm (where deaths among the crew were no uncommon) required skill checks were taking a 10 wasn't really feasible.

But a highly skilled group of people who happen to be good at dirty fighting sounds a lot like rogues.

Pirates also seem to get extremely worried when they meet actual soldiers in any numbers (which would be the expected reaction to a gang of rogues meeting a company of fighters) and often try to use tricky to solve this (which, given the skills available to the fighters, is just the natural course of events).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The issue with Pirates, which makes them a bad example, is that they are classes that are focused on a highly skilled professio...

"Pirate" is a job description, like "assassin", and if you were actually able to do a "job skills" survey for them, you'd find they had members represented by a variety of classes...probably a lot of them multiclassed...with a healthy dollop of rogue.