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

[Fifth Element]

Does he pick locks? Can he tumble? Does he backstab? Does he have evasion? A good Will save? Evasion?

No, no?, hell yes, who knows?, maybe? and no idea.

Not all 3E rogues pick locks. Most do, but there's no requirement to spend their skill points there. They have a very high degree of flexibility as to what skills they're good at.

Does a pirate sneak attack? I wouldn't think this would be a question.

Does he have high hit points? Does he have a high Intimidate? Is he proficient with martial weapons? does he have a high Fortitude save?

Probably, yes, quite possibly not, and probably.

What weapons was he known to use? Rogues are proficient with all simple weapons, hand crossbows and shortswords. What is a cutlass? It can be finessed, so presumably it's a short sword? Hmm...Stormwrack says it's a martial weapon. No problem, he took a Weapon Proficiency feat.

Intimidate is a rogue class skill as well, so that doesn't help. Want more hit points? Give him Improved Toughness and a high Constitution.

He's not a Rogue, he's a Fighter.

Does he wear heavy armor and use a shield? Does he wield heavy weapons?

Historical figures, even fictional characters, rarely fit neatly into the D&D class system. There's a variety of ways you could model them, and in most cases there's no obvious answer.

 

[BryonD]

I've come to realize that this will yet again devolve into another discussion of The Edition That Shalt Not Be Criticised. It's a shame we cannot actually talk about possible issues with the game that have been around just about as long as I've been alive without people resorting to cheap pedantry and ad hominem attacks.

That is a bunch of bull.

There are plenty of issues with 3E and I'd happily debate them.

Quite simply, there are major flaws in your argument. You can try to dust that under the rug with claims of personal attacks and "Shalt Nots", but the flaws in the actual substance don't go away.

 

[Hussar]

That is a bunch of bull.

There are plenty of issues with 3E and I'd happily debate them.

Quite simply, there are major flaws in your argument. You can try to dust that under the rug with claims of personal attacks and "Shalt Nots", but the flaws in the actual substance don't go away.

Yes, I know, pesky things like actually reading the rules are such huge flaws in the argument.

Look, it's been shown pretty well that a fighter makes a really, really poor Pirate Captain. I didn't do that, Pawsplay put it up. We have a pirate captain that can't sail, can't navigate, can't tell when other pirates are lying to him and can barely convince his own grandmother to piddle on him if he was on fire.

This is a REALLY bad pirate captain.

Now, your argument boils down to a one true scotsman fallacy where a "good" DM faced with mechanics that do not resolve any of the issues put forth here would simply magically create the mechanics needed and everything would come up roses. If that works for you, then great. Fantastic.

To be honest, that's pretty much exactly what I did do when I ran naval campaigns- expand the Profession skill to cover a number of the issues brough up here and then give all classes Profession as a class skill. But, again, we're not discussing my game or your game, we're discussing what the game ACTUALLY says.

-------

Sigh, I must be tired. I'll be unsubscribing from this one now because I refuse to get sucked back into a dead end conversation that I know will not go anywhere.

 

[NoWayJose]

Secondly, this isn't really a hypothetical like the Jump Cards. Fighters flat out, as shown above, DON'T have enough skill points to become effective pirate captains. They barely qualify as pirates in the first place and most other classes make better pirates than the one class that comes to mind (possibly barring rogues, I could see the arguement there). But, if a pirate isn't a fighter, what exactly is he? Expert? Really?

I didn't intend to make it out as a 3e vs 4e debate. I only beseeched that whatever line of thinking is used to justify or tolerate limitations and inconsistencies where 4E metagame meets fiction, then you can use that same line of thinking to respect the 3E paradigm.

And one 3E paradigm is that PCs are first and foremost adventurers, not professional 24/7 pirates.

If D&D was 99% about piracy adventures on the high seas, then maybe questions of skill points per class would arise, but D&D is not about pirates or any other professional career choice, so whether it's true or not that fighters make for bad pirate captains is irrelevant, I think.

To take an extreme example, it's like saying that wizards and warriors are not balanced, because fighters don't have enough skill points for basket weaving.

So then you could say that "Well, it's not about pirates or basket weaving specifically", and I'd say, "That's fine, but D&D is not about PCs accurately modelling ANY profession whatosever... The question is about balance issues between *adventuring* wizards vs *adventuring* warriors".

 

[billd91]

Y'know what? That's enough for me. This is getting personal, and I've come to realize that this will yet again devolve into another discussion of The Edition That Shalt Not Be Criticised. It's a shame we cannot actually talk about possible issues with the game that have been around just about as long as I've been alive without people resorting to cheap pedantry and ad hominem attacks.

But, then again, that's what I should expect I suppose.

Since when has 3e ever been the edition that shall not be criticized on ENWorld? It has always been criticized here and probably always will be. It has also always been supported here by people who can use the rules with flexibility without always having to assume the character being built has to be super-optimized.

What the problem here is application of the rules in that (and other) editions. I think your apparent insistence that Profession (sailor) can't be used to actually sail anything is a bit bizarre and smacks of too rigid adherence to the RAW rather than good DM sense. I also think your insistence that a pirate captain needs to have certain skills and at levels you think are appropriate implies that our alternate conceptions of how a pirate captain could be constructed (or even complemented by other specialists in the crew) must be wrong. There's plenty of room to make a believable pirate within the rules, as a fighter, and have him be elected by his crew as captain.

 

[pawsplay]

Yes, I know, pesky things like actually reading the rules are such huge flaws in the argument.

Look, it's been shown pretty well that a fighter makes a really, really poor Pirate Captain. I didn't do that, Pawsplay put it up. We have a pirate captain that can't sail, can't navigate, can't tell when other pirates are lying to him and can barely convince his own grandmother to piddle on him if he was on fire.

This is a REALLY bad pirate captain.

Look, it's been shown pretty well that a fighter makes a really, really poor Pirate Captain. I didn't do that, Pawsplay put it up. We have a pirate captain that can't sail, can't navigate, can't tell when other pirates are lying to him and can barely convince his own grandmother to piddle on him if he was on fire.

This is a REALLY bad pirate captain.

I was just going to ignore your assertions, but you have failed to leave the thread as promised, so I will rebut you. You are wrong. He is a really good captain. He is very tough, he has a ridiculously high Intimidate, and he can regularly beat the skill DCs of anything you are likely to throw his way. Plus, he closely follows the benchmarks set in Stormwrack, so if he's a bad pirate captain, apparently MOST captains are bad captains. He's not a bad captain any more than someone with a Profession (Sailor) skill of 15+ is a good one, or a Ranger with Survival +18 is a pirate captain at all.

"Doesn't have a bonus of 25+ in one skill," is not "really bad pirate captain." Being a pirate captain simply does not require really high skill totals. The notion that being decent at a non-dragon-slaying vocation requires ever-escalating skill totals is bizarre and absurd. Apart from Intimidate, the only social skills a pirate captain really needs are the ones he uses on his own crew, for the most part Friendly 1st through 4th level Warriors with the occasional Rogue or Expert thrown in. He is as good a sailor as most of his crew, and they are the ones doing the sailoring.

The assertions you make about his competence are ridiculous. Simply having a +2 to +5 bonus in a particular skill puts you well above most NPCs. The fact that he doesn't have a high Diplomacy is consistent with what he is. As I said in the first place, he is a Fighter. Most of his skill use is very mundane. You seem to be claiming that he needs to be exceptionally accomplished in a half dozen skills just to be competent at a job performed by real people in the real world.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

Blackbeard the Pirate
Human Fighter 9

Care to justify that? Teach wasn't on the list of great pirates. Or great warriors. Yes, he was big and imposing. But level 9 is pretty massive.

Str 14, Dex 10, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 12

I'll buy that.

Feats: Skill Focus (Profession[Sailor]), Negotiator, Alertness, Skill Focus (Intimidate), Leadership, W Focus (Cutlass), W Spec (cutlass), Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Quick Draw

Skill Focus (twice), Negotiator, Alertness. As a L9 fighter you get five bonus feats. And you've just spent four (!) on boosting your skills. The only one of these that isn't forced on you by choosing a class that doesn't fit and forces you to bend over backwards is your Intimidate. Assume you want to keep the massive intimidate. That means you've gained two feats (weapon focus/spec) from your class and poured three feats into shoring up the problems of picking a very bad class for the job - for an effective 22 skill points at cross class rates. Sounds like a lot? A level 9 Barbarian would have 24 more skill points (never mind that one of the skills you want, Listen, isn't cross class for Barbarians). 2 more skill points makes the Barbarian literate. And in exchange for weapon focus and specialisation you gain: 10 Hit points (+18 when raging), Improved Uncanny Dodge, Fast Movement, DR 1, and three rages/day. All round better for the guy who takes a lot of killing than your version especially as your excuse for picking fighter is the BAB and hit points. In short despite your bending over backwards, the barbarian makes a better version of your version of Teach than the fighter.

And why is this? It's because the fighter isn't a general big burly guy who's good at beating things up. That would be the barbarian. The fighter is the monomaniac weapons specialist who eats with his sword and sleeps with his sword and is dedicated to tricks with his weapons to the exclusion of all else. This is a 3.X issue rather than a D&D issue. (The lack of plot power for non casters is a general issue and one that's been noticed for apparently longer than I've been alive).

And for the record, Pawsplay is right. Knowledge (Geography) isn't the mapreading skill. It's the skill to not need to read a map. Regrettably, apparently Stormwrack changed this and Paizo kept it on as quoted by Fifth Element. So if you're using the full 3.X rules, Hussar is right.

Also for the record, I don't feel disempowered by not always being able to spam my best moves. I do feel disempowered by being baseline incompetent. 1e did not have this problem.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The question is about balance issues between *adventuring* wizards vs *adventuring* warriors".

And specifically, and importantly, and still being goddamned ignored, about adventuring wizards and adventuring warriors adventuring together.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Funny how "more information" means skipping over the bits that counter your argument though.

Except that they do not.

Since you're taking me to such task for enforcing using KN Geography skills to read charts, I wonder why you are playing so fast and loose with the other skills?

No idea what you're talking about here.

Y'know what? That's enough for me. This is getting personal, and I've come to realize that this will yet again devolve into another discussion of The Edition That Shalt Not Be Criticised.

Confused again.

You can criticize 3e all you want; I have lots of criticisms about 3e myself. So many that I have gone to enormous lengths to try to resolve them to my own personal satisfaction. I've got criticisms of every edition that's ever been.

As someone wiser than I said, quite simply, there are major flaws in your argument. You can try to dust that under the rug with claims of personal attacks and "Shalt Nots", but the flaws in the actual substance don't go away.

It's a shame we cannot actually talk about possible issues with the game that have been around just about as long as I've been alive without people resorting to cheap pedantry and ad hominem attacks.

That I agree with.

But, then again, that's what I should expect I suppose.

That I do not.

Some passages potentially relevant to the sidebar.

Thanks, 5th.

Page 24 talks about "Ships in strange waters", but the quote on page 81 (Knowledge (geography) covers the rare art of piloting and navigation—knowing where you are, where you’re going, and how to get there from here.) seems to extend that to all waters. OTOH, neither quote indicates that a person without Knowledge (geography) cannot read a naval chart; simply that they lack the necessary skills to turn that ability to read into an ability to set a course by said chart.

When we look at page 82, we discover that "A captain is usually an expert (or multiclass expert), bard, fighter, paladin, or rogue with at least 7 to 10 ranks in Profession (sailor), 4 to 7 ranks in Knowledge (geography), 2 to 4 ranks in Knowledge (nature) or Survival, and 2 to 4 ranks in an interaction skill such as Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate.", which seems to make explicit that a captain can be a fighter.....that, in fact, a fighter is one of the classes which is usual for that position.

So, if we appeal to the authority of Stormwrack, we see that Blackbeard can indeed be a fighter.


RC

 

[Neonchameleon]

And specifically, and importantly, and still being goddamned ignored, about adventuring wizards and adventuring warriors adventuring together.

Asked and answered about 100 pages back.

Normally wizards take time to cast spells. Warriors win once they get to sword range. The rest of the time you're playing Ars Magica with Wizars winning - these cases almost always have wizard protagonists.

I was just going to ignore your assertions, but you have failed to leave the thread as promised, so I will rebut you. You are wrong. He is a really good captain. He is very tough, he has a ridiculously high Intimidate, and he can regularly beat the skill DCs of anything you are likely to throw his way.

You did that through brute force. At level 9 he should be about the threat on his own that a Young Adult Dragon is. (Young Adult White 8, Young Adult Black 9). Give me 20 levels of fighter and I'll represent the skills of almost anyone in the real world - but that doesn't mean this is an accurate way to do it.

Plus, he closely follows the benchmarks set in Stormwrack,

You mean other than the Profession(Sailor) one? At least 7-10 ranks. vs at total score of +5. And for the rest he's at the bottom of the range every time. Or the Knowledge(geography) one? 4-7 ranks vs a total score of +2.

He's a good captain as long as he doesn't have to do anything with a ship.

so if he's a bad pirate captain, apparently MOST captains are bad captains.

Or they actually follow the guidance in Stormwrack rather than think that the most important part of being a pirate captain is the ability to beat people over the head.

He's not a bad captain any more than someone with a Profession (Sailor) skill of 15+ is a good one,

He'd be a superb captain's mate. Maybe not a captain - doesn't have the breadth. But when it comes to handling the boat he'd be incredible.

or a Ranger with Survival +18 is a pirate captain at all.

Nice fisherman and weather reader you've got there.

"Doesn't have a bonus of 25+ in one skill," is not "really bad pirate captain." Being a pirate captain simply does not require really high skill totals.

No. It doesn't. The bar isn't that high. But you didn't meet the Stormwrack ones.

For the record I'd run Teach as Rogue 2/Barbarian 4 or Rogue 3/Barbarian 3. Big and burly there and takes a lot of killing - and more than enough skill points (and the Leadership feat). And I'd say that I had more than enough levels there.

The assertions you make about his competence are ridiculous. Simply having a +2 to +5 bonus in a particular skill puts you well above most NPCs.

That would be most NPCs who don't do that job.

As I said in the first place, he is a Fighter.

Oh no he isn't!

This is feeling like a pantomime. You are claiming that he is a fighter and inferring that he needs an absurd real world level (9) and low-ish skills from that. The rest of us are starting with the view that he is a pirate captain and doesn't have an absurd real world level and pointing out that fighter is not fit for purpose.

You seem to be claiming that he needs to be exceptionally accomplished in a half dozen skills just to be competent at a job performed by real people in the real world.

An average first level commoner who is a professional sailor probably has a Profession (sailing) score of +4 - and 8 more skill points to scatter around on things like Swim, Balance, Knowledge (geography), and the works. Based on that your Teach is not exceptionally accomplished. He's only slightly more accomplished at anything other than diplomacy than a smart swab who grew up round boats.

Edit: From RC's post above

So, if we appeal to the authority of Stormwrack, we see that Blackbeard can indeed be a fighter.

He can be a multiclass fighter. But Fighters do not have the profession skill on their class list. Which means they need to buy ranks in Profession at half speed. To reach the 7 required ranks they need to be level (2*7)-3=11. A fighter can not qualify as a Stormwrack captain before level 11. So for all the fluff allows it, the rules do not. This is because the skills cripple the fighter's attempts to be what a fighter should be.

Now if you were to tell me a 4e fighter or a 1e fighter was a captain I wouldn't be at all surprised. It's just that the 3e fighter class is buggy.