Do you read history? I read quite a bit. I have spent a great deal of time reading about knights and medieval warriors.
They trained from a young age to fight. They didn't see battle for a long time, but because they had sparred, trained with many different weapons, trained to fight on horseback, and learned various tactics and strategies for fighting they were very prepared when they stepped on a real battlefield. So they might live long enough to gain the practical experience of the battlefield.
These men were not the type of men to die easily even to a more skilled warrior. Their training very much prepared them for the battlefield. It was nothing like modern day school.
A single crossbow bolt, longbow arrow, or even a short bow arrow would suffice in the scenario.
I view the training a wizard or fighter have as I do the training of those medieval knights. They have spent much of their life training in weapons and armor, sparring, and practicing combat maneuvers. When they start adventuring, they are special operations soldiers just out of bootcamp. A higher class of indvidual than your standard guard. And they have been rigrously trained so they will not die in the first battle they enter to a single hit.
Are we saying that the Wizard is as equall trained in the skills of martial arts as the fighter? If this is true does not the not make the Wizard as homogenous as the fighter. Thus stating they are trained the exact same? Based on your statement I can gather that is what you are saying.
No one sends a boy on the battlefield if he isn't trained to do the job expected of him. I guarantee you that a 12 year old boy trained to be a knight and that was a knight's squire would beat a 20 year old modern man of today in a fight. He would match up in hand to hand against fairly advanced modern hand to hand warriors due to the amount of training he would have received in arms by the age of 12.
Actually according to history this occurred on many battlefields. The Civil War was a great example of this occurance. And over time it has happened in many events where an untrained and unskilled person was given a weapon and sent on the field. The term conscript was used for this, also draft.
The idea of a 12 year old medieval boy matching vs a 20 year old modern day man is a situation in which you have left out the most imporant part. You have left out their level of skill and the equipment involved. If we were to consider all things being equal that might be different. If this is your argument then I would state the 20 year old would soundly beat the 12 year old based on 8 years of difference in experience. Thus meaning he has seen more war, more battle, more adventure.
So this is a matter of how we view an adventurer's young life. To me a person starting out on an adventure is the apprentice of a stronger wizard or fighter who would not think of letting a student go on their first adventure unless they were fairly certain they would be able to survive.
I think 4E does a better job of simulating the amount of training that a young adventurer would have.
It does simulate the amount of training that a young freshly trained out of boot camp military trained individual might be. However it does not reflect the vast majority of what you find in fantasy stories/novels.
What you just described would be a non-combat sage, not a wizard.
What I described was what you find in a novel. Frodo wasn't trained, yet he survived many battles. Nor was Samwise.
A 4E wizard is a character that spent much of his life mastering the art of magic and how to wield it in combat. That's how I envision the wizard.
How does this make him able to take a knife to the heart or throat? I fail to see how this makes him equal to the fighter in combat. Unless we consider your above statement about wizards and fighters.
So no, they would not be very old. That is the thinking of a modern person. Not a person from the type of tech level you would find in DnD times.
The average life span of those times was 40. Thus making 12 to 14 as middle aged or very close.
Are you seriously asking me this? All 3E cleric spells were based on wisdom as the prime spellcasting statistic. If you did not focus on and enhance your wisdom, you gimped your character and you scaled badly.
Dependent upon focus once did not have to exclusively build based on wisdom. In fact many who were hunters of undead did not.
Yes, you could choose spells that blast, but you wouldn't be anywhere near the AoE master that a wizard was. If you were the only cleric in the party, you were needed to heal. If you didn't play this way, then I don't know how you survived high level encounters.
Yes you are correct you would not be the AoE master of the wizard. However potions are a wonderful thing as are wands. You can survive a lot if you put your mind to work.
How did your paladin play like a Spartan without having high strength? What did he do exactly? I don't even know what you're talking about. In 3E high strength meant more damage and a better chance to hit. How did your paladin not focus on strength and still be an effective warrior? He does bonus damage based on strength. He swings based on strength. His second focus stat would be Charisma.
Moderately armored, Weapon Finesse, and a good dex and strength rather than just high strength. Remember in the movie they used team tactics, short spears, and short swords. Flanking gave bonuses to hit, Power Attack when you can as well for added damage.
This is how the 3E paladin worked. Did you make some kind of less effective paladin that focused on other stats?
This is how the 3E paladin worked for you. However what I built was a person who driven by zeal for their god fougth with the heart of a lion. Stood for what she believed in, and fought beside her allies with shield and blade.
