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

[Raven Crowking]

The town generation rules help give you a baseline: 99% of the world is a Commoner 1. A Commoner 1 represents a "normal person." A Warrior 1 represents a "trained combatant" (probably the equivalent of militia members). Aristocrats, Experts, and Adepts are trained specialists in more esoteric things, but they're normal people with some specialized training, too.

You know, I would truly like to accept that as a "normal man" standard, except, under that paradigm, the average person lacks the skills to actually do their job. Especially as the game evolved, and the "Wahoo!" element got out of control.

Also, I think that 3e started the problem of "The guards in the town scale based on the level of the PCs; here's some guidelines" that, for my tastes, 4e is mired in. This also makes it difficult to accept the 3e DMG demographics as being accurate.

If the world scales in the way the 3e DMG suggests, then Pawsplay's Blackbeard suddenly becomes a great pirate captain. He is clearly well above the average man bar. But that bar seems to shift, doesn't it, so that suddenly we hear that Blackbeard is simply not good enough to hold his own.

The 3e demographics are not compatable with the 3e "This is what you are expected to encounter at your level". Something has to give. That's what comes of saying, "This is an average guy", then not assuming that this average remains viable throughout game play.


RC

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Basically, to put things into perspective.

Accusing the fighter of basic incompetence (a premise which many people here disagree with completely, so you shouldn't state that as a fact)

*I* didn't state it as fact. I repeated what *others* were arguing, WITHOUT stating which "side" I come out on. Don't put words in my mouth.

EDIT: I just noticed your edit. Thank you for not putting words in my mouth.

might seem reasonable until contrasted with a more relevant and prevalent flaw. I believe the obsession over piracy is nitpicking and, as they say, mental masturbation, relatively speaking to the larger question of the OP.

I agree that the pirate captain subtopic is needlessly arcane and nitpicky. This all smacks of schoolyard my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad aurochs dung.

I fail to see how your beef with 4e wizards is a "more prevalent" flaw.

Furthermore, my post was completely on-topic and I am permitted to change the subject to something I feel is more relevant. I believe it should be obvious to you that not everyone is somehow ethically obligated to remain fixated on the topic at hand until given permission otherwise.

I never said you weren't allowed to change the subject, or implied that anyone's permission is required. This thread has done it countless times. If you feel that slamming the 4e treatment of the wizard class is "more relevant" then that's your perogative. But it smacks of the same kind of edition warring that the pro-3.x crowd is accusing the fighter-bashers of.

Well, I think your interpretation is rather unfair, to be honest.

If I wanted to start an edition war, why did I specificaly state that "neither 3E nor 4E gets it completely right" -- and why did you remove it from the quote in your post?

Feel free to think it unfair all you like. I'm not telling you what to think.

I removed the latter part of your post from my quote because it wasn't relevant to my point, and seemed like a disingenuous afterthought attempt to make it seem like you weren't "picking on" an edition. That was my interpretation anyway. If that wasn't your intent, I guess I misread you.

Though I do disagree with your analysis of 4e wizards, I have no intention of debating it because it really comes down to playstyle preferences and individual interpretation of what makes a given archetype most resemble its literary equivalent.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm still perplexed by this. Some people are faulting 3E for not giving fighters the skill points they need to be as good a pirate as the player imagines the PC should be.

I have a parallel problem. I fault 4E for not giving wizards the powers they need to be as versatile a spellcaster as I imagine the PC should be.

Hah!

But mine related to 4e spellcasting is slightly different. I consider the "Can do everything in 6 seconds" wizard largely a creation of D&D. And not something the wizard needs. I also am fully behind making magic expensive - it's a far better fit IME for most protagonist-casters. But there is one huge place where WoTC dropped the ball with casters. Not the combat mechanics (which I think are fine) but there should be at least five times more rituals than there are. Gandalf didn't just blast people with fire. He wielded Glamdring. Or used his lore. Magic is in most fiction I know powerful but hard and expensive. Not quick, easy, and takes six seconds. Rituals really fit the bill here in a way neither 3.X or 4e mages do.

 

[NoWayJose]

I removed the latter part of your post from my quote because it wasn't relevant to my point, and seemed like a disingenuous afterthought attempt to make it seem like you weren't "picking on" an edition. That was my interpretation anyway. If that wasn't your intent, I guess I misread you.

Yes, I feel you misread me.

Though I do disagree with your analysis of 4e wizards, I have no intention of debating it because it really comes down to playstyle preferences and individual interpretation of what makes a given archetype most resemble its literary equivalent.

That's OK. Firstly, I try to be careful to write in a subjective sense as to not to upset people who fret about edition wars. Secondly, I have no intention of debating your intention to debate the 4e wizard, I only debated your intentions to debate my intention to change the subject of the topic at hand.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think that the whole issue is sort of a "pushme-pullyou", where there isn't any real answer.

Can you do X in game Y? Yes. Does game Y do X in as satisfying a way as game Z? For some people yes, for others no, and for some Z is the clear winner.

Once the dust has settled, once it is established that, yes, you can do X in game Y, even if you prefer the way you do X in game Z, then all that is left is preference. And, where preference is concerned, you should play the way you like. Y, Z, or ABC.

Life is too short for anything else.


RC

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Yes, I feel you misread me.

I apologise then.

That's OK. Firstly, I try to be careful to write in a subjective sense as to not to upset people who fret about edition wars. Secondly, I have no intention of debating your intention to debate the 4e wizard, I only debated your intentions to debate my intention to change the subject of the topic at hand.

I don't "fret" about edition wars. I tire of them. So many otherwise decent threads have been reduced to slag by them. It ruins discussions, and it actually damages the game as a whole, by dividing the community. Hence my sig image.

For what it's worth though, I agree with this:

I consider the "Can do everything in 6 seconds" wizard largely a creation of D&D. And not something the wizard needs. I also am fully behind making magic expensive - it's a far better fit IME for most protagonist-casters. But there is one huge place where WoTC dropped the ball with casters. Not the combat mechanics (which I think are fine) but there should be at least five times more rituals than there are. Gandalf didn't just blast people with fire. He wielded Glamdring. Or used his lore. Magic is in most fiction I know powerful but hard and expensive. Not quick, easy, and takes six seconds. Rituals really fit the bill here in a way neither 3.X or 4e mages do.

I will point out that this was not a problem in 1e and 2e. For all the things that 3e improved upon, its treatment of spellcasting was not one of them. There are still things I like about 3.x, just as there are things I like about earlier editions, but I think this is a legitimate concern, for me at least, and a lot of others, if not everyone.

But like I've said before, play what you like. Who cares what someone else says. "Are You Having Fun?" it the only question you need to answer. I think that a lot of edition wars spring from a well-intentioned basic desire to make sure everyone else is having the same kind of fun you are, but it's foolish to try to make everyone have the same kind of fun.

 

[NoWayJose]

I don't "fret" about edition wars. I tire of them. So many otherwise decent threads have been reduced to slag by them. It ruins discussions, and it actually damages the game as a whole, by dividing the community. Hence my sig image.

I was just poking fun. Did you see the Edit comment of that post ? Sorry, I didn't realize I was pushing a button there.

I think that a lot of edition wars spring from a well-intentioned basic desire to make sure everyone else is having the same kind of fun you are, but it's foolish to try to make everyone have the same kind of fun.

I think that the whole issue is sort of a "pushme-pullyou", where there isn't any real answer.

Can you do X in game Y? Yes. Does game Y do X in as satisfying a way as game Z? For some people yes, for others no, and for some Z is the clear winner.

I won't speak for anyone else, but for myself, when X people are arguing for A, and Y people are arguing for B, I tend to idealize option C.

(Although sometimes I spend too much time arguing against A and/or B in order to set myself up for justifying C).

Option C is sometimes hinted at on forums, but rarely comes together for whatever reason.

Eventually, some form of Option C becomes official, and it's called a new published edition. Then it begins all over again.

 

[NoWayJose]

Hah!

But mine related to 4e spellcasting is slightly different. I consider the "Can do everything in 6 seconds" wizard largely a creation of D&D. And not something the wizard needs. I also am fully behind making magic expensive - it's a far better fit IME for most protagonist-casters. But there is one huge place where WoTC dropped the ball with casters. Not the combat mechanics (which I think are fine) but there should be at least five times more rituals than there are. Gandalf didn't just blast people with fire. He wielded Glamdring. Or used his lore. Magic is in most fiction I know powerful but hard and expensive. Not quick, easy, and takes six seconds. Rituals really fit the bill here in a way neither 3.X or 4e mages do.

Just musing here on this "Option C". What if the delineation between rituals and wizard powers was more blurry? What if anyone could theoretically do ritual magic, but wizards were much faster and better at it?

To put it in simplistic terms, everyone can get some 'magic points' towards casting magic, but wizards just get a lot more 'magic points'.

So you think of every class as a 'fighter' in terms of being capable in combat. A true fighter focuses exclusively on melee/ranged combat. A rogue is a 'fighter' who learns sneaky attacks. A cleric is a 'fighter' with divine focus. Like Gandalf with a sword, wizards are 'fighters' with an aptitude for magic and/or arcane learning background.

(For campaigns that aren't combat-oriented, you could swap some combat expertise with more scholarly or professional skills, to emulate a pirate captain or bookish mage).

Now you take all these different 'fighters', and you layer an optional magic/ritual system on top of that. A true fighter could know a minor combat spell, without having to multi-class. A thief could use a spell scroll. A wizard with arcane knowledge knows lots of better spells, boosted with implements, wands, etc.

I don't know how that would work out mechanically, but I think it's a more natural fit to the traditional fantasy literature.

I'm not sure if it makes any sense to anyone, if it's too vague. I'm just imagining gelling together magic and rituals to create a magic system that anyone potentially has access to, so it doesn't feel unfair that only wizards can do it, but it's much more versatile (as a nod to 3E) and wizards don't feel completely incompetent without it (as a nod to 4E).

 

[Raven Crowking]

So "if you don't like it you're doing it wrong" is out?

If you don't like basketball because you keep missing the basket, you're doing it wrong. You can either try to do it right, or you can try to do something else.

If you don't like basketball because you don't like shooting at the basket, you should just try to do something else.

I.e., if Game X and Y both do Z, but do it in different ways, if you can't do Z in Game X, you are doing it wrong. OTOH, if you just like the way Y does Z better, play Game Y.

(Thus, in the context of this last bit, "I cannot stat Blackbeard as a 3e fighter" = Doing it wrong. "I am not satisfied with how Blackbeard appears statted out as a 3e fighter" = preference. In the first case, if you otherwise enjoy 3e, you might want to practice at statting out creatures more. In either case, changing the game or seeking a new game is preferable to -- and IMHO saner than -- playing a game you don't enjoy.)

I hope that was clear.

.
.
.
.
.
Oh, and thanks for the XP!


RC

 

[pawsplay]

I've demonstrated the skills. Our Barbarian does better.

At what, exactly? His Intimidate likely isn't as good (since he probably won't take Skill Focus) and his other skills are only slightly better, and against largely static DCs. I just don't seit.

Edit: Looking at the D20 Modern SRD, 2d6 is the damage done by a Colt Python, a Glock 20, or a .45. I'd expect age of sail guns to be somewhat less effective. But thanks

The lower effectiveness of black powder is somewhat compensated for by the larger mass of musket balls and their tendency to deform in the wound. It could go either way, depending on the weapon.

He might be what you think a fighter ought to be. But the 3.X design of the fighter screwed up badly and left a lot of ground for the barbarian to take over. Like any sort of burly generalist warrior with a range of skills.

But not feats.

To me tough guy who scares the crud out of people and fights like a demon in 3.X says Barbarian. Fighters either need highly complex tricks, weapon mastery, heavy armour, or ice water in their veins and an absurd amount of stamina to justify not being barbarians.

Blackbeard is kind of the mack daddy of ice water in the veins. He certainly didn't have lots of opportunities to unleash any sort of "rage," since his blockades were usually successful, his boarding actions were usually successful, and his Intimidate checks were usually successful. I really do not see Barbarian there.

Where a few = 8 - or twice as long as most fights.

Bosh. One glitterdust and the Barbarian loses every advantage they might have had. (This is not an invitation to question how often glitterdust occurs; consider it a stand-in for any other situation that slows down progress toward the beating down).

Further than what? Pirates didn't normally use shields. Or did you mean the 2 points of AC lost to raging?

They could use bucklers, but yeah, in any case, they are probably both fighting two-handed and the Barbarian has a -2. That's a pretty low AC place to live.

Which is largely irrelevant - I have no penalties in ranged combat either compared to you so I don't use rage until melee. If we use a shoot-then-melee strategy, the barbarian shoots while not raging and then draws his cutlass and rages. While not raging the barbarian matches the fighter BAB for BAB and feat for feat. Making the difference between them 10hp, DR1, and improved uncanny dodge. Oh, and fast movement. The Barbarian wins (although not by much, granted - but it's a strict win because if you took away those things it would be a perfect mirror-match).

Feat for feat? Does that mean the Barbarian has Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot? If so, doesn't that make him a "worse" Barbarian?

Once more you are wrong. The Barbarian has the same weapon proficiencies you do, the same ranged feats you do, and is better at taking fire - he has more hit points and a point of DR. In short at range the Barbarian modelled on your fighter is strictly better than your fighter. He is exactly equal to the fighter at dishing out damage with guns and has both more hp and DR (and exactly the same AC unless you want to put your fighter into heavy armour?).

Does he take ranged combat feats?

Giving up the five feats I listed, the only time your fighter does anything better than my barbarian with the same stats is if the barbarian is for some reason not raging. Which either means a lot of fights in the day (something pirates seldom had) or a fight that's gone on for eight rounds after the barbarian started raging.

Or wanting to use a skill other than Balance or Intimidate, or obstacles that slow movement and provide cover, etc.

It's not that the fighters don't suck at some things. It's that as this demonstrates, the barbarian is better than the fighter at being a fighter.

That's absurd. Over on the old CharOp board, it was demonstrated time and again that the fighter was usually more effective. The barbarian's advantage is principally that he is a hybrid skill-monkey.