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

[Dannyalcatraz]

That is rather glib. See page 35:



Or page 30:



A sergeant is a first level fighter (p.31).

The level title of an F1 is Veteran.

1) it's not glib to point out I'm using actual rules from rulebooks.
2) That the DMG says a sergeant is a 1st level fighter and a "veteran": this tells us ranks/level names aren't mechanics; that D&D terminology may be self-contradictory. Again, the same book tells us peasants and townsfolk can be classed as well.

Is the idea of a first level fighter as a gnarly old veteran, maybe once a sergeant, so bizarre?

No...nor is the concept that someone may be a skilled fighter- perhaps as a militia member- and choose not to pursue the adventuring lifestyle. Or that someone may be a skilled fighter without having fought in battle (morale is an entirely different matter. My aforementioned buddy who tried out for the Army Rangers was a skilled combatant when he enlisted- his father was a martial artist.

The fact that a 1st level PC fighter starts at age 15 +1d4 years makes them kind of special to me. It would make them exceptional - they begin with skills equal to the gnarly old veteran. Do they possess some natural genius?

In Wales of old, it was law that young men took up the bow before age 10. In modern Somalia, there are grizzled 15 year old combat vets with AK-47s leading squads of 12 year olds.

In both cases, there are similar pressures: if your life expectancy is about 30, you need to start 'em young to get quality adult soldiers.

As I stated previously, there was no consistent portrayal. My impression from the 1E PHB and DMG was that - in the context of the game world - characters with class levels were assumed to be "special."

Take another look at that section I quoted- they are "special" as in unusual, yes, but not so far as some assert that having class levels equates with being a "Fantasy Hero."

It was also my impression that the published modules did not bear this out, any more than they bore out the warnings about giving out too much loot.

Again, since the DMG is stating that you can give NPCs class levels as DM's discretion, as needed, there is no mechanical linkage between having class levels and being exceptional.

(FWIW, that 2Ed source I cited wasn't a module, it was more like a gazetteer, listing city details, important personalities- like Elminster- and each region's armed forces, down to militias, if any.)

 

[Sepulchrave II]

In modern Somalia, there are grizzled 15 year old combat vets with AK-47s leading squads of 12 year olds.

Either way, the first level fighter is a badass.

Do I understand where you're coming from - I might be completely wrong - but that there should be some equality of eligibility for PC class-status amongst the general NPC population, in order to model the Farmgirl Jeanne -> St. Jeanne transition?

 

[Neonchameleon]

"You must spread XP around...yadda yadda"

Note also what is inherent in the "because nameless mooks can't take him out" meme. Those nameless mooks are, therefore, worse than the named characters who can occasionally win against a Bond or a Batman.

IOW, if Perry White is human, and Bruce Wayne is superhuman, nameless thug #2 must be subhuman.

Who says that nameless mooks can't take out Perry White? They certainly kidnap Jimmy Olsen enough times.

Except this is patently untrue unless you ignore the actual stuff printed in various sources.

1) The AD&D DMG lets NPC fighters have all the same advantages as PC fighters- whether an NPC actually GETS those strength adjustments is left to the DM.

The AD&D DMG also states that only 1 in a hundred NPCs has what it takes to make a PC class.

[quoe]2) There are THOUSANDS of F1s populating the militias of every city and regions listed in various sources, to be called up from the local townships to support the "real" armed forces.[/quote]

According to the 1e DMG (passage previously cited), these are F0s not F1s.

What about the hordes of REAL military, the bulk of whom of are F1s with serious gear like horses, chain & lances? Are you calling these tens of thousands of militiamen & regular army "Fantasy Heroes?"

No. It's simply worldbuilding that is explicitely opposed to the 1e DMG. Doesn't mean it wasn't done by TSR - just that they were doing so in opposition to the stated worldbuilding of default D&D.

3) Then what about F1s like "Daughter?"

I don't know why someone chose to stat her as a military veteran proficient in plate armour when she probably hasn't ever seen any. Weird worldbuilding.

How in the hell is the young laborer with a level of fighter a "Fantasy Hero?" There is NOTHING in her description that says she's an adventurer of any kind.

The part that says Fighter 1 says that she's proficient in all types of armour, naturally talented with all weapons she hasn't explicitely studied, and has more hit points than the average bear. And doesn't go down like a mook against a mid level fighter (who gets 1 attack/level against L0 opponents). In short you've given her a mix of talent, skill, and luck. And made her one of those 1 in 100 who gets a PC class. Whether or not she ever gets the call to become an adventurer or survive as one, she has the potential right there.

F1 is PERFECT for describing NPCs with only a modicum of training...and TSR did exactly that.

F1 is Perfect for describing NPCs with sufficient military training to wear plate armour without penalty and only take a small penalty with weapons they aren't proficient at.

By way of comparison, "irregulars" included "Viking Berserkers" and "Scottish Highlanders." So I looked in the Monstrous Compendium..."Berserkers" had 2 att/rd- something a 2Ed Warrior (of any class) normally didn't get until 13th level. IOW, the 2Ed DMG contemplates the existence of militiamen who can stand up to that...if the DM wants them to exist.

Yeah. About those monsters... And militia can outnumber raiders and fight from behind defences. 2 attacks isn't much good if you take a dozen crossbow bolts coming in.

So having levels in a class does not make you special in these rulebooks.

It just puts you in a category of 1 person in 100 according to the 1e DMG. You can claim that's not special all you like.

In fact, the rulebooks show why seemingly innocuous NPCs might have surprising abilities- the rules told the adventure designers this was perfectly fine.

Indeed. That word seemingly is important.

In addition, it makes perfect sense for someone in a strife-ridden area to have some skill at fighting, maybe even a lot.

Indeed. AD&D had 0th level men at arms who had some skill and weird monsters like beserkers. A 3e Warrior 6 is pretty skilled compared to a Fighter 1.

In D&D terms, that means every doggone Israeli is at least F1 in 1ED/2Ed terms.

In AD&D terms, every doggone Israeli is at least F0. Not F1. In 3e terms it's Warrior 1.

To you, but again, others may not feel as you do. I certainly don't. I didn't have a problem with that from either side of the DMs screen.

Neither do I. But the DMG makes the default F0, not F1.

Besides, it most certainly DOES matter when people are using absolutes describing the way D&D "never" or "always" handled NPCs.

Sure, if you want to change things to fit your vision of how the game should be run.

And TSR did. But that doesn't mean that upgrading F0 to F1 wasn't a change despite your claims. This is about D&D RAW.

But the fact remains that they- "peasants" and "townsfolk" WERE F1s,

Not if you were playing by the guidelines in the AD&D DMG. They were F0 not F1.

so saying D&D didn't have commoners with PC class levels is simply untrue.

1 person in a hundred according to the DMG.

And it follows from that that saying the assumption of heroism starts at Level 1 and is hardwired into the game is also untrue.

Yes. If you change the RAW (as TSR did regularly, I'll grant) then you change the assumptions hardwired into the game. If you give everyone and their pet dog PC classes and levels rather than give one person in a hundred a PC class and level then PC classes cease to be special. And when everyone is somebody then no one's any body. This is not in dispute.

No- as I pointed out, they actually have rules for making "laborers" without class levels as well. According to the rules of AD&D, the categories of "laborer" and "fighter" are not mutually exclusive.

Of course not. A few labourers are also fighters. But most laborours do not have class levels.

Now you're putting the horse before the cart. You're superimposing your view of the game over the actual rules.

And you're ignoring the rules of the game.

They didn't. She has a quick paragraph that notes she's a F1.

So she's special. Nothing wrong with named NPCs being special.

That Joe Thug has a level or 2 in a PC class isn't particularly surprising- it means he's got skill.

And in AD&D is 1 in a hundred.

Wouldn't you expect even a beginning legbreaker or assassin for the guild might have some skills besides plowing?

Of course. In AD&D RAW this is represented by Weapon Proficiency. Which is somewhere between a 2 and a 4 point improvement in their THAC0. And remember that even fighters are only proficient in a very limited range of weapons.

He's heroic because he walked right out of the Shire with virtually nothing and survived the same tests as mighty wizards and warriors. And what would have happened if he hadn't? While he's a supporting character in many ways, in others, he's not just a support, he's the spine.

Not bad for a hobbit without so much as a +1 pruning shear for most of the story...

Oh, indeed. Sam is one of the bigger heroes in literature.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't understand. Joan starts the game at age 18 as a 1st level Paladin. There is no "before;" she has some backstory about being a farm girl and having visions.

There was an assertion put forth by some that the game had hardwired assumptions that said PCs by definition could not be "fresh off the turnip farm." This is a statement about cetain backstories being, essentially, nonsense as far as D&D is concerned.

Except that Jeanne has exactl that kind of backstory.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There was an assertion put forth by some that the game had hardwired assumptions that said PCs by definition could not be "fresh off the turnip farm." This is a statement about cetain backstories being, essentially, nonsense as far as D&D is concerned.

Except that Jeanne has exactl that kind of backstory.

La Pucelle is a Paladin not a Fighter. Divinely empowered characters have free reign to break the rules through Deus Ex Machina. That said, I don't think anyone is disputing that PCs, being special, get a licence to break the fluff guidelines anyway.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This was never meant in a literal absolute sense, as far as I can tell

Someone said that I was not playing the game in the way it was designed...

Then I'd say you weren't playing in the style the rules assumed.

...that in the context of my assertion that in my gaming history, I had seen farmers turned fighters frequently, in response to someone saying the game "wasn't about Samwise" type characters, but instead about Aragorns.

But he wasn't a gardner in the Real World.

No, but he was a gardener in the context of his fictionverse, exactly the same kind of character some are asserting cannot exist in the fictionverse of a D&D game.

But Real Life military training is not analogous or useful

Balrog Scat.

Israelis have a law that mandates each adult citizen be trained and serve in their armed forces because they are surrounded by enemies from whom they fear attacks at any time.

The same model could be applied to a fantasy land where the country faces frequent incursions by barbarian hordes, goblin tribes and the neigboring kingdom to the South.

Jeanne is hardly a classic hero. For one, she is an Actual Person who is considered to have done miraculous things in the name of an Actual God with Actual Miracle Powers. Actually.

First of all, I was giving a nod to the consideration that her legend may be embellished, and that aspects of it are certainly disputed (Personally, I'm a Catholic, and we sainted her in the 1920s.)

Second, real or not, she's an exemplar of the kind of backstory some are asserting D&D is hardwired against: serf today, warrior tomorrow.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not if you were playing by the guidelines in the AD&D DMG

I already quoted pages of that book pointing out where one may find that state the DM is given the ability to grant class levels to his NPCs at his discretion.

The 2Ed DMG does likewise, as quoted.

 

[Bluenose]

There was an assertion put forth by some that the game had hardwired assumptions that said PCs by definition could not be "fresh off the turnip farm." This is a statement about cetain backstories being, essentially, nonsense as far as D&D is concerned.

Except that Jeanne has exactl that kind of backstory.

So your adventuring party has a magic-user, a thief, a cleric, and a fighter.

"Quite remarkable how you went through a wizard's apprenticeship while working as a carpenter, isn't it."

"Amazing how you learnt to pick locks and disable traps while working on a turnip farm."

"I think it's wonderful you learnt enough religious lore to become ordained and pray for spells while also being a cook."

"You're a fighter, did you need any special training to hit things, fight on horseback, or wear armour."

Some of those statements should probably not be taken too seriously.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So your adventuring party has a magic-user, a thief, a cleric, and a fighter. <snip>

Any may have had a relative who taught them the basics. Some may have learned their skills by serving in the militia, especially in a region frequenly overrun by invaders.

According to some fantasy- the most recent exemplar I can think of is Turtledove's Darkness series- anyone sufficiently intelligent can learn magic from a book.

Being a thief may be the actual reason you're no longer welcome in your home community...

As for priests, there's a reason they call it a "calling." There are countless exemplars from fiction and RW faith traditions of laborers turned theologians. In my own faith, the Church was founded by people who literally walked away from their fishing nets to do so. As that religion grew and became more formalized, entering the priesthood didn't release you from menial work. Alongside your studies of theological material, you still had to put in yor day's work in the fields, in the laundry, in the presses, sweeping, or whatever your duties were.

If the being you consider to be divine says "Serve," according to most faiths and literary sources, odds are you'll have all the support you'll need.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I already quoted pages of that book pointing out where one may find that state the DM is given the ability to grant class levels to his NPCs at his discretion.

The 2Ed DMG does likewise, as quoted.

So the DM is explicitely given the power to grant class levels to NPCs. This is because most NPCs don't have class levels. Only a few special ones do. The DM can make NPCs special at his whim; some NPCs are special - anyone with class levels is special.

The guidance you are giving therefore is on our side of the argument and against yours. It explicitely reinforces the fact that only special people have class levels (rather than level 0).