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

[I'm A Banana]

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.

They aren't "fresh off the turnip farm" in the sense that the have better stats and abilities than a turnip farmer. And if they don't, they should.

Of course, part of the...er...genre...of martyrs and saints is that they are supposed to be inspiration for all of us Normal People, being Normal People themselves whom a Real God inspired to do Real Miracles. So We Can Be Like Them Maybe If We Are Good And Believe.

This is not part of the genre of fantasy heroics, since Batman is not meant to be an inspiration to anyone, he is meant to save them. No one is expected to be Batman or James Bond. They are very clearly entities without equal.

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.

But a first level fighter isn't a militia member, they're a fantasy hero, so they need to be better than a militia member.

st level wizard PC's are still more skilled than any adept or hedge wizard, since 1st level PC's are fantasy heroes, not just anyone with sufficient intelligence.

Not everyone who steals a coin has the ability set of a 1st level rogue.

A cleric is not just a theologian or a scholar, they are a miracle-worker, a walking conduit of actual divine magic, from Fantasy Gods.

Being a deacon or a scofflaw or a potion-brewer or a militia member is not being a fantasy hero, it is being a Fantasy Person in the Fantasy World. A Gotham city beat cop isn't going to be able to apprehend the Joker. You need Batman for that. Any random fantasy person isn't going to be able to slay the dragon. You need a fantasy hero for that. You need the PC's for that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Non-statement

Yes, and an apple is not a fruit.

(As long as I get to define "fruit.")

Exactly so. It is strange, isn't it, how someone who accuses everyone else of semantics games wants to define "human" in a way that precludes general uses of the term.



And yet still somehow ignores the obvious conclusion that, if Bond has a victory in OHMSS, he suffers a loss in CR. Conversely, if he has a victory in CR, he suffers a loss in OHMSS. It doesn't really matter what kind of victory, the conditions are mirrored. He is on either side of the same divide.

I notice that, with his rhetorical dance, he has no answer to that. Just further insults. Wonder why that is?

RC - go back to the beginning of this tangent and you'll see that the goalposts have long been on pretty shaky ground. The original point way back was that a 1st level fighter could be the same as some farmer just off the turnip truck. That was the claim being disputed.

Well aware of it.

And the goalposts for what "some farmer just off the turnip truck" means have been shifting ever since, as time and again it was demonstrated that a 1st level fighter could, indeed, have been some farmer just off the turnip truck.

I mean, we've gotten so far now as to suggest that if Batman or James Bond, at the height of their careers, are not just some farmers off the turnip truck, neither could a 1st level Fighter be.

I.e., no Jack from Jack in the Beanstalk for you, my friend. Uh uh. Apparently, the game can't support it.

If I say X can be Y, it requires (to a rational mind) only one example of X that is Y to prove the point. No examples of X that are not Y actually disprove that X can be Y.

This thread reads as though I said "Some animals can be mammals" and then a bunch of folks jumped up with examples of animals that were fish, or insects, or crustaceans, and thought that somehow proved that animals cannot be mammals. On top of that, they brought up the platypus, the kangaroo, and the echidna, and decided that they were not mammals, either, because they have different characteristics from raccoons.

We have, effectively, a "There's no such thing as raccoons! THE END!", but when it is demonstrated that there are raccoons, the response is, effectively, "Well, you're an ignorant poo-poo head, so no there are no raccoons."

You are right in your statement about the general case in, for example, 1e AD&D. But you are not right to extend that general case to include all cases. Obviously, a 1e 1st level fighter can also have a 12 Strength and 2 hp.

You are also wrong that normal humans don't have stats (in the sense that they don't have measurable Strength, Charisma, etc.). You mistake a bookkeeping convenience for a truth about the universe. Even when counterexamples of normal humans with stats are given, you seem unable to see beyond the statblock.

Most normal humans have stats in the average range. They don't carry a bonus or a penalty. They are unremarkable, so they are not remarked upon. It is not uncommon to list only the unusual stats, because they are what affect gameplay.

Likewise, the standard statblock might not list that an NPC has hair, but that doesn't mean he isn't a bigfoot-in-training.

Likewise, if a statement is made that X never Y (Bond never loses, for example), it requires only one counter-example to demonstrate that to be untrue. That isn't pedantry; and the statement isn't "close to truth".

It disproves the statement.

When a line of reasoning requires the statement to be true (Bond is superhuman because Bond never loses), it also disproves the line of reasoning.

From a rational standpoint, it doesn't disprove the conclusion (which may or may not be true for reasons other than those expressed by the line of reasoning). It does help to establish that the person putting forth a line of reasoning that is based on being knowledgeable about a subject (for example, what Bond can or cannot do, or what Bond movies are like) probably doesn't know as much as he might wish you to believe he does.

And, if he cannot admit as much and adjust to the obvious error, it might tell you something about future lines of reasoning as well.

Specifically, a person who cannot admit to error when the error is clearly demonstrated is unlikely to be that careful about differntiating his or her facts from convenient fiction in other discussions. One should take his or her input with a very large grain of salt.

Moreso if the person, rather than admitting to a clearly demonstrated error, responds with insulting the person for making said clear demonstration. The size of that grain of salt (to the rational mind) becomes even larger.

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.

That is the gist of it.

And I think it is blatantly obvious that D&D can handle that backstory pretty darn easily. Obviously, YMMV.


RC

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Pity D&D is not generic fantasy then. (Although 4e is better at representing this with its ritual rules). D&D is D&D - and in AD&D unless you are a human and dual class, your fighter 1 will never be able to cast spells.

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.

If you are granted personal divine intervention then all the rules are out of the window. Because that's what becoming a divine caster is. Divine intervention. A miracle. You have won the lottery. (Or lost it if you listen to some Invokers). Someone witha calling but no divine empowerment is not a cleric. Fighter, Rogue, Bard, or even Wizard. But not Cleric.

So yes you can be a PC fresh off the turnip farm if you are a cleric. All it takes is a miracle (literally).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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).

At no point in this discussion have I asserted that NPCs with class levels were the norm. My assertion is and always has been that since there is ample evidence in supplements of "peasants", "townsfolk", "laborers" and "militia" with class levels- as well as rules support for those exemplars in the rulebooks- that having a class level does not automatically anoint a character as a "Fantasy Hero".

In addition, since the rules for NPCs explicitly support things like laborers with F1 capabilities, the position that the game is hardwired against supporting farmer turned fighter is equally invalid.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Pity D&D is not generic fantasy then. (Although 4e is better at representing this with its ritual rules). D&D is D&D - and in AD&D unless you are a human and dual class, your fighter 1 will never be able to cast spells.

That's not the point and you should know that.

In case you missed it, though, the point is this: while becoming a D&D Wizard requires being literate, it does NOT require being an apprentice. IOW, it is perfectly good backstory for a sufficiently intelligent individual to have picked up W1 by having acquired a book of magic and read it, even in D&D. Apprenticeship is the most common path into Wizardry, but it is not the ONLY path.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

It also occurs to me that - in my parlance, at least - the term NPC has actually changed its meaning over time.

Whereas NPC has now come to mean (in my mind) any character not controlled by a player, it seems that the term used to be used more explicitly with reference to those characters with PC-class levels:

i.e.

the 3rd level Dwarf fighter is an NPC
Bob the barman is a Normal Man, or "scenery", or an element in the game - but not an NPC in any significant sense.

Does anyone else perceive this shift of emphasis in meaning, or is it just me? I am not suggesting a hard divide here; simply more of an emphasis.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Seeing the examples I'm citing go back to AD&D, I don't see a shift.

 

[SkidAce]

I kinda agree with Sepulchrave II, in fact I pretty much count all "normal" people as minions in 4E. Brings them to the "0" level roots.

And the ones I pick out of the crowd are NPCs. "Characters" in the adventure or story, non-player (i.e. DM).

some of those get levels or special abilities, some don't. It's flexible.

Oh and to stay on topic...

It's still my opinion that the fighter/wizard concerns should be fairly leveled out during game play and the course of the adventure. My old 1st ed group had fighters that picked up some "extrodinary" abilities, became lords of keeps, etc.

Granted not well codified in the rules..../grin

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's not the point and you should know that.

In case you missed it, though, the point is this: while becoming a D&D Wizard requires being literate, it does NOT require being an apprentice. IOW, it is perfectly good backstory for a sufficiently intelligent individual to have picked up W1 by having acquired a book of magic and read it, even in D&D. Apprenticeship is the most common path into Wizardry, but it is not the ONLY path.

Mea culpa. I forgot to check the thread title after opening and thought I was on the "At first level how powerful are PCs" thread not the wizard v warrior balance thread that appears to have drifted sharply.

 

[Erekose]

It also occurs to me that - in my parlance, at least - the term NPC has actually changed its meaning over time.

I've been playing D&D since the mid-80s and an NPC has always meant any character not controlled by the players (although to be fair in the early days players sometime controlled their NPC henchmen)