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

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's backwards though. The fighter isn't a turnip farmer, because he's a fighter and not a Normal Man. Once our putative Turnip Farmer turns to adventuring, he stops being a Normal Man and starts being a Fighter by virtue of going on adventures.

There is nothing mandated in the rules that says that the only way one enters or gains a level in a PC class is via adventuring. Nothing.

 

[Hussar]

Well, considering the Rules Cyclopedia actually distinguishes Normal Human by the fact that he DOESN'T adventure, I'd have to disagree. At least by what Pawsplay quoted. Add to that, the fact that it's nobles (unless your turnip farmers are really high class) and not average people that are fighters, I'd say that it does take something to gain a PC class that normal people don't get.

I'd also point out that this conversation has shifted from "Is a PC F1 a normal guy or not" to "Is an NPC F1 a normal guy or not" because the answer to those two questions is pretty important.

Sure, I'll buy you can make an NPC F1 with a normal array (unusual, but not impossible) but, I'm not going to buy that you actually play a PC F1 with a normal array and the rules actually tell you not to do that (see the chargen rules in the PHB for impossible characters or somesuch name, again IDHMBIFOM).

BTW, RC, sorry, my question wasn't clear. It wasn't, can a Normal Man wear armor, it was how many different armors can a single Normal Man wear proficiently? How many weapons can the same Normal Man wield proficiently?

I've got a sneaking suspicion that this isn't actually defined. If it's not, then I suppose it's just as fair to assume that a Normal Man can use any armor a Figher can and can use just as many weaposn as a Fighter can. Kinda screws over the thief all to hell, but, hey, it's not like Thieves didn't get shafted anyway.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not going to buy that you actually play a PC F1 with a normal array

I honestly don't know jack about arrays- we still use dice.

Here's someone, though:

Johnny Bones, human Fighter/Thief
Str 15
Dex 15
Con 13
Int 10
Wis 8
Cha 6

Stats rolled on 4d6 drop lowest, in order.
Gear: MW Rapier & Dagger; MW Studded Leather.

Aggregate bonuses from stats = +2. Played him for almost 2 years. (Would have played him longer, but RW issues made that impossible.)

I'd also point out that this conversation has shifted from "Is a PC F1 a normal guy or not" to "Is an NPC F1 a normal guy or not" because the answer to those two questions is pretty important.

If a NPC F1 can be a normal guy, so can a PC of the same level.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I honestly don't know jack about arrays- we still use dice.

Pretty sure the "normal array" is only for NPCs/monsters, and only for some of those, at that. From memory, it's 13,12,11,10,9,8 but you might want to check that. Elite array - again, for some monsters/NPCs, but also one of at least half a dozen alternative chargen options in the 3.5 DMG: 15,13,12,11,10,8 (IIRC).

I don't think normal array or standard issue "three 10s and three 11s" are options at all, for PCs. In fact - once more, IIRC - I believe that, even when using the 3d6 in order option, there's a minimum ability modifier total of -2... or you need at least one 12+. Maybe both.

Not sure if that helps or hinders any points in particular, but then, for the life of me, I can't tell what's at stake, or even precisely what's being argued (right now), truth to tell.

 

[fanboy2000]

Again, the goalposts shift.

No one, at least not me, is saying you can't have Turnip Farmer as a background. What is being said is that once you have F1, you are, by virtue of having a PC class, measurably better than any other normal turnip farmer.

If you've never claimed that you can't have turnip farmer as a background, then how is it you got into this tangent? No one's claimed that D&D is about turnip farming.

Frankly, it seems like you guys are arguing over the definition of normal rather than who is normal.

While I'm at it...

Hey KM, something occurred to me in while reading your last post. Fantasy hero's are often captured and put into death traps that they only escape because the villain doesn't kill them in an efficient manner. In fact, such villains are often named after one of the heroes often cited in this discussion: Bond villains. Batman is also famous for getting captured and being stuck in death traps. Of course, most of Batman's villains are insane.

Conan, who started all this, has fallen prey to this a couple of times. In the crucifixion scene mentioned by Hussar a while back, Conan was being crucified because he had been captured by the villains and put out die a rather horrible death. Seriously, if you can nail a guy to cross, you can run a sword through him. In early Hour of the Dragon, Conan is captured and survives only because the villain thinks Conan might be useful later (or as blackmail). It doesn't work. Lastly, there's a story where Conan admits that if the bad guy hadn't taken the time to gloat, he'd be dead.

If town guards, army regulars, and the militia never poses a threat, even at early levels, then how does this tope of fantasy literature work? The whole point is that the mooks take out the hero and the big bad finishes them off with the death trap.

 

[pawsplay]

That's backwards though. The fighter isn't a turnip farmer, because he's a fighter and not a Normal Man. Once our putative Turnip Farmer turns to adventuring, he stops being a Normal Man and starts being a Fighter by virtue of going on adventures.

So, in other words, Fighters are not Normal Men in that system. They are different. They are, dare I say it, better than normal men, not because of their background or anything else, but because they stop being a Normal Man and start being a Fighter.

Except they are not different, if you are comparing them to the town sheriff. PCs are not special; it is simply assumed they begin with competencies they need for rough business. "Not just your average turnip farmer" is not a super power or a divine destiny, it's a trait shared by any number of trained knights, professional soldiers, pirates, constables, in addition to any particularly heroic turnip farmers. Published materials are full of NPC fighters and thieves who are distinguished by only one criterion: they have competencies your average Normal Man does not. A thief/rogue is just a guy who can pick pockets and backstab; a fighter can fight pretty well. A turnip farmer does not become a fighter by some kind of magical evolution; every population of turnip farmers of any size contains a few individuals of exceptional capability. Many of these are Warriors (3e) or 1 HD monsters (OD&D or AD&D) but some are simply Fighters, not by dint of divine parentage, extraordinary training, and so forth, but simply by being proficient with several weapons and having an above average ability to implant them in people who upset them.

 

[pawsplay]

Add to that, the fact that it's nobles (unless your turnip farmers are really high class) and not average people that are fighters, I'd say that it does take something to gain a PC class that normal people don't get.

Like becoming a squire?

I'd also point out that this conversation has shifted from "Is a PC F1 a normal guy or not" to "Is an NPC F1 a normal guy or not" because the answer to those two questions is pretty important.

Sure, I'll buy you can make an NPC F1 with a normal array (unusual, but not impossible) but, I'm not going to buy that you actually play a PC F1 with a normal array and the rules actually tell you not to do that (see the chargen rules in the PHB for impossible characters or somesuch name, again IDHMBIFOM).

None of that is relevant at all. High, or low ability scores, does not have a direct relationship to being a PC, or to being a member of a class. The relationship is only incidental, or in some cases, practical.

Just to be clear, have you conceded that NPC F1s actually exist, even as mundane beings such as professional soldiers and knights?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Just to be clear, have you conceded that NPC F1s actually exist, even as mundane beings such as professional soldiers and knights?

By no means am I Hussar, but I just wanted to respond to this one anyway.

From the 3.5 DMG, "NPC Classes" section:

Presented in this section are five classes specifically designed for NPCs. None of them, with the possible exceptions of the expert and the aristocrat, stands up as a playable class for PCs. Instead, they represent the rest of the people in the world around the PCs who don't train to go on adventures and explore dungeons.​

A little later:

These NPC classes should provide enough distinction to create anyone the PCs meet who isn't an adventurer.​

However, under "Warrior", there is, among other things, this:

You can also use the warrior class for soldiers (although perhaps not for commanders or career soldiers) [...]​

I'll see if I can turn anything else up, that might be relevant.


edit: Unrelated, but peculiar enough for me to comment on - that whole deal with the Thief in 1e losing the ability to wear armour above leather? Bizarre! Of course, that's only if normal men really can wear all types of armour, whether that's indeed as written, or as interpreted...

 

[Raven Crowking]

edit: Unrelated, but peculiar enough for me to comment on - that whole deal with the Thief in 1e losing the ability to wear armour above leather? Bizarre! Of course, that's only if normal men really can wear all types of armour, whether that's indeed as written, or as interpreted...

Yep. There's no armour "proficiency" until 3e AFAICT. Thieves can't use their special abilities in armour better than leather.....but this isn't spelled out until UA, where modifiers are given for these abilities when wearing other forms of armour. So, yes, by strictest reading of "core 3" 1e AD&D, one could potentially discover hidden thieves (and assassins, magic-users, and illusionists) by finding out who is unwilling to try on that chain mail shirt.......

Interestingly enough, there are at least two 3.x adventures I am aware of that begin with 0-level PCs, and 1e had a system for starting characters as 0-level folks, who gain their first character class level in-game. It was published in Greyhawk Adventures, if memory serves.

Finally, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]: The term "Normal Man" is a game construct, like "Fighter" is a game construct. No one in their right mind says, "Sorry, Joe, you can't run away. You're a fighter." Likewise, no one in their right mind mandates that a character steal from the party because his class is "Thief".

Remember all of those discussions about how 3e classes can represent various things? How about those discussions about how 4e classes can represent various things? How about how a "warforged ninja" doesn't have to literally be a warforged, or a ninja? Remember all of those things?

Well, "Normal Man" is the same. There are normal men who don't use the "Normal Man" nomenclature, and there are men who use the "Normal Man" nomenclature that are exceptional (i.e., Joe the Blacksmith, Normal Man, 8 hp, 18 Strength).

And, as already demonstrated, I can not only make a 1e AD&D F1 who is effectively statistically identical to a turnip farmer, but I can make one that is statistically inferior.

Are you still entrenched in your position that someone who is effectively statistically identical or statistically inferior to a turnip farmer cannot be a turnip farmer?


RC

 

[Sepulchrave II]

The goalposts have been shifted so many times by so many different people in this thread that I can no longer keep up.

I think everyone has a notion - based on their own preferences and expectations - of how the game world should look with regard to class and level.

I also think that notions of level and class are inseparable in this regard: the status of a Ftr 1 in a world where most people are Com 1s is different to one where most people are Com 2s or Com 3s.

The extent to which the Fighter class is treated as objectively "real" with regard to the game world and the extent to which it is a convenient mechanical shorthand to represent a particular character within the game world also seems to be shifting, often within the same post.

I would suggest that in editions prior to 3e, ideas of character class had more of an independent existence: 3.x was the first edition to explicitly state that classes should be treated flexibly with regard to characterization; that classes were not objectively "real" with regard to the game world itself.

In the 1e DMG there is an assumption - clearly spelled out on p.35 - that

1 character in 100 is eligible for level advancement

This ratio is sufficient for me to characterize PC classes as "unusual". The extent to which one regards them as "exceptional" or "extraordinary" is largely a semantic quibble. But 99% of people don't have classes at all.

In 1e, only 1% of humans even have the potential to become übermenschen and gain class levels. Perhaps the elitism implied by this is what makes some people uncomfortable.


I freely concede that many of my own 1e expectations with regard to the game world were transferred to 3e. One of them was that town guards, thugs, soldiers and men-at-arms - typically represented by 0-level characters in 1e - translated to low-level Warriors (NPC class) in 3.x.

Fortunately, you can use whatever you want to represent whatever you want as it's just a bunch of numbers.