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

[pawsplay]

Actually, there is another area you're ignoring - saving throws. The F1 actually has better saves than the Normal Man. See, in any edition of the game, by the mechanics, a F1 is incapable of being statistically inferior, because the Normal Man either has no stats (other than Int, I suppose) or has straight 10's and 11's across the board.

Actually, since the F1 has abilities, his saving throws could be tanked below what the Normal Man deals with. Not that I really see where you're going with this.

Question: When you say "normal human" are you defining that in a real world sense of someone with the right number of chromosomes, or do you mean the game defined meaning of normal human? Because, throughout this, I've been speaking to the second and not the first.

As in humanoid (Human)?

Question Number 2: Are we speaking about PC's or NPC's? There is a difference.

Before 4e, no edition of D&D distinguishes between the capabilities of PCs and NPCs, as far as I am aware. 4e has moved to the model of having only "monsters" and no PC-style NPCs.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

the Normal Man either has no stats (other than Int, I suppose) or has straight 10's and 11's across the board.

According to the 1Ed DMG, 2Ed DMG, and 3.5DMG, this is simply not true, as I have previously pointed out.

In 1Ed, they tell you what mods you make to rolled stats for all NPCs with PC classes AND for laborers, merchants, etc. If they had no stats, there would be no need for stat modifiers.

For 2Ed, they are DM's discretion.

For 3.5Ed, you have a choice of arrays or rolling 3d6.

In each case, this means NPCs are capable of having positive or negative modifiers for their saves.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Before 4e, no edition of D&D distinguishes between the capabilities of PCs and NPCs, as far as I am aware. 4e has moved to the model of having only "monsters" and no PC-style NPCs.

1st ed had the Sage for a high functioning NPC and most NPCs were level 0. A clear and distinct difference from the Fighter 1 of a starting PC fighter.

3rd ed had specific NPC classes.

As far as I know it was only 2e that didn't. (And 3e tried to sweep it under the carpet).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actually, there is another area you're ignoring - saving throws. The F1 actually has better saves than the Normal Man.

Stat modifiers can change that, easily enough.

See, in any edition of the game, by the mechanics, a F1 is incapable of being statistically inferior, because the Normal Man either has no stats (other than Int, I suppose) or has straight 10's and 11's across the board.

Already addressed, and disproven. A Normal Man is assumed to have 10's and 11's unless there is something different, as a convenience for the DM. Likewise, the DM can choose to give anyone any stats he thinks appropriate (so that the local Smith can have greater Strength, for example, or some local urchin can have better Dexterity). He can even choose to have them save as a Fighter 1, or give them some subset of thief abilities, or allow them to cast minimal spells. Again, see T1 and N1 for examples.

Question: When you say "normal human" are you defining that in a real world sense of someone with the right number of chromosomes, or do you mean the game defined meaning of normal human? Because, throughout this, I've been speaking to the second and not the first.

Answer: I mean a human being, which could potentially exist without supernatural effect within the real world or the fictional analogue thereof.

As far as stats go, I could write out a 1e statblock, leaving out class, but including THAC0 and save numbers required, and I feel relatively certain that you wouldn't know if it was a Normal Man Turnip Farmer or a Fighter 1.

Question Number 2: Are we speaking about PC's or NPC's? There is a difference.

There must be a difference, or there is a difference when you are playing?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]: Tell you what, pal. I'll answer some more of your questions if, and only if, you answer mine. Crom knows I've asked you them over and over again, and I suspect the only reason you've ignored them are because the answers tank your position:

1. Are you really telling me that you cannot imagine any instance where a Ftr 1, in any edition, regardless of statistics, can be considerd a normal human?

2. Even in the case where the Ftr 1 and turnip farmer are statistically identical (excpept for terminology), or the Ftr 1 is statistically inferior?

3. And is that because you are unable to imagine how the Ftr 1 may be considered a normal human? Or is it wrongbadfun to do so?


RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

1st ed had the Sage for a high functioning NPC and most NPCs were level 0. A clear and distinct difference from the Fighter 1 of a starting PC fighter.

3rd ed had specific NPC classes.

As pointed out upthread, 1Ed through 3.5Ed explicitly allowed NPCs to have levels in PC classes, and the 3.5DMG even provided a breakdown of the demographics for a town of 200 that included low-level Monks, Clerics, Druids, Wizards and Fighters*.




* with page references in the relevant DMGs provided.

 

[Mort]

Is it just me or has the thread completely morphed into: How do current and past edditions of D&D model the fiction - specifically how do traditionally PC classes play a roll in that modeling?

If that's the case - maybe a new thread so people aren't intimidated slogging through close through 600 posts of shifting topic?

thoughts?

 

[pawsplay]

Is it just me or has the thread completely morphed into: How do current and past edditions of D&D model the fiction - specifically how do traditionally PC classes play a roll in that modeling?

If that's the case - maybe a new thread so people aren't intimidated slogging through close through 600 posts of shifting topic?

thoughts?

You could probably split out "how many PC-type NPCs are there in a campaign world?" as a topic, but the whole wizard v. warrior thing seems to really hang on whether you think someone can become a wizard by reading a book, or become a fighter by pulling a sword off of a battlefield. The gravity field of the topic is such that despite several attempts to re-address the OP we always seem to be back in orbit.

I think this is one of those topics that is going to go in, in this thread, and other threads, until hearts and minds are changed. I've seen stuff like this go on for months before.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It would probably be quicker & easier to restart the convo on the OP in a new thread than wrench this one back on track.

...although I'm not sure there were any unanswered questions regarding the initial query after the first 5 pages.

 

[Mort]

You could probably split out "how many PC-type NPCs are there in a campaign world?" as a topic, but the whole wizard v. warrior thing seems to really hang on whether you think someone can become a wizard by reading a book, or become a fighter by pulling a sword off of a battlefield. The gravity field of the topic is such that despite several attempts to re-address the OP we always seem to be back in orbit.

I think this is one of those topics that is going to go in, in this thread, and other threads, until hearts and minds are changed. I've seen stuff like this go on for months before.

It seems the main gist of the current tangent is: are PCs inherrently different from the NPCs of the game world?

It just seems to me that the obvious answer is: From a metagame perspective of course they are, but from a system-mechanical perspective there is no reason they have to be (though there are very good efficiency reasons for having most NPCs be simpler, I can't imagine stating every NPC as a PC).