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

[Sepulchrave II]

In a low-magic campaign I ran during 3.5, I fully detailed the pcs' starting area and the town's eldest elder (who was either a half-elf or a dwarf- there were no elves) was IIRC a12th level commoner.

She was a font of knowledge and skills, but very frail, with a very low Con and pretty close to 1 hp/die.

I'm also very fond of this archetype, but usually I find a 3rd-5th level expert with a couple a good feats and the "heroic" aging bonuses: the ones which model gaining a keen mind, great wisdom and an aura of charisma, rather than drooling senility.

The low Con is useful for modeling frailty. But a 20th level commoner with a Constitution of 18 (Nothing special: nonelite array, all level bumps to Con) has 130 hit points.

What manner of beast is this?

 

[pawsplay]

I remember once someone posited that a 20th level Commoner made sense for one kind of character: a member of some extremely long-lived race, like an elf, who is a useless sack, diong virtually nothing noteworthy and surviving the centuries due to a lack of the adventurous spirit and a little bit of luck.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The low Con is useful for modeling frailty. But a 20th level commoner with a Constitution of 18 (Nothing special: nonelite array, all level bumps to Con) has 130 hit points.

What manner of beast is this?

A hearty slab of humanity who has seen strife and war and wants none of it- all he wants is his turnip field, some cider, a good hunting dog, and the love of his plump wife & strapping lads.

Also, someone who could probably kick the ass of a young fighter who thinks he's some kind of Child of Destiny and didn't respect his elders in the process of mouthed off in the local inn.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

a hearty slab of humanity...

an elf, who is a useless sack,

q.e.d.

 

[the Jester]

What D&D is and what D&D calls itself are two different things.

D&D calls itself the game where you can be - and I will quote directly from the 2e PHB here - "Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad...El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius"

The problem is that when you actually try to be almost any of the above, you find you can't be after all. You can't be Hercules, or Beowulf, or Siegfried.

It sounds like your conflating D&D's failure to be what it wants to be with what it actually wants to be. Certainly D&D has for a long time been about very boring fighters who are mortal men and can't actually do a whole lot. But that's not a feature, it's a bug. And it's not what D&D has wanted to be, nor what it's advertised itself to be.

You're continuing to assert that I should play the way you prefer.

I find that it actually is a feature that fighters in 1e and 2e (and largely in 3e) are mundane. It isn't a bug. It's fine.

You don't like it that way? Okay, play differently. But why do you insist I'm doing it wrong?

 

[the Jester]

The low Con is useful for modeling frailty. But a 20th level commoner with a Constitution of 18 (Nothing special: nonelite array, all level bumps to Con) has 130 hit points.

What manner of beast is this?

Hmm... perhaps the gnarled old veteran who has fought in the rabble under several kings and somehow lived through it, who has survived plagues and famine and is basically unkillable, albeit perhaps not a good fighter or anything.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Jester, Cirno, you are both right on somethings and wrong on others.

Jester, you are right that you should be able to have high-level Fighters be purely mundane warriors, and Cirno you are right that that you should be able to make high-level Fighters superheroic demigods. Where you are wrong is that D&D and other RPGs potentially have room for both. The problem is that most are not designed to handle both. 4th edition can handle both but not at the same level.

If you think about it characters (PCs, NPCs and even monsters) can fit into roughly 5 power tiers. They are the following:

Common - This is the tier of ordinary people. The place where the common human farmhand, half-orc dockworker, orc warrior, elven merchant, and common wolf exists. If a character of this tier has any magic it is on the level of the 0-level cantrips of 1 and 2 editions.

Heroic - This is the tier where people and creatures star standing out. People on the Common tier look up to those on this tier with fear or respect. Knight-errants, orc chiefs, tribal champions and the tigers all live of this tier. Magic of this tier is similar to that of 1, 2 and 3 level spells.

Paragon - Who is a hero to a hero? A Paragon. This is the place where beings such as Lancelot, Warchief Thrall, Achilles and Beowulf face giants, dragons, angels and demons on equal terms. Magic tends to be in the realm of 4-6 level D&D spells.

Epic - This is the land of Gods, Demigods and the divine. Thor, Heracles and Gilgamesh ride out to do glorious deeds such fishing up the world serpent, beating up demon lords and cutting valleys in to mountain ranges. Magic of this tier is on the level of the 7-9 level spells such as wish.

Overgod - Beyond all else. Practically unplayable.

Prior to 4th edition, Fighters hung out in the Heroic tier for all 20 levels while Wizards progressed from Common to Epic tier based on the number and level of spells they had.

4e attempted to use the Heroic, Paragon and Epic tiers, but due to tying level to tier progression they only used 1/3rd of the available design space.

 

[Hussar]

[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?

Since I don't know how you are defining "normal" then it's difficult to answer. I do think that a F1 in any edition, is better than a common individual AS DEFINED BY THE SYSTEM.

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?

Not possible unless the turnip farmer is actually a F1. Even if they have the same stats, same hp, same AC, the Fighter still has better saving throws. The fighter still has more skills. The fighter most certainly still has way more potential as well.

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

What's with the snark? When did I tell anyone they were having fun wrong? I did say that the point is not mechancally supported and I'll stand by that, but, where did I say that someone was having badwrongfun?

You're continuing to assert that I should play the way you prefer.

I find that it actually is a feature that fighters in 1e and 2e (and largely in 3e) are mundane. It isn't a bug. It's fine.

You don't like it that way? Okay, play differently. But why do you insist I'm doing it wrong?

Again with the badwrongfun shots. Why? What is this adding?

See, the problem is, sure, you can play D&D the way you are talking about, but, how do YOU deal with the power level disparity? Ignore it? Deal with it? How?

Just as a question, how much higher level D&D have you played? Again, not snark, just a question. I often find that in these conversations, people who don't see the issue generally play low to mid level campaigns where this really isn't much of an issue.

Or, they play with players who have a tacit agreement at the table not to make it an issue. The cleric relagates himself to healbot and doesn't show the firepower that he could. The wizard stays with direct damage spells for the most part and doesn't dominate the game.

And that's certainly one way to maintain balance. Let the group do it. And that's fantastic if everyone's on board. But, all it takes is someone to go, "Hrm, if I combine this spell with that spell, I can devastate the opposition to a degree that a non-caster can't even dream of."

 

[Hussar]

Hmm... perhaps the gnarled old veteran who has fought in the rabble under several kings and somehow lived through it, who has survived plagues and famine and is basically unkillable, albeit perhaps not a good fighter or anything.

Wasn't it the Epic Level Handbook that got pretty much universally slammed for having epic level commoners and guards in its city? Because, if an epic level commoner is still a normal man, then why aren't there more of them around?

 

[pawsplay]

Wasn't it the Epic Level Handbook that got pretty much universally slammed for having epic level commoners and guards in its city? Because, if an epic level commoner is still a normal man, then why aren't there more of them around?

The ELH was slammed for epic fail. It's a whole sourcebook on epic characters that is worse than the quickie rules in the original 3e FR campaign book.