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

[Dannyalcatraz]

But, it does make you better than a normal man.

"Normal" in the statistical sense only, as in the mode. He may not be beyond the median or mean, and he really isn't anything all that special. No low-level PC really is...yet.

So, basically, a normal man, again, as defined by the system, is far, far weaker than any character class.

and

The 1st ed AD&D DMG treats stats for NPCs with PC classes differently. In some cases NPCs have lower minimums. In other cases they have stat adjustments rather than minimums.

Not really.

1Ed DMG p11
Non-Player Characters
Special characters including Henchmen

...Roll 3d6 as for general characters, but allow the full range (3-18) except in the abilitiy or the abilities which are germaine to his or her profession, i.e. Strength for Fighters, etc. For all such abilities, either use one of the determination methods used for player characters or add +1 to each die of the 3 rolled which scores under 6.

Not only do NPCs like normal henchmen have classes- even PC classes- they are not gimped within those classes merely because of being NPCs.

As a coda from the 2Ed DMG (p34) about new classes, "What is the logic of saying a NPC can be such-and-such, but a player character cannot? None. This is a false restriction. Every character class you create should be open to PCs and NPCs alike."

Of course, the fact that you've ignored all the bits that Sepulchrave has quoted to you about 1e's demographics, the fact that NPC's don't gain XP, and the, oh, I don't know, actual words in the DMG.

and

The [1ED DMG] also has NPC fighters who are incapable of gaining levels (in the rules for hiring mercenaries).

This is not true- NPCs can and do gain XP. They just do it more slowly in order to keep NPCs from outshining PCs (IOW, its purely meta). This is mentioned in several places- usually in passing or in examples, so it's easy to miss- but it's in there.

2Ed DMG (p152), "Among the things a player should keep track of is a henchman's experience point total. Henchmen do earn experience points from adventures and can advance in levels." it later says they get half XP.

I know- that's 2Ed. But surprise, surprise, the same rule exists in 1Ed.

1Ed DMG p85
Division of Experience Points
...A party of 12 characters encounters monsters; in the ensuing battle, all characters fight, w are slain, and the XP for monsters killed total 4,300, so each survivor gains 430- adjusted for difficulty and for being actual PCs or halved for henchman characters.

(emphasis mine)
Again, this explicitly runs afoul of that quoted "1 in 100" demographic, which again means the demographic must either mean the demographic is meaningless, or that they meant only 1 in 100 are adventurers.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Again, you can do it with a good dm.

I'm pretty sure with a good DM you could have a fun game with FATAL. (Step 1: remove the setting. Step 2: remove most of the rules).

3e was where the balance was most precariously tilted, but even then the party's fighter really shone quite often.

3e was where wizards were let off the leash.

I'm not trying to tell anyone else how to play. I'll repeat my question from upthread: why are there those who insist that I'm doing it wrong?

There's how to play and how to design games. You can play a very fun game with RIFTS. That doesn't make the design not suck.

Which, frankly, I wouldn't know how to answer, since I appear to have been always doing it. I think the wizard's weaknesses balance his strengths very well in 2e and earlier and in 4e. I understand the whole "narrative control" issue some people have, but I think they underestimate the ability of a high level fighter to throw his weight around the campaign.

Are you playing 2e or 3e here. Because it's very different.

(Or maybe a lot of dms just don't let them play with armies?)

This.

A lot of old sandbox campaigns culminated in a fighter becoming a king or warlord, with an army of followers and a massive castle ready to withstand assaults.

And this. In 1e and 2e the fighter gets a castle and followers as a class feature. The fighter's career path starts at veteran and ends at noble or warlord with political power and troops. Which is very different from 3e's progression from man with armour and a sharpened bit of metal to man with magical armour and a magical sharpened bit of metal. In 3e there is no reason a fighter should be a better leader than a wizard, and every reason he should be worse at commanding troops than a bard. And why should the army go to the fighter? The wizard's smarter and the bard and sorceror are more charismatic. The cleric provides more support for his troops. Why the fighter?

If you are tacitly keeping the arbitrary class features from 2e then yes I see why the fighter stays relevant. That's because you have an unwritten houserule in there that keeps him relevant in 3.X.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

(Step 1: remove the setting. Step 2: remove most of the rules).

Wait ... I thought Step Two was putting my junk in the box? (Since it's F.A.T.A.L., presumably for measurement purposes.)

 

[pawsplay]

The 1st ed AD&D DMG treats stats for NPCs with PC classes differently. In some cases NPCs have lower minimums. In other cases they have stat adjustments rather than minimums.

The same book also has NPC fighters who are incapable of gaining levels (in the rules for hiring mercenaries).

I don't know 2nd ed AD&D so well, but I suspect that it abandoned these rules.

Actually, other than addressing some alternatives for adjusting ability scores on p.11, 1e has no special rules for NPCS at all, outside of rules specific to hirelings, mercenaries, etc. Unless you found some section of rules of which I am unaware.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let's not forget how often a henchman or hireling might become a PC when a player's character dies or becomes incapacitated. It kinda puts a damper on "NPCs have less potential than PCs" when you realize that many of those NPCS are potential PCs!

 

[pawsplay]

Sorry, I thought we were discussing the actual mechanics. I was very clear and repeated myself frequently that I was talking about how the game actually defines a normal man, not:...

My point is simple. The game, whichever edition you wish to choose, DEFINES NORMAL HUMANS as a part of the game mechanics. This definition is not based on any real world analogue, but, on how the mechanics of the various systems work. In 1e, a Normal Man has a d6 (IIRC) hp and no other stats than Int. In 3e, a Normal Man is defined by that system, as having 10's in every stat and being a Commoner 1...

Thus, by the definitions of Normal Man that exist in the system, when you move beyond those constructs, your character is no longer a Normal Man, again, as defined by the system.

Look, you've already been shown ample quotes that demonstrate how common non-heroic, PC-class NPCs are. The Normal Man entry does not "define normal humans" any more than the Elf entry "defines normal elves." The Normal Man entry refers specifically to a non-adventuring person. You are equivocating on two meanings of "normal." Suppose I said, "Guilliam is a Normal Man, and he has stolen a piece of bread," would you counter with, "Guilliam is not a Normal Man, a Thief is already defined by the system?"

I don't know if you are simply unwilling to give ground in what I would think could be a reasonable discussion, or if you are genuinely confused why other people do not think you are making sense. I am certainly done countering your assertion that all non-adventurers have 1-6 hp and poor saving throws. The rules say you are wrong, and if you cannot admit that, then you are not having the same discussion everyone else is. "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."

 

[Raven Crowking]

Can someone XP pawsplay for me?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What I have a problem with is the notion that "leveling up" is assumed to have some kind of in-game reality; that NPCs choose to "take" a level of warrior or "choose" a particular feat.

Why? That's how the game models skills & experience. That there is more than one way to model a particular set of skills & experience is a sign of the system's strengths.

Somewhere in the 3.5 DMG's section on NPCs- I believe on the same page as the demographic breakdown of the town of 200 souls- they talk about a blacksmith. A smith could be a lot of different level 1 things- a Commoner, most likely, but we've seen how he could also be a Fighter, an Expert, a Warrior, or whatever, depending on the background you want him to have. But the "Best Blacksmith in the World" it said, was probably a 20th level Expert.

 

[SkidAce]

[/SIZE][/FONT] 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.

I don't disagree with you totally even if I am on the other side of the "fence", but I can't agree with this.

On several occasions since the 80s fighters in our campaigns have played a Hercules style character. On one occasion he was the son of Girru, god of fire, on another she was the daughter of Istus, goddess of fate and magic. (Istus was pissed that her daughter wanted to be a fighter by the way.)

To re-iterate, and bring back on topic...it still boils down to the story. Both in game and literature. Wizards can cast spells and alter reality, got it. Fighters do heroic deeds, and sometimes mythic ones. Both within constraints understood by the parties involved. (writer and reader, DM and players).

 

[KahnyaGnorc]

To counter the "Fighters were mundane pre-4e" argument, someone mundane would simply be squished under a boot when facing someone who is 26' tall, especially a 26' tall trained combatant, not someone who can take a full-blown hit and say "That all ya got?!"