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

[Dannyalcatraz]

I have to go with ByronD on this one: Beowulf held his breath for an epic length of time. Nothing in the story says he was a water-breather.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So your basic proposal is to disregard the story in favour of something that fits what you want to believe. Well, that's a perfectly defensible position.

Around here, we call that "reading the story in context".

EDIT: For my money, the best film version of Beowulf to date is Gran Torino.


RC

 

[BryonD]

So your basic proposal is to disregard the story in favour of something that fits what you want to believe. Well, that's a perfectly defensible position.

How in the world do you get that from what I said?

 

[pawsplay]

Ok, so I've made the argument Blackbeard is a Fighter in 3e. I stand by that. But as pointed out, certain aspects of the system are not friendly to Fighters, especially when it comes to skills. Now, as it happens, we have access to a version of 3e for comparison

Blackbeard the Pirate (Pathfinder Edition)
Human Fighter 9
Str 14, Dex 10, Con 18, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 12
Hp 99
Feats: Skill Focus (Profession[Sailor]), Skill Focus (Intimidate), Leadership, W Focus (Cutlass), W Spec (cutlass), Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Quick Draw, Improved Critical (pistol), Improved Critical (cutlass), Vital Strike
Skils: Acrobatics +3, Appraise +2, Climb +7, Diplomacy +4, Intimidate +16, Knowledge (Geography) +2, Perception +6, Profession (sailor) +11, Sense Motive +3, Survival +7, Swim +7.

So in my view, the only way in which Blackbeard is "not a Fighter" is that in 3e, Profession and Survival are strangely not class skills for Fighters. Archetypally, all fighter.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No, it really hasn't been. And the fact that you continue to talk in terms of warriors "winning" or wizards "winning" is just evidence that you still don't get it.

And in most of the fiction I can think of the adventuring wizards in combat pick up a sword - see e.g. Gandalf and The Grey Mouser for details. Asked and Answered - simply not an answer you want.

Ah, but this is one of those rare occasions when we can benchmark a historical figure's hit points. With Con 16, he would have about 81 hit points. Five pistols shots at 2d6 and twenty saber cuts at 1d6+1 averages about 125 hit points, so if anything, I've lowballed him.

And as I demonstrated if you want to do this, fighter is the wrong class. A Barbarian has effectively twenty eight more hit points at the same level (ten from the d12 and a further 18 from raging). He's better with his cutlass and as good with his pistol. He's just slightly easier to hit in melee.

And I've never used firearms in D&D. Where do you get 2d6 from? Because that seems high to me for pistols on the high seas. I'd go for 1d6.

Finally, and this is a statistical oddity, if there's time to prepare and recover the Level 9 bard is at least as good at taking a pounding as the fighter assuming equivalent armour. He starts 20hp down - but song of greatness gives him 2d10 + 2*con mod temp hit points (=17). And he can do that both before and in the middle of the battle. Throw in Inspire Courage +2 (for the crew as well) and he's on the same to hit as the fighter and doing the same damage (he lost 3 points of BAB but has +2 competence and +2 morale bonusses to hit, cancelling out the weapon focus, and +2 damage cancelling out weapon specialisation - the numbers match). Give him the Song of the Heart option from Eberron and the temp hit points go up to 3d10+3*con (25 each time - with the second use he's more hp than our barbarian) and he's hitting better than the fighter.

Plus, level 9 is when he can take Leadership.

You mean level 6.

None of them are forced. I'm simply building to concept.

The problem with claiming this is that you are not building to a character concept. You are building to a character and metagame concept. The only reason Blackbeard even wants to be a fighter is because that is the metagame concept you have decided to shoe-horn him into.

A rogue or barbarian would simply have five less feats.

And you spent three of those feats on shoring up the fighter's skills in a way the other classes wouldn't need. And two on weapon focus and weapon specialisation - which other classes have abilities that counterbalance. If you think that rage is more than a match for focus + specialisation (I do) then the fighter has effectively no bonus feats over the barbarian. Zip. Nada. Bupkiss.

This is simply a compromise between combat and skills to eak out some specific skill bonuses. In the end, he's still a fighter.

Only because you went in deciding to do whatever you could to make him so.

This version is still at least two feats ahead,

The names of those two feats? Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation. In exchange the barbarian has a higher level of damage per round (but requires more healing) from raging. Two feats which in practice still leave him behind.

Like a guy who can wield a cutlass effectively, shot a pistol at close range without picking off his own guys, and quick draw one of his bracers of pistols.

Oh! You mean a barbarian? Or even a bard? All your fighter bonus feats have been eaten up by a mix of weapon focus, weapon specialisation, and covering for the fighter's appaling skills. The rest of the feats you mention are covered entirely by the default feats anyone gets.

Weapons of Legacy also misuses Knowledge as a research skill without stating any changes to the rules, such that as written, there are no retries for unlocking legacies!

Doh!

Anyway. Time for a summary. IMO, in 3e, Blackbeard is probably a fighter,

Why? Your only answer here appears to be "Because I say so and because that's what a fighter ought to be."

even though 3e steals about 20 or so skill ranks from him to which he would be otherwise entitled.

A good reason he isn't.

But that's okay, because piracy really isn't about being a skill-monkey.

It's a lot more about being a skill monkey than it is about being a combat specialist. Running down unarmed merchant ships. Running away from armed naval ships. Knowing the shipping patterns, the waterways, and what good targets look like. If a pirate ship is ever involved in a fair fight it means they've ed up (or gained a dose of idealism). This is all rogue and skill monkey stuff not fighter stuff.

Pathfinder basically gives those ranks back to a great extent.

It gives them Profession, Survival, and much less of a penalty for cross classing skills. Oh, and actually makes them more competent with weapons and armour. We're starting to get somewhere.

Previous versions of D&D had no problem at all with Fighter pirates.

So? I've already said this. But we are talking about 3.X.

Depending on concept, rogues and/or barbarians may also be good pirates.

Depending on concept, 3.X rogues and barbarians are almost invariably better pirates. So are rangers. So, for that matter, are bards.

 

[billd91]

Depending on concept, 3.X rogues and barbarians are almost invariably better pirates. So are rangers. So, for that matter, are bards.

(emphasis mine)

Of course, depending on the concept, fighters are better pirates as well. So are one-armed mutes named Charlie, assuming my pirate concept incorporates that.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Since people are still arguing over the pirate thing, I'll quote more RAW.

Some classes already give you plenty of room to customize your character. With your DM's approval, however, you can change some of your character's class features. For example, if you want a fighter who used to work for the thieves' guild as an enforcer who is now trying to become a legitimate bodyguard, he could be proficient only with the weapons and armor available to rogues, have 4 skill points per level instead of 2, and access to Bluff and Sense Motive as class skills. Otherwise, he would be a regular fighter.

Now, since it's a DM call, I could see a fighter have a trade-off for class skills, even by RAW. (1) Lose all class skills and all fighter bonus feats to gain all Rogue class skills and 8 + skills per level. (2) Drop skills down to 6+, lose all medium armor, heavy armor, and shield proficiencies, gain d12 hit die.

Of course, these are choices that might vary by DM. I don't worry about it when I play my game (which isn't 3.5). But, if a DM thought these were fair trade-offs, then, by RAW, you can make them.

As far as my quote from Profession being dismissed, I find it mildly amusing. Let me quote Hussar! (I got his name right, even if he thinks my name is Jason)

Profession (Wis; Trained Only)

Like Craft, Knowledge, and Perform, Profession is actually a number of separate skills. You could have several Profession skills, each with its own ranks, each purchased as a separate skill. While a Craft skill represents ability in creating or making an item, a Profession skill represents an aptitude in a vocation requiring a broader range of less specific knowledge.

Check

You can practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the profession’s daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems.

Action

Not applicable. A single check generally represents a week of work.

Try Again

Varies. An attempt to use a Profession skill to earn an income cannot be retried. You are stuck with whatever weekly wage your check result brought you. Another check may be made after a week to determine a new income for the next period of time. An attempt to accomplish some specific task can usually be retried.

Untrained

Untrained laborers and assistants (that is, characters without any ranks in Profession) earn an average of 1 silver piece per day.

Let's look at what I quoted!

Player's Handbook, 3.5
Profession (Wis; Trained Only)

You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the profession’s daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems. For example, sailor knows how to tie several basic knots, how to tend and repair sails, and how to stand a deck at sea. The DM sets DCs for specialized tasks.

It seems reasonable to me that "specialized tasks" where the "DM sets DCs" might fall into that category that Hussar mentioned where the skill breaks from it's general use (thanks, Hussar, for pointing this out!). And, if you fail a skill, it looks like you can probably retry, as you only cannot retry when trying to earn a wage (thanks again!).

It's almost like you can, by RAW, make a Fighter pirate fit what you want. Things are purposefully not written in stone. Still too rigid for my tastes, I'll grant you that. But this argument is nonetheless mildly amusing, when the core books cover things so adequately.

But, if you don't like it, don't use it. If you do like it, use it. It really is all good, as long as you're having fun. Play what you like

 

[pawsplay]

And as I demonstrated if you want to do this, fighter is the wrong class. A Barbarian has effectively twenty eight more hit points at the same level (ten from the d12 and a further 18 from raging). He's better with his cutlass and as good with his pistol. He's just slightly easier to hit in melee.

How have you demonstrated that? I see you asserting that, but little actual evidence apart from the hit point thing.

And I've never used firearms in D&D. Where do you get 2d6 from? Because that seems high to me for pistols on the high seas. I'd go for 1d6.

d20 Modern.

Finally, and this is a statistical oddity, if there's time to prepare and recover the Level 9 bard is at least as good at taking a pounding as the fighter assuming equivalent armour.

Given that he must sing continuously to gain these abilities, that's awfully situational. But duly noted.

You mean level 6.

Right you are.

The problem with claiming this is that you are not building to a character concept. You are building to a character and metagame concept. The only reason Blackbeard even wants to be a fighter is because that is the metagame concept you have decided to shoe-horn him into.

I named him in the first place as an example of a fighter. I wouldn't have named him if I didn't think he fit. I'm not shoehorning him in. I am, however, responding to complaints by others he doesn't qualify because... I'm not sure why. It's certainly not because Rogues are tougher or Barbarians are better sailors. Blackbeard is a tough guy, probably from an upper class background, who steers a ship, scares the crud out of people, and fights like a demon. That pretty much screams Fighter to me.

He was not a master negotiator or a genius, and in fact may have botched an attempt to claim an 11th hour pardon, resulting in his death. He was not a ninja, nor was he known for entering an animalistic rage. He had no animal companions of which I am aware, and despite his diabolic demeanor, no known spellcasting ability. He certainly didn't sing in battle.

And you spent three of those feats on shoring up the fighter's skills in a way the other classes wouldn't need. And two on weapon focus and weapon specialisation - which other classes have abilities that counterbalance. If you think that rage is more than a match for focus + specialisation (I do) then the fighter has effectively no bonus feats over the barbarian. Zip. Nada. Bupkiss.

Rage, particularly at that level, is not super. It gives the barbarian a slight numeric edge for a few rounds, during which they may take a lot of damage, then drops the barbarian's hit points, fatigues him, and leaves him without bonuses equivalent to Weapon Focus and Specialization. I'm not sure, it may edge out W Focus/Spec to a slight degree, on the balance, but if so, not by much.

The names of those two feats? Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation. In exchange the barbarian has a higher level of damage per round (but requires more healing) from raging. Two feats which in practice still leave him behind.

The barbarian does more damage only if fighting two-handed, which in practice is likely to reduce his AC further. A fighter fighting two-handed does, yes, lose effectively +1 to hit and +1 to damage, plus a few points from Power Attack if you go that route. I can live with that. Meanwhile, rage grants no advantages in ranged combat whatsoever, unless you use some kind of throwing weapon. It certainly does jack for crossbows or pistols.

Why? Your only answer here appears to be "Because I say so and because that's what a fighter ought to be." ...A good reason he isn't. ...
It's a lot more about being a skill monkey than it is about being a combat specialist. Running down unarmed merchant ships. Running away from armed naval ships. Knowing the shipping patterns, the waterways, and what good targets look like. If a pirate ship is ever involved in a fair fight it means they've ed up (or gained a dose of idealism). This is all rogue and skill monkey stuff not fighter stuff.

Those are all primarily judgment calls, effectively, the province of the player. What skills do you think are involved in those tasks? The waterways thing I guess is Knowledge (geography), which sadly is not a class skill for the rogue.

It gives them Profession, Survival, and much less of a penalty for cross classing skills. Oh, and actually makes them more competent with weapons and armour. We're starting to get somewhere.

Somewhere? Unless your barbarian pirate manages to ambush a foe at melee range, this guy is going to outperform him respectably by most measures.

Depending on concept, 3.X rogues and barbarians are almost invariably better pirates. So are rangers. So, for that matter, are bards.

Depending on concept? What do you mean by that phrase? Barbarians and rogues certainly make different pirates, but I fail to see how they are simply better. The barbarian runs out of juice quickly, and the rogue is a wuss and probably lacks critical weapon proficiencies. "Depending on concept" seems to mean: "If I think rogue pirates sucking at ABC is okay, that's okay, but it's not okay for fighters to suck at anything."

Now, really, if you want a very competent pirate, specifically at both sailing and thuggery, I'd go with the Corsair from A Fistful of Denarii, written for the Pathfinder RPG. Unlike the Unorthodox version, he is built around the fighter rather than the barbarian and has some rogue abilities.

However, Blackbeard is probably still a normal Fighter.

 

[pemerton]

3E should also be played within the confines of its paradigm. 3E is about heroic adventurers who can use skills to dabble in side-venture professions. Yet they are adventurers first and foremost. If you want to be a true 24/7 pirate, then an NPC expert is the way to go.

And one 3E paradigm is that PCs are first and foremost adventurers, not professional 24/7 pirates.

<snip>

To take an extreme example, it's like saying that wizards and warriors are not balanced, because fighters don't have enough skill points for basket weaving.

<snip>

The question is about balance issues between *adventuring* wizards vs *adventuring* warriors".

It's simply an accident of the 3e skills system that his particular background is more fiddly than most. It's no different than trying to make a Wizard from a noble background, if you would like to give him Diplomacy.

I tend to feel that when I can't easily make a noble wizard or a pirate PC, the game is starting to fail as a game of generic fantasy adventuring. These aren't really alternatives to being an adventurer. They're certainly not in the same boat as basket-weaving.

The cause of this particular issue seems fairly easy to diagnose, however - the 3E skill rules, both the cross-class rules and the skill point rules. I gather that Pathfinder tackles both of these, and it seems to me for a very obvious reason.

A further complication is that 3E doesn't provide any obvious mechanical route, in its encounter design guidelines, XP rules etc for making some of these skill-oriented issues a core part of the game.

I don't feel disempowered by not always being able to spam my best moves. I do feel disempowered by being baseline incompetent. 1e did not have this problem.

I tend to agree with this. 3E has tried to follow games like Runequest or Rolemaster or Traveller or HERO in its character build mechanics - the character's mechanical specification is meant to be a total picture of the character's aptitudes and competencies - but has not really provided adequate resources on the player side (hence the monomaniacal fighter) nor on the GM side (not enough support for fully integrating these sorts of "total characters" into gameplay - and hence frequent complaints like, for example, having to trade off combat optimality for roleplaying richness).

1st ed didn't tend to have this problem because it didn't have the notion of the "totally mechanically specified character". In particular, there were no real mechanical constraints on adding roleplaying richness, or a range of mundance competencies, to a character (at least prior to Oriental Adventures and the Survival Guides).

 

[Raven Crowking]

A further complication is that 3E doesn't provide any obvious mechanical route, in its encounter design guidelines, XP rules etc for making some of these skill-oriented issues a core part of the game.

Disagree, unless you are specifically complaining that the obvious mechanical route to making skill-oriented issues a core part of the game has nothing to do (directly) with the XP system.

How to use the skill mechanics in the game, mechanically, seemed extremely obvious and intuitive, to me. And, in many respects, the 3e skill system works exceedingly well. IMHO. YMMV.


RC