Why do we still have warriors?

[S@tanicoaldo]

What could be the in-world reason for someone in a D&D world to choose "Hit stuff with a metal stick" instead of "super powers"?
I mean in the real world everyone wants some type of super power if it was possible why in the seven seas of hell you would not choose that?

[Demidos]

Perhaps not everyone is intelligent enough to be a wizard, wise enough to be a druid, or charismatic enough to activate the inherent magic of a sorcerer.

Especially in a world where most people have 10-11 in most stats, a 7th level fighter is going to be much more fearsome than a 7th level wizard who has only 11 intelligence.

Plus most non-Tippy settings run magic as moderately sparse, at least in my experience. Magic isn't necessarily something anyone can do.

[Knaight]

They might not get to choose, and merely end up in a situation where they are hitting things with sticks, and where they get good at doing so. Plus, it emulates the source material better, which people tend to care about.

[YossarianLives]

In my world arcane magic can only be used by people who have a rare special gift. As for divine magic you pretty much have to be chosen by your god to be they're servant so divine magic is even more uncommon. As for psionics it only exists in a few secluded monasteries where you can be taught but only if you have enough willpower and focus.

[Tvtyrant]

What could be the in-world reason for someone in a D&D world to choose "Hit stuff with a metal stick" instead of "super powers"?
I mean in the real world everyone wants some type of super power if it was possible why in the seven seas of hell you would not choose that?

Part of it is there is a paucity of actual super power sources to pick from. Marvel has gods, casters, mutants, freaks, cyborgs, etc. D&D has a 100+ ways to play a caster, or you can be a sword guy.

Because the sword mundane individual is a class option you cannot introduce minor deity classes or the Hulk because they are better at what the mundane does in the same niche, and niche protection is part of the way the game pretends to be balanced.

[AMFV]

What could be the in-world reason for someone in a D&D world to choose "Hit stuff with a metal stick" instead of "super powers"?

Maybe you don't like book learning. Being a wizard takes years of study, and if you're not bright then you'll never excel, whereas somebody who is strong and stable might be able to excel as a warrior. There's also a certain stubborn pride in doing things in a way which is more difficult.



I mean in the real world everyone wants some type of super power if it was possible why in the seven seas of hell you would not choose that?

Well Superpowers aren't all amazing, many of them have unfortunate side-effects people don't discuss or don't necessarily think about.

[A Tad Insane]

Because the hulk can fight Dr strange and have a good chance because the hulk is just that good at taking hits and dealing them too

[Kid Jake]

What's the justification in the real world for there being construction workers or dock hands when doctors make way more money? Some people just don't have the intelligence, drive or general inclination to spend a decade or more studying when they can make a respectable enough living off the sweat of their brow.

[AMFV]

What's the justification in the real world for there being construction workers or dock hands when doctors make way more money? Some people just don't have the intelligence, drive or general inclination to spend a decade or more studying when they can make a respectable enough living off the sweat of their brow.

It's also worth noting that those jobs are fulfilling in different ways. I mean I would consider myself intelligent, and I've never wanted to be a doctor, in fact I generally am happiest in jobs where I'm a manual laborer or doing some kind of technical "blue collar" work.

[Knaight]

What's the justification in the real world for there being construction workers or dock hands when doctors make way more money? Some people just don't have the intelligence, drive or general inclination to spend a decade or more studying when they can make a respectable enough living off the sweat of their brow.

There are also factors like money, general life situation, etc. It's hardly just a matter of intelligence, drive, and studiousness - there are plenty of people working in construction that are very smart, and very driven. There's also the matter of construction and shipping being things that are going to happen. Somebody is going to end up in those jobs regardless, even if everyone does spend a decade or more studying.

[Slipperychicken]

What could be the in-world reason for someone in a D&D world to choose "Hit stuff with a metal stick" instead of "super powers"?
I mean in the real world everyone wants some type of super power if it was possible why in the seven seas of hell you would not choose that?

Because it's not a choice.


Why would we choose "work 9-5 in a job you despise while barely scraping by" over "be a billionaire who never has to work a day in his life and is positively swimming in women and parties"? We don't. Some people are extremely lucky, and the rest of us need to make do with what we have.

[AMFV]

Because it's not a choice.


Why would we choose "work 9-5 in a job you despise while barely scraping by" over "be a billionaire who never has to work a day in his life and is positively swimming in women and parties"? We don't. Some people are extremely lucky, and the rest of us need to make do with what we have.

And even if it is a choice, it's not necessarily one that people understand. Some people have given up lives where they've had literally everything for lives where they struggle, for any number of reasons. There are many reasons why this might be.

[Kid Jake]

It's also worth noting that those jobs are fulfilling in different ways. I mean I would consider myself intelligent, and I've never wanted to be a doctor, in fact I generally am happiest in jobs where I'm a manual laborer or doing some kind of technical "blue collar" work.

Oh definitely, I still consider my years as a trim carpenter to be some of the most productive of my life if for no other reason than the constant exertion made me feel awesome. Didn't mean to imply that people in those jobs aren't intelligent or driven, just that there are more profitable careers that they didn't pursue; careers that I might add don't even have a chance of accidentally setting them on fire or getting them eaten by a demon like an apprentice wizard may occasionally endure in the name of Magic.


There's also the matter of construction and shipping being things that are going to happen. Somebody is going to end up in those jobs regardless, even if everyone does spend a decade or more studying.

That's sort of the point I was making.

[Slipperychicken]

Didn't mean to imply that people in those jobs aren't intelligent or driven, just that there are more profitable careers that they didn't pursue; careers that I might add don't even have a chance of accidentally setting them on fire or getting them eaten by a demon like an apprentice wizard may occasionally endure in the name of Magic.

You know that's not always an option, right? Even when it is, people aren't always properly informed of their opportunities, or are otherwise discouraged from taking them.

[Tengu_temp]

Because not everyone has the potential to be a wizard, because not everyone has the money to be a wizard (can you imagine how much all those books on magical theory have to cost?), and because decent game systems make at least an effort to keep casters and non-casters balanced instead of turning the casters into superheroes who can do everything.

[Kid Jake]

You know that's not always an option, right? Even when it is, people aren't always properly informed of their opportunities, or are otherwise discouraged from taking them.

Much like being a wizard isn't always an option. That's the only point I was trying to make. The same arguments that apply to why every person in our world isn't a doctor/lawyer/etc... can be applied to why everyone in elfland hasn't spent the last decade learning how to summon celestial badgers.

[Rakaydos]

If warblades and fighters both exist in your setting, why would you train as a fighter (or worse, an NPC class warrior) when you could train as a warblade?

[Kid Jake]

If warblades and fighters both exist in your setting, why would you train as a fighter (or worse, an NPC class warrior) when you could train as a warblade?

Because your father was a fighter and his father was a fighter and his father was a fighter and his father was...some kind of furniture salesman, but HIS father was a fighter.

[AMFV]

If warblades and fighters both exist in your setting, why would you train as a fighter (or worse, an NPC class warrior) when you could train as a warblade?

If Electricians exist in your setting, why try as an Outside Lineman? They're different in skillset in how they operate, they're just similar in many respects.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Am I the only one who think that earning a lot of money like a doctor(a boring stressful job in my opinion) and flying, shooting lasers and moving stuff with magic are not the same thing?

I get the point you guys want to make but it is hardly a good comparison.

And


... and because decent game systems make at least an effort to keep casters and non-casters balanced instead of turning the casters into superheroes who can do everything.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards

[Vitruviansquid]

Wizards don't have superpowers either, if magic is reasonably common in your setting.

Unless you're playing with an unbalanced ruleset, warriors have a niche too.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Because the hulk can fight Dr strange and have a good chance because the hulk is just that good at taking hits and dealing them too
Uhhhhh yeah...

Part of it is there is a paucity of actual super power sources to pick from. Marvel has gods, casters, mutants, freaks, cyborgs, etc. D&D has a 100+ ways to play a caster, or you can be a sword guy.

Because the sword mundane individual is a class option you cannot introduce minor deity classes or the Hulk because they are better at what the mundane does in the same niche, and niche protection is part of the way the game pretends to be balanced.

[Kid Jake]

Am I the only one who think that earning a lot of money like a doctor(a boring stressful job in my opinion) and flying, shooting lasers and moving stuff with magic are not the same thing?

Using the arguments from the above doctor example:

Lack of Money: How is your average commoner going to afford the expensive spellbooks necessary for wizardy? It takes most of their pay to cover the basic necessities.

Lack of Knowledge: The average intelligence is around 9-11, the most that the average individual could cast would be first level spells and most people would never get over cantrips. Spending years studying in order to fly around shooting laser beams and playing god is a no brainer; spending years studying so that you can cast sleep three times a day is somewhat less appealing.

Lack of Inclination: Even basic cantrips require a good deal of time to master; time that could be spent wooing that pretty girl next door; going on half-baked adventures or anything else that generally doesn't involve sitting in a dusty tower filled with dusty old men with god complexes until you gain the awesome ability to deal 1d3 acid damage 4 times per day.

Not even getting into social stigma, religious persecution, having to have a magic 'spark' just to train or there only being so much magic to go around which (depending on the setting in question) would all limit the number of wizards considerably.

[Slipperychicken]

If warblades and fighters both exist in your setting, why would you train as a fighter (or worse, an NPC class warrior) when you could train as a warblade?

I think NPC classes weren't really used the way they were intended. When I first read the NPC classes, I got the impression that they were supposed to distinguish PC from NPC, and also to make the GM's job easier (notice how NPC classes aren't half as complicated as the PC ones- they have almost no class features, and the Adept spell list fits on a single sheet). Sure, you'd have NPC "wizards" or "clerics" or "shamans", but they're almost all classed as Adepts. Or you'd have NPC "fighters", "guards", "berserkers", and "rangers" mostly classed as Warriors. This would also serve as a response to the often repeated question "Why don't the NPCs handle all these problems themselves?": NPC class levels are simply not as good as the PCs' are.

[Lord Vukodlak]

My fighter Zorr didn't choose to be a fighter, I choose for him to be a fighter and thus his life was warped so he could be nothing but a fighter.

[Seerow]

I like how more than half of the answers here are "because not everyone can be awesome".


Why do we have not just a single character class, but an entire character archtype, dedicated to "For people who aren't good enough to be awesome like the Wizard"?

[Slipperychicken]

Why do we have not just a single character class, but an entire character archtype, dedicated to "For people who aren't good enough to be awesome like the Wizard"?

We have five. They (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/adept.htm) are (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/aristocrat.htm) called (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/commoner.htm) NPC (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/expert.htm) Classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/warrior.htm).

EDIT: Whoops. Thought you were asking why we didn't.

[Tengu_temp]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards

Yes, and? Linking a TV Tropes page is not the same as making a point. I have no idea what you're trying to tell here, so I can only make a guess. And my response to what I guess your point is:

Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards is bad design. A good game design has both of them linear, or both quadratic.

[Arbane]

As a player?

Because sometimes I don't feel like curating a three-page spell list, agonizing over metamagic priorities, or reading a phone-book sized spell compendium. Sometimes I just want to strap on some armor, pick up an axe, and kill some orcs.

[oxybe]

Because it's a staple of the genre, even if the game doesn't do it justice.

It's the same reason why some form of the tippyverse isn't the assumed norm, even if it is a rather logical one if we consider in-game wizards and such much better versed in how magic works then us players sitting in an easy-chair reading the Cliff's Notes version of "Fireball" and simulating the effect with dice and tiny, plastic figures.

[Knaight]

I like how more than half of the answers here are "because not everyone can be awesome".
It's more that not everyone has the capacity and situation that allows them to achieve a particular brand of awesomeness, which in-setting is likely preferable (particularly in the context of D&D-like games, which have ridiculously powerful and versatile magic compared to most everything else).

[Lord Raziere]

because the game is designed badly. we should be able to play medieval Hulk or Superman instead of only having Green Lantern and Batman. the only reason we can't is because the game wasn't designed to make casters and fighters equal, which it should.

[LokiRagnarok]

Another thing I believe was not mentioned: elitism and prejudice.

See, even in the real world some people say that "mental work isn't proper work". I can very well imagine a fighter dude looking down on the "nerdy elf with weird clothes with his nose up high, who does he think he is? I will never become like him. The way of the sword is the only true one!".

Or, you know, maybe your parents were killed by magic and you associate magic with destruction, so it is not a path you wish to take. Maybe you consider magic "dishonest" and "cheating the rules of nature" (think of Illusion for obvious lies, Necromancy as cheating death, Divination as spying, Enchantment as robbing someone of their free will) Hitting things with a stick is pretty straightforward and more honest, more honorable. When you want to kill someone, you hit them with a stick, then both of you know what you are about. You don't control their mind and make them walk off a cliff.

The views descibed in this post are not mine - I love playing spellcasters :D

[Knaight]

Another thing I believe was not mentioned: elitism and prejudice.

See, even in the real world some people say that "mental work isn't proper work". I can very well imagine a fighter dude looking down on the "nerdy elf with weird clothes with his nose up high, who does he think he is? I will never become like him. The way of the sword is the only true one!".
The elitism often goes in the other direction - any work that is part time, or doesn't pay well enough isn't a "real job". The entire service industry, janitorial work, even mining, they all get dismissed.

[Angelalex242]

Well...

Once you start getting into Superman territory, you have to start using Divine Ranks...like, ya know, Thor. Even Hulk is about Divine Ranks.

Once you get into SDAs and Divine Ranks, your classes start mattering less.

So, to balance out wizards and warriors, make it a god game. SDAs are so powerful that even wish looks frumpy by comparison.

[Thrudd]

What version of D&D are we talking about here, specifically? A 3.5/Pathfinder game that allows every supplement and splatbook ever published? Then yeah, nobody would bother playing a normal fighter. Pick a ToB class or a Gish class instead, if you don't want to be a full caster.
But playing in a setting where core-only is allowed and/or magic is more controlled than what many people presume to be the norm for this edition, a fighter is a completely workable and legit choice.

4ed fighters have equal super-powers to every other class.

AD&D and earlier fighters are an absolutely necessary member of every adventuring party, as magic and casters are far more limited and non-fighters can't use missile weapons at all.

The 3e warrior NPC class is meant only for NPCs, obviously. Player's shouldn't be able to choose it anyway, it is not on-par with PC classes on purpose.

[Seerow]

It's more that not everyone has the capacity and situation that allows them to achieve a particular brand of awesomeness, which in-setting is likely preferable (particularly in the context of D&D-like games, which have ridiculously powerful and versatile magic compared to most everything else).

Sure, and if that was what most people were saying, I'd raise no issue.

But that's not the argument being made. The comparisons being made are things like "Not everybody can hack it as a doctor, that's why we have fast food workers", with the implication being that Wizard characters are the smart/talented/wealthy, and the Fighter characters are inherently those who weren't good enough to make it anywhere in life.


I mean yes, if one PC archetype is a Doctor, you might expect others to include a Lawyer, an Engineer, and a Scientist. If looking at more physically based archetypes you might even expect some archetypes like Professional Sports Star, Military Spec Ops, etc. You however do not expect to see the average joe Bag Boy, Burger Flipper, or Skateboard Punk in that mix. Those are NPCs.



For what it's worth, Tvtyrant's comparison to Marvel Universe I think is pretty apt. We need more ways to be awesome, rather than Caster or Bust.

[Prince Raven]

If you were born with 18 Strength and 10 Intelligence, which one would you choose to be?

[JusticeZero]

I'm sure that there is a certain amount of path dependency involved too. You're a peasant and there are housecats attacking the village. You might sneak off or pick up an axe. Later on, you have the option to learn magic.. But by that time, you have a mean backswing with that axe, or whenever you hear a meow you are flat gone invisible, so those skills will carry you better.

[rs2excelsior]

Looking at this from an out of character perspective, playing a fighter can be FUN. My first D&D character ever was a Dwarf Fighter for the first six levels. He was a tank (16 Con) in full armor and carrying an enchanted battleaxe. His first response to any situation was to charge in, hacking at anything in sight. Because he had the AC and HP to take it. Sure, I wound up unconscious and bleeding a few times, but I hacked a bunch of things to death. He's now a level 10 Fighter, with 4 levels of Cleric since the party gestalted at level 7. But really, those spells are there so I can be a backup healer and a bit of extra offensive punch. I'm still going to play him like a fighter, because I enjoy wading into a room full of enemies and swinging away with an axe more than standing somewhere in the back and chucking spells.

[Vrock_Summoner]

If those wizards can afford all the stuff they do for magic and still live comfortably, imagine how much a low-level one will pay for a good sword-arm? PROFIT!

Also, a Fighter can get their first class level after training for, oh, a year or two. Prepared casters almost always need many years of training, and magic doesn't start out all that impressive or good for things. Becoming the kind of wizard that flies around shooting lasers and shouting "#YOLOswaglolI'minyourzonekillingyourpeeps" is long, arduous, and extremely dangerous, certainly more so in most circumstances than getting sword skills and lots of HP. Spontaneous casters (or their equivalent in other games) don't have those same restrictions, but of course in almost all games it's also a fact that, regardless of circumstances, wealth, drive, or whatever else, you are physically incapable of going from "can't do magic" to "can do magic."

[Tvtyrant]

If those wizards can afford all the stuff they do for magic and still live comfortably, imagine how much a low-level one will pay for a good sword-arm? PROFIT!

Also, a Fighter can get their first class level after training for, oh, a year or two. Prepared casters almost always need many years of training, and magic doesn't start out all that impressive or good for things. Becoming the kind of wizard that flies around shooting lasers and shouting "#YOLOswaglolI'minyourzonekillingyourpeeps" is long, arduous, and extremely dangerous, certainly more so in most circumstances than getting sword skills and lots of HP. Spontaneous casters (or their equivalent in other games) don't have those same restrictions, but of course in almost all games it's also a fact that, regardless of circumstances, wealth, drive, or whatever else, you are physically incapable of going from "can't do magic" to "can do magic."

And were the player forced to play through that I might see it as an argument for game design, but in fact it is all handwavium. It all happens off stage, and on stage they are capable of being stompy death gods from level 1.

I now want to make a fighter class that gets a divine rank at levels 5, 10, 15 and 20. You did the work of gaining worshippers and becoming a deity offstage and you are becoming a stronger god through the legends of your antics.

[Vrock_Summoner]

And were the player forced to play through that I might see it as an argument for game design, but in fact it is all handwavium. It all happens off stage, and on stage they are capable of being stompy death gods from level 1.

I now want to make a fighter class that gets a divine rank at levels 5, 10, 15 and 20. You did the work of gaining worshippers and becoming a deity offstage and you are becoming a stronger god through the legends of your antics.

The OP seemed to be coming from an in-character perspective, at least the way I perceived the post. "Why, in a world where it is theoretically possible to gain extreme super powers that mundanes can't even fathom, would anybody choose to be a mundane?" That's the question I thought was being asked.

To answer the question of why they exist from the stance of design philosophy... Well, first off, if we're all talking about 3.5 here (and I don't have to be, I know plenty of other systems with wizards and mundanes) fighters don't even totally suck for the first, oh, four levels. Just being able to dish out damage is actually meaningful and necessary at that stage, and the Cleric hasn't quite gotten the skills to do it hundreds of times better than him yet. And once you're past that, well, Fighter 4 isn't a very good base for a gish, so may as well go the rest of the way. Also the game designers for 3.5 really had no idea how the classes they designed worked at all, so I think they assumed that Fighters actually would be meaningful and that everybody else wouldn't instantly become supergod the second they got done with cantrips/orisons. (I mean, they thought "divine caster" and "healer" were interchangeable names for the same role in the party, so they must have been entirely off their collective rockers.)

[Kaeso]

What could be the in-world reason for someone in a D&D world to choose "Hit stuff with a metal stick" instead of "super powers"?
I mean in the real world everyone wants some type of super power if it was possible why in the seven seas of hell you would not choose that?

This is why I think E6 settings work the best for DnD. Level 6 wizards are rare, but even they would just be glorified artillery in an army. There would still very much be a need for men with pointy sticks.

As for normal DnD, either we have to assume that the average warrior is level 15 or something (making them ULTRA-MEN with SHARP STICKS FORGED BY THE GODS THEMSELVES), or we have to assume that anything above level 6 is so extremely rare that only a small band of heroes can deal with an otherwise entirely unprepared world. The PCs would thus be superhuman in every way. Kind of like how the world of Superman still has militaries despite it being full of otherworldly horrors and metahumans who can render their most powerful weapons impotent.

[Jeff the Green]

So, can we just sum it up as "supply and demand"? The supply of people able and willing to become wizards is smaller than the number able and willing to become fireball fodder warriors, and the demand will likely be lower as well, in much the same way that there will always be more demand for construction workers than architects.

[Kaeso]

So, can we just sum it up as "supply and demand"? The supply of people able and willing to become wizards is smaller than the number able and willing to become fireball fodder warriors, and the demand will likely be lower as well, in much the same way that there will always be more demand for construction workers than architects.

I guess, that and the fact that (in E6, at least) ten warriors are still able to take out one wizard, making a small army of just wizards less efficient than a more balanced wizard-warrior army barring very specific contexts. I think it's comparable to how canons became more and more dangerous (by the time of Napoleon they were responsible for over half of all military deaths, I think) but never got to the point where they could entirely replace infantry and cavalry.

[Angelalex242]

That's E6. Not so E20, which is the default.

In fact, I was playing a 'build nations' game on RPol.net a while back. The first thing my country built was a great temple to my deity of choice. Well, first, because the ruler was a Paladin, but second...because one level 17+ Cleric (The high priest of the cathedral) was more powerful then any unit I could build.

Level 17+ Cleric vs. 1000 troops:

Cleric yawns, chain gates some Solars, alas, poor troops.

[Gamgee]

In my world your born with it. It's incredibly rare. Except one land known as "The Dominion of Magos" where every single natural born citizen inside the borders of the country are born with magic. Some learn it the book way and some are just born with it. Both have to learn how to use and control it on a basic level. Think elementary school with classes for sorcerer types and wizards. Though in reality the vast majority of the populace is just modeld with some basic spells.

As in real life. Not everyone is the best at everything. So what you can throw a flame or create some light. Anyone can drive a car too. Not everyone can be a nascar driver. When everyone has the ability how special is it? People are just like whatever. Everyone can do the basics. It's the ones who are more potent who rise to power. Although not necessarily always. Politics still effects even those with magic.

[Endarire]

At some point, we have warriors in fantasy for metagame reasons. People like the easily-identified with archetypes of Conan the Barbarian, Elric, Gilamesh, Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, etc. These are people who, in general, through a combination of drive, training, and innate talent are able to overcome obstacles using a combination of strength, skill, and wit. They aren't known for casting spells (though Arthur had Merlin on his payroll) but often have magic items to deal with situations. In addition (and this is very important), these people lived in stories that were very low magic compared to typical D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder! They were considered champions because the standards were much lower. They were effectively the gold medal Olympic athletes of their worlds and stories because their respective universes weren't that much more powerful than our real life medieval Earth. Also, what these characters do is very visible and, to some degree, implicitly possible in real life if someone will just train enough in the right ways. They work out, get stronger, get healthier, get more nimble and agile, figure out plans, and defeat their enemies. They have choreographable fight scenes and make millions of dollars (US) yearly for movie makers - if not these characters, then action movie heroes. In essence, these characters and their archetype is the preternatural everyman - what happens if someone is trained to the uppermost limits of human ability, possibly with minor supernatural aid and a signature minor magic item or few.

When we get into the realm of D&D 3.5, we face a big split between NPCs and PCs. NPCs are effectively there to suit the party and drive the setting and plot. The standard PC party is assumed to be a healbot Cleric, a sneaky McTrapperson Rogue, a Tanky McStabby Fighter, and Magic McMissle Wizard. Even if an abnormally low portion of the world's populace is expected to be, say, Wizards, they will appear reliably in adventuring parties. It's just a matter of game balance. In addition, consider this very important distinction: The first 3 classes I mentioned (Cleric, Rogue, and Fighter) have a significant martial focus. The Cleric gets spells and can Turn Undead (at least by default), but he's expected to bash skulls with a mace or shoot foes with bows and arrows. The Rogue and Fighter are just two martial-bound characters that, while they may get magic items, are never able to cast any magic on their own.

The Wizard is different. The Wizard lives and dies by his spells. He gets pretty much nothing beyond the ability to cast spells and some spiffy INT-based skills like Spellcraft and Knowledge (anything and everything). The Wizard is, at his heart, a mobile spell platform. In the aforementioned stories, he would never be the main character. He'd be a sidekick or a villain or secondary character. Why? He'd steal the show. (Ever wonder why Gandalf's magical power was pretty much neglected throughout the novels? Were he to use his magic in every situation, no one else would need to be there (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU).)

Magic has a way of creating and solving every problem in a fantasy universe. The One Ring? Made by a caster, very magical, very evil. Solved by a plot volcano. Cinderella? She was made beautiful by magic and got her Prince Charming to notice her because she was magicked up. Arthur's Excalibur? Magic. The main difference between medieval fiction (or alternative history) and fantasy fiction is the presence of magic.

The Harry Potter universe works as it does because pretty much every notable character there is a Wizard, or a Witch, or some sort of magical creature or magic user. Magic has been embraced as what it is in its universe - fantastic, cool, and in the Potterverse, not all-powerful.

I'm coming back to D&D 3.5 where magic is, effectively, all-powerful. A wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) can very literally do anything your GM allows. There's a safe list, yes, but there's that potential. In addition, if a level 1 Wizard worth his spells were to be transported, spellbook and all, to modern Earth, he would be able to take over with nary the ability to detect him. Casting charm person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmPerson.htm) on the right people (heads of state, company leaders, etc.) could get him the 'right attention' and fast! Just meet someone, be within 25' of them for about 3 seconds, minimize arm somatic and verbal components to whatever was needed to cast this spell and bam! Instant friend, assuming they failed a Will save, which seems likely. It's not Imperio from tthe Harry Potter universe, but it's close, and there'd be no Ministry of Magic to deal with it. And that's only a level 1 spell!

In D&D 3.5, the Fighter is like a pawn in chess. He exists to act as a decoy and damage dealer until the more powerful units (Wizards/Queens) are in place, then gets traded out for a better piece upon promotion. (That is, he makes a new character - a Wizard or such once the party is of high enough level - akin to how a pawn that reaches the end of the board in chess can be promoted to a Queen. Never mind the sex change.)

In short, the power level of D&D 3.5 is higher than in many other fantasy universes, magic makes the fantasy, and Wizards = spells and spells = very powerful. Warriors exist in D&D 3.5 because people want them to, and because the authors of D&D 3.5 really liked the notion of fighting men in 2E and before.

[NichG]

In low-op, melee has better endurance both in terms of multiple fights in a row and also in terms of not-dying; they also tend to be more effective in taking out enemies. In mid-op, melee of various sorts is still the best option for direct damage potential. Its only at high-op, where casters just provide their own melee units out of thin air when that's needed or where you start to see free metamagic raise its head and raise the damage potential, that melee has no real niche at all.

[BWR]

In universe: not everyone has the opportunity or ability to use/learn magic
Out of universe: some of us like playing beatsticks (brains and other skills or not). Conan, Kull, Bran Mak Morn, Fafhrd, John Carter, and numerous others.

[Arbane]

Out of universe: some of us like playing beatsticks (brains and other skills or not). Conan, Kull, Bran Mak Morn, Fafhrd, John Carter, and numerous others.

As someone noted, in most of the fiction D&D was inspired by, spellcasters aren't the main characters. They're either advisors or enemies.

[Lord Raziere]

As someone noted, in most of the fiction D&D was inspired by, spellcasters aren't the main characters. They're either advisors or enemies.

I've said something similar yes:


like, they're not thinking about any of the strategies of this. they're not thinking about this, as say, a 3.5 Optimizer or whatever would think about the game.

I guess its more like they thinking about this fluff-first: that its not about the strategy or the system or anything like that, they're thinking about the fluffy, conceptual archetypes they want to emulate. without any relation to how it affects all the others

like, none of these mechanics are designed to fit together, these are archetypes developed in isolation, not to fulfill some role in the group but to emulate some fluffy archetype or character idea that you often see in fiction. the necromancer has an army of zombies.....because that is what you see necromancers having, and therefore it should be included because someone might want to play a necromancer with a zombie army. the barbarian is there because someone might want to play a raging hulk of destruction in contrast to a cool controlled warrior in full armor.

and so on and so forth. problem is, a lot of archetypes in fiction, when they do clash, are balanced out by narrative workings. sword hero beats up a horde of zombies summoned by the necromancer because the narrative says he is the hero who is supposed to win and be badass, the wizard doesn't solve everything because the narrative says all wizards are secretive, wise folk who only use their magic at certain times. things like that. problem is, a system is not a narrative. the system just models all this logically, with no narrative manipulation to make things turn out like they do in the stories. the result is that these archetypes clash without any narrative: the sword hero dies to the zombie horde because its logical, the wizard solves everything because that is what magic can do without any narrative to hold it back, the normally clever rogue who'd be manipulating people left, right front and center and being at the top of their game, is nothing but another guy who eventually gets steamrolled by people who can change reality by wiggling their fingers.


It is indeed a problem: the system's effort is made to model the characters ability as they would work regardless of the story, when we are trying to use the system to play out stories that only work because they run on a narrative logic that wouldn't exist even in the fantasy world itself. in many ways, you can't play Conan or whatever without the narrative tropes that bend reality in ways so that they win against wizards and the like.

without it, you might as be playing a subversion of those stories played for realism: the fighter loses to the monster because they're just a normal dude with a sword, the cleric goes and does his job better, the clever crooks are either destroyed by magical competition or imprisoned by new magical methods of crimefighting, and the wizard proceeds to become god and solve everything.

[Gracht Grabmaw]

One of the basic cornerstones of magic is being able to read spellbooks. How many people in your average pseudo-medieval world can even read, period? On top of that, how many would have the time and the mental gifts to learn magic? Then out of those, who can actually afford the education?
It's like asking why not everybody becomes a doctor or an engineer, it just doesn't work out like for everyone.

As for why people play non-magical characters: Because they have a story to tell for that specific character they made, or simply because they think they're fun. If all you want from your character is power, play an MMO.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

As Gracht Grabmaw said, remember that in most developed countries, universal education didn't really arrive until the last hundred years or so - before that, a good number of people could barely write their own names.

In the average pseudo-medieval D&D world, the most educated people in any settlement are probably the local blacksmith, the innkeeper and maybe the local mayor.

Given that, and taking into account philanthropic individuals or organisations that choose to educate lower-class people with some talent, you're looking at only the nobility, or at most the upper middle class to have anything like the education needed to even start to study magic - and a good number of those would likely go into a religious career path anyway. By the time you've weeded out those people in that group who don't want to study magic, but want to study other subjects, those who want to study it but don't have the basic aptitude to even start, those who'll never progress past basic cantrips, those who're already earmarked for what is effectively the civil service, those who could, but need adventuring money now, and those who stay in research, alchemy, magic item manufacture and so on, you've maybe got 1 potentially powerful mage per ten thousand of the general population, and a countries population in the 100's of thousands, rather than the millions.

Whilst people who can pick up a stick and hit someone with it are simply a lot more common - be they farmhands or dockworkers who get a bit rowdy on a friday night, the local watch, an organised military, brigands, mercenaries or professional warriors.

[Gravitron5000]

Am I the only one who think that earning a lot of money like a doctor(a boring stressful job in my opinion) and flying, shooting lasers and moving stuff with magic are not the same thing?

I get the point you guys want to make but it is hardly a good comparison.


I would rather be a rock star, or an investment banker, or a surfer, but here I am, designing control systems for some supervillian's* doomsday device. It's might not be what I wanted in life, but it's a good living ... At least until Captain Berserk Freedom comes over and starts smashing things again.

*This message is the opinion of Gravitron5000, and does not represent the views of Dr. Doomhammer McKickThePuppy.

[Jay R]

What could be the in-world reason for someone in a D&D world to choose "Hit stuff with a metal stick" instead of "super powers"?

In original D&D, and in AD&D, becoming a caster takes years of study, and only a few people have the innate ability in any case. Besides, monsters who make intelligent use of area-effect attacks take out wizards first, just because of the number of hit points. And there can only be as many students as there are higher-level wizards who are willing to train people.

In later versions of D&D, when you can just retroactively assume that you were looking over somebody else's shoulder (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html), this is a good question.


I mean in the real world everyone wants some type of super power if it was possible why in the seven seas of hell you would not choose that?

Well, in the real world, you can't grow wings, but you can learn to fly an airplane, and most people don't. You can't have claws grow out of your hands, but you can learn high-level skills with a knife or sword, and most people don't. You can learn to have world-class acrobatic skills and most people don't. Any number of super-power equivalents are available, and few people devote the years of intense study and training needed to learn them.

[ElenionAncalima]

At some point, we have warriors in fantasy for metagame reasons. People like the easily-identified with archetypes of Conan the Barbarian, Elric, Gilamesh, Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, etc. These are people who, in general, through a combination of drive, training, and innate talent are able to overcome obstacles using a combination of strength, skill, and wit.

I think this can apply to in-game logic also.

Say Little Timmy wanders into the woods and accidently stumbles on a group of orcs. Lets consider two potential rescue scenarios:
1. 20th level wizard, Albus Von Merlin the Grey, comes to his rescue by breaking the laws of reality to unmake the orcs.
2. 6th level ranger, Gruff McGhee, arrives at the scene and pulls out his sword. He takes a few hard blows, but manages to win by cleaving through the last three Orcs.

Even though Von Merlin did a better job of rescuing Little Timmy. Odds are the child is more than a little confused, possibly even frightened, by what he witnessed. Comparatively, McGhee's rescue is probably easier for the child to understand and his struggle makes him more relatable. That makes it easier for Little Timmy to start thinking, maybe he could fight like that if McGhee would train him.

I could see a lot of warrior-types gaining local hero status, because they are more relatable to the common folk. Whereas becoming a wizard may be thought to be too expensive and difficult...and possibly even dangerous or arrogant.

[charcoalninja]

I play 4th edition so in universe my swordguys are superpowered badasses.

So yeah.

[obryn]

I like how more than half of the answers here are "because not everyone can be awesome".

Why do we have not just a single character class, but an entire character archtype, dedicated to "For people who aren't good enough to be awesome like the Wizard"?
I was just thinking the same thing.

http://i.imgur.com/bieCZ8K.gif

Seriously, why not turn this around? "Anyone can read a few fancy words from books, but not everyone has the strength, endurance, natural physical gifts, and athleticism it takes to be a Fighter!" (And then you go on and make Fighters the best class instead of Wizards.)

[SpamandEggs]

In my more high-magic settings I tend to treat mid-to-high level magic
users like a lot of modern nations treat nuclear weapons, given their immense capacity for destruction and world shaping. Wizards spring up in populated territories just to deter others from blowing it up on a whim, turning the population into animals, etc. Given that most informed people in these settings are aware that there exist beings who have the potential to do this much damage (and the commoners hear myths and stories which vary in accuracy), and because any forceful attempt to regulate them could easily result in cataclysmic war (given that magic users tend to be a prideful bunch), I play a lot of wizards like I would play anyone who wants and thinks they can handle that much power, as mostly sociopaths and megalomaniacs (note the "most", there are some good ones).

On the other side of the coin, i have mundane warriors, people who want to affect the world around them but know that power has a tendency to corrupt, so they purposefully choose a path to power that has built-in limits, that can be stopped in case they lose their minds. They don't want to hurt the people they love and aren't confident (or deluded) enough to think they alone (or other walking nukes) can keep that power in check.

[SpamandEggs]

(continued from my last post)

Kinda like why Roy Greenhilt didn't want to be a wizard, he saw what the power did to his father and his family and wanted a different way.

[Segev]

Am I the only one who read the topic and OP as being, "Why would anybody be a warrior, instead of being a fighter? Or why would anybody be an adept, instead of a wizard or cleric?"

[TheCountAlucard]

Kind of like how the world of Superman still has militaries despite it being full of otherworldly horrors and metahumans who can render their most powerful weapons impotent.The world of Superman still has militaries despite it being full of otherworldly horrors and metahumans (in part) because almost all of these things are either not able to stand up to an army, or have convenient weaknesses that are present to some degree or another on Earth.

[draken50]

I always considered it to be more difficult to be a spellcaster than not due to a few game world assumptions I tend to make.

1. Being a wizard costs a lot of money. Spell-books aren't cheap, nor are many of the other supplies potentially needed to begin to wield the arcane. In my mind/game worlds being a wizard requires a large amount of time and dedication.

2. Being a Cleric requires a tremendous amount of faith, devotion, and personal sacrifice to their diety.

3. Druids get their powers from their utter dedication to nature and the the time an effort they put into learning its ways.

Basically, in my mind, its easier to get together with friends and an old soldier to start learning how to fight than it is to be a wizard. Same with a fair number of the other classes. I feel that while time and dedication are certainly present, a lot of the desired attributes are easier to come by. You can get strong and tough through hard work. You can grow more charming and skilled through practice. Warping the very fabric of reality seems.. like it should be a bit harder.

[obryn]

As for why people play non-magical characters: Because they have a story to tell for that specific character they made, or simply because they think they're fun. If all you want from your character is power, play an MMO.
That's why, in my new 5e house rules I just invented, every time a Fighter his an enemy, the enemy needs to make a Constitution save or die, in addition to the hit point damage. (My story involves lots of beheading.)

[obryn]

Warping the very fabric of reality seems.. like it should be a bit harder.
What, because constant training, physical conditioning, and honing your entire body into peak physical shape is easy? Learning fighting forms, and teaching your body how to react to danger is simpler than reading a few books?

The parallel for a Fighter is "Olympic athlete," not "schlub who can't do anything but sword things."

[AMFV]

The problem here is that we aren't accepting: "Taste" as an appropriate answer to that particular question. Warriors have a profoundly different life than Wizards, and different people are going to enjoy that more.

[Melville's Book]

I've said something similar yes:


It is indeed a problem: the system's effort is made to model the characters ability as they would work regardless of the story, when we are trying to use the system to play out stories that only work because they run on a narrative logic that wouldn't exist even in the fantasy world itself. in many ways, you can't play Conan or whatever without the narrative tropes that bend reality in ways so that they win against wizards and the like.

without it, you might as be playing a subversion of those stories played for realism: the fighter loses to the monster because they're just a normal dude with a sword, the cleric goes and does his job better, the clever crooks are either destroyed by magical competition or imprisoned by new magical methods of crimefighting, and the wizard proceeds to become god and solve everything.

You know, that subversion is actually the standard in Ars Magica. Well, except that magi are so much more potent than everyone else that you only use magical crime-fighting against other magi (who can do something about it) because usually taking the effort to imprison a mere mundane isn't worth it and nobody would care if you just killed them for their trouble. Heck, most of the time that applies even if the mundane didn't actually do anything wrong, because they're effectively just property for the magi.

Of course, it's hard to be god and solve every problem when the problems that are worth your time to deal with are being caused by other gods...

[Frozen_Feet]

What could be the in-world reason for someone in a D&D world to choose "Hit stuff with a metal stick" instead of "super powers"?

Ummm... have you taken a good look at what some of those "metal sticks" actually do in the context of the game? They can set things on fire, steal someone's soul, vanish to and appear from nowhere, grow or shrink in size at will, let you fly and several other crazy things.

And even without any such sticks, in fact, without any spells, psionics, supernatural or spell-like powers, a Fighter can dance on clouds, throw down giants and shoot dragons when they get high-enough level. In the interim, they'll be able to fight whole mundane armies to stand-still and swim across seas in armor.

It's not an either-or-question. Heck, in AD&D, one level title for a Fighter was Superhero! If you had some luck and persistence, you could get Thor's belt, gloves and hammer and go to town by 8th level.

Your whole perspective is skewed by late 2nd and 3rd Edition of D&D, where magic became arbitrarily more easy to use and powerful compared to mundane martial arts. It wasn't always so. It doesn't have to be so.



In D&D 3.5, the Fighter is like a pawn in chess. He exists to act as a decoy and damage dealer until the more powerful units (Wizards/Queens) are in place, then gets traded out for a better piece upon promotion. (That is, he makes a new character - a Wizard or such once the party is of high enough level - akin to how a pawn that reaches the end of the board in chess can be promoted to a Queen. Never mind the sex change.)

I approve of your Chess analogy, though I'll note the creation of a whole new character isn't strictly necessary. When those more powerful units come online, they're perfectly able of transforming or retraining the Fighter on their own. Including the sex change. :smallwink:


One of the basic cornerstones of magic is being able to read spellbooks. How many people in your average pseudo-medieval world can even read, period? On top of that, how many would have the time and the mental gifts to learn magic? Then out of those, who can actually afford the education?

Those questions have always been answered one way or the other by the rules themselves.

IIRC, in old editions people below 8 INT couldn't read or write. That blocked full 25% of people from being Magic-Users. I think Magic-Users had minimum INT of 9 in any case.

In 3rd Ed, you need at least 10 in a casting score to be able to cast even cantrips or orisons. This means only ~24% of a human population is able to choose from all sorts of magic; ~76% of people will be unable to use at least one. Things get considerably bleaker for races with penalties to any of the casting stats.

Once you add classes from outside core or factor in experience and aging rules, however, almost anyone could learn magic... with great peril and difficulty. Suppose you have a 9 in a casting stat of your choice. Assuming a human, you first need to make
it to age of 35 to be able to cast cantrips or orisons, and then you have to gain enough experience to gain a level in a proper class. Or, you need to get to level 4 to get a stat boost, risking around 25% of dying during each level. So on and so forth.

[nedz]

Ummm... have you taken a good look at what some of those "metal sticks" actually do in the context of the game? They can set things on fire, steal someone's soul, vanish to and appear from nowhere, grow or shrink in size at will, let you fly and several other crazy things.

And even without any such sticks, in fact, without any spells, psionics, supernatural or spell-like powers, a Fighter can dance on clouds, throw down giants and shoot dragons when they get high-enough level. In the interim, they'll be able to fight whole mundane armies to stand-still and swim across seas in armor.

It's not an either-or-question. Heck, in AD&D, one level title for a Fighter was Superhero! If you had some luck and persistence, you could get Thor's belt, gloves and hammer and go to town by 8th level.

Your whole perspective is skewed by late 2nd and 3rd Edition of D&D, where magic became arbitrarily more easy to use and powerful compared to mundane martial arts. It wasn't always so. It doesn't have to be so.



I approve of your Chess analogy, though I'll note the creation of a whole new character isn't strictly necessary. When those more powerful units come online, they're perfectly able of transforming or retraining the Fighter on their own. Including the sex change. :smallwink:



Those questions have always been answered one way or the other by the rules themselves.

IIRC, in old editions people below 8 INT couldn't read or write. That blocked full 25% of people from being Magic-Users. I think Magic-Users had minimum INT of 9 in any case.

In 3rd Ed, you need at least 10 in a casting score to be able to cast even cantrips or orisons. This means only ~24% of a human population is able to choose from all sorts of magic; ~76% of people will be unable to use at least one. Things get considerably bleaker for races with penalties to any of the casting stats.

Once you add classes from outside core or factor in experience and aging rules, however, almost anyone could learn magic... with great peril and difficulty. Suppose you have a 9 in a casting stat of your choice. Assuming a human, you first need to make
it to age of 35 to be able to cast cantrips or orisons, and then you have to gain enough experience to gain a level in a proper class. Or, you need to get to level 4 to get a stat boost, risking around 25% of dying during each level. So on and so forth.

To turn this around slightly: in games where PCs are generated using Point Buy, or Elite Array even, many players do choose to generate Warriors. I'm guessing that in High Op groups this is less common, and certain groups aim for a target tier, but in Low to Mid Op groups it's apparently common. I think that this may be a more relevant interpretation of the question than considering the general population because PC's can have an adequate casting stat if they so choose.

[WitchSlayer]

I don't see why a wizard has to be more powerful than a fighter in a fantasy game.

[Jay R]

Given that we live in a modern world in which we choose our careers, and play D&D by designing our characters, it is easy for us to make the unwarranted assumption that the the PCs are choosing their careers, and even their stats.

When I decide whether to write down STR 18 or a INT 18, I'm not representing the character Joe deciding if he's super-strong or super-smart, I'm deciding whether to play the strong guy Joke or the smart guy Mike. Meanwhile, there are still a bunch of strong guys out there who aren't very bright. They can't "decide" to be wizards.

Similarly, if you want to play a wizard, the DM will provide a mentor or school where you can learn how. But most people in the world don't get that choice. They are Fighters because their fathers were Fighters. They grew up in a small village and don't know any wizards, or the local wizards would refuse to train them. Actually, the vast majority of people are serfs or peasants farming on land that isn't theirs, because they belong to the land (or to its owner, depending on whether you take your feudalism straight or watered down).

This is a medieval world. Most people don't "choose" a career path.

[Knaight]

Given that we live in a modern world in which we choose our careers, and play D&D by designing our characters, it is easy for us to make the unwarranted assumption that the the PCs are choosing their careers, and even their stats.
Even then, there are often some pretty tight constraints. Even if one completely ignores poorer nations, war-zones, so on and so forth, there are plenty of people who end up not getting to finish school because they have to take care of younger siblings, or who end up with permanent health problems that prevent them from entering physically intensive jobs, or who have the misfortune of ending up with some absolutely useless education - maybe it's a terrible public school, maybe they're homeschooled by someone who had no business homeschooling*, maybe it's one of the really terrible private schools. You have the people (mostly women) who grow up being told that they are only good for having children and keeping a house, get married young, and spend the rest of their lives having children and keeping a house.

So on and so forth.


When I decide whether to write down STR 18 or a INT 18, I'm not representing the character Joe deciding if he's super-strong or super-smart, I'm deciding whether to play the strong guy Joke or the smart guy Mike. Meanwhile, there are still a bunch of strong guys out there who aren't very bright. They can't "decide" to be wizards.
I'd generally agree with this, though there is some level of decision making at the character level - if Joe decides to become a ranch hand for large, unruly animals instead of a shepherd, he's going to end up stronger, and that's staying within the assumption that his options are being hired by someone in agriculture who actually owns land.

*I'm not generally against homeschooling, and I know plenty of people who were home schooled well and it worked fine. I also know of cases where you have a 10 year old girl who's completely illiterate, but "that's okay because she can do housework". That 10 year old girl? Her options are likely to be very, very limited once she's an adult.

[Arbane]

I don't see why a wizard has to be more powerful than a fighter in a fantasy game.

Because Magic is always better than Not-Magic at everything. EVERYTHING.

Semi-seriously, that does seem to be the tack D&D3 took and stuck with it. It's entirely possible to make a game where magic is only good at relatively esoteric things and non-magic methods are more effective for the vast majority of situations, or where 'not-magic' includes the sort of insane stunts seen in the Táin Bó Cúailnge or the more high-budget kung-fu movies, but D&D3.X is NOT that game.

For example:
Unknown Armies - magic is undeniably powerful, but magicians, by definition, are mental cases. One of the most important people in the setting is a mundane businessman with a lot of money, power, and common sense. And a gun or a crowbar will kill you just as dead as a mystic blast.
Legends of the Wulin - magic is for the most part only good for cursing people and telling the future. If you want to set someone on fire, punch them with Fire Sutra Style kung-fu. If you want to charm them, be a Courtier and make a really good Inspire roll on your speech. If you want to fly, get good at Lightfoot Style.
Mutants and Masterminds - magic and 'mundane' abilities do whatever the GM and players design them to do. The guy with a bow and some trick arrows can be just as effective as the Master of the Mystic Crafts.
FATE - like M&M, only more rules-lite.
GURPS - has about a dozen different magic systems, and it's a point-buy game, so points spent getting good at magic are points not spent on skills, stats, or other advantages. Sure, you might be Merlin, but I'm the Doctor.
Call of Cthulhu - magic is powerful, but it's generally BAD. Using it will drive humans insane, so mundane methods (mostly, high explosives) are usually a better idea.

[Melville's Book]

I find it ridiculous when people suggest things about the time period as if the standard D&D setting is any closer to what medieval life was like than the knight in shining armor fantasies of pre-teens. (Hint: it's not)

Even cutting out the magic and critters and all of that, D&D is assumed to be very modern in its outlook. Things that weren't considered at all wrong back then still ping Evil. Kings who haven't abolished such practices as slavery and serfdom are looked upon with disgust by their "Good" and "Neutral" neighbors, and the idea of women having different rights from men is simply abominable... And apparently unrealistic, because, I mean, women are just as capable as men, their only real weakness being physically that they're the baby-producing gender, so smart societies should treat them equally, right?

(I'm not advertising gender inequality at all here. I'm trying to make a point that in standard D&D settings, people are far more modern and arguably enlightened than they'd have actually been when technology worked that way in the real world. Real medieval philosophies =/= D&D people philosophies.)

Also taverns. They don't work the way they're usually portrayed to, but the way they're portrayed in most games is certainly a lot more fun.

Quite frankly, individual teachers' elitism aside, there's really no reason to assume that those mentally gifted enough wouldn't be able to pursue the life of wizardry or priesthood with enough dedication, effort, and luck. And maybe money. Those wizard's colleges these days... :smalltongue:

I do wish to mirror other things that have been said, though, namely that a lot of people aren't mentally gifted enough, don't have the necessary determination/drive/luck, and have to deal with what is probably quite a bit of peer pressure to live the "honorable" life by the sword. Especially in games where wizard-types aren't infinitely better than fighter-types; D&D 3.5 isn't the only roleplaying game.

[AMFV]

I do wish to mirror other things that have been said, though, namely that a lot of people aren't mentally gifted enough, don't have the necessary determination/drive/luck, and have to deal with what is probably quite a bit of peer pressure to live the "honorable" life by the sword. Especially in games where wizard-types aren't infinitely better than fighter-types; D&D 3.5 isn't the only roleplaying game.

See this is what I have a a problem with... The belief that all people if talented enough would want to do a particular profession. For example, I'm bright and good at pattern recognition, following this logic I should work as a stock broker, since it has the highest financial return on my particular set of talents. I don't, I'd hate that. It's not a matter of determination/drive/luck, somebody could be determined and driven and lucky, and not enjoy Arcane spellcasting. They could study any number of fields. Or they could have option paralysis, which is something I've seen a lot of with people who are bright.

In the real world not everybody is driven to jobs that are financially the most rewarding. Not because these jobs are the most stressful or difficult, but because they might not enjoy that aspect of life. One could therefore extrapolate that ultimate Arcane Power isn't going to be everybody's goal in D&D. For several reasons.

The first being, it's stressful and dangerous. Wizards play with powers far beyond the ken of most mere mortals. That's generally dangerous, they are likely to attract the attention of evil powers and the like, which is bad, in a general sense.

The second being, it's time consuming, a wizard spends most of their time learning to be a wizard, then learning to be a more powerful wizard.

The last and possibly most important. A wizard becomes your identity. One can easily be a fighter and a bartender, or a fighter and a soldier. It's much harder to be a wizard and something else. Since that becomes such a large part of your identity.

[obryn]

The first being, it's stressful and dangerous. Wizards play with powers far beyond the ken of most mere mortals. That's generally dangerous, they are likely to attract the attention of evil powers and the like, which is bad, in a general sense.
That doesn't seem to be true, though, under D&D's rules.

If you are running a game where it is true, say WFRP 2e for example, that'd be one thing. But D&D magic is consistently safe and reliable.

[draken50]

What, because constant training, physical conditioning, and honing your entire body into peak physical shape is easy? Learning fighting forms, and teaching your body how to react to danger is simpler than reading a few books?

The parallel for a Fighter is "Olympic athlete," not "schlub who can't do anything but sword things."

See I think we view the different levels differently. I mean basically, I have no real-world point of reference for "bending the physical laws of reality with effort/faith/inate power."

Ultimately, and this seems to me to be more fluff related. Is that it seems to me, if anyone could thereby warp the laws of reality, in such a manner to be to their benefit in a more constructive to their everyday life, beyond the benefits to health of improved physic. I figure they'd be lining up out the door.

Martial training is difficult, though also fun. I say that as someone who lifts weights and does martial arts. The thing is, training, competing and of course fighting carry some natural risks. That being said, I have met very few police officers, prison guards, or even EMTs that don't practice in some regard. It's something that a wide number of people can choose to put the time and effort into and see results that in my, potentially wrong opinion, would allow them to handily beat the majority of untrained, unpracticed opponents, of similar strength and very possibly weaker.

Anyone can learn to pick a lock assuming they can manipulate a pick, and perceive what is occurring, they just need locks and lock-picks, patience and possibly a guide either in book form or a person. Again we have a real world piece can compare it to. If fluff in your game world, is wizards read a couple books and boom, they're a wizard, you might consider a fair number of people wanting to do that just for the conveniences provided by the prestidigitation spell (assuming 3.5). I think there's even a region feat related to that in the Forgotten Realms setting. So it's certainly not unheard of. It's just a difference in the viewpoints of fluff.

[AMFV]

That doesn't seem to be true, though, under D&D's rules.

If you are running a game where it is true, say WFRP 2e for example, that'd be one thing. But D&D magic is consistently safe and reliable.

As far as mishaps go, not as far as the dangers involved in obtaining unusual materials, or spells, or in attracting attention.

[Knaight]

See this is what I have a a problem with... The belief that all people if talented enough would want to do a particular profession. For example, I'm bright and good at pattern recognition, following this logic I should work as a stock broker, since it has the highest financial return on my particular set of talents. I don't, I'd hate that. It's not a matter of determination/drive/luck, somebody could be determined and driven and lucky, and not enjoy Arcane spellcasting. They could study any number of fields. Or they could have option paralysis, which is something I've seen a lot of with people who are bright.

It's more that part of what keeps people out is that some people either just can't do something, or don't have the opportunity. Preference is obviously also a huge part - people routinely go into jobs that are not as lucrative as what they could do, but that the people have a passion for. Science generally doesn't pay well, but it's rewarding for those that have a love of knowledge, an enjoyment of the work involved, etc. People voluntarily take on lots of training for social work jobs or teaching, both of which are often underpaid. Heck, I personally have a knack for a lot of the skills behind petroleum engineering, and it pays way better than any other field I have a real knack for, but I also have a good understanding of just how much I'd hate working in it.

The idea that "anyone can be anyone they choose to be" is getting bandied around in here, and a lot of pointing out that there's a major luck and circumstance dependance has to do with combating that. The preference matter then gets neglected because of it, even though it's very much relevant.

[Angelalex242]

The sad part is, they can't even balance the half casters against full casters.

You'd think, with his obscenely strict code of ethics, the Paladin's power level would be about on par with the Cleric's. They both need great faith to do what they do, the Paladin just has more weapon training vs. the Cleric's greater spellcasting training.

But the reality is...Cleric=T1. Paladin=T5. For the code of Ethics a Paladin has, you'd think he'd be at least T2 himself. Gamebreakingly awesome with his amazing smites. Sadly, he is not. Maybe if every smite evil had a 'save or die' attached with the DC of 'total damage dealt' and there was no way of defending against it except 'don't be evil.'...

[obryn]

As far as mishaps go, not as far as the dangers involved in obtaining unusual materials, or spells, or in attracting attention.
None of those are reflected in the rules, either. You get more spells for free, the unusual materials are handwaved (or unnecessary in 5e), and there's no added attention to wizards.


See I think we view the different levels differently. I mean basically, I have no real-world point of reference for "bending the physical laws of reality with effort/faith/inate power."

Ultimately, and this seems to me to be more fluff related. Is that it seems to me, if anyone could thereby warp the laws of reality, in such a manner to be to their benefit in a more constructive to their everyday life, beyond the benefits to health of improved physic. I figure they'd be lining up out the door.

Martial training is difficult, though also fun. I say that as someone who lifts weights and does martial arts. The thing is, training, competing and of course fighting carry some natural risks. That being said, I have met very few police officers, prison guards, or even EMTs that don't practice in some regard. It's something that a wide number of people can choose to put the time and effort into and see results that in my, potentially wrong opinion, would allow them to handily beat the majority of untrained, unpracticed opponents, of similar strength and very possibly weaker.

Anyone can learn to pick a lock assuming they can manipulate a pick, and perceive what is occurring, they just need locks and lock-picks, patience and possibly a guide either in book form or a person. Again we have a real world piece can compare it to. If fluff in your game world, is wizards read a couple books and boom, they're a wizard, you might consider a fair number of people wanting to do that just for the conveniences provided by the prestidigitation spell (assuming 3.5). I think there's even a region feat related to that in the Forgotten Realms setting. So it's certainly not unheard of. It's just a difference in the viewpoints of fluff.
No, but I think you've hit on Problems with D&D: Exhibit D. We have no real-world reference to casting spells. We do to people being physically fit. However, in the game world, there's no reason to believe that casting spells is any harder. And it shouldn't be much harder than, say, the Olympian martial artist the Fighter should be.

That's why we get "wizards are special" and "fighters just swing hunks of metal around." It's because the physical stuff is devalued. Part of that is because D&D tends to be a mental exercise and that nerds tend to think that being smart is more important than being fit. Part of it is in a failure of imagination - that swinging a sword around can't be just as fantastic as casting a spell, in the D&D world.

[AMFV]

None of those are reflected in the rules, either. You get more spells for free, the unusual materials are handwaved (or unnecessary in 5e), and there's no added attention to wizards.

But you aren't guaranteed every spell for free, or even the ones you want. Furthermore it is fluffed in the opposite direction, you can't replace the fluff if we're having a discussion about why in-world things are the way they are.

Furthermore, even if it isn't dangerous, that was a very minor part of my point. Not everybody who can be a Wizard is going to want to be a wizard, so even supposing that the majority of people can become wizards, it is not necessarily indicative that the majority will want to, or would enjoy that.

[draken50]

No, but I think you've hit on Problems with D&D: Exhibit D. We have no real-world reference to casting spells. We do to people being physically fit. However, in the game world, there's no reason to believe that casting spells is any harder. And it shouldn't be much harder than, say, the Olympian martial artist the Fighter should be.

That's why we get "wizards are special" and "fighters just swing hunks of metal around." It's because the physical stuff is devalued. Part of that is because D&D tends to be a mental exercise and that nerds tend to think that being smart is more important than being fit. Part of it is in a failure of imagination - that swinging a sword around can't be just as fantastic as casting a spell, in the D&D world.

Ah gotcha. See, ultimately I think that has more to do with the evident balance problems within the system. As you likely noted, my big argument was that the spell selection of wizards has remarkably more use than say... point blank shot. (This may be a crappy feat, whatever, just trying to illustrate) vs. the wizards cantrips being useful in a large amount of situations, though potentially less so in fighting.

Basically, the physical stuff is devalued, because it feels easier to balance. A guy with a sword, is a guy with a sword. There's not a way that we can look at that, and compare it to the destructive power of a hurricane summoned by a druid. Part of that is the balance problems. Magic is stronger, so I would imagine most peoples fluff logic says it should be harder, because if it was easier than sword swinging people would do it and see the greater benefit. Add hurricane summoning powers to fighters and that difference will be smaller but the huge amount of giant power and versatility spell-casters have mess with what people value, and how they view things.

[obryn]

But you aren't guaranteed every spell for free, or even the ones you want. Furthermore it is fluffed in the opposite direction, you can't replace the fluff if we're having a discussion about why in-world things are the way they are.

Furthermore, even if it isn't dangerous, that was a very minor part of my point. Not everybody who can be a Wizard is going to want to be a wizard, so even supposing that the majority of people can become wizards, it is not necessarily indicative that the majority will want to, or would enjoy that.
In 3e or 5e, you are guaranteed 2 spells every level, which are by definition exactly the ones you want. (And that's not even considering the "cleric problem" where a cleric gets all the spells for free.) There's nothing in the mechanics to back up any of that fluff... There's no chance a Wizard will accidentally summon Graz'zt if he casts wrong.

As for the rest, that's all well and good. It was the stuff about D&D magic supposedly being "dangerous" (when in practice it's anything but) that I was responding to.


Ah gotcha. See, ultimately I think that has more to do with the evident balance problems within the system.
Yeah, I'd much rather tackle the balance problems to keep outstanding martial artists relevant. :smallbiggrin:

[draken50]

Yeah, I'd much rather tackle the balance problems to keep outstanding martial artists relevant. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, I can get that, but when the question seems to be:
"why would person chose to be a fighter in the current rules and setting?"

You have to admit, the only real way to provide an answer given 3.5 as written is going to be based on fluff.

[bulbaquil]

The main issue with martial/caster disparity is largely one of gameplay and story segregation - crunch vs. fluff, and sake-of-gameplay streamlining.

RAW, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from taking a level or twenty in wizard just because you feel like it. The rules allow me to be a wizard with no strings attached, taking whatever spells exist in the edition, no springs attached. What more do you want. So what, if anything, is stopping you? The setting, the assumptions of the setting, and the DM - none of which are relevant for theorycrafting, but all of which exist in actual play.

Maybe wizardry really is something you have to be born into - wrong genetics? Tough luck, no magic for you. Maybe INT 18 doesn't exempt you from the peasant levy and you die from an unlucky arrow to the heart in battle, awkwardly holding a pike. Maybe there is (or is widely believed to be) a serious downside to spellcasting that turns people off from it; maybe spells do go horribly wrong, but you specifically are exempt from it by virtue of the PC flag. Maybe it costs 200 gp/year to attend wizard school, which is a fortune for your average artisan family. (Maybe WotC/Paizo/etc. don't want to lose the revenue from all those players who love to play casters buying their products who would jump ship if they nerfed casters too hard.)

There is nothing in the mechanics to back up any of the fluff because that's exactly what setting lore and house rules are for.

[obryn]

Yeah, I can get that, but when the question seems to be:
"why would person chose to be a fighter in the current rules and setting?"

You have to admit, the only real way to provide an answer given 3.5 as written is going to be based on fluff.
Well, if you're using 3.5 as the baseline, you also need to explain why someone would be a Warrior instead of a Fighter, or a Commoner instead of literally anything else. That's a question that comes even before this one.

IMO, all PC classes should be remarkable. The rules should likewise support that a Fighter - like I said, an Olympian athlete and expert martial artist - is an exceptional individual, well above city guards and common soldiers. Just like a PC wizard may very well be exceptional among a field of hedge-magicians who know a few minor tricks.

[Thrudd]

The PC classes represent the abilities of the elite 1% of people with the potential to become heroes. NPC classes represent the jobs of everyone else in the world. No player should want to or be allowed to select NPC classes for their character, except under very special circumstances. This is why they aren't in the player's handbook.

[AMFV]

Well, if you're using 3.5 as the baseline, you also need to explain why someone would be a Warrior instead of a Fighter, or a Commoner instead of literally anything else. That's a question that comes even before this one.

Well the problem is that outside of the very irregular life of an adventurer, we really don't know a lot about what goes into the day to day of a standard character. We also don't know a lot about what is involved in obtaining these classes. We're assuming that the classes are equivalent to professions, which I'm not sure is the case. They could just be descriptors, for example Bob the Bartender who throws drunks out of his bar, might be a warrior, despite having no formal training and the fact that his profession is "Bartender", he even has ranks in it. His daily living is accomplished by using Profession bartender, but his abilities are better described by the warrior class than the "Expert" class.

So we don't even know if the classes really exist as in-game constructs. An adept might be as much considered a "wizard" as a real wizard, hell an Archivist could be considered a "Wizard" in game they operate much the same way despite using slightly different spells.

[Knaight]

The PC classes represent the abilities of the elite 1% of people with the potential to become heroes. NPC classes represent the jobs of everyone else in the world. No player should want to or be allowed to select NPC classes for their character, except under very special circumstances. This is why they aren't in the player's handbook.

Of course, the Adept is substantially stronger than a number of PC classes, but whatever.

[Thrudd]

Of course, the Adept is substantially stronger than a number of PC classes, but whatever.

That is comparing apples and oranges (casters to non-casters). If a player wants to be a spell caster, they will choose a wizard or a cleric or a druid, not an adept. If they want someone who is good at fighting, they will choose one of several PC fighting classes rather than a warrior. If they want a skill character, the rogue is better than an expert. The only reason to choose an NPC class would be to purposefully make a character less powerful than they could be.

[Angelalex242]

When Adept is Stronger then Monk, something has gone very wrong.

And there's still the 'why aren't Paladins on par with Clerics?'

The faith is the same, the religion is the same, and if we're talking about Heironeus, the god himself is a Paladin. So...why can't the Paladin keep up with the Cleric?

[Hiro Protagonest]

That is comparing apples and oranges (casters to non-casters).

If they're apples and oranges, then apples are superior to oranges, or at least the authors all believe so and in their fictional worlds that is objectively true.

[Jay R]

The fact is that players playing PCs do have a choice, and some of them choose warriors. I'm playing in my first game of 3.5E, and have a Fighter2/Ranger3/Horizon Walker 2, simply because the party was over-heavy with casters and needed some battlefield control to keep the mooks off of them so they can cast.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The fact is that players playing PCs do have a choice, and some of them choose warriors. I'm playing in my first game of 3.5E, and have a Fighter2/Ranger3/Horizon Walker 2, simply because the party was over-heavy with casters and needed some battlefield control to keep the mooks off of them so they can cast.

Or you could just play a Conjurer...

Yes you can choose to be Horizon Tripper or Crusader, but casters are very strong at battlefield control. You're choosing those options because of fluff, they're weaker mechanically.

[Melville's Book]

If they're apples and oranges, then apples are superior to oranges, or at least the authors all believe so and in their fictional worlds that is objectively true.

I guess that depends. Everybody seems to forget that WotC just had no idea what they were doing until like 2007 at the earliest; caster superiority has never been intentional. It's bad design, but not malicious design philosophy.

Not that making things intentionally unbalanced is bad design philosophy either, but if you're going for that it's something that players and DMs need to know up-front, as if it's intentional then it's probably a core part of how the game works.

[Thrudd]

If they're apples and oranges, then apples are superior to oranges, or at least the authors all believe so and in their fictional worlds that is objectively true.

Yes, there is no balance between different character classes in this game. Some people don't like that and play a different edition, other people don't care. But the fact remains: no matter what type of character you want, you can find a PC class that is better at it than an NPC class, and purposefully so.


When Adept is Stronger then Monk, something has gone very wrong.

And there's still the 'why aren't Paladins on par with Clerics?'

The faith is the same, the religion is the same, and if we're talking about Heironeus, the god himself is a Paladin. So...why can't the Paladin keep up with the Cleric?

There is no NPC class that has the abilities of a monk, so there is no point comparing them to an adept or anything else. If a player wants to have a character with monk abilities, he is going to choose a monk or a better similar PC class depending on the supplements allowed, he wouldn't choose an adept.

Paladins aren't on-par with clerics because they aren't clerics. If you want a cleric, then pick a cleric. A cleric can't keep up with a paladin's melee abilities and saving throws, a paladin doesn't have a cleric's spell casting. Yes, having the spell casting turns out to be objectively more powerful in the long run. But if you don't want a spell caster and instead want a knight with divine powers, then you play a paladin.

These are just gripes about the balance between classes, which is moot, because those are the rules of the game.

If we are talking about the meta-game choices of players and optimization, that discussion has been had elsewhere and been going on forever. Why would a player choose a monk, when it is such a weak class? Maybe they don't care about how weak it is, and just want to play a monk. If they wanted to optimize and create the most powerful possible character, they would pick a different class.

I only say this stuff because someone proposed that the OP might have been literally asking about why there is a Warrior NPC class. Why wouldn't all NPC warriors just be Fighters or some other class? The answer is because those are the rules of the game, and fluff. Most NPCs in a game world are not adventurers, and therefore don't have an adventurer/PC class. The question is mixing up meta-game optimization choices with setting and game design.

[AMFV]

Well the question still remains are the classes present as in-game constructs? Because if not then one martial character might be the same as the other. A Warblade is after all just a warrior with slightly different technique and training.

[Thrudd]

Well the question still remains are the classes present as in-game constructs? Because if not then one martial character might be the same as the other. A Warblade is after all just a warrior with slightly different technique and training.

Yes, that entirely depends on the setting, it isn't dictated by the rules anywhere. Is it like the OOTS world, where you go to "Fighter college", or join the "Barbarian guild" to gain a level in that class? lol

It's entirely up to the DM.

[Melville's Book]

Oh, and AMFV. When I mentioned being "dedicated" enough to become a wizard before, I actually meant "dedicated to becoming a wizard." I believe we just had a bit of miscommunication. What I meant by that was "dedicated to being a wizard." Just being a generally dedicated individual does not automatically mean you will automatically shoot for the most prestigious profession (doctor, wizard, what have you) but it's also a fact that you need extreme determination in order for it even to be a possibility. Certainly, a bright, lucky, driven individual could simply find his calling in construction work, and he'd be no less of any of the above things for choosing that life path. I was simply trying to say that there would be a rather small number of wizards/doctors because while a given person in construction might be intelligent, dedicated, and fortunate, that doesn't exclude people without those qualities from that profession, while everybody who becomes a wizard/doctor/whatever does need those qualities.

I wasn't trying to suggest that everybody who has all the necessary qualities to be a doctor/lawyer/whatever should be one. Sorry if that wasn't what it sounded like I was saying.

[AMFV]

Yes, that entirely depends on the setting, it isn't dictated by the rules anywhere. Is it like the OOTS world, where you go to "Fighter college", or join the "Barbarian guild" to gain a level in that class? lol

It's entirely up to the DM.

Exactly, and we can't really say anything about that without knowing that. And even in OOTS Profession is not equivalent to Class (as we can see with Miko) where she is a Samurai without having any levels in Samurai.


Oh, and AMFV. When I mentioned being "dedicated" enough to become a wizard before, I actually meant "dedicated to becoming a wizard." I believe we just had a bit of miscommunication. What I meant by that was "dedicated to being a wizard." Just being a generally dedicated individual does not automatically mean you will automatically shoot for the most prestigious profession (doctor, wizard, what have you) but it's also a fact that you need extreme determination in order for it even to be a possibility. Certainly, a bright, lucky, driven individual could simply find his calling in construction work, and he'd be no less of any of the above things for choosing that life path. I was simply trying to say that there would be a rather small number of wizards/doctors because while a given person in construction might be intelligent, dedicated, and fortunate, that doesn't exclude people without those qualities from that profession, while everybody who becomes a wizard/doctor/whatever does need those qualities.

I wasn't trying to suggest that everybody who has all the necessary qualities to be a doctor/lawyer/whatever should be one. Sorry if that wasn't what it sounded like I was saying.

It did come across that way, but I'll admit that I'm pretty sensitive about this myself. The fact that people devalue tradespeople is one of my real life annoyance buttons. So it's very possible that I read that particular narrative there where it wasn't.

[Thrudd]

I think the intent of OP's question is: "Why did the designers bother including non-magic classes when the non-magic classes are made irrelevant by any class that uses magic? And why would somebody playing this game not always choose a magic-using class?"

One answer is, they based the game in older editions and didn't really consider how much more power they were giving spell casters with the changes in this edition. Another answer is options and "fluff", in case someone wants to play a game where the players aren't all super-powered magic users.

[AMFV]

I think the intent of OP's question is: "Why did the designers bother including non-magic classes when the non-magic classes are made irrelevant by any class that uses magic? And why would somebody playing this game not always choose a magic-using class?"

One answer is, they based the game in older editions and didn't really consider how much more power they were giving spell casters with the changes in this edition. Another answer is options and "fluff", in case someone wants to play a game where the players aren't all super-powered magic users.

Well if he's asking from a design perspective there are a variety of reasons to include a breadth of different style classes. They all play differently and that produces a different and fun experience.

[Knaight]

I wasn't trying to suggest that everybody who has all the necessary qualities to be a doctor/lawyer/whatever should be one. Sorry if that wasn't what it sounded like I was saying.

Honestly, if there weren't so many other people saying exactly that, it probably wouldn't have read that way.

[Jeff the Green]

Well if he's asking from a design perspective there are a variety of reasons to include a breadth of different style classes. They all play differently and that produces a different and fun experience.

First, I don't buy that they do play all that differently. Fighter and Barbarian typically have very similar feat and equipment layout and often identical tactics. Knight is very close as well. Paladin isn't far off either. And short of Takahashi, Samurai is in the same boat but just doesn't have any paddles. All of them boil down to "Charge, Power Attack, repeat" with the occasional secondary tactic (tripping, usually) or buff (spells, rage, challenge).

Moreover, from a design perspective putting in such obviously weak classes alongside such obviously strong classes requires either ivory tower game design (which I don't buy was actually a factor) or serious binders.

[TheCountAlucard]

Given that we live in a modern world in which we choose our careers, and play D&D by designing our characters, it is easy for us to make the unwarranted assumption that the the PCs are choosing their careers, and even their stats.

...

This is a medieval world. Most people don't "choose" a career path.So, how's "Billionaire" working out for you?

Wait, you didn't choose "Billionaire?" What's wrong with you?

[AMFV]

First, I don't buy that they do play all that differently. Fighter and Barbarian typically have very similar feat and equipment layout and often identical tactics. Knight is very close as well. Paladin isn't far off either. And short of Takahashi, Samurai is in the same boat but just doesn't have any paddles. All of them boil down to "Charge, Power Attack, repeat" with the occasional secondary tactic (tripping, usually) or buff (spells, rage, challenge).

You might not see the distinction but there is a distinction. And really I wasn't talking about the separation between melee classes



Moreover, from a design perspective putting in such obviously weak classes alongside such obviously strong classes requires either ivory tower game design (which I don't buy was actually a factor) or serious binders.

That's because balance was simply not a goal. And 4E and lots of RPG systems proves that even in a world where balance is a goal, it's pretty impossible. Hell even in MMORPGs there are still optimal classes for most things and that removes almost all of people's options.

[Jay R]

Yes you can choose to be Horizon Tripper or Crusader, but casters are very strong at battlefield control. You're choosing those options because of fluff, they're weaker mechanically.

Yes, of course I am. I would never design a character purely on mechanics, without character considerations (which you are sneering at as "fluff"). I'm here to play a role, to fit into a culture. This character is a northerner named Gustav, who grew up in a small village under the constant threat of Frost Giant attack. The village had not high-level wizard or Conjuror to teach him about magic. He eventually roamed into the wilderness and found a higher level Ranger who trained him. Then he joined a mercenary company for awhile. The character mechanics need to fit the actual character.

Which is, I guess, the real answer to the original question. Warrior classes exist because people like to play them.


It did come across that way, but I'll admit that I'm pretty sensitive about this myself. The fact that people devalue tradespeople is one of my real life annoyance buttons. So it's very possible that I read that particular narrative there where it wasn't.

Don't worry about it. Nobody's here to devalue tradespeople. They're here to devalue Fighters.


Moreover, from a design perspective putting in such obviously weak classes alongside such obviously strong classes requires either ivory tower game design (which I don't buy was actually a factor) or serious binders.

Or perhaps they sell the game to people who do not share all of your preferences. These classes exist because people choose to play them.

It is neither "ivory tower game design" nor "serious binders" to sell what people want to buy.

[Frozen_Feet]

Well the question still remains are the classes present as in-game constructs? Because if not then one martial character might be the same as the other. A Warblade is after all just a warrior with slightly different technique and training.

Short answer: Yes, they are, because a class has defined set of abilities telling what it can do within the game world. This necessarily means the numbers on a character sheet must correspond to traits of a character within the game. Deny this, and a character sheet loses all its descriptive power.

But how important they are as in-game construct varies highly depending on version of D&D. In early editions, Fighters, Clerics, Thieves and Magic-Users had sharply delineated and distinctive skillsets. By 3rd, the game had essentially become a complicated point-buy system, with almost any combination of traits achievable by multiple different class combinations. The classes still came with default description and role and their abilities were meant to reflect those, but if those are not strongly enforced the classes lose distinctiveness from in-game perspective. A fighter/rogue with focus on using two weapons at once can be nearly identical to a ranger focusing on the same thing.

[AMFV]

Short answer: Yes, they are, because a class has defined set of abilities telling what it can do within the game world. This necessarily means the numbers on a character sheet must correspond to traits of a character within the game. Deny this, and a character sheet loses all its descriptive power.

But how important they are as in-game construct varies highly depending on version of D&D. In early editions, Fighters, Clerics, Thieves and Magic-Users had sharply delineated and distinctive skillsets. By 3rd, the game had essentially become a complicated point-buy system, with almost any combination of traits achievable by multiple different class combinations. The classes still came with default description and role and their abilities were meant to reflect those, but if those are not strongly enforced the classes lose distinctiveness from in-game perspective. A fighter/rogue with focus on using two weapons at once can be nearly identical to a ranger focusing on the same thing.

But that doesn't answer the fundamental of: Fluffwise are they prescriptive or descriptive. Which is a fairly complex question do you build the mechanics around the fluff, or do you build the fluff around the mechanics? As I pointed out you could represent a "bartender" as a warrior just fine, or a "soldier" could be represented by literally dozens of classes. Even if mechanically they have a different skill-set, that doesn't mean they can't have the same societal "class"

Also as far as early editions go compare a Fighter/Thief with a Swashbuckler with a Blade Bard or a Gallant Bard, and you'll see some very similar characters.

Edit: I'm not saying the classes aren't different, I'm saying one may describe the same action a variety of different ways mechanically. Even in the older systems this was true.

[Delwugor]

I mean in the real world everyone wants some type of super power if it was possible why in the seven seas of hell you would not choose that?

I don't want super powers in the real world.

[TheCountAlucard]

Really, it'd depend on the superpower, I'd think.

[Soarel]

Because some people prefer to get close and personal with weaponry instead of spending years reading books in order to sit back and yell some magic words.

[Prince Raven]

Because some people frankly aren't wise, charismatic or intelligent enough to cast 2nd level spells.

[SiuiS]

What could be the in-world reason for someone in a D&D world to choose "Hit stuff with a metal stick" instead of "super powers"?
I mean in the real world everyone wants some type of super power if it was possible why in the seven seas of hell you would not choose that?

This is so simple. I don't understand why the answer is so hard to get. Why aren't you the most interests of, powerful man in the world? Hmm?

Effort. Talent. Opportunity.

Why isn't everyone a wizard? Because being a wizard is a hard, thankless job that requires years of not only hard work and a knack for abstract thought that requires the ability to hold contradictory things to be true, but it requires years of serving a pompous and arrogant wizard who knows what a gift he is giving you and is milking your indentured servitude for all it's worth.

Oh, but why not cleric then? Because it requires years of dedication and an understanding of faith that transcends mere worship to the point that you are granted boons from on high. And you can't "just" be a cleric of principles with no deity because you must believe, truly have faith, in those principles so strongly that you manifest divine will.

Well, then why not a Druid? Because being a Druid requires things even harder than the others, physical trials that stress the body beyond the limits of a mere scholar, subjected to rituals that not all survive.

We have warriors because 'simply' learning to read read the body language of hundreds of strangers, maintain your health impeccably, and use sophisticated skill to put weaponry into other trained men of the same skill and caliber is so much easier than surviving and enduring the rigors and trials of actually becoming a wizard.

And frankly, you all likely don't have what it takes. That's why you're not wizards. You wouldn't make the cut.

[Marlowe]

Perhaps not everyone is intelligent enough to be a wizard, wise enough to be a druid, or charismatic enough to activate the inherent magic of a sorcerer. But anyone can be a warlock.


Especially in a world where most people have 10-11 in most stats, a 7th level fighter is going to be much more fearsome than a 7th level wizard who has only 11 intelligence.Well...there's that 4th level stat increase to contend with. So call it 12 intelligence. Enough for 2nd level casting.

And somebody with second level casting is still a lot more dangerous than a warrior with all stats in the 10-12 range.

[Jay R]

But anyone can be a warlock.

Only anyone in a game in which the Complete Arcane is used. In the 3.5E game I'm playing now, only the Player's Handbook was available for starting characters.


Well...there's that 4th level stat increase to contend with. So call it 12 intelligence. Enough for 2nd level casting.

Not until the character survives to collect 6,000 experience points. More importantly, he would have to survive to collect 1,000 experience points on 1d6 hit points with only light armor. Clearly, he would be more likely to survive as a Fighter, with 1d10 and heavy armor.


And somebody with second level casting is still a lot more dangerous than a warrior with all stats in the 10-12 range.

Not against area effects that do lots of hit points of damage.

In a game in which characters are guaranteed to survive, you are correct, but in games in which characters can die, having a lot of hit points matters.

That's why, although a high-level caster could always do more than a high-level fighter, the differences in power level weren't anywhere near as big a deal before 3E and the modern notion that PCs deserve to survive. We never defined "tiers" until 3E.

Take away the biggest effect of the Fighter's biggest asset, and yes, Fighters are worth less relative to the other classes. But that's because the modern approach took their greatest ability - survivability - and made it automatic for everyone.

[Saladman]

3rd edition on introduced some rule changes with setting consequences, but I think its fair to say some of those consequences were unintended. (WotC never published a full on zippyverse campaign setting, for instance.) Which means we can look back at the implied setting of older editions for the in-setting answer at least.

So for reference, let's compare the AD&D fighter and magic-user. A new level 1 human fighter enters play aged 16 to 19 years old, with anywhere from 50 to 200 gold pieces, d10 hit points (probably maxed at first level), can use any weapon he cares to and wear any armor he can lay his hands on.

A new level 1 magic-user enters play aged 26 to 40(!) years old (and by the book its random, not player choice), has between 20 to 80 gold pieces to his name, a d4 for hit points (again, probably maxed), cannot use armor, and has only a few weapons he can use.

What's implied by this is a world where, just to learn to cast one single first level spell, you lock yourself away under the tutelage of a higher level wizard for at least ten and up to twenty five years, spend half your wealth on expenses, probably sweep the floors that whole time given you don't have spells yet, and focus so much on study you give up the most basic level of physical conditioning.

And once you do all that, the difference in hit points and armor class means the mage risks death every time a lowly goblin swings a club or spear at him, where the fighter is much more likely to live to see level 2 if he actually wants to level.

So that's part of the original answer I think. You can say that's not in 3rd edition, and you'd be right, but even in 3E there should be some kind of a setting chosen or developed by the DM, and short of the zippyverse I think that setting will have a similar answer.

[TheCountAlucard]

What's implied by this is a world where, just to learn to cast one single first level spell, you lock yourself away under the tutelage of a higher level wizard...and focus so much on study you give up the most basic level of physical conditioning.How's that compare to a commoner's weapon proficiencies and HP, again? :smallamused:

[Storm_Of_Snow]

3rd edition on introduced some rule changes with setting consequences, but I think its fair to say some of those consequences were unintended. (WotC never published a full on zippyverse campaign setting, for instance.) Which means we can look back at the implied setting of older editions for the in-setting answer at least.

So for reference, let's compare the AD&D fighter and magic-user. A new level 1 human fighter enters play aged 16 to 19 years old, with anywhere from 50 to 200 gold pieces, d10 hit points (probably maxed at first level), can use any weapon he cares to and wear any armor he can lay his hands on.

A new level 1 magic-user enters play aged 26 to 40(!) years old (and by the book its random, not player choice), has between 20 to 80 gold pieces to his name, a d4 for hit points (again, probably maxed), cannot use armor, and has only a few weapons he can use.

What's implied by this is a world where, just to learn to cast one single first level spell, you lock yourself away under the tutelage of a higher level wizard for at least ten and up to twenty five years, spend half your wealth on expenses, probably sweep the floors that whole time given you don't have spells yet, and focus so much on study you give up the most basic level of physical conditioning.

And once you do all that, the difference in hit points and armor class means the mage risks death every time a lowly goblin swings a club or spear at him, where the fighter is much more likely to live to see level 2 if he actually wants to level.

So that's part of the original answer I think. You can say that's not in 3rd edition, and you'd be right, but even in 3E there should be some kind of a setting chosen or developed by the DM, and short of the zippyverse I think that setting will have a similar answer.
Plus, when that mage has used his single spell for the day, he's pretty much dead weight in the party until he's had chance for a good night's sleep and some time spent perusing his spell book, whilst the fighter can potentially go hacking his way through things, all day, everyday.

And if the mage has to take guard duty, or his spell book is lost, stolen or destroyed... :smalleek:

[Jay R]

How's that compare to a commoner's weapon proficiencies and HP, again? :smallamused:

First of all, a commoner merely means somebody who is not of royal blood (or in some places, noble blood). A wizard probably is a commoner, like all most PCs.

But to answer your real question, a 0-level character in 2E, which includes the great mass of humanity, have the following hit points:
Soldier: 1d8+1
Manual laborer: 1d8
Craftsman: 1d6
Youth: 1d6
Invalid: 1d4 <---- same as 1st level wizard
Scholar: 1d3
Child: 1d2
A wizard has one weapons proficiency. A 0-level character has at most one weapon proficiency, if it's justified. A smith can probably use a war hammer; a innkeeper probably is proficient with a club (the axe handle he keeps behind the bar). But a clerk or scholar probably has none.

[Garimeth]

I think the horse is dead.

But to add my 2cp, I agree with the in game reasons provided by several others - and to also agree with those who have pointed out that some people want to play martial classes. Aside from all of that, a skilled PLAYER can contribute more to the group as a fighter than an unskilled player can with any spell casting class.

Case in point two campaigns ago we had two players who wanted to duel. A druid and a monk, both of them were playing their first rpg. Monk easily beat the druid, despite the druid having wild shape, healing magic, offensive spells and the feat that let's them cast spells while shifted. Why? The monk read all his abilities and knew exactly what he could or couldn't do, the druid didn't.

Now sure you can make the case that he would be more effective as a druid, and maybe he would - but if the DM is running the game well then he will be able to contribute just as much as anybody else.

[TheCountAlucard]

First of all, a commoner merely means somebody who is not of royal blood (or in some places, noble blood).I thought I was being pretty clear that even if it isn't called "commoner," I was referring to the equivalent of the 3e NPC class.


A wizard has one weapons proficiency. A 0-level character has at most one weapon proficiency, if it's justified. A smith can probably use a war hammer; a innkeeper probably is proficient with a club (the axe handle he keeps behind the bar). But a clerk or scholar probably has none.So a starting Wizard has as many weapon proficiencies as most given NPCs (and one more than some), and one or so less hit point on average.

It's good to be clear about "the most basic level of physical conditioning."

[BrokenChord]

So, how's "Billionaire" working out for you?

Wait, you didn't choose "Billionaire?" What's wrong with you?

Billionaire is a financial status, not a profession. Even PC adventurers don't just get to choose how much wealth they have.

Anyway, I think it's more accurate to say that everybody in the modern world has a viable chance of succeeding at any regular profession they strive for if they strive hard enough. (It's never a foregone conclusion, of course, and I don't mean you're likely to be very successful as, say, a fortune-telling astrologist.)

In the actual medieval European world, trying to become something other than what your father/mother before you was would be considered completely infeasible and such a success would be considered a historic event and major abomination by other people.

Not that that means anything for most RPGs except Ars Magica.

[nedz]

But to add my 2cp, I agree with the in game reasons provided by several others - and to also agree with those who have pointed out that some people want to play martial classes. Aside from all of that, a skilled PLAYER can contribute more to the group as a fighter than an unskilled player can with any spell casting class.

Case in point two campaigns ago we had two players who wanted to duel. A druid and a monk, both of them were playing their first rpg. Monk easily beat the druid, despite the druid having wild shape, healing magic, offensive spells and the feat that let's them cast spells while shifted. Why? The monk read all his abilities and knew exactly what he could or couldn't do, the druid didn't.

Now sure you can make the case that he would be more effective as a druid, and maybe he would - but if the DM is running the game well then he will be able to contribute just as much as anybody else.

This is the old Player > Build >Class paradigm. I've seen someone play a mid-level Wizard to less effect than their Barbarian Cohort, not that he was well played either.

[Wardog]

Why do we still have warriors?

Because some people don't want to spend years pouring over dusty tomes before they can crush their enemies, see them driven before them, and hear the lamentations of their women.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Why do we still have warriors?

Because some people don't want to spend years pouring over dusty tomes before they can crush their enemies, see them driven before them, and hear the lamentations of their women.
Instead, they spend years training and sweating and learning from their teacher before they can go adventuring. :smallwink:

I mean, cmon. The Fighter and the Wizard at Level 1 are still both character classes. It doesn't make sense that one of them takes years of study to get into and the other lets any Jane Schmoe Commoner into it.

In my ideal D&D, the 1st-level Wizard is the apprentice. The "wizard who's pored over dusty tomes for years" is a 20th-level Wizard.

If a 1st-level Wizard is what comes of years of study, how come they start accruing spells at such a quick clip once they hit Level 2 and onwards? :smallsmile:

[EvanWaters]

Because in good games they're both equally powerful and valid choices.

(Exceptions: Ars Magica, Mage)

[Arbane]

But anyone can be a warlock.


In a world where the afterlife is a provable thing, I suspect most people would rather hold onto their soul.


Because in good games they're both equally powerful and valid choices.

(Exceptions: Ars Magica, Mage)

Exactly! Caster Supremacy is OK in those two, because the game is All About The Spellcasters, and the designers SAY as much. In any other game, it behooves the designers to warn the players if being a Normal means you become (or start as) utterly irrelevant.

[VoxRationis]

Billionaire is a financial status, not a profession. Even PC adventurers don't just get to choose how much wealth they have.

Anyway, I think it's more accurate to say that everybody in the modern world has a viable chance of succeeding at any regular profession they strive for if they strive hard enough. (It's never a foregone conclusion, of course, and I don't mean you're likely to be very successful as, say, a fortune-telling astrologist.)

In the actual medieval European world, trying to become something other than what your father/mother before you was would be considered completely infeasible and such a success would be considered a historic event and major abomination by other people.

Not that that means anything for most RPGs except Ars Magica.

Billionaire is really a profession, tied in with "investor" and "CEO" for the most part. There aren't a lot of jobs that pay that well.
Also, the actual medieval world, depending on the exact time and place, had more social mobility than you think. All those successful merchants and guildmasters came from common stock. While not necessarily a common occurrence, moving up was hardly a "historic event."

[Teapot Salty]

Because in a well balanced game, lots of training with hitting things with pointy metal sticks can lead to the ability to do things that resemble super powers. I.E leap over buildings, shatter mountains, etc.

[Arbane]

Because in a well balanced game, lots of training with hitting things with pointy metal sticks can lead to the ability to do things that resemble super powers. I.E leap over buildings, shatter mountains, etc.

Or conversely, just have magic not be utterly world-shattering. If a trained wizard can alter the weather, curse (and cure) people, and know a lot about the Ancient Past, they're going to be useful, but unlikely to utterly dominate every situation. Not like high-level D&D wizards, who as long as their spells hold out, are literally stronger than just about any fantasy character not explicitly a god (and some gods, too).

[Lord Raziere]

Or conversely, just have magic not be utterly world-shattering. If a trained wizard can alter the weather, curse (and cure) people, and know a lot about the Ancient Past, they're going to be useful, but unlikely to utterly dominate every situation. Not like high-level D&D wizards, who as long as their spells hold out, are literally stronger than just about any fantasy character not explicitly a god (and some gods, too).

which is why I like my mages specialized. a pyromancer or illusionist who can only do pyromancy or illusions is much more interesting and human than Mr. Spell-tility Belt.

[Jay R]

I thought I was being pretty clear that even if it isn't called "commoner," I was referring to the equivalent of the 3e NPC class.

I'll bite. What phrase in your post made any implication that you meant something other than the English word "commoner"?

It seemed clear that you were making 3E assumptions in your question about 2E. There was no indication that you knew that most PCs were commoners. None at all. That why I felt it was necessary to point out that 3E assumption were wrong before answering.


So a starting Wizard has as many weapon proficiencies as most given NPCs (and one more than some), and one or so less hit point on average.

One or so fewer hit points? He has hit points equivalent to an invalid, and less than a youth. His average is 2.5 hit points, while most NPCs in a medieval world will be manual laborers, and have an average of 5.5. That's less than half.

And his one WP is highly constricted. It cannot be any weapon traditionally carried into battle as a primary weapon.



It's good to be clear about "the most basic level of physical conditioning."

Yup. Don't forget that it means as tough as an invalid, and not trained with a good quality fighting weapon.


Instead, they spend years training and sweating and learning from their teacher before they can go adventuring. :smallwink:

The people who want to spend years poring over books are not the same people who want to spend years sweating on the practice field. The difference between top scientists and top football players really is more basic than a random choice.


I mean, cmon. The Fighter and the Wizard at Level 1 are still both character classes. It doesn't make sense that one of them takes years of study to get into and the other lets any Jane Schmoe Commoner into it.

Fortunately, nobody suggested this, or anything like this. We said that Warriors are people who didn't want to spend years studying from books, not that they are Jane Schmoe Commoner with no training.


In my ideal D&D, the 1st-level Wizard is the apprentice. The "wizard who's pored over dusty tomes for years" is a 20th-level Wizard.

As written, this implies that gameplay from 1st level to 20th level is playing at poring over dusty tomes. That sounds less exciting than slaying dragons.

For purely gameplaying reasons, the first level character should be one who has left the practice field or the study hall to start adventuring.


If a 1st-level Wizard is what comes of years of study, how come they start accruing spells at such a quick clip once they hit Level 2 and onwards? :smallsmile:

For the same reason that a professor publishes more papers, and earns far more salary, grants, honors, and position, in her first five years as a professor than in the previous twenty years of schooling from first grade through a Ph.D.

[VoxRationis]

Or conversely, just have magic not be utterly world-shattering. If a trained wizard can alter the weather, curse (and cure) people, and know a lot about the Ancient Past, they're going to be useful, but unlikely to utterly dominate every situation. Not like high-level D&D wizards, who as long as their spells hold out, are literally stronger than just about any fantasy character not explicitly a god (and some gods, too).

I would much rather have down-tuned wizards than super-powered fighters. The feel of such things just disgusts me.

[Nagash]

I think with a new edition this entire stupid and overblown issue is quite easily called dead. And we should all do so

[BrokenChord]

Billionaire is really a profession, tied in with "investor" and "CEO" for the most part. There aren't a lot of jobs that pay that well.
Also, the actual medieval world, depending on the exact time and place, had more social mobility than you think. All those successful merchants and guildmasters came from common stock. While not necessarily a common occurrence, moving up was hardly a "historic event."

CEO is pretty obviously a profession, and while it's a bit unorthodox I'd be willing to call "investor" a profession in the same sense as a CEO, i.e. running your own company and using money to make more money. However, I don't see how "being a billionaire" is a profession any more than "being a middle-classed citizen" or "being poor." Just having money does not make you money, thus disqualifying it as a profession; you have to do something with it to make more money with it. This is why being, say, a moneylender or a CEO is a profession that involves having money in the first place, rather than simply referring to moneylenders and CEOs by their financial status and expecting it to make sense in conversation.

The exception is the interest rates offered by storing your money in a bank, but then you're a customer, so it still doesn't count.

"Hey, what's that guy do for a living?" "He's a billionaire." "... Okay, that explains how he pays his bills, but what's he actually do?" "He billionaires, I guess." "So he doesn't have a job or anything?" "What are you talking about? Being a billionaire is a profession." "... What?"

Also, for the medieval example, I guess it depends on what perspective you're viewing it from. For the most part, nobody above a merchant in social class would consider them to be superior to peasantry unless they had a LOT of money. Which did happen occasionally, but that's besides the point. I meant more in the sense of somebody merchant or lower amassing power and conquering/diplomancing his way into the noble class, or a commoner doing... Something?... to become a knight; it might not actually go down in history, because who cares today if a merchant or even a peasant became a minor noble eight hundred years ago, but it certainly would be considered historically significant to the people witnessing it.

Then again, I don't have a degree in European history. Maybe my presentation is entirely useless and the internet is a worse place for having me. Point being, I can at least say with some certainty that going from "low-class" to "scholar who dabbles in forces that seem like magic to people unfamiliar with it" is much easier to do in the modern world than it was back then. Agreed?

[MrConsideration]

In historical terms, why did people opt to be a peasant in mouldy leathers on the battlefield when they could be a knight? An IRL Knight would clearly have numerous weapon proficiencies, heavy armour and a number of skill points (in diplomacy, performance etc etc) and is thus a better 'class'. But our peasant doesn't have the money, or the time, to access what's needed to be a level 1 - he may well be a serf with no freedom of his own, or have a family to feed. He wasn't born into those opportunities or with enough inborn talent to drag himself there. I think the same goes for most PC classes - they are for people with exhaustive training or natural inborn talent for something. Your NPC commoner doesn't want to risk his life and limb in a number of equal-difficulty encounters to become strong enough to, er, continue to risk his life against harder and harder challenges. He wants to use his profession ranks to feed his family. Yes, his life could be easier if he was a wizard, but that would require a) a metagame understanding that wizards are as powerful as they are b) access to spellbooks or wizards to learn from and c) to be literate and intelligent enough to manage it. Considering how many languages I speak (one, broken parts of another one, and can read two dead ones with aids) and how many an 18 intelligence Wizard is fluent in (loads) these people are incredibly lucky and intelligent to have access to that. Being an NPC warrior expresses that tha
t person isn't gifted or well-trained enough to be a Fighter or other PC class.

Not to mention, in the low-op game that is probably the standard for people who aren't on these forums, the gulf between caster and mundane isn't as extreme.

[Prince Raven]

The number of languages you speak has little to no bearing on intelligence in the real world...

[SiuiS]

But anyone can be a warlock.

Well...there's that 4th level stat increase to contend with. So call it 12 intelligence. Enough for 2nd level casting.

And somebody with second level casting is still a lot more dangerous than a warrior with all stats in the 10-12 range.

1) small cost; your immortal soul
2) have you seen a well-executed martial character? granted, they require ridiculous understanding of the rules, but they can do some damn crazy stuff.


Plus, when that mage has used his single spell for the day, he's pretty much dead weight in the party until he's had chance for a good night's sleep and some time spent perusing his spell book, whilst the fighter can potentially go hacking his way through things, all day, everyday.

And if the mage has to take guard duty, or his spell book is lost, stolen or destroyed... :smalleek:

Crossbows mitigate this pretty handily. As does feat investment; a first level wizard who decides incarnum is fun has a 2d6 acid spit at will for 24 hours.

Also, given this, I would have no problem personally allowing (and could actually start with, given the rules of 3e!) a video game style wand, where I drop a single first level spell to "charge my wand" every day and have infinite energy blasts. People will scoff, but when I tell them it's a refluffed crossbow that I paid an insane amount for and that costs a spell slot, they're usually okay with that stuff.

[Arbane]

I think with a new edition this entire stupid and overblown issue is quite easily called dead. And we should all do so

I think that's highly optimistic, but we'll see....

[Jay R]

I think with a new edition this entire stupid and overblown issue is quite easily called dead. And we should all do so

The issue was dead from the start. As long as people still choose to play warriors, there's no point asking why warriors are still there to choose.+

[And a new edition can't close an issue, unless everyone, with no exceptions, is playing that edition.]

[Corvus]

I have always preferred characters that prefer hitting things with other things (swords, trees, halflings...). It it the type of character I like. The problem is that few systems (and D&D specifically) don't cater to it. Why should I not be able to build a fighter as useful as a magic user? When you end up being inferior to summoned creatures then you know something is off kilter.

If it was the other way around, with the fighters being the demi-gods and wizards basically acting as glorified advisors and torch bearers then those who prefer spell casters would justifiably be upset.

[Marlowe]

Small question; what did the OP mean by "Warrior"?

1, 'Cause if he meant "The NPC class", then most of what's written here is not even close to relevant.

2, If he did mean the NPC class; then the obvious example is "So we have somebody to rush in and obligingly get slaughtered by the PCs when the Mid-Boss shouts "Guards! Guards!".

3, If he meant it as "Somebody who fights" then almost any PC can be considered a Warrior.

Also, regarding Warlocks. We've had at least two posts talking about Warlocks needing to sell their souls. Let's check the books:

Born of a supernatural bloodline, a Warlock seeks to master the perilous magic that suffuses his soul.

The very first sentence. So in the majority of cases, Warlockism is an inherited condition. No more need to sell your soul personally than you need to personally knock boots with a dragon to become a sorceror.

A little later:


By harnessing his innate magical gifts through fearsome determination and force of will, a warlock can [do stuff]

So you need to put some effort in as well. Presumably at any given moment there are plenty of potential Warlocks around who have the power in the blood, but never figure out the correct finger-wiggles and wind up as members of other classes instead.

As for what happens if you want to become a warlock but you don't have the right bloodline, that's a lot more vague. Apparently "many" make deals with "dark and Chaotic" "Extraplanar" powers trading "portions of their soul" . I'm not sure if that "many" is hinting that there are other ways or if it's just reflecting that one of the major vectors of Warlockism is the Fey, who are certainly "Chaotic", sometimes are "dark", but who aren't usually considered "extraplanar".

[VoxRationis]

People still play warrior-type characters because the skilled but mundane warrior—not some ridiculous, mountain-throwing, fire-spewing, reality-warping spellcaster-in-all-but-name—is a fantasy archetype, and therefore people want to be able to play it in a fantasy game. The valiant Sir Lancelot is a hero worth being, even if Merlin is running around.

[Arbane]

People still play warrior-type characters because the skilled but mundane warrior—not some ridiculous, mountain-throwing, fire-spewing, reality-warping spellcaster-in-all-but-name—is a fantasy archetype, and therefore people want to be able to play it in a fantasy game. The valiant Sir Lancelot is a hero worth being, even if Merlin is running around.

And more to the point, I don't _think_ Merlin is actually the hero of any of the myths - he's an advisor to the heroes.

[SiuiS]

Small question; what did the OP mean by "Warrior"?

1, 'Cause if he meant "The NPC class", then most of what's written here is not even close to relevant.

2, If he did mean the NPC class; then the obvious example is "So we have somebody to rush in and obligingly get slaughtered by the PCs when the Mid-Boss shouts "Guards! Guards!".

3, If he meant it as "Somebody who fights" then almost any PC can be considered a Warrior.

Also, regarding Warlocks. We've had at least two posts talking about Warlocks needing to sell their souls. Let's check the books:


The very first sentence. So in the majority of cases, Warlockism is an inherited condition. No more need to sell your soul personally than you need to personally knock boots with a dragon to become a sorceror.

A little later:



So you need to put some effort in as well. Presumably at any given moment there are plenty of potential Warlocks around who have the power in the blood, but never figure out the correct finger-wiggles and wind up as members of other classes instead.

As for what happens if you want to become a warlock but you don't have the right bloodline, that's a lot more vague. Apparently "many" make deals with "dark and Chaotic" "Extraplanar" powers trading "portions of their soul" . I'm not sure if that "many" is hinting that there are other ways or if it's just reflecting that one of the major vectors of Warlockism is the Fey, who are certainly "Chaotic", sometimes are "dark", but who aren't usually considered "extraplanar".

You answer your own point on warlocks. Warlocks are brought up as a rebuttal to "casting is hard". Casting is hard! But what about warlocks? They're not hard! Just be a warlock! In that case, you'll likely lose your soul. Because you sell away humanity for power if you can't just become a warlock through effort. If you can, there is still the effort barrier.


Fey are extraplanar in that any fey creature capable of making the pact likely comes from the faerie plane.


And more to the point, I don't _think_ Merlin is actually the hero of any of the myths - he's an advisor to the heroes.

Being the Gandalf figure actually sucks. Everyone wants the prestige, but the effort/reward ratio is borked. It's a hell of a lot of trouble and not worthwhile, because being Gandalf on camera shows you all the mistakes and errors, takes away the magic, and leaves you feeling like a boob.

What you see is this amazing wizard who figured it all out and masterminds things. What the DM sees is a guy who makes a series of divination checks, skills and diplomacy checks, boring trekking across the land, occasionally rewinding time a little bit, trying to outmaneuver the enemy, Nd jumping to conclusions, acting on them, and changing conclusions as soon as the current path falls through – or worse, a lot of table jockeying until you're absolutely sure and then you have to pull it all out of your bum at the final hour!

[Marlowe]

You answer your own point on warlocks. Warlocks are brought up as a rebuttal to "casting is hard". Casting is hard! But what about warlocks? They're not hard! Just be a warlock! In that case, you'll likely lose your soul. Because you sell away humanity for power if you can't just become a warlock through effort. If you can, there is still the effort barrier. Actually, my point was that it's probably better to be a caster with a primary stat as low as 12 than to be a Fighter type with the same. Warlock was just an example of a "caster type" (although they aren't really.) that doesn't even have a primary stat requirement to function.

As for your response, it really seems like you ignored what I wrote and just repeated yourself. I'll do the same:

"The majority of Warlocks get their powers from a combination of inherited talents and conscious practice. There are ways to become a Warlock without inheriting the talents in question; these have not been clearly defined.

"Nowhere is it stated that "losing your soul" is a requirement as you claim. "Trading portions of your soul" is given as one way. "

You are claiming as an invariable fact something that is quite simply not.

I find the "portions of your soul" bit fairly amusing:

"I traded the portion of my soul that finds flatulence jokes amusing."

"How's that working out?"

"I'm adventuring with three half-orc Fighters so it really isn't. You?"

"I traded the portion of my soul that appreciates people beside myself. On an unrelated note; I'm now an Objectivist."

"Ouch, and let my guess. Morthos?"

"Traded away his sense of irony and his dress sense."

"Tough for him. Those fiends."

"Hey? Who cares about him?"






Fey are extraplanar in that any fey creature capable of making the pact likely comes from the faerie plane.
There's a Faerie plane?:smallconfused:

[S@tanicoaldo]

The question was not "why do players like to play as fighters?". It was not meant to be something about the mechanics.

I asked for a in-character reason.

And I guess the "Books in the middle ages used to cost a fortune since they were not printed or mass-produced", "it is expensive", "it is hard" and "Some people perceive mages as being week and a coward" are the best reasons.

[AMFV]

The question was not "why do players like to play as fighters?". It was not meant to be something about the mechanics.

I asked for a in-character reason.

And I guess the "Books in the middle ages used to cost a fortune since they were not printed or mass-produced", "it is expensive", "it is hard" and "Some people perceive mages as being week and a coward" are the best reasons.

Or not all people are going to like to be Mages... Not everybody has the same tastes or preferences. Even in real-world jobs.

[JetThomasBoat]

Small question; what did the OP mean by "Warrior"?

1, 'Cause if he meant "The NPC class", then most of what's written here is not even close to relevant.

2, If he did mean the NPC class; then the obvious example is "So we have somebody to rush in and obligingly get slaughtered by the PCs when the Mid-Boss shouts "Guards! Guards!".

3, If he meant it as "Somebody who fights" then almost any PC can be considered a Warrior.

Also, regarding Warlocks. We've had at least two posts talking about Warlocks needing to sell their souls. Let's check the books:


The very first sentence. So in the majority of cases, Warlockism is an inherited condition. No more need to sell your soul personally than you need to personally knock boots with a dragon to become a sorceror.

A little later:



So you need to put some effort in as well. Presumably at any given moment there are plenty of potential Warlocks around who have the power in the blood, but never figure out the correct finger-wiggles and wind up as members of other classes instead.

As for what happens if you want to become a warlock but you don't have the right bloodline, that's a lot more vague. Apparently "many" make deals with "dark and Chaotic" "Extraplanar" powers trading "portions of their soul" . I'm not sure if that "many" is hinting that there are other ways or if it's just reflecting that one of the major vectors of Warlockism is the Fey, who are certainly "Chaotic", sometimes are "dark", but who aren't usually considered "extraplanar".

By warrior, I'm pretty sure he meant martial classes. I would think that was fairly obvious.

I think the part about "dark and Chaotic" "Extraplanar" powers means devils for the dark part, demons also for the dark part but with Chaotic in there was well, and Chaotic for fey. I always interpreted it as that some warlocks make deals with fiends or fey, and then some are just born with it, but also could be descended from either fiends or fey.

As far as portions of ones soul, that could just be bad writing. But either way, I figure with some of the other **** they pull in D&D, a lot of gods and such might consider a soul with a big chunk missing out of it just as bad as not having a soul.


Now on to the actual point of my post here, I was going to say the reason I'm inclined to play a warrior over a caster is that I think casters are boring in some ways. Which has kind of already been covered, but still, I'll go into specifics about my specific viewpoint. I've written a lot of little D&D stories over the years and made probably a few hundred characters. When I write a story, I can come up with back stories for most of my characters fairly well. But when I get to the Wizard, all I can ever think of is like "He studied under another wizard." And it usually doesn't go much better when I try to play one, either.

As I said, though, it's more my personal opinion. Also, to be fair, if I actually lived in a D&D world, unless I had a really really good reason, there's no way in hell I would become a wizard. Even if I did, like say my younger sibling was kidnapped by BBEG and the only way I thought I could save them was to become a wizard to fight the BBEG, I would probably give up after like two levels and go for something easier. Or find some heroes and basically do spell stuff for them for free so they would rescue lil' sis.

That might actually be a fun character to play. One who tries being a wizard and can't hack it. Hehehe.

EDIT

Saw the first post again and re-read the original question. I agree with what a lot of others have said. Some don't have a chance, some are too dumb, some are too superstitious, some would get bored, some can't read... Also, here's a thought. If the gods in a world are active and it seemed like too many people were becoming mages, I'd be inclined to think they would do something about it. At best, that many wizards probably wouldn't be very devout, by and large. At worst, that many mages would threaten the gods' power.

[Waar]

Why do we still have warriors?

In a fairly balanced system it would be because warriors are the best att war. In any system where weapons are the best/most reliable/easiest way to kill/injure opponents you are going to see a lot of persons using weapons. These assumtions may or may not be valid regarding DnD Product from this millennium :smalltongue:.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Or not all people are going to like to be Mages... Not everybody has the same tastes or preferences. Even in real-world jobs.

...I still think that we can't compare supernatural powers with jobs.

[AMFV]

...I still think that we can't compare supernatural powers with jobs.

Why not? Supernatural powers are going to require that I do things, every single day, the same things. Or I could die, since supernatural powers also attract the attention of unpleasant things. So why would that be any different from a job. It's worse because it's very hard to quit.

[Marlowe]

...so with great power, comes great annoyance?

It's a point. Everytime I play a Cleric; which seems to be most of the time I get to play anything, I find it a little irritating how everyone in the party expects me to protect them from the consequences of their behaviour. You know, the whole Malack speech. It can be trying enough in-game. I imagine actually being a Cleric would be quite stressful and lead to many of us flipping out within days. And I don't imagine Wizards have it much better.

[VeliciaL]

...so with great power, comes great annoyance?

It's a point. Everytime I play a Cleric; which seems to be most of the time I get to play anything, I find it a little irritating how everyone in the party expects me to protect them from the consequences of their behaviour. You know, the whole Malack speech. It can be trying enough in-game. I imagine actually being a Cleric would be quite stressful and lead to many of us flipping out within days. And I don't imagine Wizards have it much better.

Which probably contributes to why most wizards hang out in their towers all day...

[AMFV]

...so with great power, comes great annoyance?

It's a point. Everytime I play a Cleric; which seems to be most of the time I get to play anything, I find it a little irritating how everyone in the party expects me to protect them from the consequences of their behaviour. You know, the whole Malack speech. It can be trying enough in-game. I imagine actually being a Cleric would be quite stressful and lead to many of us flipping out within days. And I don't imagine Wizards have it much better.

It's much worse for Wizards actually, they don't have the Wisdom to be able to peaceful and serene about everything. It's why most Wizards eventually try to kill everybody in a mad bid to ascend to Godhood, for a little peace and quiet at last.

[Arbane]

It's why most Wizards eventually try to kill everybody in a mad bid to ascend to Godhood, for a little peace and quiet at last.

Nobody warned them about the prayers, I take it....

[AMFV]

Nobody warned them about the prayers, I take it....

Well the example of an ascended Lich we have is the God of Secrecy, so he'd be able to avoid most of those. Also I'm not sure that those work that way outside of Order of the Stick. Gods have awareness of their worshipers without needing them to pray to them. The prayer is only to give spells and it's not clear how much awareness that actually requires.

[Coidzor]

What could be the in-world reason for someone in a D&D world to choose "Hit stuff with a metal stick" instead of "super powers"?
I mean in the real world everyone wants some type of super power if it was possible why in the seven seas of hell you would not choose that?

Insufficient ability (scores).

Insufficient opportunity/education/exposure.

Part of an underclass to whom such things are forbidden.

Raised from birth to be a specialized meatshield.

Brainwashing.

Generally I tend to have a bit more spellcastery types running around than the default assumptions would have it in D&D 3.X/PF, but I wouldn't want to run a game with the majority of the population as some manner of caster without either playing in the Tippyverse or some setting specifically for all the casterosity.

[AMFV]

Insufficient ability scores.

Insufficient opportunity/education/exposure.

Part of an underclass to whom such things are forbidden.

Raised from birth to be a specialized meatshield.

Brainwashing.

Generally I tend to have a bit more spellcastery types running around than the default assumptions would have it in D&D 3.X/PF, but I wouldn't want to run a game with the majority of the population as some manner of caster without either playing in the Tippyverse or some setting specifically for all the casterosity.

Or maybe they just really like the crunching sound it makes when you crush a man's skull with your bare hands.

[SiuiS]

Actually, my point was that it's probably better to be a caster with a primary stat as low as 12 than to be a Fighter type with the same. Warlock was just an example of a "caster type" (although they aren't really.) that doesn't even have a primary stat requirement to function.

As for your response, it really seems like you ignored what I wrote and just repeated yourself. I'll do the same:

Cute, but no. I repeated my point because it still stands; learning to bend reality through force of will is magnitudes harder than learning to leverage a metal wedge into meat.

IFF (that is If And Only If, for those who don't know) you cannot manage to do this through sheer willpower, then you can use other means to try and gain this power. The only default and constant payment for it is "pieces of your soul", however. While technically anything in the US can be for through barter or theft or sexual favors or trickery or eve. Just finding it, the established value is still in dollars.
If the established value is piece of soul, the concept of there maybe being alternative methods sometimes, possibly. On occasion. Isn't a reassurance.



There's a Faerie plane?:smallconfused:

Check the manual of the planes.


...so with great power, comes great annoyance?

It's a point. Everytime I play a Cleric; which seems to be most of the time I get to play anything, I find it a little irritating how everyone in the party expects me to protect them from the consequences of their behaviour. You know, the whole Malack speech. It can be trying enough in-game. I imagine actually being a Cleric would be quite stressful and lead to many of us flipping out within days. And I don't imagine Wizards have it much better.

Even better, wizards do this to themselves. Did you know see invisible (a common default permanent power) lets you see ethereal beings too? Have you looked at ethereal fauna? Escaped dreams. Skeletal platypuses. Interconnected faces made of evil fog. Floating eyes. Viciously maimed corpses (ghosts). Swirling malice. Traveling psychics.

Imagine being in the Lou and having a Darkstrider walk through you, having breached all your defenses. Or imagine having an angry guard approached by a floating eye that puckers it's out-of-nowhere eyelids (because it's dismembered) like lips, and blows, and suddenly the guard is murderous. Or just ethereal flickers all the time. Taking your damn towels or magical hat when you change.

Imagine having to deal with people who know your job affects your sanity. "No, Jim. I'm fine. It's just... Look, okay, I didn't want to say it but a four armed purple come with one leg keeps stealing all my jewelry. Alright? But I'm fine. I trapped every doorway in my house. And I surrounded the place with gorgon's blood. It keeps them away, you see."


It's much worse for Wizards actually, they don't have the Wisdom to be able to peaceful and serene about everything. It's why most Wizards eventually try to kill everybody in a mad bid to ascend to Godhood, for a little peace and quiet at last.

Yeah. Wizards are told that relentless logic without reason or direction eventually makes everythig make sense.

We've seen on these forums what nonmagical people who can't figure out that logic needs a rational application can justify....

[Marlowe]

Cute, but no. I repeated my point because it still stands; learning to bend reality through force of will is magnitudes harder than learning to leverage a metal wedge into meat. But yet, by the rules, still possible for anyone with even a standard array.




IFF (that is If And Only If, for those who don't know) you cannot manage to do this through sheer willpower, then you can use other means to try and gain this power. The only default and constant payment for it is "pieces of your soul", however. While technically anything in the US can be for through barter or theft or sexual favors or trickery or eve. Just finding it, the established value is still in dollars.
If the established value is piece of soul, the concept of there maybe being alternative methods sometimes, possibly. On occasion. Isn't a reassurance. Correction. The only example of gaining power given is to use "pieces of your soul". Along with wording that suggests it's not the only way. Heck, the wording also suggests this is only the way evil Warlocks do it. It's a plot hook. Nothing more.

This is a far cry from claiming it as "the default and constant payment".

Essentially you are taking your own interpretations and presenting them as evidence. Evidence of themselves..



Check the manual of the planes. And you are right. Tacked-on right after the...elemental plane of wood.:smallconfused: I guess those Fey really don't like being noticed.

[BWR]

But yet, by the rules, still possible for anyone with even a standard array.


I think this is the problem. Far too many people focus on what the rules say, assuming the rules are somehow more important than the setting or assuming that the setting follows the rules exactly. If you want to run and play games like that, fine but this is definitely not the case in most published settings and rules should not be assumed to trump setting in discussions about them.

There aren't harder limits to 'who can be X' in the rules because that would be making things too specific for what is intended to be a generic ruleset for fantasy adventuring. Many settings put in some sort of limit to who can be casters in fluff, not rules, because PCs are assumed to be pretty out of the ordinary already and don't need to roll to determine whether they have the opportunity, and the restrictions don't count for NPCs.

The rules don't need to get more detailed about the comparative difficulties of swinging swords or casting fireballs because it isn't important. The fluff - the vast number of fighters compared to the number of casters - does it for you.

[Morty]

This thread looks like six pages of people talking past each other, starting from the fact that the OP asked a question in a complete vacuum. What 'wizard' and 'warrior' even mean does not have any sort of definition, because it means something completely different in all sorts of fiction. Even if you default to D&D, which isn't a very good idea, you're talking about several editions and several settings, all of which has the consistency of a group of drunk people throwing wooden sticks.

It seems the OP is working off the definition of 'wizard' as an omnipotent god that anyone can become by taking levels in a class. Yes, if you work from that definition, it might indeed not make much sense not to be a wizard. Which is why you don't find this sort of set-up in any good fiction. Either being a magic-user means incredible power, but requires some innate talent, huge sacrifice or one-in-a-million chance... or it's not special enough for everyone, or most people, to pursue it in spite of the hardships and difficulties. Or something in-between.

[BeerMug Paladin]

The question was not "why do players like to play as fighters?". It was not meant to be something about the mechanics.

I asked for a in-character reason.

And I guess the "Books in the middle ages used to cost a fortune since they were not printed or mass-produced", "it is expensive", "it is hard" and "Some people perceive mages as being week and a coward" are the best reasons.
I once made a peasant PC character who engaged strictly in the fighter class (although it was a commoner/fighter mix, behind the scenes). I had the character's mindset going like this. All you need to be a good fighter is practice fighting. It mostly takes the will to try, and minimal training otherwise. One could essentially start doing this at any point they wished, although if people wanted to train before setting out, that was understandable.

But for him, his journey began when he discovered the means to begin adventuring. And all it took was the necessary equipment to begin.

He had respect for people who had the patience and the inclination to train in other fields, but ultimately learning magic wasn't going to be something he was interested in because it didn't have anything to do with what his goals were in life. Taking up one of the studies could theoretically be accomplished, but in the meantime, there were worthy causes to fight for that would need to be disregarded to accomplish that secondary goal.

I think his charisma was his highest mental stat. It was around 13.

Not everyone wants to pause life to go study, train a skill or otherwise devote themselves to something distracting when they already have access to a skillset that could be or is useful for accomplishing a goal of theirs.

[Jay R]

I cannot conceive of a D&D-like society in which everyone, or even a large minority, could choose to become wizards. Similarly, I cannot conceive of a modern society in which everyone, or even a large minority, could choose to become astronauts.

Most people aren't wizards because it is not possible. They have no magic in them. Or their INT is too low. Or there is nobody to train them.

We can choose to play a PC who is part of this small minority. But most people in that world who become warriors had no chance to choose to become a spellcaster.

[cesius]

The question was not "why do players like to play as fighters?". It was not meant to be something about the mechanics.

I asked for a in-character reason.

And I guess the "Books in the middle ages used to cost a fortune since they were not printed or mass-produced", "it is expensive", "it is hard" and "Some people perceive mages as being week and a coward" are the best reasons.

Personally, I'd imagine it's closer along the lines of why a person, in reality, ends up trying to get whatever their first job is; a mix of early exposure, aptitude, personality, and opportunity. Maybe they were impressed by the stories of caravan guards stopping in their village for the night or they had an ancestral set of arms and armor they expected to inherit. Maybe they hit puberty and developed the physique of a line backer and someone told them the city guard could use a person like that. Maybe they don't like the idea of spending hours inside reading tomes and working through arcane formulas even if they're smart enough to do so.

[Kami2awa]

Forgive me if this is already in the thread as I don't have time to re-read it all...

Actually, in D&D aren't there only a few classes with NO spell ability at all? There's the monk (who effectively has magic powers, just different ones), the fighter, and the rogue. The paladin, druid, cleric, wizard and bard all have spell lists even if it's not the main focus of their abilities. The ranger can at least use scrolls. This suggests to me that nearly everyone (or at least, nearly every PC) has some knowledge of magic. The primary casters are just the A+ students of Magic 101.

[Ettina]

The number of languages you speak has little to no bearing on intelligence in the real world...

True. I had a cognitively disabled classmate who spoke both English and French. Although since she was from a French-speaking family in a predominantly English-speaking region of the country, I'm guessing in D&D terms French and English would be automatic languages for her.

I got the impression automatic languages were languages learnt as a child when everyone is amazing at learning languages, while bonus languages gotten from Int stat were languages learnt as a teenager or adult when it takes a lot of work to learn a language. Which would explain language being linked to Int - most people who have studied multiple languages past early childhood are pretty smart people.

[Incanur]

Warriors in fantasy setting can have super powers without being explicitly magical and throwing fireballs or whatever. See Beowulf and nearly any anime bushi ever. And in low-power settings peak-human warriors can compete with magic users in a variety of ways. Depending on the circumstances, it could simply be a better option for the character to focus on martial prowess than anything else. This goes double if magic has unpleasant side effects like rapid aging or infernal contracts.

Beyond that, people do dumb things. I mean, why in the world did I choose to go into the humanities? :smallamused:

[AMFV]

Warriors in fantasy setting can have super powers without being explicitly magical and throwing fireballs or whatever. See Beowulf and nearly any anime bushi ever. And in low-power settings peak-human warriors can compete with magic users in a variety of ways. Depending on the circumstances, it could simply be a better option for the character to focus on martial prowess than anything else. This goes double if magic has unpleasant side effects like rapid aging or infernal contracts.

Beyond that, people do dumb things. I mean, why in the world did I choose to go into the humanities? :smallamused:

After all you're only human...

[BeerMug Paladin]

Because you didn't know about the elvenities? Forestry, elvish and animal husbandry?

Or the dwarvenities? Material science, norse mythology and fermentation science?

[Seward]

Because you want to smite jerks and protect wimps!

Seriously I'm having more fun with my tiny Chaotic Good halfling-who-thinks-she-is-a-paladin in Pathfinder than I had with my Oracle...and she has more fun with her life too than my Oracle did in-character. She's in many ways like a pint-sized Groo the Warrior in how she interacts with the world, much more dangerous and tough than everything around her. Thankfully her weapon is non-lethal whenever her deity thinks it should be, so the carnage is mostly to things that deserve it. The rest just get "taught a lesson".

(and lest you think a halfling is not an optimized choice for a warrior, well, you don't know some of the odder options in the Pathfinder version of D&D and Golarian setting. At level 8, she's hitting armor class in mid 30s when unprepared, over 40 when prepared and dishes out 3 attacks/round at about 20 damage each...and her lowest save is +14....she's a little scary cockroach that actually can Leeeroyy...Jenkinssss and be ok until the party is ready to help her out....plus she has enough consumables to manage things like flight or swimming if she's not getting help from party members...)

Sometimes badassery is more than the spell options you might be able to do. Sometimes it's the ability to be routinely badass in a large variety of common situations. She's been shut down sometimes, but it takes a lot of work...the only time anyone ever actually stopped her entirely after level 2 was by threatening to kill her downed buddies....

My Oracle was a huge asset to any team he was on, but in the end he was just a competent spellcaster and I had to be really sharp to get the most out of him. My little warrior is like playing the game on easy-mode. And she can disable traps too!

[SiuiS]

But yet, by the rules, still possible for anyone with even a standard array.

Here's the thing.

In a vacuum, by the rules, a character can be in the middle of a desert with no clothes, no tools, roll a profession check, and at the end of the day or week, magically acquire mysteriously appearing coins. Because all the rules for profession checks say are that you can perform your profession and get money based on the result.

Logically, we add in the context and verisimulitude ourselves, as we are supposed to, because not only is the game specifically written with a causation clause, but it's ludicrous to assume otherwise.


We are told routinely that will working is hard. That will workig requires effort. That will workin is dangerous. That will working had a much longer apprenticeship duration. That will working is not as easy as a more mundane career. There's no rule that says "it's harder by 3 DC on X roll" because there doesn't need to be.

Casters take longer to become proficient, routinely deal with situations much harder and much more dangerous than non casters, and do not have a non-Extreme niche in the same way that martial characters do. See the differences in starting age, differences in standard dealings and abilities, and differences in fiction.


Correction. The only example of gaining power given is to use "pieces of your soul". Along with wording that suggests it's not the only way. Heck, the wording also suggests this is only the way evil Warlocks do it. It's a plot hook. Nothing more.

This is a far cry from claiming it as "the default and constant payment".

Sure. Name another way that works by the rules.



And you are right. Tacked-on right after the...elemental plane of wood.:smallconfused: I guess those Fey really don't like being noticed.

Also the court of stars (BoED) and some others. They have recurring themes across many books and many references, though some are oblique.

[Marlowe]

Here's the thing.

In a vacuum, by the rules, a character can be in the middle of a desert with no clothes, no tools, roll a profession check, and at the end of the day or week, magically acquire mysteriously appearing coins. Because all the rules for profession checks say are that you can perform your profession and get money based on the result.

Logically, we add in the context and verisimulitude ourselves, as we are supposed to, because not only is the game specifically written with a causation clause, but it's ludicrous to assume otherwise. I'm sorry, but simply pointing out a random mechanic is underdetailed does not justify using circular logic and recursive evidence.



We are told routinely that will working is hard. That will workig requires effort. That will workin is dangerous. That will working had a much longer apprenticeship duration. That will working is not as easy as a more mundane career. There's no rule that says "it's harder by 3 DC on X roll" because there doesn't need to be.

Casters take longer to become proficient, routinely deal with situations much harder and much more dangerous than non casters, and do not have a non-Extreme niche in the same way that martial characters do. See the differences in starting age, differences in standard dealings and abilities, and differences in fiction. And yet casters are still considered stronger. I don't understand what you think this is proving.:smallconfused:





Sure. Name another way that works by the rules.
By the rules?

You take a level in Warlock. That's it.

Show me the part of the Warlock rules (not fluff. Rules.) that outlines the mechanics of doing deals for your soul, and then you might have an argument.

[Cazero]

A smart, in character reason for anyone to pick a martial proficient class rather than any kind of spellcaster? Easy.

Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards) implies that casters get to be demigods at the end of the curve, but it also implies that they start low and slowly. For your average Joe perspective, there is no reason at all to assume you will ever get enough power to go above the "pretty fireworks" treshhold.
After all, those who did it are like Santa : everybody heard about them, but do they truly exist?

The wizard is that one guy that can't handle a bunch of ordinary housecats in the face at level 3. Case mostly valid for much higher levels (see fourth panel). (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0521.html)
The sorcerer actually have little to no choice in the matter of spellcasting ability.
The warlock have that whole soul pact thing that can creep out anyone with two functionning brain cells.
The cleric requires a true dedication to your faith, not simple attendance at church.
The druid is basically a hobo. A real hobo who lives in the woods, not (always) a murder kind of hobo.
Compared to that, fighter is physically demanding, but you can slash trough most common threats, have a reliable fortitude save against the flu, and unlike librarian or priest, physical manpower is not a social niche job requiring only one guy to be filled, wich means you're unlikely to ever be unemployed.

Any smart person that isn't confident he will have enough money and/or influence to have trustworthy bodyguards for a decade or so have no rationnal reason to chose to be a wizard. Other classes have constraints very likely to be against his liking. Therefore, fighter is a smart and reliable option.

[JetThomasBoat]

Another thought: as for in world reasons why everyone wouldn't be mages could be that the mages themselves don't want that. I think someone said something about supply and demand before. This makes even more sense for the wizards themselves. It's in their best interest to do things like live in towers far from people and use magic to make their spellbooks unreadable. And hell, maybe they cultivate their reputation as these dangerous, mad, ungodly characters so people won't come around trying to get an apprenticeship. Making people suspicious, to a point, is good for business.

I know the suspicion isn't all them or anything, but I figure more than a few wizards foster that fear of their power.




In regards to the conversation about other ways to get magical power without study, I'm surprised no one mentioned Binder. It basically says in the description of those guys, if you know the symbol and the magic words, you can do it. I think you may need a high Charisma for it and it's nowhere near wizard power, it's still kind of silly how much you get with so little consequence.

[Jay R]

By the rules?

You take a level in Warlock. That's it.

Show me the part of the Warlock rules (not fluff. Rules.) that outlines the mechanics of doing deals for your soul, and then you might have an argument.

Well, yes, of course.

Lots of absurd results occur if you look at simulation mechanics without common sense considerations what they are simulating. My discussion on this thread has been based on culture, character motivations - all the cool stuff that the mere mechanics are there to support and help simulate, but which you dismiss as "fluff".

I specifically wrote, "I would never design a character purely on mechanics, without character considerations".

I freely admit that the arguments I've offered do not apply in the logic-free, non-simulation-based approach of mechanics without fluff.

[AMFV]

Well, yes, of course.

Lots of absurd results occur if you look at simulation mechanics without common sense considerations what they are simulating. My discussion on this thread has been based on culture, character motivations - all the cool stuff that the mere mechanics are there to support and help simulate, but which you dismiss as "fluff".

I specifically wrote, "I would never design a character purely on mechanics, without character considerations".

I freely admit that the arguments I've offered do not apply in the logic-free, non-simulation-based approach of mechanics without fluff.

To be fair in a logic-free non-simulation world, the question of why anybody is a warrior becomes moot, they're warriors since the table indicates that there should be this many of them.

[Arbane]

In regards to the conversation about other ways to get magical power without study, I'm surprised no one mentioned Binder. It basically says in the description of those guys, if you know the symbol and the magic words, you can do it. I think you may need a high Charisma for it and it's nowhere near wizard power, it's still kind of silly how much you get with so little consequence.

Well, the consequence of being a Binder is 'sharing your consciousness with a Thing From Beyond". And if you roll bad on your pact, they can make you do some really inadvisable things. Plus, according the fluff, everyone hates them. (Clerics hate them for being hipsters. "Oh, you worship Vecna? How mainstream. I get my powers from some gods so obscure, you've never heard of them.")

[AMFV]

Well, the consequence of being a Binder is 'sharing your consciousness with a Thing From Beyond". And if you roll bad on your pact, they can make you do some really inadvisable things. Plus, according the fluff, everyone hates them. (Clerics hate them for being hipsters. "Oh, you worship Vecna? How mainstream. I get my powers from some gods so obscure, you've never heard of them.")

And that's when the Cleric casts Righteous Might and Divine Power and stomps their pansy asses out of existence as should be done with all of their kin.

[SiuiS]

I'm sorry, but simply pointing out a random mechanic is underdetailed does not justify using circular logic and recursive evidence.

Recursive evidence? I'm drawing a parallel between a wrong thing you've said and a similarly minded wrong thig that is easy to grok as wrong. That's not circular logic, that's a conversation.


And yet casters are still considered stronger. I don't understand what you think this is proving.:smallconfused:


Billionaires have more money than other people, no matter how hard it is to be a billionaire. Why aren't you a billionaire? Effort doesn't matter, only [strength]. So why not just be [stronger]?



By the rules?

You take a level in Warlock. That's it.

Oh, ouch. That's a good point.

[Gettles]

Billionaires have more money than other people, no matter how hard it is to be a billionaire. Why aren't you a billionaire? Effort doesn't matter, only [strength]. So why not just be [stronger]?



The problem with the whole "magic is harder to learn so it deserves to be better" argument is that it falls apart once you realize we are talking about a game. All of the hardship disappears when the preamble to playing a mage or a warrior comes down to writing "(relevant magic class) or "(relevant martial class). And in any game where both billionaire and debtor are both choices but one comes with no downsides and one comes with no benefits but a million weaknesses then if falls apart at the most basic level and is a crap game.

[SiuiS]

The problem with the whole "magic is harder to learn so it deserves to be better" argument is that it


Didn't come up? Yeah, that is a problem.

No one said they deserve to be better because they are harder. I did say that weaker classes make visceral sense in a simulation game because they are easier, and a simulation requires acknowledging these things exist and we have rules for them. I also said that it's likely people just don't have the knack to be a caster, and there has to be /somethig/ for them.

But nowhere did I say it was okay to make unbalanced options because of verisimilitude. A->B, but not B->A.

[Gettles]

Didn't come up? Yeah, that is a problem.

No one said they deserve to be better because they are harder. I did say that weaker classes make visceral sense in a simulation game because they are easier, and a simulation requires acknowledging these things exist and we have rules for them. I also said that it's likely people just don't have the knack to be a caster, and there has to be /somethig/ for them.

But nowhere did I say it was okay to make unbalanced options because of verisimilitude. A->B, but not B->A.

For what it's worth I was also looking at one of your previous posts where you said:




We are told routinely that will working is hard. That will workig requires effort. That will workin is dangerous. That will working had a much longer apprenticeship duration. That will working is not as easy as a more mundane career. There's no rule that says "it's harder by 3 DC on X roll" because there doesn't need to be.

Casters take longer to become proficient, routinely deal with situations much harder and much more dangerous than non casters, and do not have a non-Extreme niche in the same way that martial characters do. See the differences in starting age, differences in standard dealings and abilities, and differences in fiction.

Which read to me like you were saying that caster deserved more power because of RP backgrounds. If that wasn't what you ment than I apologize.

[Segev]

From a game design standpoint, there are two main culprits to the issue with casters just outshining non-:

"Magic" is such a broad concept that it is conceivable that anything could be achieved through its auspices. With enough time and creativity plumbed to develop more and more material, this lack of boundary will lead to there being magic that can accomplish literally anything.
Relatedly, we have definite ideas that "mudane" has to equate to "realistic." There are hard limits on what seems "real," even when we make dramatic allowances for herculean heroes. (The level of allowance can be fairly easily seen in superhero mash-up stories: Batman and other "unpowered" heroes still have physical capabilities to take hits, make leaps, and deliver blows that are frankly beyond what marines could deliver.) But those limits remain mentally limiting.


There are fictional tales which break out of that last one. Some do it by creating "non-magic" magic, such as chi or martial arts or "science" that gives superhuman capability. Others simply assume that greater power and skill and technique leads to frankly impossible things doable by being just that awesome.

Unfortunately, efforts to step into that often are inspired by anime, which creates a backlash from certain crowds. (See: Tome of Battle)

If (Ex)traordinary abilities could truly be extraordinary, to the point of being utterly impossible and on par with magical effects but due to "mundane" explanations, we could get a lot more mileage.

Still, the "limit" on magic is that it has counters. They don't come up often in practice, but anti-magic fields, resistances to magic, and other such things in theory give mundanes an edge back. If mundane effects can do anything magic can do, they either need to be harder to achieve or narrower, because that limitation would just reverse the current problem, otherwise. Why play a "mage" in the Marvel universe when playing a "reality-warper" doesn't come with vulnerability to antimagic fields?


But the first step, I think, to breaking this "casters win" problem is to break free of the idea that a mundane can't achieve some end result, because it's impossible without magic.

A druid summoned a huricane? So did the fighter. Sure, he did it by using a void-wind technique involving cutting with his sword in such a way that the air was whipped into a frenzy, but he did it.

A wizard cast magic to fly? So did the monk, using his lightfoot technique to leap seemingly effortlessly across the clouds.

The sorcerer called forth a Pit Fiend and is getting it to be his bodyguard? The barbarian is scarier and just extinguished the devil's fiery aura with the chilling pressure of his killing intent.

The cleric is actually Astral Projecting from a place of safety, and so killing him doesn't make much difference? The rogue you thought you killed was just a clever decoy.

Resurrection? The paladin walked into the underworld and talked the lords thereof into releasing his friend back to the realm of the living. And when said lords were evil and laughed in his face, he destroyed their fiefdoms until they complied.

[BeerMug Paladin]

One of the characters I've had the must fun with in 3.5 D&D was the most deliberately underpowered character I'm aware of that existed as a PC. From level 1, I took 3 levels of peasant, then fighter from there on out. I believe we made it to level 11.

For me, at least, the fun of the game isn't about making a powerful character. (Not always, at least.) Not to say balance isn't an important component of design, but it's generally something I don't worry about as a player.

[Marlowe]

Oh, ouch. That's a good point.


You said. "By the rules." That's how you become a warlock "By the rules". The same way you get levels in any other class.

We were discussing fluff, and want it actually says versus what people say it says. It cheesed me off a little when you throw in a phrase like "by the rules" as a challenge. So I put in a much more abrupt response than I might have otherwise. I'm sorry.

Fluff is not the same thing as rules. The books even take time to remind us this from time to time. Check the sidebar for the Thayan Knight. It bothers to tell us that although the class fluff derives from a particular faction in a particular setting it's really just a mechanical framework for a certain character archetype, and that everything about its fluff can be changed to suit a different setting.

If you wanted a alternative fluff explanation for the Warlocks origin story, which I think is what you
wanted, check the Eldritch Disciple PrC. It has Warlock powers being granted by an actual diety.

[SiuiS]

I'm not hurt, I'm acknowledging that you are right.


For what it's worth I was also looking at one of your previous posts where you said:

Which read to me like you were saying that caster deserved more power because of RP backgrounds. If that wasn't what you ment than I apologize.

No, strictly the nature of application. If I say "career magic user" you'll think "career dealing with spirits, haggling with other wizards and running away from alchemical explosions". If I say "career warrior" you'll think "career marching across dust and savannah in concert with others, clashing with swordsmen and spear men, and assaulting ramparts".

It's easier to be a warrior because you say you're a warrior, they give you a crossbow and have you guard the walls. You say you're a magic user and you're up to your ears in politics while people try to finagle your power into their court to deal with the demons and spirits already present for some reason.

Which do you think is easier at, arbitrarily, third level.

[AMFV]

I'm not hurt, I'm acknowledging that you are right.



No, strictly the nature of application. If I say "career magic user" you'll think "career dealing with spirits, haggling with other wizards and running away from alchemical explosions". If I say "career warrior" you'll think "career marching across dust and savannah in concert with others, clashing with swordsmen and spear men, and assaulting ramparts".

It's easier to be a warrior because you say you're a warrior, they give you a crossbow and have you guard the walls. You say you're a magic user and you're up to your ears in politics while people try to finagle your power into their court to deal with the demons and spirits already present for some reason.

Which do you think is easier at, arbitrarily, third level.

Having been in the military, I can tell you that being in the military is completely full of politics. It's just a different sort of politics.

[Seward]

Billionaires have more money than other people, no matter how hard it is to be a billionaire. Why aren't you a billionaire? Effort doesn't matter, only [strength]. So why not just be [stronger]?



The best predictor of a billionaire is that they were born into at least a few million dollars.

Kinda like a sorcerer bloodline, actually.

[Psyren]

The problem with the whole "magic is harder to learn so it deserves to be better" argument is that it falls apart once you realize we are talking about a game. All of the hardship disappears when the preamble to playing a mage or a warrior comes down to writing "(relevant magic class) or "(relevant martial class). And in any game where both billionaire and debtor are both choices but one comes with no downsides and one comes with no benefits but a million weaknesses then if falls apart at the most basic level and is a crap game.

The mechanics handwave all that for ease of play. In-universe, all of that rigorous study/good breeding/divine serendipity/navel-gazing that leads to mental powers is not simply glossed over, it happens up front.

Basically you are conflating the mechanics of the game with the assumptions of the simulation. It's nice for cracking jokes, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0127.html) but otherwise is not a serious exercise.

[AMFV]

The mechanics handwave all that for ease of play. In-universe, all of that rigorous study/good breeding/divine serendipity/navel-gazing that leads to mental powers is not simply glossed over, it happens up front.

Although to be absolutely fair, training to be a Warblade or a Fighter is probably no picnic either. But it would be so different as to attract people with different skillsets, and then even if everybody were equally qualified for both roles you'd still have people that would prefer being a fighter to being a wizard.

[Psyren]

Thing is, even if you have 9 Str and 9 Dex, you can still swing a sword and claim to be a fighter no matter how bad you were during trainng. But spellcasting of all kinds does have a "you must be this tall to ride" barrier to entry.

I do agree with you though - in-universe, may who could qualify could simply not want to deal with the hassles of spellcasting. I'm reminded of Roy telling the deva why he didn't want to be a cleric despite having good stats for it.

[Wardog]

The problem with the whole "magic is harder to learn so it deserves to be better" argument is that it falls apart once you realize we are talking about a game. All of the hardship disappears when the preamble to playing a mage or a warrior comes down to writing "(relevant magic class) or "(relevant martial class). And in any game where both billionaire and debtor are both choices but one comes with no downsides and one comes with no benefits but a million weaknesses then if falls apart at the most basic level and is a crap game.

I thought the OP was talking about NPCs (or "people living in a D&D-style world") rather than players choosing a class.

What class a player can take depends on the rules.
What class an NPCs take depends on fluff / world building / etc.

If fluff says "only 1 person in a million has the right bloodline to become a sorcerer", and the rules say "to play a sorcerer, take a level in sorcerer" that just means that people who choose to play as a sorcerer have chosen to be play as that 1-in-a-million person, but that doesn't apply to NPCs (except for those that the DM decides are sorcerers).

Likewise for any other fluff-restrictions of character classes (e.g. wealth and education and opportunities to train as a wizard, pacts with outsiders to become a warlock, etc). The player can get all that for free just by taking a level in that class. The rest of the world don't normally get the opportunity, because fluff/setting design says that they're all dirt farmers.

[SiuiS]

Having been in the military, I can tell you that being in the military is completely full of politics. It's just a different sort of politics.

Unless you were a foot soldier in 1066, I don't think your experience applies. And that's disregarding that I speak of popular assumption.


The mechanics handwave all that for ease of play. In-universe, all of that rigorous study/good breeding/divine serendipity/navel-gazing that leads to mental powers is not simply glossed over, it happens up front.

Basically you are conflating the mechanics of the game with the assumptions of the simulation. It's nice for cracking jokes, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0127.html) but otherwise is not a serious exercise.

This, yes. Thank you.

[Lord Raziere]

This, yes. Thank you.

....Why? I think that there definitely should be more equality. if someone wants to just whack things with a sword all day, nothing is stopping them from doing that with a fighter class that caters to other things. I mean its just a basic attack, anyone can do it.

[AMFV]

Unless you were a foot soldier in 1066, I don't think your experience applies. And that's disregarding that I speak of popular assumption.


I know enough to know that there's nothing new under the sun as far as that's concerned. I'm not saying that there aren't reasons to not want to be a Wizard, I'm just not sure that that's the best one.


....Why? I think that there definitely should be more equality. if someone wants to just whack things with a sword all day, nothing is stopping them from doing that with a fighter class that caters to other things. I mean its just a basic attack, anyone can do it.

But it isn't it takes years of training to get your basic attack that good.

[SiuiS]

....Why? I think that there definitely should be more equality. if someone wants to just whack things with a sword all day, nothing is stopping them from doing that with a fighter class that caters to other things. I mean its just a basic attack, anyone can do it.

Life isn't fair, Raziere. It's just not.


Take basic fighting. I'll use LARP combat as an example. The 30" long omniblade is the best weapon, period. You could get as good with a two-hander, or with a short weapon, with time. But with that time, you could instead get even better with the Best Weapon. You could train with a staff until you were a mster of doubl-ended weapon combat! But you copuld be even better than that if you had dedicated that time and energy to the 30" omni round. You could become a master spellcaster, with perfect elocution and emphasis on your quick but clear incantations adn with spell ball aim to rival the gods! But that much time and energy would have made you a sword master much faster and in a much more constantly applicable way.

This is because of physics meeting the game goals. The best length, the lightest weight, the most applicable technique, all meet in the middle and elevate this one thing above all others if you put in the time. Any time put in is bvest spent on this weapon, not others.

Would it be better for the game if everything was equal? Yeah. But it's not possible. Because that's not how reality works.


We aren't talking about "why are wizards stronger", we are talking about "why are warriors easier to be", and the answer is, warriors are something literally every person can be, and not literally every person can be a caster. Literaly everyone can survive warrior training. Not literally everyone can survive caster training. Literally everyone can survive the basic expected career of a warrior. Not everyone can survive the basic career of a caster.


I know enough to know that there's nothing new under the sun as far as that's concerned. I'm not saying that there aren't reasons to not want to be a Wizard, I'm just not sure that that's the best one.


Alright. Politics is a basic human activity, true. It's still less understandable for a soldier to be poisoned and have his soul sold by a rival than for a caster.

[Lord Raziere]

Would it be better for the game if everything was equal? Yeah. But it's not possible. Because that's not how reality works.


But this is fantasy not reality. I put up with that bull already in reality, I don't want it in my nonreality/anti-reality.

and imperfection while omnipresent and unavoidable, can be minimized. the unfairness of life, the eternal imperfection of reality, is no excuse to keep improving, to do better. the fighter in 3.5 can be done far, far better even if the fighter itself will never be as powerful as a wizard. and even in the 5e fighter, things can be done to improve it even better. imperfection exists, but it is no excuse for stasis or failure.

[SiuiS]

But this is fantasy not reality. I put up with that bull already in reality, I don't want it in my nonreality/anti-reality.

and imperfection while omnipresent and unavoidable, can be minimized. the unfairness of life, the eternal imperfection of reality, is no excuse to keep improving, to do better. the fighter in 3.5 can be done far, far better even if the fighter itself will never be as powerful as a wizard. and even in the 5e fighter, things can be done to improve it even better. imperfection exists, but it is no excuse for stasis or failure.

And absolutely none of this has to do with warrior being easier. Because even if warrior and wizard were equal in power, warrior is still easier. It's unrelated.

[Arbane]

And absolutely none of this has to do with warrior being easier. Because even if warrior and wizard were equal in power, warrior is still easier. It's unrelated.

What do you mean 'easier'? Easier in the sense of not needing to pore over arcane tomes with names like 'Spell Compendium', or easier in the sense of 'today, class, you will be breaking bricks with your foreheads'?

[Lord Raziere]

And absolutely none of this has to do with warrior being easier. Because even if warrior and wizard were equal in power, warrior is still easier. It's unrelated.

Wizard: I got to read books all my life, and got phenomenal cosmic powers for it
Warrior: I've got to do a lot of exercise and hard work in heavy armor all my life, and got good swordsmanship for it
......
Wizard: ...and I'm supposed to have it hard it here?
Warrior: well aren't wielding those powers hard for you?
Wizard: No, its pretty much just casting a rote spell and awesome happens.
Warrior: well what about politics?
Wizard: yeah, to get into wizard school in the first place, I came from a wealthy noble family, and my older brother was more fit to lead and inherit the land anyways, so they taught him all that instead. I didn't have to deal with it.
Warrior: well what about nobles trying to manipulate you because of your spells?
Wizard: hey, I'm the one with phenomenal cosmic power here, they're coming to me. with lucrative offers for my spells. I play my cards right and I'll be rich as they are soon.
Warrior: while my greatest hope is to die in the glory of some other guy, going down in history as some guy with a sword who killed some people? Never knowing luxury, comfort a good life with a family?
Wizard: Yup.
Warrior:....and your the one whose supposed to have it hard here?
Wizard: Apparently.
Warrior:....Screw it, how much will bodyguarding you pay for wizard lessons?

[BeerMug Paladin]

Wizard: I got to read books all my life, and got phenomenal cosmic powers for it
Warrior: I've got to do a lot of exercise and hard work in heavy armor all my life, and got good swordsmanship for it
......
Wizard: ...and I'm supposed to have it hard it here?
Warrior: well aren't wielding those powers hard for you?
Wizard: No, its pretty much just casting a rote spell and awesome happens.
Warrior: well what about politics?
Wizard: yeah, to get into wizard school in the first place, I came from a wealthy noble family, and my older brother was more fit to lead and inherit the land anyways, so they taught him all that instead. I didn't have to deal with it.
Warrior: well what about nobles trying to manipulate you because of your spells?
Wizard: hey, I'm the one with phenomenal cosmic power here, they're coming to me. with lucrative offers for my spells. I play my cards right and I'll be rich as they are soon.
Warrior: while my greatest hope is to die in the glory of some other guy, going down in history as some guy with a sword who killed some people? Never knowing luxury, comfort a good life with a family?
Wizard: Yup.
Warrior:....and your the one whose supposed to have it hard here?
Wizard: Apparently.
Warrior:....Screw it, how much will bodyguarding you pay for wizard lessons?
Barbarian: NERD! *Wedgie*
Wizard: You! Are you going to stop this?
Warrior: I think I might have finally noticed a potential drawback here. Maybe I'll see how this plays out first before I make a hasty decision.

[Lord Raziere]

Barbarian: NERD! *Wedgie*
Wizard: You! Are you going to stop this?
Warrior: I think I might have finally noticed a potential drawback here. Maybe I'll see how this plays out first before I make a hasty decision.

How it actually happens:
Barbarian: NER-*Gets fireballed and dies*
Wizard: I'm sorry what were you saying again about bodyguarding me?
Warrior: Nevermind.

[Psyren]

But this is fantasy not reality. I put up with that bull already in reality, I don't want it in my nonreality/anti-reality.

It is fantasy - just not the one you seem to want.

RPGs tend to focus on the fantasy of brains trumping brawn. Magic is that paradigm taken to its logical conclusion. By understanding the rules - either on an intellectual, intuitive or instinctive level - you win the game. That mindset appeals to the kinds of folks who play RPGs to begin with, more often than not - at least, the rules-heavy ones where that tends to be the case.


How it actually happens:
Barbarian: NER-*Gets fireballed and dies*
Wizard: I'm sorry what were you saying again about bodyguarding me?
Warrior: Nevermind.

Or the Wizard sees the wedgie coming because he's been reading the Barbarian's mind the entire time and turns him into a snail or a drooling simpleton. Or he wedgies the wizard's astral projection, body double, shadow illusion or pet manticore transmuted to look like him. Or his hands pass through the wizard's waistline because he's been journeying while incorporeal etc.

[Lord Raziere]

It is fantasy - just not the one you seem to want.

RPGs tend to focus on the fantasy of brains trumping brawn. Magic is that paradigm taken to its logical conclusion. By understanding the rules - either on an intellectual, intuitive or instinctive level - you win the game. That mindset appeals to the kinds of folks who play RPGs to begin with, more often than not - at least, the rules-heavy ones where that tends to be the case.


You speak of only one playstyle. and even then- if I want to play a smart character, I would not give them the tool wide selection of tools that Wizards are given. too unlimited. too much potential for them to figure out everything. I would actually give a smart character more limited tools to use, so that they have to work with what they have, make them have to figure out how to work around their limitations. a smart person with the unlimited power of a wizard is nothing but a god, it is no challenge. it is why Lelouch's power is severely limited, its why Light Yagami's power has rules, or why the Batman has no powers at all- they are geniuses and strategists that are capable of great deeds BECAUSE they're not handed the power of the cosmos, but rather handed only a dagger when everyone else wields a sword.

the class I would play to outsmart someone in DnD is the rogue. the class I would play to outpower somebody is the wizard.

[Anlashok]

And absolutely none of this has to do with warrior being easier. Because even if warrior and wizard were equal in power, warrior is still easier. It's unrelated.

Gotta wonder where we're coming from if the guy slogging around in the hot sun at the brink of death being hounded by terrible fiends all day long has it "easy" and the guy sitting in an air conditioned tower reading a book and sipping tea is the one apparently struggling.

See, we can all try to come up with contrivances like that in an attempt to justify a position. Treating yours as fact because you prefer the status quo just seems silly.

[Lord Raziere]

Gotta wonder where we're coming from if the guy slogging around in the hot sun at the brink of death being hounded by terrible fiends all day long has it "easy" and the guy sitting in an air conditioned tower reading a book and sipping tea is the one apparently struggling.

See, we can all try to come up with contrivances like that in an attempt to justify a position. Treating yours as fact because you prefer the status quo just seems silly.

"I need to clean my tower but I don't have Prestidigitation prepared today."

"I know I have Themarch's Treatise Upon Magical Frogs in my library, but I don't have the time to look through it to find it and I didn't take any divination spells"

"I received an offer to cast a spell for 10,000 gold from one noble, but got another offer to cast a spell 8000 gold and a magic item, which should I choose?"

"I want to learn a new spell, but its in a different tower and I took Conjuration as a banned school so I can't teleport there, the walk is going to be so tedious."

"I want to scry that woman I have a crush on, but somehow the material components is on the top shelf where I can't reach and I don't have Unseen Servant to get them for me."

"My familiar keeps annoying me and hiding my magic items in random places, how can I discipline him?"

-#wizardworldproblems

[AMFV]

Wizard: I got to read books all my life, and got phenomenal cosmic powers for it
Warrior: I've got to do a lot of exercise and hard work in heavy armor all my life, and got good swordsmanship for it
......
Wizard: ...and I'm supposed to have it hard it here?
Warrior: well aren't wielding those powers hard for you?
Wizard: No, its pretty much just casting a rote spell and awesome happens.
Warrior: well what about politics?
Wizard: yeah, to get into wizard school in the first place, I came from a wealthy noble family, and my older brother was more fit to lead and inherit the land anyways, so they taught him all that instead. I didn't have to deal with it.
Warrior: well what about nobles trying to manipulate you because of your spells?
Wizard: hey, I'm the one with phenomenal cosmic power here, they're coming to me. with lucrative offers for my spells. I play my cards right and I'll be rich as they are soon.
Warrior: while my greatest hope is to die in the glory of some other guy, going down in history as some guy with a sword who killed some people? Never knowing luxury, comfort a good life with a family?
Wizard: Yup.
Warrior:....and your the one whose supposed to have it hard here?
Wizard: Apparently.
Warrior:....Screw it, how much will bodyguarding you pay for wizard lessons?

Well except it really goes something like this.

Fighter Bob: Well, that was a tough fight, so what are you planning on doing with your downtime now that we're at a break in saving the world?

Wizard Joe: Downtime?!? I have to go study in my tower, for twelve hours a day, especially since I'm not ahead, I need to learn some new spells, and enchant a ton of items, I probably won't see the sun for at least a month, what about you?

Fighter Bob: Well I was thinking about napping for a few days, then I'd get my workout in, I mean I can't go too soft, so about an hour or two the third day, then I might go out drinking and whoring... Or just kick back and relax.

Wizard Joe:...

As you can see Wizards don't always have it easier. Fighters get to be out in the fresh air. They get regular physical activity. They're probably in better shape and therefore might be more attractive to the opposite sex (not to mention they actually have time for relationships). Wizards have a lot of things easy with their powers, but they have to be studying even during their careers. Adventuring Wizards have almost no freetime.

[Lord Raziere]

Except that goes more like this:

Wizard: Wizarding is what I love to do, why else wouldn't I do it, if I weren't interested in it? Magic is awesome. lots of studying and enchanting is what I live for. figuring out how all this works, bending reality to suit my whim, its freaking cool. sure a lot of it is setting up things to pay off later, but when it pays off, IT PAYS OFF!

Warrior: are you kidding? I was lucky to survive that! and now I have to be watchful for more. waiting for the next threat to come. while your sitting pretty, I have keep vigilant, hope your happy because there might be another attack that comes while your gone and kills me again. I need to be alert! I need to keep myself sharp! Or I'll die! speaking of not dying, I need to go find food! I can't survive against these things on an empty stomach....

[AMFV]

Except that goes more like this:

Wizard: Wizarding is what I love to do, why else wouldn't I do it, if I weren't interested in it? Magic is awesome. lots of studying and enchanting is what I live for. figuring out how all this works, bending reality to suit my whim, its freaking cool. sure a lot of it is setting up things to pay off later, but when it pays off, IT PAYS OFF!

Warrior: are you kidding? I was lucky to survive that! and now I have to be watchful for more. waiting for the next threat to come. while your sitting pretty, I have keep vigilant, hope your happy because there might be another attack that comes while your gone and kills me again. I need to be alert! I need to keep myself sharp! Or I'll die! speaking of not dying, I need to go find food! I can't survive against these things on an empty stomach....

Well it depends. A Wizard has to work all the time, but it's a very different kind of work. A warrior can relax, kick-back, not have people looking at him crosseyed. He is after all a veteran and a patriot. Also why would he need to keep vigilant? There are guards in town, it's not his job to be vigilant in his off-time. Unless he's hired as a guard, then he's making money, while the Wizard is still studying new spells, and he's probably barely having to break a sweat.

There are lots of reasons to be a Warrior. And any difficulty comparison is inherently going to be flawed because different people find different things more fulfilling and easier than other people. So even if the Warrior could have been a wizard, it's possible that he enjoys being a warrior more, that's why he chose that life. He likes sleeping outside, and working with his hands. He's proud of the fact that he does that. He'd hate life cooped up in a tower all the time, surrounded by ancient volumes that nobody respected him for reading since the Wizard's guild are all busy trying to backstab each other.

Also why would the fighter need to find food in his off time. As an adventurer, a successful adventurer, he can afford to eat like a king, and party for weeks before he runs out of funds, possibly months or years depending on level, and while the Wizard could afford the same, he doesn't have the time. Yes, it might be harder to be a fighter while you're adventuring but definitely not in the off-season.

[Lord Raziere]

"Nobody understands the pain of being a wizard. Nobody can understand the pain of being a huge nerd who is interested in this sort of thing, who gets immediate satisfaction from his efforts at the end of the day by warping reality a little. No one understands the pain of being rewarded all your life for being the most intelligent person ever by having power beyond mortal man. No one understands the pain of having the power to get whatever you want at your fingertips. Being a wizard is hard and no one understands."-Emowizard.

"I might die at any moment. I only have a sword to protect me. Don't insult me by saying that wizard has it harder."- a normal fighter

[Anlashok]

Sort of confused as to why this Wizard has no free time. Scribing some stuff into a spellbook doesn't take a particularly long amount of time.

Crafting magic items can be time consuming but... that's hardly mandatory for the Wizard and just sets up another skewed contrivance (because for some reason we have the Wizard doing extra stuff but not the fighter). The whole idea comes off as a bit nonsensical.

Either of them can afford the same amount of downtime (or lacktherof) if they chose to.

The bit about vigilance seems a bit odd too. Why would the guy who has nothing but his own wits be so much more secure in his situation than the guy surrounded by a dozen layers of redundant defenses with a small army of slavishly loyal and incorruptible servants ready to defend him?

[AMFV]

"Nobody understands the pain of being a wizard. Nobody can understand the pain of being a huge nerd who is interested in this sort of thing, who gets immediate satisfaction from his efforts at the end of the day by warping reality a little. No one understands the pain of being rewarded all your life for being the most intelligent person ever by having power beyond mortal man. No one understands the pain of having the power to get whatever you want at your fingertips. Being a wizard is hard and no one understands."-Emowizard.

"I might die at any moment. I only have a sword to protect me. Don't insult me by saying that wizard has it harder."- a normal fighter

I'm not saying one of them has it easier or harder. I'm saying that from the fighter's perspective, his job will be more fulfilling and easier. From a wizard's perspective the fighter has it much harder. It's a matter of taste.

For example I'm fairly bright, or I'd like to think so. I've worked in Office jobs and I hated them. I've done menial labor and I love it. That's what I want to do, what I enjoy. Regardless of my qualifications.

[The Insanity]

For an example of just how hard could martial training be, read the manga History's Strongest Disciple Kenichi.

[AMFV]

For an example of just how hard could martial training be, read the manga History's Strongest Disciple Kenichi.

I'm pretty sure that having been in the Marines I know exactly how bad training is... The thing is that once you reach a certain level you maintain.

[Lord Raziere]

I'm not saying one of them has it easier or harder. I'm saying that from the fighter's perspective, his job will be more fulfilling and easier. From a wizard's perspective the fighter has it much harder. It's a matter of taste.

For example I'm fairly bright, or I'd like to think so. I've worked in Office jobs and I hated them. I've done menial labor and I love it. That's what I want to do, what I enjoy. Regardless of my qualifications.

"I could die at any moment for a pointless cause and be remembered as some idiot who bit off more than he chew. MY LIFE. IT IS SO FULFILLING. LEEEEROOOOOOOOOOY-" *Dies*

The Blacksmith then looks at the fighter and gets confused as to how people think he and that guy are related. Then goes back to making tools that help people farm things.

[AMFV]

"I could die at any moment for a pointless cause and be remembered as some idiot who bit off more than he chew. MY LIFE. IT IS SO FULFILLING. LEEEEROOOOOOOOOOY-" *Dies*

The Blacksmith then looks at the fighter and gets confused as to how people think he and that guy are related. Then goes back to making tools that help people farm things.

But see warriors don't mind that idea. The fact that they could die at any minute isn't a problem to them. They enjoy that sort of threat. I'm not sure if you understand why people would find it fulfilling but in the real world there are people that do.

Edit: In the real world there are people who choose to be Soldiers, some of whom could be Engineers, so there you have it. If that works that way, it should probably make sense in the fantasy world as well.

[Alberic Strein]

Ars Magica was pretty good at representing the issues of being a mage, compared to a mundane person.

Adventuring nets you very little experience, your free time goes to working your butt off to get strong enough or craft strong enough items to survive the next issue that comes up, you have to take important covenant-wide (basically the small town you control) decisions, and if things screw up, it's YOU the angry mob comes looking for, and you can't blast them all away.

Oh, and everybody hates you on sight. Just because.

Mundane characters are way more free in comparison. You can be a pretty damn tough warrior and still become pretty damn versatile, have a life, a family, and better outright hopes of survival when things go down. By proving yourself useful, you can go from "random guy with a sword" to "guy who's set for life".

Also, while magi always have, whatever the setting (almost) awesome powers, they are also limited in their uses. When things go to hell, you want to have a big armor, be able to soak up a LOT of damage and have the possibility to go "screw this, I'm outta here".

For one, I don't like having powers that can run out on me.

Also, if what you like is adventuring, taking your bags and exploring the world, you're better off as a warrior compared to a mage (bar some settings and epic levels).

[Lord Raziere]

But see warriors don't mind that idea. The fact that they could die at any minute isn't a problem to them. They enjoy that sort of threat. I'm not sure if you understand why people would find it fulfilling but in the real world there are people that do.

Edit: In the real world there are people who choose to be Soldiers, some of whom could be Engineers, so there you have it. If that works that way, it should probably make sense in the fantasy world as well.

yes, we call those people "corpses". makes perfect sense.

[AMFV]

yes, we call those people "corpses". makes perfect sense.

If you'd call an active duty Marine a "Corpse" to his face, let me know, cause I'd love to be there to see that...

Also I was a professional warrior for several years, and I'm hardly a corpse. Many of my closest friends were professional warriors for several years, and they're also alive. So there you have it.

[Lord Raziere]

If you'd call an active duty Marine a "Corpse" to his face, let me know, cause I'd love to be there to see that...

Also I was a professional warrior for several years, and I'm hardly a corpse. Many of my closest friends were professional warriors for several years, and they're also alive. So there you have it.

And I'm not going to lie, I've had a relatively comfortable life. All I've had to deal with is high-functioning autism. there is a lot of people in the world who have it way much worse than me. I'm not going to insult the people who give up their lives for my own by implying that what they do is easy for them, that its not a hardship. in my opinion your clearly a sensible one who chose living over dying so, why would I call you that?

[AMFV]

And I'm not going to lie, I've had a relatively comfortable life. All I've had to deal with is high-functioning autism. there is a lot of people in the world who have it way much worse than me. I'm not going to insult the people who give up their lives for my own by implying that what they do is easy for them, that its not a hardship. in my opinion your clearly a sensible one who chose living over dying so, why would I call you that?

The point I was making is that different things have different degree of comfort for different people. For me working outside, and being in jobs that are more dangerous is more fulfilling. I don't even really know why that is. As far as choosing living, it's not really a choice, nobody really gets to live in the long run, everybody dies. So living in constant fear of that moment, is what I think would seem off to me.

That's the thing, being alive is a death sentence. Being a professional soldier, or warrior, or barroom brawler or any warrior equivalent, isn't always. Many of them have lived to ripe old ages, in D&D, even in editions where being a warrior is inherently more gimped, like 3.5, it's quite possible to have a warrior survive for the entirety of a campaign, and that's more dangerous than anything else. In the World of Darkness, it's possible to play a mortal and not get eaten immediately (although that's more difficult, and not really a fair comparison).

The point is that being a warrior is going to be easier for the people who enjoy it. When I worked in office work type jobs, I hated it, I languished, in academia type settings I could coast, because I'm bright, but I'd never really excel beyond the kind of above average state that being bright but lazy gets me. But if you put me in a position where I have to work all day, where I have to endure hardship, or lead other people through hardship, that's where I excel, that's easier for me in essence, because it is the thing that my natural inclination pulls me towards, despite having the skills to succeed at other things, they are more difficult and less rewarding for me, simply because of my nature.

[Lord Raziere]

The point is that being a warrior is going to be easier for the people who enjoy it. When I worked in office work type jobs, I hated it, I languished, in academia type settings I could coast, because I'm bright, but I'd never really excel beyond the kind of above average state that being bright but lazy gets me. But if you put me in a position where I have to work all day, where I have to endure hardship, or lead other people through hardship, that's where I excel, that's easier for me in essence, because it is the thing that my natural inclination pulls me towards, despite having the skills to succeed at other things, they are more difficult and less rewarding for me, simply because of my nature.

Yes, but no matter how fulfilling it is to you personally, that still does not change the fact that I would never consider the wizards life harder than the fighter, as a wizard complaining about their problems is kind of like a well off person complaining about their daily problems to somebody poor.

The Victorian underclass had a lot of pride in working the factories for their families in brutal conditions. Doesn't mean I'd put them through such conditions.

[The Insanity]

I'm pretty sure that having been in the Marines I know exactly how bad training is... The thing is that once you reach a certain level you maintain.
I wasn't talking to you specifically. The world doesn't revolve around you, you know.

[AMFV]

Yes, but no matter how fulfilling it is to you personally, that still does not change the fact that I would never consider the wizards life harder than the fighter, as a wizard complaining about their problems is kind of like a well off person complaining about their daily problems to somebody poor.

But if you were the type of person who would want to be a fighter... then you'd probably think that the problems Wizards have are much worse problems to have than those that face fighters. A wizard has problems, just different problems. The same way as rich people are allowed to have problems, I don't mind if somebody more well-off than I do complains about their stuff, because life sucks, for everybody. The only thing you can do is try to figure out which type of suck you mind less. That's why somebody would choose to be a fighter.

As I've said, I made that choice at one point in my life. I was a Marine, in war-time, I went to war... twice. Actually when I was in MOS School I was even allowed to select a duty station (because I was at the top of my class), I had the option of going to a unit where I was unlikely to deploy or going to one where I was likely to deploy, and I chose to go to a unit where deployment was more likely. So not only did I prefer and select a path that had more hardship (Marines over College), but I choose to take a more dangerous route (Deployment vs. Garrison), it seems ridiculous to me to not expect that some people in a fantasy setting wouldn't make that same decision.



The Victorian underclass had a lot of pride in working the factories for their families in brutal conditions. Doesn't mean I'd put them through such conditions.

Well that's not really the same thing, since that isn't a choice, or at least wasn't at the time. A more apt comparison might be people who choose to be farmers in today's society. They certainly have the choice of doing something else, but they choose to be farmers because they enjoy it, because that's the life they want.


I wasn't talking to you specifically.

I was merely pointing out that I have a more solid frame of reference, having actually experienced that sort of thing. Which I would expect is a solid reference point over the Manga.

[Knaight]

Also I was a professional warrior for several years, and I'm hardly a corpse. Many of my closest friends were professional warriors for several years, and they're also alive. So there you have it.

D&D like settings tend to focus on a more medieval style, in which casualties were substantially higher than they generally are among military forces that are vastly richer and technologically superior than those they are fighting. Really, modern NATO forces are an outlier - compare the death tolls in WWII or WWI, or various revolutionary wars, or various civil wars, let alone stuff like the Hundred Years war or the Crusades.

[The Insanity]

I was merely pointing out that I have a more solid frame of reference, having actually experienced that sort of thing. Which I would expect is a solid reference point over the Manga.
Frankly your frame of reference is irrelevant to my post. The manga was supposed to be only an example of "why/how could martial training be hard" by showing through what ordeal did the manga's protagonist have to go through to achive his martial skill (and he's still just a disciple!).

[AMFV]

D&D like settings tend to focus on a more medieval style, in which casualties were substantially higher than they generally are among military forces that are vastly richer and technologically superior than those they are fighting. Really, modern NATO forces are an outlier - compare the death tolls in WWII or WWI, or various revolutionary wars, or various civil wars, let alone stuff like the Hundred Years war or the Crusades.

Even with high casualty rates, it's considered pretty horrible to have a total force casualty rate at over ten percent, that's almost unheard of. Being decimated like that would result in your force being almost completely worth it.

Even in the USSR the death tolls were not that high, coming I believe close to 30% or thereabouts (difficult to determine since accurate figures are apparently difficult to find), and they were pretty much about as wasteful of manpower as any military has ever been. So that's three out of ten dead, and seven surviving, in probably the most wasteful military environment ever.

Most people who fight in wars as a general rule, survive. And it's probably better to use the Modern world as a comparison point for D&D since in D&D dying of infection is much less likely, and infection and disease typically killed a lot more soldiers than actual warfare.


Frankly your frame of reference is irrelevant to my post. The manga was supposed to be only an example of "why/how could martial training be hard" by showing through what ordeal did the manga's protagonist have to go through to achive his martial skill (and he's still just a disciple!).

Well it is fictional though, and my frame of reference is not. So there is that... I'm not saying that fictional warrior training can't be difficult. Real world military training is extremely grueling, however once he was done with his initial training it would most likely level off, and become much easier.

[Psyren]

a smart person with the unlimited power of a wizard is nothing but a god, it is no challenge.

Let's be clear here - wizards only have unlimited godlike power on messageboards, and in the kind of Tippy-style games where bringing anything less to the table makes you a speedbump. In real actual play, they are challenged all the time, and quite easily.

Also, your logic is flawed, because Superman and Ironman outsmart people all the time and they certainly have near-magical repertoires. As do actual wizards like Doctor Strange or Zatanna.


Yes, but no matter how fulfilling it is to you personally, that still does not change the fact that I would never consider the wizards life harder than the fighter, as a wizard complaining about their problems is kind of like a well off person complaining about their daily problems to somebody poor.

The Victorian underclass had a lot of pride in working the factories for their families in brutal conditions. Doesn't mean I'd put them through such conditions.

But with a wizard's greater power comes greater responsibility to use it. Would you imply that a nuclear physicist, or cardiologist, or astronaut always has an easy life and nothing to complain about?

[Anlashok]

Which I would expect is a solid reference point over the Manga.

Not necessarily given that we're not talking about a realistic frame of reference. You can't just "train harder" in real life and eventually be able to punch an elephant in half, after all, much less do it over the span of a year or two. The norms of reality don't apply.

[The Insanity]

Well it is fictional though, and my frame of reference is not.
And that's exactly why your frame of reference is irrelevant. Or what Anlashok said.

[AMFV]

Not necessarily given that we're not talking about a realistic frame of reference. You can't just "train harder" in real life and eventually be able to punch an elephant in half, after all, much less do it over the span of a year or two. The norms of reality don't apply.

The point is that most of a warrior's training happens in the field. My experience is relevant because it showed me how that sort of training works, basically you have a period of fairly relaxing time, then you ramp up training right before you have to perform, and then you really learn things when you are actually doing them.

The point is that there is no reason to assume that the fundamentals here are that different. Particularly when enjoying one sort of training is part of my argument, for some people the sort of training it takes to be able to "punch and elephant in half" is probably the sort of training that would be fun. Also of note that's not really realistic in D&D 3.5 even... cutting an elephant in half is possible, punching one to death is possible. Punching one in half is significantly more difficult.

The thing is that in 3.5 particularly, most fighters train till they have a few techniques and then focus on those, as in real life, certain things work. A trip fighter won't need to learn how to trip every single time he goes off to adventure. He might work out a few kinks in his methods, he might try a few new things. And he'd probably need a light refresher, but he's not reinventing the wheel. The Wizard is learning fifth level spells for the first time, or sixth level spells or whatever level he just obtained. So he has to go and study, which takes time. He may even have to go research the spells himself. He may have to spend an extensive time inventing items. He basically needs to learn a new skillset every time he goes out to adventure, needs to plan a new type of planning to use his new spells effectively, and study the theory of them. Whereas our Ubercharger, our trip-fighter, our dungeon-crasher, just needs to refresh the same styles he's already been using, so there is inherently a lower training threshold here.


And that's exactly why your frame of reference is irrelevant. And what Anlashok said.

But it's not really, since verisimilitude is considered extremely important. Also our frame of reference is not in conflict. Your manga (apparently) depicts somebody who is in the initial stages of training. As you advance you don't need to learn new things as much. You've already learned how to punch, you might work on fixing things, but you don't need to relearn how to punch. To put it in a fictional frame of reference, it's why Rocky no longer needed sparring partners in Rocky IV, because he already had that skill, he just needed to retrain it, he didn't need to relearn it.

Once you've learned to fight, maintaining that knowledge isn't as difficult as you'd imagine, even improving it isn't. You have to do the physical conditioning, but the thing is in the off-season, you can relax a bit, you can let yourself go a little bit. While the Wizard is learning a whole new spell level, and planning how he's going to apply them, and crafting items, and studying, you can relax. Yes two weeks or so before you adventure, you have to kick yourself back into shape, and that's probably unbelievably brutal, but it doesn't matter, since you're used to it.

[Lord Raziere]

Let's be clear here - wizards only have unlimited godlike power on messageboards, and in the kind of Tippy-style games where bringing anything less to the table makes you a speedbump. In real actual play, they are challenged all the time, and quite easily.

Also, your logic is flawed, because Superman and Ironman outsmart people all the time and they certainly have near-magical repertoires. As do actual wizards like Doctor Strange or Zatanna.

But with a wizard's greater power comes greater responsibility to use it. Would you imply that a nuclear physicist, or cardiologist, or astronaut always has an easy life and nothing to complain about?

Oh, we're calling Superman a wizard? Superman is nowhere near as flexible, let me quote my own argument from a different thread on this very subject:

ah. but Superman is the fighter, and the Batman is the wizard- even though Superman is the one with magical alien powers and Batman is the normal guy with a few gadgets. Batman's flexibility comes at a price for not being as powerful as Superman, while Superman's great power comes at a price of not being flexible as Batman.

this is not applicable to wizards and fighters.

Wizards have both more power and more flexibility than fighters. not only can they do more things, but they can do them bigger. not only can the fighter do only one thing well, it doesn't nearly have as much impact as the Wizard.

if say, the Wizard could do a lot of things but ultimately could not affect anything a bigger, more world-breaking scale like Batman, and the Warrior could do his one fighting thing just as powerfully and world-breakingly as Superman- THEN you'd have an argument! but as is, the warrior is so far away from Superman that its laughable because the warrior cannot take on anything Superman can, while any Wizard content with being the small time utility belt person is not being imaginative enough with the great power at their fingertips, because they can do far more than mere Batman.

Batman and Superman are far better designed than the classes- Batman has the power of a fighter but the flexibility of a wizard, while Superman has the power of a wizard but the flexibility of a fighter. they are not comparable.

the people they outsmart are always more powerful than them- any threat less powerful than you, you can simply punch and that is that. any foe that requires outsmarting them means the foe can't be punched. if your more powerful than everyone else, outsmarting is not needed. You can simply use your greater force and defeat them just like that. It does not take much mental power to fire missiles at something that will die to missiles. It takes a lot mental power to figure out how to kill a political leader with bodyguards when you only have a dagger.

so either they always face threats so powerful and more flexible than them that the wizards you speak of are still fighter-ish in comparison, or they just like outsmarting people weaker than them for no reason, which makes no sense.

and no I would not imply that. not for an astronaut. they brave the vacuum on missions where even the tiniest thing going wrong could cost the entire mission :smalleek: cardiologists must know the heart so that it keeps on ticking and heal people. Physicists deal with physical forces, like how fast a car goes and thus need to know the speeds at which people will die from crashing. all of these are important. I just wouldn't compare them to people who warp reality with words and gestures even in limited ways. because if magic isn't absolute power that can almost assuredly corrupt absolutely, much like money does, I don't know what is.

[Anlashok]

snip

Mostly true, but the 3.5 comparison makes the thing fall apart even more... as every point you make about the Fighter applies in the exact same fashion as the Wizard. Nothing forces the Wizard to do anything greater in their downtime than the Fighter does. So the whole argument about the fighter relaxing while the wizard slaves over a dusty tome is nonsense.


since verisimilitude is considered extremely important.
Verisimilitude is certainly important, but "wizards are supposed to be stronger than everyone else because studying is hard" has nothing to do with verisimilitude


The point is that being a warrior is going to be easier for the people who enjoy it.
Sure, but that's a two way street. Which makes it a moot point.


The Wizard is learning fifth level spells for the first time, or sixth level spells or whatever level he just obtained. So he has to go and study, which takes time. He may even have to go research the spells himself.
He spends a day learning his new spell... and only if he wants to (since he gets some spells for free and automatically). So a relatively minor expenditure of time and one that's still entirely optional. I'm not sure where this idea that it's some all consuming work.


He may have to spend an extensive time inventing items.
Item creation isn't really a unique or mandatory feature of the wizard, so not relevant.

He basically needs to learn a new skillset every time he goes out to adventure, needs to plan a new type of planning to use his new spells effectively, and study the theory of them.
Or spend a few seconds saying "Hey, this is another battlefield control spell. SO I'll just dump this on groups of enemies and collect money and power".

[BeerMug Paladin]

Let's be clear here - wizards only have unlimited godlike power on messageboards, and in the kind of Tippy-style games where bringing anything less to the table makes you a speedbump. In real actual play, they are challenged all the time, and quite easily.
I laughed at this. It was what my earlier barbarian wedgie comment was attempting to address, really.

I don't buy the premise that one or the other class trains harder or has an easier time of things. Maybe in some peoples' character concepts that's true, but that's ultimately handled by how one is going to approach their concept. It's a decision a person makes about their character's perspective and natural inclinations more than anything else.

Whether or not reading books or hiking through the hills counts as work or just idle fun is what matters.

Case in point, one time I got an absolutely amazing set of character stats. I decided to make a primary wizard in a city-based game who was athletic, worked out regularly, and was generally geared towards physical workouts as a way to focus her thoughts between long sessions of magical studies. Strong body, strong mind and all that.

This was especially funny when I got a PC apprentice whom was a more traditional nerdy wizard archetype. Trying to convince him that working out was a good practice for wizardry just didn't work out.

The starting ages listed for each class indicates a certain barrier of entry for the field, but I don't think it indicates overall difficulty of training, it just indicates how long it takes to begin.

Levels and experience are the way to indicate how much training has actually been done. A level 15 fighter the same age as a level 5 wizard has trained harder. That's reflected in better saves, better endurance and better skills overall.

But for the sake of game balance, and group dynamics, we don't usually handle experience as a matter of who actually spends their time honing their relevant skills. It's just usually assumed to be something happening in the background, and mostly off-screen.

[AMFV]

Mostly true, but the 3.5 comparison makes the thing fall apart even more... as every point you make about the Fighter applies in the exact same fashion as the Wizard. Nothing forces the Wizard to do anything greater in their downtime than the Fighter does. So the whole argument about the fighter relaxing while the wizard slaves over a dusty tome is nonsense.

Hardly, if a DM requires them to research their own spells, then they may wind up having to spend weeks doing that. Certainly the fluff is that they do. The problem is that this is an argument about fluff making any argument stemming from crunch while not completely irrelevant, at least mostly irrelevant.



Verisimilitude is certainly important, but "wizards are supposed to be stronger than everyone else because studying is hard" has nothing to do with verisimilitude

Which was NEVER my point, or something I said, or even remotely similar to anything I said. I said Wizards tend to be people who don't mind sitting in dusty towers studying. I bet you that most Wizards would voluntarily spend their down time doing exactly that. While the fighter is somebody who likes taking time to relax and then doing a really tough few weeks of pre-adventure training to get back into fighting trim.



Sure, but that's a two way street. Which makes it a moot point.

It absolutely isn't a moot point. Recall the original question is "Why are there fighters when there are Wizards", the answer because some people find fulfillment in soldiering while others find it in study, is an absolutely and totally valid answer to that question. Both in real life and in the context of a D&D world. I think you've read something in my statements that I didn't actually say. I wasn't saying that one was inherently harder or easier, rather I was trying to illuminate the things that would make Soldiering easier to somebody who wanted that. And using my own personal experience as a cross-reference point for that, since it is relevant, since I've had those exact same choices put in front of me. Academia or slogging through swamps in the Carolinas, if I had it all to over again, I'd still make the same exact choice. A garrison post in Ft. Meade or Hawaii (I could have went to Hawaii) or deploying to a dangerous combat zone, again I'd still make the same choice I made then. So to assume that a fantasy character inherently wouldn't make that same choice is to me ridiculous.




He spends a day learning his new spell... and only if he wants to (since he gets some spells for free and automatically). So a relatively minor expenditure of time and one that's still entirely optional. I'm not sure where this idea that it's some all consuming work.

Well a wizard who only uses his spells that he obtains while leveling is going to be in general a ****ty wizard, I mean a really ****ty wizard unless they build for that purpose. Furthermore in AD&D that isn't even true, they get no spells for free. In OD&D that isn't true. In Pathinder that isn't true if they've prestiged at all.

Even in 3.5 they are probably not going to universally have access to all the spells they want. And that involves slogging away to construct the spells they want themselves, which takes weeks not days. And it isn't unreasonable to require a wizard to do that.



Item creation isn't really a unique or mandatory feature of the wizard, so not relevant.

But it is a productive use of their time, and one that people generally use.



Or spend a few seconds saying "Hey, this is another battlefield control spell. SO I'll just dump this on groups of enemies and collect money and power".

But it's not that simple, as somebody who plays Wizards, regularly, I'll have you know that you can't just simplify things like that, or you'll suck tactically. You need to say, here is a BFC spell that is useful under the following conditions against the following type of enemies, and can be completely invalidated by the following thing. So that's definitely some study.

[The Insanity]

The point is that most of a warrior's training happens in the field.
Cool.


My experience is relevant because it showed me how that sort of training works, basically you have a period of fairly relaxing time, then you ramp up training right before you have to perform, and then you really learn things when you are actually doing them.
Well, maybe if you don't care about advancing or getting better you do it like that. Most dedicated fighters train hard every day, at least to not get weaker, but really so they don't fall behind other fighters. In the manga the protagonist was tired of all the training, so he snuck out (actually escaped) from the dojo to get a day of relaxation, but came back when he got reminded that while he's relaxing, his enemies are training to get better.


The point is that there is no reason to assume that the fundamentals here are that different.
There is. IRL you are restricted by reality and your own body's limitations. In a fantasy world like D&D there are no such limits.


Particularly when enjoying one sort of training is part of my argument, for some people the sort of training it takes to be able to "punch and elephant in half" is probably the sort of training that would be fun.
I'm not sure what "fun" has to do with anything. Training being "fun" might be a good motivator to continue the training, but it doesn't make it any less hard.


Also of note that's not really realistic in D&D 3.5 even... cutting an elephant in half is possible, punching one to death is possible. Punching one in half is significantly more difficult.
Versatile Unarmed Strike.


The thing is that in 3.5 particularly, most fighters train till they have a few techniques and then focus on those, as in real life, certain things work.
Not really. See below.


A trip fighter won't need to learn how to trip every single time he goes off to adventure. He might work out a few kinks in his methods, he might try a few new things. And he'd probably need a light refresher, but he's not reinventing the wheel.
Actually, he is and he does. At low levels, when most of your enemies are medium or small sized humanoids, just basics of tripping (BaB, Str and Improved Trip) might be enough. But only a few levels later you start fighting large enemies or monsters with unusual body types (being large or quadruped gives a bonus on trip defence, remember?) and just your basics aren't enough anymore.


Whereas our Ubercharger, our trip-fighter, our dungeon-crasher, just needs to refresh the same styles he's already been using, so there is inherently a lower training threshold here.
This comparison isn't very fair. If you want it to be fair, you'd need to compare a one-trick-pony warrior to a one-trick-pony caster, in which case they're about equal because the caster doesn't need to learn that much more either because he already has his favorite spells.


As you advance you don't need to learn new things as much.
You clearly didn't even read the manga. Of course you need to learn new things. First, you always can learn to punch better. And even if you didn't, you can always train to punch harder. The manga shifted into fantasy territory at some point of its run. The characters do become stronger and quicker and more dextrous, etc. the more they train (to the point they're basically superhuman), sure, but the winner in a fight is more often than not the person who is more skilled and experienced. It doesn't really matter how strong you hit when your opponent knows a technique that uses your own strength against you by allowing him to launch a devastating couterattack, or some other trick. Remember, a fighter in D&D has many feats, each potentially allowing him to do a different type of attack or action. Despite the joke that fighters can only swing their pointy stick, fluff- and mechanics-wise it's actually more than that.


To put it in a fictional frame of reference, it's why Rocky no longer needed sparring partners in Rocky IV, because he already had that skill, he just needed to retrain it, he didn't need to relearn it.
What he needed was to get back into shape. Unfortunately, that's not what is needed for a fighter to gain levels, because unlike Rocky, a D&D fighter actually has to learn completely new things.


Once you've learned to fight, maintaining that knowledge isn't as difficult as you'd imagine, even improving it isn't.
If you want to stay on top you absolutely need to learn new things, else your rivals will outgrow you fast.


You have to do the physical conditioning, but the thing is in the off-season, you can relax a bit, you can let yourself go a little bit.
No, you rally can't. A fighters BaB doesn't grow with age. He has to train to get better. Just doing physical conditioning will leave him at the same level as he was. Whatever "insights" he gleamed from his last adventure will be lost due to his inaction. "You have to strike the iron while it's hot". That works IRL because as I said, RW has limits on how good you can be, so at some point you just have to mentain that level. In D&D? Not so much, because there's always room for improvement, either by going from 1st level to 20th, or beyond that.


While the Wizard is learning a whole new spell level, and planning how he's going to apply them, and crafting items, and studying, you can relax. Yes two weeks or so before you adventure, you have to kick yourself back into shape, and that's probably unbelievably brutal, but it doesn't matter, since you're used to it.
I really don't understand. Obviously, if the fighter slacks off while the wizard is studying, he's going to have it easier. But then again he won't go up in level because of that, so it's kinda silly to assume he will do that.


I said Wizards tend to be people who don't mind sitting in dusty towers studying. I bet you that most Wizards would voluntarily spend their down time doing exactly that. While the fighter is somebody who likes taking time to relax and then doing a really tough few weeks of pre-adventure training to get back into fighting trim.
And we're saying that if the wizard likes to study all day, then the fighter likes to train all day. And all day of hard physical activity is harder than all day of sitting in a comfy chair reading books, not matter how much you like that physical activity.

[AMFV]

Cool.

I like how you just glossed over one of the most significant points I made.



Well, maybe if you don't care about advancing or getting better you do it like that. Most dedicated fighters train hard every day, at least to not get weaker, but really so they don't fall behind other fighters. In the manga the protagonist was tired of all the training, so he snuck out (actually escaped) from the dojo to get a day of relaxation, but came back when he got reminded that while he's relaxing, his enemies are training to get better.

And I've heard that line so many times "While you are sleeping the terrorists are training". Particularly when you're just starting out. And you have to do all of that training that seems really stupid at the time, and much of it is. The point is that the point I'm discussing is past the point you're discussing. There's a point where training in the dojo isn't going to cut it anymore. You can use the dojo to maintain but you need to actually use the training to improve. Otherwise there will be no improvement.

Also training as a martial artist and training as a soldier is hardly analogous. But as an important note, the fact that you need to use your abilities at some point to actually develop is the critical point. And that's the same.



There is. IRL you are restricted by reality and your own body's limitations. In a fantasy world like D&D there are no such limits.

There absolutely are... try building a fighter with an innate Strength over 50, without using festering anger... or grafts. I know because I've tried to build characters like that. And without using infinite loops which are frowned on, they don't happen. A fighter is never going to gain +2 BAB in a level, so once he hits the +1 BAB, that's as much training as he needs. Anything more is wasting effort



I'm not sure what "fun" has to do with anything. Training being "fun" might be a good motivator to continue the training, but it doesn't make it any less hard.

But it makes the fact that it is hard more tolerable.



Versatile Unarmed Strike.

I was more referring to the ability to do that much damage in a single stroke, which might be possible with a modified ubercharger, but it'd be so sub-optimal as to not be really worth a dedicated fighter's time.



Actually, he is and he does. At low levels, when most of your enemies are medium or small sized humanoids, just basics of tripping (BaB, Str and Improved Trip) might be enough. But only a few levels later you start fighting large enemies or monsters with unusual body types (being large or quadruped gives a bonus on trip defence, remember?) and just your basics aren't enough anymore.

And that's reflected in the increased difficulty. But just increasing your BAB and Strength is sufficient to meet those requirements in general. Like I said, it's a minor shift.



This comparison isn't very fair. If you want it to be fair, you'd need to compare a one-trick-pony warrior to a one-trick-pony caster, in which case they're about equal because the caster doesn't need to learn that much more either because he already has his blasty spells.

No, it's extremely fair, a dungeoncrasher ubercharging fighter is extremely optimal, a batman wizard is likewise optimal. If we were comparing suboptimal choices I'd compare a Sword and Board fighter and a blaster wizard. We are comparing people at the top of both professions.



You clearly didn't even read the manga. Of course you need to learn new things. First, you always can learn to punch better. And even if you didn't, you can always train to punch harder. The manga shifted into fantasy territory at some point of its run. The characters do become stronger and quicker and more dextrous, etc. the more they train (to the point they're basically superhuman), sure, but the winner in a fight is more often than not the person who is more skilled and experienced. It doesn't really matter how strong you hit when your opponent knows a technique that uses your own strength against you by allowing him to launch a devastating couterattack, or some other trick. Remember, a fighter in D&D has many feats, each potentially allowing him to do a different type of attack or action. Despite the joke that fighters can only swing their pointy stick, fluff- and mechanics-wise it's actually more than that.

I didn't need to read the Manga. I've actually been to war, I've trained for war, more than once. I have a much better point of reference than somebody that hasn't done those things. Generally you have a training cycle that starts shortly before, because otherwise you'll just wind up crushing morale and wasting effort, you can't keep people at combat readiness forever.

The point I was making is that for a fighter, training too much is more of a detriment than it is an aide. Overtraining is even for martial artists a serious problem.



What he needed was to get back into shape.

Absolutely. Which is the point. A fighter can take time off and then get back into shape and remain a very good fighter.



If you want to stay on top you absolutely need to learn new things, else your rivals will outgrow you fast.

And a fighter learns those by fighting, during the adventure. There is at some point fairly early on, a point where training in the arena, does nothing for a fighter, it's wasted time. It might keep him sharp, but there's no point in that all the time, and it's probably worse than it helps. He improves in combat.



No, you rally can't. A fighters BaB doesn't grow with age. He has to train to get better. Just doing physical conditioning will leave his at the same level as he was. Whatever "insights" he gleamed from his last adventure will be lost due to his inaction. "You have to strike the iron while it's hot".


But it doesn't work that way. The insights he gained will have developed into muscle memory. He doesn't need to retrain them till they've gotten rusty. Because they're second nature, because he needed them to survive. That's his training as he advances, surviving in combat.

The iron is hot is actually a better analogy than you realize. Because you forge something initially (training) then it stays mostly ready, not needing much more than proper maintenance, once a fighter is trained initially, he learns from combat, and the off-time is his recovery.



I really don't understand. Obviously, if the fighter slacks off while the wizard is studying, he's going to have it easier. But then again he won't go up in level because of that, so it's kinda a silly to assume he will do that.

Well a fighter's experience is in this case earned from combat. The wizard also, but the wizard doesn't just level, he has to learn new spells, and do other things, the fighter doesn't need to. Because he's already improved simply by fighting.



And we're saying that if the wizard likes to study all day, then the fighter likes to train all day. And all day of hard physical activity is harder than all day of sitting in a comfy chair reading books, not matter how much you like that physical activity.

I can tell you that it isn't. I have done this physical activity. And I've done academia. Academia was hellish for me, because it was boring, because I couldn't focus on things that I knew wouldn't actually matter in the real world, so after I'd done the one. I couldn't do the other.

[The Insanity]

I like how you just glossed over one of the most significant points I made.
I didn't. I agree with it. :smallconfused:


The point is that the point I'm discussing is past the point you're discussing. There's a point where training in the dojo isn't going to cut it anymore. You can use the dojo to maintain but you need to actually use the training to improve. Otherwise there will be no improvement.
If you'd bother reading the manga, or at least some sort of synopsis, you'd know that the protagonist fights very often, and recently even for his life (although he himself doesn't kill). But because it's a fantasy world where you can improve practically without limit, he always needs the raw physical training AS WELL AS lessons from his masters. Not to mention that his "training" nearly costs him his life, each and every day, because that's how hard he has to push himself to not fall behind. Heck, sometimes the "training" even consists of him going out and fighting.


There absolutely are...
There absolutely aren't. You can level up infinitely if you so desire. Epic levels are a thing, you know. RW people have a hard cap at about 6th level.


But it makes the fact that it is hard more tolerable.
Which doesn't change the fact that it's still hard, so it hardly matters.


I was more referring to the ability to do that much damage in a single stroke, which might be possible with a modified ubercharger, but it'd be so sub-optimal as to not be really worth a dedicated fighter's time.
Besides the point. It's possible.


No, it's extremely fair, a dungeoncrasher ubercharging fighter is extremely optimal, a batman wizard is likewise optimal.
It's not a matter of optimality, tho. It's a matter of focus. You don't compare a fighter that focuses on one thing to a wizard that focuses on severeal things. That's not a fair comparison.


I didn't need to read the Manga.
Of course you do, if you want to continue discussing this topic. And that's because the manga is more pertinent to the topic than your RL experiences with training. Why? Because, like the topic at hand (D&D, in case you forgot), it's fantasy. Your experience is not.


I've actually been to war, I've trained for war, more than once.
Cool. Have you trained to fight a giant? Or a centaur? Or a huge DRAGON? No? Then your experience is not relevant.


Generally you have a training cycle that starts shortly before, because otherwise you'll just wind up crushing morale and wasting effort, you can't keep people at combat readiness forever.
Maybe in RW.


The point I was making is that for a fighter, training too much is more of a detriment than it is an aide. Overtraining is even for martial artists a serious problem.
Maybe in RW.


Absolutely. Which is the point. A fighter can take time off and then get back into shape and remain a very good fighter.
"Remain" is the key word here. "Remain" means you're not improving. And that's a very big part of being a good fighter - steadily improving yourself.


And a fighter learns those by fighting, during the adventure. There is at some point fairly early on, a point where training in the arena, does nothing for a fighter, it's wasted time. It might keep him sharp, but there's no point in that all the time, and it's probably worse than it helps. He improves in combat.
Cool. Couldn't agree more.


But it doesn't work that way. The insights he gained will have developed into muscle memory. He doesn't need to retrain them till they've gotten rusty. Because they're second nature, because he needed them to survive. That's his training as he advances, surviving in combat.
Yup. Except in a fantasy world you can always do something better, quicker.


Because he's already improved simply by fighting.
Except he does, because he doesn't learn new moves magically, he has to come up with them. The experience from the fights only gives him building blocks, "insights", not "completed, use-ready abilities".

This whole thing really looks to me like an Appeal to Authority Fallacy. You might have been/are a great Marine or martial artist, but we aren't discussing real world, so that makes your expertise kind of irrelevant to the debate.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I really don't understand. Obviously, if the fighter slacks off while the wizard is studying, he's going to have it easier. But then again he won't go up in level because of that, so it's kinda silly to assume he will do that.
In D&D, the best way to train any skill or ability is to go adventuring. Once you have power, studying is the least effective route to actually increasing power.

Do you want to be a personal accountant? Go beat up some goblins.

Do you want to be a good musician? Thwack those rats in Mrs. Brown's basement.

Do you want to better manipulate the fabric of reality? Get into bar fights.

All of these things will relatively quickly give skill points and feats in the game world, which denote improved skills. Studying generally does not.

The only difference is that wizards actually do get something for 'study'. It's just not something that actually makes them more powerful. It just adds versatility.

A fighter could be argued to gain the same functional versatility by spending time being social, making friends and allies, and generally not being a shut-in while the wizard studies. There's just no rules for that because it's not meant to be an aspect of the game.

Really, this just gets into the whole topic of what we're discussing. Are we talking about what the rules say, or are we talking about what the rules are intended to represent in the world? Because I thought we were discussing the latter.

[The Insanity]

We aren't talking about RAW, I think.

[BeerMug Paladin]

We aren't talking about RAW, I think.
Then why is dismissing how something well understood in the real world works okay? In favor of talking about fiction?

Usually, when I dive into a fantasy setting, I want the non-magical aspects of the setting to match up as closely as possible to my real-world understanding of those same elements. I generally prefer this in my game world too, to the extent that it is possible. But that's a preference I can understand other people not having.

There's some aspects of the game that exist for the sake of it being a game. And those can be kind of silly and unrealistic too. It's why adventuring is the best way to train any skill or discipline, for example. But I'm a bit more willing to accept silly things in the game world like that for the sake of it being a game. And I think most competent DMs try to limit how much attention is drawn to these sorts of inconsistencies.

Unless it's done the sake of humor. Like a certain webcomic I read once.

[AMFV]

We aren't talking about RAW, I think.

Well we're talking about RAW, but in a sense that often doesn't come up, we're including some measure of fluff as well.

The thing is that when a fighter gets a level, he's good to go, nothing else is needed.

When a Wizard gets that same level, he still needs to get spells, which includes researching which ones he wants, figuring out who sells them, and then researching them himself if nobody does. Which is a time consuming process.


I didn't. I agree with it. :smallconfused:

I'm sorry you just didn't address it throughout the post.



If you'd bother reading the manga, or at least some sort of synopsis, you'd know that the protagonist fights very often, and recently even for his life (although he himself doesn't kill). But because it's a fantasy world where you can improve practically without limit, he always needs the raw physical training AS WELL AS lessons from his masters. Not to mention that his "training" nearly costs him his life, each and every day, because that's how hard he has to push himself to not fall behind. Heck, sometimes the "training" even consists of him going out and fighting.

The point I'm making is that there's a point when "training" gets you nothing. Once you've done the actual real world thing. You could train and get absolutely nothing from it. All of the skills you need are already muscle memory, you know how to react, how to think. Anything else is just risking injury, and is therefore dangerous and not worthwhile for almost no benefit.

The point I was making about Rocky IV, was that he no longer could train that way. He's faced enough people that sparring with level 1 boxers, will never help him improve, not ever. He's as good as that could ever get him, he might need to work on conditioning (and he does), but the actual boxing, he doesn't need to work on that because it's something he already knows.



There absolutely aren't. You can level up infinitely if you so desire. Epic levels are a thing, you know. RW people have a hard cap at about 6th level.

The real world doesn't work like D&D, some things real world people can do can't be modeled effectively until early to mid-teens, or even higher. Actually functional strength stuff is one of the things that advances to a higher level in the real world than in D&D



Which doesn't change the fact that it's still hard, so it hardly matters.


It absolutely does. We aren't answering the question "Is being a fighter more challenging than being a wizard" We are answering the question: "In a world with Wizards would people choose to be fighters" and again, as I've said before, preference is absolutely a factor in that decision.



Besides the point. It's possible.

But not really relevant. People in the real world can pull 747s... which you can't really do in D&D at any appreciably low level.



It's not a matter of optimality, tho. It's a matter of focus. You don't compare a fighter that focuses on one thing to a wizard that focuses on severeal things. That's not a fair comparison.


It absolutely is. One reason why people become Wizards is because they like versatility, conversely people become fighters because they like repetition. So you train as a fighter using repetition and once you're trained, you're trained.



Of course you do, if you want to continue discussing this topic. And that's because the manga is more pertinent to the topic than your RL experiences with training. Why? Because, like the topic at hand (D&D, in case you forgot), it's fantasy. Your experience is not.

If your Manga was based on D&D, existed in a world based on D&D, or was even in a fantasy world, I might, and might being the operative word be inclined to agree. But the point is that very few people are going to base their sense of verisimilitude on a manga, and many people will base it on their real life experiences.



Cool. Have you trained to fight a giant? Or a centaur? Or a huge DRAGON? No? Then your experience is not relevant.

The principles remain the same fighting a giant as fighting a centaur. As a fighter you use the same feats on them. RAW there is no functional difference, so we can assume that the same technique is used, albeit with greater skill.



Maybe in RW.

That's true. In D&D you don't need to get back into shape.



Maybe in RW.

Well are you discussing RAW, D&D fluff, trying for a real world sense of verisimilitude? Because you are failing on all three counts. RAW training has no benefit. Fluff-wise D&D fighters are roughly equivalent to real world soldiers. Real world verisimilitude works as I described. The only way you're correct is if you're trying to replicate the Manga in D&D, which is okay, but not really relevant in general discussion.



"Remain" is the key word here. "Remain" means you're not improving. And that's a very big part of being a good fighter - steadily improving yourself.

They did improve... In combat, they can't improve on their downtime, because there's no training that would be sufficient. Combat is more intense than any training, anything else isn't going to help them, they have the muscle memory, and the skills from combat, they may need to refresh that, but they aren't going to be able to really improve beyond what they've already done.



Cool. Couldn't agree more.

So why are you arguing that out of combat training is necessary.



Yup. Except in a fantasy world you can always do something better, quicker.

He's already learned everything the quickest way possible, by doing it. There's no need to relearn it, he learned it when he fought in combat.



Except he does, because he doesn't learn new moves magically, he has to come up with them. The experience from the fights only gives him building blocks, "insights", not "completed, use-ready abilities".

Okay, it absolutely does, he's already learned how to charge, or how to trip. He's already got the feats. He doesn't need to magically learn new maneuvers, because that isn't how fighting works. If you know how to charge, you've learned that. You might be able to get better at it. But there's a point where charging a training dummy won't improve you, where fighting a sparring partner in a non-deadly context won't do anything for you. And that point is probably around level three or four at the latest.



This whole thing really looks to me like an Appeal to Authority Fallacy. You might have been/are a great Marine or martial artist, but we aren't discussing real world, so that makes your expertise kind of irrelevant to the debate.

We aren't discussing a Manga either, so my statement is as valid as yours. Also we are discussing real-world verisimilitude, somebody said "I can't see why any person would do this?" meaning that they had a break in suspension of disbelief, in their verisimilitude. So yes, having real world experience is relevant because we are speaking to a sense of reality in a gaming medium

[SiuiS]

What do you mean 'easier'? Easier in the sense of not needing to pore over arcane tomes with names like 'Spell Compendium', or easier in the sense of 'today, class, you will be breaking bricks with your foreheads'?

Easier in the sense of your training is over sooner, can be done by accident just by being fit, doesn't require as much focus, gives you more off-time, isn't affected by your station pre-job, has the ability to put food on table and roof over head from day one without shenanigans, and cannot be screwed up.

Compare to a caster who takes longer to train, must be specifically trained to be a caster often to the detriment of their health, requires focus and dedication, does not give as man off time, is highly affected by your station in life pre-caster training, does not supply room and board without indentured servitude or outright slavery, and has a high potential to be useless unless optimized from a position that cannot be known until it is too late to fix.


Wizard: I got to read books all my life, and got phenomenal cosmic powers for it

No, you got to read books all your life after eventually being taught how to read, forced into menial labor for an old man with entitlement issues who lorded his authority over you, and came out of it with read magic and maybe shocking grasp. Phenomenal cosmic power comes after you outwit the limitless demon hordes in their attempts to guide civilization from the back room, which comes after establishing yourself as an easy assassination target by building a stone phallus in the ling's courtyard, which comes after the irrational political wrangling with people too dumb for you to easily predict or work around, which comes after traveling to dirty, moist holes in the ground and getting ambushed by Slimes and trying not to catch your death of cold with your frail, nonathletic body.


Warrior: I've got to do a lot of exercise and hard work in heavy armor all my life, and got good swordsmanship for it

This is accurate though. The value judgement is flawed; "I am physically proficient and fit and capable of using a lever to affect the world around me" is far, far better than you give it credit for.



Wizard: yeah, to get into wizard school in the first place, I came from a wealthy noble family,

Wait, you straight up admit you have toc. One from the perfect background to be lucky enough to get this job, but it's not harder to get into than being a warrior?

How do you rationalize it as easy to just be upper class nobility? It's not a choice anyone gets to just make, love.


How it actually happens:
Barbarian: NER-*drops the cast song wizard with an Opportunity Attack*

Yup.


Gotta wonder where we're coming from if the guy slogging around in the hot sun at the brink of death being hounded by terrible fiends all day long has it "easy" and the guy sitting in an air conditioned tower reading a book and sipping tea is the one apparently struggling.

Slogging around in the sun actually extends your lifespan. Cold and damp stone towers do not.


See, we can all try to come up with contrivances like that in an attempt to justify a position. Treating yours as fact because you prefer the status quo just seems silly.

Neither starting age nor statistically probably attribute layout nor statistically probable encounters are just my preference.


Sort of confused as to why this Wizard has no free time. Scribing some stuff into a spellbook doesn't take a particularly long amount of time.

Scribing into a spell book takes hours, doesn't it?


(because for some reason we have the Wizard doing extra stuff but not the fighter).

Because the warrior who goes out and kills marauders is doing his job well. The caster who does not have an item to handle his weaknesses and address his XP defecit from scribing scrolls and collecting all known magic for his class and boosted his prime requisite through Eldritch means to the point of perfection... Is going to meet an encounter that reduces him to a much less well trained warrior.


I'm pretty sure that having been in the Marines I know exactly how bad training is... The thing is that once you reach a certain level you maintain.

Getting to that level is hard though. Easier doesn't mean easy, exactly.

[AMFV]

Getting to that level is hard though. Easier doesn't mean easy, exactly.

Well I agree it's not necessarily easy. But is easier in a different way. And harder in a different way. The point I was trying to make is that really by the time a Fighter is level 1, the only way that they can improve their fighting is really actual combat, so they're already at that point. While a level 1 Wizard might be just out of apprenticeship, a level 1 Fighter is already pretty relatively competent. He might not have his best tricks, but he learns those in the only school that matters... the streets.