fighters vs mages in fantasy

[Belial_the_Leveler]

People concerned about flavor always say that balance ruins flavor and/or suspension of disbelief because it violates one of the "laws" of fantasy: magic is inherently more powerful than combat skills.

The above, however, is a very recent idea in quite new fantasy works over the past two and a half decades. If we look at all the older fantasy works we will see that it is fighters, not mages that are the most powerful. Here are some examples:

Sampson killed 3000 enemies using as his only weapon the jaws of a donkey.
Hercules, after being wounded by an entire army throwing arrows and javelins at him, killed them by throwing back rocks.
In many Byzantine-era poems, great warriors mowed down thousands of enemies single-handedly (or fought with Death in meele)
In eastern fantasy there are great swordsmen, monks and the like that defeated entire armies.
In Tolkien's books, Hurin slew seventy trolls and hundreds, perhaps thousands of enemies in a single battle.
Conan. 'nuff said.


So, why do people insist that magic is supposedly more powerful in fantasy? It might be more exotic but when human fighters can take on a god hand-to-hand, fighters are proven stronger than mages.

[Fitz]

Hi there
I'm not so sure that the modern fantasy is that much more magic heavy, there always seems to be some great cost to the magic that stops the mage being all powerful, usually the fact that after casting a spell they are all but helpless (see Robin Hobb: assasin series, Gail Martin, necromancer series, Eddings had the unintended consequence and fatigue) so yes magic is powerful, but it comes at a high cost?

[Kurald Galain]

People concerned about flavor always say that balance ruins flavor and/or suspension of disbelief because it violates one of the "laws" of fantasy: magic is inherently more powerful than combat skills.

Really?

I have never heard of this so-called "law of fantasy", and while I know many people concerned about flavor, I never heard any of them say that balance ruins flavor.

[random11]

The main problem is with games that try to be at least semi-realistic.

Bound by forces of reality, a fighter is limited. But for obvious reasons, there are no similar limitation on magic.

[Talya]

Sampson killed 3000 enemies using as his only weapon the jaws of a donkey.

You're in danger of breaking forum rules calling Samson "Fantasy" (not that I disagree with you.) Regardless, Samson had the direct backing of the Hebrew God YHWH, which traditionally, in the Old Testament, made one completely invulnerable. As one of Israel's "Judges," he would be more akin to a cleric with permanent buff spells active (unless someone cut his hair.)

Hercules, after being wounded by an entire army throwing arrows and javelins at him, killed them by throwing back rocks.

Like Sampson, Hercules has a divine power element. In his case, he was a demigod himself, a son of the great Zeus.

In many Byzantine-era poems, great warriors mowed down thousands of enemies single-handedly (or fought with Death in meele)

Examples?

In eastern fantasy there are great swordsmen, monks and the like that defeated entire armies.

In eastern fantasy, monks are mages. Nèijìn (chi power) and great feats of qīnggōng and debilitating dianxué make them more akin to mages than fighters. (Although TOB characters fit the style well, they are more akin go mages than fighters, too.)

In Tolkien's books, Hurin slew seventy trolls and hundreds, perhaps thousands of enemies in a single battle.

And Sauron, Elrond, Galadriel or Gandalf make him look like a gimp.

Conan. 'nuff said.

Not exactly old fiction.

And often, the mage was the antagonist in fiction. The antagonist is always more powerful than the protagonist, but the underdog also usually wins.

[Project_Mayhem]

In Raymond E. Feist's Riftwar series, I got the impression that despite Pugs World altering power, if Thomas had to kick his arse for some reason it would be a tight thing.

Edit: err, the fight would be tight, not Pug's arse.

[Talic]

Note that all of the examples above pitted the warrior against other warriors.

You never saw King Arthur go toe to toe with Merlin.

Many cultures, for quite a long time, have held spiritual leaders in higher esteem than warriors, and more than one believe that the shaman/whatever has mystical powers that mere warriors cannot match.

Many movies, including the Wishmaster, the Leprechaun series, and the Wizard of Oz show that magical power consistently trumps the warriors. Everyone cowered before the witches.

In fact, almost without fail, in any fantasy battle between warrior and mage, the warrior only wins if he finds a way to protect himself from the power in such beings.

[Tengu]

In fact, almost without fail, in any fantasy battle between warrior and mage, the warrior only wins if he finds a way to protect himself from the power in such beings.

Which is usually the case because the warrior is the protagonist (magic users being evil is still a living trope), and therefore a different scenario would be boring.

[AKA_Bait]

In Raymond E. Feist's Riftwar series, I got the impression that despite Pugs World altering power, if Thomas had to kick his arse for some reason it would be a tight thing.

Edit: err, the fight would be tight, not Pug's arse.

Yeah, but remember that Thomas isn't mudane in that series either. He's as much Valheru as human and they used magic.

[Project_Mayhem]

Yeah, but remember that Thomas isn't mudane in that series either. He's as much Valheru as human and they used magic.

Aha, yes Tom is Valhheru'd up, BUT, I see that as the equivelant of an epic fighter. He never casts spells, the magic is purely contained in 1.) his equipment, and 2.) How spectacularly badass he is at that point; i.e. in dnd terms, an epic level fighter with awesome equipment.

To me, it highlights the balance thing quite well - Pug, an epic wizard if ever there was one, is very poweful, but there is a melee fighter who can match him.

[Kurald Galain]

Aha, yes Tom is Valhheru'd up, BUT, I see that as the equivelant of an epic fighter. He never casts spells, the magic is purely contained in 1.) his equipment, and 2.) How spectacularly badass he is at that point; i.e. in dnd terms, an epic level fighter with awesome equipment.

I'd have to look it up, but I'm reasonably sure Tomas does use magic at some point.

I wouldn't call Pug epic, myself, considering he's not that much stronger than most Blackrobes, and gets upstaged by Macros the Black.

Nakor, though, is definitely either epic, or a deus ex machina

[Mr. Friendly]

I take exception to Hercules (and by extension Perseus) being characterized as "not counting" as a fighter due to divine blood. In D&D he would have a template or a bloodline but would still be a fighter.

What about Odysseus/Ulysses; here is a completely normal person who defeats a great host of mythical creatures and beings, mostly through wits but also via force of arms.

[Morty]

Even if there were no truly über non-casters in fiction, why should we care? D&D can draw inspiration from other forms of storytelling and does it quite often, but is primarily a game, and as such follows its own rules. And one of them is that if designer wants the non-magic folk to be more or less equal to wizards, they are, assuming s/he doesn't fail at it.

[AKA_Bait]

What about Odysseus/Ulysses; here is a completely normal person who defeats a great host of mythical creatures and beings, mostly through wits but also via force of arms.

Ulysses is not a completley normal person. In the Homerian tradition he is descended from Aeolas on his paternal side and Hermes on his maternal side. Sure, he's not half god, but he's still not just a human. Also, he has the aide of Athena.

[Tamburlaine]

^^^Ah, but Odysseus was plainly a rogue rather than a fighter; he certainly sneak attacked the cyclops

[random11]

Ulysses is not a completley normal person. In the Homerian tradition he is descended from Aeolas on his paternal side and Hermes on his maternal side. Sure, he's not half god, but he's still not just a human. Also, he has the aide of Athena.

In RPG games, the gods can also communicate to fighters, giving them aid (and/or a headache).
Ulysses had the help of Athena, but while his fighting was impressive, it still wasn't enchanted in a way that you can compare him to a priest or even to a divine fighter. He was "just" a fighter with a strong ally.

[AKA_Bait]

^^^Ah, but Odysseus was plainly a rogue rather than a fighter; he certainly sneak attacked the cyclops

I think he was proably multiclassed. He also won the wrestling contest at the games for the death of Patroclus.

[Oslecamo]

I think he was proably multiclassed. He also won the wrestling contest at the games for the death of Patroclus.

He won because he prayed to Atenas to give him the victory, and Atenas granted the wish.

And "defeated a host of Mytical creatures" isn't very correct.

"Managed to escape from an host of Mystical creatures" is much more correct.

Ulysses only returned alive at home because he knew when to run away like a chicken. A living chicken at least, while his "brave" companions died one by one because they tought they were match for the diferent monsters they found.

[Kurald Galain]

Yes, but Odysseus was capable of shooting an arrow through the eye of ten axeheads in a row, which is no mean feat.

I'd recommend the book Ilium, by Dan Simmons - it's kind of a modern version of the Illiad, and it's very good on the combat hyperbole.

[AKA_Bait]

He won because he prayed to Atenas to give him the victory, and Atenas granted the wish.

Where are you getting that from. I don't recall any mention Athena intervening in that section of the Iliad.

and "defeated a host of Mytical creatures" isn't very correct.

"Managed to escape from an host of Mystical creatures" is much more correct.

Ulysses only returned alive at home because he knew when to run away like a chicken. A living chicken at least, while his "brave" companions died one by one because they tought they were match for the diferent monsters they found.

This is true. Odessyus hardly slays anything. Usually he wounds it, like the Cyclops, and gets the heck out of dodge.

[Talya]

I take exception to Hercules (and by extension Perseus) being characterized as "not counting" as a fighter due to divine blood. In D&D he would have a template or a bloodline but would still be a fighter.

More than a template.

In D&D, Hercules would also have a divine rank of somewhere between 0 and 5. (0 at the beginning of his rise to fame, 5 near the end of his tasks, as a demipower) His levels would consist of fighter or barbarian mixed with equal parts outsider.

[Draco Ignifer]

Would "legends" work better than "fantasy" for Samson? I mean, I doubt anyone really cares if you call him mythical, legendary, heroic, or fictional. Regardless, there's a difference between "powered by God" and "a Cleric." Clerics are more along the lines of Moses (sticks to snakes, ten plagues, parting the red sea), Elijah (calling down a pillar of flames from the heavens), and the like; what Samson did was pure physical power augmented by Godly might. He's a Crusader, a Paladin, or a Fighter with fluff behind his mechanics. Doesn't diminish him.

Similarly, if being god-blooded means that fighter-types can't apply, you might want to stop citing Sauron or Gandalf (outsiders), Merlin (half-outsider), Circe (goddess or nymph), or a lot of others as an example of the power of magic.

Finally, just for fun, look at the fighter from 3.5. Yes, he's weaker than the magey-types. He can also survive being immersed in molten lava (assuming average HP, average damage, and +2 con modifier, he can live past ten seconds down there, too), turn a wall ten inches thick into a pile of rubble in the space of six seconds with his bare fists (power attack for 20, assuming a +5 strength modifier, and assuming a hit for max damage each time, and he deals 80 damage to its 75 hit points), and cut a two inch thick slab of iron in half with a single brutal strike (two-handed sword, leaping power attack for 20, and with a 20 strength, he doesn't even need to roll the dice). He can tear through solid stone at a rate of two feet per minute, run naked through a blizzard for half an hour and live to tell about it, and go for months without food. He's a force of nature.

He's also not much less impressive, if any less impressive, than Heracles.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Not really, when you consider what a myth hero does by the end of his epic. Using the Heracles example, he goes through Hades, and tames the Cerberus. For the equivalent, a fighter would have to be able to go through one of the layers of the Abyss (Say, Azzagrat), and steal a prized macguffin from a Demon Lord (Say, Grazzt's succubus concubine). Instead, a fighter loaded to the teeth in magic items (Which mythic heroes mostly didn't have) has trouble handling a tarrasque, and let's not talk of the hell he'd have against a winged tarrasque, or a Balor. All in all, it's a lot less impressive, moreso because to do that fighter has exactly one. Single. Attack. Pattern. If that pattern fails, he's royally screwed.

[rockdeworld]

I think there's a good example of this type of thing in the OOTS strip somewhere (board's too slow for me to search the archives atm), where V says "it tends to leave one without much time for exercise." Or something to that effect.

I like to look at the example of Raistlin from Dragonlance. He gained magic powers with the price of giving up his health - sort of like mages in DnD do with the d4 hit die. His brother had no magic powers, but was a fitness pro and good with a sword besides.

More common than magic being more powerful than regular fighting, in fantasy you tend to see magic as power with a cost. Commonly, those who gain more power pay a higher cost. Take for example the Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn series by Tad Williams. One of the antagonists is a mage who endures torturous suffering for the power to change his form into a terrifying monster. He then becomes more-or-less unstoppable, but the price he paid was great.

So it's not exactly that magic is more powerful than regular fighting, but it's a completely different form of power.

[Lapak]

And Sauron, Elrond, Galadriel or Gandalf make him look like a gimp.

Interesting you should pick LotR as your example. Other than Gandalf/Saruman, I can't think of another battle that was strictly magical in nature or any magical battle between major characters that resulted in the death of an opponent. Gandalf vs. Balrog came down to swords and physical confrontation. Beren wrestled the were-wolf. Every time a Balrog or a dragon was slain in the Silmarillion, it was with physical weapons.

The only time I can remember magic killing anything was some nameless goblins in the Hobbit!

For other examples of non-divine fighters, try Sigurd from Norse legends. Or Beowulf they're both dragon-slayers and enchantment-breakers. Try any of the knights of the round table (less Percival, Bors and Galahad if you want to be really precise), or many of the enemies they fought. Try Gilgamesh, for that matter, one of the earliest heroes on record!

And often, the mage was the antagonist in fiction. The antagonist is always more powerful than the protagonist, but the underdog also usually wins.

The wizard-antagonists in legends are almost universally powerful through proxies and enchantments and are extremely vulnerable in their own persons, though. They have a notable weakness that the physical hero can exploit.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Even if there were no truly über non-casters in fiction, why should we care? D&D can draw inspiration from other forms of storytelling and does it quite often, but is primarily a game, and as such follows its own rules. And one of them is that if designer wants the non-magic folk to be more or less equal to wizards, they are, assuming s/he doesn't fail at it.

I think the point is that people regularly bring up the "it's better in fiction!" argument to explain why casters absolutely have to own non-casters at everything, whereas in fact there are very, very few examples of spellcasters actually being any actual use at all. People are often afraid of them, but not because of anything they actually do.

Look at Merlin. Everybody goes on and on about how totally wise he is, but nobody ever actually says he could take Arthur in a straight fight, and as others have pointed out, no mage ever bested Conan.

The problem is, as other posters have pointed out, it's simply too easy to think of ways that people who use magic can be effective, because they can, rather by definition, do anything.

[Oslecamo]

Not really, when you consider what a myth hero does by the end of his epic. Using the Heracles example, he goes through Hades, and tames the Cerberus. For the equivalent, a fighter would have to be able to go through one of the layers of the Abyss (Say, Azzagrat), and steal a prized macguffin from a Demon Lord (Say, Grazzt's succubus concubine). Instead, a fighter loaded to the teeth in magic items (Which mythic heroes mostly didn't have) has trouble handling a tarrasque, and let's not talk of the hell he'd have against a winged tarrasque, or a Balor. All in all, it's a lot less impressive, moreso because to do that fighter has exactly one. Single. Attack. Pattern. If that pattern fails, he's royally screwed.

First, most mythic heros get a lot of magic to help them.

Let's check Heracles:

Mantle of the lion: you are immune to all damage other than the claws of the lion from where this skin came. You still lose life trough suffocation and starvation.

Forgot about that little detail he? Heracles had a toy wich would compare to major artifact level in D&D.

Second, the Abyss is a hundred times nastier than Hades. The worst thing you normally find in Hades is moaning souls winning about their past lifes. In the Abyss there are hordes of monsters waiting you to tear apart at every corner. Much diferent.

[Azerian Kelimon]

The mantle only negated attacks from the back. Yeah. Big deal, who attacked you from the back in greek myths? Rogues weren't that common there, and what that does is prevent you from taking SA damage when flatfooted. Hardly epic or an artifact, considering a heavily fortified armor negates ALL SA damage except from a specialrogue brand.

And still, the cerberus is defineltely what would qualify as an Epic beast in D&D. I really don't see a Fighter doing well against a Titanic Multihedead Fire Breahting dog Of Legend.

[MorkaisChosen]

Take for example the Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn series by Tad Williams. One of the antagonists is a mage who endures torturous suffering for the power to change his form into a terrifying monster. He then becomes more-or-less unstoppable, but the price he paid was great.

So it's not exactly that magic is more powerful than regular fighting, but it's a completely different form of power.

Oh, Gods, who was that? I really whould know...

In other stuff, I think it's fair to make fighters as powerful- OK, magic has incredible potential, but it takes AGES to learn how to use it properly.

[Rutee]

Forgot about that little detail he? Heracles had a toy wich would compare to major artifact level in D&D.

Yeah, but it's totally nonmagical. It's purely Ex, baby. And he made it himself.

Anyway, it's pretty much only Arthurian and Celtic myth that assume that magic is both different and better. Nordic Myth? Thor may be an idiot, but woe betide ye if you face him off directly. Beowulf? Purely melee. Cu Chulainn was an unbeatable warrior until you forced him to break agreements he was bound to serve (Geas in the orignal celtic myth were an interesting mix between magic and nonmagical..) Zhang Fei altered Geography and slew great men with a purely non-magical shout, and he was patently mortal.

And really, why are we discounting the godblooded? That almost by definition means we have to ignore trope-makers. And those trope-makers were generally melee. It's a small subsection of fiction older then people can be that had the patently magical beings as being patently superior.