Class labels as a mechanical straightjacket in D&D.

[K]

You've got it backwards. People always craved equality with other classes and they hate 4e because everyone was powered down to NPC status (even the Fighter). Being forced to play "mother-may-I" gaming is really annoying.

of course people crave equality, 3e just never managed to actually give equality to anyone who wasn't a caster.

but they're not powered down to NPC status even by 3e standards, though I do have to say that the argument of "well by 3e standards 4e characters are't as powerful" is really pointless. of course there's a difference in characters; it's a different damn edition. 4e characters are balanced for the system they exist in, and 3e characters are kinda sorta sometimes balanced for the system they exist in.

also if you don't want to play mother-may-I games you probably should stick to board games or anything without a DM

By 3e standards, 4e characters are NPCs. The amount of self-determination and agency that has been removed from PCs compared to 3e means they are little more than semi-autonomous bots for the DM's scripted combats.

And I'm sorry, but it's totally valid to dislike an edition because it delivers a less enjoyable play experience when compared to other editions. Since people play RPGs and expect to feel empowered, the fact that 4e does that so badly is why so many people abandoned the brand.

[FatR]

also I love the assumption that fighters are, and rightfully should be, at the lowest possible rung of power. and that anything that balances the playing field is automatically making everyone that horrible.

Fighters being shit is just how things are in fantasy, because fantasy assumes that fighters are vanilla action heroes (unless they are actually fledgling demigods or have an author's pity artifact), and so then does DnD. Anything that makes fighters not shit and capable of honestly contributing on the same level as magic-users, without plot sucking their cocks, will make them stop being fighters. At least I doubt that dumbfucks like you will recognize characters like Raj Ahten, who can contribute against DnD-level threats by doing stuff a fighter does, but actually doing it well, as fighters.

So yes, anything that balanced people to the level of fighter/VAH will make everyone horrible.

[Plebian]

Fighters being shit is just how things are in fantasy, because fantasy generally assumes that fighters are vanilla action heroes. (Unless they are actually fledgling demigods or have an author's pity artifact.) Anything that makes fighter not shit and capable of honestly contributing on the same level as magic-users, without plot sucking their cocks, will make them stop being fighters. At least I doubt that dumbfucks like you will recognize characters like Raj Ahten, who can contribute against DnD-level threats by doing stuff a fighter does, but actually doing it well, as fighters.

So yes, anything that balanced people to the level of fighter/VAH will make everyone horrible.

no, you assume fighters are vanilla action heroes. there's plenty of fantasy involving fighter types who're perfectly competent, but it's also much easier for an author use magic sucking the protagonist's cock to solve every problem.

oh and works of fantasy are just an inspiration for D&D, they don't define it any more than Anne Rice defines WoD. D&D's about group combat with a bunch of casters and non-casters. if you want caster supremacy at least be honest about it and go play Ars Magica, don't try and defend shit balance because you love the idea of the quiet, self-styled intellectual gaining supreme power of the the boisterous, muscular soldier

By 3e standards, 4e characters are NPCs. The amount of self-determination and agency that has been removed from PCs compared to 3e means they are little more than semi-autonomous bots for the DM's scripted combats.

that doesn't even make sense. by 3e standards 4e players still have far more ability than any average noncombatant you'll run across, just because they can't cast Polymorph Other or Wish or Finger of Death doesn't make them worthless, unless your entire idea of worth is tied to casters being stupidly powerful and everyone else just going along with it.

also I really have a problem with the definition of player agency that is used in this forum because it doesn't seem to actually coincide much with the actual definition of player agency and seems to be more of a "well if I can cast spells that obviate other classes, that is player agency" deal, and that's cool, just go play a game that's honest about it's focus on mages like Ars Magica.

the minute you start saying X edition removes self-determination or player agency is the minute you're just letting emotions over a tabletop make your decisions, because player agency and self-determination are at best vague goals that are completely up to the DM and players, not the system.

and jesus please stop insinuating that 4e is the only edition ever to have shitty DMs who love to railroad through combats, it's just amazingly stupid.

And I'm sorry, but it's totally valid to dislike an edition because it delivers a less enjoyable play experience when compared to other editions. Since people play RPGs and expect to feel empowered, the fact that 4e does that so badly is why so many people abandoned the brand.

sure, it's valid to dislike any edition. I mean, 3e sucks goat ass as far as a balanced experience for the players, but I don't feel the need to try and make shit up about it removing player agency because I dislike it.

also do me a favor and check the game listings for pretty much any convention involving tabletops. what's that? there's probably at least a 5-1 ratio of 4e to 3e and Pathfinder combined? amazing, a shame so many people hate 4e and prefer 3e's wondrous, perfect system.

[shadzar]

The problem is that DnD is inherently about this aspect of the game. The murder simulator bit is (theoretically) balanced while the character simulator bit has absolutely no intentions of being balanced. A fighter is lucky if he can jump, climb and swim while rogues can do a dozen different things and a wizard "has a spell for that".

Don't know what game you are playing that poses that problem. Never had a fighter who couldn't swim or climb.

And there is that damn word again that people don't understand. BALANCE.

warrior =/= thief =/= priest = wizard

learn and understand this. D&D is NOT a competitive game, but a cooperative game. Now I should post this in the women in gaming type thread as well if i haven't already, but they understand the purpose of D&D better than most guys seem to, because they get its a game of cooperation where you work together, rather than a penis measuring contest to see who is doing the most DPS.

Now wonder not a lot of females in most D&D groups, especially with the minds like these that always want to whine about balance. They see just a big penis measuring contest from the players, and then in the game form the characters. People are too worried about competing with the other players that playing together for the same goal. I know for a fact a girl that even got up and left the table when i went for a smoke outside and heard her exclaim, before she joined me for a smoke, "i will be back when you are ready to play again and stop measuring your dicks and having a pissing contest about who is doing what."

They don't care for the infighting, because there is no i in "team" or "PC party".

Balance doesnt belong where most people think it should. The classes need not be balanced because the players arent playing against each other. D&D is NOT a PvP server on WoW, EQ, etc.

When the rogue has "climb walls" it is for the rogue ability to shimmy up the wall quickly and unnoticed, not just climbing a tree. It doesnt mean others cant climb, but mundane climbing isnt likely to give the rogue a problem, because it is one of his tools for the trade. He can do it better, quicker, and more stealthily.

Yes a wizard can do things a fighter cant...he brings things into existence that wasnt there before, or removes things from existence. its magic. Of course he will be able to fly and maybe have mobility the rogue wished to have. But when it comes to opening that lock you still better have the rogue do it, cause only a foolish wizard would do it alone, else he soon be a dead one. That doesnt help the rest of the party much unless they were looking for a new wizard anyway.

Things people need to understand about D&D unlike some other RPGs...it is made to have a group of people play it, not solo it no matter what little adventures came out with the SOLO numbered system, it was made for this group to work together and cover each others weaknesses.

The sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts.

So dont worry about trying to perfectly balance the classes as it isnt the classes that play the game, but are a part of the GROUP of adventurers that plays the game. The balance comes from what the party faces vs the party.

4th edition tried to balance the classes, and many found it turned them to crap. everyone was just a damage+status generator. They also tried to balance the opposition with the encounter XP budget crap, but fell flat because it doesnt work.

The ONLY person that can balance the game is the DM for the specific group there is. IT takes works to learn, through play with that group, what will be balanced against them and a reasonable challenge. See Tucker's Kobolds to show where a threat level exists from a low level monster so that building a monster at much higher levels doesnt make for a better game, just because they have a number that matches that of ANY member of the class.

The classes should be designed for a function within the party. Not to function on their own but to compliment the other classes as part of the group.

Looking at the mass number of classes then, it can only fail to have more and more classes. If each class fills a hole in the party, then each class is needed. That means you need all 20 classes in a party if there are 20 that each do something that another cannot and each is needed. Now you have a party of 20 players. That wont work.

[Winnah]

and casters were automatically able to influence the campaign more, and in more ways?

also I love the assumption that fighters are, and rightfully should be, at the lowest possible rung of power. and that anything that balances the playing field is automatically making everyone that horrible. that kind of bias against fighters explains a lot about the 4e hate I see; everyone is at least nominally equal to a fighter! everyone must suck, even though fighters are pretty damn good now.

You totally missed the point of what I said. Rather you glossed over it and started making assumptions about my preferences.

Fighters are good at only one thing. Fighting. This will no doubt cause debate, but I have seen fighters (and barbarians & other assorted beatsticks) function in mid to high level games. Buff them up and then set them loose. With the support of a team they can be fun for combat.

The rub is that combat is the only thing they can do and unfortunately, they can only excel at high levels with the support of other characters. When it comes to other roles like Scouting, Infilitration, Intrigue, Diplomacy and any of the other myriad components of a story, they fail. Their players invariably take up the art of snark or twiddle their thumbs until the action scene starts.

Consider a non caster such as the rogue. Despite not being able to cast spells, they can still influence a game and their campaign world via the use of their skills. They probably can't match the combat potential of a dungeoncrasher or frenzied berserker in a fair fight, but that is ok, coz they fight dirty.

So yeah, I think 4e's nuthugging of the fighter is bad for the game. It overemphasises combat; skills, magic and anything else that can encourage creativity in a campaign have either been diminished, rendered inefficent or removed. That is not a step forward for the hobby IMHO.

[hogarth]

Fighters being shit is just how things are in fantasy, because fantasy assumes that fighters are vanilla action heroes (unless they are actually fledgling demigods or have an author's pity artifact), and so then does DnD.

Of course, wizards are shit in fantasy too (or else they're just plot tokens).

[Starmaker]

Now I should post this in the women in gaming type thread as well if i haven't already, but they understand the purpose of D&D better than most guys seem to, because they get its a game of cooperation where you work together, rather than a penis measuring contest to see who is doing the most DPS.

I.e. women are used to being useless? Kthx.

Holy fuck, we're not talking DPS. You were replying to this:

The murder simulator bit is (theoretically) balanced while the character simulator bit has absolutely no intentions of being balanced.

This is not about murderizing potential in general or its aspect DPS in particular. This is about screen time. Everyone likes screen time, even - especially - stereotypical girl gamers (peace-loving method actresses).

[FatR]

Of course, wizards are shit in fantasy too (or else they're just plot tokens).

No. Magic-users always were higher tier characters in any works where tiers past "unenhanced mortal" functionally existed. Gandalf is the best or tied for the best in almost every skill that can come up handy outside of a very exact plot, compared to the rest of the Fellowship. Besides having magic. The whole premise of Sword&Sorcery is heroes going against forces that by all rights should crush any normal human, and somehow winning (usually because of the Plot Almighty). Elric can advance plot on his own abilities, Corum is little more than a pair of legs, serving to haul his artifacts around. Let's not even start on more modern fantasy works.

[erik]

Of course, wizards are shit in fantasy too (or else they're just plot tokens).

This sentence is counter to pretty much any fantasy book I have ever read and I have read a lot. Closest that comes might be Conan stories, where wizards are only the 2nd most badass thing in the world (1st being Conan who still is sometimes afraid of them).

[shadzar]

Now I should post this in the women in gaming type thread as well if i haven't already, but they understand the purpose of D&D better than most guys seem to, because they get its a game of cooperation where you work together, rather than a penis measuring contest to see who is doing the most DPS.

I.e. women are used to being useless? Kthx.

Holy fuck, we're not talking DPS. You were replying to this:

The murder simulator bit is (theoretically) balanced while the character simulator bit has absolutely no intentions of being balanced.

This is not about murderizing potential in general or its aspect DPS in particular. This is about screen time. Everyone likes screen time, even - especially - stereotypical girl gamers (peace-loving method actresses).

You seem to be making the same mistake you try to correct about "balance". Most people, and that post mentions it in combat context..

murder simulator bit is (theoretically) balanced

That is what I was trying to squash, as well most female gamers I play with dont care for the "balance" of doing damage. So YES the combat influence on balance between classes IS in that post.

To the other part the...

the character simulator bit has absolutely no intentions of being balanced

Which you call "screen time" or others call the spotlight. the problem is NOT something the game can solve for you, nor should it be it with some mechanic, the classes themselves, etc.

The amount of spotlight given to ANY player within the game will be something for the group to work out. The real people, not the games characters. Assuming you are talking about what most do in the "screen time" arguments i have seen, wherein the player feels like they arent participating as opposed to the character not appearing to do anything in the story.

No amount of mechanics/rules will help a female, or male get that "screen time". This is something the players need to work out as part of the group dynamic.

When dealing with magic items and the group dynamic my group came up with a nice little way before it was spread everywhere as a method, to divide treasure. Funny thing is this treasure division was based first on classes. Wands went to the wizard if they wanted or could use them, swords tot he melee types, and so on. After USEABLE treasure was split, unwanted wands by the wizard was placed into the party pool to be sold and ALL items not wanted for a specific reason to help the group was liquidated into cash and the cash divided up. That little gold statue would be appraised is someone actually wanted it and was going to carry it around with them, and its appraised value was figured out from the persons share. If the statue was worth more than a share, then the player wanting it would have to pay the excess tot he other players in cash.

This is a way of making the group dynamic work. The other players didnt moan because the party treasurer had more "screen time" when the loot was split, though they would argue at times over a sword where two people could use it. Not once was there a fight when a member of the party didnt get some new weapon if that was not something for them in the treasure, because the weapons weren't personal treasure, but tools for the party to succeed together.

Likewise while playing the game, the PLAYERS must work out how to give each other the right amount of "screen time". Someone wanting to be quiet and jsut kill things with the group shouldn't be forced to share the same amount of time, and the rules can offer nothing to help this.

Basic social skills and accepting the other players are people and their to have fun is the ONLY thing that will help the group dynamic to offer the right amount of fair "screen time" to each player.

Again people looking at the rules for an answer, when the problem is with the players. Same pissing contest, different target to piss on.

Look first to see if there is a problem with the group rather than blame the game. The game can't balance out immature players, or disruptive ones, or anything like that. If you have a player that is a jerk, then stop playing with jerks.

Again this is why the few females I know of that play, don't play in many groups, but only with certain people. They enjoy playing the game, rather than bitching about it. Like me, if they come to a game to play for 3 hours, and the first hour is an argument of who gets to speak most or loudest, then leave cause they could do something better with the other 2 hours than continue to watch more of the same. They came to play D&D not watch a pissing contest.

Problem in the case of screen time as related to combat...not big in AD&D where you had a "chance to learn a spell", because the DM didnt let munchkin min-maxers just try to be some type of "combat wizard", "theif wizard", etc. The DM has final say over the spells of a wizard as they find or learn them, which means a wizard would fit with the party rather than try to overtake it and control it.

3.x fucked that all up with "removing DM power" or whatever its called "player agency" because apparently player agency only works when the players are willing to work together...therefore the wizard players are the problem that try to take all the screen time/action/whatever. Get rid of that player and get someone who will work with the team.

If you set the game up to be all about the combat and treat wizards like a walking ICBM launcher, and clerics like a walking med-kit, then it is YOUR fault, for making them that, not the games fault for giving options. Except in the case of 4th that should be blame for a great many things.

To share the screen time, then players MUST be WILLING to share it. If one is not, then it is a problem with the PLAYER, not the game.

Now you know where the problem is, fix the problem, rather than blaming other things.

This whole things sounds a lot like the "but what about the children" bitching...which i respond to with "well where the fuck are their parents?" Likewise the DM should do their job and handle the players properly...if they cant get a new DM, or the other players should remove the problem player.

I am also sick and tired of the "But Bob's my best buddy and i want to play with him." Well Bob is fucking your game up so choose Bob or the game, but dont blame the game because you wont get Bob straightened out. The game doesnt exist to make Bob let other people play, the players have to tell Bob to back down and let other people play.

[tzor]

Don't know what game you are playing that poses that problem. Never had a fighter who couldn't swim or climb.

You obviously didn't play many Dwarf fighters in Plate Mail.

Yes not only could they not climb, or swim, they constantly had magic items fail on them (because of the original AD&D penalty to dwarves and magic items).

"Hey I need some help inside this portable hole."
"NO PROBLEM!"
"Who is watching the hole?"
"The Dwarf."
"OH Crap"
"Hey is it getting stuffy in here?"
"Guys, the exit just closed."
"OH Crap!"

[tzor]

Fighters are good at only one thing. Fighting.

In first edition AD&D, fighters were good at all He-Manly things, mostly becasuse they were endowed with the ability for exceptional strength. Bending bars, lifting gates, bashing locked doors, carrying the dragon's massive treasure which was all in silver pieces ... those sorts of thigns.

[shadzar]

Don't know what game you are playing that poses that problem. Never had a fighter who couldn't swim or climb.

You obviously didn't play many Dwarf fighters in Plate Mail.

Hmmm....

1. dwarves didnt have to be afraid of water. don't try to be Flint Fireforge.

2. take armor off before swimming. let's take the worst possible example and create an excess with an extreme case... plate mail didnt provide that much mobility, likewise it was heavy...nobody was swiming in it.

3. if you wonder, you werent supposed to sleep in armor either. armor was modeled after the real world counterparts and only worn when most needed.

[Juton]

Fighters being shit is just how things are in fantasy, because fantasy assumes that fighters are vanilla action heroes (unless they are actually fledgling demigods or have an author's pity artifact), and so then does DnD.

Of course, wizards are shit in fantasy too (or else they're just plot tokens).

I'm going to agree with this, with a caveat. Some of the fantasy novels I've read have had one really powerful wizard who've moved along the plot, but a lot of those books may have other less powerful magicians who do not advance the plot the same way. Being a wizard in a fantasy novel does not mean that you are automatically one of the most powerful beings in existence, but if you are one of the most powerful beings existence there's a good chance you're a wizard.

Edit: I don't really see the 'Fighter are shit' phenomenon happen in fiction. Fighters may end up fighting less fantastic opponents but that doesn't make them shit.

[Plebian]

Fighters are good at only one thing. Fighting. This will no doubt cause debate, but I have seen fighters (and barbarians & other assorted beatsticks) function in mid to high level games. Buff them up and then set them loose. With the support of a team they can be fun for combat.

of course they still function, it's just they don't really add much of anything at all unless your casters are interested in being team players and very purposefully do not take spells that would make the fighter feel pointless. which happens plenty, I'm sure, but it's not a sign of a good system.

The rub is that combat is the only thing they can do and unfortunately, they can only excel at high levels with the support of other characters. When it comes to other roles like Scouting, Infilitration, Intrigue, Diplomacy and any of the other myriad components of a story, they fail. Their players invariably take up the art of snark or twiddle their thumbs until the action scene starts.

oh, this is a failing of every D&D, I think. there are nearly no skills to allow someone who is primarily strength/constitution focused actually contribute to the plot without the DM shoehorning in something like cleaning the Augean stables. but that's more of a DTAS thing than anything else

So yeah, I think 4e's nuthugging of the fighter is bad for the game. It overemphasises combat; skills, magic and anything else that can encourage creativity in a campaign have either been diminished, rendered inefficent or removed. That is not a step forward for the hobby IMHO.

skills are every bit as important if you've got a decent GM, the exact same as previous editions. there are certainly fewer of them but I prefer it over the overly complex system of 3+level skill ranks in class skills, cross-class skills at (3+level)/2 and costing 2 points in per 1 point out, synergy bonuses, and so on.

magic can sometimes enhance creativity. so there are rituals now, to prevent a caster from just immediately casting Fly, Passwall, Greater Invisibility and obviating everything unless the DM starts saying "uhhh it's warded, nope you don't know how, yeah I know this is the eighty-seventh warded dungeon. guess those things are cheap." but just casting spells != creative, as seen below.

as for encouraging creativity, why do you keep bringing this up? creativity is not something the game itself has much to do with. it's pretty much entirely up to the players and their DM. always has been, because playing only by the rules is not creativity; you need people to suggest actions that lie on the boundaries of the rules, or even outside the rules, and then an arbitrator to yea or nay them.

[FatR]

Edit: I don't really see the 'Fighter are shit' phenomenon happen in fiction. Fighters may end up fighting less fantastic opponents but that doesn't make them shit.

Of course, if the story restricts itself to low-fantasy scale, fighters can be viable characters. Although, to be honest, even in low fantasy fighters in DnD sense of the word, i.e., people who can only stab faces, tend to be main characters' sidekicks at best.

The second story goes past the low fantasy realm, fighters get relegated to the shit tier. Now, authors can try to get around this by giving them artifacts vastly more powerful than the character himself (Moorcock, Eddings), making them demigods in training (Eddings again, Feist), explicitly plot-shielding them (Rober Jordan did this most blatantly, but really, half of fantasy authors), or making actual movers and shakers of the setting want to jump in bed with them - not figuratively (Leiber, Glen Cook); but all of these are just roundabout ways of admitting that mundane fighters cannot stand up on their own anymore.

[Juton]

Of course, if the story restricts itself to low-fantasy scale, fighters can be viable characters. Although, to be honest, even in low fantasy fighters in DnD sense of the word, i.e., people who can only stab faces, tend to be main characters' sidekicks at best.

The second story goes past the low fantasy realm, fighters get relegated to the shit tier. Now, authors can try to get around this by giving them artifacts vastly more powerful than the character himself (Moorcock, Eddings), making them demigods in training (Eddings again, Feist), explicitly plot-shielding them (Rober Jordan did this most blatantly, but really, half of fantasy authors), or making actual movers and shakers of the setting want to jump in bed with them - not figuratively (Leiber, Glen Cook); but all of these are just roundabout ways of admitting that mundane fighters cannot stand up on their own anymore.

Wizards get power from learning or from books (most of the time), why is a magic book a more valid power source than demon blood or an artifact sword? As someone more articulate than I has said, the key element in fantasy literature isn't magic, it is fantastic. You can give fantastic powers to a fighter and still have them be a fighter, it doesn't invalidate them.

[FatR]

Wizards get power from learning or from books (most of the time), why is a magic book a more valid power source than demon blood or an artifact sword?
As someone more articulate than I has said, the key element in fantasy literature isn't magic, it is fantastic. You can give fantastic powers to a fighter and still have them be a fighter, it doesn't invalidate them.

It does. If you give a character inherent superpowers, this will make him so different from the known definition of DnD fighter, that it will be better to call him something else, to avoid needless confusion. The artifact sword solution, even if the rules ensure that the player will always gets what he wants, sucks, because unless it actually means giving out inherent powers, like ki control or being able to use a magical symbiote, in a stealthy way, it will create a needless rift between rules (the party fighter is entitled to an artifact sword) and common sense (why give a valuable weapon to someone who, by himself, sucks?).

[hogarth]

Of course, wizards are shit in fantasy too (or else they're just plot tokens).

No. Magic-users always were higher tier characters in any works where tiers past "unenhanced mortal" functionally existed. Gandalf is the best or tied for the best in almost every skill that can come up handy outside of a very exact plot, compared to the rest of the Fellowship. Besides having magic.

Gandalf is a dude with a magic sword and a fast horse and some eagle buddies that casts one or two extremely shitty magic spells. That makes him a shit wizard in my book.

Elric can advance plot on his own abilities

If you count "plot coupon" favors with magical creatures and a handy-dandy artifact as "his own abilities". There's nothing particularly wizard-ish about any of that in D&D terms.

Corum is little more than a pair of legs, serving to haul his artifacts around.

Agreed; Corum isn't even a wizard. One out of your three examples is an actual wizard, and he's a shit wizard (in D&D terms). So what was your point?

[Plebian]

It does. If you give a character inherent superpowers, this will make him so different from the known definition of DnD fighter, that it will be better to call him something else, to avoid needless confusion. The artifact sword solution, even if the rules ensure that the player will always gets what he wants, sucks, because unless it actually means giving out inherent powers, like ki control or being able to use a magical symbiote, in a stealthy way, it will create a needless rift between rules (the party fighter is entitled to an artifact sword) and common sense (why give a valuable weapon to someone who, by himself, sucks?).

what is the known definition of a D&D fighter?

and can you give a good reason why a tradition of a lack of balance, stemming from the fact that Wizards were artillery in Chainmail and Fighters were based off the small unit commanders, is in any way something that should continue in a cooperative game?

[Juton]

It does. If you give a character inherent superpowers, this will make him so different from the known definition of DnD fighter, that it will be better to call him something else, to avoid needless confusion. The artifact sword solution, even if the rules ensure that the player will always gets what he wants, sucks, because unless it actually means giving out inherent powers, like ki control or being able to use a magical symbiote, in a stealthy way, it will create a needless rift between rules (the party fighter is entitled to an artifact sword) and common sense (why give a valuable weapon to someone who, by himself, sucks?).

So your definition of the Fighter, is someone who lacks and real important abilities? Actually that's a distressingly common definition of a D&D Fighter. For whatever reason though, players want to play Fighter and they want to not suck, which becomes increasingly difficult in D&D. If anyone is going to retool D&D they should come along and change that to, you could call them 'Warblades' or whatever, but any new version of D&D should include a Fighter with fantastic abilities or we'll get another iteration of fail, where only 1/3rd of core classes are usable at higher levels.

[tzor]

dwarves didnt have to be afraid of water. don't try to be Flint Fireforge.

Never said "afraid." But if he is in a boat on the water why should he have his armor off? Some people are so afraid of falling out of boats they always wear life vests. Some people don't, prefering not to fall out of the boat in the first place.

Not all characters can do all things. In the real world there are a lot of people who never bothered to learn how to swim.

And as for not wearing armor at night ... yes that was a running joke in a number of campaigns.

OMG a fight at night ... I'N NAKED ...

(That was mostly from the human fighters ... dwarves aren't shy.)

[tzor]

The original Iconic for the 1E AD&D wizard probably cannot be found anywhere in classical literature. I would propose you would find him on college campuses; aka the Nerd. Aside from the source books of Jack Vance, no wizard spent hours of the day cramming on his spell book so he could cast a few spells. (And high level wizards needed the whole day to memorize their entire spell list if they had used all their spells the previous day.)

[FatR]

Gandalf is a dude with a magic sword and a fast horse and some eagle buddies that casts one or two extremely shitty magic spells. That makes him a shit wizard in my book.

Only because you dishonestly compare him to power standards of DnDverse, instead of his own. In DnD, being able to go toe to toe with a Huge creature that is also on fire is not a particularly big deal, in Middle Earth everyone in the party but Gandalf might just as well lie down and die when confronted with such foe.

If you count "plot coupon" favors with magical creatures and a handy-dandy artifact as "his own abilities".

There is nothing plot couponish in the ability to summon things to wreck your enemies' shit, when you can do it reliably.

There's nothing particularly wizard-ish about any of that in D&D terms.

And? There are very few fighters outside of DnD or works directly influenced by it as well, at least among PCs (most vanilla action hero protagonists actually are closer to rogues).

Agreed; Corum isn't even a wizard.

Which is the point.

One out of your three examples is an actual wizard, and he's a shit wizard (in D&D terms). So what was your point?

Wizards > vanilla action heroes, whichever verse you take. Therefore the argument that VAHs need to be competitive with magic users is not supported by fantasy genre conventions. I don't know, why you seem to think that DnD wizards being considerably more badass than these magic users disproves my point, as opposed to supporting it.

[shadzar]

dwarves didnt have to be afraid of water. don't try to be Flint Fireforge.

Never said "afraid." But if he is in a boat on the water why should he have his armor off? Some people are so afraid of falling out of boats they always wear life vests. Some people don't, prefering not to fall out of the boat in the first place.

Not all characters can do all things. In the real world there are a lot of people who never bothered to learn how to swim.

And as for not wearing armor at night ... yes that was a running joke in a number of campaigns.

OMG a fight at night ... I'N NAKED ...

(That was mostly from the human fighters ... dwarves aren't shy.)

not learning how to, doesnt mean they cant learn how to. 2nd edition makes all that crap optional before the precursor to 3rd edition which brings it all back full force and them some, which in turn forces people to use it, and thw NWPs from 1.5 shouldnt really figure in much as they too were optional.

It wasnt until 3rd where the problem came of some people jsut not able to swim.