[Quests] Why People Never Pick "Fighter" or "Thief", and Should Anything be Done About it

[powerofvoid]

background information

This discussion started with this, over in the [NSFW] Quest Interest Check thread:

I'm a little frustrated by the lack of fighter and thief-type character builds because everyone seems to prefer magic

Click to shrink...

The meat of the debate starts with this post.

What is the Question?
There are actually several questions here:

1. What makes a character a Fighter or Thief?
2. Why do people generally choose other character types?
3. Should we do anything about this?
4. If yes, what?

---

I'm too sleepy to put more here tonight.

Spoiler: Tagging people related to the original discussion

• Smuthunter
• powerofvoid
• Nekraa
• iamnuff
• Oni
• Guile
• kinglugia
• pepperjack
• Heaven Canceler
• Mu-Sensei
• Valette-Serafina
• macdjord
• SwiftRosenthal

 

[tehelgee]

1. A fighter relies on strength of arm to do battle. A thief relies on wit and skill to overcome challenges. The presence of magical or other abnormal abilities tends to completely override those areas because it becomes all about that other power, nothing else.

2. More power. A wizard, psychic, shonen archetype, etc, will have more power than a fighter or thief. IMO, people like to be powerful, they like to play powerful characters.

3. Not really. In the end, it's a matter of choices. You can't make other people's choices for them.

4. N/A

 

[a2znut]

It's because wizards can go "Fuck you" to both fighters and thieves and use/make spells that causes those people to be redundant.

 

[Ampersandwich]

Just to weigh in on the terminology discussion: rather than "psion" (which as iamnuff noted gives the wrong impression entirely), the punchy phrase you want for "supernatural martial artist" is probably "ki adept".

 

[Plotvitalnpc]

People choose wizards because they are lead to believe that the magic is more effective, more applicable, more glamorous, or if nothing else potentially earthshaking.
If one wanted to make being a straight wizard less attractive than being a different thing, they might base the scope and ease of magic on things like the rituals at the player's disposal in the Unreal World RPG (but nerf Hunter's Request to Catch A Fox), and on spiritualism steeped medical traditions, but with actual spirits.

 

[macdjord]

The problem is, that, frankly, magic - at least any type of magic that resembles D&D or HP - is straight-up better. It is better the same way guns are better. In any fair fight between buff dudes with swords and those who can reshape matter with their thoughts, guess what? Mages gonna win.
You can try to make the fighters and rogues competitive by giving them their own bullshit reality-hax powers. But really? That's magic. It may be sword-themed, it may not be called magic, and it may come from 'superior skill' rather than hand-waving and willow bark, but if you're cutting solid stone, travelling from place to place without passing through the space in between, concealing objects larger than your torso under your cloak, or stealing the air from their lungs, you are doing magic. And if the battles are going to be decided by reality-warping supernatural powers anyway, why would I not go with the class that actually specializes in that?

 

[WizardTwo]

I can safely say as someone who played many years of DnD pen and paper, there are PLENTY of people who pick warriors/paladins and thieves/rogues.
Plenty of warriors and paladins in WoW... and that's the limit of my experience with the concept. I've just never noticed a shortage.

 

[UrsaTempest]

I GMed Exalted. Everyone is mandated to take Fighter-level, unless you want to go splat. If you go Sorcery, it is because you want more flexibility... but Exalted has supernatural Martial Arts, which is Fighter's version of Sorcery. Kinda.

 

[Nekraa]

I pretty much always choose a wizard or magic user because I like magic, and has done that since basically forever.

In some cases I don't choose magic, but those are rare, and I basically have to think "right, I've had lots of magic users lately, let's have something else."

I GMed Exalted. Everyone is mandated to take Fighter-level, unless you want to go splat. If you go Sorcery, it is because you want more flexibility... but Exalted has supernatural Martial Arts, which is Fighter's version of Sorcery. Kinda.

Click to shrink...

And Exalted's sorcery is... not working that well.

 

[The Shadowmind]

While this was been posted why too many times on Gitp, it is relevant to the discussion here.


In video games and MMORPGs every class already restricted to what was programmed in. With most abilities just being bigger numbers from previous abilities.

 

[Smuthunter]

Part of the problem is that people automatically seem to think about D&D wizards and Clerics and such which also implies the "Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards" problem. The wizards get lots of cool powers that do everything the other guys do while the fighters and thieves are stuck just getting bigger numbers which don't help anyways because the wizard does everything better. Off the top of my head, D&D wizards can learn spells like "Detect Traps" and suddenly the party rogue is that much more redundant.

One solution to this is to do what Exalted does and link magic to different abilities so the thief has magic that makes him a better thief, the fighter has magic that makes him a better fighter, etc. The wizard, meanwhile, maybe gets to pick and choose which types of magic he uses but has no ability outside of those schools, so you're forced to choose between being a summoner or throwing fireballs or crafting illusions and so on.

 

[powerofvoid]

One solution to this is to do what Exalted does and link magic to different abilities so the thief has magic that makes him a better thief, the fighter has magic that makes him a better fighter, etc. The wizard, meanwhile, maybe gets to pick and choose which types of magic he uses but has no ability outside of those schools, so you're forced to choose between being a summoner or throwing fireballs or crafting illusions and so on.

Click to shrink...

As I see it, there are two reasons to limit a PC to having only a subset of the available "schools of magic":

• So other PCs can get time in the spotlight, in an MMO or TRPG
• For replay value, in a CRPG

Quests have neither of these things.

 

[Nekraa]

A "soft" limit is time.

Nobody has the time to learn all magic for all situations.

 

[Smuthunter]

As I see it, there are two reasons to limit a PC to having only a subset of the available "schools of magic":

• So other PCs can get time in the spotlight, in an MMO or TRPG
• For replay value, in a CRPG

Quests have neither of these things.

Click to shrink...

There's a third one too: to force the players to improvise and accomplish their goals with a limited skill set. If all you can do is throw fireballs then the players are challenged to use fireballs intelligently to solve problems that fireballs aren't meant to solve.

 

[rcnr]

As I see it, there are two reasons to limit a PC to having only a subset of the available "schools of magic":

• So other PCs can get time in the spotlight, in an MMO or TRPG
• For replay value, in a CRPG

Quests have neither of these things.

Click to shrink...

I disgree. Limiting the kinds of magic any one person can do increases the total variety of cool things on display, because some kinds of magic are inevitably better at certain tasks than other kinds.

There are a dozen ways to use a necromancer's skillset to "heal", but if you have an actual healer it's worthless. An artificer can make an item to do almost anything, given time and money, but if you can take that time and money and invest in a spell that does the same thing, what's the point?

By allowing players to pick the most applicable tool out of their Big Box of Bullshit, you've made many interesting but not ideal solutions irrelevant.

 

[powerofvoid]

I disgree. Limiting the kinds of magic any one person can do increases the total variety of cool things on display, because some kinds of magic are inevitably better at certain tasks than other kinds.

There are a dozen ways to use a necromancer's skillset to "heal", but if you have an actual healer it's worthless. An artificer can make an item to do almost anything, given time and money, but if you can take that time and money and invest in a spell that does the same thing, what's the point?

By allowing players to pick the most applicable tool out of their Big Box of Bullshit, you've made many interesting but not ideal solutions irrelevant.

Click to shrink...

Limiting the amount of magic a PC can learn is not the same thing as limiting the variety of magic a PC can learn.

 

[rcnr]

I... don't grasp the distinction you're trying to make, when we're talking about

reasons to limit a PC to having only a subset of the available "schools of magic"

Click to shrink...

Necromancy and regular healing generally don't mix. You can fudge or it make it irrelevant for some purposes, but you'd have to use a entirely different magical paradigm to accomplish actual healing.

 

[powerofvoid]

Necromancy and regular healing generally don't mix. You can fudge or it make it irrelevant for some purposes, but you'd have to use a entirely different magical paradigm to accomplish actual healing.

Click to shrink...

Cure [FOO] Wounds and Inflict [FOO] Wounds were originally the same spell.

... or were you talking about actual Necromancy? (i.e., getting information by talking to dead people)

 

[tehelgee]

In regards to limiting characters to schools of magic, I have long been of the belief that D&D needs to do this with their wizards. Wizards being able to select from any school without limitation is what causes them to dominate.

One way to do it is that they can only learn from a single school + universal. They should probably gain additional spells per day to keep them from being one-shot wonders.

Or, they can only learn up to 2nd level of spells from any school, but require a prestige class or some class choice like a ranger's 'chosen enemy' to learn spells above 2nd in a specific school.

What about clerics, then? Domain spells lists are a good idea, imo, but only if they are restricted to those lists. It makes no sense to me for a cleric of any god to be able to cast spells not of his domains.

Druids tend to have an already restricted list, I think, but it could do with some pruning too.

 

[powerofvoid]

The idea that "narrower" spellcasting classes like the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are better for the game than generalists like the Wizard does seem to be the prevailing school of thought, yes.

 

[Reverberate]

I don't know how relevant this is, but a while back, I ran a quest where players picked a "fighter" option for their MC. (Not on the SB/SV/QQ cluster, so no clue on relevance to the local culture.) It's dead now, but I think part of the key is not to call things "wizards." The word wizard has implications of breadth and depth that "fighter" just doesn't, and players are looking for breadth and depth in character generation. If you say "Wizard, Fighter, Rogue," who's going to pick Fighter? Chumps, that's who. But call the options "Pyromancer, Knight, Assassin," and you're implying a much reduced level of breadth and depth to the magic user, and a higher level of starting skill and ability to the warrior and the skillmonkey. Okay, he works with fire, and maybe he has some breadth in his talents there (melt locks, burn towns, heat swimming pools), but the Knight and Assassin presumably have some versatility in their own skill sets. The Knight knows how to sword, he also knows courtly manners, maybe he can call on his station, etc. Assassin knows stealth, poison, locks, information gathering, etc.

That's what I think, anyway. You say "Wizard," people hear "Charm, Magic Missile, Ghost Sound, etc etc etc." You say "Fighter," people hear "Great Cleave."

 

[Nekraa]

Thanks to a dirty mind and Muse, when I hear "fighter" I think "great cleavage".

 

[kinglugia]

I'd prefer a martial artist myself, if only due to the fact that they're always armed (unless they're literally disarmed) Plus...I like supernatural kung-fu

 

[Heaven Canceler]

One Major Problem that has been mentioned is that Magic becomes the key to everything. A skilled wizard in many crunch Settings can basically learn anything whenever he wants. Detect Trap has been mentioned, summon giant Monster, huh the Barbarian is kinda useless as a fighter? Rain of Fire/Ice/Whatever... huh the Bowshooting guy is really not that useful compared to that etc...

What I personally prefer when thinking of D&D is the fluff style wizards. The type that really sacrifice stuff for their cosmic power. You know, they can warp reality and kill you with their mind, but a stick over the head and they are out because they don't work on game-physics. Surprise them while they try to use their spells and they end up with an Eldritch Monster in their own face, or worse. Hit them with an arrow and they bleed out like nothing. etc... I read Dragonlance and that is what I feel a wizard should be like. Cosmic powers aren't impossible on the high Levels, but if you get hit while distracted, bad luck.

There is also a distinct lack of Counters to Magic in many settings. If there is a spell to detect traps, you would think that People invent protections to that spell and force People to check with mundane skills for example.

Of course there is the Problem that in High Fantasy a Wizard often has so much Magic tricks that if this way to do it doesn't work, he can just try something else. Unlock Magic doesn't work? Blast the door with a firebolt, or freeze it and make it break that way etc... Really nothing short of a Anti-Magic field can stop a creative wizard with the intelligence to use his powers effectively.

I think the amount of Special powers a non-straight up Magic character Needs is equivalent to how far away the wizard is from the "Squishy easily killed" type that has spells blow up in his face if he gets distracted etc... If he is high Fantasy, you basically Need the Thief/Warrior/Archer type characters to be super-duper to stay relevant.

 

[Nekraa]

If you want people to chose thieves and warrior achetypes more often, you have to prevent "godwizards" from being used in your quests.

Myself I actually like when magic users have an advantage over non-magic users, but lately I try to balance it more so that it's an edge instead of an unsurmountable mountain.

And I'm kind of getting lost when people use DnD terminology for everything. I barely know anything about them, and I've heard that DnD is kind of a mess. Bah. And the whole linear warrior quadratic wizard is problematic. Even if I'm guilty of it. But hey, I like magic and ususally give it primacy/advantages over non-magical methods.

Also: "Magic can do anything. Induvidual wizards on the other hand..." - Nekraa

^pretentious Nekraa

As I said before, time and training is a great way to limit the power of a magic user. And simply some magical knowledge being lost/hidden/guarded/forbidden.

 

[tehelgee]

There is also a distinct lack of Counters to Magic in many settings. If there is a spell to detect traps, you would think that People invent protections to that spell and force People to check with mundane skills for example.

Click to shrink...

There are spells that make magical objects detect as non magical, spells that prevent teleporting, spells that prevent scrying, and probably more that I'm forgetting... and when they are used, players cry about it being unfair. Well, no shit, people that have an interest in living are gonna protect themselves from your cheesy 'scry and die' tactic.

Of course there is the Problem that in High Fantasy a Wizard often has so much Magic tricks that if this way to do it doesn't work, he can just try something else. Unlock Magic doesn't work? Blast the door with a firebolt, or freeze it and make it break that way etc... Really nothing short of a Anti-Magic field can stop a creative wizard with the intelligence to use his powers effectively.

Click to shrink...

That's why the limited casters I mentioned above and Plot pointed out the canon versions of the same. They're more balanced and keep a caster from dominating the party.

I think the amount of Special powers a non-straight up Magic character Needs is equivalent to how far away the wizard is from the "Squishy easily killed" type that has spells blow up in his face if he gets distracted etc... If he is high Fantasy, you basically Need the Thief/Warrior/Archer type characters to be super-duper to stay relevant.

Click to shrink...

Problem is, even a limited mage can find ways to make a fighter or thief redundant. A skilled abjurer can sorta negate the need for a tanky class, as they can do it themselves with their protection spells. A conjurer can summon a monster or critter to complete specific tasks that require more skills than a skill-monkey can keep relevant. I think the other two archtypes should be more powerful in addition to limiting the wizards.

Thieves, imo, have been turned into fighter-lite, the way a lot of splatbooks try to portray them. All kinds of skills, and decent in a fight. This shouldn't be, I think. I think thieves should have the role of skill-monkey and assassin... if that one first shot doesn't take out the target, the thief should be running away, not staying to duke it out. But, in return for that kind of focus, they are THE skill monkey. Nobody else in the party has such a breadth of knowledge and various skills than the thief, which includes stealth btw. Their weapons should likely be ranged, because, ideally, they shouldn't ever be in direct combat.

Ironically, fighters are also too spread out. Their ability to use any weapon prevents them from being true powerhouses. I'd rework the fighters so they can only use one class of weapon(small/medium/large bladed, axes, blunt, polearms, exotic - and able to learn another class or two of weapons as they got more experienced), but in return, nobody but another fighter wants to get into melee range with one. Because they will wreck your shit real fucking quick.

 

[Heaven Canceler]

There are spells that make magical objects detect as non magical, spells that prevent teleporting, spells that prevent scrying, and probably more that I'm forgetting... and when they are used, players cry about it being unfair. Well, no shit, people that have an interest in living are gonna protect themselves from your cheesy 'scry and die' tactic.

That's why the limited casters I mentioned above and Plot pointed out the canon versions of the same. They're more balanced and keep a caster from dominating the Party.

Problem is, even a limited mage can find ways to make a fighter or thief redundant. A skilled abjurer can sorta negate the need for a tanky class, as they can do it themselves with their protection spells. A conjurer can summon a monster or critter to complete specific tasks that require more skills than a skill-monkey can keep relevant. I think the other two archtypes should be more powerful in addition to limiting the wizards.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I know that counter-Magic exists, I just haven't seen them very often in fiction, quests or much of anywhere. It just seems to be uncommon to the Point where I question how some People managed to get into high positions like King or Duke without having some way to protect from the random old wizard getting angry and killing him.

I feel that the power of spells should be equivalent to how far a character spreads himself. If they just grab stuff from all over the place they should have a harder time since they lack much deeper knowledge of each School. Sacrifice power for versatility would be much more suitable for a fair Setting.

I agree, the ability to just take a single skill like summoning and basically having Access to everything forever is broken.

And I'm kind of getting lost when people use DnD terminology for everything. I barely know anything about them, and I've heard that DnD is kind of a mess. Bah. And the whole linear warrior quadratic wizard is problematic. Even if I'm guilty of it. But hey, I like magic and ususally give it primacy/advantages over non-magical methods.

Click to shrink...

I have never played D&D myself, but I absorbed some stuff through osmosis and fanfiction that involved game mechanics.

The important Thing to remember is that a Wizard (Or most Magic using classes.) has Access to a great number of spells that do anything from creating matter to stopping time.

Rogues, Warriors etc... get better knifes, swords and Warhammers.

 

[Nekraa]

I agree, the ability to just take a single skill like summoning and basically having Access to everything forever is broken.

Click to shrink...

Then you simply has to force the PC to get to know and haggle with their summons before being able to summon them. Except in maybe some of the weaker creatuers.

And as this is QQ, "get to know them". Hint hint, nudge nudge.

 

[tehelgee]

I love summoners. But they are completely broken, in the overpowered sense, in D&D.

A summoner should not automatically have access to a list of creatures they can summon. I think summoners would be much more interesting, and balanced, if they had to negotiate a contract with the things they wanted to summon. And, like a sorcerer and their spells, they could only have so many contracts at a time.

And the more powerful the contract, the more costly it might be. An imp, for example, might just accept a contract in order to be summoned and hurt things that the summoners wants hurt. A devil, though, may have stipulations. They get to kill or consume those they are summoned to fight. An angel may stipulate that they cannot be summoned to battle a good opponent. And so on.

Summoners could cancel or break contracts, of course. Or the other side could. And maybe there would be a cost in that too.

 

[tehelgee]

Then you simply has to force the PC to get to know and haggle with their summons before being able to summon them. Except in maybe some of the weaker creatuers.

And as this is QQ, "get to know them". Hint hint, nudge nudge.

Click to shrink...

There is a web supplement to D&D that focuses on pr0nz and adult stuff. More than one, actually, but this one had a wizard specialized in summoning things to fuck - for them or for customers. An extraplanar pimp, in other words.