This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Are AD&D magic users implausibly weak?  (Read 123 times)

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Are AD&D magic users implausibly weak?
« on: Today at 02:22:51 PM »
This came up in another thread - and I'd want to address it without the baggage of the other topic. ForgottenF suggested that he felt like AD&D magic users stretched plausibility that other adventurers would take them into a dungeon.

Every occupation has a certain basic requirements where if you don't fill them, then no matter what your other merits are, you can't do that job. A fantasy adventurer needs to be able to run, climb, swim, sneak, fight and probably ride a horse. They don't need to be the best at any of those things, but if they can't do them at all, they're not qualified to be an adventurer. If they can't do those things physically, they need to be able to reliably produce an equivalent result magically.

You might say "Wait a minute! Lots of D&D characters can't do all those things". Yeah, I think it stretches plausibility that anyone would take a 1st level wizard with 6 strength, 3 HP, no armor and one spell per day with them into a dungeon. The chances are just too high of him either forcing the expedition to stall because he can't traverse the dungeon, or getting his companions killed trying to defend him. The only reason that happens is game convention.
I'm apparently alone in this, but I don't buy that a person who can't withstand physical hardship or defend themselves would succeed long-term as a career adventurer. It's not often an issue in D&D because of a bunch of meta reasons which are external to the fictional world of the game: everything from the way turn-based combat works, to dungeon design, the experience system and which factors are and are not simulated in the rules. That's what I mean by "game convention". Mostly I can let willing suspension of disbelief fill in the gaps, but it does bother me a bit that most fantasy RPGs reward specialization over generalism, just because I personally find playing generalists more fun.

I think it's a matter of taste, but I think there are some differences in viewpoints.

It seems like you're picturing an adventuring party like a SEAL team -- where everyone are highly-trained experts who can do anything and are all self-reliant. But I think AD&D pictured groups more as historical expeditions. They were likely to have a bunch of lesser combatants (henchmen) as well non-combatants like porters, torch-bearers, squires, hirelings, etc. I think of the Lewis and Clark expedition that had a bunch of unmarried soldiers but also boat crew, an trapper/interpreter and his pregnant wife, and an enslaved body servant.

I also question your comment about can't withstand physical hardship. In my experience, most magic users have low Strength but do have high Constitution, and I think of them as being quite tough and able to endure hardship. They're just not very skilled at fighting.

There are exceptions, I'm sure. I never read any Dragonlance fiction, but I understand that Raistlin was portrayed as sickly - and that may have become a stereotype of D&D, but I'm not sure it was part of the original vision. Gandalf was the earlier stereotype for the wizard, and he was technically an extremely tough demigod who wielded a sword on his horse in battle. AD&D magic users weren't Gandalf, for sure, but they weren't necessarily delicate flowers who couldn't endure hardship.

Corolinth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • C
  • Posts: 173
Re: Are AD&D magic users implausibly weak?
« Reply #1 on: Today at 04:50:31 PM »
Raistlin is portrayed as sickly in the novelization, but if you look at the modules, he has an average score in both strength and constitution.

It’s possible the person you’re quoting is imagining a SEAL team, but I doubt it. In fact, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to go from, “I don’t think any adventuring party even considers a member with 6 strength, 3 hit points, and only one spell per day,” to, “You’re picturing a SEAL team.” One might even call it disingenuous.

Let’s dispense with the strength problem and assume the wizard has average strength. No armor and 1-4 hit points is a big enough problem that the rest of the group has to babysit you, constantly.

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5043
Re: Are AD&D magic users implausibly weak?
« Reply #2 on: Today at 05:03:18 PM »
Greetings!

Yes, ForgottenF and I agree very much. In the "Wheelchair" thread, I made precisely the same argument. Yes, I am biased towards harsh, brutal reality, because I have actually done all of what amounts to as "Adventuring" in real life, professionally. While the Army and Navy are not as strict and demanding as the Marine Corps, historically, both of them have embraced and demanded a fairly rigorous uniform standard of physical abilities. Army Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform basic physical challenges, running, climbing, swimming, digging, crawling, combat, running, and so on. The Navy--of course, not now with the fucking Woke Navy--but in the past, they too required regular physical challenges, carrying men and equipment up and down tight flights of stairwells, working with heavy tools, weapons and ammunition, and of course, being skilled in swimming. They also required a standard of athletics, likewise from every member of the crew, regardless of their particular "job".

That gets into my experience with the Marine Corps policy of "Every man a Rifleman." The Marines of course, likewise demand extremely vigorous physical abilities from everyone--again, regardless of their job or specialty. The standards within the Marine Infantry and Force Recon are much higher, and even more demanding. The Navy Seals, as you mentioned, yes, they too demand some of the highest and most brutal standards, again, for every member of the team.

This experience is all very relevant, because for many members of the military, at least much of the time, we do most everything that professional Adventurers in our games do.

The stupid, the fat, the weak, the slow--and certainly the fucking crippled--are not welcome, not acceptable, and not tolerated.

WHY?

Because people will unnecessarily DIE trying to protect the weak fucks, or get killed while coddling them.

Next, the MISSION. The success of the MISSION requires everyone is pulling their weight, and bringing their "A" game in every way. Minimum standards are simply a baseline--out in the field, in the real world, the Mission will always demand FAR MORE.

Your team simply must be able to all perform very well, and be ready and able to exceed expectations, or the Mission fails.

So, yeah, even in 1E D&D, Wizards are always very welcome, and an excellent asset--but they still must be able to do all the basic physical challenges and wilderness survival and movement required of everyone on the team.

There is no room for the weak, the fat, the slow, the stupid, or the crippled.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

Svenhelgrim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
Re: Are AD&D magic users implausibly weak?
« Reply #3 on: Today at 05:19:37 PM »
Greetings!

Yes, ForgottenF and I agree very much. In the "Wheelchair" thread, I made precisely the same argument. Yes, I am biased towards harsh, brutal reality, because I have actually done all of what amounts to as "Adventuring" in real life, professionally. While the Army and Navy are not as strict and demanding as the Marine Corps, historically, both of them have embraced and demanded a fairly rigorous uniform standard of physical abilities. Army Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform basic physical challenges, running, climbing, swimming, digging, crawling, combat, running, and so on. The Navy--of course, not now with the fucking Woke Navy--but in the past, they too required regular physical challenges, carrying men and equipment up and down tight flights of stairwells, working with heavy tools, weapons and ammunition, and of course, being skilled in swimming. They also required a standard of athletics, likewise from every member of the crew, regardless of their particular "job".

That gets into my experience with the Marine Corps policy of "Every man a Rifleman." The Marines of course, likewise demand extremely vigorous physical abilities from everyone--again, regardless of their job or specialty. The standards within the Marine Infantry and Force Recon are much higher, and even more demanding. The Navy Seals, as you mentioned, yes, they too demand some of the highest and most brutal standards, again, for every member of the team.

This experience is all very relevant, because for many members of the military, at least much of the time, we do most everything that professional Adventurers in our games do.

The stupid, the fat, the weak, the slow--and certainly the fucking crippled--are not welcome, not acceptable, and not tolerated.

WHY?

Because people will unnecessarily DIE trying to protect the weak fucks, or get killed while coddling them.

Next, the MISSION. The success of the MISSION requires everyone is pulling their weight, and bringing their "A" game in every way. Minimum standards are simply a baseline--out in the field, in the real world, the Mission will always demand FAR MORE.

Your team simply must be able to all perform very well, and be ready and able to exceed expectations, or the Mission fails.

So, yeah, even in 1E D&D, Wizards are always very welcome, and an excellent asset--but they still must be able to do all the basic physical challenges and wilderness survival and movement required of everyone on the team.

There is no room for the weak, the fat, the slow, the stupid, or the crippled.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Shark, do you allow players to re-roll characters if they get lousy stats?  Or are you in the “3d6, straight-down-the-line-and-you’ll-take-what-you-get-and-like-it” camp?

Slipshot762

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 480
Re: Are AD&D magic users implausibly weak?
« Reply #4 on: Today at 05:34:30 PM »
Paradox wizard; at once a 1d4 one hit wonder while also being the wise Pharoh of classes looking down on the fighters from the safety of a rope trick spell. Their abilities from our perspective are implausible to begin with and it almost feels like a patch attempt by software developers to portray them as physically weak to offset the cheat codes they accumulate.

I never took Gandalf in the lotr movies as physically weak since he fought with a sword and staff despite being old and looking like homeless magneto, and I seem to recall way back when I read the hobbit in like 5th grade that he used a sword on goblins in goblin town.

Non-wizards require magic items (which are largely dependent upon the willingness of wizards to create) to approach the power of puny wizards who gain skill in their craft, and you'd think that once you were wizard enough do such things that you'd use magic to not be puny anymore, or ugly for that matter.

Many contradictions with wizards arise upon examination of these things unless we assume a sort of sliding scale of magical availability across these stories which is then not really reflected properly by game mechanics. For example the game pretty much gives the wizard free reload of magic daily or with some rest period, whereas in the assorted literature there may be much less renewable magical powers or powers which face limitations such as not being able to cast the same spell more than once within a certain amount of time. Literature also features often enough it seems dial-a-yield magic use that was largely not featured mechanically until the end of 2e, start of 3e, with such things as meta-magic feats.

pawsplay

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • p
  • Posts: 810
Re: Are AD&D magic users implausibly weak?
« Reply #5 on: Today at 05:46:50 PM »
I mean, kind of. There is no reason they would wear robes instead of traveling clothes, either. If you look at fictional wizards, most of them are good in a fight, most of them have good general adventuring skills, and over half of them use swords. The d4 hit die guy that can't use a shield and spear to save his life is a bit of a comedy character.