@Samwise
Your argument relies on a very particular definition of "ordinary warrior," which you have not defined in any real way. Any hint of magical ability, such as using a magical item or seeing in the dark renders one a "mage" by this definition. This, however, in no way conforms to the way the term is used generally, on these forums and ones like it, and in the context of this conversation. Merlin is a magic-user, Frodo is not.
You mean the one that is part of the rules where "ordinary" warriors don't get any spellcasting ability?
Ummm . . . yeah.
You are the one who wants to keep parsing definitions to make half-deities and flavor-texted spellcasters into completely mundane Conan types.
As illustrated below, by your logic Hercules, Acchilles and King Arthur are all mages, gishes, etc. =><=.
Hercules and Achilles are both half-divine, with Achilles getting extra immunity bonuses. Very few "ordinary warriors" are physically incapable of dying from the most lethal poison in existence or simply immune to any injury beyond a hand-sized spot on their foot.
King Arthur is indeed an "ordinary warrior", though I don't particularly recall any of his grand battles against supreme wizards. In fact, I seem to recall he died simply from being outnumbered. How great a warrior does that make him exactly?
Hercules and Achilles both have divine parentages. More intimate than the above Tolkien character, I believe. Therefore, by this logic, they are gishes, etc. They share essentially all the qualities of the Elves listed above due to their divine nature.
Tell you what, break out the rules and apply the half-celestial and G- Blooded templates to a warrior build and then compare them to the same warrior without those templates.
Kinda, sorta, changes things, doesn't it?
It doesn't have to make them a gish to stop them from being an "ordinary" warrior.
Indeed, this definition is capacious. As noted by Samwise, Aragorn is also a "mage" (he has Numenorean parentage).
You mean Aragorn with the whole "the hands of a king are the hands of a healer" who can use athelas to heal wraith-breath?
Certainly Eomer was able to heal Théoden using the exact same inherent ordinary warrior ability. Oh wait, he wasn't.
Mage?
No.
Cleric?
Not exactly.
Spellcasting Ranger or similar partial caster class and/or template or special race above and beyond ordinary warrior?
Absolutely.
King Arthur has what is probably the most famous magical sword in history. By this argument, he is also a gish, magic-user, etc. That is, something other than a warrior. Indeed, even Frodo and Sam are excluded from the ranks of "ordinary warriors."
Yes he does. With the sword that he forged for himself with no magical abilities at all.
No wait, it was given to him by the Lady of the Lake, who of course was a mere ordinary warrior.
I guess not.
(Well, unless you use the version where it was forged by Wayland the Smith, who . . . is an alfar - an elf, and thus magical and spellcasting.)
If Hercules, Achilles, and Arthur don't count as "warriors" then the set of fantasy and mythological and so on warriors is very small indeed. These are iconic warriors of fantasy and myth. If they don't count as something like fantasy warriors, then nothing does.
Hercules and Achilles count as demi-deities, as you acknowledge. They act as warriors, but they are so far beyond the concept within the limits of the game as to be distinctly different.
Arthur is a warrior, albeit a heavily fated one, but with equipment well above his WBL guidelines. To paraphrase Clark's Law, "Any sufficiently advanced WBL equipment is indistinguishable from magic - mostly because it is."
I'm sure if you give me "enough" magic items I can have a 1st level "ordinary" (NPC class even) warrior defeat an epic level CoDzilla. That in no way proves that the warrior was the equal of the wizard, only that his equipment was.
I fail to see how demon summoning is not a spell. There may be some technical usage that you are trying to drive at here, but if so, spell it out.
Was it a spell or a ritual? (More rules parsing!)
Or maybe he just used a device, making him no more than Arthur using a magic sword. In fact, I distinctly recall Thoth Amon relying on a magic ring, looking for a magic crown, and questing for a magic book. (Or were those other Conan wizards in non-REH stories? I can never keep them all straight.) Hmm . . .
Well, you addressed a single one of them and I listed a half dozen. But, whatever.
I haven't read all of them.
Would you like me to break out a dozen references you are unfamiliar with and hold them over you as proof when you cannot reasonably address them?
How about I start with Eddison's The Worm Ourobouros and the magically inclined warrior Demon Lords?
Or I could get modern and go with Correia's Monster Hunters, where the warrior Pitt is both fated and afflicted with extra-planar infusions and has help from warrior friends who actually do get to call on divine intervention and get it and are specifically recognized as distinct because of their faith.
My problem with this argument is that you've assumed your conclusion. You've assumed that the warrior is at an "inherent disadvantage" by virtue of wizard v. warrior. This is the very thing we're debating.
As opposed to you wanting to assert the conclusion that the warrior is not an inherent disadvantage before even debating?
And is he assuming, or reaching a conclusion having considered the available evidence?
The heart of my argument is that not every Level 10 Warrior-type in literature who goes up against a Level 10 Wizard-type is the underdog. Sometimes the Wizard is the underdog. That's what the examples indicate. My contention is that in the literature that the game uses as a jumping off point the Wizard is not necessarily more powerful than Warrior, holding rough levels of power constant.
What examples in what literature that the game uses as a jumping off point?
I've shown that your presentations of Hercules and Achilles are totally invalid based on their being beyond human, that Arthur is invalid because he never fought a wizard, that Aragorn does in fact cast spells as you acknowledge, that Elric is only a warrior because he casts spells, and that Ecthelion is also beyond human. (Did I miss any there?)
But, Erikson's books are a modern example where it's not the case.
They also aren't literature that the game uses as a jumping off point, having been written almost 20 years after the game was created.
By the way, that could be why I don't recognize all the authors you name, as most of my genre reading is of pre-1990s work. (And probably pre-1970s, but I haven't surveyed it for such.)
Perhaps post-modern literature doesn't like warriors always being second-rate, but the classical myth and fantasy that Gygax relied on had an exceptionally strong bias toward the raw might of spellcasters over ordinary warriors in a straight up fight.
P.S.: I don't mind sharp-edged, incisive arguments. And, I only mildly mind being proven wrong. But, I try to keep some modicum of civility. If you aren't up for doing the same, then I won't bother engaging with you further.
Tell you what - you stop with the "poor game design" and "poor writing and lousy storytelling" stuff and I won't have to question your genre expertise.
