Two questions about class/tier comparisons [a bit of a rant]

[LordBlades]

An "Anything you can do..." character shouldn't be used in most actual play groups because you have to be some kind of jerk to design a character that can outshine the rest of the party unless they play the same thing you do meaning outside of TO this argument is pointless.

Except sometime it's the other way around. Sometimes the jerk is the person brings an uunderpowered character in a high optimization party and practically becomes dead weight, soaking up XP and treasure while not contributing at all because most likely everyone is better than him at what the underpowered character is supposed to be good at.

If you're planning to bring a fighter in a party that already has a melee CoDzilla, then it's worth noting that anything you can do the CoDzilla does better.

[Invader]

I think the biggest problem as some other people have mentioned isn't that it devolves into an arena match it's that most of the time the questions posed are so vague people have to go to a place where there's some semblance of common ground to try and determine something that has so many characteristics.

More often or not the question is something like who's spell list is better a druid or a cleric.

Honestly that question can't really be answered because no matter what you say the other class is going to have some way to counter that emphasis should be put on the OP to pose a question that provides a little bit of structure.

"I'm going to be playing in a campaign between levels 3-6 and I'd like to know if a cleric or a druid has more straight damage dealing spells and which of those spells are most effective at no allowing saving throws, hitting the most enemies, bypassing SR, etc".

"I really want to my character to focus on solely buffing the party in combat with everything else being secondary. Our party has a ranger, fighter, and a warlock. Between the cleric and the wizard who has better buffing spells that compliment those classes at around level 12".

IF OP's weren't so infuriatingly vague the playground wouldn't have to jump to so many conclusions to support their argument.

[Engine]

Except sometime it's the other way around. Sometimes the jerk is the person brings an uunderpowered character in a high optimization party and practically becomes dead weight, soaking up XP and treasure while not contributing at all because most likely everyone is better than him at what the underpowered character is supposed to be good at.

If you're planning to bring a fighter in a party that already has a melee CoDzilla, then it's worth noting that anything you can do the CoDzilla does better.

That's another valid point I could agree upon.
My current group has an Oracle of Lore, a Barbarian and a Ranger. The Oracle provides the occasional healing spell, but mostly he uses crowd control & buffing spells, the Barbarian is pure damage and the Ranger drains the party resources. The group isn't optimized a lot (and we're facing mostly humans with levels in Rogue at the moment), yet the Ranger can't contribute in a meaningful way during fights. I'm not saying that this character should be put in an arena with a Cod-Zilla, but even with another Ranger with a slightly better build would point out that this character is just dead weight for the group.

[Salanmander]

An "Anything you can do..." character shouldn't be used in most actual play groups because you have to be some kind of jerk to design a character that can outshine the rest of the party unless they play the same thing you do meaning outside of TO this argument is pointless.

I think that the proposed argument wasn't about a specific character, but rather about classes in general. Take for example monk and unarmed swordsage. If, for EVERY thing that the monk can do, you could show that the unarmed swordsage can do the same thing, but BETTER, that pretty solidly shows that the swordsage is a better class than the monk.

(Note that this is different from an unarmed swordsage and a monk playing in the same party and one deliberately outshining the other, it's more like deciding which one to play as when you're creating a semimystic fistpuncher.)

[Gamer Girl]

I think that the proposed argument wasn't about a specific character, but rather about classes in general. Take for example monk and unarmed swordsage. If, for EVERY thing that the monk can do, you could show that the unarmed swordsage can do the same thing, but BETTER, that pretty solidly shows that the swordsage is a better class than the monk.

I always hate the 'better class' idea. It's bad enough that this mostly talks about pure combat, but it's bad enough in general. It comes from the idea that in order to use an ability to has to be automatically successful, or it's useless. This is the type of character that has like +20 in a skill so they don't even need to roll to do things.

Mostly this is about pure combat and pure numbers though. Oh a monk can 'only' do 16 points of damage on a hit, but a swordsage can do 20 points a damage and cast a spell(that they don't call a spell, wink,wink). So going by that: one character makes an attack, and one character makes an attack and casts a spell(but not a spell), then the second one is better.

And then you just get to nitpick things. One character can stun for 10 rounds. But the other character casts a 'fake spell' and does 1d8 damage and moves everyone 1d6 squares and disrupts time or something.

And it's odd that the better class idea never really takes into account game play, other then combat. "A dragon? I use my swordsage spell that is not a spell to do 100d10 cool ability spell effect'' But then take a normal game role playing problem, like the duke is disrupting the king's hunt, and that swordsage can't do anything "Oh, um, I can use a spell(wink, wink) to become an awesome dire bear and to 100d100 coolZ damage...um, but can't think of anything to do to the duke''.

[LordBlades]

Except the swordsage has, you know, less MAD and more skills, therefore being potentially able to contribute much more in the aforemetioned situation than the monk.

Player creativity has jack **** to do with what you're playing.

[ThiagoMartell]

Mostly this is about pure combat and pure numbers though. Oh a monk can 'only' do 16 points of damage on a hit, but a swordsage can do 20 points a damage and cast a spell(that they don't call a spell, wink,wink). So going by that: one character makes an attack, and one character makes an attack and casts a spell(but not a spell), then the second one is better.

My spidersense is tingling and I believe you don't like Swordsages;

[Engine]

And it's odd that the better class idea never really takes into account game play, other then combat. "A dragon? I use my swordsage spell that is not a spell to do 100d10 cool ability spell effect'' But then take a normal game role playing problem, like the duke is disrupting the king's hunt, and that swordsage can't do anything "Oh, um, I can use a spell(wink, wink) to become an awesome dire bear and to 100d100 coolZ damage...um, but can't think of anything to do to the duke''.

I'm trying to figure out what your point is.

[eggs]

But then take a normal game role playing problem, like the duke is disrupting the king's hunt, and that swordsage can't do anything "Oh, um, I can use a spell(wink, wink) to become an awesome dire bear and to 100d100 coolZ damage...um, but can't think of anything to do to the duke''.

As a heads-up, this is usually exactly the argument that establishes the Swordsage and Warblade as better classes than the Monk or Fighter. (The Fighter can be built to outdamage the Warblade; it's the Warblade's flexibility that really plays to its advantage.)

[Studoku]

I always hate the 'better class' idea. It's bad enough that this mostly talks about pure combat, but it's bad enough in general. It comes from the idea that in order to use an ability to has to be automatically successful, or it's useless. This is the type of character that has like +20 in a skill so they don't even need to roll to do things.

Mostly this is about pure combat and pure numbers though. Oh a monk can 'only' do 16 points of damage on a hit, but a swordsage can do 20 points a damage and cast a spell(that they don't call a spell, wink,wink). So going by that: one character makes an attack, and one character makes an attack and casts a spell(but not a spell), then the second one is better.

And then you just get to nitpick things. One character can stun for 10 rounds. But the other character casts a 'fake spell' and does 1d8 damage and moves everyone 1d6 squares and disrupts time or something.

And it's odd that the better class idea never really takes into account game play, other then combat. "A dragon? I use my swordsage spell that is not a spell to do 100d10 cool ability spell effect'' But then take a normal game role playing problem, like the duke is disrupting the king's hunt, and that swordsage can't do anything "Oh, um, I can use a spell(wink, wink) to become an awesome dire bear and to 100d100 coolZ damage...um, but can't think of anything to do to the duke''.

Were your parents killed by swordsages? You seem to have a grudge against them.

[navar100]

Whereas 'Schroedinger's wizard' is theoretical, it's not very far from the reality of practical gameplay (assuming smart play from the wizard).

First of all, full casters can be proactive. As a non-caster, you're more or less forced to follow the plot line. If you're in point A and want to get to point B, you have to follow the route the DM has built between points A and B. A caster is not bound by these restrictions. He can straight-line fly to point B, teleport there or even skip directly to C since he doesn't really need to pass by point B in order to get there. Often, the wizard isn't perfectly prepared to face situation X because he just happened to be, he's perfectly prepared because he went looking for situation X specifically.

Consider the following situation: a character arrives in town, and hears there's a hydra terrorizing the population in the swamps, about one week's walk from it. The fighter can wake up next morning, say to himself 'I'm going to slay the hydra' and buy whatever stuff he feel he'd need for that (he can't customize anything more than item). Even if he's well prepared to face a hydra, he still needs to walk for a week until he gets there, exposing himself to numerous more-or-less random encounters he has no prior idea about. What if the wizard wakes up saying to himself 'I'm going to slay a hydra'? He prepares as many divination&scrying spells as needed to get a good feeling for what he'll be op against, then next morning prepares his spell list accordingly. He teleports in, full of anti-hydra spells, slays the hydra and is back before lunch.

Secondly, casters have divinations. There's virtually no way for a non-caster to know the future, whereas a full caster, depending on what's acceptable at the table can get anything from general tips to fully customizable spell lists for tomorrow.

And third, it's very hard to make a wizard fight unprepared. Even if you somehow manage to inconvenience him, he can usually just leave, and come back for you when he's prepared (that might mean even as soon as a few minutes). Encounters that can both put the wizard at a disadvantage and stop him from leaving are few, and usually involve other wizards.

That's a question of versatility. It's not about versatility. On paper, spellcasters can do anything. I have not denied that. That's the point; it's only on paper. Given any problem, you can find some published work that provides the spells and feats to solve it. However, for an actual game, the spellcaster has a specific build. Still powerful and versatile, choosing a spell or feat means not choosing another spell or feat. The spellcaster cannot have everything.

[Eldariel]

Same Game Test is what most char ops veterans I know use for relevant class vs. class comparisons. The idea is to take a few break off points, generate a versatile array of challenges of appropriate CRs (5-10 challenges generally suffices) and see how the class fares against each of them.

[eggs]

That's a question of versatility. It's not about versatility. On paper, spellcasters can do anything. I have not denied that. That's the point; it's only on paper. Given any problem, you can find some published work that provides the spells and feats to solve it. However, for an actual game, the spellcaster has a specific build. Still powerful and versatile, choosing a spell or feat means not choosing another spell or feat. The spellcaster cannot have everything.

This conversation is lacking some context. Are we talking about the kinds of arena matches that crop up in threads like those that try to establish the Monk as a caster-killer?

Because in those cases, it does make sense to assume the Wizard is specifically prepared for a scenario. Not because every Wizard will be (or even because any Wizard will be), but because any Wizard can be. It establishes the worst-case scenario that the Monk (or Swordsage/Cleric/ Psi-gish/whatever) will need to be able to address in order to be reliably effective in its intended role.

[moritheil]

I always hate the 'better class' idea. It's bad enough that this mostly talks about pure combat, but it's bad enough in general. It comes from the idea that in order to use an ability to has to be automatically successful, or it's useless. This is the type of character that has like +20 in a skill so they don't even need to roll to do things.

I would say that arena combat and violence actually play to the strengths of the fighter (such as they are.)

The main advantage a primary caster like a druid, wizard, or psion has is player agency. With spells, they can shape the world around them. A fighter can maybe intimidate people outside of combat, but that's about it. The cleric can go cure the sick and heal the wounded, stop a famine, and raise the dead. The wizard can make permanent walls of fire, or raise an army of undead, or dominate/charm an obnoxious tyrant into doing the right thing. All of these things change history, and we're talking pre-level 10 here. The fighter just hits people harder, mostly affecting history by the inability of those he or she kills to continue to affect it.

The rogue, with lots of stealth and social skills, does also have some out of combat agency, but it tends to be limited. A rogue could probably do the tyrant-convincing detailed above, but not the rest (without recourse to Use Magic Device, which just basically means he/she is burning gold to pretend to be a wiz or cleric.)

To add to that, once the out of combat stuff is over, the cleric and smash heads in better than the fighter can. It's not like a wizard or cleric is prevented from interacting with hit point damage when it would be advantageous; they just don't have to. They have far more options.

[Fatebreaker]

I always hate the 'better class' idea. It's bad enough that this mostly talks about pure combat, but it's bad enough in general. It comes from the idea that in order to use an ability to has to be automatically successful, or it's useless. This is the type of character that has like +20 in a skill so they don't even need to roll to do things.

Mostly this is about pure combat and pure numbers though. Oh a monk can 'only' do 16 points of damage on a hit, but a swordsage can do 20 points a damage and cast a spell(that they don't call a spell, wink,wink). So going by that: one character makes an attack, and one character makes an attack and casts a spell(but not a spell), then the second one is better.

And then you just get to nitpick things. One character can stun for 10 rounds. But the other character casts a 'fake spell' and does 1d8 damage and moves everyone 1d6 squares and disrupts time or something.

And it's odd that the better class idea never really takes into account game play, other then combat. "A dragon? I use my swordsage spell that is not a spell to do 100d10 cool ability spell effect'' But then take a normal game role playing problem, like the duke is disrupting the king's hunt, and that swordsage can't do anything "Oh, um, I can use a spell(wink, wink) to become an awesome dire bear and to 100d100 coolZ damage...um, but can't think of anything to do to the duke''.

1) Whether the Swordsage abilities are spells or not is totally irrelevant to whether it is or is not better than another class.

2) If you have Class A and Class B, but Class B does everything Class A does and more and does it all better, or does everything just as well but by expending fewer resources, then yes, mechanically it is a better class.

[killianh]

1) Whether the Swordsage abilities are spells or not is totally irrelevant to whether it is or is not better than another class.

2) If you have Class A and Class B, but Class B does everything Class A does and more and does it all better, or does everything just as well but by expending fewer resources, then yes, mechanically it is a better class.

I think the general point she was trying to make was similar to mine in the sense of trying to say that when it comes down to actually playing the game comparing classes for power levels and usefulness is pointless because (like in the example) though a class might be better in damage, there are other components to play that one class isn't going to completely overshadow another in.

I also think that build style is more important that straight mechanics to the class, and optimization capabilities of the player make arguments over inherent class powers useless. Some would rule wizard better than druid, to them I say Planar Shepard. Hell I used an early entry trick with a human necropolitan Warmage to get into rainbow servant at level two. Using the generally excepted ruling that (because the table and the text differ) that it's a full progression casting class I ended up being level 11 with spontaneous access to the entire cleric spell list. No preparation, just any at any time I feel like. Hence I made a Warmage better than a cleric for casting.

Mechanics of a single class go out the window when you take everything else into account. Different level characters, different levels of optimization, even item selection and feats can completely change how one class stands against another. All of that makes any argument between the power of two classes pointless. For certain things like is the fighter of cleric a better healer that's easy, but I'm sure someone could build a fighter that could keep up.

[Salanmander]

I think the general point she was trying to make was similar to mine in the sense of trying to say that when it comes down to actually playing the game comparing classes for power levels and usefulness is pointless because (like in the example) though a class might be better in damage, there are other components to play that one class isn't going to completely overshadow another in.

I think you may have missed the definition of "anything". If class A can do ANYTHING that class B can do, but better, then class A IS BETTER than class B. Because that "anything" includes all components of play with mechanical backing. There may be situations in which whether you've chosen A or B is irrelevant (complete roleplay, no rolling of dice), but there is never a situation in which choosing B would have been more helpful than choosing A.

(Note: I think these strict comparisons are rare, and not even unarmed swordsage to monk really succeeds in this comparison because there are a few monk abilities that the swordsage can't replicate. In short, this is a very strict way of saying that some classes are better than others, and it can't say anything about a lot of comparisons.)

[LordBlades]

That's a question of versatility. It's not about versatility. On paper, spellcasters can do anything. I have not denied that. That's the point; it's only on paper. Given any problem, you can find some published work that provides the spells and feats to solve it. However, for an actual game, the spellcaster has a specific build. Still powerful and versatile, choosing a spell or feat means not choosing another spell or feat. The spellcaster cannot have everything.

That's true, however, between divinations and the ability to 'fast-forward' to the point of interest in an adventure, a well played wizard will be fighting stuff he's prepared to counter 90% of the time.

[TuggyNE]

IF OP's weren't so infuriatingly vague the playground wouldn't have to jump to so many conclusions to support their argument.

A fair point. However, sometimes the OP really does want a very general comparison between two or more classes; it might be impossible to completely stem the inevitable flood of half-relevant responses, but any ability to better focus the discussion would be useful.

Same Game Test is what most char ops veterans I know use for relevant class vs. class comparisons. The idea is to take a few break off points, generate a versatile array of challenges of appropriate CRs (5-10 challenges generally suffices) and see how the class fares against each of them.

Ah, that's the term I was looking for. Duly noted, and bookmarked a reference to a standard I found (wiki yay...).

This conversation is lacking some context. Are we talking about the kinds of arena matches that crop up in threads like those that try to establish the Monk as a caster-killer?

Not for the most part, no; as previously mentioned, if you're building a caster-killer, a PC caster is a good trial opponent, but if you're building a more general character not so much.

I think the general point she was trying to make was similar to mine in the sense of trying to say that when it comes down to actually playing the game comparing classes for power levels and usefulness is pointless because (like in the example) though a class might be better in damage, there are other components to play that one class isn't going to completely overshadow another in.

To some extent this is true. However, to take an extreme case, a Druid can always outclass a Commoner in animal handling, even though a Commoner technically has a class feature relating to that (Handle Animal as a skill!). In fact, there's nothing class-specific that the Commoner can surpass the Druid in, with the possible exception of Dragon Mag flaws. Therefore, Druid is strictly superior to Commoner as a class; anyone roleplaying successfully as a Commoner could roleplay just as well as a Druid, unless the point was to appear dirt-poor and powerless.

Mechanics of a single class go out the window when you take everything else into account. Different level characters, different levels of optimization, even item selection and feats can completely change how one class stands against another. All of that makes any argument between the power of two classes pointless. For certain things like is the fighter of cleric a better healer that's easy, but I'm sure someone could build a fighter that could keep up.

Given the same resources and approximately equal optimization skill, no, that can't be done. Any items, feats, races, skills, or other resources a Fighter can make use of to heal, a Cleric could also use, and that's before the feats, items, races, skills, and spells that the Cleric would make better use of. I therefore disagree that comparisons are always useless.

[ThiagoMartell]

That's true, however, between divinations and the ability to 'fast-forward' to the point of interest in an adventure, a well played wizard will be fighting stuff he's prepared to counter 90% of the time as long as the DM plays along with his god complex.

Fixed that for you.

[Little Brother]

Re: Schrodinger's Wizard - Uncanny Forethought. A high-level wizard has 30+Int. He has 10+ slots he can leave open. He can cast whatever he really wants as a Full-Round action(Or less). He can tailor his feats at any given day. As in, ALL his feats. They can be totally different on any given day. He can divine(Or Bind/Simulacrum/Ice Assassin a Weird) ANYTHING. He has a faster demiplane, he has time for all this.

Basically, Schrodinger's Wizard isn't far-fetched at all. One really CAN do all of that, and then some.
nB4nohecantcuzdm

[Fatebreaker]

I think the general point she was trying to make was similar to mine in the sense of trying to say that when it comes down to actually playing the game comparing classes for power levels and usefulness is pointless because (like in the example) though a class might be better in damage, there are other components to play that one class isn't going to completely overshadow another in.

Her general point collapses fairly rapidly, because observing what capabilities a class has in any given scenario is fairly easy. Those capabilities are, after all, clearly labeled.

What options does a class have for combat? Damage? Healing? Buffing? Debuffing? Status restoration? Aggro and battlefield control? Terrain alteration? Movement? Summoning? How good is it at each these things? How often can it perform them? What does it cost for one action over another? What resources does it need to expend? Does another class do it better? How much better? If one trick isn't working, what other options are available?

What about non-combat? What skills do they have access to, and how many skill points? How can they resolve stealth scenarios? Social dilemmas? Puzzles? Traps? Travel? As above, each of these has a slew of sub-questions, which aren't too hard to answer if you're willing to sit down and think about it.

What oddball abilities does a class have, and how viable are they? Are they comparable to spells or skills or abilities possessed by other classes? If so, when does each class get their respective ability, and how? How often can it be used? Under what conditions? What challenge does it help the character overcome?

Most of those are fairly easy comparisons to make. Pick a scenario, look at your two classes, and based on their mechanics, rate which one is better able to successfully resolve that scenario. At some level, you're doing that when you decide on your wants and needs and pick a class which meets those. A little extra thought and effort can go a long way.

Mechanics of a single class go out the window when you take everything else into account. Different level characters, different levels of optimization, even item selection and feats can completely change how one class stands against another. All of that makes any argument between the power of two classes pointless. For certain things like is the fighter of cleric a better healer that's easy, but I'm sure someone could build a fighter that could keep up.

Sure, some players will do better or worse than others. But none of that changes what the class itself brings to the table. A Fighter does not gain the ability to fly as a class feature. Favored Soul does (wings), and so does Wizard (spells). The Fighter can buy things that let him fly, but now we're into the whole vibe of him spending gold to recreate class abilities, which is not a winning proposition. And a Wizard who doesn't take advantage of their ability to fly doesn't make the class worse at flying. It means that that individual didn't take flying, and honestly, if you're going to discount the potential abilities of a class based on the failure of an individual to use them, then you've moved from comparing classes to judging players, and that's an entirely different discussion.

At the end of the day, the behavior of the player is a variable, yes, but not to the point where any comparison between clearly printed and easily read mechanics is useless.

To some extent this is true. However, to take an extreme case, a Druid can always outclass a Commoner in animal handling, even though a Commoner technically has a class feature relating to that (Handle Animal as a skill!). In fact, there's nothing class-specific that the Commoner can surpass the Druid in, with the possible exception of Dragon Mag flaws. Therefore, Druid is strictly superior to Commoner as a class; anyone roleplaying successfully as a Commoner could roleplay just as well as a Druid, unless the point was to appear dirt-poor and powerless.

There's a funny other side to this. The Ranger class makes a better Commoner than the Commoner class. My friends and I were figuring out what a town would look like if all the farmers were Rangers and the townsfolk were Rogues, with the slight scattering of other classes to round out specific niches. You had all these NPCs taking PC classes just so they could be better NPCs.

"Welcome to Optimopolis, home of the fightin' Optimizers!"

[LordBlades]

Fixed that for you.

It's not so easy. Apart from other full casters, most things can't shield themseves from neither divinations nor scry&die tactics. Of course if the DM doesn't like or can't cope with this style of gaming he's perfectly justified to ask the player to tone it down (the aim of the game is fun after all), but that doesn't cjange the fact the wizard can mechanically do these things, and it's quite hard to stop him.

[ThiagoMartell]

It's not so easy. Apart from other full casters, most things can't shield themseves from neither divinations nor scry&die tactics. Of course if the DM doesn't like or can't cope with this style of gaming he's perfectly justified to ask the player to tone it down (the aim of the game is fun after all), but that doesn't cjange the fact the wizard can mechanically do these things, and it's quite hard to stop him.

At that level when that happens, every challenge is either another wizard or someone with a wizard sidekick. That's a pretty simple and easy solution. Always a bigger fish.

[Eldariel]

At that level when that happens, every challenge is either another wizard or someone with a wizard sidekick. That's a pretty simple and easy solution. Always a bigger fish.

So didn't you just conclusively prove what we set out to prove?

[ThiagoMartell]

So didn't you just conclusively prove what we set out to prove?

And so what?
You seem to be taking me out of context. I care very little about whatever you're trying to prove, LordBlades just made a broad and incorrect statement and was pointing out why.

[BlueEyes]

At that level when that happens, every challenge is either another wizard or someone with a wizard sidekick. That's a pretty simple and easy solution. Always a bigger fish.

When there's more Wizards than commoners in a campaign it becomes silly.

[Amphetryon]

When there's more Wizards than commoners in a campaign it becomes silly.

Only if the campaign is trying to accurately portray every single person in the world. In a campaign that focuses on the things that are currently important to the Characters, it's entirely viable that the Commoners are not the focal point, or even anything more than background. If the campaign is centered around Wizards, whether in a Wizards' College or an evil cabal set on world domination or whatever, there's no reason you wouldn't deal with more Wizards than Commoners. What would the Commoners provide that advanced the plot, after all?

[Answerer]

Especially between tiers, the arena set up tends to favor lower-tier classes. Higher-tier classes are such largely because of their versatility – which isn't quite as important when you know your job is going to be to bash one guy's face in.

You can optimize a barbarian to deal so much damage that scientific notation is insufficient to write out the number. This is meaningless when the challenge is to find and get to the BBEG, who is hidden away on some random plane that is not your current one, you have no leads, and the BBEG is three days from becoming a god. The wizard has options (even good options) in such a dire circumstance. The barbarian has no options, for all he'd overkill anything susceptible to HP damage.

[ThiagoMartell]

Only if the campaign is trying to accurately portray every single person in the world. In a campaign that focuses on the things that are currently important to the Characters, it's entirely viable that the Commoners are not the focal point, or even anything more than background. If the campaign is centered around Wizards, whether in a Wizards' College or an evil cabal set on world domination or whatever, there's no reason you wouldn't deal with more Wizards than Commoners. What would the Commoners provide that advanced the plot, after all?

This. Also, if players meet more commoners than wizards in a high level game, I think something is wrong.
You don't walk into small towns and get hired by peasants in high level games, you travel to other planes and get asked to help gods.