PDA

View Full Version : Wizard, Cleric, And Druid



Baltor
2010-01-23, 03:06 PM
I have a friend that is truely ignorant to the ways of D&D even though he has been playing since second edition. He insists that fighters, the most underpowered characters in the game, are the most op. I tried to explain that Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are the holy trinity of D&D, but he will not listen. The sad thing is he usually plays a wizard and still does not get it. So I was wanting some advise on how to explain that fighters are generaly useless once wizards gain access to their high level spells. he just keeps fixating on direct damage per round as his explanation.

Eloel
2010-01-23, 03:07 PM
Make him do a 1v1 with any of the trio, at any level he wishes. Triumph him with as many ways as you have levels. (20 ways at L20, 3 ways at L3, you get the idea...)

Fawsto
2010-01-23, 03:12 PM
Would not quite work... People will deny to see what they don't... This would just cause a rant...

What kind of wizard does he play?

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-23, 03:14 PM
I have a friend that is truely ignorant to the ways of D&D even though he has been playing since second edition. He insists that fighters, the most underpowered characters in the game, are the most op. I tried to explain that Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are the holy trinity of D&D, but he will not listen. The sad thing is he usually plays a wizard and still does not get it. So I was wanting some advise on how to explain that fighters are generaly useless once wizards gain access to their high level spells. he just keeps fixating on direct damage per round as his explanation.

Who cares what he thinks?

sparky22
2010-01-23, 03:26 PM
Who cares what he thinks?

This.

As long as he's enjoying the game and isn't disruptive then it makes no difference whether he's playing an optimized character or not or what classes he think are overpowered compared to others.

Seffbasilisk
2010-01-23, 03:28 PM
Expanding further upon that...

If his big go-to is damage per round, and you show him that wizards and such can do more...odds are you just lost your meatshield player.

If it makes him happy, that's the real point of the game. If everyone wants to play wizards, it's a much different game (and much trickier for a DM to run with.)

Edit: If logic's not your big thing, optimize a warmage. Spank him in direct damage. Then show him the dozens of threads that put warmage at the very bottom of the arcane casting tier.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-23, 03:39 PM
he usually plays a wizard

Not much risk of losing a meatshield.
But really, what's the point? Best-case scenario, you're right and you feel smug. Worst-case scenario, this turns into a bitter feud that cracks the group in half. Second-to-worst-case scenario, God Wizard ruins your game.

Dr.Epic
2010-01-23, 03:58 PM
I have a friend that is truely ignorant to the ways of D&D even though he has been playing since second edition. He insists that fighters, the most underpowered characters in the game, are the most op. I tried to explain that Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are the holy trinity of D&D, but he will not listen. The sad thing is he usually plays a wizard and still does not get it. So I was wanting some advise on how to explain that fighters are generaly useless once wizards gain access to their high level spells. he just keeps fixating on direct damage per round as his explanation.

Show him with a smack down. Tell him to make a level 15 fighter and you make level 15 wizard, cleric, or druid and once he's beaten he'll have to say he was wrong.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-23, 03:59 PM
Yeah, if only people worked that way.

Flickerdart
2010-01-23, 04:14 PM
Or ask him to make 20 Fighters, one of each level, and you make 20 Wizards. The loser of a duel gets to use the next level of their character. First to hit Epic levels loses.

Morty
2010-01-23, 04:29 PM
I agree that if he's not reacting to arguments, there's no point in making any demonstrations. As long as he's not disrupting anything, let him belive what he belives.

mostlyharmful
2010-01-23, 04:47 PM
point out to him that the casters are also the more fun classes, melee get one trick per build, skillmonkies generally get a couple things they can do well and casters get to redesign their class features daily (except Sorcs who WotC hate)

Temotei
2010-01-23, 04:48 PM
Monks are weaker than fighters. Just saying.

And Pharaoh's Fist is right.

Irreverent Fool
2010-01-23, 04:49 PM
I had more fun with D&D when my friends and I just played what seemed cool rather than optimizing. Don't burst his bubble unless he starts complaining about feeling weak.

obnoxious
sig

Yuki Akuma
2010-01-23, 04:49 PM
I have never understood these "help me convince my friend that he's wrong!" threads. Why do you care so much?

Darrin
2010-01-23, 07:43 PM
I have never understood these "help me convince my friend that he's wrong!" threads. Why do you care so much?

Obligatory XKCD reference. (http://xkcd.com/386/)

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-23, 07:47 PM
Say, out of curiosity, and as long as this thread is still here, how many books in addition to core does your friend like to play with?

EnnPeeCee
2010-01-23, 07:52 PM
Just have him spend some time here on the forums. Before I started reading posts here, I probably would've said that Monks were the most powerful, based on the number of NWN2 builds that use them.

Devils_Advocate
2010-01-23, 07:54 PM
So I was wanting some advise on how to explain that fighters are generaly useless once wizards gain access to their high level spells. he just keeps fixating on direct damage per round as his explanation.
Ask him for a scenario in which he claims a Fighter is superior to a Wizard. Have a DM draw up the scenario. Run a Wizard (or Cleric or Druid -- whichever he considers weakest) that you built through it and then have him run a Fighter that he built through it.

Bonus points for only using core material. Even more bonus points the less cheese you use.


I have never understood these "help me convince my friend that he's wrong!" threads. Why do you care so much?
Why does anyone care about anything? Beats me; I ain't no psychologist. But I know what I like.

herrhauptmann
2010-01-23, 07:55 PM
I have a friend that is truely ignorant to the ways of D&D even though he has been playing since second edition. He insists that fighters, the most underpowered characters in the game, are the most op. I tried to explain that Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are the holy trinity of D&D, but he will not listen. The sad thing is he usually plays a wizard and still does not get it. So I was wanting some advise on how to explain that fighters are generaly useless once wizards gain access to their high level spells. he just keeps fixating on direct damage per round as his explanation.

He probably started believing that in 2nd edition. Perhaps the DM at the time hated wizards, so they never really got the opportunity to learn new spells, causing them to lag behind in power SIGNIFICANTLY. Say only 3rd level spells as a 11th level wizard.
Plus since in AD&D everyone had different XP amounts at each level, and gained changes to their saves at different levels, would probably have contributed.

So how is his preference hurting your playing of the game? Do you go to him between games and ask for his help in pulling off a combo by choosing a particular spell at his next level up? If everyone's always doing their own thing within the party, does it matter was his preference is?

Primehunter74
2010-01-23, 08:05 PM
Fighters are the meatshield of the party. Without them, wizards have nothing to protect them and die quickly. Every party needs a fighter, but that doesn't mean they are ultimate.

In the party i'm currently in, we have a fighter. Sure, he gets plenty of kills, but without our sorcerer and our cleric (me) he would have been mowed down. Wizards need a fighter, just as fighters need a wizard.

faceroll
2010-01-23, 08:08 PM
Fighters are the meatshield of the party. Without them, wizards have nothing to protect them and die quickly. Every party needs a fighter, but that doesn't mean they are ultimate.

In the party i'm currently in, we have a fighter. Sure, he gets plenty of kills, but without our sorcerer and our cleric (me) he would have been mowed down. Wizards need a fighter, just as fighters need a wizard.

It really depends on the level of play.

Flickerdart
2010-01-23, 08:09 PM
Fighters are the meatshield of the party. Without them, wizards have nothing to protect them and die quickly. Every party needs a fighter, but that doesn't mean they are ultimate.
Mirror Image, Blur, Invisibility, Fly, Phantom Steed, Planar Binding, the list goes on. Casters don't need Fighters. Now, a Knight that can actually force enemies to attack him and not the squishy man with the funny hat, that's a tank. A Fighter is not.

Primehunter74
2010-01-23, 08:11 PM
I'm mostly talking low levels. Still though, a fighter can be fun to play at higher levels, they'll need help, but they can rip through enemies just as easily as a wizard. Plus, some monsters wont be harmed by spells, and thus a caster is useless.

Flickerdart
2010-01-23, 08:12 PM
I'm mostly talking low levels. Still though, a fighter can be fun to play at higher levels, they'll need help, but they can rip through enemies just as easily as a wizard. Plus, some monsters wont be harmed by spells, and thus a caster is useless.
SR is a joke, saves can be bypassed, Magic Immunity isn't. However, a wad of HP stops a sword just as well on any level.

faceroll
2010-01-23, 08:18 PM
Mirror Image, Blur, Invisibility, Fly, Phantom Steed, Planar Binding, the list goes on. Casters don't need Fighters. Now, a Knight that can actually force enemies to attack him and not the squishy man with the funny hat, that's a tank. A Fighter is not.

A fighter (class that deals lots of damage without consuming resources) is helpful at almost every level of play.


SR is a joke, saves can be bypassed, Magic Immunity isn't. However, a wad of HP stops a sword just as well on any level.

Yeah, waste of resources. If you prepare a single orb spell or SoD, you're probably doing it wrong.

Primehunter74
2010-01-23, 08:18 PM
Meh, i know a way to make a fighter weild a colossal weapon, which may be better than a flimsy little sword. In all truth though, flickerdart, I support casters, clerics being my favortie.

Flickerdart
2010-01-23, 08:27 PM
A fighter (class that deals lots of damage without consuming resources) is helpful at almost every level of play. Yeah, waste of resources. If you prepare a single orb spell or SoD, you're probably doing it wrong.
The Fighter will run out of HP long before a Wizard runs out of spells. Orb spells and SoDs are definitely not "playing it wrong", either in the usefulness department, or in the "fun" sense. Also? Reserve feats, summons, etc. This has been gone over a thousand times in the many threads on Fighter VS Wizard endurance, and the Fighter is never up to par.

Colossal weapons aren't as useful as simply cheesing PA multipliers for gazillions of damage. Still, it's hilarious to watch.

Sophismata
2010-01-23, 08:32 PM
A fighter (class that deals lots of damage without consuming resources) is helpful at almost every level of play.

Sadly, hitpoints count as a resource.

Primehunter74
2010-01-23, 08:37 PM
I know the colossal weapon thing isn't ultimate, it's just fun. Who wouldn't want to be able to pick up a pillar and swing it at something?

faceroll
2010-01-23, 08:38 PM
The Fighter will run out of HP long before a Wizard runs out of spells.

HP only costs 1.5 gp per point. And again, it really depends on what level you're playing at.


Orb spells and SoDs are definitely not "playing it wrong", either in the usefulness department, or in the "fun" sense.

It is in the efficiency department, though. Orbs require an enormous amount of character focus to make viable, when you could have just let your charger friend rush it for over nine thousand. SoDs are only good if you're facing monsters that come straight from the monster manual. If they have even a modicum of optimization, you're much better off with save-and-still lose, no save effects, battlefield control, summoning, or making your fighter invincible.


Also? Reserve feats, summons, etc. This has been gone over a thousand times in the many threads on Fighter VS Wizard endurance, and the Fighter is never up to par.

Wizard + Fighter at levels one through ten, in my experience, seems to be able to get more done than wizard + wizard or fighter + fighter. Stuff like Black Tentacles or Solid Fog or a Summoned Huge Fiendish Centipede work best when you have some one to clean up. Having to nova in every fight to fill every class roll just isn't efficient.

Flickerdart
2010-01-23, 08:47 PM
HP only costs 1.5 gp per point. And again, it really depends on what level you're playing at.

What, with Wands that the Fighters can't use, with Potions that are expensive and waste combat rounds, or with what? And no, it doesn't: at every level before Heal, getting your face raped in is an issue, and after Heal you still need a Cleric that prepared it. A Cleric that can melee much better than the Fighter.



It is in the efficiency department, though. Orbs require an enormous amount of character focus to make viable, when you could have just let your charger friend rush it for over nine thousand. SoDs are only good if you're facing monsters that come straight from the monster manual. If they have even a modicum of optimization, you're much better off with save-and-still lose, no save effects, battlefield control, summoning, or making your fighter invincible.

I don't think that "a modicum of optimization" means all high saves and artificially heightened WIS, DEX and CON. AC is much easier to boost than those, anyway, while Touch AC is not. Charging also requires enormous character focus to make work. And even if all the things you say somehow do make your SoX spells useless, you yourself provide the plethora of other things the Wizard can do, one of which is making your own meatshield. On the other hand, a high AC, DR, or simply staying out of range means the Fighter is helpless.



Wizard + Fighter at levels one through ten, in my experience, seems to be able to get more done than wizard + wizard or fighter + fighter. Stuff like Black Tentacles or Solid Fog or a Summoned Huge Fiendish Centipede work best when you have some one to clean up. Having to nova in every fight to fill every class roll just isn't efficient.
Coup de Grace with a scythe after a SoD or SoL spell does the trick at most early levels. Plus, the incredible versatility of two spell loadouts far beats anything a Fighter can bring to the table. Having to nova every encounter? "You're doing it wrong".

faceroll
2010-01-23, 09:08 PM
What, with Wands that the Fighters can't use, with Potions that are expensive and waste combat rounds, or with what? And no, it doesn't: at every level before Heal, getting your face raped in is an issue, and after Heal you still need a Cleric that prepared it. A Cleric that can melee much better than the Fighter.

A druid, artificer, rogue, warlock, cleric, or archivist can use a wand of lesser vigor without having to cross-class UMD. Hell, a wizard with a level in loremaster can heal the fighter up. If it's *really* an issue, the fighter can put ranks in UMD and do it out of battle.

Furthermore, if you're doing your job as a wizard, the fighter really shouldn't be getting hit all that much. Being able to completely control the battlefield is so much better than throwing a couple orbs that you're surprisingly likely to miss with. Tower shields are also awesome. Whip one of those babies out while you regroup and the wizard makes the battlefield a little more favorful.

quote]I don't think that "a modicum of optimization" means all high saves and artificially heightened WIS, DEX and CON. AC is much easier to boost than those, anyway, while Touch AC is not. Charging also requires enormous character focus to make work. And even if all the things you say somehow do make your SoX spells useless, you yourself provide the plethora of other things the Wizard can do, one of which is making your own meatshield. On the other hand, a high AC, DR, or simply staying out of range means the Fighter is helpless.[/quote]

No, I mean with an SoD, it's hit or miss. If you're burning your highest level spell slots for a 60% chance of incapacitating a monster, you still stand a pretty good chance of blowing 3 spells in a row with no effect. I would much rather use my spell slots for stuff other party members can't do. Everyone can kill stuff. Not everyone can teleport and fly and turn invisible and haste and get everyone super pumped up. Once you hit level 8, you're better off loading most of your slots with buffs and persisting them on the party. The efficiency is just spectacular.

A good charger really isn't that hard to build. If you've got a lot of fighter or psywar levels, you've got feats pouring out of you ears. A level of pounce barbarian is virtually necessary, of course.


Coup de Grace with a scythe after a SoD or SoL spell does the trick at most early levels. Plus, the incredible versatility of two spell loadouts far beats anything a Fighter can bring to the table. Having to nova every encounter? "You're doing it wrong".

I've played many low level, multiple wizard parties. You can do it; blasting two sleeps or color sprays per encounter is definitely sweet. But you are also incredibly squishy, and since we tend to play focused specialists, there's not a whole lot of great offensive spells we can fill our 3 bonus slots with at levels 1-3 (preferring conjuration or transmutation). But then, everyone at levels 1-3 is hilariously fragile. At levels 1-3, you are going to burn through resources very quickly (except for abrupt jaunts).

I'm talking mid-low range, before your DM gets pissed off at your planar binding abuse, and after you move out of the "dire rats are dangerous" area.

Having a dedicated hit stuff guy is great. Whether it's a DMM cleric, a druid, a barbarian, rogue, or fighter, someone to actually land killing blows on stuff is great. Until you get calling or souped up minions through necromancy, it's most efficient for you to put out 1-2 spells/battle and let the party clean up everything as it drags itself out of your control spells.

Personally, I've never had a lot of luck with summoned monsters. It's slow and obvious to do, and your summons suck without a lot of dedication.

Flickerdart
2010-01-23, 09:18 PM
60%? If you're hitting the weak save, you should have something more like an 85% chance.
Dedicated hit-guy is good, yes, but in a party of two mans, I'd prefer if both were Wizards.
Being able to do clean-up doesn't make the Fighter a very good or interesting role or class, and again, the Cleric can do it better. Yes, with three other people in the party pampering the Fighter, he can contribute, but without the pampering? Not so much.

Kylarra
2010-01-23, 09:19 PM
Well, if we're talking a two man party, I'd rather have a druid than a second wizard, maybe two of them.

Flickerdart
2010-01-23, 09:21 PM
Well, if we're talking a two man party, I'd rather have a druid than a second wizard, maybe two of them.
Well, yes, of course. Druids rule. But that's because they're both a beatstick and a caster. The caster-ness is just better as a separate asset than is the beatstick-ness.

faceroll
2010-01-23, 09:22 PM
Well, if we're talking a two man party, I'd rather have a druid than a second wizard, maybe two of them.

Yeah, definitely. At any level, I'd rather have a druid than just about anything. They're like 3 fighters + a cleric. It's insane.

deuxhero
2010-01-23, 09:25 PM
Play a generalist wizard and offer to duel him and defeat him with one spell.

Like
Levels 1-5:Sleep or color spray

faceroll
2010-01-23, 09:34 PM
60%? If you're hitting the weak save, you should have something more like an 85% chance.

Granted, if you know what the weak save is (if they have one), and if they're played straight out of the monster manual. A cloak, a class level, and an elite array means +3 to their weak save.


Dedicated hit-guy is good, yes, but in a party of two mans, I'd prefer if both were Wizards.

Wizard & rogue, at low levels (5 or lower), is better. Rogue can sneak well, and a kobold, gnome, or halfling wizard can also sneak competently. IMO, anyway. Assuming a 4 person party, it's good to have at least one guy who is good at hitting things.


Being able to do clean-up doesn't make the Fighter a very good or interesting role or class,

You keep changing the goal posts, mang. I've never made any of those claims. I'm just saying at almost half the levels of play (and of actual levels played, probably the bulk of the game), there is a very definite role for that tier of melee.


and again, the Cleric can do it better.

It really depends on the level, again. Once you get unfettered access to night sticks, definitely. But that's about the break point of the game- the wizard will be getting lesser planar binding in a level or two.

At low levels, all those feats are awesome on a fighter. Heck, a halfling on a riding dog getting to do 3x damage at level two is AWESOMESAUCE.

The problem with feats as a class feature is that they don't scale as well as wildshape or spell casting.


Yes, with three other people in the party pampering the Fighter, he can contribute, but without the pampering? Not so much.

It's not pampering- it's efficient spell & action usage. The fighter, with his suite of feats and ability to pounce, rage, trip, grapple, charge, and do lots of damage benefits far more from the cleric's buffs than the cleric does. Once combat begins, the cleric, having a much wider repertoire of abilities to respond to problems, is better off doing that than wasting actions hitting things. Casting dispel magic or throwing out walls or blasting restorations will benefit the party better.

Of course, I'm ignoring a druid that turns into a bear, has his pet dinosaur charge into battle loaded with lolpwn personal buffs, then summons 1d3 greenbound creatures. Then he throws out insane BC spells and debuffs, before mopping up while flying in a tornado blasting lasers out of his eyes.

Douglas
2010-01-23, 09:39 PM
while flying in a tornado blasting lasers out of his eyes.
It's lightning, not lasers. Get it right.:smalltongue:

Primehunter74
2010-01-23, 10:13 PM
I say let wizards cast their magic missles and let the fighers stab with their pointy swords. Each class was made for a reason. Fighters can be effective as can wizards. Indeed a wizard at higher levels can pretty much be his own party, but were's the fun in that? A fighter might not be able to tear a high level monster to bits, but thats what team work is for. Heck, the two classes were practically made for each other.

elonin
2010-01-23, 10:27 PM
From the OP the question stated that the player often plays wizards but thinks that fighters are better. What style of wizard does he play and does he do passing good at it?

Just to play devils advocate (as I love to play wizards) they get some great spells but as Belkar noted some time back "I've got to remember not to <upset> V until she's out of spells". Without their spells wizards are peasants with decent will saves and nifty magic items.

Of course this would never be seen by a group that plays by the recomended EL appropriate 4 encounter adventurers.

The Glyphstone
2010-01-23, 10:43 PM
From the OP the question stated that the player often plays wizards but thinks that fighters are better. What style of wizard does he play and does he do passing good at it?

Just to play devils advocate (as I love to play wizards) they get some great spells but as Belkar noted some time back "I've got to remember not to <upset> V until she's out of spells". Without their spells wizards are peasants with decent will saves and nifty magic items.

Of course this would never be seen by a group that plays by the recomended EL appropriate 4 encounter adventurers.

Or a group containing a wizard with reserve feats.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-23, 10:45 PM
I'm mostly talking low levels. Still though, a fighter can be fun to play at higher levels, they'll need help, but they can rip through enemies just as easily as a wizard. Plus, some monsters wont be harmed by spells, and thus a caster is useless.

I'll provide a caster, and you provide a fighter. We'll fight CR appropriate challenges and see who cries first.

Sound ok to you?

Flickerdart
2010-01-23, 11:28 PM
Clean-up is a "definite role", sure, faceroll. But just like the Monk's "dragging the party corpses to the healer's" role, it isn't strictly necessary.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-23, 11:40 PM
I'm mostly talking low levels. Still though, a fighter can be fun to play at higher levels, they'll need help, but they can rip through enemies just as easily as a wizard. Plus, some monsters wont be harmed by spells, and thus a caster is useless.

That is absolute bull.


I have proven that a 3rd level Wizard armed with a pair of wands (both of 0 level spells at that) and three castings of Grease and 2 castings of Extended Grease prepared can take down an Iron Golem.

The same can be done to any Golem with Spell Immunity.

Spell Resistance is meaningless to a Wizard starting at midlevels. In fact, only a handful of enemies even have it at the low levels (Karsite, Drow, a few others), and even then it is largely meaningless (save for an Incarnate with SR, in which case the Wizard needs to pack SR: No spells).

Even Big T is not capable of challenging a 3rd level Wizard who prepares Levitate. Hell, add Dragonborn to that and the Wizard can outrun the bastard when the spell wears off using a Glide speed.

waterpenguin43
2010-01-23, 11:42 PM
People just want to here that their favorite classes are best, or that if their losing with one class that that class is bad. It's natural.

magic9mushroom
2010-01-24, 01:51 AM
@faceroll: You seem to be ignoring everything that makes your argument moot. Yes, a Wizard/Fighter combination can be more useful in some circumstances than Wiz/Wiz. But in all those circumstances, better still is Wiz/Clr or Wiz/Drd, except at the really low levels before the Cleric and Druid get Divine Power (7th level) and Wild Shape (5th level to start, 8th level permanent) respectively.

Lycanthromancer
2010-01-24, 01:53 AM
@faceroll: You seem to be ignoring everything that makes your argument moot. Yes, a Wizard/Fighter combination can be more useful in some circumstances than Wiz/Wiz. But in all those circumstances, better still is Wiz/Clr or Wiz/Drd, except at the really low levels before the Cleric and Druid get Divine Power (7th level) and Wild Shape (5th level to start, 8th level permanent) respectively.Or 1st level, with an animal companion.

faceroll
2010-01-24, 02:13 AM
@faceroll: You seem to be ignoring everything that makes your argument moot. Yes, a Wizard/Fighter combination can be more useful in some circumstances than Wiz/Wiz. But in all those circumstances, better still is Wiz/Clr or Wiz/Drd, except at the really low levels before the Cleric and Druid get Divine Power (7th level) and Wild Shape (5th level to start, 8th level permanent) respectively.

My argument is that a class that only does damage, but doesn't have to consume any resources to do it, is helpful at all levels, but especially at levels less than 11. After level 10, you start facing some really nasty stuff and lacking magic will make things pretty rough for you.

You can lock stuff down all day as a wizard, but it's not going to die unless you kill it. Spamming damage spells or summons is just a waste, when 1 to 3 other people in your party specialize in doing damage by making a full attack. A DMM cleric, at level 7, is going to have one, maybe two spells persisted, and not have any of the feats that lets a fighter put out 50+ damage/round. Or the extra damage source that rogues get that also lets them do similar amounts of damage. A druid, of course, is always awesome.

[edit]
If you read the GOD or Batman guides, they explicitly have you relying on your allies to kill stuff. The reason why evocation sucks is because you have a rogue to put haste & greater invisibility on, and a THF barb to put girallon's blessing on, and you don't have to worry about minions because you have solid fog, tentacles, and wind wall. Spending a turn to do some damage, as a wizard, is about the most counter-productive thing you can do.

tyckspoon
2010-01-24, 02:21 AM
My argument is that a class that only does damage, but doesn't have to consume any resources to do it, is helpful at all levels, but especially at levels less than 11. After level 10, you start facing some really nasty stuff and lacking magic will make things pretty rough for you.


While true, it must always be recognized that "class that does damage" does not necessarily or even often equate to "Fighter." The job could be done by most of the skill-based classes, any of the Tome of Battle classes, a Warlock, a psionic class.. any of which will bring more utility and more overall use to the party beyond the Fighter's "knock it over and hit it with my big sharp stick" deal.

faceroll
2010-01-24, 02:35 AM
While true, it must always be recognized that "class that does damage" does not necessarily or even often equate to "Fighter." The job could be done by most of the skill-based classes, any of the Tome of Battle classes, a Warlock, a psionic class.. any of which will bring more utility and more overall use to the party beyond the Fighter's "knock it over and hit it with my big sharp stick" deal.

I've just been using fighter as a generic term to describe anything that is primarily built to do damage and doesn't have full casting. I just realized that I've been pretty ambiguous in explaining that. I thought I explicitly said that in one of my first posts in this thread, but looking back at, it's actually pretty confusing.

A party needs at least one character that can actually kill something. Whether it's a monk or rogue a warblade or some weird ass knowledge devotion archivist build, it's filling the roll of a fighter- the guy who focuses on hitting it until it's dead. A bunch of classes can fill the roll better than the actual fighter class, druid and cleric probably being the biggest offenders, but that doesn't make the roll itself any less valuable. I mean, a cloistered cleric with proper domain selection is a better rogue than the rogue, but how often do you hear people complaining about that?

FMArthur
2010-01-24, 04:56 AM
How do you even get here without knowing the difference between a role and a roll? :smallconfused:

magic9mushroom
2010-01-24, 05:09 AM
Or 1st level, with an animal companion.

Good point. Forgot about that one.


My argument is that a class that only does damage, but doesn't have to consume any resources to do it, is helpful at all levels, but especially at levels less than 11. After level 10, you start facing some really nasty stuff and lacking magic will make things pretty rough for you.

You can lock stuff down all day as a wizard, but it's not going to die unless you kill it. Spamming damage spells or summons is just a waste, when 1 to 3 other people in your party specialize in doing damage by making a full attack. A DMM cleric, at level 7, is going to have one, maybe two spells persisted, and not have any of the feats that lets a fighter put out 50+ damage/round. Or the extra damage source that rogues get that also lets them do similar amounts of damage. A druid, of course, is always awesome.

[edit]
If you read the GOD or Batman guides, they explicitly have you relying on your allies to kill stuff. The reason why evocation sucks is because you have a rogue to put haste & greater invisibility on, and a THF barb to put girallon's blessing on, and you don't have to worry about minions because you have solid fog, tentacles, and wind wall. Spending a turn to do some damage, as a wizard, is about the most counter-productive thing you can do.

I would respond to this, except that you then posted this:


I've just been using fighter as a generic term to describe anything that is primarily built to do damage and doesn't have full casting. I just realized that I've been pretty ambiguous in explaining that. I thought I explicitly said that in one of my first posts in this thread, but looking back at, it's actually pretty confusing.

A party needs at least one character that can actually kill something. Whether it's a monk or rogue a warblade or some weird ass knowledge devotion archivist build, it's filling the roll of a fighter- the guy who focuses on hitting it until it's dead. A bunch of classes can fill the roll better than the actual fighter class, druid and cleric probably being the biggest offenders, but that doesn't make the roll itself any less valuable. I mean, a cloistered cleric with proper domain selection is a better rogue than the rogue, but how often do you hear people complaining about that?

So, the entire dispute arose because you used "fighter" as a term including things that people were going to great pains to distinguish from fighters. Nice. :smallannoyed:

But yes, noone's disputing the utility of a beatstick, just the fighter's ability to fill that role.

Which reminds me. "Role" is not spelled "roll".

Bayar
2010-01-24, 05:17 AM
Which reminds me. "Role" is not spelled "roll".

True. Although there is that term: Re-roll.

ken-do-nim
2010-01-24, 06:22 AM
I have a friend that is truely ignorant to the ways of D&D even though he has been playing since second edition. He insists that fighters, the most underpowered characters in the game, are the most op. I tried to explain that Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are the holy trinity of D&D, but he will not listen. The sad thing is he usually plays a wizard and still does not get it. So I was wanting some advise on how to explain that fighters are generaly useless once wizards gain access to their high level spells. he just keeps fixating on direct damage per round as his explanation.

Well how much 3.5E has he played yet? There is definitely a period of unlearning what you thought you knew from 2E before mastering 3.5E.

(and vice versa, I learned that painfully going back from 3.5E to Classic)

Calmar
2010-01-24, 06:54 AM
A wizard is better, simply because he has always prepared the right spells. And hasn't cast anything before. :smalltongue:

magic9mushroom
2010-01-24, 06:59 AM
A wizard is better, simply because he has always prepared the right spells. And hasn't cast anything before. :smalltongue:

Two words: Beholder Mage.

Also, cheesed Tainted Scholars (ie, anyone with an IQ over 80 with a few minutes and some flipping through the book) can get insane amounts of spells and have just about EVERYTHING prepared.