PDA

View Full Version : 3.5 fighter vs wizard dabate help



Naturebane
2010-04-23, 11:59 PM
Ok the scenario 2 highly stubborn players have entered the age old debate of fighter vs wizard and gotten rather hostile toward each other. one says that all class' are equile and the other says that the wizard is a lot more powerful.

so i am trying to play the peace keeper by proving to them that both are needed to succeeded but now its gotten to the point where the other 2 players have started talking to me about just dropping the two that are fighting from the game and invite two new players

Do you have any ideas to at least stop arguing during our games ive already had to cut 5 games short and skipped a few games so tempers can clam down with has not worked. Any ideas

taltamir
2010-04-24, 12:06 AM
1. Proving that both are needed is taking the side of the guy who says they are balanced, not a neutral view.
2. Taking a "neutral" point in an argument is neither playing peacekeeper not always right.
3. The guy who says wizards are more powerful is correct.

InkEyes
2010-04-24, 12:06 AM
Person two is right, Wizards are the most powerful class in 3.5 D&D. It's amazing how potent a wimpy book nerd can become with an arbitrarily large spell list.

Still, letting a debate like that interrupt the flow of a game is far from healthy. Warning the two players that the conflict they bring to the table is ruining everyone's fun, and making other people consider kicking them out is probably a good start. If they can't stop arguing over the power levels of Dungeons and Dragons classes long enough to have fun with their friends though, it might be best to find other people who can.

gallagher
2010-04-24, 12:09 AM
show how much a level 20 fighter can do in one attack, assuming that he is power attacking with a two handed weapon.

then show how much a maximized fireball can do to multiple people, and then show how much a couple of different rays can do (since hitting on touch AC is something a fighter cannot do)

then ask the fighter guy how he deals with crowds of people. hit all of them at once? ruin their ability to move? charm them? a wizard can do all of that plus more

oh, and those magic weapons fighters like? needs a wizard to make them. also, what if his +1 flaming greatsword (which gives all of an extra 1d6) is up against something with fire resistance? a wizard would simple either change the energy type with metamagic, or use a different spell.

what about against ghosts and other incorpereal foes? at least wizards get magic missile, which is more helpful than missing half the time.

what about when fighting flying creatures (wizards can fly)? what about when grappled (wizards can stillspell)? what if they are trapped in some sort of jail cell or amongst very strong enemies (wizards can teleport)?

also, wizards get familiars for free. fighters have to take leadership to get someone willing to follow them around. that might not seem like much, but a wizard can share spells and have an emphatic link and all that other crud. a fighter normally dumps charisma so they wont even have the best cohort that they can have.

hope the fighter guy likes alot of feats.

Divide by Zero
2010-04-24, 12:10 AM
Between the polymorph line and summons, a wizard can make the fighter obsolete in a number of ways. In contrast, there are literally thousands of things the wizard can do for which the fighter has no equivalent ability. Versatility is one of the best qualities in a D&D class, possibly second to action economy.

Naturebane
2010-04-24, 12:10 AM
Ok by both needed i meant fighter up to around 5th and wizard well 6th+

Mushroom Ninja
2010-04-24, 12:12 AM
then show how much a maximized fireball can do to multiple people, and then show how much a couple of different rays can do (since hitting on touch AC is something a fighter cannot do)


Erm... blasting is generally considered a relatively weak option. The wizard is much closer to fighter-power when tossing around fireballs instead of BC, Buffs, Debuffs, and summons.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-04-24, 12:15 AM
Ok by both needed i meant fighter early and wizard later

While it is indisputable that things are less unbalanced from levels 1-5 (at least between fighter and wizard, we're not bringing druid into the picture here), it is generally said that wizard is stronger than fighter even at these levels. For evidence, look at the sleep spell.

EDIT: Oops, sorry about the double post.

Naturebane
2010-04-24, 12:33 AM
just thinking it over
get them each to make the following characters using the elite build, human and gp for lvl: 1st fighter, 1st wizard, 10th fighter, 10th wizard, 20th fighter, 20th wizard.
for a arena

book allowed:
phb
complete warrior
complete mage

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-24, 12:36 AM
Let's look at it this way:

Wizard 20. Rather than compare to Fireball, I'm going to compare to an actual good spell. Summon monster 9.

Now, those baddies may not look like a physical match for a fighter. You're right.

However: Let's use it to pull from the Summon Monster 7 list... and for added fun, we'll give the wizard a Greater Rod of Maximize.

Let's Pick a Bone Devil. Now, we get (1d4+1) maximized Bone Devils (5).

Each of those bone devils can drop a 1 foot thick Ice wall (CL 12) every round. In a matter of 1-2 rounds, even with fighter damage, he'll be boxed in.

That one Summon monster spell will yield 5 Ice Walls per round x 20 rounds = 100 Walls of Ice.

On top of what the wizard actually does.

Disjunction will strip away most of a fighter's magic and magic items.

Greater Invisibility will all but neuter him in core.

Dominate Person/Monster as well.

The fighter has damage, and, in many cases, control. He has not the versatility to challenge the wizard in problemsolving or kill ability.

Naturebane
2010-04-24, 12:44 AM
that said the fighter player is going to put up the argument about the: "right feats so he can stand toe to toe with a wizard"

The Glyphstone
2010-04-24, 12:48 AM
...there aren't any?

No, Mage Slayer won't help him. An intelligent wizard doesn't let the fighter into melee reach in the first place.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-24, 12:53 AM
that said the fighter player is going to put up the argument about the: "right feats so he can stand toe to toe with a wizard"

What feats? What feats will get him out of an Ice Tomb?

Or immune to a dominate monster?

Or Slow?

Or Disjunction?

Or Enervate?

Or Maximized Empowered Ray of enfeeblement + Waves of Exhaustion?
(that's 1d3+2.5+11, or 14-16 str, with a -6 exhaustion penalty on top of that)

There's not a counter to all of it.

Superglucose
2010-04-24, 12:58 AM
What feats? What feats will get him out of an Ice Tomb?
Shapechange into a Fire elemental or Dimension Door



Or immune to a dominate monster?
Mindblank



Or Slow?
There's some easy-to-get thing that gives you immunity to slow but it's escaping my mind.



Or Disjunction?

Contingency keyed to a dimension door



Or Enervate?

Or Maximized Empowered Ray of enfeeblement + Waves of Exhaustion?
(that's 1d3+2.5+11, or 14-16 str, with a -6 exhaustion penalty on top of that)
Deathward



There's not a counter to all of it.
Sure there is!
It's just protection domain cleric with that other domain that gives you access to contingency or being a Dragon, or getting Death Ward on your sorc/wizard spell list which I'm sure is possible. Or being an Archivist.

Naturebane
2010-04-24, 12:58 AM
hey thanks for the help hopeful i'll be able to end the arguments before next game with out kicking any one.

thanks again.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-24, 12:59 AM
Shapechange into a Fire elemental or Dimension Door


Mindblank


There's some easy-to-get thing that gives you immunity to slow but it's escaping my mind.


Contingency keyed to a dimension door


Deathward


Sure there is!
It's just protection domain cleric with that other domain that gives you access to contingency or being a Dragon, or getting Death Ward on your sorc/wizard spell list which I'm sure is possible. Or being an Archivist.
None of which is Fighter, or Feats. In core, a Ring of Freedom of Movement will cover some of it, and there's a charged amulet that will stave off the negative energy attacks for a very short while...

But without spells, there's precious little to do.

Toliudar
2010-04-24, 01:01 AM
As I read this, the core difficulty is not the fighter/wizard thing AGAIN, but that there are two players whose feuding is disrupting the game play. Therefore my answer as DM to the fighter/wizard debate would be: "I don't care, just don't talk about it at my table." It's clearly making the other players dissatisfied. If these two are so juvenile that repeated efforts to make them drop the subject - if this really has been the reason that five gaming sessions have been cut short, it's well past being reasonable - then some kind of sample showdown isn't going to end the dispute. You might in fact be able to present them with the clear position that the next time this fight gets raised, it gets both of them ejected from the game. I don't normally suggest that kind of extreme response, but dropping gaming sessions because these two are being a**holes...unacceptable.

Hootman
2010-04-24, 01:06 AM
also, wizards get familiars for free.

That's TECHNICALLY untrue; if you look in the PHB on page 54, you will see that obtaining a familiar actually costs 24 hours and 100gp. I know it's a small cost, but we may as well be accurate if we're going to argue something silly like "Wizards vs Fighters".

Obviously a well-built wizard is more than capable of killing a well-built fighter at very high levels simply due to his spell versatility, but that generally only matters if he's aware he's going into a fight scenario. If the fighter manages to take the wizard by surprise, well, it's not like the wizard has the hit points to soak magical-power-attacking-keen-two-handed-weapon-to-the-face. It's all about timing and preparation.

As far as those two wayward players are concerned, it is your duty as the DM to inform them that they MUST stop arguing and get back to having fun (the primary purpose of D&D), or they cannot sit at the table with you anymore. Banishing people is never something you want to do, but you're the Boss, and if they don't listen to what you say and respect that, they don't belong playing games in the first place.

They can argue as much as they please outside of the game (preferably as far as possibly that-a-way *gestures vaguely*), but when they sit down for the game, they put away ALL of that nonsense and have fun instead.

Aquillion
2010-04-24, 01:08 AM
As I read this, the core difficulty is not the fighter/wizard thing AGAIN, but that there are two players whose feuding is disrupting the game play.This. As tempting as it is to go into wizard vs. fighter, the really important thing is to get them to keep it off of the game table (as silly as that may sound), at least as long as you're playing.




In terms of power, though, the real distinction that puts the Wizard over the top isn't direct combat applicability (though it has that). The real issue is the ability to shape the direction of the story. Spells like Teleport or Plane Shift can radically alter the campaign in an instant -- the wizard can say "Let's solve this by teleporting to the other side of the planet!" or "Let's Plane Shift to Sigil and see if we can buy what we need for this quest there!"

Spells give you much more control over the story, in ways that BAB and fighter feats never will. Of course, in a harmonious group, the Wizard won't be the one making all the decisions about where the group teleports or plane shifts -- but the fact remains that when people are discussing how to use powers that can majorly change the direction of the story, they'll usually be talking about how to use wizard spells.

Naturebane
2010-04-24, 01:12 AM
As I read this, the core difficulty is not the fighter/wizard thing AGAIN, but that there are two players whose feuding is disrupting the game play. Therefore my answer as DM to the fighter/wizard debate would be: "I don't care, just don't talk about it at my table." It's clearly making the other players dissatisfied. If these two are so juvenile that repeated efforts to make them drop the subject - if this really has been the reason that five gaming sessions have been cut short, it's well past being reasonable - then some kind of sample showdown isn't going to end the dispute. You might in fact be able to present them with the clear position that the next time this fight gets raised, it gets both of them ejected from the game. I don't normally suggest that kind of extreme response, but dropping gaming sessions because these two are being a**holes...unacceptable.

thanks for your great advise. Much and all as every DM hates kicking players this may have to be an inevitable event

taltamir
2010-04-24, 01:16 AM
As I read this, the core difficulty is not the fighter/wizard thing AGAIN, but that there are two players whose feuding is disrupting the game play. Therefore my answer as DM to the fighter/wizard debate would be: "I don't care, just don't talk about it at my table." It's clearly making the other players dissatisfied. If these two are so juvenile that repeated efforts to make them drop the subject - if this really has been the reason that five gaming sessions have been cut short, it's well past being reasonable - then some kind of sample showdown isn't going to end the dispute. You might in fact be able to present them with the clear position that the next time this fight gets raised, it gets both of them ejected from the game. I don't normally suggest that kind of extreme response, but dropping gaming sessions because these two are being a**holes...unacceptable.

very good observation and point.
the issue isn't who is right so much as that its being disruptive.
And the last thing you want to do is get into the argument yourself, on either side or as a third side.

Tell them not to do it at the table and that is that.

Superglucose
2010-04-24, 02:23 AM
None of which is Fighter, or Feats.
I know that :smallwink: I was having a bit of fun.

Math_Mage
2010-04-24, 03:25 AM
Tell them to postpone the discussion for some time when they have nothing better to do. 'Suggest' that these two take classes other than wizard and fighter, so as to keep the topic from entering discussion again.

Sir Giacomo
2010-04-24, 06:11 AM
OK , to provide a different view for the OP (but those who followed some of the dozens of wizard vs INSERTRANDOMNONCASTER HERE may not need to read this, it is nothing new)


Let's look at it this way:

Wizard 20. Rather than compare to Fireball, I'm going to compare to an actual good spell. Summon monster 9.

Now, those baddies may not look like a physical match for a fighter. You're right.

However: Let's use it to pull from the Summon Monster 7 list... and for added fun, we'll give the wizard a Greater Rod of Maximize.

Let's Pick a Bone Devil. Now, we get (1d4+1) maximized Bone Devils (5).

Each of those bone devils can drop a 1 foot thick Ice wall (CL 12) every round. In a matter of 1-2 rounds, even with fighter damage, he'll be boxed in.

That one Summon monster spell will yield 5 Ice Walls per round x 20 rounds = 100 Walls of Ice.

Ring of Blinking, just small change for a level 20 fighter.
Protection from Evil stops the devils from even touching a fighter, so he can afford to ignore them and save his actions.


On top of what the wizard actually does.

Disjunction will strip away most of a fighter's magic and magic items.

Forces the wizard to get within close range of the fighter. A level 20 fighter could also have a will save of +20 (6 base, +3 WIS, +1 luck, +4 morale, +5 resistance, +1 competence), meaning quite a few of his items survive the blast.
A fighter within close range of a wizard in a combat of that level has a good chance of using tactics with anti-magic-field.
It will thus be a question of who is going to use his "nuke" first here.
(and, btw, all walls of ice and devils will be dispelled immediately, so there is no "on top of what the wizard actually does" in this case...:smallsmile:)


Greater Invisibility will all but neuter him in core.

If only there were not so many ways at that level to see invisbility, or to pinpoint invisibile creatures, already in core.


Dominate Person/Monster as well.

Mirror Image. Blink. Mind Blank. A wizard using THOSE spells at that level against a foe he believes is as high-level as he is, is asking for it...:smallwink:
Outside of core there are even feats that can put up quite good defenses against these spells for a fighter.


The fighter has damage, and, in many cases, control. He has not the versatility to challenge the wizard in problemsolving or kill ability.

Yes, the wizard's versatility at that level is unsurpassed, especially when it comes to gathering intelligence about the opponent or hiding away (OK, technically the rogue is equal there, but...). Also Aquillon is correct about the wizard's ability to shape the story significantly with his spells.
Still...
The combat versatility of a wizard at that level: Magic. That's it. And the game is full of effects that neuter dozens or even hundreds of spells at once.
The combat versatility of a fighter at that level: Weapons and magic.

Overall: I do not doubt that PhoenixRivers will be able to immediately come up with counter-tactics to a blinking fighter who uses AMF occaisionally, pinpoints invisible opponents and cannot be touched by summoned creatures. And then, again, the high-level fighter can have counter-measures for those counter-measures. And so on. And so on.

The point is that at level 1-10 probably fighter and wizard balance are hardly an issue for most players. Levels 11-20 then are not an issue of class balance, but simply the game gets so complex with the introduction of more and more magic and more and more complex combat tactics, that any attempt to compare the power of classes gets blurred.

- Giacomo

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-24, 06:52 AM
OK , to provide a different view for the OP (but those who followed some of the dozens of wizard vs INSERTRANDOMNONCASTER HERE may not need to read this, it is nothing new)

Ring of Blinking, just small change for a level 20 fighter.
Protection from Evil stops the devils from even touching a fighter, so he can afford to ignore them and save his actions.Still blocks LOS, preventing charges. Also still has a 50% chance to damage fighter on pass through. Also gives the fighter a miss chance on all his attacks.

Net Gain? Wizard. Why? Because the Fighter cannot charge.


Forces the wizard to get within close range of the fighter. A level 20 fighter could also have a will save of +20 (6 base, +3 WIS, +1 luck, +4 morale, +5 resistance, +1 competence), meaning quite a few of his items survive the blast.Int 18 base + 5 levels + 1 age + 6 enhancement = 30 (+10) +2 (Greater spell focus) = DC 31. 50% of the magic items gone, all the buffs. Including most forms of Flight. Follow up with Walls of Ice (above) from those demons you ignored. After the fighter falls to the ground.


A fighter within close range of a wizard in a combat of that level has a good chance of using tactics with anti-magic-field.
DC 31 UMD for the Caster level on that scroll, and DC 36 for emulating the int. Then there's the "Fighter no Fly in AMF", the "wizard contingency", and a dozen other things. Really, I defy you to manage that one.


It will thus be a question of who is going to use his "nuke" first here.
(and, btw, all walls of ice and devils will be dispelled immediately, so there is no "on top of what the wizard actually does" in this case...:smallsmile:)AMF does not dispel.


If only there were not so many ways at that level to see invisbility, or to pinpoint invisibile creatures, already in core. Via core only? There are just about none. Add in SRD/Rules compendium, and you have listen checks, or spot checks... But then, If you're UMDing scrolls at 30+ DC, as a fighter, methinks you're rather low on remaining skill points. Wizard, however, with a minumum of about 9-10 skill points per level, has plenty to invest in Cross class move silently, or even in UMD to drop a silence spell to neuter pinpoint attempts.



Mirror Image. Blink. Mind Blank. A wizard using THOSE spells at that level against a foe he believes is as high-level as he is, is asking for it...:smallwink:
Outside of core there are even feats that can put up quite good defenses against these spells for a fighter.
Welcome to DC 35 and DC 38UMD for that mind blank. Not to mention, if you're saving the AMF for the close range, you can get dispelled from a LONG ways away. And those ignore Blink.


Yes, the wizard's versatility at that level is unsurpassed, especially when it comes to gathering intelligence about the opponent or hiding away (OK, technically the rogue is equal there, but...). Also Aquillon is correct about the wizard's ability to shape the story significantly with his spells.
Still...
The combat versatility of a wizard at that level: Magic. That's it. And the game is full of effects that neuter dozens or even hundreds of spells at once.
The combat versatility of a fighter at that level: Weapons and magic.

Overall: I do not doubt that PhoenixRivers will be able to immediately come up with counter-tactics to a blinking fighter who uses AMF occaisionally, pinpoints invisible opponents and cannot be touched by summoned creatures. And then, again, the high-level fighter can have counter-measures for those counter-measures. And so on. And so on.

The point is that at level 1-10 probably fighter and wizard balance are hardly an issue for most players. Levels 11-20 then are not an issue of class balance, but simply the game gets so complex with the introduction of more and more magic and more and more complex combat tactics, that any attempt to compare the power of classes gets blurred.

- Giacomo
Trust me Gia. You'll never best one of my Wizard 20's with a Fighter 20, in or out of core. Ever.

Ever.

Not even when you try the "why every non-caster class was designed with UMD in mind... that's why only one has it as a class skill" argument.

I mean really, I've never seen a UMD focused noncaster (outside of rogue) anywhere in D&D published material, and yet, everyone you build needs it. Definition of "1 trick pony". And it's not a good trick.

Really, you're trying a skill based solution with a non-skill based class, and expecting to have skills over for pinpointing?

Togo
2010-04-24, 07:13 AM
I'd far rather have a party with a fighter and a wizard, than a party with two wizards. The fighter is a supurb platform for buff effects, a good focal point for combat, and in a general a good figure to hinge your group on. A wizard can do these things, but he isn't as good at it.

It's not what you can do eachother, it's what useful for the party that counts. One simply isn't a reasonable replacement for the other.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-24, 07:19 AM
I'd far rather have a party with a fighter and a wizard, than a party with two wizards. The fighter is a supurb platform for buff effects, a good focal point for combat, and in a general a good figure to hinge your group on. A wizard can do these things, but he isn't as good at it.

It's not what you can do eachother, it's what useful for the party that counts. One simply isn't a reasonable replacement for the other.

Shapechange turns a wizard into a good platform for buffs.

I've seen parties with 4 fullcasters. Generally:

Wizard, Beguiler, Druid, Cleric.

They destroy challenges. Trust me, the loss of "pointy stick poker" doesn't seriously impact it. If anything, the Druid is a solid Buff platform, as is the cleric, as is the wizard, if he Shapechanges.

Also, if deciding on a Core melee class? I'd much rather a Barbarian or a Paladin, both of which are superior buff platforms to a Fighter.

Eldariel
2010-04-24, 11:08 AM
Shapechange turns a wizard into a good platform for buffs.

I've seen parties with 4 fullcasters. Generally:

Wizard, Beguiler, Druid, Cleric.

They destroy challenges. Trust me, the loss of "pointy stick poker" doesn't seriously impact it. If anything, the Druid is a solid Buff platform, as is the cleric, as is the wizard, if he Shapechanges.

Also, if deciding on a Core melee class? I'd much rather a Barbarian or a Paladin, both of which are superior buff platforms to a Fighter.

Same party with Artificer is quite incredible also; Artificers are fine buff platforms and have access to all the same spells all the other casters alongside WBL cheats and yeah...well, they're Artificers.

Superglucose
2010-04-24, 12:13 PM
As a recent example, we had a party of Druid/Barbarian, Fighter, Cleric, and Wizard. The best frontline combatant we had was the wizard. At level 4, via Mage Armor + Alter Self into Troglodyte form and sucking a Bull's Strength from the cleric. AC of 24 (+6 NA, +4 Mage Armor, +2 Dex, +2 Shield of Faith) was better than what any of the other party members could manage, and I didn't even bother learning Shield (which would've bumped me up to ac 28). My to-hit wasn't impressive, per se, but with accurate usage of Glitterdust and Grease my paltry +5ish to hit was hitting things that were blind (-4 AC) and denied their dex. Throw in a bit of flanking and the GM was about to tear his hair out trying to understand why squishy wizard was in the front line.

All of that at level 4 and all in core and without using Mirror Image (which I had).

So yeah, a party of 4 wizards is fine. Tenser's Transformation and a few other key buffs will turn them into fully-fledged fighters in terms of damage output with a stick, even as early as level 3 if necessary. Heck, even as early as level 1 you can have a wizard with an AC of 20. Do that using WBL for your fighter at level 1.

Sir Giacomo
2010-04-24, 12:18 PM
And...


Still blocks LOS, preventing charges. Also still has a 50% chance to damage fighter on pass through. Also gives the fighter a miss chance on all his attacks.

Why does a fighter need to charge here? And where is the 50% chance of damage to fighter coming through? And the 20% miss chance is not much considering the number of attacks the fighter has. Ah, and he does not need to attack with protection from evil up.


Net Gain? Wizard. Why? Because the Fighter cannot charge.

But that is not a net gain. Wizard does full-round summoning. Fighter on his full round action either just moves through the walls of ice or destroys all of the devils with a full attack. No net gain at all (abstracting for a moment from the problem of the wizard to do a full-round casting without problems at that level).


Int 18 base + 5 levels + 1 age + 6 enhancement = 30 (+10) +2 (Greater spell focus) = DC 31. 50% of the magic items gone, all the buffs. Including most forms of Flight. Follow up with Walls of Ice (above) from those demons you ignored. After the fighter falls to the ground.

First of all, the disjunction would also destroy/dispel the walls of ice plus the devils.
Second, you describe a fairly maxed core DC for that level (age mods? Starting stat of 18? Well...). The +20 will save is not the maximum the fighter could have as will save at that level.
Third, why should the fighter fall to the ground? In case he was flying (quite common at that level) he would not have needed to bother about the devils or walls at all.
And fourth, I just noticed that disjunction has a burst area (not spread). So a fighter can completely nullify it with his tower shield set to total cover. (the question of course being - will he have it set in that manner in that particular round?)


DC 31 UMD for the Caster level on that scroll, and DC 36 for emulating the int. Then there's the "Fighter no Fly in AMF", the "wizard contingency", and a dozen other things. Really, I defy you to manage that one.

There would be no need to emulate the INT - in case the fighter somehow got INT 16 with the help of items. So UMD DC 31 it could be.
Also, a fighter not wishing to use UMD could just either have a custom item that does it 1/day (I think it costs 40k or so) - in case of non-core campaigns where all rules could apply.
Finally, the fighter might use it from a greater ring of spell storing. Expensive - but at those levels?


AMF does not dispel.

see above. I meant your wizard doing disjunction at a fighter in melee with summoned devils would also get rid of those.


Via core only? There are just about none.

Ways to see invisibility in core? Just about none? Lemme see...
- Wand of see invisbility
- Ring of spell storing, see invisibility (all three kinds)
- UMD with permanency/see invisbility scrolls to have it on yourself permanently
- Hand of Glory
- Robe of the Eyes
- Gem of Seeing
Ah, I think there could be more - too lazy to look them all up.


Add in SRD/Rules compendium, and you have listen checks, or spot checks... But then, If you're UMDing scrolls at 30+ DC, as a fighter, methinks you're rather low on remaining skill points. Wizard, however, with a minumum of about 9-10 skill points per level, has plenty to invest in Cross class move silently, or even in UMD to drop a silence spell to neuter pinpoint attempts.

Yes they have - which is why I for a long time already have been saying that a fighter is less suited to take on a wizard in a duel than a monk.


Welcome to DC 35 and DC 38UMD for that mind blank. Not to mention, if you're saving the AMF for the close range, you can get dispelled from a LONG ways away. And those ignore Blink.

Yes, the fighter could get dispelled. But again, there are counters, say rings of counterspell/greater dispel. Or mirror image.
Plus, the mind blank you could get from an npc caster who you lend your greater rod of extend for the job. Voila, 2 days mind blank for just 1,200gp. But I think mind blank is often not even necessary for a fighter at that level.


Trust me Gia. You'll never best one of my Wizard 20's with a Fighter 20, in or out of core. Ever.

Ever.

OK, then what do you think about the following: Just post a level 20 core wizard with the spells he has learnt and currently up as buffs (the 1hr/lvl or more). And I tell you how a level 20 fighter could still be a big risk for this wizard, step by step.

Somehow, given the many times that I was able to come up with counters to alleged "spell wins" I think we should give it a try. What do you think?


Not even when you try the "why every non-caster class was designed with UMD in mind... that's why only one has it as a class skill" argument.

I mean really, I've never seen a UMD focused noncaster (outside of rogue) anywhere in D&D published material, and yet, everyone you build needs it. Definition of "1 trick pony". And it's not a good trick.

Really, you're trying a skill based solution with a non-skill based class, and expecting to have skills over for pinpointing?

You bring up "1 trick pony" while maintaining that a class whose one big strength derives from just one source? That is...interesting.

And again, I will state the following:
Non-casters do not NEED UMD to have a good chance vs casters in high-level combat.
The only thing they need is good magic items that synergise with their class abilities and combat tactics.
What UMD does simply is provide them with buffs more cheaply, and with another source for those buffs apart from npcs/pcs/permanent items.

- Giacomo

PS: in two other threads (one closed, in the other I can't currently find it) there was a rather good criticism to my assumption that a non-caster would be able to pick the right items - without any knowledge what they might be. This is in line with my criticism that players of casters often assume that they know about all the abilities of creatures they summon or call so that they basically can employ all the special abilities of all the monsters of the MM.
Well...I am still thinking about this one.

First of all, I think the idea to summon creatures and then test them is OK. So a wizard or other caster IN CASE HE DOES THAT (lawful good clerics may not be so inclined with the celestial creatures they summon) will have a comprehensive knowledge of these creatures - provided they have the time and/or language skills to do so.
That still would make it necessary to only gather via knowledge checks the info on super-powerfull creatures to call (which he cannot summon and test without consequences).

Second, why non-casters without magic knowledge could have knowledge of the items they need. Well, contrary to the knowledge on the special abilities of solars, the knowledge on items and their abilities is freely available, as per the DMG rules of buying items. A DM can always have his npcs cheat the pcs buying items ("sure this is a ring of blinking" - *casts magic aura on a wooden non-magical ring*). But this is DM fiat, not what the rules suggest should happen.

Third, beyond RAW let us compare the game effects of the two possible interpretations. If casters get all monster abilites and non-casters get the knowledge with their wbl to buy what they want, we have
1) casters with all MM abilites ON TOP of their maxed wbl
2) noncasters with must their maxed wbl.

You choose :smallsmile:

But I'll think on this some more.

waterpenguin43
2010-04-24, 12:21 PM
Tell them this;
-Wizards are very powerful, and, with proper protection, can fireball, polymorph, lightning bolt, cone of cold etc. whatever easily.
-However, a wizard needs a fighter for protection. The fighter needs to enter melee and keep the others safe. The wizard doesn't stand much chance without one.
-Every person in the party has a role; The rogue to scout, disarm traps and do damage, the cleric to heal injuries, the wizard to blast, and the fighter to protect. (Or change that around to match whatever's in your party.)

Skirt over the fact that wizards are the most powerful class.

Kylarra
2010-04-24, 12:23 PM
Actually gia, your fighter needs to have both knowledge of items and knowledge of what he's trying to defeat with knowledges and spellcraft as nonclass skills, and int as a medium dump stat, so if you're fiating that in, well... the fighter loses out kind of bigtime...

The Glyphstone
2010-04-24, 12:27 PM
Tell them this;
-Wizards are very powerful, and, with proper protection, can fireball, polymorph, lightning bolt, cone of cold etc. whatever easily.
-However, a wizard needs a fighter for protection. The fighter needs to enter melee and keep the others safe. The wizard doesn't stand much chance without one.
-Every person in the party has a role; The rogue to scout, disarm traps and do damage, the cleric to heal injuries, the wizard to blast, and the fighter to protect. (Or change that around to match whatever's in your party.)

Skirt over the fact that wizards are the most powerful class.

So....lie to make the fighter-supporter feel better? :smallconfused:The whole reason that wizards are the most powerful is because the above isn't true - with the right spells, or simply a smartly chosen selection of general spells, they can invalidate the presence or existence of the other classes. It takes a certain amount of practice and skill with wizard to achieve this, much more than simply chucking blaster spells, but the "wizards are OP" argument isn't based on the framework of a Fireball spammer.

Roderick_BR
2010-04-24, 12:28 PM
show how much a level 20 fighter can do in one attack, assuming that he is power attacking with a two handed weapon.

then show how much a maximized fireball can do to multiple people, and then show how much a couple of different rays can do (since hitting on touch AC is something a fighter cannot do)

then ask the fighter guy how he deals with crowds of people. hit all of them at once? ruin their ability to move? charm them? a wizard can do all of that plus more

oh, and those magic weapons fighters like? needs a wizard to make them. also, what if his +1 flaming greatsword (which gives all of an extra 1d6) is up against something with fire resistance? a wizard would simple either change the energy type with metamagic, or use a different spell.

what about against ghosts and other incorpereal foes? at least wizards get magic missile, which is more helpful than missing half the time.

what about when fighting flying creatures (wizards can fly)? what about when grappled (wizards can stillspell)? what if they are trapped in some sort of jail cell or amongst very strong enemies (wizards can teleport)?

also, wizards get familiars for free. fighters have to take leadership to get someone willing to follow them around. that might not seem like much, but a wizard can share spells and have an emphatic link and all that other crud. a fighter normally dumps charisma so they wont even have the best cohort that they can have.

hope the fighter guy likes alot of feats.
This was not a "how I prove wizards are better than fighter" thread. The OP was asking how to deal with players that get into this discussion.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-24, 12:30 PM
This was not a "how I prove wizards are better than fighter" thread. The OP was asking how to deal with players that get into this discussion.

Y'know, you're right...I had kinda missed that.

Re-reading the whole thread, I'm going to back the "tell them to STFU or GTFO" camp. If they need to argue about it, invite them here to GitP...as evidenced by the three threads on this topic still present in 2 pages, we love arguing about it.

Gametime
2010-04-24, 01:03 PM
The +20 will save is not the maximum the fighter could have as will save at that level.

Nor is DC 31 the maximum DC for a wizard's spells. PhoenixRivers refrained from utilizing an inherent bonus, which could increase the DC by 2 more.

Further, perhaps I'm just oblivious, but I'm not sure where some of those bonuses are coming from. Morale? Does your fighter always have Greater Heroism up?


Plus, the mind blank you could get from an npc caster who you lend your greater rod of extend for the job. Voila, 2 days mind blank for just 1,200gp. But I think mind blank is often not even necessary for a fighter at that level.

See, this bothers me. You can hardly rail against metagaming and promote the suitability of a fighter for facing a wizard while assuming that he knows he'll be fighting a wizard in just two days! Or is he paying 1,200 GP every other day, just in case? That's not a terrible idea, for a limited time, but eventually it's going to eat into your WBL in a severe way.

At the very least, you should be factoring in the costs of paying casters for all these divinations that allow you to so accurately predict the future.


First of all, I think the idea to summon creatures and then test them is OK. So a wizard or other caster IN CASE HE DOES THAT (lawful good clerics may not be so inclined with the celestial creatures they summon) will have a comprehensive knowledge of these creatures - provided they have the time and/or language skills to do so.
That still would make it necessary to only gather via knowledge checks the info on super-powerfull creatures to call (which he cannot summon and test without consequences).

I wouldn't mind this as a rule in a campaign. It's reasonably flavorful and internally logical. But as a measuring stick, to determine the strength of different classes by the rules? It's completely absurd. It's an arbitrary handicap with no basis in the books. It looks, from here, like a transparent attempt to weaken the opposition.

Again, in a real game? I wouldn't mind it. In a test to prove a point? It seems rotten.


Second, why non-casters without magic knowledge could have knowledge of the items they need. Well, contrary to the knowledge on the special abilities of solars, the knowledge on items and their abilities is freely available, as per the DMG rules of buying items. A DM can always have his npcs cheat the pcs buying items ("sure this is a ring of blinking" - *casts magic aura on a wooden non-magical ring*). But this is DM fiat, not what the rules suggest should happen.

Solars are outsiders and thus fall under the purview of Knowledge: The Planes. There are game-specified rules for learning about them.

According to the DMG (although not the SRD, for some reason), the only way to identify a magical item without using spells is by guesswork. They also suggest a DC30 Knowledge: Arcana or Spellcraft check to provide insight - neither of which are easily available skills for a fighter.

I can't find anything in the DMG that suggests players are given omnipotent knowledge of all magical items that exist; the only text even remotely related to that that I've found is in the use of magic items as treasure, which encourages using random item tables until you are comfortable inputting specific magic items into loot. It also encourages letting players loot the magic items NPCs have. Nothing about knowing which items are available to buy.

The best argument you could make is that, in a high-magic world, the existing magical items would be exhaustively catalogued and documented. This seems reasonable to me, especially since trying to gauge how strong a class can be should involve giving them their full potential of magical items. However, in a world like this, there is no basis for your claim that wizards would have to resort to individual research to discovery the properties of summoned creatures. Such spells - indeed, nearly all spells - would undoubtedly have been tested extensively and the findings catalogued in libraries to which the wizard, if anyone, would have access.

Arguing that research is necessary to discover things for wizards but not for fighters is silly for two reasons: one, it's unfair; and two, the wizard is vastly more suited to doing research anyway. You aren't going to keep him down by asking him to read a book.


Third, beyond RAW let us compare the game effects of the two possible interpretations. If casters get all monster abilites and non-casters get the knowledge with their wbl to buy what they want, we have
1) casters with all MM abilites ON TOP of their maxed wbl
2) noncasters with must their maxed wbl.

Again, while that's a fine attitude to take for actual games (where balance is a concern), it isn't for theoretical argument. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Appeal to Consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences) fallacy.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-24, 06:35 PM
Why does a fighter need to charge here? And where is the 50% chance of damage to fighter coming through? And the 20% miss chance is not much considering the number of attacks the fighter has. Ah, and he does not need to attack with protection from evil up.Simple. Passing through a wall of Ice causes 1d6+CL damage. Blink offers a 50% chance to avoid damage via spell.



But that is not a net gain. Wizard does full-round summoning. Fighter on his full round action either just moves through the walls of ice or destroys all of the devils with a full attack. No net gain at all (abstracting for a moment from the problem of the wizard to do a full-round casting without problems at that level).Ah yes, because all the Devils are conveniently arranged to be next to one another, and will remain so after the fighter moves to them, and even if the fighter has a haste effect, he'd need Great Cleave to have a reasonable chance of successfully doing that, what with the miss chance. Honestly, so many factors were ignored in that statement that it's not funny.


First of all, the disjunction would also destroy/dispel the walls of ice plus the devils.
Second, you describe a fairly maxed core DC for that level (age mods? Starting stat of 18? Well...). The +20 will save is not the maximum the fighter could have as will save at that level.
Not necessarily. See, the caster gets to place that effect, and just like a fireball can be placed to hit enemies and not allies, so too can a Disjunction be placed to do the same. Further, I could easily add +3 more to the DC via an extra age bonus, and +5 inherent. That's not a "maxed DC" And Int focus + spell focuses is NOT an unreasonable optimization for a wizard. But if you'd prefer, you can swap out that +1 int from age for a +1 inherent from tome, and have it with more common bonuses.


Third, why should the fighter fall to the ground? In case he was flying (quite common at that level) he would not have needed to bother about the devils or walls at all.He would after the flight. And it'd depend on the height of the arena. Five CL 12 Ice Walls can hit +80-120 feet, and +50-75 feet long, with no difficulty.


And fourth, I just noticed that disjunction has a burst area (not spread). So a fighter can completely nullify it with his tower shield set to total cover.
(the question of course being - will he have it set in that manner in that particular round?)I'd be willing to bet that any time the wizard chooses to cast such a disjunction, the fighter wouldn't.


There would be no need to emulate the INT - in case the fighter somehow got INT 16 with the help of items. So UMD DC 31 it could be.
Also, a fighter not wishing to use UMD could just either have a custom item that does it 1/day (I think it costs 40k or so) - in case of non-core campaigns where all rules could apply.There are no hard and fast rules for creating custom items. Only guidelines, which are expected by those guidelines to be compared, adjusted, and altered by a DM before getting through the approval process. Nice job trying to disguise custom item shenanigans as a RAW process. Also, in non core campaigns? It's possible for wizards to be immune to AMF's, turning your "nuke" into a "poop".


Finally, the fighter might use it from a greater ring of spell storing. Expensive - but at those levels?Expensive indeed. 200k here, 100k there, you're using more WBL than 2 party members so far.


see above. I meant your wizard doing disjunction at a fighter in melee with summoned devils would also get rid of those.Only if the wizard chose to. Having a 75 foot range and a 20 foot radius allows for flexibility in placement.


Ways to see invisibility in core? Just about none? Lemme see...
- Wand of see invisbility
- Ring of spell storing, see invisibility (all three kinds)
- UMD with permanency/see invisbility scrolls to have it on yourself permanently
- Hand of Glory
- Robe of the Eyes
- Gem of Seeing
Ah, I think there could be more - too lazy to look them all up.I apologize if you seem to have misunderstood your own earlier statement. You said ways to PINPOINT. There are few of those.


Yes they have - which is why I for a long time already have been saying that a fighter is less suited to take on a wizard in a duel than a monk.
And judging by the fact that a monk isn't suited to take on a wizard's familiar in a duel, I'll agree with that statement.


Yes, the fighter could get dispelled. But again, there are counters, say rings of counterspell/greater dispel. Or mirror image.How many rings are you up to, now? 4?


Plus, the mind blank you could get from an npc caster who you lend your greater rod of extend for the job. Voila, 2 days mind blank for just 1,200gp. But I think mind blank is often not even necessary for a fighter at that level.See, that works for CASTERS because they can do it daily. For noncasters, they have to shell out 1200gp every day (because spellcasting an extended spell is a 9th level slot, and Schroedingering both the fighter and his "casterbuddies" is less than ethical. Though if you wanted to go that route, I'd be happy to do the same.


OK, then what do you think about the following: Just post a level 20 core wizard with the spells he has learnt and currently up as buffs (the 1hr/lvl or more). And I tell you how a level 20 fighter could still be a big risk for this wizard, step by step.
I have a better idea. Design the fighter. I'll have a wizard statted up, and we'll see how badly a level 20 fighter gets thrashed.


Somehow, given the many times that I was able to come up with counters to alleged "spell wins" I think we should give it a try. What do you think?
Sure. Please. Make sure to account for 1 shot adventures. I'll even say that no increase for 1 shot items with permanent effects (such as scrolls of permanency) is reasonable to exclude from 1 shots (the text cites the increase to be for the added usefulness of items that are effectively 1/day. Such items can be reasonably argued to not fall into that category, instead offering a more permanent addition to the character's utility).


You bring up "1 trick pony" while maintaining that a class whose one big strength derives from just one source? That is...interesting.One source with 400-500 different options within it (in core; well into the 1000's outside of core)


And again, I will state the following:
Non-casters do not NEED UMD to have a good chance vs casters in high-level combat.
The only thing they need is good magic items that synergise with their class abilities and combat tactics.
What UMD does simply is provide them with buffs more cheaply, and with another source for those buffs apart from npcs/pcs/permanent items.They don't? Then try it without it. If you think you have a good chance without it, try building a 20 fighter without UMD, and see how far you get.


PS: in two other threads (one closed, in the other I can't currently find it) there was a rather good criticism to my assumption that a non-caster would be able to pick the right items - without any knowledge what they might be. This is in line with my criticism that players of casters often assume that they know about all the abilities of creatures they summon or call so that they basically can employ all the special abilities of all the monsters of the MM.
Well...I am still thinking about this one.See, however, there are RAW ways of knowing that, listed in the Knowledge Description. There's also all the time in the world, and the fact that all those creatures are under the Wizard's total control. Via communication, it's very easy to ask most summons what they can do, or to have them demonstrate. Reading thoughts combined with commanding summons (that just about all have int 3+, and thus understand common) can easily reveal every ability they have. In fact, that requires no outside shenanigans, such as deciding an NPC's WBL in your buff routine.


First of all, I think the idea to summon creatures and then test them is OK. So a wizard or other caster IN CASE HE DOES THAT (lawful good clerics may not be so inclined with the celestial creatures they summon) will have a comprehensive knowledge of these creatures - provided they have the time and/or language skills to do so.Tongues? Read thoughts? Comprehend Languages? As for the Time? He's gone from 1 to 20. I'd say knowing his spells is reasonable. I'd say USING KNOWLEDGE CHECKS is equally reasonable (and RAW).


That still would make it necessary to only gather via knowledge checks the info on super-powerfull creatures to call (which he cannot summon and test without consequences).Calling creatures is less problematic than you'd think. Many of the great called creatures don't have so many HD. Avorals, for example. True seeing, Gust of Wind, and a bucketful of healing. 7HD. Knowledge checks are easy with low HD.


Second, why non-casters without magic knowledge could have knowledge of the items they need. Well, contrary to the knowledge on the special abilities of solars, the knowledge on items and their abilities is freely available, as per the DMG rules of buying items. A DM can always have his npcs cheat the pcs buying items ("sure this is a ring of blinking" - *casts magic aura on a wooden non-magical ring*). But this is DM fiat, not what the rules suggest should happen.But in order to find those items while buying, you may have to look for them. A city is big enough to have a Ring of Blinking, by the DMG. Is it in "Hal's commissary", "Joe's Exchange", "Items by Alicia", or an heirloom that "Anna the Farmer" is looking to get rid of? Welcome, Gather Information. Nice to meet you. Just because it's available in Town X, doesn't mean you can easily FIND it. Skills are more useful than most think.



Third, beyond RAW let us compare the game effects of the two possible interpretations. If casters get all monster abilites and non-casters get the knowledge with their wbl to buy what they want, we have
1) casters with all MM abilites ON TOP of their maxed wbl
2) noncasters with must their maxed wbl.

You choose :smallsmile:

But I'll think on this some more.
(1) because it's the RAW. Or rather, a modified version. Casters can access, for short periods of time, any creature on their summon lists, or any creature able to be called legally via their spells.

And it's just that one wizard's one class feature, right? And RAW is balanced, right? So one little class feature shouldn't be causing you so much problem, right?

Or are you saying now that RAW is not balanced, and you need a handicap?

Math_Mage
2010-04-24, 07:46 PM
And...

Why does a fighter need to charge here? And where is the 50% chance of damage to fighter coming through? And the 20% miss chance is not much considering the number of attacks the fighter has. Ah, and he does not need to attack with protection from evil up.

But that is not a net gain. Wizard does full-round summoning. Fighter on his full round action either just moves through the walls of ice or destroys all of the devils with a full attack. No net gain at all (abstracting for a moment from the problem of the wizard to do a full-round casting without problems at that level).

First of all, the disjunction would also destroy/dispel the walls of ice plus the devils.
Second, you describe a fairly maxed core DC for that level (age mods? Starting stat of 18? Well...). The +20 will save is not the maximum the fighter could have as will save at that level.
Third, why should the fighter fall to the ground? In case he was flying (quite common at that level) he would not have needed to bother about the devils or walls at all.
And fourth, I just noticed that disjunction has a burst area (not spread). So a fighter can completely nullify it with his tower shield set to total cover. (the question of course being - will he have it set in that manner in that particular round?)

There would be no need to emulate the INT - in case the fighter somehow got INT 16 with the help of items. So UMD DC 31 it could be.
Also, a fighter not wishing to use UMD could just either have a custom item that does it 1/day (I think it costs 40k or so) - in case of non-core campaigns where all rules could apply.
Finally, the fighter might use it from a greater ring of spell storing. Expensive - but at those levels?

see above. I meant your wizard doing disjunction at a fighter in melee with summoned devils would also get rid of those.

Ways to see invisibility in core? Just about none? Lemme see...
- Wand of see invisbility
- Ring of spell storing, see invisibility (all three kinds)
- UMD with permanency/see invisbility scrolls to have it on yourself permanently
- Hand of Glory
- Robe of the Eyes
- Gem of Seeing
Ah, I think there could be more - too lazy to look them all up.

Yes they have - which is why I for a long time already have been saying that a fighter is less suited to take on a wizard in a duel than a monk.

Yes, the fighter could get dispelled. But again, there are counters, say rings of counterspell/greater dispel. Or mirror image.
Plus, the mind blank you could get from an npc caster who you lend your greater rod of extend for the job. Voila, 2 days mind blank for just 1,200gp. But I think mind blank is often not even necessary for a fighter at that level.

OK, then what do you think about the following: Just post a level 20 core wizard with the spells he has learnt and currently up as buffs (the 1hr/lvl or more). And I tell you how a level 20 fighter could still be a big risk for this wizard, step by step.

Somehow, given the many times that I was able to come up with counters to alleged "spell wins" I think we should give it a try. What do you think?

You bring up "1 trick pony" while maintaining that a class whose one big strength derives from just one source? That is...interesting.

And again, I will state the following:
Non-casters do not NEED UMD to have a good chance vs casters in high-level combat.
The only thing they need is good magic items that synergise with their class abilities and combat tactics.
What UMD does simply is provide them with buffs more cheaply, and with another source for those buffs apart from npcs/pcs/permanent items.

- Giacomo

Bolded are a number of extraneous items a Schrodinger's fighter needs to have on command in order to not die against a wizard. Leaving aside the problem of what good the fighter is to this assemblage of WBL at the end of the day, this is just that much extra WBL the wizard can devote to the cause himself.

Now, some specific responses:
-Why would the bone devils be in melee with you? They make Walls of Ice to cut down your visibility and movement rate; spam Dimensional Anchor until it hits on +15 vs. touch AC, to keep you from Blinking; Fly and Teleport Without Error to keep from being cut to pieces. Getting within 5, 10, or 50 feet of you is the least useful thing they could be doing.

-By the same token, why would the wizard decide to Disjunction you when you're in melee with the bone devils or using your tower shield for total cover? It's no wonder you find wizards weak, if your assumed wizard tactics require them to have a negative Int modifier.

-If you consider an age modifier and starting Int score of 18 to be serious optimization on a wizard, I shudder to think what you consider unoptimized. But see above--given the foolish tactics you seem to think wizards should use, I wouldn't be surprised to find Int 8 wizards running around your campaign worlds.


Of course, when you decided to illuminate to us all how you run your campaigns, you pointed to...SAPH'S campaign journal. Sorry, that's kind of a personal problem I have with your sig. If you want to reference a great campaign journal, reference it; if you want to show us how you DM, make your own. Pointing at Saph's work and saying, "See guys, that's how I DM!" is...not classy. :smallannoyed:


-As ever, the reliance on cross-class UMD to make DC 31 checks means that you won't be able to rely on this until very high level. Why aren't you doing this with, say, a rogue?

-Remember how I mentioned Schrodinger's fighter? Waiting for someone else to post a list of tricks and then building to counter those specific tricks is hardly good practice, especially since a caster that actually wanted you dead would have more access to divinations that would give insight into YOUR tricks.

-Related: Your fighter is now buffing three separate stats with magic items--Wis, Int, and presumably Str (and you tack on a base WIS of 16 for your Will save discussion!). The wizard only needs to buff one of those. Guess who comes out ahead.

-Wizards are emphatically not one-trick ponies. Saying that they are because they get all their power from spells is like saying the universe lacks variety because it's all matter and antimatter. Utterly meaningless argument. The wizard can do far more with his spells than the fighter can with his, uh, class features--that's why the fighter needs all this gold to buy versatility. Of course, as I said at the beginning of this diatribe, the wizard can also do that--and thanks to his greater inherent versatility, he starts out ahead.


PS: <snip>

As others have noted, this doesn't work. If you limit the wizard's knowledge of his own spells, you can't give the fighter perfect knowledge of the wizard's tactics (heck, you're practically giving him perfect knowledge of the wizard's spells), and what magic items best counter them, and where to find those magic items. Appeal to Consequences just makes the argument worse. Somehow, the fighter has access to all the knowledge of society, but the wizard's been locked out of the loop. And this when the WIZARD is the one with divinations on command and Knowledge as a class skill. "Hey guys, my interpretation makes things less fair, but the wizard's weaker so it's all good, right?"

sambo.
2010-04-24, 07:56 PM
just tell the players to make up a lvl20 fighter and a lvl20 wizard detailing the allowed books and an arbitrary wealth-by-level.

then let them have at each other.

it shouldn't take more than 15 minutes of real time for the wizard to smash the fighter.

then get on with the regular campaign with the stern admonition that the matter is now settled.

Math_Mage
2010-04-24, 08:22 PM
just tell the players to make up a lvl20 fighter and a lvl20 wizard detailing the allowed books and an arbitrary wealth-by-level.

then let them have at each other.

it shouldn't take more than 15 minutes of real time for the wizard to smash the fighter.

then get on with the regular campaign with the stern admonition that the matter is now settled.

But making the fighter and the wizard is going to take a lot of real time. If anything, they should use their current characters in a one-time arena showdown.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-24, 08:28 PM
But making the fighter and the wizard is going to take a lot of real time. If anything, they should use their current characters in a one-time arena showdown.

They may not be playing a fighter and wizard respectively, though.

Divide by Zero
2010-04-24, 08:54 PM
More importantly, an arena battle is a terrible place for this sort of thing. Not only does the wizard get to nova all his best spells unlike a typical campaign, but PvP in no way models the variety of encounters a character is supposed to be able to deal with.

Math_Mage
2010-04-24, 09:16 PM
Hence "if anything." My original suggestion, like just about everyone else's, was "Tell them to shut up and play."

Paulus
2010-04-24, 09:39 PM
Rivers, Giacomo tread carefully... you don't want to drag your dispute into other threads, even if they are on the same topic, may not get it shut down right away, and may be excusable... but I don't see it being worth the risk. Especially since OP isn't asking to solve the argument, just the players who are arguing.

I agree with the third option camp. Ban wizard and fighter from both players unless they decide to argue about this in their own time, not game time, and they are ruining it for everyone. "This doesn't need to be done at my table, go to some forums or something, agree to disagree or go."

Less filling, tastes great, less filling, tastes great!

Sheesh.

JaronK
2010-04-24, 09:47 PM
You know, if it's not obvious enough in your group that the Fighter player can see the issue, then it's not really a problem. If it gets to the point where the Wizard is summoning undead that are better at "tanking" than the Fighter and the Fighter starts feeling useless, then there won't be a debate anyway and you can make changes.

JaronK

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-24, 10:11 PM
More importantly, an arena battle is a terrible place for this sort of thing. Not only does the wizard get to nova all his best spells unlike a typical campaign, but PvP in no way models the variety of encounters a character is supposed to be able to deal with.

Most typical campaigns don't have constant verisimilitude-breaking reasons that there's no time to rest. Every so often, yes, but generally, the party determines the rate of progress, especially when spells enter that allow for rest on demand.

Parties generally don't press on when the fighter's at 10% life, and healing is exhausted. It's not wise. Parties generally don't press on when the casters are out of spells. You rest, recover, and keep going.

Yes, in typical campaigns, for a good portion of them, Nova is an option, especially for difficult fights (which a CR = your level should be, when solo'd). In other words, an arena match protrays boss fight tactics. When dropping the foe is the number 1 concern.

In other words, if you solo a CR equivalent challenge, and use up less than 85% of your resources? Well, party resources expended would be less than 25%, which puts it on par with standard adventuring practice.

In other words, wizard has the OPTION to nova, making it more flexible.

That said, it's not a discussion for a gaming table, but for an area that will not be disrupted by the debate.

sambo.
2010-04-24, 11:52 PM
But making the fighter and the wizard is going to take a lot of real time. If anything, they should use their current characters in a one-time arena showdown.

let 'em (de)generate the 'toons on their own time, between sessions then.

gdiddy
2010-04-25, 12:19 AM
Tell them that it's become such a problem, you had to appeal to help on the Internet. This is clearly dire, as their immaturity and disrespect for other people has ended a lot of fun around the table. The Internet, being helpful, suggested they shut up and play. If they want to continue the debate, they should come to the Internet and witness the dozen Fighter 20 v. Wizard 13 threads (which the wizard always wins), the endless debate, Giacomo being silly all the time with his Schroedinger's Ring of Countering and UMD builds, as well as arena after arena that shows that before 4e, WotC did not design the two classes with reasonable expectations of balance in mind.

oxybe
2010-04-25, 02:10 AM
how does the fighter compare to a wizard?

does the fighter require the purchase of items that replicate spells the wizard can cast innately? if yes, wizard wins before the fight begins, since you need to admit that to beat him, you have to play his game. the fighter can only beat the wizard by playing a wizard instead of playing a fighter.

the fighter's archetype is a weapon/armed combat master. if all you're doing is slinging spells left and right through items, that's hardly the weapon master archetype, now is it?

the wizard however can beat the fighter several ways. be it by summoning, stat drain, level drain, save or die, disableing him, ect...

if you want to prove that a fighter is equal to a wizard, the fighter must be able to stand up to the wizard using his own abilities... not those bought from another wizard for the low, low price of XXXXX GP.

Sir Giacomo
2010-04-25, 09:12 AM
Well, I am going think about some more about what has been said here and other recent wizard vs fighter threads.

Basically, for a lot of optimisation, players assume that their characters
1. know about what their class can do level 1-20
2. know about what magic items can do what at levels 1-20
3. know what monsters you can control can do at levels 1-20.

For 1 I guess we all agree that the game assumes characters know what their class descriptions say; so for instance a rogue in his career can plan ahead to take some special abilities or feats lateron and not now. IT also includes that wizards know what spells are out there theoretically so they can plan ahead somewhat.

For 2 it is very iffy. There is no game mechanics per se that say "skill magic item knowledge". Bardic/loremaster knowledge covers it somewhat vaguely, but no prices are given for when characters want to have them to find out what an item does (if it is at all possible for low-level items from the normal bard in town).
Then, there are some spells - so casters might use those to see what items can do. But this does not help them at all knowing what items out there theoretically, at one day, may be helpful to them x levels later.
Then, there is the DMG which simply says that the items are availble to buy respecting certain gp availability limits, per settlement/city size. When the prices are as transparent as given, it is straightforward to conclude that also the descriptions are transparent/generally known. But certainly it's not RAW.

For 3 it is quite clear: You only know about monster properties (not even special abilites, things like AC are also a single useful bit of information) depending on your respective knowledge skill. A game mechanism exists - even if it basically calls for the DM to decide what exactly (similar to the leadership feat, which leaves it to the DM to design the cohort).
Of course, those monsters that you can summon you can know by heart after testing and talking to them - but for everything beyond that, you have to raise the knowledge skill.

As I said, I'll think some more into this.

For Naturebane, I suggest the following:
- point out the intensity of debate everywhere on this theme
- say that apparently it depends on so many settings and interpretations, that it is impossible to make a generalisation.
- think yourself maybe about what kind of game you are doing. If you do a game where wizard freely can choose for polymorhping and calling minions among the MM entries without you ever objecting, then maybe wizards really ARE overpowered in your campaing. If, conversely, fighters in your game have access to items that could counter many spells, then fighter an wizard are equal (you can check above what I answered to PhoenixRivers on the theoretical possibilites that are out there to block many alleged "win" spells).

Hope that helped.

- Giacomo

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-25, 09:31 AM
Well, I am going think about some more about what has been said here and other recent wizard vs fighter threads.

Basically, for a lot of optimisation, players assume that their characters
1. know about what their class can do level 1-20
2. know about what magic items can do what at levels 1-20
3. know what monsters you can control can do at levels 1-20.

For 1 I guess we all agree that the game assumes characters know what their class descriptions say; so for instance a rogue in his career can plan ahead to take some special abilities or feats lateron and not now. IT also includes that wizards know what spells are out there theoretically so they can plan ahead somewhat.

For 2 it is very iffy. There is no game mechanics per se that say "skill magic item knowledge". Bardic/loremaster knowledge covers it somewhat vaguely, but no prices are given for when characters want to have them to find out what an item does (if it is at all possible for low-level items from the normal bard in town).
Then, there are some spells - so casters might use those to see what items can do. But this does not help them at all knowing what items out there theoretically, at one day, may be helpful to them x levels later.
Then, there is the DMG which simply says that the items are availble to buy respecting certain gp availability limits, per settlement/city size. When the prices are as transparent as given, it is straightforward to conclude that also the descriptions are transparent/generally known. But certainly it's not RAW.The costs are not "generally known". Values can rise or lower based on the seller, and how that seller feels about the buyer (via Diplomacy). An Unfriendly seller WILL mislead you, by the diplomacy rules. That can take the form of increased prices. A Friendly result will end up in good advise and limited help, which will be honest and forthright aid, and possibly even discounts. Even an indifferent person who's honest with you won't exactly be volunteering all of this.

Point is, just because the guy says, "That, oh, yeah, I'll let it go for 16,000 gold... It's a belt that helps in feats of strength," doesn't mean he knows about a Ring of Blinking. Nor does it mean YOU know such an item exists. That's where Gather information and Knowledge (Arcana) come into play.


For 3 it is quite clear: You only know about monster properties (not even special abilites, things like AC are also a single useful bit of information) depending on your respective knowledge skill. A game mechanism exists - even if it basically calls for the DM to decide what exactly (similar to the leadership feat, which leaves it to the DM to design the cohort).Except that the skill outlines it as "Useful information". Which means that if you're looking for something that can move through earth, a knowledge check will reveal useful information in that regard. If I'm trying to remember what creature that was that burrowed to get away from us last year, "An air elemental has a fly speed of 100 feet" is not useful.


Of course, those monsters that you can summon you can know by heart after testing and talking to them - but for everything beyond that, you have to raise the knowledge skill.Something most wizards are quite capable of doing.

As I said, whenever you'd like to test your assertions of fighter competitiveness, Giacomo, just let me know. 28 point buy, standard WBL, one-shot rules with exceptions for permanent one-time effects (such as permanency scrolls), and an arena sizeable enough to accommodate the expanded tactics available to high level characters*.

*: At level 20, a wizard launching a spell 1000 feet isn't unheard of, nor is a fighter firing an arrow twice that distance. (Distance Composite Longbow with the Far Shot feat = 300 foot range increment, with a max firing range of 3000 feet, and a -8 penalty to hit 900-1195 feet away; hardly an insurmountable task). As such, any arena for level 20 characters should be a bare minimum of 500x500 feet, to accommodate a variety of range choices.

Kish
2010-04-25, 09:37 AM
Ok the scenario 2 highly stubborn players have entered the age old debate of fighter vs wizard and gotten rather hostile toward each other. one says that all class' are equile and the other says that the wizard is a lot more powerful.

so i am trying to play the peace keeper by proving to them that both are needed to succeeded but now its gotten to the point where the other 2 players have started talking to me about just dropping the two that are fighting from the game and invite two new players

Do you have any ideas to at least stop arguing during our games ive already had to cut 5 games short and skipped a few games so tempers can clam down with has not worked. Any ideas
Tell them that they're both missing the point of the game by thinking it matters which is more powerful, as long as none of the players is overshadowed, and to conduct the debate in time that isn't supposed to be for playing if they want to continue it.

If that doesn't work, take your other players' advice and kick them both.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-25, 09:41 AM
On the other hand, PR, that implies that the only place a fighter and wizard will come to blows is on a flat, empty plain, ruling out a urban environment, a forest environment, most underground environments, etc. It's more likely that a wizard specifically aiming to kill a fighter would target him when he's vulnerable, but employing the amount of divinations necessary to pinpoint exactly where and when Fighter will be vulnerable on an open plain is stretching even my credulity. Mainly because it turns the match into 'can a wizard assassinate a Fighter', which really is a foregone conclusion anyways.

In most actual encounters, the line of sight would be far less, so while an arena could be that big, the combatants shouldn't start that far apart at minimum, and there should probably be a simulated LOS/LOE barrier beyond distance X. Not that this won't stop the wizard in any way, but it's a step towards the 'realistic encounter' that everyone seems to be clamoring about.



ON TOPIC: Still advocating that they get one chance to be quiet and stop arguing about it, or get booted.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-25, 09:47 AM
On the other hand, PR, that implies that the only place a fighter and wizard will come to blows is on a flat, empty plain, ruling out a urban environment, a forest environment, most underground environments, etc. It's more likely that a wizard specifically aiming to kill a fighter would target him when he's vulnerable, but employing the amount of divinations necessary to pinpoint exactly where and when Fighter will be vulnerable on an open plain is stretching even my credulity.

In most actual encounters, the line of sight would be far less, so while an arena could be that big, the combatants shouldn't start that far apart at minimum, and there should probably be a simulated LOS/LOE barrier beyond distance X. Not that this won't stop the wizard in any way, but it's a step towards the 'realistic encounter' that everyone seems to be clamoring about.

ON TOPIC: Still advocating that they get one chance to be quiet and stop arguing about it, or get booted.

I have no problems with vision and LOS limiters in the arena. It just needs to be capable of offering a battlefield where attacks with ranges well over 200-300 feet aren't useless. I could easily whip up a lightly forested trade road, with limited visibility from ground level to 30-40 feet, but fairly open above that. Throw it in a night condition, and vision would be limited (also providing usefulness to light effects, darkvision, and low light vision) to fairly short ranges.

No, the issue I have isn't in the range of starting combat. It's in the ability to maneuver once combat is joined.

Gametime
2010-04-25, 01:54 PM
The costs are not "generally known". Values can rise or lower based on the seller, and how that seller feels about the buyer (via Diplomacy). An Unfriendly seller WILL mislead you, by the diplomacy rules. That can take the form of increased prices. A Friendly result will end up in good advise and limited help, which will be honest and forthright aid, and possibly even discounts. Even an indifferent person who's honest with you won't exactly be volunteering all of this.



Given the rules for item availability based on price in the DMG, combined with the expanded use for Diplomacy in Complete Adventurer, it would appear that stores are actually capable of offering you items only if you succeed in obtaining a discount, since that could bring the price of the item into the range allowed by the settlement's population.

Clearly, it is in every shopkeep's best interests to employ a well-spoken bard to befriend them, resulting in a 10% discount for the bard and thus an influx of newly available goods for the shop.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-25, 02:41 PM
Given the rules for item availability based on price in the DMG, combined with the expanded use for Diplomacy in Complete Adventurer, it would appear that stores are actually capable of offering you items only if you succeed in obtaining a discount, since that could bring the price of the item into the range allowed by the settlement's population.

Clearly, it is in every shopkeep's best interests to employ a well-spoken bard to befriend them, resulting in a 10% discount for the bard and thus an influx of newly available goods for the shop.

It's item value, not item cost, that determines availability.

Paulus
2010-04-25, 03:40 PM
It's more likely that a wizard specifically aiming to kill a fighter would target him when he's vulnerable, but employing the amount of divinations necessary to pinpoint exactly where and when Fighter will be vulnerable on an open plain is stretching even my credulity.

Why is it always assumed a Wizard has all the time in the world to prepare? I can understand the 'already has day long buffs present on him' as a means of getting away with not having to buff oneself during the fight just as a fighter doesn't have to arm himself during the fight, but divination's that say when and where a fighter will attack and what they will use and etc etc... how do they know to do this? A Wizard is always divining before hand every day? And what is to say a Fighter wouldn't spend some money on finding out what's going to happen to himself and would therefore know exactly what spells the wizard has, and equipment and etc etc and it just becomes an argument of counter divining over and over. Certainly this means the fighter will have to spend more money then a wizard would, but it gets into the area of 'schrodinger's this and that' because being a wizard always assumes they have plenty of time to prepare and therefore know exactly what they will need spellwise, item-wise, and knowledge-wise and therefore makes them much more powerful during a one shot.

To suggest otherwise makes you sound as if you are trying to tie the wizard up, naked, prone, and without his spell book or component pouches. A Wizard may have access to every spell, but that doesn't mean he has access to the right spells all the time. The battles thus far have been pretty generic on this aspect saying "A wizard has to beat a fighter" and a "Fighter has to beat a Wizard" meaning the players must take into account ALL types of fighters and ALL types of Wizards. Thereby cutting out a lot of the "divined before hand to know exactly what one would need." Because as it is said above, then it just becomes a matter of assassinating a Fighter who didn't even know you were there.

None the less it still tickles me the amount of "Schrodinger's Items" people use against the fighter's items, which are always the correct ones to counter a Wizard's spells, while ignoring the "Schrodinger's spells" that Wizards always seem to have to counter the Fighters Items. The rule books specifically gear a Fighter to have magical items. Regardless. So off course he can only answer every magical problem with magic items, that was the way it was designed and meant to be. Once more a problem with the system and not the Fighter/ or players who like Fighters. Because again it boils directly down to problem with magic. A system which was designed to make magic the most powerful of weapons while lessening the power of 'real' weapons will of course favor the classes who use magic over mundane weapons.

In the stories (and close approximations of reality within), an arrow is deadly to anyone. Just one can end a Wizard. Whereas in D&D it takes several. Not true for magics where just one spell can end a Fighter or ANYBODY. So clearly you can see how this is unbalanced and naturally favors those who don't need armor. It also devalues Armor itself, because armor would be much more valuable if one arrow could end you, because it would make it less likely that an arrow could end you. Magic armor does the same thing, yet when a fighter has magic armor that prevents a spell from ending them, "Schrodingers items" all over again.

Again, Ultimately its a problem with the system and not the classes who use it. This Fighter (epitome of 3.5 melee system use) vs. Wizard (epitome of 3.5 spell system use) stuff is getting out of hand. If you wanted a more accurate account of epitome of 3.5 melee system use, use Tome of Battle, as it is supposedly suppose to fix the imbalance of power. I've often heard it said A Warblade is what a Fighter was meant to be, NOT ONLY because he can use Maneuvers but also because he has class features meant to actually utilize the pre-existing melee combat structure to it's greatest degree.

Now... This make you wonder how a Maneuvers vs. Spells fight would go. Especially including items. BUT. If OP doesn't allow Tome of Battle, then he can simply settle the argument like this. "It isn't a matter of Fighter vs. Wizard. A Wizard and Fighter has nothing to do with it in fact, it is more a argument of Feats vs. Spells if anything. But it continues because a Wizard is the sum of his spells and a Fighter the sum of his Feats. And as there is an nigh infinite number of spells and possibilities which are much easier to take and use then feats, it is only natural that Spells are better then feats. This does not make the Wizard better then the Fighter, it makes anyone who uses just spells better then anyone who uses just feats. That is all. By sheer guilt by association, sure a Wizard is Better then a Fighter. But it has A LOT MORE to do with how one PLAYS a Wizard and how one PLAYS a Fighter. As opposed to 'who wins coming out of the box'."

Which is really I think what everybody is arguing about. Sure a super optimized Wizard can beat a fighter, and sure a super optimized Fighter can beat a Wizard. What you then argue over is how much optimization it takes for the scales to continually tip to the Optimized Wizard. In which case it always again boils down to spells being easier to optimize then feats. Thus the conflict springs eternal because no one side is clearly always right or wrong.

ALL THE MORE REASON NOT TO CONTINUALLY ARGUE ABOUT IT AND SIMPLY ENJOY THE GAME, AND/OR ALLOW OTHERS TO ENJOY THE GAME TOO.

*whew* :smallsmile:

Okay, I've said my peace. Does this help Op? It may be tl;dr but I hope it puts the whole argument into perspective, step back and question the mechanics not the class who utilize the mechanics.

Divide by Zero
2010-04-25, 03:53 PM
Why is it always assumed a Wizard has all the time in the world to prepare? (snip)

Fighter catches wizard off-guard. Wizard teleports away. Now he knows the fighter is after him, and proceeds with scry-and-die tactics. This, of course, ignores the fact that a wizard with typical everyday spells will still beat the fighter 9 times out of 10 anyway.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-25, 04:00 PM
Basically this. It's assumed that the Wizard always has preparation time because Wizards only fight on their own terms - if caught unprepared, they Teleport to safety where the Fighter can't chase them, do their preparations, and then perform a scry-and-die. The only real concession here is that the Wizard has a Teleport prepared, and that's based on the assumption that since it's such an obvious thing to do, any Wizard who wouldn't has already been weeded out due to natural selection before it becomes relevant.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-25, 04:05 PM
It's actually a good argument.

However, I feel that the optimization scale is pretty low for what it takes to "tip the scales". Optimize a cast stat, pick a school, and you can do something with it.

For example: The core wizard I just finished building makes extensive use of evocation, widely considered one of the weaker schools, especially against high HP characters. My ban choices weren't stupid, but weren't the best. Spell choices are core only, and feature many iconic spells, intended to be used in unusual ways. Yes, it has level 9 spells, and yes it has a slew of metamagic feats. Honestly, there's not too much else to do with wizard bonus feats, and they're the only metas I've got. My feats include Weapon Focus, and Greater spell focus in two schools (evocation is one of those two). I don't have Teleport prepared, though it is in the spellbook.

It has very little in disposable wealth, and assumes it will have multi-day buffs and buffs that last for 20 hours at a time active at all times. Otherwise, no buffs, even if it has the slots to make them last all day (for example: a trio of Rod extended Shapechanges would last 20 hours exact at CL 20-400 minutes each. This kind of shenanigan wasn't done.)

In a large arena with suitable terrain (i.e. not a flat open plain, but a general vision range of no more than 100 feet in most places, less in some, more in 1 or 2), and a moderately short starting distance determined by respective Spot/Listen checks, I have full confidence in it.

I'm interested to see if Giacomo has the same level of faith in his confidence about fighters.

Gametime
2010-04-25, 04:06 PM
It's item value, not item cost, that determines availability.

My suggestion was intended as a joke. However...


Nothing that costs more than a community’s gp limit is available for purchase in that community. Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical.

Emphasis mine. Not a single reference to value; cost or price is, according to this passage, the only criterion for availability. It's possible there's another passage that I haven't found that contradicts this, of course.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-25, 04:08 PM
My suggestion was intended as a joke. However...



Emphasis mine. Not a single reference to value; cost or price is, according to this passage, the only criterion for availability. It's possible there's another passage that I haven't found that contradicts this, of course.


Eyes of Petrification

These items are made of special crystal and fit over the eyes of the wearer. They allow her to use a petrification gaze attack (Fortitude DC 19 negates) for 10 rounds per day. Both lenses must be worn for the magic to be effective.

Moderate transmutation; CL 11th; Craft Wondrous Item, flesh to stone; Price 98,000 gp.

Emphasis mine. Price is referenced in the item list. That's not a suggested retail price there.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-25, 04:14 PM
Emphasis mine. Price is referenced in the item list. That's not a suggested retail price there.

Using the DMG, Price, value, and suggested retail price are the same, since they didn't add rules for Diplomacy earning discounts until CAdv.

Prodan
2010-04-25, 04:14 PM
Why is it always assumed a Wizard has all the time in the world to prepare?It's like they have the ability to know about things before they happen.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-25, 04:23 PM
It's like they have the ability to know about things before they happen.

Anyone with money can do that. The divination argument breaks down into "nuh uh, I hit you first, I'm the cowboy and you're the indian so I win".

There's no winning the playground fight that it spawns. For either side.

Gametime
2010-04-25, 04:47 PM
Emphasis mine. Price is referenced in the item list. That's not a suggested retail price there.

Then it isn't a case of price versus value, but of multiple meanings of the word "price" that aren't actually clarified in the DMG.

The skill expansion in Complete Adventurer does, however, specify "asking price" when referring to discounts. This seems to imply that the "price" listed along with magic items is, in fact, their value. This would explain why items of a certain value aren't available in smaller settlements, since they lack the economic infrastructure necessary to produce the labor needed to create items of a certain value.

If that isn't the case, then using "price" to determine availability leads to all sorts of bizarre situations, since prices - as you yourself pointed out - obviously fluctuate.

Azernak0
2010-04-25, 04:59 PM
This is going to become a multiple page thing, so I guess I'll get in on it now.

Magic can do many, many things that Non-Magic can not do. For example, take a level 1 Fighter with Power Attack, Cleave, and Weapon Focus. He can kill 2 Orc Warriors a round by rolling an 8 to hit them. A Wizard casts sleep and takes 4 of them out unless they roll an 18 to save. Once they are sleep, even a Wizard CDG should be able to take them out.

The reason this is seen as fair (at least in the beginning to WotC) is that a Wizard only can do it so many times per day and after which he is spent. The Fighter can go forever. However, a spell or two is generally enough to make any encounter much easier.

Breaking down the levels, let's say that the 2 start 30 feet from each other:
Level 1: It is completely based on who wins Initiative. If the Fighter wins Initiative, he charges and attacks a +8 against the AC 16 Wizard. If the Wizard wins, he casts Sleep which the Fighter is likely only going to have a Save of 1 or 2 (4 at the very most) against a DC 16 or 17. The Fighter fails more often then the Wizard is hit.

Level 5: Levitate or Fly makes the Fighter a whole lot less of an issue. Fly + Windwall means that without Magic, the Fighter can't hurt you. Summon Monster 3 makes creatures that will prove a tough fight for Mr. Fighter. Hell, Scorching Ray x 2 or 3 will likely turn Mr. Fighter into a puddle of goo.

Past level 5, the chance that the Fighter is going to win just continues to plummet. However, a duel type scenario is giving a Fighter the best chance because the Wizard shouldn't allow himself to caught in the open. At level 9, the Wizard has the capability of doing good ol' Scry and Die on the Fighter when he is taking a dump or asleep. Scry + Greater Invisibility + Teleport, Dominate, Wall of Force, or just Enervate the fighter to the point that he turns into a wight. Even better is Scry + Teleport a Summoned Creature to preform a CDG on the sleeping fighter.

DnD combat is based on an Action Economy. A character can only do so many actions and even if he is capable of doing a hundred different extremely powerful things, he can generally only do one or two of them a round. A Wizard has Quicken to break the Action Economy, gives buffs to the party that continue to be a benefit thus negative the Action Economy (every time someone attacks with Haste, it is because of the Wizard's one action), or throw out a debuff that makes it difficult for enemies to preform any actions. The Fighter is generally only able of doing something outside of his turn with an Attack of Opportunity, which is probably why virtually every optimized melee type uses a Spiked Chain.

Control is far more important then doing damage which is why something like Batman is more often seen as more powerful than a Blaster. At higher level, monsters are generally capable of killing party members in one round and healing is basically never able to keep up with damage taken (aside from Heal, which is useful in combat). This means that preventing enemies from taking their actions to kill the party will make the fight survivable. The statement is generally described as "A mook with 1 HP is a full threat but a blind mook is a pushover." Wizards have this in spades; Glitterdust, Grease, Web, Solid Fog, and the Spray line of spells are capable of making many enemies much less of a threat. Fighters have grapple, which denies them of their actions too, disarm, which dragons don't care about, and trip. Trip is powerful and is why some great builds use it as the bread and butter.

However, Trip is risky. Two poor results on a d20 can mean that Mr. Fighter is faceplanted. To increase the power and decrease the risk in trip, there are three ways: Improved Trip, Strength adders, and Size modifiers. Improved Trip should always be included in a Trip build, so that's easy to get. Strength can be increased past character creation with 5 levels or magic. Size is really only able to be increased by magic. Fighters have to jump through hoops in order to increase their meager control power and it is still risky, whereas Wizards can just through out Slow or Web without intensive thought or risk.

Fluffles
2010-04-25, 05:11 PM
This is going to become a multiple page thing, so I guess I'll get in on it now.

Magic can do many, many things that Non-Magic can not do. For example, take a level 1 Fighter with Power Attack, Cleave, and Weapon Focus. He can kill 2 Orc Warriors a round by rolling an 8 to hit them. A Wizard casts sleep and takes 4 of them out unless they roll an 18 to save. Once they are sleep, even a Wizard CDG should be able to take them out.

The reason this is seen as fair (at least in the beginning to WotC) is that a Wizard only can do it so many times per day and after which he is spent. The Fighter can go forever. However, a spell or two is generally enough to make any encounter much easier.

Breaking down the levels, let's say that the 2 start 30 feet from each other:
Level 1: It is completely based on who wins Initiative. If the Fighter wins Initiative, he charges and attacks a +8 against the AC 16 Wizard. If the Wizard wins, he casts Sleep which the Fighter is likely only going to have a Save of 1 or 2 (4 at the very most) against a DC 16 or 17. The Fighter fails more often then the Wizard is hit.

Level 5: Levitate or Fly makes the Fighter a whole lot less of an issue. Fly + Windwall means that without Magic, the Fighter can't hurt you. Summon Monster 3 makes creatures that will prove a tough fight for Mr. Fighter. Hell, Scorching Ray x 2 or 3 will likely turn Mr. Fighter into a puddle of goo.

Past level 5, the chance that the Fighter is going to win just continues to plummet. However, a duel type scenario is giving a Fighter the best chance because the Wizard shouldn't allow himself to caught in the open. At level 9, the Wizard has the capability of doing good ol' Scry and Die on the Fighter when he is taking a dump or asleep. Scry + Greater Invisibility + Teleport, Dominate, Wall of Force, or just Enervate the fighter to the point that he turns into a wight. Even better is Scry + Teleport a Summoned Creature to preform a CDG on the sleeping fighter.

DnD combat is based on an Action Economy. A character can only do so many actions and even if he is capable of doing a hundred different extremely powerful things, he can generally only do one or two of them a round. A Wizard has Quicken to break the Action Economy, gives buffs to the party that continue to be a benefit thus negative the Action Economy (every time someone attacks with Haste, it is because of the Wizard's one action), or throw out a debuff that makes it difficult for enemies to preform any actions. The Fighter is generally only able of doing something outside of his turn with an Attack of Opportunity, which is probably why virtually every optimized melee type uses a Spiked Chain.

Control is far more important then doing damage which is why something like Batman is more often seen as more powerful than a Blaster. At higher level, monsters are generally capable of killing party members in one round and healing is basically never able to keep up with damage taken (aside from Heal, which is useful in combat). This means that preventing enemies from taking their actions to kill the party will make the fight survivable. The statement is generally described as "A mook with 1 HP is a full threat but a blind mook is a pushover." Wizards have this in spades; Glitterdust, Grease, Web, Solid Fog, and the Spray line of spells are capable of making many enemies much less of a threat. Fighters have grapple, which denies them of their actions too, disarm, which dragons don't care about, and trip. Trip is powerful and is why some great builds use it as the bread and butter.

However, Trip is risky. Two poor results on a d20 can mean that Mr. Fighter is faceplanted. To increase the power and decrease the risk in trip, there are three ways: Improved Trip, Strength adders, and Size modifiers. Improved Trip should always be included in a Trip build, so that's easy to get. Strength can be increased past character creation with 5 levels or magic. Size is really only able to be increased by magic. Fighters have to jump through hoops in order to increase their meager control power and it is still risky, whereas Wizards can just through out Slow or Web without intensive thought or risk.

Within 30' at level 1-5 the decently optimized fighter can beat an equally optimized Wizard about 50% of the time. After the Wizard gets 4th level spells though, the fighter will never have a chance. Ever. (Yay! Polymorph into a Treant! beat the fighter at his own game! With more reach than he has with a reach weapon to boot)

Procyonpi
2010-04-25, 05:39 PM
OOH! This is a fun debate!

First of all, as an Arcane caster, I'd take Sorcerer over Wizard any day. The extra spells per day by far make up for the limited number known. Plus playing a character with high Charisma is so much more fun! :D

That being said, Fighter vs. Arcane: it depends on a lot of things.

1. The level. Wizards stink at low level. They die really easily, and there attacks aren't really any better than a fighter with a greatsword. However, as you go up in levels, Wizards become really broken. I mean, a lot of their attacks get more powerful by caster level, so the amount damage they can dish out goes up A LOT faster than a fighter. Oh, and they can FLY.

2. The setting. At close quarters, Fighters can disrupt arcane casters, and high-level casters can't take as much advantage of their fight. I an open field... the fighter is screwed.

However, I feel like fighters are sorta over-rated as the the best thing to throw at a wizard. Sure, they're the most versatile. I mean, it's hard for a fighter to dish out as much damage as a raging Barbarian with power attack, even with a ton of feats. And barbarian's extra hit points are really useful for absorbing attacks. Also, a ranger gets the same BAB and the good reflex save, which is really important with a lot of damage spells. Plus, if the ranger is a range combat specialist, that takes a lot of the kick out of flight.

Escheton
2010-04-25, 05:41 PM
is this becoming another debate?

because a harpoon spamming fighter can lock down a group of foes pretty good.
and then deal the mad damage

wizard still wins though
till he runs outta juice, the fighter wins

Eldariel
2010-04-25, 05:52 PM
OOH! This is a fun debate!

First of all, as an Arcane caster, I'd take Sorcerer over Wizard any day. The extra spells per day by far make up for the limited number known. Plus playing a character with high Charisma is so much more fun! :D

Fun, sure, but worse. Spells known make all the difference, but the backbreaker is being a spell level behind. Sorcerers can't overcome that ever (and Wizards can get as many spells per day with Focused Specialist if they so desire).


That being said, Fighter vs. Arcane: it depends on a lot of things.

1. The level. Wizards stink at low level. They die really easily, and there attacks aren't really any better than a fighter with a greatsword. However, as you go up in levels, Wizards become really broken. I mean, a lot of their attacks get more powerful by caster level, so the amount damage they can dish out goes up A LOT faster than a fighter. Oh, and they can FLY.

Their attacks are much better since they hit multiple targets, have range and generally higher chance of 1-hit KO. But they're limited on times per day and are squishy if not tending to their defenses. Still, stuff like Color Spray and Sleep might as well kill people, and Grease & co. are solid level 1 control spells that wreck people failing saves and inconvenience successful ones.

Then there's handy stuff like Ray of Enfeeblement and Enlarge Person for some key uses, mostly involving warrior-types in the party though. But as said, there are many multitarget nukes on level 1 and Wizard can easily have 4 of them.


2. The setting. At close quarters, Fighters can disrupt arcane casters, and high-level casters can't take as much advantage of their fight. I an open field... the fighter is screwed.

That's harder than you'd think due to things like Walls of Force being impregnable save for magic or 10k+ magic items. That's really the heart of the problem...well, that and one spell generally making the Fighter rather boned while Contingency and various short-term defenses tend to protect the Wizard.


However, I feel like fighters are sorta over-rated as the the best thing to throw at a wizard. Sure, they're the most versatile. I mean, it's hard for a fighter to dish out as much damage as a raging Barbarian with power attack, even with a ton of feats. And barbarian's extra hit points are really useful for absorbing attacks. Also, a ranger gets the same BAB and the good reflex save, which is really important with a lot of damage spells. Plus, if the ranger is a range combat specialist, that takes a lot of the kick out of flight.

Issue with ranged combat is, in short, concealment and Wind Wall. It's very hard to consistently detect someone in environments Wizards can generate and Wind Wall means that you need to be in another position as you no longer can affect the Wizard, wasting a ton of turns. But yeah.


But all this is pretty meh so meh, I'll meh meh meh.

Gametime
2010-04-25, 06:04 PM
But all this is pretty meh so meh, I'll meh meh meh.

Mehna mehna (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA90IlymdZ4&feature=related)?

Prodan
2010-04-25, 06:08 PM
because a harpoon spamming fighter can lock down a group of foes pretty good.
and then deal the mad damage

Could you explain this one? It sounds interesting.

Eldariel
2010-04-25, 06:10 PM
Could you explain this one? It sounds interesting.

Short version: Harpoon, Frostburn, Exotic, Screws movement on hit, Rapid Shot, Quick Draw, throw many, all enemies screwed, profit.

Prodan
2010-04-25, 06:12 PM
Short version: Harpoon, Frostburn, Exotic, Screws movement on hit, Rapid Shot, Quick Draw, throw many, all enemies screwed, profit.

Ah. Or perhaps arrr....

Paulus
2010-04-25, 06:32 PM
Fighter catches wizard off-guard. Wizard teleports away. Now he knows the fighter is after him, and proceeds with scry-and-die tactics. This, of course, ignores the fact that a wizard with typical everyday spells will still beat the fighter 9 times out of 10 anyway.

It also ignores that you assume all Wizards have access to Teleport. *shrug* Again it's assumed wizards have access to all spells and the right spells, but further more or less back to my original point, It all boils down to play style and mechanic vs. mechanic. So there you go.


Basically this. It's assumed that the Wizard always has preparation time because Wizards only fight on their own terms - if caught unprepared, they Teleport to safety where the Fighter can't chase them, do their preparations, and then perform a scry-and-die. The only real concession here is that the Wizard has a Teleport prepared, and that's based on the assumption that since it's such an obvious thing to do, any Wizard who wouldn't has already been weeded out due to natural selection before it becomes relevant.

Assuming the wizard gets to a high enough level to use Teleport, or has access to it, (teleport banned by higher Wizards to make it and roads more taxable. Probable? nah... possible? yup.) But again we are now getting into schrodinegrs spells and items and reiterate reiterate reiterate all boils down to play and mechanics. :3


It's actually a good argument.

However, I feel that the optimization scale is pretty low for what it takes to "tip the scales". Optimize a cast stat, pick a school, and you can do something with it.

~sniped

I'm interested to see if Giacomo has the same level of faith in his confidence about fighters.

Exactly, but it still remains a factor of how one PLAYS and even more so, the inherent flaw in the imbalanced mechanic.

Also, careful, don't want multi thread discussion to lock future threads. :/


It's like they have the ability to know about things before they happen.

But I just SAID...


Anyone with money can do that. The divination argument breaks down into "nuh uh, I hit you first, I'm the cowboy and you're the indian so I win".

There's no winning the playground fight that it spawns. For either side.

Yeah this.

Lysander
2010-04-25, 06:45 PM
Here's the answer you're looking for:

Neither the fighter or the wizard is more powerful because unless they work together against the slew of powerful opponents the DM is sending their way they will both be equally dead.

Even a level 20 wizard is still weaker than the DM, who has no level no hitpoints and no weaknesses other than running out of snacks, and has access to every spell and ability in print or that they can imagine.

A wizard can probably put on a good show by buffing themselves and launching attack spells, but they will put on a better show and have a better chance of not dying by buffing the fighter and supporting their brute force with utility spells. In other terms, the wizard is the archer and the fighter is the masterwork golden arrow. The purpose of the wizard is to launch the fighter with maximum power and effectiveness at their mutual enemies.

Koury
2010-04-25, 06:48 PM
Or to shapechange into the arrow himself.

Lysander
2010-04-25, 07:03 PM
Or to shapechange into the arrow himself.

If you are shapechanging into a melee combatant you are using up a 9th level spell slot to temporarily replicate what your big dumb friend can do automatically all day. The question isn't whether a shapechanged wizard can beat a fighter. It's whether a wizard is better off casting shapechange and fighting alongside the fighter in melee combat, or casting time stop and setting up the battlefield for the fighter's attack.

D&D should be viewed like a game of chess with pieces of different value. You have to solve a certain puzzle (the encounter, the campaign) with the given pieces. You don't call the knight or even the pawn worthless just because the queen is objectively a more powerful piece.

Private-Prinny
2010-04-25, 07:12 PM
D&D should be viewed like a game of chess with pieces of different value. You have to solve a certain puzzle (the encounter, the campaign) with the given pieces. You don't call the knight or even the pawn worthless just because the queen is objectively a more powerful piece.

If a Wizard is a queen, then the rooks, knights, and bishops would be Sorcerers, Beguilers, and Psions, and the pawns would be Rogues at worst.

A Fighter works out closer to being the king. It may have a fancy name and be iconic, but it can't do much on its own, so the other pieces have to compensate.

Koury
2010-04-25, 07:24 PM
If you are shapechanging into a melee combatant you are using up a 9th level spell slot to temporarily replicate what your big dumb friend can do automatically all day. The question isn't whether a shapechanged wizard can beat a fighter. It's whether a wizard is better off casting shapechange and fighting alongside the fighter in melee combat, or casting time stop and setting up the battlefield for the fighter's attack.

So wait, why is it an either/or? :smallconfused:

The Wizard can Time Stop, Shapechange AND do some other stuff, controling the battlefield.

Focused Specialist gets 60 slots/day, before bonus spells. 60/4 encounters a day means 15 spells per encounter. So he can afford to Time Stop AND Shapechange every time, if he chooses, being a control-y Wizard AND a better fighter then the Fighter.

Lysander
2010-04-25, 07:27 PM
If a Wizard is a queen, then the rooks, knights, and bishops would be Sorcerers, Beguilers, and Psions, and the pawns would be Rogues at worst.

A Fighter works out closer to being the king. It may have a fancy name and be iconic, but it can't do much on its own, so the other pieces have to compensate.

I think compensate is the wrong choice of words though. Because it isn't that you're picking classes as tools to handle a predetermined challenge. If that was the case then two wizards would definitely be a more powerful duo than a wizard and a fighter. No, instead it's that the challenge is designed to match the classes you pick. A party of full casters will face tougher challenges than a party that's mostly combatants with one or two spell casters. In other words, in a chess game where you have a queen for each piece, the enemy will also have a queen for each piece. I think that makes for a worse game.

And a fighter is in many ways is a magic sword delivery system. If there's an artifact Sword of Eternal Goodness that's the only thing that can harm the ancient evil sealed in a can, you want a buffed fighter with weapon feats wielding it rather than the wizard.


So wait, why is it an either/or? :smallconfused:

The Wizard can Time Stop, Shapechange AND do some other stuff, controling the battlefield.

Focused Specialist gets 60 slots/day, before bonus spells. 60/4 encounters a day means 15 spells per encounter. So he can afford to Time Stop AND Shapechange every time, if he chooses, being a control-y Wizard AND a better fighter then the Fighter.

There's no question that the wizard can do everything a fighter can do and far more. But the fighter is in some ways an asset to be used by the wizard. Not using that asset is a foolish waste. It would be like having a magic item that can summon a powerful monster whenever you want, but never using it because you can summon monsters with your own spells. And unlike a summoned monster, a fighter can also be a guy you get beers with after you triumph against the enemy.

Private-Prinny
2010-04-25, 07:35 PM
And a fighter is in many ways is a magic sword delivery system. If there's an artifact Sword of Eternal Goodness that's the only thing that can harm the ancient evil sealed in a can, you want a buffed fighter with weapon feats wielding it rather than the wizard.

I, as a DM, would never, ever, do that unless it was a martial-heavy campaign. Intentionally giving the party BSF all of the cool parts makes a worse game for everyone except him.

Lysander
2010-04-25, 07:41 PM
I, as a DM, would never, ever, do that unless it was a martial-heavy campaign. Intentionally giving the party BSF all of the cool parts makes a worse game for everyone except him.

Well, a good DM would give each character something important to do. Dumby the Fighter would have to battle the Ancient Demon with the Artifact Sword, while Magey The Wizard has to hold off Evily the Wizard who released the Ancient Demon, and Sneaky the Rogue protects Leafy the Druid from an army of zombies while Leafy summons a storm to zap the Gem of Needing a Lightning Bolt To Kill The Demon For Good.

Private-Prinny
2010-04-25, 07:46 PM
Well, a good DM would give each character something important to do. Dumby the Fighter would have to battle the Ancient Demon with the Artifact Sword, while Magey The Wizard has to hold off Evily the Wizard who released the Ancient Demon, and Sneaky the Rogue protects Leafy the Druid from an army of zombies while Leafy summons a storm to zap the Gem of Needing a Lightning Bolt To Kill The Demon For Good.

Which means that Dumby the Fighter isn't the only one who can touch Ancient Demon, unlike your first example. And what's stopping the entire party from just killing Evily in one round and then just using Banishment?

Arakune
2010-04-25, 07:46 PM
It also ignores that you assume all Wizards have access to Teleport. *shrug* Again it's assumed wizards have access to all spells and the right spells, but further more or less back to my original point, It all boils down to play style and mechanic vs. mechanic. So there you go.


Well, any wizard that don't have at least one "get out of jail free" card is a dead wizard. Some spells are just too useful for use. It can be a contingency, teleport or silent dimension door.

Yukitsu
2010-04-25, 07:53 PM
I, as a DM, would never, ever, do that unless it was a martial-heavy campaign. Intentionally giving the party BSF all of the cool parts makes a worse game for everyone except him.

I dunno. My DM gave me one of those with the caveat that it's intelligent item special life goal is to martyr me. It's abilities against anything other than the final boss also don't stack with my normal ones, so it would actually be better for anyone else, they just don't want to take it because they either aren't paladins, or are paladins with the VoP.

Private-Prinny
2010-04-25, 07:58 PM
I dunno. My DM gave me one of those with the caveat that it's intelligent item special life goal is to martyr me. It's abilities against anything other than the final boss also don't stack with my normal ones, so it would actually be better for anyone else, they just don't want to take it because they either aren't paladins, or are paladins with the VoP.

Then that's not specifically giving you something. It's tossing in an item that could end up with anyone in your party, and found its way into your hands.

As long as the fight against the BBEG doesn't boil down to "Hey guys, I'm gonna go do something awesome while you just stand there and be useless kthnxbye," then there's no harm done.

Lysander
2010-04-25, 08:01 PM
Which means that Dumby the Fighter isn't the only one who can touch Ancient Demon, unlike your first example. And what's stopping the entire party from just killing Evily in one round and then just using Banishment?

In a more generic sense, if team PC consists of a wizard and a fighter then team Enemy NPC will consist of something equivalent in power to a wizard and a fighter. Even if the fighter is a small percentage of team PC's overall power, the wizard is still somewhat outmatched if they try to handle things by themselves.

Yukitsu
2010-04-25, 08:02 PM
Then that's not specifically giving you something. It's tossing in an item that could end up with anyone in your party, and found its way into your hands.

As long as the fight against the BBEG doesn't boil down to "Hey guys, I'm gonna go do something awesome while you just stand there and be useless kthnxbye," then there's no harm done.

Ah, sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm the only one that can use it, as it has to be a paladin and they can't have the VoP. It just so happens that I can already do everything it does, and it's trying to kill me.

Private-Prinny
2010-04-25, 08:02 PM
In a more generic sense, if team PC consists of a wizard and a fighter then team Enemy NPC will consist of something equivalent in power to a wizard and a fighter. Even if the fighter is a small percentage of team PC's overall power, the wizard is still somewhat outmatched if they try to handle things by themselves.

Fair enough. I just don't like arbitrary rewards to make up for a lack of staying power.

Koury
2010-04-25, 08:03 PM
In a more generic sense, if team PC consists of a wizard and a fighter then team Enemy NPC will consist of something equivalent in power to a wizard and a fighter. Even if the fighter is a small percentage of team PC's overall power, the wizard is still somewhat outmatched if they try to handle things by themselves.

Gate? :smallconfused:

Private-Prinny
2010-04-25, 08:04 PM
Gate? :smallconfused:

Team NPC has the same scope of power, remember? If you can chain-gate Solars, so can they. They might even be able to get a vengeful god on their side.

Koury
2010-04-25, 08:07 PM
Team NPC has the same scope of power, remember? If you can chain-gate Solars, so can they. They might even be able to get a vengeful god on their side.

Yeah, ok. Same scope of power would imply I have a god on my side too. Either way, it seems like it is a wizard dual an whichever sides wizard wins will win the battle.

Lysander
2010-04-25, 08:08 PM
Gate? :smallconfused:

All of the wizard's spells, including ones that summon melee combatants, still fall under wizard. There's no question that the wizard can gate in a solar to help them. But the question still isn't whether a solar is a better ally than a fighter. It's whether the PCs are better off with a wizard, a gated solar, AND a fighter working together or just with the wizard and solar.


Yeah, ok. Same scope of power would imply I have a god on my side too. Either way, it seems like it is a wizard dual an whichever sides wizard wins will win the battle.

Actually, one good option for the DM is to make the enemy just consist of something equivalent to the wizard and for the fighter to be Team PC's only advantage. The idea being that whatever the enemy spends to hold off the fighter (summoned monsters, forcecages, etc.) are a drain on magical resources and on actions that allow the PC wizard to triumph in an otherwise even fight.

Koury
2010-04-25, 08:10 PM
All of the wizard's spells, including ones that summon melee combatants, still fall under wizard. There's no question that the wizard can gate in a solar to help them. But the question still isn't whether a solar is a better ally than a fighter. It's whether the PCs are better off with a wizard, a gated solar, AND a fighter working together or just with the wizard and solar.

Wizard, Solar and Fighter is about an equal fight for a Wizard, Solar and Commoner. All that matters is which sides casters can win.

Yukitsu
2010-04-25, 08:10 PM
All of the wizard's spells, including ones that summon melee combatants, still fall under wizard. There's no question that the wizard can gate in a solar to help them. But the question still isn't whether a solar is a better ally than a fighter. It's whether the PCs are better off with a wizard, a gated solar, AND a fighter working together or just with the wizard and solar.

I thought the question was wizard + fighter vs. wizard + literally anything else, or in some scenarios, wizard + wizard.

I mean, it's not as though the number of players suddenly drops whenever someone plays a wizard.

Flickerdart
2010-04-25, 08:13 PM
It's whether the PCs are better off with a wizard, a gated solar, AND a fighter working together or just with the wizard and solar.
The latter case yields more XP for the same effort.

Lysander
2010-04-25, 08:38 PM
I also think that a fully optimized wizard is a generally bad move for the game. It's not cheating per se, it's more like playing a game you're good at on easy mode instead of medium or hard. Personally I find that kind of boring. I mean, isn't it really more satisfying to work with allies and pull off a really smart attack plan instead of casting a few 9th spells that instantly let you win? I don't enjoy bowling when the gutters are both blocked off and its impossible to lose. In a way, it's also impossible to win.

Of course, the problem of full optimization is that turnabout is fair play and then your opponents will also be optimized. So let's say you manage to design a character so powerful that the rest of the party is useless. The final battle eventually stops being a mental challenge, where you figure out how the party can cooperate to win, and becomes a game of pure chance where godly you and godly BBEG launch spells at each other until one is lucky enough to get through, and the puny martial allies on both sides sit back and eat popcorn watching the fireworks. Meh.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-25, 08:44 PM
I also think that a fully optimized wizard is a generally bad move for the game. It's not cheating per se, it's more like playing a game you're good at on easy mode instead of medium or hard. Personally I find that kind of boring. I mean, isn't it really more satisfying to work with allies and pull off a really smart attack plan instead of casting a few 9th spells that instantly let you win? I don't enjoy bowling when the gutters are both blocked off and its impossible to lose. In a way, it's also impossible to win.

Of course, the problem of full optimization is that turnabout is fair play and then your opponents will also be optimized. So let's say you manage to design a character so powerful that the rest of the party is useless. The final battle eventually stops being a mental challenge, where you figure out how the party can cooperate to win, and becomes a game of pure chance where godly you and godly BBEG launch spells at each other until one is lucky enough to get through, and the puny martial allies on both sides sit back and eat popcorn watching the fireworks. Meh.

And then you get the games where everyone's optimized, because you're playing the game that you're good at on Nightmare difficulty, and the whole party needs every edge they can get.

Lysander
2010-04-25, 08:49 PM
And then you get the games where everyone's optimized, because you're playing the game that you're good at on Nightmare difficulty, and the whole party needs every edge they can get.

Which is perfectly fine. There is a unique type of joy to a game where you play as a superbeing and duke it out with other superbeings in battles that level cities. But a hero's limitations often make their story more interesting. There's a place for both Superman and for Spider-Man.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-25, 08:58 PM
Which is perfectly fine. There is a unique type of joy to a game where you play as a superbeing and duke it out with other superbeings in battles that level cities. But a hero's limitations often make their story more interesting. There's a place for both Superman and for Spider-Man.

Except that, in this instance, it's more like Superman and Aquaman.

There's also a certain novelty, not in "super vs super", but in having to work in ways you never thought of to do things you never imagined.

When you put Guitar Hero on expert mode, you bring your "A" game. Because using limitations you don't need to have? Will just lower your success.

I disagree that wizards are a bad choice, generally. I think that, more accurately, High tier and low tier are generally not wise to mix. Like oil and water.

I love me some oil. Goes great in my sautees, in my vinaigrette dressings, and more.

I love me some water. makes Kool aid good, pancakes moist, and boils my pasta to perfection.

They don't typically mix too well, though.

Koury
2010-04-25, 09:01 PM
When you put Guitar Hero on expert mode, you bring your "A" game. Because using limitations you don't need to have? Will just lower your success.

Unrelated side note: I will beat anyone here in Rock Band/Guitar Hero. For reals. :smallcool:

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-25, 09:10 PM
Unrelated side note: I will beat anyone here in Rock Band/Guitar Hero. For reals. :smallcool:
Careful on those kinda claims, compadre. I know how to make guitars stop working midsong. If you can't beat em? Cheat.

Koury
2010-04-25, 09:15 PM
Careful on those kinda claims, compadre. I know how to make guitars stop working midsong. If you can't beat em? Cheat.

Psh, I only need half a song sometimes. :smallcool:

XBL tag: Koury

Gametime
2010-04-25, 09:27 PM
If you are shapechanging into a melee combatant you are using up a 9th level spell slot to temporarily replicate what your big dumb friend can do automatically all day. The question isn't whether a shapechanged wizard can beat a fighter. It's whether a wizard is better off casting shapechange and fighting alongside the fighter in melee combat, or casting time stop and setting up the battlefield for the fighter's attack.



No, it isn't. The question is whether a fighter and a wizard working together make for a better team than a wizard and a wizard working together.

The point of this discussion isn't to prove that a wizard alone is better than a wizard plus a fighter, nor is it to prove that a wizard shouldn't ever help his teammates ever. It is to derail a discussion about player etiquette discuss how powerful wizards and fighters are.

A wizard in a party with a fighter should definitely throw some buffs on him and let him go to town, because then the wizard can use his own actions to throw out battlefield control and generally be more effective than he would have been by just going into melee for gits and shiggles. But a wizard in a party with another wizard has oodles more tactical options, because they can now consider the possibilities of both their spell sets working together.

Buff up one to go melee while the other controls from the skies? Buff up both to go melee and just Godzilla the opposition? Set up an impenetrable wall, take to the skies, and dispose of the worms at your leisure? Team Wizard has far more options than Team Diversity. By trying to frame the discussion in terms of how a fighter and wizard should interact with each other, you ignore the fundamental issue of what could be.

Which isn't, of course, to say that parties with fighters and wizards are evilbadwrong. I agree with you that a more diverse party tends to be more interesting, and I prefer games that don't involve every player character being a walking god by level 15. None of this changes the fact that the wizard can straight-up trounce the fighter.

Lysander
2010-04-25, 09:52 PM
Except that, in this instance, it's more like Superman and Aquaman.


Hey, Aquaman is highly underrated. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110181) :smalltongue:

Escheton
2010-04-26, 09:02 AM
round 1 big bad enemy charges (won initiative). Like the wizard he is optimized. Wizard alone would die in a heartbeat. Wizard with steel wall in front of him survives to kill the bad guy and either repair the warforged wall or message the cleric

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-26, 09:21 AM
round 1 big bad enemy charges (won initiative). Like the wizard he is optimized. Wizard alone would die in a heartbeat. Wizard with steel wall in front of him survives to kill the bad guy and either repair the warforged wall or message the cleric

Round 1 BBE Charges, won initiative. (Sure, let's assume they start conveniently 60 feet away, with no obstructions in the way)

Wizard's contingency triggers, and he disappears.

Wizard's round 1: Maximized Time Stop,
(1): Maximized Empowered Delay Blast Fireball, Quickened Empowered Delay Blast Fireball
(2): Maximized Empowered Delay Blast Fireball,
(3): Maximized Delay Blast Fireball
(4): Maximized Delay Blast Fireball
(5): Maximized Delay Blast Fireball

(note, this is a highly sub par tactic, used only as an example. Assume wizard has an Int of 32, and Greater Spell focus (evocation))

6 fireballs go off, requiring:
120 damage + 10d6 (avg 155) Reflex DC 30 half
120 damage + 10d6 (avg 155) Reflex DC 30 half
120 damage + 10d6 (avg 155) Reflex DC 30 half
120 damage + 10d6 (avg 155) Reflex DC 30 half
120 damage + 10d6 (avg 155) Reflex DC 30 half
30d6 damage (avg 105) Reflex DC 30 half

Assuming every save is passed, and no evasion is possessed: 440 average fire damage. If Fire resist 30 is active? 290 damage. If Protection from fire is active, with 120 points of protection, then it's 170 average damage.

On passed saves. Failed saves? 880 damage, 730 after Resist 30, 610 after prot from fire.

Likely, there'd be some pass, some fail, yielding around 400 with resists and protection up.

That's why. Also why the level 20 Core wizard I have statted up doesn't use time stop. Too easy.

Parra
2010-04-26, 09:47 AM
Wizard's contingency triggers, and he disappears.

and if the BBEG's opening action doesnt (for whatever reason) trigger the contingency's pre-set conditions?

or if the BBEG's has there own contingency's ready to counter a massive spell barrage?

out of curiosities; outside of the craft contingency feat, how many contingency's can a wizard have running at any given time and of sufficient power to (near) guarantee negation of a BBEG's opening action?

Divide by Zero
2010-04-26, 09:53 AM
and if the BBEG's opening action doesnt (for whatever reason) trigger the contingency's pre-set conditions?

or if the BBEG's has there own contingency's ready to counter a massive spell barrage?

out of curiosities; outside of the craft contingency feat, how many contingency's can a wizard have running at any given time and of sufficient power to (near) guarantee negation of a BBEG's opening action?

It's not that hard to properly word a contingency to cover all possible issues. For an example: "Trigger if anyone initiates combat and takes an action before I do" guarantees that you will always go first.

If the BBEG has their own contingencies, then you're talking about a caster duel, which is substantially different from fighter vs. wizard. That basically comes down to either a stalemate or whoever gets initiative winning.

Without Craft Contingency, you only have one (unless it's a psion multiclass, in which case two). But a reasonably intelligent wizard only needs one, at least against a fighter.

Coplantor
2010-04-26, 11:22 AM
round 1 big bad enemy charges (won initiative). Like the wizard he is optimized. Wizard alone would die in a heartbeat. Wizard with steel wall in front of him survives to kill the bad guy and either repair the warforged wall or message the cleric

ACF Abrupt Jaunt, I see your charge, I teleport behind you.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-26, 11:23 AM
ACF Abrupt Jaunt, I see your charge, I teleport behind you.

Or just Abrupt Jaunt 10ft sideways once he's begun moving. Unless you're a Drunken Master or have a specific, situational feat, you can't change the direction of a charge once you've started.

Flickerdart
2010-04-26, 11:30 AM
round 1 big bad enemy charges (won initiative). Like the wizard he is optimized. Wizard alone would die in a heartbeat. Wizard with steel wall in front of him survives to kill the bad guy and either repair the warforged wall or message the cleric
Except that the Fighter has no inherent way of stopping that charge, other than the 5ft square he occupies. If the enemy can fly, the Fighter can't contribute at all with his class features, not even with that 5ft square. The BBEG will attack the Wizard because the Fighter is no real threat to him, and if he's as optimized as the Wizard then there is no way the Fighter is contributing to the battle.

Cogidubnus
2010-04-26, 02:32 PM
This argument's a bit of a strange one. Put them in an 8x8 square room and give the fighter initiative, he's probably won. Scroll of antimagic field and all his skill ranks in UMD. Assumin he was built just to kill wizards. On the other hand, if you put them in a natural setting, the fighter will have an entire party behind him. The wizard will have a tower full of monsters. In a 1 on 1 fight, if the wizard goes first, it's all over. With one word. "Shapechange".

edit: Or Prismatic Wall + Permanancy + Overland Flight and go home. Or Time Stop, Cloudkill, Cloudkill, Cloudkill, Wall of Ice.

Paulus
2010-04-26, 05:31 PM
This debate is leaning a bit too dangerously toward "People who play fighters intentionally want to make the game worse for others" territory here... and "anyone who can't contribute as much as a wizard can is intentionally hurting the game."... I think we may all need to step back, if you go too far down that path the argument could turn on you to "anyone who plays a wizard is intentionally trying to make the game worse for everybody." and "anyone who plays a full caster just wants to god mode and intentionally ruin the game for everyone else." . . ."If everybody else sucks when there are full casters around, maybe the problem is with the full casters." ...just sayin'.

So you know, back up a bit, you're frothing at the mouth there...:smallsmile:

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-26, 05:49 PM
This debate is leaning a bit too dangerously toward "People who play fighters intentionally want to make the game worse for others" territory here... and "anyone who can't contribute as much as a wizard can is intentionally hurting the game."... I think we may all need to step back, if you go too far down that path the argument could turn on you to "anyone who plays a wizard is intentionally trying to make the game worse for everybody." and "anyone who plays a full caster just wants to god mode and intentionally ruin the game for everyone else." . . ."If everybody else sucks when there are full casters around, maybe the problem is with the full casters." ...just sayin'.

So you know, back up a bit, you're frothing at the mouth there...:smallsmile:

Hey, I never said that. I did say that putting high and low tiers in the same game can make things difficult... That is, unless the powerful one plays nice.

Paulus
2010-04-26, 06:11 PM
Hey, I never said that. I did say that putting high and low tiers in the same game can make things difficult... That is, unless the powerful one plays nice.

I didn't say you did say that, I'm just said This debate is leaning a bit too dangerously toward not that it IS outright saying so, but it could be, so I'm just saying to make sure we all recognize the danger signs here...

And yes a lot of it requires players with super powerful options to play nice... but if they don't... you are leaning towards the dangerous path that "people who play casters are intentionally trying to hurt the game". Whereas everybody who isn't a full caster can play as mean as they want and it doesn't really break the game because the other players/DM can counter act him because the power levels are pretty even.

Not saying this is a forgone conclusion, juts pointing the pitfalls out ahead of time, because this whole argument could come quiet close to convincing some DMs to ban full casters entirely because they are simply too powerful, "and besides there are other options to play, we can fit your character into something that doesn't have to be a full caster." Again, not saying it is forgone conclusion, just saying it is possible.

Just warning people of some of the messages that are in between the lines of what they say but don't see. One may never have thought one was saying or implying anything of the sort, but others can still pick it up. No ones fault really, but something people should be aware of. Especially if it continues this heatedly about proving just how worthless a fighter is compared to playing a wizard... especially when you compare it to being two wizards, and anything other then that is just a waste of time or intentionally being useless in the game....

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-26, 06:48 PM
I didn't say you did say that, I'm just said This debate is leaning a bit too dangerously toward not that it IS outright saying so, but it could be, so I'm just saying to make sure we all recognize the danger signs here...

And yes a lot of it requires players with super powerful options to play nice... but if they don't... you are leaning towards the dangerous path that "people who play casters are intentionally trying to hurt the game". Whereas everybody who isn't a full caster can play as mean as they want and it doesn't really break the game because the other players/DM can counter act him because the power levels are pretty even.

Not saying this is a forgone conclusion, juts pointing the pitfalls out ahead of time, because this whole argument could come quiet close to convincing some DMs to ban full casters entirely because they are simply too powerful, "and besides there are other options to play, we can fit your character into something that doesn't have to be a full caster." Again, not saying it is forgone conclusion, just saying it is possible.

Just warning people of some of the messages that are in between the lines of what they say but don't see. One may never have thought one was saying or implying anything of the sort, but others can still pick it up. No ones fault really, but something people should be aware of. Especially if it continues this heatedly about proving just how worthless a fighter is compared to playing a wizard... especially when you compare it to being two wizards, and anything other then that is just a waste of time or intentionally being useless in the game....
It's becoming a "foregone conclusion" because (get this) you're putting words in my mouth that I'm not saying. You commit so many fallacies in this that I don't know where to begin.


And yes a lot of it requires players with super powerful options to play nice... but if they don't... you are leaning towards the dangerous path that "people who play casters are intentionally trying to hurt the game".NO.
Not actively choosing to play nice is NOT the same as "intentionally choosing to hurt the game".

Say I say that junk foods cause cavities. I then say that if people practice vigilant dental hygiene and eat junk food, they should be fine.

If someone were to raise a point, "Well, that means that people that don't practice dental hygiene are intentionally trying to kill their own teeth"....

It's not true. You leave out the middle ground in your bounce between extremes. People that play casters, and don't make an effort to showcase other players, aren't necessarily actively trying to kill the game for others (which is what you suggest). They could just be trying to play a game.

In other words, Paulus, I'm getting rather tired of watching you jump at shadows and assume that because I state that "powerful classes have difficulty interacting in a balanced fashion with weaker classes, unless they make allowances", that I'm going to segue into "Wizard players are evil players that just want to kill D&D". It's unfounded, and not productive.

Why can't we discuss what is being discussed, rather than jumping in fear at what we think might, at some point, be said in the future?

In other words, you're letting your apprehension over possible issues create unwarranted strawmen. And frankly, I find it offensive. Please, I know what words I want escaping my mouth. I don't need anyone placing more in.

Ormagoden
2010-04-26, 06:50 PM
:: Slams head into keyboard as hard as possible over, and over, and over and...::

Paulus
2010-04-26, 07:40 PM
It's becoming a "foregone conclusion" because (get this) you're putting words in my mouth that I'm not saying. You commit so many fallacies in this that I don't know where to begin.

How many times do I have to say no one is saying this but could possibly say this if this continues or if that they continue to say what they are saying it could imply something they don't intend too and if they do intend to imply it things could get ugly?



NO.
Not actively choosing to play nice is NOT the same as "intentionally choosing to hurt the game".

Say I say that junk foods cause cavities. I then say that if people practice vigilant dental hygiene and eat junk food, they should be fine.

If someone were to raise a point, "Well, that means that people that don't practice dental hygiene are intentionally trying to kill their own teeth"....

It's not true. You leave out the middle ground in your bounce between extremes. People that play casters, and don't make an effort to showcase other players, aren't necessarily actively trying to kill the game for others (which is what you suggest). They could just be trying to play a game.

In other words, Paulus, I'm getting rather tired of watching you jump at shadows and assume that because I state that "powerful classes have difficulty interacting in a balanced fashion with weaker classes, unless they make allowances", that I'm going to segue into "Wizard players are evil players that just want to kill D&D". It's unfounded, and not productive.

Why can't we discuss what is being discussed, rather than jumping in fear at what we think might, at some point, be said in the future?

In other words, you're letting your apprehension over possible issues create unwarranted strawmen. And frankly, I find it offensive. Please, I know what words I want escaping my mouth. I don't need anyone placing more in.

And I find the increase in probability that such things COULD become such an issue that it warrants mentioning and clarification THAT NO ONE IS SAYING NOR SUGGESTING NOR SHOULD SUGGEST THIS and such things to me would be far more offensive then warning people that they should clarify they aren't saying such things. I will gladly bring up straw men so we can burn them down, together, before they become a problem. And I am not 'jumping in fear at what we think might, at some point, be said in the future' I'm jumping in friendly reminder of words of caution that such a possibility exists at all and therefore needs to be kept in mind so that such things are certain not to unfold in that way.

Forgive me for erring on the side of caution, and frankly I find your extreme offense offensive. You seem to think I am directing all of this at you and you alone and pulling everything I say from your mouth, when this is clearly not the case, I may respond to you, but my first warning was to the thread, in a light and comical manner, it was you who jumped at me defensively as If I was being accusatory.

I merely suggested a warning to avoid an issue entirely, whereby you made an issue of my warring about an issue and so here we stand now facing off and both being offended because of some misunderstanding which I myself and not clear on. I'm trying to remind people to play nice in the playground, this is all. I am not accusing anybody of saying anything, but I am saying if this "trend" continues it COULD and NO ONE wants that as you have shown as evident.

I am glad you don't. Neither do I. I am not saying you will, or are. And I don't like you saying I am saying you will or are, because that's putting words in my own mouth. I'm saying everybody in this thread could, even if they do not meant to, and no body wants that. If I am wrong in this, I would rather be wrong in making sure it never happens anyway then be right and it happens and nobody did anything to stop it and the thread is locked and dead. If this makes me an offensive villain for even suggesting people could say or imply something in the shadow of their own words, then forgive me for thinking people could make mistakes.

Have I been clear enough?

Koury
2010-04-26, 07:46 PM
Have I been clear enough?

!!!

This is funny on so many levels.

Paulus
2010-04-26, 07:57 PM
!!!

This is funny on so many levels.

Why because I clearly lack clarity? I have often said I have trouble expressing what I mean very well. Or did you think I was being sarcastic? Do I have to put a disclaimer on every post saying I have mental handicaps that don't allow me to express myself as well with the language as normal people do for goodness sakes? Do I have to continually bow and scrape and apologize if I accidentally offend someone because I am no master of words? Do I have to accept someones unkindness because they misunderstood me, or could not understand me, or somehow some way remind me at how much I fail to use my own abilities and faculties very well? Well excuse me then. So sorry. But I think this has gone on long enough. Think whatever you want, be offended if you want. I'm tried of trying to explain myself to anybody especially when I don't have to.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-26, 08:24 PM
How many times do I have to say no one is saying this but could possibly say this if this continues or if that they continue to say what they are saying it could imply something they don't intend too and if they do intend to imply it things could get ugly?


And yes a lot of it requires players with super powerful options to play nice... but if they don't... you are leaning towards the dangerous path that "people who play casters are intentionally trying to hurt the game". Whereas everybody who isn't a full caster can play as mean as they want and it doesn't really break the game because the other players/DM can counter act him because the power levels are pretty even.
THAT was putting words in my mouth. My mouth. Specifically. Why? Because it was a direct response to MY post, in direct reference to my view, and telling me what views I was leaning towards.

And it was a load of rubbish.

And I find the increase in probability that such things COULD become such an issue that it warrants mentioning and clarification THAT NO ONE IS SAYING NOR SUGGESTING NOR SHOULD SUGGEST THIS and such things to me would be far more offensive then warning people that they should clarify they aren't saying such things. I will gladly bring up straw men so we can burn them down, together, before they become a problem.So, in other words, you're bringing up views that nobody has mentioned having, on the off chance that someone may, sometime in the future?

Isn't that a bit like, say, designing someone a house when they say they want to remodel their kitchen?

I mean, if you want to tilt at windmills, be my guest, I suppose. Don't be surprised, though, if nobody else is interested in joining something that, at best, is rather Quixotic.


And I am not 'jumping in fear at what we think might, at some point, be said in the future' I'm jumping in friendly reminder of words of caution that such a possibility exists at all and therefore needs to be kept in mind so that such things are certain not to unfold in that way.See above.


Forgive me for erring on the side of caution, and frankly I find your extreme offense offensive. You seem to think I am directing all of this at you and you alone and pulling everything I say from your mouth, when this is clearly not the case, I may respond to you, but my first warning was to the thread, in a light and comical manner, it was you who jumped at me defensively as If I was being accusatory.See the above post which WAS directed to me. If you want to be offended because I don't like words being stuffed into my mouth? I suppose it's your right. Don't be surprised if I don't change my view on the subject, though. I still won't appreciate you chastising me for things I haven't said, on the grounds that I might.


I merely suggested a warning to avoid an issue entirely, whereby you made an issue of my warring about an issue and so here we stand now facing off and both being offended because of some misunderstanding which I myself and not clear on.The misunderstanding is clear. You put words in my mouth. I'd really appreciate if you didn't, mmkay?


I'm trying to remind people to play nice in the playground, this is all. I am not accusing anybody of saying anything, but I am saying if this "trend" continues it COULD and NO ONE wants that as you have shown as evident.I'd like to courteously refer you to the forum rules, at this time. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)

Koury
2010-04-26, 08:28 PM
Why because I clearly lack clarity? No, more like because phrases like 'clearly lack clarity' are funny.

I have often said I have trouble expressing what I mean very well. Or did you think I was being sarcastic? Do I have to put a disclaimer on every post saying I have mental handicaps that don't allow me to express myself as well with the language as normal people do for goodness sakes? Do I have to continually bow and scrape and apologize if I accidentally offend someone because I am no master of words? Do I have to accept someones unkindness because they misunderstood me, or could not understand me, or somehow some way remind me at how much I fail to use my own abilities and faculties very well? Well excuse me then. So sorry.
What? You sure do go off on some tangents. Excuse me for not having read every single post you've ever written. I didn't know you had some problem. No, you don't need to bow and scrape for anything. But what you do need to do? Chill out a little. I said, as you quoted, "This is funny on so many levels."

If I were to go by just your reply you'd think I said "Oh man, lets all point and stare at this person and laugh because they have some handicap." I didn't.

As a matter of fact, I said and thought nothing about you having any sort of handicap. You said something I thought was ironic. It made me laugh, and I made a post about it. I'm sorry you have a bunch of self-esteem issues and took what I said too personally, but none of that is my responsibility to deal with.

But I think this has gone on long enough. Think whatever you want, be offended if you want. I'm tried of trying to explain myself to anybody especially when I don't have to.
The only thing I'd have to be offended about is the million and one assumptions you seem to have made based off my one sentence. I don't recall asking you to explain yourself. Seriously, I thought something you said was funny. Still do. I also think the thing up in the first quote is funny. It makes me laugh. Dunno why you feel the need to get all butthurt at me over it.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-26, 10:25 PM
*makes popcorn, and offers some to Koury, watching the Serious Business (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeriousBusiness)unfold.*

sambo.
2010-04-26, 10:32 PM
aha, intarwebz arguments.

aint they grand.

Cogidubnus
2010-04-28, 12:17 PM
Ironic that this started from a (reasonably accurate) post that this argument tends to get a bit out of hand XD I have a solution though. Persuade everyone that Mystic Theurge is a good idea. That ought to lower their power rating somewhat.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-28, 12:20 PM
Ironic that this started from a (reasonably accurate) post that this argument tends to get a bit out of hand XD I have a solution though. Persuade everyone that Mystic Theurge is a good idea. That ought to lower their power rating somewhat.

Mystic Theurge suffers from the same problem as Vow of Poverty.

Awesome benefits, but the cost is typically too steep.

Cogidubnus
2010-04-28, 12:26 PM
Mystic Theurge suffers from the same problem as Vow of Poverty.

Awesome benefits, but the cost is typically too steep.

Exactly. It's not actually worth it, generally. Unless you want to play a healer/buffer (someone in the campaign I'm running now has done just that) in which case you're just bumping your party's powers.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-28, 12:32 PM
Exactly. It's not actually worth it, generally. Unless you want to play a healer/buffer (someone in the campaign I'm running now has done just that) in which case you're just bumping your party's powers.

You can make a powerful Theurge with early entry.

For example: Wizard 3 / Cleric 1 / Theurge 10.

You lose 1 wizard progression level for 11 cleric progression levels.

It's a good trade, even if you're more blasty.

Aharon
2010-04-28, 12:39 PM
As we're of on a tangent anyway, is it worth it to invest in lots of Grafts such as Feathered Wings (and other non-item posessions, if such things exist), then take VoP at 18th for all the boni it offers?

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-28, 12:51 PM
As we're of on a tangent anyway, is it worth it to invest in lots of Grafts such as Feathered Wings (and other non-item posessions, if such things exist), then take VoP at 18th for all the boni it offers?

I'd lean towards no, for the loss of flexibility, and the rather short duration of benefit.

Flickerdart
2010-04-28, 01:12 PM
Theurge is great when you use it to progress accelerated casting like the Ur-Priest, because you can actually finish all 9 spell levels that way.

Yukitsu
2010-04-28, 01:31 PM
As we're of on a tangent anyway, is it worth it to invest in lots of Grafts such as Feathered Wings (and other non-item posessions, if such things exist), then take VoP at 18th for all the boni it offers?

Rare event that I would take that feat, I'd say that you'd need both grafts and all of the relevant stat up books, and you'd have to be a druid or cleric. Otherwise no.

Aquillion
2010-04-28, 11:41 PM
Rare event that I would take that feat, I'd say that you'd need both grafts and all of the relevant stat up books, and you'd have to be a druid or cleric. Otherwise no.Even for Druids and Clerics, it's not so much that it's good for them as it is that they're so powerful and adaptable that they're not crippled by it like everyone else.

Sure, it'll give you some OK buffs in your bear form as a Druid, when you can't use most equipment (usually). But even aside from Wildling Clasps, the benefits you're giving up from owning stuff doesn't really strike me as worth it -- you don't need the limited benefits VoP brings.