Mage VS fighter. We know who would win, but why?

[druid91]

So I got into an interesting discussion in another thread.

Warriors can and will kill someone in a matter of seconds.

it was pointed out that a mage doing his complicated fancy dance and waving his arms and chanting would take too long to respond.

To which I responded that a combat spell would be little more than point and speak. Likely a single word and small gesture.

[sonofzeal]

"Don't bring a sword to a gunfight". Does that about cover it?

[Marnath]

The warrior thinks about attacking the wizard, and then eats half a dozen or so really nasty spells in the course of about 2 seconds after tripping the Wizard's contingent time stop spell.

[Xtomjames]

This very much depends on the fighter and how s/he was built versus the type of mage (meaning magic user). Mage vs. Fighter really is too vague. A Warlock (a type of mage) would kill a fighter outright presuming the fighter doesn't have a higher initiative (say like a rogue). This also depends on level, spells taken/prepared/known and differences in builds, along with circumstance type, distance between the mage and the fighter and so on.

I'll give an example as a challenge from a friend we pitted a warlock level 10 that I build against a level 10 Skeleton Warrior that he built. I won the initiative and as soon as I could I used the evocation to fly and then flew outside of the skeleton's range for his weapon. Since my eldritch blast had a thirty foot range I could sit up their for 24 hours and hit the skeleton a thousand times if I wanted to and not take damage from it's attacks.

[Flickerdart]

If D&D ran concurrently, and had lower HP (like 2e did) you'd be correct - by the time the Wizard could draw his material component, chant his words of power and murder the fighter, the fighter could probably draw his sword and make an attack. This is one of the reasons that casting tends to be weaker in video games based on D&D - however, even there, it is very rare for the fighter to deal enough damage to kill a wizard in one shot.

However, in 3.5, this is modelled by attacks of opportunity. If the opportunity doesn't present itself (such as the wizard reacting before the fighter can draw his sword) then it doesn't matter how fast the fighter can slash.

[Frozen_Feet]

This is best explained by a chess metaphor.

Fighter is a Pawn. Usually, there is precisely one or zero moves possible for him - two at most, if he's really, really lucky. To be able to slay an enemy piece, he needs to be in a very specific location.

Wizard is a Queen. It is possible for them to have just one or zero possible moves as well - but usually, especially if they're near the center of the table, they have many times more, and thus many more ways to affect the flow of the game.

It is almost impossible for a single Pawn to drive a Queen to a losing position - either he needs pals, or the Queen must make a tactical error. However, the Queen can slay a Pawn from multiple directions, from across the whole gameboard if need be, from many positions which are outside the Pawn's ability to affect.

This metaphor assumes, of course, that the Fighter is an actual fighter or some other low-tier class, while the Wizard is an actual wizard or some other high-tier class. If one is a Warblade and another is a Warmage, it's more like comparing Rook and a Bishop.

Both parties can slay each other instantly if the oppurtunity presents itself. However, this is moot if one party can decide to never give an oppurtunity to the other.

[Eldariel]

So I got into an interesting discussion in another thread.

Warriors can and will kill someone in a matter of seconds.

it was pointed out that a mage doing his complicated fancy dance and waving his arms and chanting would take too long to respond.

To which I responded that a combat spell would be little more than point and speak. Likely a single word and small gesture.

Vancian Spellcasting assumes the preparation is basically the actual casting of the spell. The "casting" in combat is merely the finishing trigger, the last syllable of the incantation; it's very short. D&D 3.5 assumes it's about as short as the time it takes to swing a sword once.

I dislike this assumption; the AD&D assumption of sword swing being notably faster than higher level spells (the higher level the spell the slower it was to cast) really improved the dynamic giving the warrior the striker's chance of getting the first attack and denying the Mage.

Nevertheless, that's the default assumption in 3.5. Wizard wins because magic is as fast as sword, and magic can trivialize the sword by denying the sword the chance to hit or destroying the wielder outright. Also, magic can be in place before the combat while the sword swing has to occur in the fight. Contingency and the various defensive spells available in the system can remove the risk of a sword strike ever connecting. Further, the Mage's list contains clairsentience capabilities which allow him to predict his fights in advance and come a surprise fight prepared while his opponent has to react on the fly. In short, magic wins because it has greater power and at least the same speed.

[Xtomjames]

Vancian Spellcasting assumes the preparation is basically the actual casting of the spell. The "casting" in combat is merely the finishing trigger, the last syllable of the incantation; it's very short. D&D 3.5 assumes it's about as short as the time it takes to swing a sword once.

I dislike this assumption; the AD&D assumption of sword swing being notably faster than higher level spells (the higher level the spell the slower it was to cast) really improved the dynamic giving the warrior the striker's chance of getting the first attack and denying the Mage.

Nevertheless, that's the default assumption in 3.5. Wizard wins because magic is as fast as sword, and magic can trivialize the sword by denying the sword the chance to hit or destroying the wielder outright. Also, magic can be in place before the combat while the sword swing has to occur in the fight. Contingency and the various defensive spells available in the system can remove the risk of a sword strike ever connecting. Further, the Mage's list contains clairsentience capabilities which allow him to predict his fights in advance and come a surprise fight prepared while his opponent has to react on the fly. In short, magic wins because it has greater power and at least the same speed.


It should be noted that in 3.5 the higher the level the spell the more often the spells take a full round action rather than standard action. What more AD&D spells are actually more powerful in many respects to 3.5, that's because 3.0 and 3.5 introduced Metamagic feats which tend to increase or decrease casting time, casting potency and damage.

[Eldariel]

It should be noted that in 3.5 the higher the level the spell the more often the spells take a full round action rather than standard action.

Hm? There's very few full-round action spells (none in core far as I remember). 1 round casting times are more common though they certainly don't scale by level. The 1 round spells I can remember off the top of my head are:
- Sleep
- Summon Monster-line (and SNA & Swarm obviously)
- Enlarge Person
- Reduce Person
- Antilife Shell
- Dominates
- Call Lightning (Storm)
- Storm of Vengeance

Enlarge/Reduce/Sleep/SM/SNA is 5 on level 1. There's like 3 on 5 and couple on each of the other levels. But I'm fairly sure level 1 has the largest number of spells with 1 round casting time (at least for the Wizard-list; most of the higher level ones are actually Druid-spells).


What more AD&D spells are actually more powerful in many respects to 3.5, that's because 3.0 and 3.5 introduced Metamagic feats which tend to increase or decrease casting time, casting potency and damage.

They only increase casting time for sorcerers. And only Quicken decreases casting time. These are, mostly, unaffected.

[Ravens_cry]

2nd edition had metamagic spells that modified other spells the way metamagic feats and rods do. It is an interesting take on it, though it would hinder sorcerers quite a bit.

[HalfDragonCube]

Fighter is a Pawn. Usually, there is precisely one or zero moves possible for him - two at most, if he's really, really lucky. To be able to slay an enemy piece, he needs to be in a very specific location.

Wizard is a Queen. It is possible for them to have just one or zero possible moves as well - but usually, especially if they're near the center of the table, they have many times more, and thus many more ways to affect the flow of the game.

And just as the pawn can become a queen, a Fighter can take levels in Wizard. Of course, like pawns, chances are for every one that lives to become legendary, countless more will be brutally slain by those superior to them.

Those that do make it are also disadvantaged in that they suck more than those that were better in the first place because they still have useless levels weighing them down, but that just killed the chess analogy.