Low level Wizards

[Heliomance]

So, the superiority of Wizards is oft-touted around these parts, and personally I believe it. I'm well aware of just how potent magic is, and the Sorc/Wiz spell list is probably the best one out there. What I haven't managed to get my head around, though, is the low-level power. At low level, a Wizard is squishy as all hell. How do they survive before they have Contingency, before they have flight, before they have teleportation, before they have Mirror Image? How can a Wizard manage, without a meatshield to stand behind? Colour Spray is strong, but only has a 15 foot range - and if the enemy makes the save, you're toast. Same with Sleep - if it works, you win. If it doesn't, you die.

Can the Wizard really do everything the Fighter can do and better, while he still only has first level spells? Second level? And if so, how?

[Deox]

Crossbows are your friend for range until the target closes.

1st level spells that win off the top of my head:

color spray - Fighter not so strong in the Will department
seething eyebane - Fort save, but if they fail, blinded. GG.
sleep - Fighter not so strong in the Will department
wall of smoke - Can't see me. Ready action for them to cross / go around
grease - Offensive or defensive; dealer's choice.
power word: pain - No save. Cast, run, come back a minute later. Profit
silent image - Only limited by your imagination.

[A_S]

Wizards have a couple options that help them out with the "win the fight with your first spell or die" issue:
Abrupt Jaunt. Immediate action teleportation is stupidly strong, even more so at low levels than later on. Against a no-reach melee opponent, it's basically a free round of not getting hit every time you use it. Of course, if you're getting charged by multiple enemies in a round, it'll only protect you from one of them, but it's still huge.
Creative use of the Ready action. Getting into an advantageous position and then readying Color Spray can help a lot with the range issues it has. Ready is especially powerful if your DM isn't metagaming you too hard (if your enemies are played as if they know what action you've readied, it's substantially worse).
Consumables. You're probably too poor to afford much that'll help you out at level 1, but you can start having partially charged wands of excellent get-out-of-jail-free cards like Wings of Cover and Lesser Celerity pretty early in the game, and they help a lot with survivability.
Really, though, the answer to "can Wizards do everything Fighters can do but better at low level?" is no. I'd still argue that the stuff Wizards can do (encounter-ending spells, immediate action defenses) is better than the stuff Fighters can do (hit things, take more than one punch), but I don't think you start running into "anything you can do I can do better" territory until spells like Polymorph start coming online.

[sideswipe]

heliomance,
i agree with you.
a wizard before say, level 5 is a squishy little glass cannon by mechanics. but the same reason they survive is the same reason they would survive in a story.
luck and intelligence.
wizards are smart, in a story they would be prepared for a few things and be creative enough to get out of most tight spots. when they are not they rely on luck.

just like in game. they have a few defences and strategies, and if it goes wrong, hope. hope they get lucky.
after about level 5 a few things change. they have enough money to protect themselves AND scribe spells. and now have spells capable of saving them from most things.

[ace rooster]

Expeditious retreat + crossbow proficiency. If an int 14+ wizard with a move of 60ft and a ranged attack ends up in melee combat, something has gone wrong. Expeditious retreat alone is a 'draw' button at those levels, against all but the fastest melee threats. At 2nd level invisibility is even stronger as a retreat option. Wizards are much better at 'bugging out' of a losing fight.

Enlarge person and master's touch can make even a str 12 wizard into a suprisingly effective tripper/disarmer/grappler, because getting reach avoids the annoying AoO that are usually prevoked. With a heavy flail you will be getting a +6 on your trip, and a +12 on disarm attacks. Master's touch will also make you the only member of the party that is proficient with a ballista :smallbiggrin:. I'm not saying that these are the best ways to play a wizard, but you have the option. Grappling another caster is actually quite effective though, and will make you glad you have dagger proficiency.

At level 1 a wizard is squishy, but enlarge person alone makes them effective combatants that might be able to take a fighter at melee (simply grab him when he tries to approach). At level 3 they can get false life, which can put them only 4hp behind on average for the same con.

At low levels, a meatshield is your best defense. What a good thing that charm person is a first level spell. :smalltongue:

[Venger]

Enlarge person and master's touch can make even a str 12 wizard into a suprisingly effective tripper/disarmer/grappler, because getting reach avoids the annoying AoO that are usually prevoked. With a heavy flail you will be getting a +6 on your trip, and a +12 on disarm attacks. Master's touch will also make you the only member of the party that is proficient with a ballista :smallbiggrin:. I'm not saying that these are the best ways to play a wizard, but you have the option. Grappling another caster is actually quite effective though, and will make you glad you have dagger proficiency.
enlarge person is better off put on the party meat.

wieldskill's more versatile than master's touch, since it can also boost skills for when you don't need weapon proficiencies.

both good ideas though


At low levels, a meatshield is your best defense. What a good thing that charm person is a first level spell. :smalltongue:

mount is a much better spell for getting a meat shield. duration's the same, no save involved, and the shield is large, so it can block you and your pals better. plus you can use it to travel.

[Fouredged Sword]

I did a level 1 all wizard game here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?333192-Moldrake-s-IC-A). Read it and the OOC (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?332973-Moldrake-s-School-OOC-Group-A), but mind the thread necro. They held together fairly well, and took out 2 CR 1 encounters and 2 CR 2 encounters + a number of normal dungeon chalenges (stuck and locked doors, a trap, a puzzle encounter)

They didn't even build towards super tough builds ether. We discussed shape soulmeld (asteral vembrances, DR4/magic at level 1) and trollblooded (regeneration 1 fire/acid at level 1) during character creation. Both make you tough as all get out and can be removed later by retraining the feats or Psi-reforming them into what you want for PRC's.

[Venger]

I did a level 1 all wizard game here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?333192-Moldrake-s-IC-A). Read it and the OOC (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?332973-Moldrake-s-School-OOC-Group-A), but mind the thread necro. They held together fairly well, and took out 2 CR 1 encounters and 2 CR 2 encounters + a number of normal dungeon chalenges (stuck and locked doors, a trap, a puzzle encounter)

They didn't even build towards super tough builds ether. We discussed shape soulmeld (asteral vembrances, DR4/magic at level 1) and trollblooded (regeneration 1 fire/acid at level 1) during character creation. Both make you tough as all get out and can be removed later by retraining the feats or Psi-reforming them into what you want for PRC's.

oh hey fouredged sword. yeah, those were some good times.

[Vhaidara]

enlarge person is better off put on the party meat.

Yes, but this is a solo wizard.

The thing most people ignore is that we are saying these spells allow the wizard to do the meat's job as well/better than the meat without buff spells.

Given the choice, yes, a wizard is better off buffing a fighter for melee than himself. But when discussing class balance, saying that a wizard can buff the party fighter invalidates things as much as saying the fighter is being buffed by a friendly wizard: The class is no longer standing alone.

[Agincourt]

Yes, but this is a solo wizard.

The thing most people ignore is that we are saying these spells allow the wizard to do the meat's job as well/better than the meat without buff spells.

Given the choice, yes, a wizard is better off buffing a fighter for melee than himself. But when discussing class balance, saying that a wizard can buff the party fighter invalidates things as much as saying the fighter is being buffed by a friendly wizard: The class is no longer standing alone.

Threads like this make me wonder if people actually play low level wizards because a level 2 wizard would not do a fighter's job better.

The bonus to strength Enlarge Person gives is offset by the -1 to attack and AC. The Wizard still has no armor proficiency and terrible weapon proficiencies. The wizard will also have a lower base-attack-bonus and about half as many hit points.

Using tactics like enlarging himself would be a good way for the wizard never to see level 3.

[Venger]

Threads like this make me wonder if people actually play low level wizards because a level 2 wizard would not do a fighter's job better.

The bonus to strength Enlarge Person gives is offset by the -1 to attack and AC. The Wizard still has no armor proficiency and terrible weapon proficiencies. The wizard will also have a lower base-attack-bonus and about half as many hit points.

Using tactics like enlarging himself would be a good way for the wizard never to see level 3.

that was more the point I was trying to make.

taking the party brute out of the occasion, enlarging yourself just makes you a bigger target and more vulnerable, especially tricky due to your low HP, even if you did take faerie mysteries initiate, and since you probably dumped str and your BA sucks, you're not gonna be that awesome in melee either, and melee generally isn't a place a low-lvl wizard wants to be.

[fishyfishyfishy]

Threads like this make me wonder if people actually play low level wizards because a level 2 wizard would not do a fighter's job better.

The bonus to strength Enlarge Person gives is offset by the -1 to attack and AC. The Wizard still has no armor proficiency and terrible weapon proficiencies. The wizard will also have a lower base-attack-bonus and about half as many hit points.

Using tactics like enlarging himself would be a good way for the wizard never to see level 3.

For real...

A better spell is Fist of Stone. +6 strength and a slam attack puts you on par with just about any first level melee combatant. Tack on mage armor and you might avoid a hit as well. But that's pretty much using up half your daily resources on one encounter (maybe two or three for mage armor)

[eggynack]

Given the choice, yes, a wizard is better off buffing a fighter for melee than himself. But when discussing class balance, saying that a wizard can buff the party fighter invalidates things as much as saying the fighter is being buffed by a friendly wizard: The class is no longer standing alone.
I disagree. Fighters are highly substitutable, so the wizard can make do with anything from a fighter to a cleric to a paladin to a warrior. As long as there's a warm body there to buff that's not just completely inhospitable to hitting things, you'll have roughly that level of cited melee competence. By contrast, wizards are not particularly substitutable, as swapping one out for a class as not far removed as a cleric, druid, beguiler, or psion could mean lost access to the particular spell that the fighter's argument is relying on. The wizard really just needs a party of any kind (though not really even that, at many other levels and/or with many other goals), while the fighter specifically needs a wizard for a lot of these arguments to work. You can assume the one much more than the other.

[Ivanhoe]

+1 to eggynack. Also, as soon as a wizard gets a familiar at first level (needs to have some cash for this, so possibly not with the starting money), the familiar likely already can be made more powerful in combat than the fighter. Yes, the wizard is that awesome.:smallwink:

[Fouredged Sword]

The thing is that a party with a rogue, a cleric, and two wizards is just as viable as a party with a rogue, cleric, wizard and fighter. As we discovered in the above game, a party of 4 wizards is even viable. With so many spell slots to throw around, even at level 1, the wizards can afford to burn through their spells like candy.

Also, wild cohort. Get a level 2 fighter at the cost of a single feat. I had to ban that one.

[Agincourt]

+1 to eggynack. Also, as soon as a wizard gets a familiar at first level (needs to have some cash for this, so possibly not with the starting money), the familiar likely already can be made more powerful in combat than the fighter. Yes, the wizard is that awesome.:smallwink:

You'll have to explain this in more detail. The ten familiars available to a first level character are not strong combatants.

There are many things that high level wizards can do to make their familiars powerful, but I am skeptical that a low level wizard can make his familiar a strong combatant. Familiars have half the hit points of their master so a familiar is going to have about one-quarter the hit points of a fighter. Plus they have lower AC, lower damage, lower base attack bonus, and lower strength. Special attacks such as the viper's poison just do not make-up for all these combat problems. So I'd like to have more detail on what specifically a low level wizard can do to buff up his familiar to be made more powerful than a fighter.

[lytokk]

I have to disagree with wild cohort being the same as a level 2 fighter, at least when it comes down to numbers. Thematically similar, being the meat shield for the wizard, yes, they're the same. But realistically, different.

The fighter will have at least 1 more point to attack due to a better BAB progression. The fighter will also be two feats up on the cohort. Now I know feats aren't everything, but they're still something the animal won't get. Fighter has a better hit die, which translates to more HP. Weapon and armor proficiencies round out what is a much better frontline combatant than the wild cohort. Also, having a friend saves the wizard from having to burn his level 1 feat on a meatshield that once it dies, there's no way that I'm aware of for getting back, save a resurrection spell.

[Vhaidara]

I disagree. Fighters are highly substitutable, so the wizard can make do with anything from a fighter to a cleric to a paladin to a warrior. As long as there's a warm body there to buff that's not just completely inhospitable to hitting things, you'll have roughly that level of cited melee competence. By contrast, wizards are not particularly substitutable, as swapping one out for a class as not far removed as a cleric, druid, beguiler, or psion could mean lost access to the particular spell that the fighter's argument is relying on. The wizard really just needs a party of any kind (though not really even that, at many other levels and/or with many other goals), while the fighter specifically needs a wizard for a lot of these arguments to work. You can assume the one much more than the other.

My point was more to why the "Casting buffs on the person who isn't the wizard is better than the wizard self-buffing" was irrelevant to class balance.

Put this way: Given the option and assuming melee-enhancing buffs, would you rather have an unbuffed Fighter and a buffed wizard or a buffed fighter and an unbuffed wizard? The answer, in my mind, will always be the second one.

However, the question here is: Would you rather have an unbuffed Fighter (since fighter has no buffs) or a buffed wizard? In which case, the wizard wins because wizard and utility.

[Fouredged Sword]

Well, you can, in the very least, use retraining to replace the wild cohort feat with the wild cohort feat to get a new cohort if your current one dies.

Second, a riding dog has high physical stats, free trip attempts if they hit with their bite, and they have natural armor and natural weapons in amounts that would normally see in a +1 LA race. Yes the fighter is likely a little better on the stats and BAB front, but that riding dog is likely to have enough barding to push it to 18-20 AC. It is somewhat of a wash if the fighter is better or not.

[Sir Garanok]

The survivability of the wizard is opposite to his usefulness.

It depends on how many risks you wanna take,

plus a bit of luck is always needed.

[lytokk]

Actually, I was looking at the riding dog entry, and its only got the trip attempt if trained for war. I don't see the wizard making that handle animal check, I can't find it atm, but I think it was at least 20. If the whole point is to make a wizard that can do it all on his own without relying on anyone else this is a bit of a sticking point. You could go with a wolf instead, but lose out on a little bit of damage, hp, and AC, but gain 10 ft of speed.

Neither of these two are going to be able to do things against a ranged opponent. Which a fighter can. Assuming of course there's obstacles in the way that prevent the animals from closing in.

Good point about the retraining though. The thought of retraining feats never comes to me since I've never actually used it or seen any players use it.

[Agincourt]

Can the Wizard really do everything the Fighter can do and better, while he still only has first level spells? Second level? And if so, how?

To more specifically answer your question, I believe a wizard needs at least 2nd level spells. Alter Self allows a wizard to take the form of several high strength creatures. I'm not sure a 3rd wizard can do everything a fighter of 3rd level can do, but wizards who focus on buffing themselves can make fighters feel redundant. A 3rd level wizard won't yet have enough feats to be a better tripper, for example, but the wizard might kill enough enemies in melee combat to make the fighter feel like he has no niche.

[Rebel7284]

The wizard survives first level by having 18 INT.

Seriously, the wizard knows exactly how squishy he is and gets into a party with meatshields to survive the first few levels. If they won't have him, there is always hiring bodyguards or just good old charm person.

[eggynack]

My point was more to why the "Casting buffs on the person who isn't the wizard is better than the wizard self-buffing" was irrelevant to class balance.
I got that, but my issue is that the two competing assumptions are on completely different scales. In particular, the one proposed by fighter supporters is basically, "Any given party will have a wizard who is willing to spend their spells buffing you," while the one proposed by wizard supporters is basically, any given party will have a non-wizard who is willing to spend their nothing being buffed." One can't really be assumed, while the other usually can be, though not always. It's certainly a pretty reliable thing.


However, the question here is: Would you rather have an unbuffed Fighter (since fighter has no buffs) or a buffed wizard? In which case, the wizard wins because wizard and utility.
Sounds about right. Still, I think it's wrong to completely discount the value of buffing some arbitrary meat-sack. A reasonable majority of classes can act as meat-sacks, after all.

[Troacctid]

wall of smoke - Can't see me. Ready action for them to cross / go around
grease - Offensive or defensive; dealer's choice.


Good luck with those round/level durations at level 1.

[eggynack]

Actually, I was looking at the riding dog entry, and its only got the trip attempt if trained for war. I don't see the wizard making that handle animal check, I can't find it atm, but I think it was at least 20.
I'm pretty sure that riding dogs come trained for war by default, actually. To be specific, they're trained for combat riding, which I think is the closest thing to "training for war" that exists in the books. It's not a particularly meaningful phrase, is the thing, and this is one of the few actual meanings it could have.

[lytokk]

Horses can be trained for riding, but warhorses are trained for combat, which is supposed to be the difference between the two. The entry for the riding dog on the SRD doesn't list trip as one of their qualities, so I'd have to assume that the default for riding dogs is that they're not trained for combat, as opposed to being trained.

I think the riding dogs are just trained to be ridden, to respond to the commands of the rider, but not for combat riding. I was hoping to find some general information about this in the horse/warhorse entry, but nothing there. But, as there is a difference between a horse and a warhorse, there should also be a difference between a riding dog and a war-riding dog.

in the Ride skill descriptor, it calls out that regular horses aren't trained for battle, and require a DC20 ride check to control in battle. That again says to me there's a difference between being trained and untrained, since a warhorse doesn't need that check.

just checked handle animal, Riding dogs are trained for combat riding by default. But, as thats a default, the default riding dog doesn't have trip as a special quality, meaning there's some training required to get it there.

But again, there's no DC for training an animal for war that I can find. I recall mention of a training that gives an animal armor proficiency, warbeast or something? I don't remember much about it off the top of my head.

*edit there's also training an animal for fighting, which is its own entry in the handle animal. The only difference is it gets to learn the trick "stay" But that's still fighting, not war.

[Ivanhoe]

You'll have to explain this in more detail. The ten familiars available to a first level character are not strong combatants.

There are many things that high level wizards can do to make their familiars powerful, but I am skeptical that a low level wizard can make his familiar a strong combatant. Familiars have half the hit points of their master so a familiar is going to have about one-quarter the hit points of a fighter. Plus they have lower AC, lower damage, lower base attack bonus, and lower strength. Special attacks such as the viper's poison just do not make-up for all these combat problems. So I'd like to have more detail on what specifically a low level wizard can do to buff up his familiar to be made more powerful than a fighter.

Here is a fairly simple way, without any viper poisoning:
Get a hawk familiar. It has AC 17, the wizard keeps it close to her and casts mage armour and shield. The familiar has now AC 25, meaning the fighter has to get a "20" to hit it (assuming an elite array fighter at level 1, even with weapon focus). Meanwhile, the hawk attacks at +5 for 1-2 damage per round. Before the fighter gets through, the hawk probably has done around 15 damage to him.
Hawk familiar wins.
Additionally, the hawk has the wizard's skill ranks (likely more than the fighter), can fly and has better stealth (hide, spot etc.). Hawk familiar wins even more. It also has better saves.
And this is just with the SRD.

[eggynack]

just checked handle animal, Riding dogs are trained for combat riding by default. But, as thats a default, the default riding dog doesn't have trip as a special quality, meaning there's some training required to get it there.

Not really. It's entirely possible that riding dogs do have trip by default, because they have combat riding by default, but that they don't necessarily have combat riding, or by extension, trip. You're allowed to train away the tripping ability of a riding dog, by my argument, but not the tripping ability of a wolf. I just don't really see much in the way of other mechanisms that make this work, and I think your post supports that idea.

[Troacctid]

And if it's really that much of a concern, you can always take a wolf instead.

[lytokk]

Here is a fairly simple way, without any viper poisoning:
Get a hawk familiar. It has AC 17, the wizard keeps it close to her and casts mage armour and shield. The familiar has now AC 25, meaning the fighter has to get a "20" to hit it (assuming an elite array fighter at level 1, even with weapon focus). Meanwhile, the hawk attacks at +5 for 1-2 damage per round. Before the fighter gets through, the hawk probably has done around 15 damage to him.
Hawk familiar wins.
Additionally, the hawk has the wizard's skill ranks (likely more than the fighter), can fly and has better stealth (hide, spot etc.). Hawk familiar wins even more. It also has better saves.
And this is just with the SRD.

I'm not 100% on how tiny creatures work in regards to combat, but I know they have to enter an opponents square to attack. If the fighter 5-foots every round, then the hawk is constantly re-entering the square, which mean an AOO every turn. And the hawk deals 1-2 damage per turn IF it hits. Level 1 fighter with scale mail and a heavy wooden shield has an AC of 18 (13 dex for the elite array), which means less than 50% chance the hawk will hit. I think only 40%. Which means in the 20 rounds it'll take to hit and kill the hawk, the fighter will take about 10 points of damage. Which leaves the fighter with 2 hp left, unless the wizard hit him with another spell. Also if the fighter just decides to use a bow and arrow from a distance, all of those wonderful buffs the wizard put on the hawk would dissapear if the hawk moved more than 5 ft from the wizard.

With the riding dog, if the dog was to have trip by default, it would be in the default listing for the creature. It isn't. However, in the ride description, it is said that by default that riding dogs are trained for combat riding. Thus, its not even a small stretch of logic that by default, combat riding training for riding dogs does not train them for war, which is a pre-requisite for the trip ability. Granted all of this really only pertains to this theoretical debate. If I had a player who wanted his wild cohort/animal companion riding dog be able to be trained for war I'd let him have it.

[dascarletm]

Here is a fairly simple way, without any viper poisoning:
Get a hawk familiar. It has AC 17, the wizard keeps it close to her and casts mage armour and shield. The familiar has now AC 25, meaning the fighter has to get a "20" to hit it (assuming an elite array fighter at level 1, even with weapon focus). Meanwhile, the hawk attacks at +5 for 1-2 damage per round. Before the fighter gets through, the hawk probably has done around 15 damage to him.
Hawk familiar wins.
Additionally, the hawk has the wizard's skill ranks (likely more than the fighter), can fly and has better stealth (hide, spot etc.). Hawk familiar wins even more. It also has better saves.
And this is just with the SRD.

About the mage armor...


If the spell or effect has a duration other than instantaneous, it stops affecting the familiar if it moves farther than 5 feet away and will not affect the familiar again even if it returns to the master before the duration expires.

The wizard has to be within 5 feet of the familiar, which I think needs to enter an enemies square to attack. Therefore the wizard is up close and personal. Less than ideal.

EDIT: I'm slow, Wizard buffed for infiltration

[eggynack]

With the riding dog, if the dog was to have trip by default, it would be in the default listing for the creature.
This is the fundamental flaw in your logic. The issue is that if I'm right, and if they had listed the ability as they had listed it for the wolf, then the creature would be different. Listing the ability as it's listed on the wolf means that the wolf necessarily has trip, not that the wolf has trip by default. The wolf cannot not have trip (unless you use trait removal or something). By contrast, the way the riding dog's ability is listed indicates that the riding dog does not necessarily have trip, despite the fact that it would have trip by default.

Finally, as I'm fond of saying, there is no absolute onus on the rules to have any actual impact on the way the game functions. Even if the way the riding dog has trip listed doesn't differentiate the ability from the way the wolf has trip listed, and it definitely does, that doesn't necessarily ascribe the meaning you've indicated. Maybe they should have written the riding dog the exact way they listed the wolf. Maybe all that stuff about being trained for war was unnecessary. Even then, that doesn't mean that they had to write the riding dog like they wrote the wolf. They could have just written the rules for riding dog tripping in a crappy way (and they totally did too, no matter how you look at it). Such is the right and privilege of the game's designers.

[Fouredged Sword]

With the riding dog, if the dog was to have trip by default, it would be in the default listing for the creature. It isn't. However, in the ride description, it is said that by default that riding dogs are trained for combat riding. Thus, its not even a small stretch of logic that by default, combat riding training for riding dogs does not train them for war, which is a pre-requisite for the trip ability. Granted all of this really only pertains to this theoretical debate. If I had a player who wanted his wild cohort/animal companion riding dog be able to be trained for war I'd let him have it.

Training the dog into a warbeast can be done in 2 months of downtime and takes no money and a DC 20 handle animal check, it adds a ton of nice bonuses at no cost and would add the trip feature. Getting a warbeast riding dog shouldn't cost more than 100gp (the cost of a 2HD warbeast)

3HD, 18str, 18con, 50ft move speed (35 with heavy armor I think)... At level 1 for the cost of a feat.

Wild cohort is almost as broken as leadership.

[Deox]

Good luck with those round/level durations at level 1.

If you're playing smart, you only need 1 round.

[dascarletm]

It's not just playing smart, you also need the situation to work for you. Without any way to divine said situation at 1st level, it may or may not work out.

[Vaz]

I've spent a bit of time thinking about low-level adventuring.

Through several means. The original post assumes that all 1st level wizards advance in level by completing combat challenges. Combat at lower levels is exceptionally binary - for example, the average human warrior built for toughness with an NPC stat array (so rolled HP) has 5HP - when against a Charging Orc Warrior using an NPC stat array, they deal a minimum of 7 damage should they hit with their 2handed weapon. Unless the human warrior is appropriate built - suggesting those who are trained as such, selecting only those for training with the right "stats", so to speak, then it's unlikely that the warrior will to survive to even make a hit.

Things like Fighters etc, have it slightly better - usually Elite Array stats at the least, if not higher point buys, in addition to D10 HD and first HD is maxed out; a fighter hence is unlikely to have a lower HP than 12 as a result of the elite array and that HD - but even that fighter, should the Orc Warrior deal 12 or more damage (roll a 6 or higher on a 1d12 - a 7 in 12 chance) is going to drop that fighter should it hit.

The Warrior, or Fighter isn't some barely trained peasant and put on the front line and told to kill, kill, kill all day long, without recompense to his hitpoints. The Wizard is the same. They have some useful spells to overcome challenges. Because of how 3.5 (and in general, d&d) is designed, combat is usually the forefront of most spell applications before it's considered elsewhere and how it can be used, and is usually the first thing that people think of for your low level squishy.

Between a Fighter and a Wizard, the difference isn't really the squishiness - they're both equally so. A good solid hit is going to drop both the Wizard and the Fighter. The Fighter however, almost certainly cannot take another such hit. Compared one to the other, the Fighter is obviously tougher than the wizard from that strict interpretation of toughness - but the Fighter is still not that tough so as to survive adventuring without the aid of others.

Similar to how a Fighter can be part of a training gym, or an armed force (whether in the military, or the guard), the Wizard also be a product of that - either in the military, or in a mages guild. The mages guild may either send their most promising cadets to the army as Wizards - these promising cadets are those who have adventurers stats - Elite array and above, and have access to the better classes like the Wizard. Those who aren't as capable are trained as Adepts. For those wizards they can either get their experience as a result of the meatshield army grunts while they cast their colour sprays, sleeps or the like, while using their 15-18+ Intelligence and Knowledge check to aid with identifying weak points in enemy battle-lines, damaged wall sections, information regarding opponents, either as a result of their physiology, or as a result of their knowledge of the various tribal clans with their nobility checks. The minimum a Wizard needs is 15 Intelligence to have a chance to learn all spells natively (19 Intelligence by level 16) without relying on a magical doodad of +2 Int/Wis/Charisma.

Meanwhile, any old average human with a Wisdom of 11 or higher can learn any adept spell by the time they advance to the level - I think, anyway.

Other uses for the wizard is their ability to scribe a scroll of any spell they know without having to take the feat in the first place. They can also develop their own spells through independent learning and spell creation. My own personal interpretation of a Mages Guild would be that your dissertation would be effectively designing your own unique spell, and writing a scroll of it. This is from a purely in-universe perspective of course - the spell creation "rules" are available but would need a fair bit of adjudication by the DM - and this is even less well written than Epic Spellcasting. The Wizards' newly created spells are then placed in the library according to the testers opinion of the spell - those which pass are added, those which fail are given reasons why (i.e it's too similar to another spell).

This way, the guild is always becoming more powerful. Meanwhile, it can sell off those spells to those who visit the guild (perhaps the more powerful/rarer spells are kept for those who gain a better relationship with the guild) to generate the funds for spellcreation - something that according to low level GP allowance, wizards cannot ordinarily pay for out of their starting gp. However - other options are available - selling their spellcasting services, for example. Others include crafting - this can either be creating scrolls from level one, or using their craft skill to create items to sell (Craft is Int based after all), or their profession skill to gain additional funds which would allow them to put money towards spell creation. This way they are helping to advance the economy in the world as well.

Meanwhile, at the Guild, they can do many things to increase their experience - whether it's by joining up with the army say, especially should they have some niche skills or spell selection to aid with those challenges the others face - this generates experience. Alternatively, spending some time with other higher leveled wizards in the guild, or going finding items that can be used for spell components. Not all wizards advance by being these ultra-mega super duper godcasters after all - some just advance slower, over the case of a few years.

It is the rare wizard which is able to gain enough experience to become capable of obliterating entire armies with ease, or do the worldbreaking stuff people know them for - it is for that reason that we play such characters who are able to defy the odds - even if that means that during the first few levels they take some downtime learning as part of a guild before becoming a full time adventurer - or those which do make use of some hired goons to be the meatshield while people adventure.

Or, as other people said, you're a bit of fire support using your crossbow when you don't think the challenge requires you to expend one of you 9 or so spell slots.

[ace rooster]

enlarge person is better off put on the party meat.

wieldskill's more versatile than master's touch, since it can also boost skills for when you don't need weapon proficiencies.

both good ideas though



mount is a much better spell for getting a meat shield. duration's the same, no save involved, and the shield is large, so it can block you and your pals better. plus you can use it to travel.

Yeah, you definately want to cast EP on somebody else. The point was that it is effective enough that it will turn even a commoner/wizard into a melee warrior that can hold his own against a fighter, provided they fight intelligently (Use reach to avoid AoOs and the benefits large size grants you to combat actions).

Wieldskill requires cheese to get as a wizard spell, and has a longer casting time. It is also setting dependent.

Mount gets you a normal horse, complete with the instincts to run away from anything dangerous. Now that I say it, it actually seems like a very effective defensive spell (that can get you out of combat even at negative HP, which is big at this level), but useless for a tank. :smalltongue:

[Agincourt]

Here is a fairly simple way, without any viper poisoning:
Get a hawk familiar. It has AC 17, the wizard keeps it close to her and casts mage armour and shield. The familiar has now AC 25, meaning the fighter has to get a "20" to hit it (assuming an elite array fighter at level 1, even with weapon focus). Meanwhile, the hawk attacks at +5 for 1-2 damage per round. Before the fighter gets through, the hawk probably has done around 15 damage to him.
Hawk familiar wins.
Additionally, the hawk has the wizard's skill ranks (likely more than the fighter), can fly and has better stealth (hide, spot etc.). Hawk familiar wins even more. It also has better saves.
And this is just with the SRD.

You've subtly shifted the question asked by the Original Poster ("Can the Wizard really do everything the Fighter can do and better?") to a related, but slightly different question, "Can a wizard beat a fighter in one-on-one combat, using only melee?"

The difference is important because most parties expect their fighter to bring the pain. They do not have 20-30 rounds to wait while the fighter deals 1 point of damage each round. The rest of the party is going to be doing something. Long before the hawk kills even one creature, the other 3 members of the party, assuming any level of optimization and a level appropriate encounter, will have finished off the enemies. A hawk does not replace the fighter's ability to 1) deal damage at a reasonable rate 2) absorb damage or 3) control the battlefield since the hawk cannot even deliver attacks of opportunity to adjacent squares, let alone 10 feet away.

This hawk combat scheme is another indication that people must not really play low level wizards. No party I have ever played with would come to the conclusion the doing 1d4-2 damage was just as good as a fighter. (75% of the its attacks that hit will do 1 damage and only 25% of the time will it do 2 points of damage.) The standard response to a high AC character that has a hard time hurting you is just ignore it and focus on the rest of the enemies.

As for whether the hawk could beat a fighter in one-on-one combat, even then, I'm skeptical. As lytokk mentioned in his post, tiny creatures provoke attacks of opportunity. Each time the hawk attacks, it has to enter a creature's square (reach of 0 feet). The fighter will get 2 attacks for each of the hawk's 1 attack. Shield lasts 1 minute per caster level, which is usually long enough to last for a whole combat, but in this instance it becomes critical. Before the hawk has managed to kill the fighter, he is going to lose that +4 to AC. Eventually, one way or another, a fighter will hit the hawk. With 2 or 3 HP (one-half of his master's total, rounded down) it only takes one hit to kill the hawk. The wizard will be without a familiar for a year and day.

Edit:

Yeah, you definately want to cast EP on somebody else. The point was that it is effective enough that it will turn even a commoner/wizard into a melee warrior that can hold his own against a fighter, provided they fight intelligently (Use reach to avoid AoOs and the benefits large size grants you to combat actions).

No, I don't think Enlarge Person does turn a wizard into a melee warrior. It gives a character reach and +2 to strength, but it also gives a -1 to attack and -1 to AC. It does not give the wizard new weapon proficiencies or feats. A low level fighter should be able to beat a low level wizard in melee combat fairly handily.

[torrasque666]

-snip-

And as dascarletm mentioned, that familiar doesn't actually have that AC, because as soon as it moves more than 5 feet away from the caster it loses the buffs.

[Agincourt]

And as dascarletm mentioned, that familiar doesn't actually have that AC, because as soon as it moves more than 5 feet away from the caster it loses the buffs.

Actually, I think Ivanhoe is right about that possibility.
Share spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#familiars):

At the master’s option, he may have any spell (but not any spell-like ability) he casts on himself also affect his familiar. The familiar must be within 5 feet at the time of casting to receive the benefit.

If the spell or effect has a duration other than instantaneous, it stops affecting the familiar if it moves farther than 5 feet away and will not affect the familiar again even if it returns to the master before the duration expires. Additionally, the master may cast a spell with a target of "You" on his familiar (as a touch range spell) instead of on himself.

A master and his familiar can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the familiar’s type (magical beast).
I believe the bolded part means that a personal range spell can be cast on a familiar and then the familiar does not have to remain within 5 feet. This only makes a difference for Shield. Mage Armor is a touch range spell so other creatures can already be affected by it; the wizard just needs to be close enough to touch it.

[lytokk]

This is the fundamental flaw in your logic. The issue is that if I'm right, and if they had listed the ability as they had listed it for the wolf, then the creature would be different. Listing the ability as it's listed on the wolf means that the wolf necessarily has trip, not that the wolf has trip by default. The wolf cannot not have trip (unless you use trait removal or something). By contrast, the way the riding dog's ability is listed indicates that the riding dog does not necessarily have trip, despite the fact that it would have trip by default.

Finally, as I'm fond of saying, there is no absolute onus on the rules to have any actual impact on the way the game functions. Even if the way the riding dog has trip listed doesn't differentiate the ability from the way the wolf has trip listed, and it definitely does, that doesn't necessarily ascribe the meaning you've indicated. Maybe they should have written the riding dog the exact way they listed the wolf. Maybe all that stuff about being trained for war was unnecessary. Even then, that doesn't mean that they had to write the riding dog like they wrote the wolf. They could have just written the rules for riding dog tripping in a crappy way (and they totally did too, no matter how you look at it). Such is the right and privilege of the game's designers.

I'm having some problems understanding your argument by the way you worded it. I have a small learning disability sometimes and its making it difficult, so I'm going to have to guess at what you're saying. If I'm wrong please correct me.

You're saying that the wolf has trip, but doesn't have trip by default? My understanding of the MM entries was for a normal creature of its type, ergo the default setting. Thus the default setting of a wolf would be for it to have the trip ability. The riding dog normal or default entr doesn't list trip under its special attacks, but does say that a riding dog CAN get the attack if it becomes trained for it.

Part of my understanding of creatures is that they can't normally be trained for a special attack or special quality, like say, pounce or overrun. If its not in the entry, they don't have it. What riding dogs entry says is that by default, they don't have trip. BUT, unlike other creatures, they can gain trip if they're trained for it. Since Wild Cohort gives you the default animal, you get it with normal stats and qualities, therefor no trip at first. You can train it to trip, but you can't train it to overrun or pounce. (this is part of the reason you have to take a certain class in order to get pounce on a PC, its not a feat, it's a special) If you could just say that it had the trip quality, it wouldn't be the standard default anymore. And if you could change that, you could also say it has higher than normal abilities, thicker skin and more speed, which is why everyone has to use the default entry when selecting any sort of animal cohort, be it a companion, special mount or familiar (though familiars do get more INT and other specials).

This may be coming down to a difference in the way we interpret things, but as I see it, the default riding dog does not have trip, but it can learn it via an unknown means of training for war. Since warbeast (I think) didn't exist during the core creation of these creatures, that can't be the only way to train for war.

[dextercorvia]

This comes up periodically. Sometimes we actually run a same game test to show it.

Using just the material on d20SRD, I built a level 1 wizard, and LonelyTylenol built a level 1 barbarian. Someone else (Phaed....something can't remember the spelling) built a level 1 Barbarian with full splat access. We then each faced off against an unoptimized level 3 party (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard). We were doing a best of three. My wizard won 2/2 so didn't play the third. LT's Barbarian won some of them and he figured out later would have won more of them with a different build choice (simply a matter of more HP). I think Phaed went 2/3. The main difference was that both of them won their rounds damaged or even dying only alive by grace of diehard. My wizard was completely untouched in both of his games.

Who went first was determined randomly, as was starting distance on a featureless plane. The actual game thread has vanished in some thread purge or another, but you might be able to find discussion about it if you google our names and the Power Challenge.

So, yes, a Wizard with good selection of class features can fill a similar function to a fighter at least 1/day, even at low levels, and even against overwhelming odds.

[Dalebert]

Expeditious retreat + crossbow proficiency. If an int 14+ wizard with a move of 60ft and a ranged attack ends up in melee combat, something has gone wrong.

Did you spend several levels where you didn't go into dungeons and otherwise end up in tight spaces?

[ace rooster]

No, I don't think Enlarge Person does turn a wizard into a melee warrior. It gives a character reach and +2 to strength, but it also gives a -1 to attack and -1 to AC. It does not give the wizard new weapon proficiencies or feats. A low level fighter should be able to beat a low level wizard in melee combat fairly handily.

You are missing the impact of reach. Before getting to a creature with reach they will get an AoO against you, and when you do you do not threaten them. This means that they can disarm you, and that +4 from being large is the largest bonus in play, or trip you, where BAB does not help after the initial touch attack, or grapple you, and you do not get your AoO defense. Just hitting you is an option too, but is ignoring most of the advantages of enlarge person.

Reach on it's own is worth a hugh amount, as it guarentees the first attack and permits many tactics that would otherwise need a feat. Most of these tactics benefit hugely from size benefits.

[Gwendol]

As other have noted, all level one characters are a lucky arrow shot away from death, wizards more so than the others due to their lack of HP. A wizard played to his strengths is as likely to survive a series of encounters as the next guy (recognizing the druid, and likely the ToB classes being the kings of level one).

[Gwendol]

You are missing the impact of reach. Before getting to a creature with reach they will get an AoO against you, and when you do you do not threaten them. This means that they can disarm you, and that +4 from being large is the largest bonus in play, or trip you, where BAB does not help after the initial touch attack, or grapple you, and you do not get your AoO defense. Just hitting you is an option too, but is ignoring most of the advantages of enlarge person.

Reach on it's own is worth a hugh amount, as it guarentees the first attack and permits many tactics that would otherwise need a feat. Most of these tactics benefit hugely from size benefits.

In theory maybe. The goblin or kobold war party may just see a giant-sized archery target.

[jiriku]

So, the superiority of Wizards is oft-touted around these parts, and personally I believe it. I'm well aware of just how potent magic is, and the Sorc/Wiz spell list is probably the best one out there. What I haven't managed to get my head around, though, is the low-level power. At low level, a Wizard is squishy as all hell. How do they survive before they have Contingency, before they have flight, before they have teleportation, before they have Mirror Image? How can a Wizard manage, without a meatshield to stand behind? Colour Spray is strong, but only has a 15 foot range - and if the enemy makes the save, you're toast. Same with Sleep - if it works, you win. If it doesn't, you die.

Can the Wizard really do everything the Fighter can do and better, while he still only has first level spells? Second level? And if so, how?

I have played a lot of low-level wizards. I've never lost one. Can't say the same for my low-level fighters. A few thoughts:


At 1st level, there is very little difference in defense between a fighter and a wizard. A wizard with mage armor and Toughness (and I like both these options for low-level play) is probably 0-2 points of AC and 3-4 hp behind the fighter. That's a gap, but it's more than compensated by Abrupt Jaunt, staying out of melee, and the tendency of your allies to protect the "squishy wizard". Actually, I'd tend to give the wizard the advantage in this comparison.
Offensively, wizards can drop more foes, faster, from further away, than a fighter can, at least until they run out of spells. In combats, casting sleep or color spray once and then backing up and plinking with your crossbow is considered quite acceptable as a contribution and no one at my tables begrudges a wizard for taking that approach. Plus, parties tend to stop and rest after just a couple of combats at this level, so a new set of spells is always just around the corner.
So overall, your defenses are solid, your offenses are limited but solid, your range is solid, and everyone else assumes you're weak and tries to protect you. It's an easy life, being a low-level wizard.

[StoneCipher]

Use your wizarding to make you lots of money. Hire lots of mercenaries until you don't need them. I don't see how it could be any simpler. Merc work for dirt cheap prices by the book. If the DM doesn't allow that, then make lots of money doing your wizarding and then put that money into making lots of scrolls for yourself before you even leave town.

If you're not in a town where you are a low level wizard and cannot get basic wizarding materials in which to make said money, your DM hates you.

[Aharon]

So, the superiority of Wizards is oft-touted around these parts, and personally I believe it. I'm well aware of just how potent magic is, and the Sorc/Wiz spell list is probably the best one out there. What I haven't managed to get my head around, though, is the low-level power. At low level, a Wizard is squishy as all hell. How do they survive before they have Contingency, before they have flight, before they have teleportation, before they have Mirror Image? How can a Wizard manage, without a meatshield to stand behind? Colour Spray is strong, but only has a 15 foot range - and if the enemy makes the save, you're toast. Same with Sleep - if it works, you win. If it doesn't, you die.

Can the Wizard really do everything the Fighter can do and better, while he still only has first level spells? Second level? And if so, how?

In this (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1146486) contest, wizard-type casters were able to win more consistently than melee guys at level 5. The dominating tactic for them was Otherworldly + Alter Self, which is available at level 3. So this is the point at which they definietely become viable.

[eggynack]

You're saying that the wolf has trip, but doesn't have trip by default? My understanding of the MM entries was for a normal creature of its type, ergo the default setting. Thus the default setting of a wolf would be for it to have the trip ability. The riding dog normal or default entr doesn't list trip under its special attacks, but does say that a riding dog CAN get the attack if it becomes trained for it.
The wolf doesn't have trip by default. The wolf has trip by more than default. The wolf just always has trip. It's a necessarily true aspect of the monster. By contrast, the wolf's feat selection is just default. You could find a wolf that just so happens to have a different feat, because that's explicitly within the DM's prerogative. Unless the DM is homebrewing though, or unless something special happened (again, trait removal), you will never find a wolf without the trip ability. It's a part of a default wolf, and it's part of a not-default wolf, and it's part of every wolf. If you are a wolf, then you have trip.

The riding dog, by my reckoning, does have trip by default, and they have it exactly by default. Most riding dogs are trained for combat riding, so most riding dogs have trip, but some riding dogs are not trained for combat riding, and they don't have trip. If you just find a riding dog, and they have combat riding (which they usually do), then they've satisfied the easy to meet condition for tripping, and thus have the ability. Wolves don't have to meet that condition at all.

That might just be a simpler way to consider it, actually. Riding dogs have a condition attached to their tripping ability, a condition that's met by default. Wolves have no such condition on their tripping ability, so all of the conditions required for their tripping to work are met 100% of the time. That is the fundamental difference between the two abilities, and the reason why it was necessary for them to write the game the way they did if they wanted it to work this way. Had they written riding dogs like wolves, then riding dogs would have tripping 100% of the time, instead of 99% of the time as they do now.

[Gwendol]

Eggy, this discussion is a side-track. That said, in realation to a wizard with Wild Cohort he will not get a dog trained for war (but it can be trained). The discussion is somewhat trivial, since the wizard can pay for the training.

[eggynack]

Eggy, this discussion is a side-track. That said, in realation to a wizard with Wild Cohort he will not get a dog trained for war (but it can be trained). The discussion is somewhat trivial, since the wizard can pay for the training.
"Trained for war" isn't actually a game object. The closest thing, the only thing that makes sense, is trained for combat riding, and riding dogs get that by default. The riding dog thus does come to the wizard trained for war, and the wizard need not pay for the privilege of a tripping riding dog. The only real alternative I can see is that riding dogs just never have tripping ability, because it's physically impossible, per the RAW I'm aware of, to train a riding dog for war.

[Gwendol]

I disagree. But rather than cluttering this thread with a lengthy side discussion I'm starting a new one.

[Twilightwyrm]

Expeditious retreat + crossbow proficiency. If an int 14+ wizard with a move of 60ft and a ranged attack ends up in melee combat, something has gone wrong. Expeditious retreat alone is a 'draw' button at those levels, against all but the fastest melee threats. At 2nd level invisibility is even stronger as a retreat option. Wizards are much better at 'bugging out' of a losing fight.

Actually, bugging out of a losing fight really isn't a low level wizard's strong suite. I mean, yes they have plenty of options for the physical process of bugging out, but the line for a wizard of that level between a "losing fight" and any given fight is one hit or less. Range damage, poison, traps, alchemist's fire, tanglefoot bags, hell pretty much any debuff at the enemy's disposal. And you ARE going to get hit. Basically any fight in which you get hit once, by pretty much anything, and you need to go into retreat mode, assuming you still can. Far as I'm concerned, that's not the mark of what is supposed to be a top tier class.

[Yahzi]

Yes, but this is a solo wizard.
Then he has already failed.

No wizard worth the buttons on his boots is solo. He always has mooks or thugs or henchmen. If you're 1st lvl, your minions are 0th level thugs you hired from the local tavern, the kind of people willing to hurt other people for drinking money. But you still have henchmen.

[Ivanhoe]

You've subtly shifted the question asked by the Original Poster ("Can the Wizard really do everything the Fighter can do and better?") to a related, but slightly different question, "Can a wizard beat a fighter in one-on-one combat, using only melee?"

The difference is important because most parties expect their fighter to bring the pain. They do not have 20-30 rounds to wait while the fighter deals 1 point of damage each round. The rest of the party is going to be doing something. Long before the hawk kills even one creature, the other 3 members of the party, assuming any level of optimization and a level appropriate encounter, will have finished off the enemies. A hawk does not replace the fighter's ability to 1) deal damage at a reasonable rate 2) absorb damage or 3) control the battlefield since the hawk cannot even deliver attacks of opportunity to adjacent squares, let alone 10 feet away.

This hawk combat scheme is another indication that people must not really play low level wizards. No party I have ever played with would come to the conclusion the doing 1d4-2 damage was just as good as a fighter. (75% of the its attacks that hit will do 1 damage and only 25% of the time will it do 2 points of damage.) The standard response to a high AC character that has a hard time hurting you is just ignore it and focus on the rest of the enemies.

As for whether the hawk could beat a fighter in one-on-one combat, even then, I'm skeptical. As lytokk mentioned in his post, tiny creatures provoke attacks of opportunity. Each time the hawk attacks, it has to enter a creature's square (reach of 0 feet). The fighter will get 2 attacks for each of the hawk's 1 attack. Shield lasts 1 minute per caster level, which is usually long enough to last for a whole combat, but in this instance it becomes critical. Before the hawk has managed to kill the fighter, he is going to lose that +4 to AC. Eventually, one way or another, a fighter will hit the hawk. With 2 or 3 HP (one-half of his master's total, rounded down) it only takes one hit to kill the hawk. The wizard will be without a familiar for a year and day.


Hrm. I admit I forgot about the AoO thing, and the one year gap for a new familiar. In later levels, however, the familiar can be made into a better fighter with the shared polymorph spell. The one year gap hurts, though.:smalleek:

[lytokk]

So, the superiority of Wizards is oft-touted around these parts, and personally I believe it. I'm well aware of just how potent magic is, and the Sorc/Wiz spell list is probably the best one out there. What I haven't managed to get my head around, though, is the low-level power. At low level, a Wizard is squishy as all hell. How do they survive before they have Contingency, before they have flight, before they have teleportation, before they have Mirror Image? How can a Wizard manage, without a meatshield to stand behind? Colour Spray is strong, but only has a 15 foot range - and if the enemy makes the save, you're toast. Same with Sleep - if it works, you win. If it doesn't, you die.

Can the Wizard really do everything the Fighter can do and better, while he still only has first level spells? Second level? And if so, how?

After the small derail of the wild cohort discussion, I felt I needed to comment on the actual topic. I think the fighters have a much better level 1 solo survivablity than a wizard (defining solo survivablity as being alone with only their class features and gear). Assuming the standard orc is the enemy, a wizard is a single hit away from unconsiousness, whereas a fighter is a single lucky hit away, either by max damage or a crit, unless either takes toughness. Also, the fighter will have a higher AC, making him less likely to be hit.

Once the wizard gets access to alter self, the survivability increases for the wizard, but I'd still give fighters a small edge based on the fact they will likely have more HP. Polymorph is the game changer. Thats when I would say that wizards can out-fight the fighter. My opinion at least.

[Agincourt]

Hrm. I admit I forgot about the AoO thing, and the one year gap for a new familiar. In later levels, however, the familiar can be made into a better fighter with the shared polymorph spell. The one year gap hurts, though.:smalleek:

No one in this thread has disputed that mid and high level wizards can do some amazing things. That includes being better at fighting if the character chooses and builds for it. There is a lot of hyperbole, though, about how powerful wizards are out of the gate.

[dextercorvia]

After the small derail of the wild cohort discussion, I felt I needed to comment on the actual topic. I think the fighters have a much better level 1 solo survivablity than a wizard (defining solo survivablity as being alone with only their class features and gear). Assuming the standard orc is the enemy, a wizard is a single hit away from unconsiousness, whereas a fighter is a single lucky hit away, either by max damage or a crit, unless either takes toughness. Also, the fighter will have a higher AC, making him less likely to be hit.

I think what you are missing here is that the Wizard has better tools to keep the fight from devolving into one where he even gets hit.

[Spore]

1) Charm Person a big bodyguard.
2) Prepare your adventures or make XP by learning not killing monsters.
3) If you are in a "dungeon" you do not venture forth unless you know what's ahead.
4) Collect treasures and money for casting spells and solving quests in safe environments.

If you are an adventurous wizard instead of a "NPC wizard" skip step 2 and 3.

[Troacctid]

Charm Person only lasts an hour at 1st level, and it only makes them well-inclined toward you, it doesn't make them your servant.