Challenge: Wizard VS Fighter (melee only)

[Selion]

It's often said that at high levels full casters are able to outshine any other class in every single compartment, being better than specialized character.
So the challenge is: can a wizard match a fighter in their area of competence?
Rules:
- Pathfinder first party material only.
- Character's level must be 10, 15, or 20
- No multiclassing, character must be either full wizard or full fighter
- Standard WBL
- If a character may keep an effect for two hours a day burning spellslots or magic items usage it's considered active in this fight.
- No more than 10% WBL can be used on consumables
- There is a full round dedicated to self buffs before the encounter
- Characters cannot affect directly their opponent with spells or spell-like abilities, neither can they use other entities on the fight, not even for buffing (for example, they cannot use familiars or summoned monsters to cast spells or for flanking)
- Anything on builds depending on DM choices is banned, for example it's forbidden possessing a called monster, it's forbidden possessing/dominating a powerful NPC, while it's not forbidden possessing a construct (or even a summoned monster, if this strategy is actually a thing) if you buy it with WBL.
- Combat ends if a character is helpless for three successive rounds.
- 20 points buy (Edit)


Encounters will be resolved against monsters of CR +1 of my choice. It will be evaluated average damage dealt and average damage suffered.

[Crake]

- Anything on builds depending on DM choices is banned, for example it's forbidden possessing a called monster,

Can I ask what part of possessing a called monster has to do with DM choices?

[Kurald Galain]

Numerically speaking, a tenth-level fighter has +8 to hit, +4 to damage over a wizard with identical ability scores (assuming Weapon Focus / Weapon Spec), +8 better armor class (+3 platemail compared to mage armor), and 22 more hit points. Any feat, trait, or item that the fighter gets, the wizard can also take. So your question is basically if the wizard's buff spells can top that.

Back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests the following,
Heroism (with extend spell) is +2 to hit and to saves.
Monstrous Physique III in the self-buff round adds +3 to hit and damage, +4 to AC, 15' reach, and flight.
Greater Magic Weapon adds +1 to hit and damage, since both parties probably want a +1 weapon with special abilities, rather than a +2 or higher weapon.
Transmutation school adds +10 hit points, +1 fort, +2 ref, +2 AC. Possibly more if you have an odd ability score.
Visualization of the Body adds +10 hit points.
Defending Bone or extended Clay Skin adds DR/5.
Familiar adds +2 to AC via protector archetype, and +3 to hit points.


So the fighter still has +2 to hit, but the wizard has 15' reach, flight, DR/5, and about +3 better saving throws. Yeah, I think the wizard has this in the bag.

[khadgar567]

Numerically speaking, a tenth-level fighter has +8 to hit, +4 to damage over a wizard with identical ability scores (assuming Weapon Focus / Weapon Spec), +8 better armor class (+3 platemail compared to mage armor), and 22 more hit points. Any feat, trait, or item that the fighter gets, the wizard can also take. So your question is basically if the wizard's buff spells can top that.

Back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests the following,

Heroism (with extend spell) is +2 to hit and to saves.
Monstrous Physique III in the self-buff round adds +3 to hit and damage, +4 to AC, 15' reach, and flight.
Greater Magic Weapon adds +1 to hit and damage, since both parties probably want a +1 weapon with special abilities, rather than a +2 or higher weapon.
Transmutation school adds +10 hit points, +1 fort, +2 ref, +2 AC. Possibly more if you have an odd ability score.
Visualization of the Body adds +10 hit points.
Defending Bone or extended Clay Skin adds DR/5.
Familiar adds +2 to AC via protector archetype, and +3 to hit points.


So the fighter still has +2 to hit, but the wizard has 15' reach, flight, DR/5, and about +3 better saving throws. Yeah, I think the wizard has this in the bag.
I think you forget bit of fighters common toys called mutated warrior and that lives 22 or bit less stacking archtypes on fighter side considering mutated warrior allows fighter to get native flight speed i can think couple more toys to equalize the battle field. wizards monstrous phsique may be problem

[Quertus]

Numerically speaking, a tenth-level fighter has +8 to hit, +4 to damage over a wizard with identical ability scores (assuming Weapon Focus / Weapon Spec), +8 better armor class (+3 platemail compared to mage armor), and 22 more hit points. Any feat, trait, or item that the fighter gets, the wizard can also take. So your question is basically if the wizard's buff spells can top that.

Back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests the following,
Heroism (with extend spell) is +2 to hit and to saves.
Monstrous Physique III in the self-buff round adds +3 to hit and damage, +4 to AC, 15' reach, and flight.
Greater Magic Weapon adds +1 to hit and damage, since both parties probably want a +1 weapon with special abilities, rather than a +2 or higher weapon.
Transmutation school adds +10 hit points, +1 fort, +2 ref, +2 AC. Possibly more if you have an odd ability score.
Visualization of the Body adds +10 hit points.
Defending Bone or extended Clay Skin adds DR/5.
Familiar adds +2 to AC via protector archetype, and +3 to hit points.


So the fighter still has +2 to hit, but the wizard has 15' reach, flight, DR/5, and about +3 better saving throws. Yeah, I think the wizard has this in the bag.

How much of that can a Fighter replicate through spending 10% WBL on consumables, though?

[Asmotherion]

Can I ask what part of possessing a called monster has to do with DM choices?

Pretty much this.

Also i'm not that familiar with PF but for 3.5 here's a sample:

-Persist a fell drain thunderlance/cloud of knives/Ring of Lightninig AND Wraithstrie
-Have a familiar for share spell.
-Persist a bunsh of Fighter feats via Heroics (optional)
-Starmantle + Ruin Delver's Fortune
-Be invisible (optional)

You got about 10 attacs each of them draining a level on a hit. You're effectivelly imune to Weapon Damage unless you roll a natural 1. With heroics you can get combat reflexes and have the Fighter provoce AoO within 20 feet up to your Dex Mod. Get a short range teleport methode (Dimension Jumper/Greater Dimension Door) and rince/repeat if necessary. Oh and you can also cast spells since nothing of the above uses your Standard Action (other than if you chose to use the Thunderlance on your turn instead of AoO only).

[Kurald Galain]

I think you forget bit of fighters common toys called mutated warrior and that lives 22 or bit less stacking archtypes on fighter side considering mutated warrior allows fighter to get native flight speed i can think couple more toys to equalize the battle field. wizards monstrous phsique may be problem

Fair point, fighter gains +2 to hit, damage, and AC from mutagen. And, notably, flight.

Some wizard stuff I forgot about include Tome of the Transmuter (+2 AC), Greater False Life (+21 hit points), and Shield Other (from protector familiar; +30 hit points). With so many hit points, you can switch transmutation school to gain an extra attack instead of another +10 hp. Fighter is still ahead in to-hit and damage, but wizard gets more attacks per round. I suppose fighter could still go Iron Caster but I'm not sure how that would help.


How much of that can a Fighter replicate through spending 10% WBL on consumables, though?
Good question. Perhaps surprisingly: none of them. All of the spells listed are either self-only, or the potion form doesn't last two hours (meaning the OP's rules disqualify it as a pre-buff). A tenth-level fighter cannot reliably UMD scrolls yet.

[Jack_Simth]

Wizard probably wins.

Wizard builds a Waxwork Creature as Construct Armor. Puts Extend Spell (Protection From Energy(Fire)) and Extend Spell (Resist Energy(Fire)) on it, so it never takes fire damage to disable it's Waxen Regeneration. As extending either at 10th gives 3 hours and 20 minutes (and just gets higher at 15th and 20th), this is active without expending the buff round - and works out to "immunity to non-fire damage" and decent resistance to burning.

Add Greater Magic Weapon (hours/level, +2 attack/damage at 10th, +3 at 15th, +5 at 20th), Arcane Strike (Swift action at-will feat, +3 attack/damage at 10th, +4 at 15th, +5 at 20th), and... oh, let's go with Stilled Bull's Strength (buff round).

Slightly less offense than the Fighter is likely to have, but immunity to damage.


Can I ask what part of possessing a called monster has to do with DM choices?
At a guess?
1) Monster must exist to be called (they're explicitly pulled from somewhere, and the spell doesn't give you an explicit list, unlike the summon monster line). Not all monsters will exist in all campaign worlds. This is a DM choice.
2) "Unreasonable commands are never agreed to" - What's "unreasonable" is never defined, which means it's a DM choice.
3) For you to have it during the fight, some off-screen rolls had to have happened (the critter gets a save vs. the Planar Binding line, then there's the Charisma check, and a few other details).

[Gnaeus]

Animate dead. I have 20 HD of expendable fighter. My corpse bond gives me another 10 HD skeleton. I’ll lesser planar bind a shadow mastiff. That’s 6 HD more of meatshield that spams panic effects. By the time you have plowed through 36 HD of meatshield the summons are on the field. That’s before created constructs.

Really, the statement about exceeding other classes in their area of potency is:
A. More true in 3.5 (where it originated) than PF. PF fighters are better (unbuffed. They get worse buffs, see other recent threads). PF casters are worse at being fighters. Even a Druid, which is probably the best at being a fighter, and who can personally replace a fighter, has to make fighter type build choices that make him worse at being a Druid.

B. Shouldn’t be read as being better at personally doing a fighters job. If the fighter’s job is going first into a room and blocking enemies until the casters can crowd control them to oblivion and then murder the helpless opponents as they struggle to move, wizards do that better with pets than buffs.

I realize that is outside the rules of the challenge but the challenge is fundamentally misunderstanding what it means for a wizard to be better than a fighter at being a fighter. Wizard dominates fighter in melee combat, total damage, hp, control and expendability. Basically everything shroedingers fighter could be good at. But that doesn’t mean that the wizard enters melee in any combat where he isn’t just goofing off or saving spells because it’s already won.

[Selion]

Can I ask what part of possessing a called monster has to do with DM choices?

Of course, possessing an outsider may incur in plot devices because you are messing with individuals in a powerful society. It depends strongly on setting, but I wouldn't say you may possess something like an angel and not expecting some consequences.

BTW, while it's true that a wizard may replicate a lot of numerical bonuses with spells, the fighter has some class features that cannot be replicated, while a lot of low level buff may be used with items, for example a righteous armor gives a nice buff.

The regeneration trick is also nice, but regeneration is not an auto win, a helpless character is still something that may be disposed of.
I'd like if someone gave actual builds, I really don't know if a transmuted wizard may outdamage a two weapon fighter who has a pletora of bonus feats.

EDIT: I read the waxen template and it's actually close to auto win, unless the enemy has some ways to dispel the magic resistance or depleting it.
Nice trick

[Eldariel]

Can the Wizard substitute himself for a minion their spells can produce? Some big Bloody Skeleton (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/undead/skeleton-medium/skeleton-bloody/) is probably a fine melee option, being practically immortal vs. most enemies and pretty darn tough and it takes the Wizard exactly one level 2 spell each two weeks or so (Command Undead) to keep it under control (one spell and some money to generate it; he can of course also Magic Jar into it if he wants to fight in its body or something). Iono, something like Cloud Giant for Wizard 10 would be nice. Need 32 HD of animate pool, which they've got with leftovers if they can access Desecrate (there are numerous means, but if you're doing this you've got something).

[Kurald Galain]

the fighter has some class features that cannot be replicated,
Such as?


while a lot of low level buff may be used with items, for example a righteous armor gives a nice buff.
That's really not a low level buff. It also replaces the mutagen in the single buff round.


I really don't know if a transmuted wizard may outdamage a two weapon fighter who has a pletora of bonus feats.
I'm curious what feats you're thinking of that the wizard cannot take (other than weapon spec, which was already accounted for).

[Selion]

Pretty much this.

Also i'm not that familiar with PF but for 3.5 here's a sample:

-Persist a fell drain thunderlance/cloud of knives/Ring of Lightninig AND Wraithstrie
-Have a familiar for share spell.
-Persist a bunsh of Fighter feats via Heroics (optional)
-Starmantle + Ruin Delver's Fortune
-Be invisible (optional)

You got about 10 attacs each of them draining a level on a hit. You're effectivelly imune to Weapon Damage unless you roll a natural 1. With heroics you can get combat reflexes and have the Fighter provoce AoO within 20 feet up to your Dex Mod. Get a short range teleport methode (Dimension Jumper/Greater Dimension Door) and rince/repeat if necessary. Oh and you can also cast spells since nothing of the above uses your Standard Action (other than if you chose to use the Thunderlance on your turn instead of AoO only).

Persist and fell spells have been removed in pathfinder, with good reasons, as your post proves.

[Selion]

Such as?


Power attack bonus scales with BAB, number of attacks scale with BAB, some archetypes give untyped bonuses, like two handed fighter, weapon mastery feats are there, even if they're not amazing. Furthermore, it's incorrect stating that a wizard can take exactly the same options, because a fighter at level 10th has 6 bonus feats and the wizard must expend point buy or WBL in intelligence, otherwise he cannot cast high level spells.
I'm not leaning toward the fighter in anyway, in fact i think the wizard would win this, but i'm curious of the solutions of more experienced users (i'm quite experienced too, but there are people i cannot compare, and i'm not knowledgeable with martial types)

BTW, i want to point out that the challenge is in average damage against monsters (selected among those with high physical stats, i don't want exotic abilities on the table).
Best way is building myself a fighter, even if i don't know the class very well , and see if someone builds a beefer and stronger wizard.

[Jack_Simth]

EDIT: I read the waxen template and it's actually close to auto win, unless the enemy has some ways to dispel the magic resistance or depleting it.
Nice trick

It's a very evil trick. The opponent MUST be able to apply fire damage, as otherwise there is no way to damage the wizard.
Even with fire damage, the opponent must either be able to overwhelm or dispel the Energy Resistance and Protection from Energy spells.
Even then, the opponent still has to get through the construct's hp before hurting the wizard.

[Selion]

Sorry for multiple posting, i made some calculations and i think that at least the level 10 challenge goes to the fighter, at least without hard optimization (i just tried a vanilla fighter vs a transmuter wizard)

Fighter:

Base Stats
18
14
16
7
7
7

Racial (Human) and level adjustment
22
14
16
7
7
7

Feats:
Weapon proficiency
Power attack
Weapon Focus
Improved Weapon Focus
Weapon specialization
Dodge
Armor Focus
Master Craftman
Craft Magic Arms and Armors
Craft wondrous items
Skill Focus (craft)
Toughness

Gear (discounted for crafting feats, i payed half prices only on items he automatically succeeded and with CL lower than his level, because some people think this is a restriction in crafting and in don't want to discuss it)

keen fauchard +3 11800
Full Plate +3 5000
Belt of strenght +4 8000
ring of protection +1 2000
Boots of Speed 6000
Amulet of natural armor +3 9000
Cloak of Resistance +3 4500



HP 119
AC 32 10 + (+12 armor + 1 ring + 3 amulet +1 haste + 2 armor mastery + 1 armor focus + 1 dodge + 2 dex)

Full Attack: Fauchard + 23/+23/+18 (+10 BAB + 8 str -3 Power Attack +2 improved weapon focus + 2 weapon training + 3 enhancement bonus+1 haste)
Damage: 33.5 (1d10+ 12 str +9 power attack +3 enhancement +2 weapon specialization +2 weapon training)
DPR against CR 10 monster (using average monster stats): 113


I tried wizard too, while actually he can compete in HP and AC while polymorphed, half BAB is a serious hindrance. BTW my unoptimized wizard still deals decent damage, even if way less than his martial counterpart.

I won't post the full build, because i hope you'll do better, but i obtained this values:
HP: 119 (toughness, greater false life, bonus from transmutation school, visualization of the body )

Saurian Form (weapon damage + bite)
AC: 30 (magic armor, shield, magic gear, familiar, natural armor bonus in huge monstrous physique III form, -2 size)
Attack: +18 (+5 BAB + 2 Heroism +1 weapon focus + 11 str -2 size +3 enhancement -2 power attack +1 haste)
Damage: 30.5 (1d10 +16 str + 3 enhancement + 6 power attack)
DPR: 58


Four armed Gargoyle Form (using all natural attacks and no weapons)
AC: 30
Attack: +15
DPR on 6 primary natural attacks: 70

[Kurald Galain]

Thanks for doing the math on that, looks like the fighter's going to win this one.

Turns out I overlooked the substantial attack/AC penalties for huge size, as well as doubling your WBL through crafting. Well, it's good to see that the oh-so-many complains that "martial classes aren't worth playing" aren't true in Pathfinder.

[Gnaeus]

. Well, it's good to see that the oh-so-many complains that "martial classes aren't worth playing" aren't true in Pathfinder.

That statement is why I posted earlier. It’s exactly what I was afraid this would get to. The wizard can still invalidate/replace the fighter. He just can’t easily become the fighter himself.

[HouseRules]

The point is that the Wizard cannot out Fighter a Fighter, so the Wizard Tier 2, not Tier 1.

[Kurald Galain]

That statement is why I posted earlier. It’s exactly what I was afraid this would get to. The wizard can still invalidate/replace the fighter. He just can’t easily become the fighter himself.
Well, you did post that the wizard "dominates" the fighter in, among other things, melee combat and total damage. And to be fair, so did I. But Selion's math shows that this is incorrect, and instead the fighter beats the wizard in melee combat and total damage.

I think his math is fair; if you still believe otherwise, you should show some math to prove it.

[khadgar567]

Well, you did post that the wizard "dominates" the fighter in, among other things, melee combat and total damage. And to be fair, so did I. But Selion's math shows that this is incorrect, and instead the fighter beats the wizard in melee combat and total damage.

I think his math is fair; if you still believe otherwise, you should show some math to prove it.
I think that's due fundamental weakness build in the chassis. try doing act for school prom in middle of all out cantina brawl you need some serious luck to not get beat up. as long as fighter gets close enough he will win but if wizard is just 1 int smarter then he thinks fighter loses the combat due out range and out gun on damage front

[Selion]

Well, you did post that the wizard "dominates" the fighter in, among other things, melee combat and total damage. And to be fair, so did I. But Selion's math shows that this is incorrect, and instead the fighter beats the wizard in melee combat and total damage.

I think his math is fair; if you still believe otherwise, you should show some math to prove it.

Actually i noticed a couple of errors that make the spread narrower in four armed gargoyle form: i missed one attack from haste and wizard should take arcane strike in this build. Without making the math again, the extra attack should do around 12 extra damage (because 6 attacks dealt 70), arcane strike should deal 13 damage more (average CR 10 monster has AC 24)
So the total wizard DPR reaches 95 dpr, which is almost as good as the fighter. (BTW this is actually true only for four armed gargoyle, which seems to be a pretty good battle form)

[Gnaeus]

Well, you did post that the wizard "dominates" the fighter in, among other things, melee combat and total damage. And to be fair, so did I. But Selion's math shows that this is incorrect, and instead the fighter beats the wizard in melee combat and total damage.

I think his math is fair; if you still believe otherwise, you should show some math to prove it.

His math is fair, it just doesn’t mean what you suggest it means because his assumption is flawed from start.

He does dominate the fighter in melee combat. His 36 HD++of minions are engaged in melee combat. He just isn’t making melee attack rolls himself. As I stated, he will beat the fighter in total HP on the front line, spaces controlled, number of AOOs, total attacks and net damage. Without ever entering melee himself or only after several rounds as a wizard when he wants to mop up/conserve spells.

If you want me to do the math I will be calculating something like 2 troll skeletons, 2 ogre skeletons, some 10 hd creature with the skeleton template, and one or 2 lesser planar bound allies + wizard spending the first round or 2 of combat dropping summons. And maybe a construct, IDK. Because that is what the wizard which replaces a fighter in melee looks like. I count something like 6d8+4d6+44 per round just from Animate dead without even buying weapons for the skels. Personally turning into a monster and making claw attacks is the last, least important part of wizard beating fighter in fighter’s specialty.

And yes, their BAB is lower. But they generate more flanking, can grapple with less opportunity cost, occupy 4 10x10 squares with reach and multiple AOOs/round. They will happily lay down their unlives protecting the wizard. And that assumes you are working with trash. I’d much rather have 1 cloud giant skeleton than the 4 larges.

[Kurald Galain]

I count something like 6d8+4d6+44 per round just from Animate dead without even buying weapons for the skels.
Ok. Now a skeletal troll has +9 to hit, meaning it hits 30% of the time (40% if you flank, but only 20% for the ogre). That suggests a DPR of 85 * 0.3 * 1.05 = 27; compared to the fighter's 113.

In addition, the CR 11 bestiary contains numerous creatures with DR 10 (which your skeletal army will only barely be able to damage), as well as creatures with Fireball or a breath weapon (which may well drop your army in one shot).

So I don't think this is as cut-and-dry as you believe. Although yes, summoners are scary and a horde of minions is pretty awesome.

[Gnaeus]

Ok. Now a skeletal troll has +9 to hit, meaning it hits 30% of the time (40% if you flank, but only 20% for the ogre). That suggests a DPR of 85 * 0.3 * 1.05 = 27; compared to the fighter's 113.

In addition, the CR 11 bestiary contains numerous creatures with DR 10 (which your skeletal army will only barely be able to damage), as well as creatures with Fireball or a breath weapon (which may well drop your army in one shot).

So I don't think this is as cut-and-dry as you believe. Although yes, summoners are scary and a horde of minions is pretty awesome.

1. As I said, I’m looking at the bottom level of effectiveness. Probably by level 10 you have fought better than ogres and trolls. And that, again, is only 1 spell. That one spell by your calculations is 1/4 the damage of the fighter, before gear, without AOOs from multiple large creatures. Without the possibility of grapple. Not my skeletal minion, or my planar bindings. Or my summons. Or possibly constructs. I could also just buff them. A single cloud giant skelly with a huge greatsword is 12d6+54 at +24/+17/+12 with 15 reach again before buffs. That’s only a CR7, entirely possible by level 10.

2. Yes, there are things that disproportionately harm undead horde. There are also things that disproportionately harm fighter to which undead horde is immune or nearly immune. Poison. Fear. Dominate. Energy drain. Ability drain. Cold. Grappling enemies (fine, so you grappled one skeleton....) a sense of self preservation. I can drop a cloudkill right on top of them. Fighter might object to that.

[stack]

As others have pointed out, the restriction don't really make sense. Melee isn't really a functional specialty, it is a way you attempt to achieve certain functions, usually damage and control. Saying a fighter is functional in melee means exactly what? If you break that down into damage, control, and durability, then you can have a more complete discussion. Ranged spells can deal damage to achieve the HP damage goal. Spells can control area. CDG on a helpless foe is perfectly valid for dispatching them.

Leaving out familiars is ridiculous also. They are a class feature, fair and square. A familiar sharing dazing burning gaze and dazing snapdragon fireworks to force multiple save vs. daze each round while not further eating into the wizard's actions after the initial setup impacts the outcome.

[Quertus]

So, this is 2 conversations: can a Wizard outfight a Fighter, and can a Wizard reasonably replace a Fighter?

For the former, it would appear that the answer is "no", mostly. Although a wax-encased Wizard may be able to be roughly on par?

But for the latter, the answer is "it's complicated". Because undead, constructs, summons - they take up space. They don't perform exactly the same role as the Fighter - how many can crowd around a single foe, for example.

Hilariously enough, the power of the Fighter is versatility: the Fighter can take up minimal space (one creature), lockdown a large area (reach tripping), get good DPS on single or multiple foes, switch to ranged weaponry as needed, and doesn't stop working (or attack the party) when a squishy Wizard dies. As a single creature, he's easier to buff and heal (especially from AoE effects).

So, we should think very carefully about what we really want to ask. Yes, we can answer the question in the OP: can a Wizard be a reasonable Physical Adept? And I think that the answer is, "yes, but… the Fighter still wins". But is that question worth asking? What does the answer mean?

EDIT: I didn't word that well. Let me try again: suppose the Fighter and the Wizard were saddled with 20 "princesses" to escort. Suppose that they fought various foes in various circumstances - some of whom may have ranged attacks, attack random targets, use AoE effects, etc. What if the metrics were not just "which one survives which encounters", but "how tough to these escorted 'princesses' need to be in order for how many to survive"?

Unless anyone has a better metric to measure how a party might feel about someone taking the role of "Fighter".

[Gnaeus]

So, this is 2 conversations: can a Wizard outfight a Fighter, and can a Wizard reasonably replace a Fighter?

For the former, it would appear that the answer is "no", mostly. Although a wax-encased Wizard may be able to be roughly on par?

But for the latter, the answer is "it's complicated". Because undead, constructs, summons - they take up space. They don't perform exactly the same role as the Fighter - how many can crowd around a single foe, for example.

Hilariously enough, the power of the Fighter is versatility: the Fighter can take up minimal space (one creature), lockdown a large area (reach tripping), get good DPS on single or multiple foes, switch to ranged weaponry as needed, and doesn't stop working (or attack the party) when a squishy Wizard dies. As a single creature, he's easier to buff and heal (especially from AoE effects).

So, we should think very carefully about what we really want to ask. Yes, we can answer the question in the OP: can a Wizard be a reasonable Physical Adept? And I think that the answer is, "yes, but… the Fighter still wins". But is that question worth asking? What does the answer mean?

EDIT: I didn't word that well. Let me try again: suppose the Fighter and the Wizard were saddled with 20 "princesses" to escort. Suppose that they fought various foes in various circumstances - some of whom may have ranged attacks, attack random targets, use AoE effects, etc. What if the metrics were not just "which one survives which encounters", but "how tough to these escorted 'princesses' need to be in order for how many to survive"?

Unless anyone has a better metric to measure how a party might feel about someone taking the role of "Fighter".

I think that’s a reasonable analysis.

I have disputes with little bits of it (wizard 10s have lots of ways to not be squishy. The fighter may be “easier to buff” but the wizard is actually providing buffs for his minions while the fighter isn’t. Wizards have lots of lockdown options, from skeletons with grab to outsiders spamming aoe fear effects to actual spells. Even if fighter “wins” versus physical adept wizard there are worse PF muggles (like swashbuckler or monk or TWF Ranger) than fighter, so it still doesn’t show that a wizard can’t outshine T5 in their specialty.)

But for the most part that was a good restatement of my position.

[Quertus]

I think that’s a reasonable analysis.

But for the most part that was a good restatement of my position.

Nice to know that I can occasionally a) read, and b) communicate effectively. :smallwink:

So, regarding buffs, I'll add the question, what if the party already has a dedicated buffing caster or three? Sure, the Wizard can buff his own minions, but is that valuable to a buffing party?

So, there was a buffing party. Their Fighter died. He could be replaced with a) another Fighter, at the same effectiveness. Alternately, he could be replaced by b) a Physical Adept, or by c) a minionmancy magician. Would we expect the party to perform better or worse under scenarios "b" and "c"?

[Kurald Galain]

Alternately, he could be replaced by b) a Physical Adept, or by c) a minionmancy magician. Would we expect the party to perform better or worse under scenarios "b" and "c"?

Regarding (c), it's worth remembering that minions have very low hit points and saving throws. It's easy to flippantly point out that, compared to a fireball on the minions, a fighter can be poisoned; but that doesn't change the fact that the fighter has level-appropriate saving throws and the minions really don't.

[AvatarVecna]

In 3.5 this isn't the hugest issue, but that's less relevant now that the OP has been edited to be PF only.

Wizard 10 casts Quickened "Expeditious Retreat" and then "Polymorph" with the form of a ten-headed hydra of the pyro- or cyro- variety as appropriate to the situation. 50 ft movement, ten attacks as a standard action for +14/1d10+5 dmg, and every 1d4 rounds all ten heads use a breath attack dealing 3d6 damage, which can be layered together to affect individual targets with many breath weapons. Over 10 rounds, they'll get 100 attacks for +14/1d10+5 and probably 60 breath weapon uses? Even if we assume that during that period 90% of attacks miss (with no crits), and 90% of saves succeed, you're still looking at 10d10+50+18d6+(42d6/2) damage (average DPR 24.15). And that's assuming only a single foe facing all those breath weapons; if there's more foes, total damage ends up increasing drastically. Of course, those aren't good assumptions: +14 only hitting 10% of the time requires AC 33 to be reasonably luck, and over 100 attacks even with that poor odds of hitting it's a coin-flip whether you'll get a hit or not; if your Wizard 10 is fighting something with AC more on-level like AC 25, they're probably hitting 50% of the time and dealing another 4d10+20 per round (I'm also unsure if a 90% success rate is a good assumption for a DC 20 Ref save but ehhhhhh half-damage on the successes is still plenty of damage so it doesn't change things nearly as much probably). Fast

Wizard 15 has Knowledge Devotion at this point and can almost certainly hit DC 35 reliably. She casts Persisted "Wraithstrike" and Persisted "Swift Fly" early in the day. For the round of pre-buffing, they cast "Bite Of The Werebear" and "Polymorph", taking the form of a 12-headed hydra of the pyro- or cryo- variety as appropriate for what they're facing. AC 30, 60 ft fly speed, 12 attacks as a standard action at +18 vs touch AC, dealing 2d8+31 each (assuming full PA tradeof via BotW). Additionally all 12 heads spew a breath weapon every 1d4 rounds dealing 3d6 possibly +5 from KD but I'd probably rule no if I was DM (DC 25 Ref save for half). Touch AC is one of the numbers that tends to go down as CR increases, so they're almost certainly hitting on everything but a nat 1 (so one miss every other round on average?). Over ten rounds we're maybe looking at dealing 228d8+3534+3d6+(33d6/2), with average DPR being 462.825.

Wizard 20 casts Shapechange at the start of the day. Losing when they have Shapechange would be quite an accomplishment, considering that if they choose a less-than-ideal form they can switch to another one. Sure, their form choices can include "multiple ways of granting your own wishes for free", but I feel that goes against the spirit of what's being asked. There's a whole edition worth of beat-em-ups you could turn into that could probably do the job depending on what exactly you're facing, but since you have Shapechange you can change your form to counter whatever it is you're fighting. I guess unless they're also a powerful caster, but then if the goal is to show magic isn't necessarily outdoing nonmagic at its own thing, demonstrating that by having a caster monster beat the wizard-pretending-to-be-a-fighter seems counterintuitive. :smalltongue:

[Selion]

So, this is 2 conversations: can a Wizard outfight a Fighter, and can a Wizard reasonably replace a Fighter?

For the former, it would appear that the answer is "no", mostly. Although a wax-encased Wizard may be able to be roughly on par?

But for the latter, the answer is "it's complicated". Because undead, constructs, summons - they take up space. They don't perform exactly the same role as the Fighter - how many can crowd around a single foe, for example.

Hilariously enough, the power of the Fighter is versatility: the Fighter can take up minimal space (one creature), lockdown a large area (reach tripping), get good DPS on single or multiple foes, switch to ranged weaponry as needed, and doesn't stop working (or attack the party) when a squishy Wizard dies. As a single creature, he's easier to buff and heal (especially from AoE effects).

So, we should think very carefully about what we really want to ask. Yes, we can answer the question in the OP: can a Wizard be a reasonable Physical Adept? And I think that the answer is, "yes, but… the Fighter still wins". But is that question worth asking? What does the answer mean?

EDIT: I didn't word that well. Let me try again: suppose the Fighter and the Wizard were saddled with 20 "princesses" to escort. Suppose that they fought various foes in various circumstances - some of whom may have ranged attacks, attack random targets, use AoE effects, etc. What if the metrics were not just "which one survives which encounters", but "how tough to these escorted 'princesses' need to be in order for how many to survive"?

Unless anyone has a better metric to measure how a party might feel about someone taking the role of "Fighter".

You got a fair point, probably my question comes from mathematical education, i wanted to know if a wizard could be defined as strictly superior, namely if they could replicate every one of the fighter's features and have other ones at their disposal.
The answer seems to be "almost": the wizard numbers are in fact decent and in a party a dedicated wizard (so a wizard that takes combat feats, as the one i designed) may play the role of the fighter, less efficiently.
On the other verse most of the buffs the wizard uses would be more efficiently used in a fighter, increasing further their ability in dominating the physical prowness of the group.

BTW this has nothing to do with tiering, i know a wizard would dominate combat by other means, a summoned Ice Demon alone has ice wall at will, and in the damage department i recently posted a build focused on hellfire ray able to deal 500 damage by level 12th (extreme optimization, though).

The other reason i made this question is that a transmuter spellcaster focused in combat would be a side character i would design for future games, even if at that point the classic bloodrager->dragon disciple arcanist seems to be an obvious candidate for the task.

[Gnaeus]

Regarding (c), it's worth remembering that minions have very low hit points and saving throws. It's easy to flippantly point out that, compared to a fireball on the minions, a fighter can be poisoned; but that doesn't change the fact that the fighter has level-appropriate saving throws and the minions really don't.

Scoff at poison all you like. It’s only one thing. A panicked fighter is no better than a fireballed skeleton, that is useless. And a dominated one is much much worse. The skeletons functionally have better fort and Will saves because of immunities. The outsiders commonly have better actual saves than the fighter (and likely SR too), and golems just don’t care.

And again, if the fighters job is standing in front and tanking while casters do their thing, the fact that I can cone of cold or cloudkill through the fighter equivalent freely is an advantage.

And let’s not forget that the minions are only the tanking arm of a wizard 10 or higher. He could be standing with a readied action to counterspell (and while he likely isn’t, that’s only because he likely has better things to do). He can cast communal resist energy and replace the slot with a pearl cheaper than the fighter can buy a ring. He can just mind control the enemy fighter into replacing the skeletons. He can use other control options like walls. He’s spoiled for choices. Fighter just saves or is jacked.

[Crake]

At a guess?
1) Monster must exist to be called (they're explicitly pulled from somewhere, and the spell doesn't give you an explicit list, unlike the summon monster line). Not all monsters will exist in all campaign worlds. This is a DM choice.
2) "Unreasonable commands are never agreed to" - What's "unreasonable" is never defined, which means it's a DM choice.
3) For you to have it during the fight, some off-screen rolls had to have happened (the critter gets a save vs. the Planar Binding line, then there's the Charisma check, and a few other details).

1) This is like saying "not all spells will exist in all campaign worlds", or "not all feats will be available at all tables", etc. By that argument, everything is "DM choice".
2) In terms of possessing a creature, that clause is irrelevant, because you're presumably possessing them against their will.
3) You have to be above level 1 during the fight, some off-screen rolls had to have happened as well.


Of course, possessing an outsider may incur in plot devices because you are messing with individuals in a powerful society. It depends strongly on setting, but I wouldn't say you may possess something like an angel and not expecting some consequences.

This is like saying "Having access to powerful magic may incur plot devices because you have access to powerful magic that may upturn societies. I wouldn't say you may possess disjunction in your spellbook and not expect some consequences". The consequences don't prevent it from being possible, so why should it be banned from the equation?

Note that I'm not arguing for planar binding possession, it's just a very weirdly specific thing to disallow under the guise of "it's DM specific". In that notion it's all DM specific, not a good argument. If you were to say "It's not allowed because planar binding is too broken", sure, I'd get that, but "It's DM specific"?...

[upho]

I assume this comparison is looking at the highest op possible, so why is your example fighter focusing on damage, and why are you people even talking about DPR?

Have the fighter focus on reach, AoOs, dirty trick, demoralization (via performance combat) and maybe dispelling instead and you might even the score a bit. Likely more so if you also up the challenge from (relatively speaking) pathetic CR = level monsters. Try fighting a few melee bruisers at 20th, like say a couple of CR 25 balor lords or tarrasques, and the wizard's minions won't be nearly as effective, while I believe the fighter should be capable of reliably taking both out in the first round without spending more than a negligible amount of limited resources (they have a rather easily beaten CMD of no more than 66 and init +10 after all).

[Selion]

This is like saying "Having access to powerful magic may incur plot devices because you have access to powerful magic that may upturn societies. I wouldn't say you may possess disjunction in your spellbook and not expect some consequences". The consequences don't prevent it from being possible, so why should it be banned from the equation?

Note that I'm not arguing for planar binding possession, it's just a very weirdly specific thing to disallow under the guise of "it's DM specific". In that notion it's all DM specific, not a good argument. If you were to say "It's not allowed because planar binding is too broken", sure, I'd get that, but "It's DM specific"?...

Because i don't think it's something you can do on a regular basis, if you think banning it because it's too powerful it's fine by me, what happens instead is that the description of the spell includes lines which give the DM room to punish abusive behaviors in respect to the outsider, your use of the spell is similar in coercing the outsider with an off-scale diplomacy check (for example using a cyclops helm) and killing them before the spell ends.
Having disjunction in your spellbook may be seen as a threat, but it's quite a stretch, unless you use it regularly to destroy artifacts (and thus losing your spellcasting abilities in the long run).
Possessing regularly an outsider, than killing them to prevent vengeance, is intrinsically something that in most setting would bring some kind of effects, so IMHO in most cases it's a use of the spell that is DM dependant.

[MeimuHakurei]

If you want to challenge a Fighter in his niche, let's first take a look at what Paizo claims the Fighter is best at:


Role: Fighters excel at combat—defeating their enemies, controlling the flow of battle, and surviving such sorties themselves. While their specific weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, few can match fighters for sheer battle prowess.

I like taking a look at Level 5 characters here - both of them should have core combos online, it's still within the E6 range of balance, with the Wizard having access to 3rd level spells and the Fighter having both Armor and Weapon Training.

Any challenges that would be suited for a Fighter that a Wizard could try and take on themselves?

[Gnaeus]

If you want to challenge a Fighter in his niche, let's first take a look at what Paizo claims the Fighter is best at:



I like taking a look at Level 5 characters here - both of them should have core combos online, it's still within the E6 range of balance, with the Wizard having access to 3rd level spells and the Fighter having both Armor and Weapon Training.

Any challenges that would be suited for a Fighter that a Wizard could try and take on themselves?

1. Op suggested 10 and I think that’s more reasonable. There are likely a lot of fights the fighter can’t meaningfully interact with at level 5. He is unlikely to have his flight or invisibility counters yet for example. I don’t think that “fighter is still competitive in his niche at level 5” proves anything most of us are likely to disagree with.

2. That said, a 5th level Necromancer can control 25 HD of medium undead with lesser animate. Say 7 cheetah skeletons (or 4 black bears), a couple of crossbow skeletons and a couple with tower shields to provide movable cover. Plus the actual caster himself. Not saying that’s better than fighter in all circumstances. But it’s certainly better at melee dmg/tanking than fighter in many circumstances.

[AvatarVecna]

1. Op suggested 10 and I think that’s more reasonable. There are likely a lot of fights the fighter can’t meaningfully interact with at level 5. He is unlikely to have his flight or invisibility counters yet for example. I don’t think that “fighter is still competitive in his niche at level 5” proves anything most of us are likely to disagree with.

2. That said, a 5th level Necromancer can control 25 HD of medium undead with lesser animate. Say 7 cheetah skeletons (or 4 black bears), a couple of crossbow skeletons and a couple with tower shields to provide movable cover. Plus the actual caster himself. Not saying that’s better than fighter in all circumstances. But it’s certainly better at melee dmg/tanking than fighter in many circumstances.

...

*checks*

...Fourty-four days. Cuttin' it close, huh?

[Gnaeus]

...

*checks*

...Fourty-four days. Cuttin' it close, huh?

44 days for what? At 1 lesser animate per med skeleton that’s 6 days tops, maybe as few as 3. 2 if I’m really lucky and I found some undead to command rather than creating them.

[JNAProductions]

44 days for what? At 1 lesser animate per med skeleton that’s 6 days tops, maybe 3.

Giant In The Playground thread necromancy.

If the thread is 45+ days old, it's against the rules to post in it. If this HAD been past the 45 day mark, your usual course of action is to start a new thread, linking back to the old one if needed.

[Gnaeus]

Giant In The Playground thread necromancy.

If the thread is 45+ days old, it's against the rules to post in it. If this HAD been past the 45 day mark, your usual course of action is to start a new thread, linking back to the old one if needed.

Oh. Sorry. Not sure what kicked it to the top of my feed. Thought it was a new post.

[JNAProductions]

Oh. Sorry. Not sure what kicked it to the top of my feed. Thought it was a new post.

Nah, you good. You just BARELY made it in under the deadline.

[upho]

Oh. Sorry. Not sure what kicked it to the top of my feed. Thought it was a new post.Don't be sorry! :smalltongue: I'm thankful you reminded me I previously forgot to point out in more detail the IMO very important details which the premises of this comparison seem to completely ignore.


1. Op suggested 10 and I think that’s more reasonable. There are likely a lot of fights the fighter can’t meaningfully interact with at level 5. He is unlikely to have his flight or invisibility counters yet for example. I don’t think that “fighter is still competitive in his niche at level 5” proves anything most of us are likely to disagree with.I really think a level between 6th and say 9th, or (much better) 11th to say 14th, would be preferable. Primarily because +6 or +11 bab are by far the most frequently occurring prereqs of the strongest combat feats in the game (such as the Greater combat maneuver feats, many of the best style feats and for example Cornugon Smash and Dirty Trick Master). And secondarily because of iterative attacks, of course.

So relatively speaking, the weakest fighter levels are 5th, 10th and to a lesser extent 15th, while the strongest are typically the two following levels. This goes for a large majority of high-op full bab builds, albeit a bit less so in the case of builds based on classes other than the fighter.


2. That said, a 5th level Necromancer can control 25 HD of medium undead with lesser animate. Say 7 cheetah skeletons (or 4 black bears), a couple of crossbow skeletons and a couple with tower shields to provide movable cover. Plus the actual caster himself. Not saying that’s better than fighter in all circumstances. But it’s certainly better at melee dmg/tanking than fighter in many circumstances.Yeah, at least against many enemies of a CR = level +1. But one of the premises Selion listed in the OP was basically that the only combatants are the PC and the enemies, and not even a permanent ally of the PC granted by a class feature can take any actions:
- Characters cannot affect directly their opponent with spells or spell-like abilities, neither can they use other entities on the fight, not even for buffing (for example, they cannot use familiars or summoned monsters to cast spells or for flanking)I assume the reason for this limitation is to ensure it's "the PCs' own personal physical combat prowess" (or something along those lines) that's being compared. But I fail to see how that comparison would tell us much about the classes' maximum melee combat potential, and I actually doubt it would grant any insights of value beyond those granted by a relatively simple paper comparison (for example based on the type of analysis Kurald started making).

I also find the following premises will further invalidate the comparison (or lacking important details):


- If a character may keep an effect for two hours a day burning spellslots or magic items usage it's considered active in this fight.And what about short duration effects of limited use stuff which neither burn spellslots/magic item uses or can be reactivated/prolonged by doing so (alchemist's mutagen, SLAs, certain feats, etc)? And why should for example the effect of a CL 3 wand with a minute/level buff (150 minutes use) be considered continuous?

I think a much more appropriate premise would be:

- If a character may sustain an effect with a daily use limitation for two hours a day without taking any actions above free, it's considered active in this fight.


- There is a full round dedicated to self buffs before the encounterSo there's no risk of a PC being caught unaware? IME, quite a few options are noticeably stronger than they otherwise would've been precisely because they help you avoid and/or deal with enemy surprise rounds (uncanny dodge, Combat Reflexes, high Perception bonus, etc). Likewise, during most levels a wizard's combat prowess will typically differ significantly more than a fighter's depending on the degree to which the PC can choose the exact moment to initiate combat (which is one of the reasons why wizards also typically spend more resources on changing that degree in their favor). Consequently, I think at least one of the encounters should include experienced enemies who use smart ambush tactics and have prioritized their investments accordingly to ensure a surprise round.


- Anything on builds depending on DM choices is banned, for example it's forbidden possessing a called monster, it's forbidden possessing/dominating a powerful NPC, while it's not forbidden possessing a construct (or even a summoned monster, if this strategy is actually a thing) if you buy it with WBL.I get the "possessing/dominating a powerful NPC" bit, but called monsters are definitely an exception IMO. Primarily because the related spells explicitly grant the PC both the possibility to decide on quite a few aspects of the called monster's nature and more importantly also meet the monster in the first place. Also, it's worth note that binding isn't anywhere near as exploitable in PF as it is in 3.5, as there are no options in PF which may increase the spells' default hd limit on a single creature with more than +2.


Encounters will be resolved against monsters of CR +1 of my choice.This also feels strange to me. For a comparison to matter, it should include as varied combat as practically feasible, not only opponents of one particular CR from a span typically including more than 10 other relevant and interesting ratings. And since the encounters will have different opponents anyway, why not vary their individual CR and how any they are as well?


It will be evaluated average damage dealt and average damage suffered.As I touched upon in my previous post, especially average damage dealt won't tell you much about the actual melee combat effectiveness of some of the most powerful melee fighter builds possible. Their DPR will quite rarely help them win combats.

And winning combats with minimum resource expenditure is the far most relevant measure here, along with for example "number of opponents taken out of the fight in opening round", "number of rounds required to win" and "limited resources expended". Overall encounter DPR is on the other hand not worth more than maybe a side note, and then only if the number is exceptional.

Seriously, you'd think people really ought to know way more than enough by now to have cured their damage myopia. Again, many the most powerful full bab melee builds possible in the game don't win by reducing enemy hp to 0. Quite a few frankly don't give a rat's butt about improving their damage, and won't even get Power Attack unless it happens to be a prereq for some important option.