Originally Posted by
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".