How many levels higher than a D&D wizard should a D&D

>>44904663
About four levels higher than a level one wizard should just about do it.

>>44904663
Depends.

It radically depends on which edition of D&D you're talking about.

>>44904663
Wrong question. By the time the wizard hits fifth level, the fighter can't actually prevent the wizard from escaping if things go badly without some lucky bowshots, and a fog cloud nullifies that. Grease can nullify the weapon or slow the fighter down. Basically there are a shitload of ways to immobilize and distract someone of vastly higher level and run. Or immobilize a foe and let minions hack them to bits.

But even if you can't prevent the wizard from escaping, being able to ignore save-or-useless effects is a good start. Typically you need to be 5 levels higher. That lets you ignore Sleep (5 HD max), Deep Slumber (10 HD max), the such.

>>44904663
>>44904761
A level one fighter already stands a chanse of winning against a level one wizard, althought it's far from certain. At level one the wizard has few enough spells (and the spells aren't as powerful) and is actually squishy enough that the fighter can potentially survive his spells and whack him to death, or catch him while he's out of spells (at level one the wizard can't just fly or teleport to escape the fight).

>>44904663
>How many levels higher than a D&D wizard should a D&D fighter be at any given point in order to stand a chance of winning?
high enough that his WBL allows him to buy a comparable amount of effective spell slots

>>44904877
>Sleep, Color Spray, etc.
Still up to the dice, with slight advantage toward Wizard if Fighter has WIS as a dump stat.

>>44904663
Depends...are we counting prestige classes to or just straight fighter vs wizard, because I can think of a few that could mess a wizard up pretty badly unless he wins initiative.

>>44904663
It's not the numbers that are an issue, it's the fact that wizards can do things besides running up to an enemy and hitting them with a sword and fighters can't.

>>44905175
Yeah, I wasn't saying it was easy, or even likely, but that at level one a fighter can still beat an equivalent-level wizard, something that becomes virtually impossible at higher levels unless you can catch the wizard completely unprepared (and even then he's got a good chanse of living long enough to cast one spell to get himself out of the trouble).

I don't have any experience in pvp of wizard vs fighter on the tabletop, but I am reminded of me recently playing Neverwinter Nights 2 (which runs on 3.5 mechanics so I think is a accurate enough comparison) and a spellcaster (sorc rather than wizard, though). At one point in the storyline you're forced to fight alone in an arena against a high level martial NPC. You don't have any time to apply buffs before the fight begins, and the arena isn't too big so he'll get in your face pretty quickly. Even then I managed to cast a spell that made it very hard for him to hit me before he killed me (although it was pretty close), used a potion to heal myself up and cast a bunch of other spells that made me even harder to hit and then just stood there laught at his pathetic attempts to touch me while I spammed Greater Maximized Missile Storm of Fuck You at him till he died.

>>44904663
If you're seriously curious..

Write it up.

Assign stats. Pick spells. Describe the battleground. The lighting. Write up gear. Pick feats/skills.

Otherwise your question is so fucking vague, as to be unanswerable.

>>44905175

Assume point buy, he's going to have a +2 wis modifier at best, but let's be generous and say he took Iron Will, so +5?

Wizard had a DC of 11+4 (int18, 20 if racial), +1 for Spell focus, or 16-17 total. Grabs a familiar for fake improved initiative and puts the rest into dexterity so he can put the odds in his favor at going first.

If he does go first the fighter has a 50-55% chance of being unconscious and then murdered by the wizard in his sleep. If he goes first with his great sword he has a 35-40% chance of missing the Wizard, but if he does hit he puts the Wizard (con 14 at BEST) into unconscious and then kills HIM in his sleep.

Either way one of them is dead on that initial turn.

>>44905588

If the Fighter does NOT have a Wisdom bonus, Iron Will and or racial against sleep, enchantments, etc, then he has an 80-85% chance at failing.

Zero levels higher to stand a chance.
Let's say two levels to make that a consistent win.
that is, if we're playing 4e

>>44904663

Equal level. Maybe even could do it vs a higher level Wizard.

Plot twist: don't fight on the Wizard's terms

Same level.

>>44905745
Problem is that that becomes less and less likely at higher levels. At low level it's not hard to catch the wizard unprepared or out of spells, but at high levles he has a lot more spells, can have contingency spells that go off if he's in danger, and if he's smart has saved up at least one spell slot with teleporation or other spell that lets him escape.

>>44905588
>>44905669

The wizard could also build towards dexterity, take the imp. Initiative and yhe init familiar, prep time shield and mage armor if we're being fair, go first and try to kite the fighter with his sling. Human could take weapon focus as well, or if elf use a longbow. The the fighter will have a hard time hitting him when he averages out to 20-21 AC for the fight.

>>44905697
It's a hypothetical question about D&D with no edition specified, so it goes without saying you're meant to ignore the last two versions of the game and keep having the same discussions about how such and such is broken when it's been exhaustively documented, and houseruled, and finally fixed. Twice.

>>44905936
Why should it be assumed that we're talking about an old edition, which isn't even the most popular one?

Come now ;)

>>44905889

It's also that his spells will last a lot longer now, he may have some that are permanent, and he could have allies via planar binding and so on.

>inb4 fighter has leadership feat

>>44905889
As well as possibly sleeping in his own nearly unbreachable pocket plane.
Fly is available relatively early and puts the wizard out of reach of all but the most well prepared fighter.

>>44905936
Of course. What else would we talk about? The last two editions were fairly competent games but kinda bland. This argument is like a warm rug.

>>44905936

>he thinks wizards were remotely fixed in 5th 'apology edition'
>he thinks wizards weren't the Supreme shit heads of shutting down opponents in 4e and bullying your solo big baddies into being their bottom bitches

True, they couldn't end an ENTIRE fight by themselves, but 4e wizards could easily keep the biggest and most dangerous foe crippled and useless all fight if they simply desired. I had to design whole mechanics just to keep dragons from being crowd controlled into oblivion.

Eventually I just banned wizards and powers that stun.

>>44906010

To be fair a good fighter, at least in Pathfinder, is probably using a longbow.

>>44905889

You're just uncreative.

>>44906298

The fact that martial classes have to get creative in order to compete with wizards who must in turn be incredibly uncreative in order for the martials to outwit them and actually win is not really a strong argument.

>>44905936

Given that there are no wizards or fighters or clerics in 4E, and they're all just bland fluff wrapped around bland mechanics - who even gives a fuck?

In 5e, it's a bit better... except the wizards are still superior, and a necromancer solos everything.

>>44906484

It wasn't a balance question the op presented, but one of possibility.

>>44906590

>5e mechanics
>not the blandest garbage to grace the name

The only thing nearly as bland was basic, and that has th ed charm of nostalgia, charts and being simple across the board

Simple. Play GURPS and while the wizard is spending an hour trying to create his spell stats the fighter walks up and slices his head off.

>>44906624

Fucking any combat result is 'possible' in DnD thanks to natural ones always missing and natural 20s always passing saves or hitting. Does that make them remotely within the realm of happening barring extreme stupidity on the part of the wizard? Hell no. Possible is such a useless term for something like DnD.

>>44906711
look at this scrub who has to make attack rolls

>>44906677
I don't know, man. I feel like "I cast X to solve this problem" gets bland pretty fast.

>>44906083
>he thinks wizards were remotely fixed in 5th 'apology edition'

You got me. I've never played 5th edition, I;m just giving them the benefit of the doubt that it's not caster edition over again.

>>44906994
I can't even tell what side you're taking or point you're making here.

>>44907107
That spells being Win buttons for so many situations gets boring very fast since the sense of risk is basically gone?

>>44904663
After the wizard hits level 7 he'd have to be epic level.

>>44907107
I'm saying that caster edition is bland.

>>44904877
His chance of resisting the wizards sleep/color spray spell is slim though. And if he gets either off the fighter is dead meet from the coup de grace of a spear.

>>44905588
And the wizard could cast armor or mirror image to make the chance of the fighter hitting him much worse than 35-40%

>>44905492
This faggots.

I hear all this talk about how bad ass casters are. Never seen it be a big deal in games tho.

I do notice that when the casterfags brag, they always assume the wizards are always full up on spells and always have the exact spell needed and always have plenty of time to cast and always have exactly needed distances and no one ever saves.
This is not at all like any d&d game I was ever in.

>>44907615
Oh yea?
We play on roll20 all the time..and and and...

File: hurr hurr durr.jpg (17KB, 303x375px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 303x375px

>>44905588
>>44905669
>>44905932
>assume the level 1 Wizard built and minmaxed his entire character around the sole purpose of beating a level 1 Fighter in a one-on-one duel on flat open terrain
>don't make the same assumption for the Fighter

I know you casterfags really enjoy wanking it to caster supremacy but there are plenty of arguments for why casters are overpowered that don't require you to actively bias the scenario in favor of the caster.

Well in my current campaign im playing a lvl 2 wizard and the party fighter could 1 hit me if he rolls max damage. I have a pretty good chance of colour spray working on him.

>>44904663
The fact that this question needs to be asked AT ALL says everything about caster editions that it needs to.

Well if you do it (semi)realistically and restrict the caster to one school of magic and don't have him entirely built around fighting the party........
About the same level would do it.

>>44909269
Semi-realistic=playing stupid.

>>44909338
playing stupid=not having access to every school of magic even though all those schools are entirely different to the point that trying to cast magic missile as a illusionist is comparable to trying to solve quantum physics as a cell biologist.

>>44907266

At level one, tho im assuming hed use color spray/sleep and gave the fughter the benefit of no prep time mage armor.

>>44908147

I did, he has decent wis and iron will. You could try to build around dex and improved init with a longbow but then your chances of dropping the wizard in one hit go down significantly and you lose your not crappy will save in the process.

>>44909483
If you're still even talking about 3.5 like the OP vaguely is there's nothing in the book that says or implies that. Going by mechanics the difference is more like that of a longsword specialized fighter using a spear

Either way if they're both optimized for killing shit it's more about an initiative roll than anything. Higher level just means more wealth for the fighter to buy hard counters for certain save or lose spells, but initiative will always favor wizards because they have more ways to raise it and they care more about dex than most fighters

>>44907615
Yeah seriously. I kill DM and player-controlled wizards with alarming frequency.

>>44913788
But.but.but.but.
>Muh sleep
>Muh color spray
>Muh fly

>>44907023

It's not, except in the minds of people on /tg/ who like repeating memes.

>>44906681
>beat D&D wizard by not playing D&D

>>44907615
this. Pretty new to D&D but our wizards, sorcerers and warlocks constantly fuck up and accomplish nothing while our cleric, paladin and fighter carry everything

>>44914370
That's because the wizards don't catch up til like level six an the gap doesn't widen til like ten.

>>44906590
Wizards aren't really superior in 5E, excluding skeleton army necros which have ludicrous action economy.
Really, I've played 5E wizards, from 5 to 11 to 20 I never felt ahead of the totem barbarian or champion fighter in our groups who dealt heaps of damage that I couldn't match even if I wanted to burn my high end spell slots.
All I had was some utility, puzzle solving shenanigans. And believe me, I tried. I'm an optimizer at heart. None of my spells could effectively harm enemies other than Disintegrate (which does nothing on a save and can only be cast 6 times a day at absolute best.. though there's better usages of the 8th and 9th spell slots so more like 4 in practice).
Fireball is great for cleaning up crowds of weaklings, but every spell slot above 3rd is an extremely scarce resource and I had to strategize how to spend.
I've also played a cleric at levels 8 and 12 and had an even harder time being relevant. The cleric spell list is tiny and not that useful at all.
I don't know why people think 5E is anything like caster edition. Yes, I have loads of options martials do not. However, martials are a fuckton better at fighting, which is typically a huge portion of D&D being a combat-based system where 90% of the rules are about combat.

>>44914486
Clerics only need Bless, anon. To buff the better martials. 5E spell casters can't do the same damage, but their AoE control and buffs are still incredible.

Necro build should have pretty grave consequences. You got to buy gear for all of them, normal people dislike you and if you ever forget to regain control of all your undead..

>>44914370
So in actual games...
Casters don't always have the perfect unavoidable spell on tap?

Weird..I've heard they do.
Its like casterfaggots are full of shit or something.

>>44915013
I mean sure, yes there is Bless and Faerie Fire and Hold Person still, but that's just you lining up the enemies for the martial to topple them. Unlike 3.5 where you immediately follow up by summoning some hellbeast to replace the fighter entirely. (or drag around an animal companion that you get for free in the case of druids)

>>44908599
Given that it's clearly a troll thread which /tg/s eaten hook, line and sinker, I think it says another thing utterly.

>>44905745
>Plot twist: don't fight on the Wizard's terms
the problem is that many players want to play wizard.

So if their spells run out they will do whateaver is possible to rest because on their opinion they should be casting spells. So one of the possible bad points about casting (the fact that you need ammunition, the spells per day) doenst exist anymore.

If some soldier flying a fighter, crash his plane but survive, he wont run out of battle like a chicken trying to find the closest plane possible, he will still try to fight the war

>>44915551
Don't forget Haste and Shield of Faith. Slow is apparently beast as well. But yeah, casters don't run the show but they sure make it easier for everyone else in so many ways. And I think you can summon monsters at a similar level of your fighter but only one/ one group at the time due to conc.

>>44914486
When you play a game that is heavy on the roleplay side, the caster dominate the show because there is just so much they can do.

>>44916346
Yeah, but everything they can do is a play on "I cast that spell", whereas martials roleplay by... actually roleplaying. Caster abilities are fundamentally about BYPASSING situations, rather than solving them through involvement. So paradoxically, in a roleplaying heavy game the casters would actually do less.

>>44907023
>>44914274
More accurately, casters (wizards in particular) are still the strongest classes, but the difference between them and martials is not nearly as huge as in 3.5. Sure, playing a wizard is the most optimal choise if you want to play the most powerful character possible, but unlike in 3.5 you aren't dead weight if you play a fighter.
It's not perfect but I would consider it good enough. RPGs don't really need to have perfec balance since they rarely have much pvp combat and it isn't like MMOs where picking a weak class would make it very difficult to find a group willing to take you with them. As long as you can have fun and contribute to the game, it's not a big deal if one class is the theoretically best option for powergaming.
In 3.5 the problem was't really that wizard was more "optimal" than fighter, but that the fighter was massively outclassed in every way and quickly became nothing but dead weight, which wasn't fun for the player.

>>44904663
>should
None.

In 3e a wizard outclasses a fighter regularly pretty early on... especially if the wizard wins initiative, or if the fight starts at a longer range than 60 feet.

In 4e it's difficult to determine as the fighter has a distinct advantage at several levels.

In 5e, the fighter would need to be several levels higher at all levels besides 1.