>>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
>>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.
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.
>>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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
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
>>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.
>>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)
>>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.
>>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.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.