Author Topic: DISCUSSION: Core-only Wizard20 vs a Splatbook-Enabled Fighter20 - Lycan's Duel  (Read 26853 times)

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Nice, cool, collected set of rebuttals.

gj.

Offline Sir Giacomo

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Nice, cool, collected set of rebuttals.

gj.

Thanks a lot!

Checking here after a while I see that there are no more comments so far.
Therefore, I think, we can finally put at rest this useless example of why wizards are allegedly more powerful in core than fighters (though there may be other evidence still upcoming at some point, but I doubt that... ;) )

- Giacomo

Offline snakeman830

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1091
  • BG's resident furry min/maxer
    • View Profile
Wouldn't call it a useless example, but a good example, it is not.

And are you actually the same Sir Giaccomo?  That was incredibly well reasoned and I have come to expect the exact opposite from this name.
"When life gives you lemons, fire them back at high velocity."

Offline mthor

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • The inches ofmy penis are a countably infinite set
    • View Profile
Argument from fallacy: because the argument is wrong the conclusion must be wrong.

I would argue that given the proper level of optimization any character can pull off game breaking combos and maneuvers. But the chassis that the wizard comes with makes it very easy for it to reach a very high power and flexibility level without going outside of the intent of the game designers (And thus what most dm's will allow).
good old dependable sexy

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Everyone knows the Wizard is better Mithor, the debate stems from the question can a Fighter beat a Wizard. And there are enough variables that there is several possible answers leading to two sides to bitch at each other for the hell of it.

This "dual" is one such example, Lycan tried to use it as some kind of proof and everyone has problems with the scenario. You could say because no one can agree on the subject, but honestly the fight does a terrible job at portraying both sides. The Wizard cheated and the Fighter probably shouldn't be allowed near small children.

What you should do is use these threads to farm ideas from, get involved enough to look at the tactics and strive to do better in your own game, but never into it enough that you're fighting for your idea(s).


Eer I mean. Goddamn Wizard :shakefist
Rable rable rable.

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10717
  • The iconic spambot
    • View Profile
These  threads were a much more involved look into wizard vs. non-caster. Maybe someone should port them over?
I don't pee messages into the snow often , but when I do , it's in Cyrillic with Fake Viagra.  Stay frosty my friends.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Easy enough (in part).

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 02:39:55 PM by SorO_Lost »

Offline Sir Giacomo

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Wouldn't call it a useless example, but a good example, it is not.

Well, it certainly has the use in my view to show why many people think wizards are so powerful - rules misinterpretations (or at least wizard-friendly interpretations) as well as what opponents can do to thwart wizard tactics (thanks, phaedrusxy for providing the link to a long dicussion thread on that).

And are you actually the same Sir Giaccomo?  That was incredibly well reasoned and I have come to expect the exact opposite from this name.

Yes, it is really me  :) (the same who defended core monks so devotedly over at Giant in the Playground).
I have had some to time to think about the whole game balance issue within core rules again, but it is not complete yet...
But thanks that you liked my analysis in this thread - maybe you wish to read some of what I said in earlier posts, at brilliantgameologists and in giant in the playground; you'll notice some similar lines of argument there (and similarities to some tactics and suggestions that SorO_Lost just ported over, already back in 2008/2009), although certainly not without mistakes. ;)

I would argue that given the proper level of optimization any character can pull off game breaking combos and maneuvers. But the chassis that the wizard comes with makes it very easy for it to reach a very high power and flexibility level without going outside of the intent of the game designers (And thus what most dm's will allow).

As I said above, a lot is often ruled in favour of wizards and that makes the balancing thing not really easier.
Versatility and spell choices are great in theory, but in practice often fail to deliver - at least that's my gaming experience, and also reflected often in game reports that I saw on some boards.
There is no question, though, that the more rules material and splatbooks you play with, the more versatility and power the wizard gets.

Offline Nytemare3701

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1657
  • 50% Cripple, 50% Awesome. Flip a coin.
    • View Profile
As I said above, a lot is often ruled in favour of wizards and that makes the balancing thing not really easier.
Versatility and spell choices are great in theory, but in practice often fail to deliver - at least that's my gaming experience, and also reflected often in game reports that I saw on some boards.
There is no question, though, that the more rules material and splatbooks you play with, the more versatility and power the wizard gets.

The more resources a player has to choose from, the larger the chance that the language will lean in favor of them. This is true in the case of splat books (eventually you find the poorly worded abilities that enable shenanigans), spell lists (the price to add an entirely new ability to your character is the cost of learning a spell. The cost of learning how to do a combat trick as a martial character is usually between 1-3 FEATS), and even classes themselves. Casters don't have to worry about losing levels in their shtick, because they only need one thing to function: "+1 to Existing Spellcasting". After that it's all gravy, while the martial characters are struggling to keep their numbers relevant. When a caster levels up, they get a suite of new tools of a power level relevant to the level of the campaign. When a martial character levels up...the numbers scale...poorly.

TL;DR: Splatbooks favor casters because the investment to benefit from them is negligible for casters.

Offline Sunspear

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Well, I’m back…
I had already discovered this thread in the handbook/handbook discussion section a while ago, but did not have enough time to comment on it to the necessary extent. Granted, doing it now is a bit of a thread necromancy, but maybe I can add some more perspectives to this duel.
Note to mods: I have seen in the reply function that usually after 120 days of not posting in a thread, a new thread should be considered. However, this is the handbook discussion section, and I hesitate to start a second discussion thread on this issue. In case this is a problem, this post (and any answers to it) could be moved to form a new discussion thread in the handbook section). Thanks.
Now on, to my remarks:
Basically, the main points Endarire brought up with this wizard vs fighter duel – and supported by the majority of posters here - are that such a duel can show two things:
  • How much more powerful a wizard is than a fighter,
  • And that this already happens with just the core rules, illustrating how broken the core rules are.

I disagree that the duel is proof for this.

Those who know my earlier posts of course may not be much surprised. ;) However, maybe the reasons why I see such a duel not upholding any of the above two assertions are – at least in part – new.
I’ll go through Lycanthromancer’s duel description step by step and will point out areas where I think the rules were interpreted wrongly, plus general remarks/other observations (e.g. on tactical oddities that I perceive).
This fresh perspective on the duel is also needed imo since this duel, ever since it first appeared on the WotC boards, is often used as the standard benchmark for the two assertions above and is quoted so often with little or even without any questioning in the typical fighter vs wizard debates (like in this thread….).

Pre-duel-preparation
(click to show/hide)

The buff round – wizard actions
(click to show/hide)

The buff round – fighter actions
(click to show/hide)

Round one/take 2 – wizard actions
(click to show/hide)

Round one take 2 – fighter actions
(click to show/hide)

Round two take 2 – wizard actions
(click to show/hide)

Roundup of the duel from a rules perspective
(click to show/hide)

Some more observations from a tactics perspective
(click to show/hide)

So, taking everything together, I have no clue why such a bad performance on both sides of the duel (fighter on the tactical side and wizard on the rules side) is paraded time and again as evidence of wizard superiority in the core rules.
But maybe there are some explanations and/or different rules interpretations that I’d like to hear, or something that I overlooked. In the thread above, so far, some of my concerns have already been raised, but most were not.

- Giacomo

Monster post. Dying to see Lycan's response to this  :lmao

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Casters don't have to worry about losing levels in their shtick, because they only need one thing to function: "+1 to Existing Spellcasting". After that it's all gravy, while the martial characters are struggling to keep their numbers relevant.
That's pretty misleading. Every class in the game progresses BAB in some fashion which alone can up to quadruple the damage of any mundane.

It's not really a struggle to keep your damage up either. The game expects a party of four, you only have to deal 25% of the monster's HP in damage to be called "relevant." For instance, ObNs says CR 15 has 229 HP, that's 57 per round and at least three attacks to do it with. Assuming you hit with them all (the personal goal of any mundane) you only need to deal 19 per hit. To put that into prospective, a 1st level half-orc using a greatsword deals 14 damage on average if he started with 18 strength, you have 14 levels to find a source of another 5 points. Anything else, and you're ahead of the curve.

Offline Nytemare3701

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1657
  • 50% Cripple, 50% Awesome. Flip a coin.
    • View Profile
Casters don't have to worry about losing levels in their shtick, because they only need one thing to function: "+1 to Existing Spellcasting". After that it's all gravy, while the martial characters are struggling to keep their numbers relevant.
That's pretty misleading. Every class in the game progresses BAB in some fashion which alone can up to quadruple the damage of any mundane.

It's not really a struggle to keep your damage up either. The game expects a party of four, you only have to deal 25% of the monster's HP in damage to be called "relevant." For instance, ObNs says CR 15 has 229 HP, that's 57 per round and at least three attacks to do it with. Assuming you hit with them all (the personal goal of any mundane) you only need to deal 19 per hit. To put that into prospective, a 1st level half-orc using a greatsword deals 14 damage on average if he started with 18 strength, you have 14 levels to find a source of another 5 points. Anything else, and you're ahead of the curve.

You are leaving out the other myriad functions a character needs to be effective. Accuracy, Range, Defenses, (Utility?). A caster pretty much gets a free pass on two or more of these, since they can fly/shoot at ludicrous range/ignore defense/ignore attacks depending on the caster. "Progresses BAB" is not on par with "Gains multiple new ways to interact with the game at every level"

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Well, if the Arcane decides the monster shouldn't act, then the Damager can make up that 25% next round :p

"Progresses BAB" is not on par with "Gains multiple new ways to interact with the game at every level"
Exactly.

One plays the numbers game, to which BAB helps out and damage is pretty easy, but the other doesn't if they don't want.