D&D 4E [4e] Wizard as good as a Fighter in Standard Melee

[Herschel]

Another (and maybe the BIGGEST) thing to remember when dealing with attack bonus for each character type is the change in combat mechanics for spellcasters in 4E. Wizards basically now need to roll to hit every target vs. all the previous editions with auto-hit spells where the target made the saving throw against the power that just smacked them in the melon. It started with touch spells in 3E but now covers the gamut in the current edition.

 

[LotusBlossom]

Another (and maybe the BIGGEST) thing to remember when dealing with attack bonus for each character type is the change in combat mechanics for spellcasters in 4E. Wizards basically now need to roll to hit every target vs. all the previous editions with auto-hit spells where the target made the saving throw against the power that just smacked them in the melon. It started with touch spells in 3E but now covers the gamut in the current edition.

I like that aspect of 4E. RM also has it as a mechanic for spell casters and I very much liked it in that as well. Plus RM also had criticals for spells; there was some nasty stuff that could happen on criticals.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

To properly wrap your mind around 4e you have to substitute "Beefy guy who gets hit a LOT before he dies" for "fighter". You then also have to substitute "Guy who does a lot of damage in melee combat " for "rogue" or "ranger".

So yes, with equal stats the frail old spell slinging man does just as much damage and has just as good a chance to hit as the beefy guy who gets hit a LOT before he dies. They both don't hold a candle to the guys who do a lot of damage in melee combat.

DS

PS I am aware of the concept of fighters who ARE built to do damage.

 

[MrMyth]

To properly wrap your mind around 4e you have to substitute "Beefy guy who gets hit a LOT before he dies" for "fighter". You then also have to substitute "Guy who does a lot of damage in melee combat " for "rogue" or "ranger".

So yes, with equal stats the frail old spell slinging man does just as much damage and has just as good a chance to hit as the beefy guy who gets hit a LOT before he dies.

And keep in mind, even that isn't actually true. If they do have equal stats, the spellslinger is probably pretty beefy themself, we aren't comparing a frail old spellslinger with a beefy warrior - we are comparing a beefy spellswinger who has actively trained with weapon wielding, and thus is about as good at landing a blow with his sword as a beefy dude in armor. The beefy dude in armor, on the other hand, can weather many more hits, and when he hits his enemies, he can pull off all sorts of interesting effects other than just poking them with the blade.

 

[WalterKovacs]

While I think pretty much all of the relevant points have been made already, I think its also relevant to understand some of the underlying design principles of 4e. Namely the change to everything being an attack, and making the math through the levels a linear progression.

As I believe was mentioned above, with everything being an attack, each class HAS to be able to hit with their relevant attack (i.e. weapons for martial classes, spells for wizards, etc.). This coupled with the evening of the math led to the standard progression of attack (and everything else) that we see.

I agree with what others have said, the 'what' of attacks (the relevant attack bonus) isn't the important part (since everyone needs to be able to hit with their particular tricks), it's the 'how' of attacks that is what's important (the powers, feats, and other modifiers).

Personally I just like that I can now make a wizard who may be proficient with the longsword and he can, given a relatively decent str score, actually expect to hit even at higher levels.

Or he could spend 2 feats multiclassing into swordmage and then talking intelligent blademaster and we doesn't need str to use that longsword [assuming it's an eladrin] or whatever weapon you want to use well.