D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[Umbran]

So not actual personal attacks but people choosing to take them as such and choosing to be offended by them. Got it.

Mod Note:
Folks,

We expect and require a modicum of respect for your fellow posters. This kind of dismissive position is well below the minimum.

If your point is to try to dismiss people who don't agree with you en masse, please leave the discussion now.

 

[Vaalingrade]

deleted.

 

[Mort]

First you're comparing one optimized PC to another. Either look at optimized PCs or not. Second, a fighter has a lot of ways to counter the attack penalty and they'll still have a higher bonus to hit than skeletons even without things like bless or one of the ways to get advantage. Third you're assuming that shortbows and arrows are available for those skeletons. I don't. Fourth, all of the additional skeletons and objects you're adding take up space and you're assuming they can all attack. Lastly, skeletons have a whopping 13 HP, although the objects (which again, I've seen used to good effect) have 20. Neither going to last long if they're attacked or included in an AOE.

Another aspect people seem to ignore is immunities, resistances, legendary resistances, the defensive capability of the wizard meaning they tend to be glass cannons, assumes the wizard has the right spells and etc..

I do agree that strength based fighters should have better ranged attacks which is why I've made longbows versatile. Of course it's not that hard to get a dex of 10-14 even with point buy if it's an issue.

All I can say is that in the real world or the Solasta D&D video game (which tracks damage), the fighter works just fine and contributes just as much if not more than wizards do.

In BG3, the clear MVP (for me) has been the Githyanki BM Fighter - who not only rocks in combat - but (bc Githyahnki) has Astral Knowledge which allows them to pick an attribute and be trained in ALL skills for that attribute until they switch it out for another one. Now that's not a fighter thing, but it compliments the fighter nicely.

I think 5e Githyanki have a weakened version of the ability - but If someone takes a Githyanki, I'll strongly consider giving them the BG3 version.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Animate objects is a good spell, hope the creature you're fighting doesn't have a breath weapon or some other AOE to take them out.

Why would you assume the wizard would use this tactic against a creature with a breath weapon or AoE? Even where it isn’t obvious (dragons have breath weapons? You don’t say!), it seems to me that finding things out about your opponent would be a simple Int check, and wizards are really good at those.
If summoning hordes of minions isn’t a good tactic, you change your tactic. And wizards, the kings of versatility, with 14 spells prepared, are very good at that.
Meanwhile, the fighter has a lot less versatility. If his preferred tactic is ineffective against a particular enemy, there isn’t a whole lot he can do.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Feelings don’t alter facts. Feeling something is true does not make that something actually true. You can feel however you want about whatever you want. That doesn’t change something from not a personal attack into a personal attack.

And you (or I or anyone else) don't get to decide for others what is offensive and what isn't. Which is what you're doing.

 

[overgeeked]

And you (or I or anyone else) don't get to decide for others what is offensive and what isn't. Which is what you're doing.

1. No, I’m really not. I’m separating feeling from fact. Feeling something fits a particular logical fallacy does not make the thing fit that logical fallacy.

2. I’ve already said once that I’m done with this tangent so kindly stop.

3. There’s already a mod warning just there. Maybe it’s passed time to drop it.

 

[Aldarc]

Wait, what? I'm doing the opposite. What personal attacks am I defending? I'm literally saying, "Calling a game an apologist game catered to the lowest common denominator" is being taken as a personal attack by several people who like the game (because they keep telling us) and shouldn't be said, and am being told "no it's not, it's directed at the game, not the person."

Fun fact, if you search for the word "denominator" in this thread, whether the lowest or not, you are the only person (best as I can tell) who is using this word or phrasing when talking about the game. This is the first instance of it that I found.

I don’t think it’s that simple.

“I really like this game”
“Why? It’s an apology edition that is badly designed meant to cater to the lowest common denominator”

Surely you can see how someone making that first statement could take that personally.

I mean, just look at how many people got/get upset if someone calls 4e an MMO video game.

Best as I can tell, this "Why? It's an apology edition that is badly designed meant to cater to the lowest common denominator" quote is a piece of fiction. "Lowest common denominator" doesn't appear in the words of anyone else in this thread. Again, maybe I or @overgeeked have someone on ignore who did say it. Either way, I'm not seeing it apart from here and the repeated claims that it has been said.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think for most wizards the extent of their damage optimization is magic missile and fireball. Which probably explains the ‘there is no issue vibes’.

Alternatively, in these discussions we act like wizards will also pick the perfect spell for the situation despite a player probably not knowing all the monster stat blocks. That’s an unreasonable assumption and it does make wizards appear a lot more powerful than they will be in actual play. IMO still stronger after a certain point, but not as strong as typically stated.

Wizard player « I’m trained in Religion (+ 9). What do I know about this demon-looking dude? I’m specifically interested in resistances and special attacks.»

A DM could always shut this down, but why would they? Characters learning about their opponents and being invested in the world are things to encourage, and shutting down for the Wizard shuts it down for all characters.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Fun fact, if you search for the word "denominator" in this thread, whether the lowest or not, you are the only person (best as I can tell) who is using this word or phrasing when talking about the game. This is the first instance of it that I found.

Best as I can tell, this "Why? It's an apology edition that is badly designed meant to cater to the lowest common denominator" quote is a piece of fiction. "Lowest common denominator" doesn't appear in the words of anyone else in this thread. Again, maybe I or @overgeeked have someone on ignore who did say it. Either way, I'm not seeing it apart from here and the repeated claims that it has been said.

It didn't take long to find a quote like this one (I'm presuming you don't have overgeeked on ignore, and I'm pretty sure they don't have themselves on ignore):

My moral code does not jive with a lot of things. Some random adventure by a game company appealing to the lowest common denominator isn't high on my list of concerns. I shrug and ignore it.

For people to not care about the "moral" stance of a random adventure published by a game company appealing to the lowest common denominator.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where I'm defending personal attacks. You keep accusing me of making things up that I haven't said but still can't provide me an example of me doing what you're accusing me of.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I’ve also not seen it mentioned but polymorph ally into giant ape lets anyone do optimized fighter levels of damage (at least for a significantly played level range), giving them the size and athletics to grapple effectively. A huge hp pool to tank. A decent ranged attack. Better movement speed than most martials. A climb speed.

So from levels 7-10 in a typical party the wizard can basically turn anyone into a better optimized fighter.

Why polymorph another party member? Your familiar is right there and won’t lose any class features from being polymorphed.