overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
I skipped from AD&D to 4E. They finally fixed it in 4E then walked it back.
Less cuckoo banana pants than most older editions doesn’t mean it’s not still cuckoo banana pants.
D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math
- Thread starter M_Natas
- Start date
Less cuckoo banana pants than most older editions doesn’t mean it’s not still cuckoo banana pants.
jgsugden
Legend
If you want to optimize the wizard without optimizing the fighter, you can bias your results - but there are also higher contingencies on the wizard in the form of things like concentration, generally. Yes, the 'nuke wizard' as you describe can (around level 14) deal some real damage - but your 159.5 without an attack roll versus the 200+ damage of the fighter with rolls they're likely to hit.... I might take the AC against a truly epic AC, but against a low to mid 20s AC? Fighter.
I've played in a lot of games with a lot of DMs. The damage based fighters shine fine and do end up lackluster next to a wizard. Arguing with me that it is impossible to see what I've seen over and over - by folks that have played this game for decades - and were some of the authors of well received optimization guides back in the day - is kind of a joke.
And as for the other suggestions that rely upon concentration, like Animate Objects - how many times have you seen the Wizard lose concetration before the Animated Objects get to go in initiative? Or are you just assuming they get tpo go right after the wizard? How many times does that army of arrows get eliminated by an area attack before they go? You have to consider those potentials as well when affirming how overpowered the spell option theoretically is.
I'm not going to debate the back and forth what ifs because they're irrelevant. I've seen very effective players run very powerful fighters that did not lack against the well run wizards in those games - at all levels. From my perspective, everything else being thrown around here is a waste of breath.
No, I am not.
"I memorize and cast animate objects and cast animate undead" is not an optimized wizard.
The wizard has dozens of build choices -- more, if you count each attribute point. I picked two build choices (two spells known) that typically are dirt cheap as purchased ad-ons (learned spells), selected a small number of daily choices (2 known spells out of, what, 10-15 by that level?) for the wizard.
Then I used one spell for the actual encounter (animate objects). The wizard has three of those per day.
I then compared it to a reasonably optimized fighter. And found that this build unoptimized wizard was matching the optimized fighter.
I did pick useful spells and tactics on the wizard, which was enough to boost the wizards effectiveness by probably 2x to 3x. Sadly, an unoptimized fighter rarely has such a choice.
No, I didn't, and no, I won't do so at your demand. Rather presumptuous of you to demand I do so, isn't it?
Yes, fighters can get spell casters to buff them. That is a great way for spell casters to produce a pile of additional power, often cheaply.
Note that optimized minionmancy tends to not have space for that, however.
Getting advantage relies on DM fiat, a class ability, knocking prone, or spells. Fighter (EK) built-in spells that give advantage are thin on the ground sadly. Many, if not all, of these tend to grant advantage to all allies -- so apply to the swarm of coins as much as the Fighter.
Other than bless, the +8 to hit on the swarm of tiny coins is higher than the great weapon fighter's +7 to hit.
But again, you are strangely focused on random details. Do you understand the point of this isn't to show that "fighter suck and wizards rock", but rather than "optimization creates a greater gap between PCs than class"?
If you agree with that premise, then there is nothing to disagree with here. I don't care if you have issues with the details of how I showed it.
If you disagree with the premise, feel free to directly confront the premise instead of bringing up "but there are details, what about the details, this detail" that ... doesn't seem to really address the premise at all? The exact attack bonus of a level 11 fighter vs a animated object coin cast by a level 11 wizard isn't all that important to the premise, yet seems to be what you are focused on.
Do you disagree with the premise - that optimization makes a larger difference than class choice -- or not?
Yes, they are a great source of HP!
Of course I assumed the skeletons animated by the wizard as part of that wizard's daily habit have shortbows.
I also assumed the fighter has a weapon and isn't a great weapon specialized character punching the dragon.
Why wouldn't the wizard have shortbows for their skellitons? Or the fighter have a heavy weapon when specialized to use a heavy weapon? Both seem like statements I wouldn't have to justify.
I'm not sure who you are addressing here. I mean, the examples I gave didn't even have foes making saving throws to any extent, and you are talking about legendary resistances.
In combat.
You've described fighters keeping up with wizards there, and I 100% agree. A fighter (presuming a decently designed one) can keep up with a wizard in combat, even and especially at high levels.
But what about the other 2 pillars of the game, exploration and social? With few exceptions (such as some late book combat maneuvers or the echo knight subclass) fighters just don't have that many levers in pillars outside of combat - whereas wizards have LOTS. Yes, a good DM can compensate for this, but that doesn't solve the system putting too big a finger on the wizards scale.
Tony Vargas
Legend
The 5e wizard does have advantages over the 3e - Spontaneous Casting being the stand-out obvious one. No restrictions on casting to speak of - no AoOs, interruption, etc. Saving Throws and cantrips scaling with character level instead of slot level or caster level. Oh, at-will cantrips. Same proficiency as fighters instead of half BAB. d6 HD instead of d4...
3e wizards could keep open spell slots. So they could cast any spell they wanted, presuming they could spare 15 minutes. And if they didn't have the 15 minutes;
In most 3e campaigns, and certainly by RAW - spell scrolls were REALLY easy for the wizard to make and well worth the minor gp and xp cost. Just scribe the spells that were niche but necessary (knock, for example - which was just better in 3e than 5e) and off you go. You're basically a spontaneous caster, just by being well prepared.
I've never once seen the disparity with multiple DMs, multiple styles. Fighters contribute up to 20th level just as much as wizards.
I'm done arguing about this. If everything goes the wizard's way with enemies never having resistance or immunity, if high level monster never have legendary saves, never have AOE attacks, the wizard never loses concentration, has the right spells prepped, only have one or two encounters between long rests, the fighters have no effective magical items that enhance their abilities...sure. the wizard will come out ahead. That’s a DM problem though and one that has multiple fixes.
I have seen that disparity between an unoptimized Ranger and an optimized Ranger. Between an unoptimized Fighter and an optimized Barbarian. Between an unoptimized Cleric and an optimized Bard.
How is it that people seem to play on tables where everyone is in the same ballpark optimization wise? I guess they pick some social threshold of character effectiveness and socially pressure players who pass it?
I see this in every edition of D&D at ... well,every table I have ever played at. Well, honestly, not in the first 5 levels of D&D 4e: but by 6-10 (with the same table) the gap was obvious.
How is it that people seem to play on tables where everyone is in the same ballpark optimization wise? I guess they pick some social threshold of character effectiveness and socially pressure players who pass it?
I see this in every edition of D&D at ... well,every table I have ever played at. Well, honestly, not in the first 5 levels of D&D 4e: but by 6-10 (with the same table) the gap was obvious.
Tony Vargas
Legend
These are points that were made a lot back on the Gleemax boards when discussing the relative merits of the Wizard (ultimately Tier 1) and Sorcerer (ultimately Tier 2). 5e Neo-Vancian combines the advantages of both. It's an upgrade.
3.x had crazy powergamer tricks (not that 5e doesn't have 'tech'), and there were some really OP spells that were not nerfed for years on end.
Polymorph, obviously, being the stand out, almost accounting for E6 by itself.
But, just like, the general overall rules, 3e did not entirely eliminate the traditional restrictions on casters (not that those had ever been good balancing mechanisms), 'just' let you work around them (very efficiently, sometimes). 5e kinda did.
In 5e.2024, it looks like they might be allowed to do that in 1 minute, and then cast the new spell spontaneously.
But if you wanted a potent spell, like one of the higher level ones you could cast (to maximize the Save DC) or at your full caster level, you generally had to cast it yourself.
3.x had crazy powergamer tricks (not that 5e doesn't have 'tech'), and there were some really OP spells that were not nerfed for years on end.
Polymorph, obviously, being the stand out, almost accounting for E6 by itself.
But, just like, the general overall rules, 3e did not entirely eliminate the traditional restrictions on casters (not that those had ever been good balancing mechanisms), 'just' let you work around them (very efficiently, sometimes). 5e kinda did.
Which did leave you with a slot inaccessible until you did so, which further constricted your flexibility in combat.
In 5e.2024, it looks like they might be allowed to do that in 1 minute, and then cast the new spell spontaneously.
Yes, scrolls of your lower level spells were cheap & easy, and they were great for occasionally used utility spells. Wands for frequently used low-level spells, like, CLW.
But if you wanted a potent spell, like one of the higher level ones you could cast (to maximize the Save DC) or at your full caster level, you generally had to cast it yourself.
These are points that were made a lot back on the Gleemax boards when discussing the relative merits of the Wizard (ultimately Tier 1) and Sorcerer (ultimately Tier 2). 5e Neo-Vancian combines the advantages of both. It's an upgrade.
3.x had crazy powergamer tricks (not that 5e doesn't have 'tech'), and there were some really OP spells that were not nerfed for years on end.
Polymorph, obviously, being the stand out, almost accounting for E6 by itself.
But, just like, the general overall rules, 3e did not entirely eliminate the traditional restrictions on casters (not that those had ever been good balancing mechanisms), 'just' let you work around them (very efficiently, sometimes). 5e kinda did.
Which did leave you with a slot inaccessible until you did so, which further constricted your flexibility in combat.
In 5e.2024, it looks like they might be allowed to do that in 1 minute, and then cast the new spell spontaneously.
Yes, scrolls of your lower level spells were cheap & easy, and they were great for occasionally used utility spells. Wands for frequently used low-level spells, like, CLW.
But if you wanted a potent spell, like one of the higher level ones you could cast (to maximize the Save DC) or at your full caster level, you generally had to cast it yourself.
I could go point by point. But I don't think it's TOO controversial to say that, in general, 5e wizards are simply not as powerful (between number of spells, what the actual spells do, concentration, etc.) as their 3e counterparts. the trick WoTC pulled was to have them be quite similar on the surface, but overall - big nerf.
Now "memorize spell" (the 1 minute spell swap you mentioned) actually survives into the 2024 RAW wizard? That WOULD be a huge gamechanger - there is such a thing as too much versatility.
Similar Threads
