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

[Thanee]

Both will get an OA and a basic melee each round, but the Fighter will hit more because of his OA bonus and the charge bonus.

This does assume, though, that the Wizard is dumb, and actually does this instead of just staying in place and hitting the fighter (twice, standard + OA, while the fighter only hits once, the bouncing charge).

Now, of course, this could very well be, because he put all his points into Strength.

Bye
Thanee

 

[LotusBlossom]

All good points. I do realize my OP was an unlikely case to happen, but just wanted to point out the difference between the d20+ATT+LVl/2 mechanic.

However, after much abashing (one poster even mentioning a rubber hose), I think I more clearly see the fault with my original post. While many other systems give a +1 to hit for each fighter level (and less to other classes), 4e gives addition powers/feats to each class (and the fighter gets ones concentrated mainly on melee). So completely leaving out powers and feats in a toe to toe, straight up melee fight with a wizard is akin to hamstringing the fighter, or in previous editions it would mean leaving the fighter at 1st level, while fighting a wizard at a higher level.

Your points have been made about the design and use of feats/powers in 4e and I agree completely. Thanks for the responses.

 

[Starfox]

I don't think this tread was started to be a troll, but it seems to be one of the best troll threads I ever saw. So many people want to vent on this issue.

And I mean this in a good way - we are all polite and reasonable.

EN World can be ba good place to be.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Regarding the issue of a skill bonus of 1/2 level, I think what this represents needs to be examined.

That every character gets the same 1/2 level bonus to base combat stats shows that every character is acquiring greater skill. A 10th level wizard (for example) has had their overall fighting skills honed just like their 10th level fighter companion. Essentially the stereotype of the imcompetent and ineffectual wizard character has been trashed. In its place we have a leaner, fitter, faster character with battle experience.

Should this wizard take training with the sword then they can wield it with the same basic competency of their fighter friend. However, to learn advanced techniques the wizard has to at least partially cut back the amount of time devoted to maintaining & improving their mastery of magic.

The earlier editions of D&D racked up so many obstacles to wizards fighting in melee. Their attack bonus, AC, # attacks, weapons available, hps were all too inferior. However only a few of the above need to be sub-optimal to discourage the majority from being sword wielding wizards. In 4E, the wizard is faced with the minimum useful stat, non-proficiency & unavailable power 'obstacles' to overcome before the sword-wizard becomes a viable choice. That's is a pretty serious investment, no need for overkill.

 

[DracoSuave]

To sum up the original post:

So long as you completely ignore all aspects of any class that make it unique and different, all classes are the same.

This is called a Tautology, and is true of every class-based roleplaying game ever made.

Tautologies are not worth discussing in a serious debate.

Stop feeding the troll.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

This does assume, though, that the Wizard is dumb, and actually does this instead of just staying in place and hitting the fighter (twice, standard + OA, while the fighter only hits once, the bouncing charge).

Now, of course, this could very well be, because he put all his points into Strength.

Bye
Thanee

Well, I was also going with the topic creator's idea of having them act the same. If the Wizard was "smart", he would've put his points into Int, hit the Fighter with Ray of Frost from 10 squares away and then spend an action point to pound on him with Encounter powers for two attacks.

 

[LotusBlossom]

Well, I was also going with the topic creator's idea of having them act the same. If the Wizard was "smart", he would've put his points into Int, hit the Fighter with Ray of Frost from 10 squares away and then spend an action point to pound on him with Encounter powers for two attacks.

Your thought triggered a memory of the age-old controversy: Who would win, a 20th level paladin or a 20th level wizard? As usual, no one could agree, although I think the underlying answer was: Whoever was able to attack first would win.

 

[-Avalon-]

I am trying to create a wizard/swordmage hybrid w/the PP for corellon, so, I actually like being able to swing my sword and have a chance at hitting an enemy, unlike in previous editions where a blade-singer type was utterly useless...

 

[Nail]

Your thought triggered a memory of the age-old controversy: Who would win, a 20th level paladin or a 20th level wizard?

Ooooooh, boy.

Let's not go there, people.


(...and in 4e, it's "30th" level.)

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Your thought triggered a memory of the age-old controversy: Who would win, a 20th level paladin or a 20th level wizard? As usual, no one could agree, although I think the underlying answer was: Whoever was able to attack first would win.

Well, any time you go into "Could this PC kill that PC" you'll run into trouble. PC's are created with the idea of operating within a party, and so separating them from a group really weakens them and sometimes interferes with their function as a class.

For example, who would win, a Rogue or a Fighter? That's just a ridiculous thing to ask though. The Rogue depends a LOT on Combat advantage to deal his damage, and without an ally getting CA will be really hard. So now you're gimping the Rogue a lot just by forcing him to fight by himself, whereas the Fighter loses almost nothing by being alone.

Or another one would be Ranger vs Fighter. Since the Ranger is the only PC and the Fighter is the only enemy this unbalances it in the Ranger's favor. The PC is his Quarry by default, and the Ranger is the closest to him and would therefore get Prime Shot every round. Two big advantages.

The point is that D&D is more about the roles that players fill, and trying to get everyone to form the roles necessary to create a party. A Wizard won't last long without some kind of Defender around to hold back the tide, just like a Fighter won't last long without a Leader to buff and heal him when he's going up against a ton of enemies. Everyone has their own advantages and disadvantages, and their own things that they need from other classes in order to do their job better.