Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5521874" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, I think you may have missed the context - the "solo" phrasing was an exaggerated way of pointing out that there is almost no significant species of challenge in the game that wizards can't handle better than warriors - they have more powerful movement options (Teleport, Knock etc), more powerful stealth options (Invisibility etc), more powerful knowledge options (better skill list and skill points, divination, scrying etc), more powerful control options (wall spells, Evard's Black Tentacles, etc), more powerful defences (Mirror Image, Displacement, etc) and so on.The fighter in 3E is probably better at dealing direct damage, and is not completely hosed by anti-magic. On the other hand the wizard is less hosed by item destruction than the warrior, so on this latter point things are perhaps a wash. So that leaves the fighter with one species of challenge at which s/he is clearly better. And it's not a capability that, on its own, is enough to do very well - there are very many challenges that can't be overcome by dealing direct damage - whereas it's a capability that a wizard can often render unnecessary (eg clever movement or control can make the dealing of direct damage, in order to attain one's goals, unnecessary).I think this is what was meant by the "solo" point, and I think it stands. The wizard actually has sensible things to do to try and deal with the five drow - teleporting out being the obvious last resort - whereas I'm not sure that the fighter does. It only takes one darkness spell to go a long way to shutting down the fighter, after all.Mort tackled this fairly well. 5' step to avoid the AoOs. Counterspell (unless it's Dispel Magic style counterspell, which requires an opposed check) depends heavily upon spell preparation and Spellcraft checks (do by-the-book drow have good Spellcraft? I don't know). And none of the spells I mentioned - Glitterdust, Evard's Black Tentacles or Teleport as a last resort - is subject to spell resistance. And only Glitterdust grants the drow a save.Well, arguably wizards don't need it. For the reasons I gave, the one significant ability that wizards lack - namely, the ability to deal significant amounts of direct damage - is one that in many circumstances there other abilities permit them to do without.Well, the envy accusation could equally be turned upon (and frequently is turned upon) defenders of the 3E status quo.And I'm not sure I follow the point about "other circumstances and situations". There is only one significant circumstance in which fighters outshine wizards, which is in the direct delivery of damage. Wizards have the capacity to outshine warriors in more-or-less all other respects. I don't see how it is disingenuous to point this out.Why is the wizard the solution to the absence of a rogue? Why is the fighter not that solution? There's no reason, in principle, why the game should favour the use of a knock spell over the fighter bashing the chest open.Likewise if the party is too small. Why is the wizard's summoned monster the solution? Why doesn't the player of a fighter have a "summon sidekick" or "muster irregulars" ability? And the same could be said about your troll example, with the added point that it makes the fighter look very sidekick-y if his/her job is to hold off the trolls while the wizard defeats them.My problem with this sort of claim is that, in the absence of more detail about what exactly you envisage a fighter doing that puts him/her on a par with a wizard, it is far too abstract and general to really engage with. I mean, you could say the same thing if the wizard had access to one XP-free wish spell per level per day - sure, you might say, the player of the fighter can match that if s/he has sufficient experience, imagination and intelligence. But would that sort of wizard be no more powerful than, or balanced with, a fighter for typical D&D play?</blockquote>

Verification