Mages vs Clerics

[Quartz]

So in a flat duel it comes down to the initiative roll.

What if we were to alter the duel so that the mage and the cleric are prohibited from directly affecting each other except through personal contact? No you can't cast a Wall of Fire around him. Assume that both are on the verge of 21st level and have 20K in XP available.

 

[pallandrome]

Hmm, in such a situation, I'd give it to the cleric. That fight would go down to summons and HP, both of which goes to the Cleric.

 

[Victim]

Here's one technique:
1. Scry on opponent
2. Buff
3. Shape change into a choker
4. Cast maximized timestop (using metamagic rod)
5. Teleport in
6. Cast 8 maximized delayed blast fireballs and 4 quickened delayed blast fireballs (using metamagic rods and arch-mage's energy substitution if needed)
7. Contingency-teleport out (or shapechange into a balor or somesuch and stick around to watch the fireworks).

Scrying is negated by Will saves, which clerics probably have stacked through the roof. Plus there's the spell immunity line. Mind Blank is also available in some domains. Energy Immunity lasts all day - a cleric could have it running against every form of energy. Clerics can have Contingency; it's days/level duration makes it attractive target for Miracle during downtime. A cleric could also use Divination to determine a course of action to counter the most dangerous threat he'll face each week. Clerics are also good at locking out teleport access over the long term with Forbiddance, Hallow+D-anchor, and Dimensional Lockdown. Plus a cleric could have a full stack of Energy Immunities.

I think the issue is mostly a matte of strategy versus counter strategy. The spells a wizard or cleric needs to counter one specific strategy won't help much against other ones. Take this for instance:

Casts Silenced Body of War, which activates a Contengency Tensor's Transformation.

A silenced high level spell and a contingency devoted to melee combat is a not inconsiderable investment of resources to counter the threat of silenced cleric in melee. What if the cleric goes to melee wrapped in antimagic instead of silence? Or if he doesn't use Silence or melee at all? Then those resources are wasted. Sure, you could have different contingency against antimagic. But then you don't have it against Silence, or whatever.

In theory, both sides can have the countermeasures versus pretty much anything the other side can do. But they can't really have all of them.

 

[mvincent]

I think the issue is mostly a matte of strategy versus counter strategy.

Agreed. I was just answering a question (i.e. what spells would you cast during Time Stop). It's just a sample, but thousands of points of damage (without ever being seen) can be a darn annoying 'sword of Damocles' hanging over your head.

However, Wizards are also usually very flexible and more prone to complex combinations (and insidious machinations). I believe they have a wider array of strategies and counter-strategies available to them than a cleric.

 

[pallandrome]

A silenced high level spell and a contingency devoted to melee combat is a not inconsiderable investment of resources to counter the threat of silenced cleric in melee. What if the cleric goes to melee wrapped in antimagic instead of silence? Or if he doesn't use Silence or melee at all? Then those resources are wasted. Sure, you could have different contingency against antimagic. But then you don't have it against Silence, or whatever.

Actually, when I'm running a high level wizard, that is generally my combo for dealing with any number of problems, including things that are immune to magic and whatnot. Not being vulnerable to being grappled to death by anything that gets next to me is invaluable for a arcane caster, IMO. Your milage may vary, of course.

However, as to your base premise that the two classes simply have too many options to choose which one would be better in a direct one-on-one, and that such suppositions must be based solely upon the skill and strategy of the player, I wholeheartedly endorse.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

Seriously, reducing the game and all its checks and balances to a duel is ludicrous.

Waht matters is how htey hold up, and the variety of actions they can do during a typical game in typical situations, combat, explortion, inter-personal, etc.

In this sense the Druid is all-powerrful. For the cost of a no-brainer feat they can mix spellcasting and wildshaping all day long from about 9th level. Be a bird, a horse, be some weird animal from a sourcebook your DM never heard of that was written by a dyed-in-the-wool munchkin and druids are clearly the most versatile and powerful class in the PHB.

The problem is the Druid has two powerful sets of abilities in one class. And a feat that allows them to be used at the same time. That is the problem.

 

[sdt]

Wizards are smart enough not to show up to the duel. Maybe the wizard's Balor friend shows up instead.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Wizards are smart enough not to show up to the duel. Maybe the wizard's Balor friend shows up instead.

Clerics are wise enough not to show up, either.

 

[Gerion of Mercadia]

At the end of the day, if I were to build a 20th-level Cleric who'd face a 20th-level Wizard (or Sorcerer), there's probably combos that'll result in a one-round kill. So it's down to the dice (who wins initiative).


yep - and I am Wizard. Before I am there - I have Moment of Prescience in place
SUPRISE THAT

 

[Patlin]

a maze spell, combined with time stop, gives you a few free rounds to get some defenses up.

You mean there's still some point to a Maze spell? It's thing in 3.0 was avoiding SR. It's way over level for what it does in my opinion. For significantly less by way of resources, Dimension Door or Teleport can buy you both time and choice of terrain. Remember, a high level Cleric intending to face a mage can put up a decent amount of SR.