So, wizards fight like fighters?

[knifie_sp00nie]

Another way to think about the classes in 4e is that "every marine is a rifleman". That means that if you're going to go out adventuring, even if you're a bookish wizard, that you probably have some basic training in self defense. Other people have shown how the math breaks down already. The fighter still comes out ahead, but if the wizard is backed into a corner he can swing his staff and have a chance to hit. He's been out in the world and all that walking, climbing, and fighting make him a bit more physically capable than the other wizards who just sit in their towers all day.

 

[Obryn]

Shouldn't a fighter be able to strike with more precision than a wizard without using any power?

What about when they are out of powers?

I think you're getting stuck in 3e paradigms, when 4e is - mechanics-wise - a much different beast.

The short answer is "No, because if they're not using powers, they aren't really doing anything that involves their character class." Hence, Morrus's comment that they might as well be commoners.

Powers are to 4e what both BAB and spells were to 3e. It's not something "extra" your class can do - they're the core features of a class - the reason you're a member of the class in the first place. If you look at two classes and say, "Well, if you don't consider their powers, they are identical!" you might as well be saying "Well, if you don't consider their character class, they are identical." In 4e, it's basically a nonsensical comparison.

Also, keep in mind that you never run out of powers - every character has at least 2 at-will powers that are basically their normal attacks. They should, optimally, try and use an at-will power instead of an attack almost 100% of the time.

-O

 

[Arilon]

It makes sense to me

You know, at first I agreed with the OP - a wizard and fighter shouldn't be the same when it comes to martial combat. The fighter should clearly have an edge. The problem, though, is that forever the edge has only been a better +to hit modifier (whether it was BAB or lower THAC0 or whatever.) In 3.0 and 3.5, really, there wasn't much different between a fighter and anybody else, except BAB progression and maybe some feats.

But, without having my new books yet, this thought occurred to me: the fighter is now much more versatile then in previous editions. Really. Now, though a fighter has the same basic bonus to attack (based on the OP's assumptions), (s)he has many more options (as others have pointed out.) A wizard's only option when wielding a sword (assuming he or she can) is to just hit the target. A fighter, however, can take that same sword and use it to much more deadly effect. The chance to hit may indeed be the same, but the fighter's choices are vastly better than a wizard's.

In many ways, I liken this to the way clerics were changed from 1e to 2e to 3e. In 1e, all clerics were the same: same weapon limitations (though evil clerics could use poision), same spell choices, same everything. 2e started to differentiate them with the creation of spheres for their magic. 3e made the differences even more important, so that no two clerics were really the same.

That is what has finally happened in 4e to fighters, I think. No two fighters are exactly, or essentially, the same any more. And that is an improvement that is long overdue.

So yes, on the surface, the elimination of the BAB may seem unreasonable or even stupid, but if you dig a little deeper, I think you will see the method in the WotC's madness. It sounds just fine to me, and I am willing to bet that once I see it in play, I'll be even more convinced that WotC was right in making this change.

Arilon

 

[Gort]

What about when they are out of powers?

I'll begin taking your argument seriously the moment my players run out of at-will powers.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'll begin taking your argument seriously the moment my players run out of at-will powers.

Maybe put them in an anti-martial zone?

Oh, wait...

EDIT:

I think I can create a scenario: The Fighter gets dominated by an enemy and the enemy forces him to fight a Wizard. The Wizard himself could be the dominator, and doing it to show off or humiliate the Fighter, or something like that...

 

[Vorpal Sword]

What about when they are out of powers?

You're never out of at-will powers. You can posit a strong wizard that's practiced his sword skills until he can equal the fighter's basic melee attack... but the wizard can use magic missile instead of his sword, every round for the rest of his life.

It's just a difference in emphasis: your BAB is no longer one of the ways your class is defined. The fighter still hits more often than the wizard, and does better things with his melee attacks--but it's because the fighter has powers that focus on making melee attacks, and the wizard focuses on ranged damage and battlefield control.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Maybe put them in an anti-martial zone?

Oh, wait...

Sounds like a rubber cell!

Cheers, LT.

 

[Aaron]

I'll begin taking your argument seriously the moment my players run out of at-will powers.

Their at will powers don't differentiate their ability to strike with a sword, except for a mere +2 with no Strength bonus to damage for the fighter.

 

[Obryn]

Their at will powers don't differentiate their ability to strike with a sword, except for a mere +2 with no Strength bonus to damage for the fighter.

Well, that's one of the at-will powers.

There are three more to pick from, though, for fighters.

-O

 

[Nebulous]

I see, but I'll admit that's something I need some time to get used to.

A wizard that swings his sword like a proud fighter?

Not very D&D for me.

I dunno. If you're just talking about two people with an 18 Strength swinging a hunk of metal as hard as they can at someone: there's not much difference. When you take into account all the other feats and powers that class abilities that make the fighter stand out, that's where the key difference is. I admit that is quite a change, but one i'm not against.