So, wizards fight like fighters?

[Aaron]

Getting back to the original question for a moment...



There's a very definite thing behind getting rid of different BAB progressions, and that is that the wizard (along with every other character) pretty much has to roll to hit for everything now. Magic Missile requires a to-hit roll. If the wizard has crippled BAB all his wizard spells are crippled, too.

That's a pretty fundamental change, and you might not like it or agree with the reasons behind it. But it pretty much requires that everyone have the same BAB.

You have a point.

Guess I simply need time to get accustomed to it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In order to tell that a wizard is not as good as a fighter?

Yes, I prefer to have something more than a mere 10-20%.

But YMMV.

depending how you look at it, you could say: a fighter hits 3 to 5 times a often as a wizard... (if a wizard needs a 20 to hit)

although of course, 4e is balanced about hitting with about 10+ as a fighter, so its only about 40% more hits (11/20*20/8) = 138%

 

[Gargoyle]

You have a point.

Guess I simply need time to get accustomed to it.

It won't take long.

Once you get used to the idea of using powers all the time and wizards rolling to hit with their spells, and the advantages that fighters have in melee, you'll be thinking more about movement and combinations of powers, etc, rather than who has the best BAB. 4e combat is great, and wizards are even more like wizards should be than in 3e IMO.

Even a wizard tricked out with melee and multiclass feats to play more like a fighter won't hog the fighter's spotlight.

 

[Obryn]

The chance, percentage, you call it, to strike, to hit their opponent is the same, except for what I have already cited.

Don't think I'm challenging you, please: I'm just reporting my thoughts.

When they were designing 3e - and throughout the development of 3.5 and beyond - the designers realized, and reported in several articles, that bonuses to-hit are bonuses to damage, in almost every important, functional way.

It's all about the math. The most important statistic is (average damage) x (probability of hit).

(Yes, it gets more complex when you bring critical hits into it, but there you have it.)

3e improved the 'probability of hit' part of the equation for fighters. 4e increases 'damage' portion.

-O

 

[MrMyth]

I'm a little confused at the point here.

You are assuming they are both equally strong and equally trained in the professional use of the weapon. Why, having made those assumptions, does it seem strange that each one is approximately as good at swinging the sword?

If the wizard has invested in the physical ability (Strength) and training (Feats) to use the weapon, then I see no reason why he wouldn't be perfectly capable of swinging it at his foes in a reasonable manner.

So, then, you may ask what he loses by not being a fighter? And the answer is... he can swing that sword, because he knows the basics of swordplay. But Fighters are the advanced class, and that means they go well beyond the basics. They can learn to swing more precisely with certain exploits, or learn to throw the enemy around, or strike nearby enemies, or deal much, much, much more damage.

That seems an adequate representation between someone who is simply a trained swordsman, and someone who is a master of the blade.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

he uses staff and sword, so he seems to be a ranger!

Yeah, and Aragorn doesn't dual wield, nor does he use a bow that much, instead of that, he heals his companions, inspires armies into battle and makes princesses fall in love with him...

Is he really a high-CHA Warlord?

 

[Chrysophrase]

Well, yes, a Wizard who is exactly the same as a fighter (same strength, weapon, race, and for some reason both have declined to take any feats or powers) will have the same chance at a crappy basic attack.

Then again, if the wizard is exactly the same as the fighter in every way, perhaps the player has picked the wrong class. I've never seen a wizard that's the same as or equal to a fighter in those key areas. Why does this hypothetical wizard have 18 STR, a greatsword, heavy armour, proficiency in all weapons, and lots of hit points, and why does the hypothetical fighter not have any martial feats or exploits, and why is he wearing robes and wielding a twig?

Sounds like Louie the Rune Soldier

Louie PUNCH!!!

 

[Chrysophrase]

When they were designing 3e - and throughout the development of 3.5 and beyond - the designers realized, and reported in several articles, that bonuses to-hit are bonuses to damage, in almost every important, functional way.

It's all about the math. The most important statistic is (average damage) x (probability of hit).

(Yes, it gets more complex when you bring critical hits into it, but there you have it.)

3e improved the 'probability of hit' part of the equation for fighters. 4e increases 'damage' portion.

-O

This is one of the reasons why I think the rogues are so cool. In my first session of KotS the Rogue almost NEVER hit, and at these low levels, she was REALLY effective.

 

[Aaron]

You are assuming they are both equally strong and equally trained in the professional use of the weapon. Why, having made those assumptions, does it seem strange that each one is approximately as good at swinging the sword?

Because you and I can be able to use a sword.

But if I train with my sword for the next 10 years, while you you spend your time casting spells, I wonder how could you be able to strike an heavily armored opponent with the same chance of hit I have.

 

[Jon Wake]

The fact is that if you pimp out your wizard to be as good with a sword as he possibly can, he's going to be a pretty crap wizard and still no match for an even mediocre Fighter in a melee fight. You can't separate one aspect of a character from any other aspect and get anything like a coherent comparison. In fact, I might just make two characters: Super Sword Wizard and Clumsy Fighter.