Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6364567" data-attributes="member: 15700">Pretty darn well if the times you can turn into a dragon comes up pretty much never in actual game play.  I said this in the other thread and it still holds true.  If something never, or hardly ever, can happen in a typical game session, then you can't present an argument the relies on that happening whenever you want.Apples and oranges.  A fighter might not ever run out of HP, but after a caster casts a spell, that slot is lost until it can be regained.  I.e., a caster with 4/3/3 spell slots will run out of spells after they cast 10 of them.  A fighter doesn't run out of attacks.But you're assuming they will do it.  All the time in fact.  This is what you keep missing.  You gave a huge list of all the various spells.  Guess what?  In actual play?  A wizard is not going to have all of those spells.  Either due to--not having enough slots-not having learned it-not having prepped itThere is no way a wizard can cast all of those spells you listed in actual play.  Therefore, your entire argument is flawed from the get go.Firstly, as illustrated by the (how many people played to level 20 thread), who cares?  If hardly anyone gets to that level it's irrelevant in actual play.  Secondly, you're gonna play 17 levels just to say, "haha!  Now you suck compared to me!!!"  Really?   And thirdly, the fighter never was designed to be as powerful as the caster in one shot limited abilities.  Pay close attention to that last part.  Casters can out do a fighter in very limited number of occurrences, while the fighter can keep doing what he does all day long.  If you can inflict twice as much damage as a fighter for 10 rounds of combat, and he does twice as much damage as you for the other 30-40 rounds before you can take a long rest, that is very relevant to the discussion.Are they?  Think of the bigger picture.  A +2 AC to you and your allies may prevent you from getting damaged at all.  Bringing down the tunnel may either incapacitate more than one enemy at once, or prevent them from getting to you in the first place.  Once you start thinking outside of the box and beyond just DPR, you'll find the game opening up for you.This is the problem I have with "more HP damage is always better" argument, and why it's not always true.  I presented this argument way back when it first came up and bears repeating here.If you (inflicting 5 points average with 20 hp) are fighting an orc (inflicting 5 points average and has 20 hp), and you always go first, you will kill the orc in 4 rounds taking 15 points yourself.  If you increase your average damage by 3 points, you still take 3 rounds to kill it and take 10 points yourself (3 attacks to its 2).  However, if you reduce the amount of damage on average you take by 3 points (say the hit% goes down due to better AC), then after 4 rounds, you kill it and you take 6 points (since it's only inflicting 2 points per round, for 3 attacks).  In the second scenario, you didn't kill it any faster than you would have if you chose to do more damage, but by the end of the battle you lost less HP.So unless you allow full recovery after every battle, always doing more damage is not always best.</blockquote>

Verification