Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Warpiglet" data-source="post: 7437259" data-attributes="member: 6689161">All good thoughts. The fact that there is a debate at all is a good sign.Let's get really concrete.&nbsp; Let us say level 11 fighter and sorcerer is the comparison.&nbsp; No feats--I assume.20 in main attributes...comparing at will damage vs at will plus resources for sorcerer.Fighter does 2d6+5 times three.&nbsp; Sorcerer (dragon?&nbsp; Fire?) does 3d10+5.&nbsp; If we start burning spell points, we might double some rounds for sorcerer for equivalent of 1st level slots.For fighter, let us assume at least +1 weapon and action surge would add three attacks for each use!&nbsp; &nbsp;Outside of EB and sorlocks, should we at least acknowledge resistance or vulnerability to fire?A final question: how close is the combat?&nbsp; If melee range, the sorcerer is at disadvantage!&nbsp; Additionally, the sorcerer should have fewer hit points and a lower AC. While hitting less there is some waste of resources.If the sorcerer says: &quot;I would not be that close!&quot; My question is &quot;who is your shield?&quot;&nbsp; If it is fighter, we see some differentiation of roles, which is classic.In my final analysis, I think they each have strengths and are not equivalent but have a good impact on encounters.&nbsp; The sorcerer DOES NOT fare as well in close combat sans feats.&nbsp; I don't think it is even too close to call which is one of the OP's original arguments.Now if we get fancy, multiclass, use feats etc, yeah.&nbsp; The fighter has to pull out he big guns to try and math up in a predictable fashion (i.e. GWM).&nbsp; But then again, a DM could say no sorlock quickened agonizing blast EB 'cause reasons.Which archetype is murdered with this single limitation?&nbsp; None save optimization lord of movie and film <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> or rather open play game tables in your local FLGS.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Warpiglet, post: 7437259, member: 6689161"] All good thoughts. The fact that there is a debate at all is a good sign. Let's get really concrete. Let us say level 11 fighter and sorcerer is the comparison. No feats--I assume. 20 in main attributes...comparing at will damage vs at will plus resources for sorcerer. Fighter does 2d6+5 times three. Sorcerer (dragon? Fire?) does 3d10+5. If we start burning spell points, we might double some rounds for sorcerer for equivalent of 1st level slots. For fighter, let us assume at least +1 weapon and action surge would add three attacks for each use! Outside of EB and sorlocks, should we at least acknowledge resistance or vulnerability to fire? A final question: how close is the combat? If melee range, the sorcerer is at disadvantage! Additionally, the sorcerer should have fewer hit points and a lower AC. While hitting less there is some waste of resources. If the sorcerer says: "I would not be that close!" My question is "who is your shield?" If it is fighter, we see some differentiation of roles, which is classic. In my final analysis, I think they each have strengths and are not equivalent but have a good impact on encounters. The sorcerer DOES NOT fare as well in close combat sans feats. I don't think it is even too close to call which is one of the OP's original arguments. Now if we get fancy, multiclass, use feats etc, yeah. The fighter has to pull out he big guns to try and math up in a predictable fashion (i.e. GWM). But then again, a DM could say no sorlock quickened agonizing blast EB 'cause reasons. Which archetype is murdered with this single limitation? None save optimization lord of movie and film ;) or rather open play game tables in your local FLGS. [/QUOTE]

Verification