To balance high level mages.

[Hammerhead]

I'm not saying things would be different for a group...but the original post was Fighter vs Wizard...no Fighter and group vs Wizard and group.

I know, I'm just saying that a good fighter for a group is vastly different than a good fighter that works alone. With a group to cover his weaknesses, a fighter can go whole hog on weapons and armor. If he works alone, A) multiclassing is more likely, and B) he has different equipment priorities. At a certain point, he has to decide that his main weapon is good enough, and work on covering his weaknesses. There's an 18k difference between a +4 and a +5 weapon, which is enough to add a +4 bonus to saves, or get some nice misc gear like a spell storing ioun stone. At higher levels, the expected weapon is even more powerful, so using a second rate sword results in even more miscellaneous stuff. Using a +5 weapon instead of a +7 one (probably a more realistic situation considering expected wealth and the levels we're talking about) frees up almost half the value of the greater weapon. If the fighter has to look after himself, then the extra versatility gear is well worth the extra 2d6 damage. He may lack the same nastiness as a normal fighter, but he'll be better able to take care of himself.

A wizard is going to be pretty good all around. He may have a few extra defensive spells, or rely more on choosing a battleground with lots of manuevering room, but his setup will be mostly the same. On the other hand, a fighter optimized for solo action will probably be very different from one who expects a wizard and cleric to be backing him up.

However, I agree that the normal group fighter with a heavy investment in pure @ss kicking would probably be toasted by a wizard of the same level.

So to summarize:

The solo wizard is very similar to the group wizard.
The solo fighter is very different from the group fighter.

Therefore, comparisons that apply to one type of fighter may not apply to a different type.

 

[Broken Fang]

I agree. The solo Fighter had to be a Wizard...at least in gear to be able to defend himself from any number of attackers.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I think this is in keeping with the genre and literary tradition though.

Beowulf had a specially made shield to combat the dragon's fire and used a sword forged by giants to kill Grendel's mother (he borrowed a legendary sword for the fight but it wasn't up to the task).

When Thorin and Gandalf fought the goblins under the misty mountains, it was as much the swords themselves that drove the goblins back as Gandalf and Thorin.

Turin Turambar was a great warrior, but he depended upon his dwarf mask to defend him from the dragon's charms. He also depended upon his sword for a lot of his fighting prowess. Beren had to use a magical knife that cut iron like green wood in order to cut the silmarils from Morgroth's crown. For that matter, almost every one of Tolkein's heroes of the first age had a named weapon--Fingon even had some manner of magic helm.

In LotR, Gandalf's power was partially tied to his staff but his sword came in quite handy as well. Sting, the phial of Galadriel, and the One Ring were what gave Sam the ability to defeat Shelob, the Silent Watchers, and the orcs in the tower of Gorgoroth. Merry needed a magic sword to harm the witch king.

Leaving Tolkein, we'll find that, although he was as much wizard as fighter, Elric depended upon Stormbringer and his potions for effectiveness.

In the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Krill and Thomas's ring were sources of power for fighter and wizard alike.

In Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn, King Prester John was known for his sword and Sir Camaris was known for Thorn. And in the end, it took the magic of the White Arrow to defeat the villain.

King Arthur was warded by Excalibur's sheath and carried Excalibur. Galahad was given a holy shield after driving off a demon.

Perseus used a flying horse and Zeus's shield on his journey to defeat Medusa. Jason used a number of magics including Dragon's Teeth in his search for the Golden Fleece.

Throughout fantasy literature, myth and legend, warriors have depended upon the magic of their equipment as well as their innate skill in order to defeat their foes. (And the more magical the foe, the more magic seemed to be used in their defeat).

I agree. The solo Fighter had to be a Wizard...at least in gear to be able to defend himself from any number of attackers.

 

[Numion]

At high level it all depends on teh gear the Fighter has, IMO, since the Wizard can protect himself pretty well with multiple extended spells (in effect always on). The Fighter HAS to be able to Fly, See Invisible (True Seeing is better as mentioned above), and HAS to rely on finding their items....the Wizard just has to make his.

Yeah, and the wizard HAS (my caps lock works too ) to rely on finding the right spells, by buying scrolls and whatnot. Your point?

 

[Broken Fang]

Numion - ummmm last I checked a Wizard always gets two new spells as they go up in level. I guess you might not use that rule in your game. I would tend to think that the smart Wizard would be picking spells useful to them, then again maybe not. The point being my heightened hold person (I hope you agree that a 20th level Wizard probably had hold person and heightened spell) is going to take the Fighter out. My point was that the lone Wizard is still more capable of defeating the lone Fighter...which I think is what the original post was all about.

And all this with no caps lock...

 

[Al]

Call me a wizard-o-phile, but the wizard should wipe the floor with the fighter.

Scenario 1: The fighter wins initiative. The fighter charges. At this point, both the wizard's Contingency and Chain Contingency (T&B) are triggered. The wizard is now covered by Ghostform, Stoneskin, Repulsion and Mislead. Now, if the fighter has a +5 weapon, can see invisibility, can hit ethereal creatures and make a Will save, he's probably ok. Otherwise, he's in big trouble. Let us assume (we're being VERY nice) he runs up and pummels the wizard. The wizard doesn't die, of course...what with that handy Hide Life (T&B). The wizard's action: restricted to a mere two partial actions (he does cast Persistent Haste on himself every day, doesn't he?), he kicks off with a Mordenkainen's Disjunction (to remove silliness such as defensive spells). He then goes for a Maximised Time Stop (using Rod of GM). Otto's Irresistable Dance, two Maximised Meteor Storms and two Maximised Cones of Cold continues the barrage nicely. Assuming the fighter fails his saves (which he needs 20s for), he's taken 468hps damage. Well, since he has a 5% chance against the MCOCs, you can reduce the average damage by 4.5pts- so 463.5hps. So assuming he rolls maximum hit points on ALL his hit dice, he only needs a Constitution of 34 or more to survive...except he's dancing for at least anothe two rounds, so another four Maximised Fireballs later, he's taken another 234 hps damage (reduced for rolling 20s on save). So total damage=702. Needs a Con of 62 to survive (modifier of +26). I suppose we could be nice, and give him a Ring of Elemental Resistance [Fire] and one of [Cold]- assuming neither is disjoined, the mage will need a Chained targeted Dispel Magic (best), meaning he has to knock off a Maximised Fireball at the end. Damage now is 642- a mere Con of 56 required.

Now, how many fighters have Con 56?

Of course, that's assuming that a) the wizard goes for straight barrage and b) the fighter wins initiative. A better alternative is simply Mordenkainen's Disjunction, Maximised Time Stop. Quickened True Strike, Maximised Energy Drain x2; Quickened True Strike, Maximised Enervation. Twenty negative levels and *poof* goes the fighter.

It's really not much of a contest...these are only two ways. The only real decision the wizard has to make is *how* best to eradicate his pathetic adversary.

 

[poilbrun]

Just a quick question: has any of you ever seen in the campaign you've played a wizard like the one you describe here, or a fighter like the one needed to fight against the wizard you describe here?

I always thought the campaigns I DMed were too focused on adventuring and becoming more powerful and not enough on roleplaying (because all the other campaigns in the club in which I play are either focused too much on rp or either have (very) slow advancement), but then I may be wrong if the characters in your campaigns look like the ones you described here.

 

[Broken Fang]

poilbrun

Waaaaay back in first ed we had a party that reached 20+ level, but in 3rd ed we usually stop around 13th. Mainly because the PC's have built castles, taken over land, or are doing something else that really prevents them from adventuring.

At that level yes the Wizard would kick the Fighters butt. Mainly because, though our DM liked low magic, the Fighter didn't have the full capacity of magic required to stop the Wizard.

My comments have been extrapolations from what I knew about our previous campaign (lasted close to two years, starting with the information gathered from Eric's site).

I could be way off since I have yet and probably never will play at those levels, but I have been a Wizard player since 1st ed. They have lots of tricks they can play...trust me.

 

[LostSoul]

In my campaign, once the Wizard got Improved Invisibility, he could have beaten the Fighter/Paladin in every match up. Unless he began the combat sleeping.

Well, it wasn't that bad, but the Wizard had decent AC (even flatfooted) and quite a few hit points. The Fighter would have been hard-pressed to kill him with a single full attack action.

 

[poilbrun]

I'm quite of a wizard player too, but I suppose we never play the way wizards that way. I've never seen a wizard act to the point described here, and we play to high level (but only when I DM , which means I haven't had the chance to play a high-level wizard yet), but I've never had a player play his wizard to that point. Look at the wizard like Al described it: that's really the kind of wizard you see in the Sultans of Smack thread rather than in real play...