Wizard vs (melee) Fighter damage comparison

Here is a brief summary of numbers I crunched to compare damage capability of a wizard vs a fighter.

Level 5 Fighter/Wizard
Both with applicable ability modifier of +4
Wizard CON 12 (+1), Fighter CON 14 (+2)
Wizard HP: 13-25 (21)
Fighter HP: 24-60 (44)

Fighter with a 1d8 damage weapon. Using expertise dice only for damage bonus
1d8+2d8+str/dex+weapon attack
3d8+4+4 = (3+8)-(24+8) = 11-32 per successful hit

(Including natural 20s)
VS AC 10 = avg 19.5
VS AC 15 = avg 14.1
VS AC 20 = avg 8.7

Wizard:
Cantrips (Magic Missile, Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp) At-Will
Lvl 1 (Burning Hands/Thunder Wave) up to 4x per day
Lvl 2 (Melf's Acid Arrow) up to 3x per day
Lvl 3 (Fireball/Lightning Bolt) up to 2x per day

Magic Missile
VS AC 10 = avg 3.5
VS AC 15 = avg 3.5
VS AC 20 = avg 3.5

Ray of Frost (including natural 20s)
VS AC 10 = avg 6
VS AC 15 = avg 4.4
VS AC 20 = avg 2.7

Burning Hands (3 targets):
VS DEX 10 = avg 27
VS DEX 15 = avg 25.5
VS DEX 20 = avg 23.3

Ray of Enfeeblement (including natural 20s)
VS AC 10 = avg 14.2
VS AC 15 = avg 12.4
VS AC 20 = avg 10.7

Melf's Acid Arrow (including natural 20s):
VS AC 10 = avg 26.6
VS AC 15 = avg 22.1
VS AC 20 = avg 17.6

Fireball (3 targets):
VS Dex 10 = avg 47.3
VS Dex 15 = avg 44.6
VS Dex 20 = avg 40.7

Lightning (2 Targets):
VS Dex 10 = avg 37.8
VS Dex 15 = avg 35.7
VS Dex 20 = avg 32.6

So if the wizard takes all damage spells he can do about 15-40 total damage/round for 9 rounds. After that he is down to about 3-9 damage/round using cantrips.

Which on a damage/damage comparison is pretty decent for the wizard. The fighter's 9-20 per round will take some time to catch up. (Approximately 18-26 rounds before the fighter catches up)

However, it still assumes that the wizard only takes high-damage spells. No cause fear, comprehend languages, charm person, counterspell, hold person, resistance, dispel magic, suggestion.

Realistically I would only take about 5 high damage spells and 4 utility spells. This would mean the fighter would outpace the wizard's damage after only 10-14 rounds. Which is still reasonable. I think most fights I have seen so far have only been 3-5 rounds each.

On the bad side, the wizard will only have 21 hp, with an AC of maybe 12. One crit (from the fighter for example) and the wizard is down and almost insta-killed (-11 hp with a con of 12). 2 Hits from a bugbear/minatour/ogre would easily kill a wizard. It would take a 4-5 hits from a goblin or 1-2 from an orc to bring the wizard to 0 hp. Which, for a wizard, all sounds reasonable.
This is actually a good version of these posts, which normally I can't stand.

A couple of thoughts.
First with the Fireball and Lightning bolt spells, did you total the average damage based on what it does to the multiple mobs or is that what was rolled on average?
Second, does having this information really impact how you play a Fighter or play a Wizard or any other class?
The second question is meant to any and every one. I ask because I fail to see the value in these kinds of posts. Personally, I don't see how having these numbers could help someone have more fun playing than not having this.  I don't know, maybe its just me.

Second, does having this information really impact how you play a Fighter or play a Wizard or any other class?
The second question is meant to any and every one. I ask because I fail to see the value in these kinds of posts. Personally, I don't see how having these numbers could help someone have more fun playing than not having this.



Some of us have empathy, and care that Timmy has no fun being a floor Wizard.
Your campaign might be made of magic, but the game is based in numbers, just because you try not to understand them, doesn't mean that they have no effect.

Ideally the gap between min maxing, and average choices close allowing everyone at the table to maintain a good mood with no one feeling left behind.

I don't think you have to do any mental math to calculate the benefit of balancing a game.

Unless you just want to be 'OP' despite hating min maxers.

Which on a damage/damage comparison is pretty decent for the wizard. The fighter's 9-20 per round will take some time to catch up. (Approximately 18-26 rounds before the fighter catches up)

However, it still assumes that the wizard only takes high-damage spells. No cause fear, comprehend languages, charm person, counterspell, hold person, resistance, dispel magic, suggestion.



This comparison assumes that the Fighter's dumping all CS dice into Deadly Strike. If that's the basis for balance, then Combat Superiority has failed at its most fundamental purpose - giving Fighters balanced and meaningful tactical choices rather than just "I hit it with my sword."

When a Wizard with a balanced spell list balances against a Fighter who makes regular use of a balanced suite of tactical maneuvers - that's when we're in good form.  
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
I don't understand why you would bother crunching the numbers(extreme boredom?) but I can tell you this...

Compairing the fighter to the Wizard on a single metric(damage in this case) is at best a fun number crunching experiment, and at worst an exercise in the creation of strawmen. Damage output  is a poor balancing point and largely lost when the full scope of spells and combat manuevers is applied over the course of a game.
Preferences... Not where they should be. Asking someone if they're Trolling you is in violation of section 3 of the Code of Conduct.
This is at least the third time this has been done for this packet (I did it once and someone else followed up) - all with slightly different assumptions but similar conclusions. 


It take around 20 rounds to reach parity.  If you have less than 20 rounds in the adventuring day - the wizards are favored and as you go beyond 20 rounds the fighter starts to dominate.


However - based on the calculations by many other people - your fighter expected damage appears to be low.  Most people have come up with a figure of around 15 points for the fighter at L3.  You have the fighter doing 14 at L5 (when he should be doing more more like an estimated 17-18 due to the second expertise die).   I'll comment on the principle - then come back to look at why you arrived at a different number than I did for the fighter.

  
I, at one point, was working on the math to 'fix' some of the issues with the spell damage.  Specifically, my goal wsa to define spell damage in terms of multiples of fighter damage.

The idea was to take the fighter's expected damage (14 points by the above calculation - at bit lower than I would have used at that level - I doubt most fighters would ever use a 1d8 weapon with racial weapons usually offering better options) and corrolate spell damage to that.


So, for example Burning Hands would be doing too much damage by that metric, Arc lightning is a bit low and fireball is a bit high (and I allowed more targets per fireball than 3 - more like 4 or 5).


As an aside:  I think the fix for burning hands is to take it back to its AD&D roots - at least in terms of area of effect.  In AD&D, burning hands was a 120degree arc extending 3' from the caster.  Not a cone.  I think this is a good idea and is easily modeled on a grid as three adjacent contiguous squares.  This would reduce the expected number of targets to 2 rather than 3 and thus the expected damage to around 17 (close enough to the fighter expected damage).

For the others, there are many ways of getting to damage formulas that would use these numbers - if they agreed with the premise that expected spell damage should be proportional to spell level (something I consider to be essential if they are going to have spell point caster mechanics).


Other advantagess of this approach is that the spells per day for wizards can be more easily calculated to determine the number of rounds to reach parity - which makes design easier; and it makes it possible to alter that table to adjust their spells per day for the number of rounds the DM wishes to run.


Carl  


                   
Here is a brief summary of numbers I crunched to compare damage capability of a wizard vs a fighter.

Level 5 Fighter/Wizard
Both with applicable ability modifier of +4
Wizard CON 12 (+1), Fighter CON 14 (+2)
Wizard HP: 13-25 (21)
Fighter HP: 24-60 (44)

Fighter with a 1d8 damage weapon. Using expertise dice only for damage bonus
1d8+2d8+str/dex+weapon attack
3d8+4+4 = (3+8)-(24+8) = 11-32 per successful hit

(Including natural 20s)
VS AC 10 = avg 19.5
VS AC 15 = avg 14.1
VS AC 20 = avg 8.7
 




A fighter with a 16 ability score would have an attack bonus of +6.  I suppose you might have a +4 at L5 but that is a bit high of a value (I usually just use +3).  On the other hand, they are also highly unlikely to ever use a d8 weapon (unless you are talking about a halfling).  I guess that balances out.

On the other hand - you added the attack bonus into the damage.  Huh????


Your fighter numbers are.... odd.    

Recalculated:
Level 5 Fighter ability modifier of +6
Fighter with a 1d10 damage weapon (typical 1 handed for a fighter; can be as high as a 2d6 - 2 handed - weapon).  But 1d10 is a good standard assuming one-handed.
Using expertise dice only for damage bonus 1d10+2d8+3 = average on a hit: 17.5 (Crit 29).

Note - this assumes that the fighter does not have Glancing Blow (see below). 
Against AC 15 (higher than the average in the Bestiary, but it's the median value you used.  AC 14 is the actual average AC) the fighter hits on a 9 for 60%.  Average damage per round (including crits):

(.4)(0) + (.55)(17.5) + (.05)(29) = 9.625 + 1.45 = 11.1 points.

But what if the fighter has glancing blow?

(.4)(9) + (.55)(17.5) + (.05)(29)

The expected damage increases to 14.7 points.   


To put it into your format:
(Including natural 20s)

(.15)(9) + (.8)(17.5) + (.05)(29)
VS AC 10 = avg 16.8

(.4)(9) + (.55)(17.5) + (.05)(29)
VS AC 15 = avg 14.1

(.65)(9) + (.30)(17.5) + (.05)(29)
VS AC 20 = avg 12.55 (much of this damage comes from the glancing blow.  Note, however, that the highest AC in the bestiary is AC 17)

Bottom line:  Your numbers aren't too far off - even if the numbers you used were a bit ... odd.


15 points is what most people use for the fighter's expected damage output.  You can get there at L3 with some slightly different assumptions (including AC 14 since it's a lot more common and a two-handed weapon).  Or youcan get there at L5 witha one-handed weapon.  Give the variables, it makes a nice convenient number for most comparisons.  

For comparison - if I did assume a Str 18 fighter with a d12 (two handed) weapon that would be:

Base:  2d8 + 1d12 + 4 = 19.5 (crit 32)
 
 (.4)(9) + (.55)(19.5) + (.05)(32) 
VS AC 15 = avg 15.9

Aside:  The warlock does around 14 points expected damage with its Eldritch Blast - making it comparable to the fighter in at-will damage.

Carl   
 


Second, does having this information really impact how you play a Fighter or play a Wizard or any other class?
The second question is meant to any and every one. I ask because I fail to see the value in these kinds of posts. Personally, I don't see how having these numbers could help someone have more fun playing than not having this.



Some of us have empathy, and care that Timmy has no fun being a floor Wizard.
Your campaign might be made of magic, but the game is based in numbers, just because you try not to understand them, doesn't mean that they have no effect.

Ideally the gap between min maxing, and average choices close allowing everyone at the table to maintain a good mood with no one feeling left behind.

I don't think you have to do any mental math to calculate the benefit of balancing a game.

Unless you just want to be 'OP' despite hating min maxers.


Now clearly, I'm an un-empathetic monster but bare with me as I try to understand your response.
Now, I very much understand that the groundfloor of any game is going to be mathematically based. I, personally, don't see how endless number crunching posts will help me, my group or anyone else out there have fun. The problem that I have with these posts is the endless, as I interpret it, demands that everything be completely balanced. I am a firm beleiver in to much balancing will homogenize the fun out of the game.
Now, yes there needs to be a balance. That balance does not need to be strictly in the combat sense. As of right now Rogues are viewed as vastly overbalanced in the Skill department and a bit under-balanced in Combat (look balancing).
There is more to D&D than long swords and fireballs and that should never be forgotten, nor should the long swords and fireballs be ignored.
I simply asked, having no empathy of my own, does this impact how you play a Fighter or a Wizard or any other class? It's not a matter of min/maxing or being "OP" (since I like the challenge of underpowered classes/characters), but of the true core of any game. A question that must be asked at every step of the way and one often overlooked;
Is this Fun? 
How about 17+1 Strength+2 Strength 20 Strength Fighter using a Greataxe for 1d12+5 damage+2d8 for the expertise? You also didn't consider the fighter getting a mastercraft weapon for +1 to damage. So you could got 1d12+2d8+6 damage. 6.5+9+6=21.5 Damage.

Glancing Blow and Cleave have not been considered either as a Slayer. Slayer Human, biggest strength and weapon possible is what I would do to deal the most damage.

  
This is actually a good version of these posts, which normally I can't stand.

A couple of thoughts.
First with the Fireball and Lightning bolt spells, did you total the average damage based on what it does to the multiple mobs or is that what was rolled on average?
Second, does having this information really impact how you play a Fighter or play a Wizard or any other class?
The second question is meant to any and every one. I ask because I fail to see the value in these kinds of posts. Personally, I don't see how having these numbers could help someone have more fun playing than not having this.  I don't know, maybe its just me.


I've been trying to say this time and again. 

With how radically different that mechanics are for each class, complete balance is going to be impossible. DnD is an active, dynamic game, not flat hp slugfest. What I mean by that is, these posts are usually under "Perfect" conditions, not including terrain, traps, environment, monsters, DM messing with the players, etc. Having all classes balanced can be tipped by so many factors that if you try and include all of it, you'd probably go insane.

Let's take your two classes for example, Wizard and Fighter. Let's say the developers balance their numbers for a combat, sure. But let's say there's only 1 combat before you rest. The Wizard can blow all of his spells and wreck shop. But lets say there's 7 or 8 combats before rest. The wizard gets tapped quickly but the fighter still is chugging along with his dice. You see? There's just too many factors.

Now that being said, balancing class usefulness is an obtainable goal. This is more akin to making sure that the classes can use their abilities easily and often enough to make them feel balanced, but not too easily or often. But asking for a 1 to 1 ratio in damage is just out of the question
My two copper.
[ On the other hand, they are also highly unlikely to ever use a d8 weapon (unless you are talking about a halfling). 



My human Fighter's longsword would like to disagree with you. For a human who goes sword-and-board, d8's the best you can do. 
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
[ On the other hand, they are also highly unlikely to ever use a d8 weapon (unless you are talking about a halfling). 



My human Fighter's longsword would like to disagree with you. For a human who goes sword-and-board, d8's the best you can do. 



True - but in that case you would also have (unless you built oddly) an 18 in your stat and thus a +1 to your damage.  This means that using a d10 with a +3 modifier (the numbers I use) is technically lower than the d8 with a +4 (due to the one lower bonus to hit) of your fighter.  Essentially - your human being able to have an 18 in the primary stat more than compensates for the lack of weapon training.


Carl

Which on a damage/damage comparison is pretty decent for the wizard. The fighter's 9-20 per round will take some time to catch up. (Approximately 18-26 rounds before the fighter catches up)

However, it still assumes that the wizard only takes high-damage spells. No cause fear, comprehend languages, charm person, counterspell, hold person, resistance, dispel magic, suggestion.



This comparison assumes that the Fighter's dumping all CS dice into Deadly Strike. If that's the basis for balance, then Combat Superiority has failed at its most fundamental purpose - giving Fighters balanced and meaningful tactical choices rather than just "I hit it with my sword."

When a Wizard with a balanced spell list balances against a Fighter who makes regular use of a balanced suite of tactical maneuvers - that's when we're in good form.  



It has also assumed that the wizard is memorizing a combat heavy spell list filled with nothing but damage dealing spells, which means that it is making the same sort of assumptions with the wizard that it is making with the fighter. It has merely taken the extreme damage dealing example of both classes and compared them.

Anyways, the OP math is very far off. I have a link to a comparison of a level 5 wizard to a level 5 fighter in my signature. Since the wizard is memorizing nothing but combat spells, I gave the fighter a 1d12 two handed weapon. Of course, a sword and board fighter will use a 1d8 weapon, and as such will have a lower DPR. But, such a fighter is equivalent to a wizard who memorizes a bunch of defense spells, so its DPR would go down as well.  

My final summation is that a wizard tends to be able to deal better AoE damage then the fighter, but at around 20 rounds the fighter has dealt close to the same amount of damage (even in terms of AoE damage). A fighter tends to be able to deal better single target damage (even over the course of 9 straight rounds of nova casting), unless the wizard memorizes only single target damage spells, in which case the wizard is better in the short run (nova damage) and far worse in the long run (over 16-20 rounds). All in all, things seem fairly balanced for now (though some very broken spells, such as hold person, do exist).  


It has also assumed that the wizard is memorizing a combat heavy spell list filled with nothing but damage dealing spells, which means that it is making the same sort of assumptions with the wizard that it is making with the fighter. It has merely taken the extreme damage dealing example of both classes and compared them.



Agreed - which makes me a bit worried about how they're going about balancing. Basically, you want "dpr-heavy" to balance for both, and for "tactical and diverse" to balance for both; and you want "dpr" to balance with "tactical" for both. I don't think they're there yet on CS' non-damaging Maneuvers, for example. 
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
Damage balancing just for the sake of it is just, for lack of a better word, pointless. The OP compares fighter with wizard but what with balancing ranger with sorcerer, rogue archer with necromancer etc etc... The game is not only about damage. We're not in Everquest, DaoC or WoW. If you consider classes, specialisations, backgrounds you'll realise easily that it's just impossible to get damage balanced. Is the game only about damage balancing ? I don't think so !

Don't forget that D&D throughout all editions has never been a hack and slash game but a Role Playing game. It's about bringing a bunch of buddies together on a saturday night and going adventuring, saving princesses, plundering hoards, killing dragons and bringing down baddies (goodies for those who feel like playing orcs or drows). Who really cares if Alassra Shentrantra Silverhand (The Simbul), Alustriel Silverhand or Elminster Aumar can outdamage any fighter of the same level ? Of course they can kill whole armies in a single round while fightersz can't, but is that a problem really ?

Arcane casters are just very fragile in the lower levels, it has always been this way, that's why they stay behind when the going gets rough. Then when they grow in levels they become more powerful but it doesn't mean that the other classes become useless. They can do many things even if they are not the best damage dealers ever living in the galaxy.

Personnally I liked the exp system we had in 2ed, it made leveling tougher for wizards. Maybe WotC could working something around that. But again balancing damage is pointless. Just give me a 5ed I will enjoy playing as I enjoyed playing the old editions (they were not perfect and thus are perfectible). If I have fun Role Playing, I don't care if your wizard does more damage than my dwarven war priest...

Just my 2 gold ingots

Khadrin
Damage balancing just for the sake of it is just, for lack of a better word, pointless. The OP compares fighter with wizard but what with balancing ranger with sorcerer, rogue archer with necromancer etc etc... The game is not only about damage. We're not in Everquest, DaoC or WoW. If you consider classes, specialisations, backgrounds you'll realise easily that it's just impossible to get damage balanced. Is the game only about damage balancing ? I don't think so !



No - but balancing damage is a starting point.  And it has the advantage of being relatively easy.


The next step is trying to create some sort of equivalency between status effects and damage (which 4E does already).  Maybe an attack that does 1 die of damage and pushes someone is roughly equivalent to another attack that does two dice of damage.  Now we can look at the fighter and say - well, he can trade an expertise die (1 die of damage) and push someone.  And we look at the wizards and say  (this spell pushes its targets back 1 square - so we need to reduce the damage of this spell by 1 die per target).  Etc.


No, it will not give you precise balance.  That isn't even really a practical goal (unless you go for the strictly formulated classes and powers of 4E).  But it gives you a starting point from which to begin the balancing process.


Carl   


....No, it will not give you precise balance.  That isn't even really a practical goal (unless you go for the strictly formulated classes and powers of 4E).  But it gives you a starting point from which to begin the balancing process....

 



I agree with your overall point 100% (and find posts claiming that trying to balance damage is pointless and should not be done very silly), but I have one minor nitpick: precise balance isn't really practical even with the 4e setup. In fact, 4e did not have precise balance. It was quite possible to build classes with drastic differences in terms of power. In fact, overall, I found WFRPG 3e to be better balanced than 4e (as I found that 4e's strict formulation really just made it easier to find where its balance failed).
Someone should do a survivability comparison.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Someone should do a survivability comparison.



too easy.

Fighter: plate armor and high hp = a lot of survivability

Wizard: no armor and low to extremely low hp = low survivability

The only mitigating factor I can think of is how much the wizard hides and gets protected by the other players, he stands in the open... he dead. He get's unlucky... he dead. He takes a risk... he dead.

I get the whole "quadratic power" and "god-like" abilites stuff at higher levels, but I think we may need to rethink some of that so the first couple levels of wizard aren't filled with so much more danger than the other classes. You should be an equal contribitor to the party, not invalid half the time and uber-god the other half. Of course, that's partially why I prefer the sorcerer

Sorry, "unconcious and unble to particiapate until healed" should replace "dead". Which is slightly better but still annoying
A Balance here would assume that the world is fair and balanced. A magicuser IS powerful and that what he is supposed to be. Until his Power is exhausted. 
A fighter is the best a normal Person can be, constantly. I dont see the point in waving fists against the deities why live is so unfair for certain people.
A fantasy world doenst need to be fair, thats why we have heroes. I couldn't care less if the groups wizard does a little more damage than my rogue/fighter/ranger.
There is no point in balancing only one aspect of the game until everything is equaled out, and then start to work on a nother aspect. The result would be just all classes being the same.
A wizards role isnt solely frying monsters, nor is a fighters to wait until the next fight finally starts.  
Cyber Dave, I am giving MY point of view, and I didn't say that people disagreeing with me are very silly so please just try and do the same. Seeing the game YOUR way doesn't make you right. You see it differently that's all. We're on this forum to discuss the game nothing more. Thank you for not being offensive in the future !

There are so many aspects to take into account when talking about balancing classes that I have the feeling that the game should not be only about damage balancing. For me balancing should be an overall thing, classes should be considered as part of a team and how they contribute to the team success and not damage wise. I just cannot understand why a wizard making more damage than a fighter is or could be a problem.
Again that's MY point of view and it doesn't mean I am right.
As I said in an earlier post. Balance usefulness, not damage. That's what it's really all about anyway.
My two copper.
Someone should do a survivability comparison.



too easy.

Fighter: plate armor and high hp = a lot of survivability

Wizard: no armor and low to extremely low hp = low survivability

The only mitigating factor I can think of is how much the wizard hides and gets protected by the other players, he stands in the open... he dead. He get's unlucky... he dead. He takes a risk... he dead.

I get the whole "quadratic power" and "god-like" abilites stuff at higher levels, but I think we may need to rethink some of that so the first couple levels of wizard aren't filled with so much more danger than the other classes. You should be an equal contribitor to the party, not invalid half the time and uber-god the other half. Of course, that's partially why I prefer the sorcerer

Sorry, "unconcious and unble to particiapate until healed" should replace "dead". Which is slightly better but still annoying



Actually with Shield and Mirror Image the Wizard is about equal to a fighter in the defense category if not better and seeing as they can do this nearly every encounter (assuming 4 encounters in a day like the play test packet suggests) at 5th level its possible for a Wizard to out 'defense' a fighter, but only if they use 90% of their spell slots on defense...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Someone should do a survivability comparison.



too easy.

Fighter: plate armor and high hp = a lot of survivability

Wizard: no armor and low to extremely low hp = low survivability

The only mitigating factor I can think of is how much the wizard hides and gets protected by the other players, he stands in the open... he dead. He get's unlucky... he dead. He takes a risk... he dead.

I get the whole "quadratic power" and "god-like" abilites stuff at higher levels, but I think we may need to rethink some of that so the first couple levels of wizard aren't filled with so much more danger than the other classes. You should be an equal contribitor to the party, not invalid half the time and uber-god the other half. Of course, that's partially why I prefer the sorcerer

Sorry, "unconcious and unble to particiapate until healed" should replace "dead". Which is slightly better but still annoying



Actually with Shield and Mirror Image the Wizard is about equal to a fighter in the defense category if not better and seeing as they can do this nearly every encounter (assuming 4 encounters in a day like the play test packet suggests) at 5th level its possible for a Wizard to out 'defense' a fighter, but only if they use 90% of their spell slots on defense...


what's that? a wizard can show versatility and cover different grounds? forbid the thought
Someone should do a survivability comparison.



too easy.

Fighter: plate armor and high hp = a lot of survivability

Wizard: no armor and low to extremely low hp = low survivability

The only mitigating factor I can think of is how much the wizard hides and gets protected by the other players, he stands in the open... he dead. He get's unlucky... he dead. He takes a risk... he dead.

I get the whole "quadratic power" and "god-like" abilites stuff at higher levels, but I think we may need to rethink some of that so the first couple levels of wizard aren't filled with so much more danger than the other classes. You should be an equal contribitor to the party, not invalid half the time and uber-god the other half. Of course, that's partially why I prefer the sorcerer

Sorry, "unconcious and unble to particiapate until healed" should replace "dead". Which is slightly better but still annoying



Actually with Shield and Mirror Image the Wizard is about equal to a fighter in the defense category if not better and seeing as they can do this nearly every encounter (assuming 4 encounters in a day like the play test packet suggests) at 5th level its possible for a Wizard to out 'defense' a fighter, but only if they use 90% of their spell slots on defense...


what's that? a wizard can show versatility and cover different grounds? forbid the thought



Versatility is one thing, outdoing other classes is unacceptable. Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
but they dont outdo the fighter, the whole extra HP, better weapon choices, actual armour, class abilities etcetcetc
Someone should do a survivability comparison.



too easy.

Fighter: plate armor and high hp = a lot of survivability

Wizard: no armor and low to extremely low hp = low survivability

The only mitigating factor I can think of is how much the wizard hides and gets protected by the other players, he stands in the open... he dead. He get's unlucky... he dead. He takes a risk... he dead.

I get the whole "quadratic power" and "god-like" abilites stuff at higher levels, but I think we may need to rethink some of that so the first couple levels of wizard aren't filled with so much more danger than the other classes. You should be an equal contribitor to the party, not invalid half the time and uber-god the other half. Of course, that's partially why I prefer the sorcerer

Sorry, "unconcious and unble to particiapate until healed" should replace "dead". Which is slightly better but still annoying



Actually with Shield and Mirror Image the Wizard is about equal to a fighter in the defense category if not better and seeing as they can do this nearly every encounter (assuming 4 encounters in a day like the play test packet suggests) at 5th level its possible for a Wizard to out 'defense' a fighter, but only if they use 90% of their spell slots on defense...


what's that? a wizard can show versatility and cover different grounds? forbid the thought



Versatility is one thing, outdoing other classes is unacceptable. Smile



I don't think I woujld call a wizard who uses 90% of his spells to get the AC of a fighter 'outdoing' the fighter.  

Unless you are going to argue that those remaining 10% are enough to make him as useful to the party as the fighter.*

Besides - a Dragpn Sorcerer does that much better than a wizard.  He can out defense the fighter starting at L1.  By L3 nothing in the Bestiary can hit him on less than a 20. 

Carl

*Although in AD&D1st I did used to have a wizard who took almost exclusively defensive spells.  But he had an excuse:  He was -6 to his hp (with no ConBonus - due to the death of a familar) - he didn't have more than 1 hp till third level.
Someone should do a survivability comparison.



too easy.

Fighter: plate armor and high hp = a lot of survivability

Wizard: no armor and low to extremely low hp = low survivability

The only mitigating factor I can think of is how much the wizard hides and gets protected by the other players, he stands in the open... he dead. He get's unlucky... he dead. He takes a risk... he dead.

I get the whole "quadratic power" and "god-like" abilites stuff at higher levels, but I think we may need to rethink some of that so the first couple levels of wizard aren't filled with so much more danger than the other classes. You should be an equal contribitor to the party, not invalid half the time and uber-god the other half. Of course, that's partially why I prefer the sorcerer

Sorry, "unconcious and unble to particiapate until healed" should replace "dead". Which is slightly better but still annoying



Actually with Shield and Mirror Image the Wizard is about equal to a fighter in the defense category if not better and seeing as they can do this nearly every encounter (assuming 4 encounters in a day like the play test packet suggests) at 5th level its possible for a Wizard to out 'defense' a fighter, but only if they use 90% of their spell slots on defense...


what's that? a wizard can show versatility and cover different grounds? forbid the thought



Versatility is one thing, outdoing other classes is unacceptable. Smile



I don't think I woujld call a wizard who uses 90% of his spells to get the AC of a fighter 'outdoing' the fighter.  

Unless you are going to argue that those remaining 10% are enough to make him as useful to the party as the fighter.*

Besides - a Dragpn Sorcerer does that much better than a wizard.  He can out defense the fighter starting at L1.  By L3 nothing in the Bestiary can hit him on less than a 20. 

Carl

*Although in AD&D1st I did used to have a wizard who took almost exclusively defensive spells.  But he had an excuse:  He was -6 to his hp (with no ConBonus - due to the death of a familar) - he didn't have more than 1 hp till third level.



That depends, if they have the Necromancer specialty and run out and distract all the monsters and attack with shocking grasp then yeah, they are still doing a pretty good job of being as effective or more effective than a sword and board fighter... In fact with the servant at 3rd level they are probably better than a sword and board fighter...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Someone should do a survivability comparison.



too easy.

Fighter: plate armor and high hp = a lot of survivability

Wizard: no armor and low to extremely low hp = low survivability

The only mitigating factor I can think of is how much the wizard hides and gets protected by the other players, he stands in the open... he dead. He get's unlucky... he dead. He takes a risk... he dead.

I get the whole "quadratic power" and "god-like" abilites stuff at higher levels, but I think we may need to rethink some of that so the first couple levels of wizard aren't filled with so much more danger than the other classes. You should be an equal contribitor to the party, not invalid half the time and uber-god the other half. Of course, that's partially why I prefer the sorcerer

Sorry, "unconcious and unble to particiapate until healed" should replace "dead". Which is slightly better but still annoying



Actually with Shield and Mirror Image the Wizard is about equal to a fighter in the defense category if not better and seeing as they can do this nearly every encounter (assuming 4 encounters in a day like the play test packet suggests) at 5th level its possible for a Wizard to out 'defense' a fighter, but only if they use 90% of their spell slots on defense...


what's that? a wizard can show versatility and cover different grounds? forbid the thought



Versatility is one thing, outdoing other classes is unacceptable. Smile



I don't think I woujld call a wizard who uses 90% of his spells to get the AC of a fighter 'outdoing' the fighter.  

Unless you are going to argue that those remaining 10% are enough to make him as useful to the party as the fighter.*

Besides - a Dragpn Sorcerer does that much better than a wizard.  He can out defense the fighter starting at L1.  By L3 nothing in the Bestiary can hit him on less than a 20. 

Carl

*Although in AD&D1st I did used to have a wizard who took almost exclusively defensive spells.  But he had an excuse:  He was -6 to his hp (with no ConBonus - due to the death of a familar) - he didn't have more than 1 hp till third level.



That depends, if they have the Necromancer specialty and run out and distract all the monsters and attack with shocking grasp then yeah, they are still doing a pretty good job of being as effective or more effective than a sword and board fighter... In fact with the servant at 3rd level they are probably better than a sword and board fighter...


also remember, a wizards spells expire, a fighters gear is forever
Someone should do a survivability comparison.



too easy.

Fighter: plate armor and high hp = a lot of survivability

Wizard: no armor and low to extremely low hp = low survivability

The only mitigating factor I can think of is how much the wizard hides and gets protected by the other players, he stands in the open... he dead. He get's unlucky... he dead. He takes a risk... he dead.

I get the whole "quadratic power" and "god-like" abilites stuff at higher levels, but I think we may need to rethink some of that so the first couple levels of wizard aren't filled with so much more danger than the other classes. You should be an equal contribitor to the party, not invalid half the time and uber-god the other half. Of course, that's partially why I prefer the sorcerer

Sorry, "unconcious and unble to particiapate until healed" should replace "dead". Which is slightly better but still annoying



Actually with Shield and Mirror Image the Wizard is about equal to a fighter in the defense category if not better and seeing as they can do this nearly every encounter (assuming 4 encounters in a day like the play test packet suggests) at 5th level its possible for a Wizard to out 'defense' a fighter, but only if they use 90% of their spell slots on defense...


what's that? a wizard can show versatility and cover different grounds? forbid the thought



Versatility is one thing, outdoing other classes is unacceptable. Smile



I don't think I woujld call a wizard who uses 90% of his spells to get the AC of a fighter 'outdoing' the fighter.  

Unless you are going to argue that those remaining 10% are enough to make him as useful to the party as the fighter.*

Besides - a Dragpn Sorcerer does that much better than a wizard.  He can out defense the fighter starting at L1.  By L3 nothing in the Bestiary can hit him on less than a 20. 

Carl

*Although in AD&D1st I did used to have a wizard who took almost exclusively defensive spells.  But he had an excuse:  He was -6 to his hp (with no ConBonus - due to the death of a familar) - he didn't have more than 1 hp till third level.



That depends, if they have the Necromancer specialty and run out and distract all the monsters and attack with shocking grasp then yeah, they are still doing a pretty good job of being as effective or more effective than a sword and board fighter... In fact with the servant at 3rd level they are probably better than a sword and board fighter...


also remember, a wizards spells expire, a fighters gear is forever


 Forever - unless they run into a Grey Ooze or a Rust Monster.


Carl
Someone should do a survivability comparison.



too easy.

Fighter: plate armor and high hp = a lot of survivability

Wizard: no armor and low to extremely low hp = low survivability

The only mitigating factor I can think of is how much the wizard hides and gets protected by the other players, he stands in the open... he dead. He get's unlucky... he dead. He takes a risk... he dead.

I get the whole "quadratic power" and "god-like" abilites stuff at higher levels, but I think we may need to rethink some of that so the first couple levels of wizard aren't filled with so much more danger than the other classes. You should be an equal contribitor to the party, not invalid half the time and uber-god the other half. Of course, that's partially why I prefer the sorcerer

Sorry, "unconcious and unble to particiapate until healed" should replace "dead". Which is slightly better but still annoying



Actually with Shield and Mirror Image the Wizard is about equal to a fighter in the defense category if not better and seeing as they can do this nearly every encounter (assuming 4 encounters in a day like the play test packet suggests) at 5th level its possible for a Wizard to out 'defense' a fighter, but only if they use 90% of their spell slots on defense...


what's that? a wizard can show versatility and cover different grounds? forbid the thought



Versatility is one thing, outdoing other classes is unacceptable. Smile



I don't think I woujld call a wizard who uses 90% of his spells to get the AC of a fighter 'outdoing' the fighter.  

Unless you are going to argue that those remaining 10% are enough to make him as useful to the party as the fighter.*

Besides - a Dragpn Sorcerer does that much better than a wizard.  He can out defense the fighter starting at L1.  By L3 nothing in the Bestiary can hit him on less than a 20. 

Carl

*Although in AD&D1st I did used to have a wizard who took almost exclusively defensive spells.  But he had an excuse:  He was -6 to his hp (with no ConBonus - due to the death of a familar) - he didn't have more than 1 hp till third level.



That depends, if they have the Necromancer specialty and run out and distract all the monsters and attack with shocking grasp then yeah, they are still doing a pretty good job of being as effective or more effective than a sword and board fighter... In fact with the servant at 3rd level they are probably better than a sword and board fighter...


also remember, a wizards spells expire, a fighters gear is forever


 Forever - unless they run into a Grey Ooze or a Rust Monster.


Carl



outliers should never be used when making a comparitive assumption

Someone should do a survivability comparison.



too easy.

Fighter: plate armor and high hp = a lot of survivability

Wizard: no armor and low to extremely low hp = low survivability

The only mitigating factor I can think of is how much the wizard hides and gets protected by the other players, he stands in the open... he dead. He get's unlucky... he dead. He takes a risk... he dead.

I get the whole "quadratic power" and "god-like" abilites stuff at higher levels, but I think we may need to rethink some of that so the first couple levels of wizard aren't filled with so much more danger than the other classes. You should be an equal contribitor to the party, not invalid half the time and uber-god the other half. Of course, that's partially why I prefer the sorcerer

Sorry, "unconcious and unble to particiapate until healed" should replace "dead". Which is slightly better but still annoying



Actually with Shield and Mirror Image the Wizard is about equal to a fighter in the defense category if not better and seeing as they can do this nearly every encounter (assuming 4 encounters in a day like the play test packet suggests) at 5th level its possible for a Wizard to out 'defense' a fighter, but only if they use 90% of their spell slots on defense...


what's that? a wizard can show versatility and cover different grounds? forbid the thought



Versatility is one thing, outdoing other classes is unacceptable. Smile



I don't think I woujld call a wizard who uses 90% of his spells to get the AC of a fighter 'outdoing' the fighter.  

Unless you are going to argue that those remaining 10% are enough to make him as useful to the party as the fighter.*

Besides - a Dragpn Sorcerer does that much better than a wizard.  He can out defense the fighter starting at L1.  By L3 nothing in the Bestiary can hit him on less than a 20. 

Carl

*Although in AD&D1st I did used to have a wizard who took almost exclusively defensive spells.  But he had an excuse:  He was -6 to his hp (with no ConBonus - due to the death of a familar) - he didn't have more than 1 hp till third level.



That depends, if they have the Necromancer specialty and run out and distract all the monsters and attack with shocking grasp then yeah, they are still doing a pretty good job of being as effective or more effective than a sword and board fighter... In fact with the servant at 3rd level they are probably better than a sword and board fighter...


also remember, a wizards spells expire, a fighters gear is forever



Encounters last around 4-5 rounds and there are 4 encounters per day on average. A 5th level Wizard can cast each of those spells every encounter if they memorize Mirror Image in a 3rd level slot. Not to mention they last 10 round each so its possible to get 2 encounters in each spell if they rush to the next encounter...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Someone should do a survivability comparison.



too easy.

Fighter: plate armor and high hp = a lot of survivability

Wizard: no armor and low to extremely low hp = low survivability

The only mitigating factor I can think of is how much the wizard hides and gets protected by the other players, he stands in the open... he dead. He get's unlucky... he dead. He takes a risk... he dead.

I get the whole "quadratic power" and "god-like" abilites stuff at higher levels, but I think we may need to rethink some of that so the first couple levels of wizard aren't filled with so much more danger than the other classes. You should be an equal contribitor to the party, not invalid half the time and uber-god the other half. Of course, that's partially why I prefer the sorcerer

Sorry, "unconcious and unble to particiapate until healed" should replace "dead". Which is slightly better but still annoying



Actually with Shield and Mirror Image the Wizard is about equal to a fighter in the defense category if not better and seeing as they can do this nearly every encounter (assuming 4 encounters in a day like the play test packet suggests) at 5th level its possible for a Wizard to out 'defense' a fighter, but only if they use 90% of their spell slots on defense...


what's that? a wizard can show versatility and cover different grounds? forbid the thought



Versatility is one thing, outdoing other classes is unacceptable. Smile



I don't think I woujld call a wizard who uses 90% of his spells to get the AC of a fighter 'outdoing' the fighter.  

Unless you are going to argue that those remaining 10% are enough to make him as useful to the party as the fighter.*

Besides - a Dragpn Sorcerer does that much better than a wizard.  He can out defense the fighter starting at L1.  By L3 nothing in the Bestiary can hit him on less than a 20. 

Carl

*Although in AD&D1st I did used to have a wizard who took almost exclusively defensive spells.  But he had an excuse:  He was -6 to his hp (with no ConBonus - due to the death of a familar) - he didn't have more than 1 hp till third level.



That depends, if they have the Necromancer specialty and run out and distract all the monsters and attack with shocking grasp then yeah, they are still doing a pretty good job of being as effective or more effective than a sword and board fighter... In fact with the servant at 3rd level they are probably better than a sword and board fighter...


also remember, a wizards spells expire, a fighters gear is forever



Encounters last around 4-5 rounds and there are 4 encounters per day on average. A 5th level Wizard can cast each of those spells every encounter if they memorize Mirror Image in a 3rd level slot. Not to mention they last 10 round each so its possible to get 2 encounters in each spell if they rush to the next encounter...



If you there is less than 60 seconds between 2 encounters, then they basically just 1 long encounter.

 
The only mitigating factor I can think of is how much the wizard hides and gets protected by the other players, he stands in the open... he dead. He get's unlucky... he dead. He takes a risk... he dead.  



So does anyone think they seriously wont get the usual compensating spells that make hiding.(invisibility anyone) and staying out of reach (flight and blink) and buffing yourself(mage armor and shapechange into something big) ?
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

 
The only mitigating factor I can think of is how much the wizard hides and gets protected by the other players, he stands in the open... he dead. He get's unlucky... he dead. He takes a risk... he dead.  



So does anyone think they seriously wont get the usual compensating spells that make hiding.(invisibility anyone) and staying out of reach (flight and blink) and buffing yourself(mage armor and shapechange into something big) ?



They probably will, but I was mainly talking about the first three levels or so. Wizard survivablity jumps as he gains access to "defensive" spells, but until then, or if he isn't willing to devote the majority of his slots to those spells, he has very low survivability unless the other players actively defend him. This is opinion of course, but it's backed up by some pretty compelling numbers.
 
The only mitigating factor I can think of is how much the wizard hides and gets protected by the other players, he stands in the open... he dead. He get's unlucky... he dead. He takes a risk... he dead.  



So does anyone think they seriously wont get the usual compensating spells that make hiding.(invisibility anyone) and staying out of reach (flight and blink) and buffing yourself(mage armor and shapechange into something big) ?



They probably will, but I was mainly talking about the first three levels or so. Wizard survivablity jumps as he gains access to "defensive" spells, but until then, or if he isn't willing to devote the majority of his slots to those spells, he has very low survivability unless the other players actively defend him. This is opinion of course, but it's backed up by some pretty compelling numbers.


 I thoroughly detest the low survivability of all the classes at low level but I also consider it in flux... the fighter actually has higher survivability than hit points indicate (use of parry at minimum). Low hit points make the survivor option way too useful, in effect I want to pull the if a feat is that good give it to everyone trick and say all the heros are tough/lucky/blessed or insert flavor here and have that benefit.
I think the best idea I have seen for arcane casters was allowing a cantrip form of shield that can be spent or which collapses after blocking certain number of hit points. Then the casters general offense or whatever can be delaid by the need to recover/bolster his deffences.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Yea, Lokiare's suggestion that the shield spell be turned into a cantrip that gifts 1d6 temporary hit points is one of the best suggestions I have seen to date. I REALLY hope they implement it. Which is weird, because I don't usually value his input...

But, I do have to say, I also believe that they seem to be putting some real effort into keeping the game breaking spells out of this edition. And, I think that continual efforts to judge the wizard's overall power based on spells that do not exist yet is counterproductive to playtesting. 


Long story short, right now, when comparing survivability, the fighter is leaps and bounds ahead of the wizard. He receives at least 6 more hit points at level 1. He will receive an average of at least 3 less hit points per level. He will be hit far more often than the fighter (when monsters attack him, which will logically be any time he makes a big show of himself by going nova). I think that is a pretty fair balance against the wizard’s versatility, especially since the current fighter is always more effective at single target damage over the course of 16-20 rounds, and can compare favorably (while still being slightly inferior) to the overall damage dealt by a wizard with a spell list that favors AoE blast mechanics. 


Yea, Lokiare's suggestion that the shield spell be turned into a cantrip that gifts 1d6 temporary hit points is one of the best suggestions I have seen to date. I REALLY hope they implement it. Which is weird, because I don't usually value his input...




He can be highly variable at times (but he does have a creative bent under the hood). Like many of us here actually.



But, I do have to say, I also believe that they seem to be putting some real effort into keeping the game breaking spells out of this edition. And, I think that continual efforts to judge the wizard's overall power based on spells that do not exist yet is counterproductive to playtesting.



Hey I am in favor of narrowing that defensive gap in magical ways that sacrefice some action economy (isnt that kind of he concept of the shield cantrip. The premise of the caster being differently defended  is kind of core  - the effects that do it need a balance factor true.

In 1e a combination of spells and items could make a mu better defended than the fighter as they got towards higher levels. We can call that broken or just another I start bad and get progressively better effects (the middle of the road effect defended differently not necessarily worse).


  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."