brad bender's page

Look, this is the age old D&D debate.

The fact is that casters are terrible from levels 1-5 or so. They are in line for 5-10, then more powerful from 11 on.

That's just life. Martials dominate the game in low levels, it trades off in higher levels. The idea that fighters have it so terrible in pathfinder is silly. Most games I have been in show that fighters, paladins, etc are dominant through most of the game.

Anyone hook me up with a copy of this? PM me please.

One question I would have is that while it is fine and dandy to put in different orientations in the game, citing historic reference, what happens when that reference is expounded upon resulting in persecution etc?

So, what happens when a character is either hunted for being different and what happens if a character attempts to hunt the ones different because of their ideals. I can easily see a lot of different alignments fully justifying the murder of homosexual etc NPC's or PC's.

Churches and groups throughout history have afterall effectively lynched those sorts of groups. Seems like a dangerous precedence to bring into a game, imo.

One bump. Anyone? I'll DM.

We are in the process of putting together a group right now. We have one more spot left, so email me at bradgbender@gmail.com if you are interested.

How south is "just south" of Nashvegas?

Near Smyrna.

brad bender wrote:

They then cut him loose and write off the debt. This is how it is done in practice.

Recently, I was late paying a $5 difference that insurance didn't cover. The next week, a collection agency was knocking at my door. I am not making this up. A lot of providers don't write it off -- so making a blanket statement that they all do is false, even if SOME do.

Depends on your collectibility. If you were on medicaid/welfare I bet you wouldn't get that. That is my point. Those who are so poor as to be in the "welfare" category are not being harassed by collection agencies.

Can't get blood from a stone.

brad bender wrote:

lastknightleft wrote:

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

Poor people are too stupid to comprehend programs that would allow them to take advantage of rebates, so we need to make it easier on them? Wow... Not to mention that when the section of the poor population that is smart enough to do so files their taxes properly, they generally get MORE money back than they paid in, so any increase in tax (even if it is offset to a certain degree--i'm assuming a break even point) will cause them to lose money.

oh okay, so I must be one of those stupid poor, because despite the fact that I've had to live off of ramen noodles and even then went days without eating (other than family who were nice enough to give me money to buy groceries)because I had rent to pay, I never once got more back for my taxes than I put in. And hey, I filed online using all those government tools to make it possible to get the best rebate possible. Hmm, I guess the government was just out to get me.

FIFTY PERCENT of this country pays nothing in Federal Income tax, half. 46% of those 50% get money than $250 back. So, just to summarize.

You didn't pay anything in federal income taxes.
You got a refund for more than you paid in, meaning you had a net gain in taxes.

Conclusion: You recieved welfare.

Wow did you just tell me that I paid no federal income tax, or that I got back more than I paid in? because I have pay stubs and tax forms that prove you are wrong. So tell me again what I did or didn't do?

"you" is a hypothetical generalization, relax sport.

Charlie Bell wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

Poor people are...stupid...

Naturally...otherwise they wouldn't be poor, would they?

And there's the root of statism. That the unwashed masses are just too dumb to run their own lives, and clearly they must be governed by their betters for their own good.

Interestingly, I view it as the root of economic Darwinism. The poor are just too dumb/lazy to ever amount to anything. They deserve what they get, so why empathize?

Good way to get people to listen to you, antagonize and act immature and generally unrealistic. If you want to roll that line of logic down the ole' hill then why not just cut off welfare/medicaid and see what happens to society?

There is a point where you have to help people out and while I agree we are past that point, you cannot generalize the fact that all those who are poor deserve it.

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

That doesn't make the debt any less the patient's. Hospitals may budget for it and not try too hard to collect it, but they sure as hell aren't going to tell Bob McPoorguy that he doesn't have to pay it back. But again, that's a subject for another topic.

And of course the financial consequences make it still harder for Bob McPoorguy to climb off the s#%& heap. As long as you except the premise that poor people are poor because they deserve it, the whole thing becomes much easier to swallow.

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

Point of what I was getting at, is the tax structure probably does need to be changed, but not in a way that is going to disproportionately favor the wealthy...that, however is about as likely as me having a threesome with Halley Berry and Rihanna.

That's the beauty of a consumption tax: It doesn't care where the money came from.

His point is that a consumption, flat, or VAT is all a regressive tax and that it is damaging to the lower classes. Whether you think that is fair or not is another topic, but the point is that if you implemented a VAT instead of, or in conjunction with an income tax it would put the lower classes in a worse position than they are in right now.

brad bender wrote:

Sure, but let me know the next time a hospital tries to collect from someone in Section8 housing. Hospitals budget something called "Indigent Care", where they just write it off because they know they won't see a dime. Also, they will have medicaid. So, in either case their medical care is a big fat ZERO, paid for by the taxpayer.

Trust me, wife/mother/sister are physicians and advise hospital boards.

That doesn't make the debt any less the patient's. Hospitals may budget for it and not try too hard to collect it, but they sure as hell aren't going to tell Bob McPoorguy that he doesn't have to pay it back. But again, that's a subject for another topic.

Point of what I was getting at, is the tax structure probably does need to be changed, but not in a way that is going to disproportionately favor the wealthy...that, however is about as likely as me having a threesome with Halley Berry and Rihanna.

First off, the hospital DOES tell him that. They then send him to the financial aid department and get the medicaid docs filled out. They then cut him loose and write off the debt. This is how it is done in practice. A business, whether it is a hospital or otherwise cannot afford to spend money on a debt they simply will never collect.

I don't think anyone on the "wealthy" side is saying they want to pay less taxes, it is that they want the poor/middle class to have skin in the game. More importantly they don't want to keep seeing large numbers of poor people voting and demanding things that they don't have to pay for.

Look around. This administration is doing nothing but trying to take wealth from the top 20% and give it to the bottom 40%. The middle 40% are just trying to stay out of it the best they can. The problem is when the top 20% feel like they are getting shafted they shut down the economy.

brad bender wrote:

Incorrect. Your analysis may be accurate to the megawealthy such as Gates, Buffet, Ellison, etc. It has no bearing on the other 9.9999% of the wealth in this country.

Most "extremely wealthy" people in this country make between 500M and 2MM a year, a band where income taxes are incredibly important. The primary reason still comes from the fact that capital gains are still able to be managed. You rarely *need* to sell a capital asset, so you don't need to recognize the gain. Additionally, there are alot of ways to offset capital gains and manipulate them and the strategies are relatively simple and well known.

So again, in my profession, I hear alot about income taxes and a whole lot less about capital gains taxes.

If you actually read the study, you'll see that the income progression from earned -> capital is actually pretty smooth as one climbs the income ladder. As to your professional experience: If you prefer to lend more weight to anecdotal evidence than hard data, that's your perogative, but I certainly don't.

Your "hard data" fails to take into consideration the recongition for accounting purposes of that wealth and how it would change in reality according to tax code. I am sure at given rates the data is accurate, it however cannot indicate the patterns and things going on behind the scenes of those numbers.

This is where someone in the industry will simply never grasp it. Unless you are in high end finance, accounting, m/a, or pe you simply won't see it. So yes, I will take my real life experience over your internet founded data, anyday.

brad bender wrote:

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

brad bender wrote:

So, now you are imposing your ideals on other taxpayers. You expect higher income taxpayers to makeup for your idea of what is right and wrong. Also, you make the point of talking about "Living wage", this is another great idea. This is how America now defines poverty. Living wage means a greater deal of comfort in poverty than anywhere else in the world. Go to Section8 housing and count up the number of plasma tvs, laptops, cable tv, cars, and starving kids.

No I was proposing food for thought and expressing my thoughts regarding the whole situation. If people in section 8 are buying these things, I would question whether or not there were additonal, untaxed sources of income TBH. As to a living wage providing more "comfort" that is not the definiton used for living wage IIRC. The living wage number is what is necessary to pay rent, utilities, average cost of food, and (possibly, but not sure) health and related insurance. It does not take into account booze money, hooker money, flat screen money, etc. If so it would probably be called something other than living wage.

Go to poor neighborhoods and take a look. To live poor you don't need much money. You can have roommates, share an apartment, eat ramen, and have no luxuries. You are living on 500$/mo.

Welfare here is 2-3x that amount for a single person.

Welfare is a whole 'nother conversation 2bh. As for the aforementioned living scenario, I'll have to do some research, but I'm willing to guess that it assumes you live alone, and have things such as insurance (which, considering 1 trip to the ER can be enough to bankrupt someone, is pretty necessary IMO).

Sure, but let me know the next time a hospital tries to collect from someone in Section8 housing. Hospitals budget something called "Indigent Care", where they just write it off because they know they won't see a dime. Also, they will have medicaid. So, in either case their medical care is a big fat ZERO, paid for by the taxpayer.

Trust me, wife/mother/sister are physicians and advise hospital boards.

brad bender wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

brad bender wrote:

This is a progressive idea. That somehow the wealthy are all tax evaders through incredibly complex strategies. The loopholes that exist are almost exclusively on the business side. Most wealthy individuals *LOSE* more tax breaks that the middle class. If you make more than ~250k then you get to experience AMT, which means you lose alot of the most basic deductions like home mortgages, student loans, and medical expenses.

So in short, you are incorrect. The less money you make the lower your marginal tax liability (average % you pay on each dollar earned from dollar #1) and in gross terms (total number of dollars paid in taxes).

What you say is true, but I'd add that the truly wealthy don't care about income tax; they care about capital gains tax.

Incorrect again. I am both in the tax bracket we are talking about and work in the profession of providing advice to those in a similar position (Investment Banking).

Capital gains is easy to manipulate, very much so. You can control the timing and execution, you can offset it, and it is generally done in a more flexible manner.

Income has none of the above. Income is subject to state and local taxes. Income is tiered and unyielding.

If I make 1MM this year and pay 350k in taxes at a 35% marginal rate, do I care about the fact that I *MAY* have to pay 15% on capital gains (ie: profits)? If I don't want to pay those taxes, I simply don't sell the asset, solved. If that doesn't work, I offset it.

So, sorry, wrong again. Income taxes are innumerably more important than capital gains.

Amusingly, what you're saying underscores my point, rather than refuting it. Because earned income, as opposed to capital income, makes up a smaller and smaller percentage of total income the higher up the wealth scale one goes, income taxes become less important that capital gains taxes.

From a study...

Incorrect. Your analysis may be accurate to the megawealthy such as Gates, Buffet, Ellison, etc. It has no bearing on the other 9.9999% of the wealth in this country.

Most "extremely wealthy" people in this country make between 500M and 2MM a year, a band where income taxes are incredibly important. The primary reason still comes from the fact that capital gains are still able to be managed. You rarely *need* to sell a capital asset, so you don't need to recognize the gain. Additionally, there are alot of ways to offset capital gains and manipulate them and the strategies are relatively simple and well known.

So again, in my profession, I hear alot about income taxes and a whole lot less about capital gains taxes.

brad bender wrote:

So, now you are imposing your ideals on other taxpayers. You expect higher income taxpayers to makeup for your idea of what is right and wrong. Also, you make the point of talking about "Living wage", this is another great idea. This is how America now defines poverty. Living wage means a greater deal of comfort in poverty than anywhere else in the world. Go to Section8 housing and count up the number of plasma tvs, laptops, cable tv, cars, and starving kids.

No I was proposing food for thought and expressing my thoughts regarding the whole situation. If people in section 8 are buying these things, I would question whether or not there were additonal, untaxed sources of income TBH. As to a living wage providing more "comfort" that is not the definiton used for living wage IIRC. The living wage number is what is necessary to pay rent, utilities, average cost of food, and (possibly, but not sure) health and related insurance. It does not take into account booze money, hooker money, flat screen money, etc. If so it would probably be called something other than living wage.

Go to poor neighborhoods and take a look. To live poor you don't need much money. You can have roommates, share an apartment, eat ramen, and have no luxuries. You are living on 500$/mo.

Welfare here is 2-3x that amount for a single person.

brad bender wrote:

This is a progressive idea. That somehow the wealthy are all tax evaders through incredibly complex strategies. The loopholes that exist are almost exclusively on the business side. Most wealthy individuals *LOSE* more tax breaks that the middle class. If you make more than ~250k then you get to experience AMT, which means you lose alot of the most basic deductions like home mortgages, student loans, and medical expenses.

So in short, you are incorrect. The less money you make the lower your marginal tax liability (average % you pay on each dollar earned from dollar #1) and in gross terms (total number of dollars paid in taxes).

What you say is true, but I'd add that the truly wealthy don't care about income tax; they care about capital gains tax.

Incorrect again. I am both in the tax bracket we are talking about and work in the profession of providing advice to those in a similar position (Investment Banking).

Capital gains is easy to manipulate, very much so. You can control the timing and execution, you can offset it, and it is generally done in a more flexible manner.

Income has none of the above. Income is subject to state and local taxes. Income is tiered and unyielding.

If I make 1MM this year and pay 350k in taxes at a 35% marginal rate, do I care about the fact that I *MAY* have to pay 15% on capital gains (ie: profits)? If I don't want to pay those taxes, I simply don't sell the asset, solved. If that doesn't work, I offset it.

So, sorry, wrong again. Income taxes are innumerably more important than capital gains.

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

Poor people are too stupid to comprehend programs that would allow them to take advantage of rebates, so we need to make it easier on them? Wow... Not to mention that when the section of the poor population that is smart enough to do so files their taxes properly, they generally get MORE money back than they paid in, so any increase in tax (even if it is offset to a certain degree--i'm assuming a break even point) will cause them to lose money.

oh okay, so I must be one of those stupid poor, because despite the fact that I've had to live off of ramen noodles and even then went days without eating (other than family who were nice enough to give me money to buy groceries)because I had rent to pay, I never once got more back for my taxes than I put in. And hey, I filed online using all those government tools to make it possible to get the best rebate possible. Hmm, I guess the government was just out to get me.

FIFTY PERCENT of this country pays nothing in Federal Income tax, half. 46% of those 50% get money than $250 back. So, just to summarize.

You didn't pay anything in federal income taxes.
You got a refund for more than you paid in, meaning you had a net gain in taxes.

Conclusion: You recieved welfare.

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

placing all of the tax burden on the consumer.

Corporations don't take taxes out of their profits, they calculate the cost of taxes into their products and make the consumer pay it. So every tax on a corporation is a tax that the consumer directly pays. Unless we live in a magical land where corporations only calculate the cost of their taxes after sales and assume it's their duty to pay it without increasing costs. In which case great.

I'm sorry, you are just grossly wrong. Go look up the tax code on the two standard methods of incorporation of taxes (C and S). You will that in both cases the tax liability is directly passed down to the company bottom line and in the case of C companies it is double taxed.

Your failure in comprehension comes from the fact that you fail to reconcile the fact that not all companies operate within the same tax domicile. If you have a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (zero tax across the board) competing with a company from NYC (greater than 50% all in tax) your theory falls apart in record time... in a ball of fire.

What people fail to recognize about these proposed tax changes is that, given the way that the tax system is set up now (with all of its rebates, etc), any change, whether it's a flat tax, a national sales tax, etc. is going to cause those who have lower incomes to pay more than what they're paying now. I fall into the low end of the middle class, am married and have 3 kids (two of which I claim on my taxes). Every year that I have filed federal income tax, I have received at least what I had deducted in taxes back. As soon as I had a kid to claim, I started getting more than I had had deducted back. The question of whether or not this is fair is a point for another debate. I just think it's disingenuous for people to claim that poor folks are going to benefit with a flat tax or national sales tax...it simply isn't going to happen...paying anything is going to be greater than what they are paying now.

Now the question is, is it "fair" that poor people aren't paying anything? That really depends. I believe that there should definitely be a threshhold where people who fall below it are exempted from paying taxes. What that threshold should be is sure to be the subject of much debate but the fact remains that minimum wage is around $7/hour, yet in most areas a liveable wage is $14-16/hour. Why should people who don't even make enough to support themselves have that amount reduced even further? Cry about being fair all you want, but that's just cruel.

So, now you are imposing your ideals on other taxpayers. You expect higher income taxpayers to makeup for your idea of what is right and wrong. Also, you make the point of talking about "Living wage", this is another great idea. This is how America now defines poverty. Living wage means a greater deal of comfort in poverty than anywhere else in the world. Go to Section8 housing and count up the number of plasma tvs, laptops, cable tv, cars, and starving kids.

I am not educated enough to really speak about taxes. However, I find the analogy of taxing the wealthy more tantamount to stealing, while valid in some respects, ignores the fact that because of all the loopholes, are we not taxing the middle class and poor more? Is that not also 'stealing'?

This is a progressive idea. That somehow the wealthy are all tax evaders through incredibly complex strategies. The loopholes that exist are almost exclusively on the business side. Most wealthy individuals *LOSE* more tax breaks that the middle class. If you make more than ~250k then you get to experience AMT, which means you lose alot of the most basic deductions like home mortgages, student loans, and medical expenses.

So in short, you are incorrect. The less money you make the lower your marginal tax liability (average % you pay on each dollar earned from dollar #1) and in gross terms (total number of dollars paid in taxes).

brad bender wrote:

The idea that it is ok to take more from someone who has more is a short step to justifying thievery. Where does it stop? Who determines what is "fair"? How is fair that even the poorest people in this country have cable tv, internet, and cars. Why is it that 20% of this country is being asked to support the other 80%?

It's not quite that simple. Concentrations of wealth are frequently garnered by inflicting social costs on the surrounding community in terms of environment, jobs, health etc. Carnegie for example got rich off of child labor, Ross Perot got rich by selling the government 5000 dollar toilets. The progressive tax serves to partially redress the costs paid for by society to enable individual wealth. In essence it's a redress for what that 20 percent "stole" from the 80 percent. The increasing imbalance between rich and the not rich in this country is rapidly changing us to a country that resembles a third world nation... with the attendant consequences there of.

That is such a silly justification. So you are saying that the fact that 90% of the taxes in this country are paid by the top 10% of the producers it is because they are all somehow stealing or harming society? How about the fact that last year half of this country paid *ZERO* federal income tax, how is that fair to everyone else?

You bring up robber barons as justification. What does that have to do with the physician? The small business owner? The accountant? They are not taking from society in any way. In fact all of the above are providing services and jobs to society, quite the opposite of what you contend.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Bitter Thorn wrote:

1. I'm ambiguous about this objection. You could well be right, or barring that scenario you just buy your yacht over seas, but would it be worse than the current mode of gaming the system?

2. Purchases made directly by nonprofits could still be exempt from sales tax. IIRC that's how it works for CO sales tax and I presume the country.

3. I think eliminating corporate income tax, capitol gains tax and avoiding a VAT goes a long way toward addressing the first part of the objection, and for the second part don't large corporation do that already?

1. I think it would be a good deal worse. Look at goods that currently have high taxes associated with them: the vast majority of all cigarettes consumed in NY state are black market.

2. Make them exempt and all churchgoers will just buy goods through their churches, instead of directly. Therefore, belonging to a church would make every person immune from paying any taxes.

3. They do, but luckily the U.S. collects a lot more on captial gains and income than they do on sales. But if sales were the only source of tax revenue, then all of the wealthy would be immune from taxation simply by virtue of buying their goods through companies set up for that purpose.

Your objections are sound if the goal is to eliminate all taxes, and therefore abolish the government altogether. Short of that goal, I don't think they address the problems.

source for that claim on #1?

Go to the Philly/Delaware border and see it. Look how many stores, not just high end stores, are just on the other side of the border in tax-free delaware. Look at the means people are willing to take to avoid paying sales tax, do you really think this will not extend further? Think about your taxes every year. You know, that line where you are supposed to declare all goods purchased on the internet so you can pay says tax, how much do you think that line gets used?

Jared Ouimette wrote:

thefishcometh wrote:

Nope. Not fair at all. Person A makes $20,000 per year, and person B makes $1,000,000. Now, lets assume there's a 10% flat tax. This means that Person A loses $2,000 and Person B loses $100,000. Which amount do you think is worth more, $2,000 for someone who only earns $18,000, or $100,000 for someone with $900,000?

Progressive taxes are fair, a flat tax just puts more money in the pocket of the rich.

I agree with this dude.

Yep. But the, your knowledge of basic economics is somewhere around "nil", so that makes perfect sense.

The idea that it is ok to take more from someone who has more is a short step to justifying thievery. Where does it stop? Who determines what is "fair"? How is fair that even the poorest people in this country have cable tv, internet, and cars. Why is it that 20% of this country is being asked to support the other 80%?

brad bender wrote:

Caineach wrote:

I personally love custom magic items for this:

Hammer of Fabricate: use activated (swing it) fabricate. spell lvl 5, caster lvl 9 X 2000 gp for use activated = 90,000gp. Well worth the investment. 6 seconds for every 10 cubic feet of wall.

Wow is that a gem. What DM would ever let this fly? The rules for magic item creation are not intended to be used like this. Otherwise, next time you run a game I am going to make:

Hammer of Cure Light Wounds

Spell level 1, Caster Level 1, x 2000 GP for use activated = 2,000 GP. Cool?

How about a million other spells/items like this?

Traps of cure light wounds are cheaper. Put a spell trap on something with CLW it costs 500 for CL1 SP1, instead of 2000 (I would not allow it). But when you consider wands are are 500 for 50 charges, if a party really wants to buy your hammer instead of 4 wands I would let them. Sure, my game blows through about 50 charges a dungeon and has sessions where we wear out multiple wands, but this would just let us spend our money on more interesting things instead of everyone carrying 2 wands. My GM refuses though.

As for the hammer of fabricate, I plan on getting one in my current campaign. My GM already told me he would let our caster make it. I don't think it would even be the most powerful item the party gets. Certainly not the most expensive, as we already got a possessed, intelligent staff of the magi at lvl 1.

Ok, fine, the hammer does D6 damage per hit to heal D8+1? So then make it a use activated sponge. Point being that this is a gross raping of the "use activated" rules and item creation in general.

As for the intelligent staff of magi etc as a basis for saying the hammer is ok, then thats fine, you just have an idiot for a DM. That game will last about 7 minutes at this rate. While it is cool to have really neat items, they are also the fast path to brokenation.

I personally love custom magic items for this:

Hammer of Fabricate: use activated (swing it) fabricate. spell lvl 5, caster lvl 9 X 2000 gp for use activated = 90,000gp. Well worth the investment. 6 seconds for every 10 cubic feet of wall.

Wow is that a gem. What DM would ever let this fly? The rules for magic item creation are not intended to be used like this. Otherwise, next time you run a game I am going to make:

Hammer of Cure Light Wounds

Spell level 1, Caster Level 1, x 2000 GP for use activated = 2,000 GP. Cool?

How about a million other spells/items like this?

Well, both are nasty I agree.

However, a 13th level harm does 130points of damage, 65 on a save.
Avasculate does a static half, with a side bonus on a failed save which will likely be very very rare.

So, the only way avasculate is really better is if you have some hit point monster like a dragon. it really needs to be something with 300+ hitpoints so you know you can take off 150. Otherwise I would prefer a Harm simply due to the one slot difference.

That 1 slot could be alot of things.

Compare Avasculate to Harm, then talk :)

Harm is a far superior combat spell than Avasculate. A level lower, a determined amount of damage which can be used in conjunction with metamagic as needed.

Scrolls, the most important thing are scrolls.

This gives the wizard the ability to basically have almost any 1st-3rd level spell at a whim, on the cheap.

The ability to do this is huge, it means unlimited versatility, and versatility in D&D is how you win :)

Freddy: alot of problems. First off Harm is great and all, except the cleric needs to get to melee range, cast it, and pray. Even after all that he can't win, he can just severely wound the wizard. The wizard then slays the cleric outright, regardless of equipment or spells the cleric has. Forcecage or Shapechange can usually do most things a wizard needs. Let alone the fact that Death Ward will completely negate that Harm, as well as alot of things which might be on a contingency.

Sigurd: I agree. The pvp idea is moot for the most part. How a wizard and cleric should be measured is more about how they help their group and both are excellent, but agree that a Wizard can be MORE helpful but a cleric is more NECESSARY.

Lazar: Precisely, one bad move and it is over.

Beckett: Disagree, give them a few precast spells and it is simply over for the cleric. Cast a shapechange, greater blink, stuff like that and it is simply no longer a fight. Wish and Miracle are even, and in this situation I would prefer wish to miracle, wish costs exp and loses the "fickle god" problem. Wizard has far more options on dealing with a cleric than vice versa. If a cleric charges the wizard he simply defensively casts (no roll needed at that level), takes a 5' backwards.

I am not sure what wizards you have played with, but single effect offensive spells are the forte' of wizards, clerics are buffers and mass effect friendly spells. The wizard will rain down an incredible beating on the cleric pushing him purely defensive. I would wager than I could drop the cleric in this situation 99% of the time and in 5 rounds or less 90% of the time. No PRC's and straight core. It is just that easy.

Its too hard to say, there are way too many variables in play. At high levels it is simply an initiative game. If the wizard wins init, then the cleric will likely never get to act at all, particularly if there is no real limits on the cheesiness. (Poof: timestop, 4 delayed blast empowered, energy subbed fireballs). Cleric comes out and takes 60d6 x 1.5 in damage, sure he gets four saves, but ouch.

Or the wizard just summons three times and the cleric wakes up surrounded by bad things.

Alternative is semi-true. If cleric wins init, he cant really end the fight. His best bet would be to be built really well for dispelling to strip the wizard of all his long term buffs, including stacked contingencies and pray. If he can get those off, then he has a chance in round two. It still depends on what is fair game, if the time stop happens right after that it still doesn't matter.

The cleric will be hanging his hope around a few spells, the wizard w ill have a veritable arsenal.

Cliffs notes: Wizard should win 90% of time. Pretty easily.