Please stop talking. I've been keeping up on this thread since it started and you pushed it over the top.
You are a blatant and obvious troll, and you will be flagged as such.
On the off chance that you are being serious, my suggestion is as follows. Find an actual play group and stop playing the game in your head and in spreadsheets because if you actually believe an single fluid ounce of that dribble you are spouting, then it is clear that you have never actually PLAYED in a PFRPG game, and quite possibly from your lack of understanding maybe any 3.X D&D game at all.
Hear, hear.
Any class can be fun, any class can be played well, any class can be played poorly. But you know what? As long as everyone is having fun, who cares if the fighter isn't the most powerful character in the party. If everyone wants to play a melee type with no healers, that's great. If the players want to do that, then a good DM will work with them. Modify the encounters if need be - but make the whole process fun, challenging and occasionally frustrating so that everyone is engaged and enjoys themselves.
Okay, I had this debate with a group I was in before, so I'll say this. We ran a group of nothing but Melee (1 barbarian, 2 fighters, 1 paladin, and 1 archer ranger) and the group survived several encounters, social, ecological, and martial, swimmingly. ......
Afterwards, we ran a group of all casters. We had 1 wizard, 1 sorcerer, 1 Druid (caster spec, Str was the dump stat), 1 bard, and 1 cleric (also caster spec, and wore scale mail at the heaviest). The group didn't even make it to level 3. .
DM style would affect both as well as how high the adventure went to. I think running them through a published campaign is a better way to try it. I think the casters would have more trouble at the beginning, but once they got to level 5ish things would start to smooth out. I think the meleers would have it easier at first, but things would get harder later on, especially in non-combat situations unless the players were really good.
PS: The druid and the cleric could have held the front line if they had been made to fight instead of cast spells. I am sure the paladin was healing people.
Barbarian - Low AC makes Barbarian a sad boy. Even by the time he gets his 5/-- DR, most enemies are either going to have something to bypass it or they'll just do so much damage that 5 damage off won't mean much.
A barbarian can get decent AC.
Bard - Players that don't know how to play them. No offense to anyone, bard is probably the hardest class to play. They just usually end up being useless because they try to do to much and end up not being good at any one thing. Also, their spell selection is pretty limited, and their AC generally isn't great.
How are they hard to play? Buff and debuff first. Fight later if at all.
Cleric - Anti-magic fields affect clerical spells too. One of the most dastardly ways to take out enemy casters is to make an Arcane Archer and have the spell arrow be anti-magic field. Then just aim at a square right by the casters. Bam.
It is only a 10 foot radius. It takes a move action to get out of the area then pimp slapped the multi-classed caster.
Druid - Anti-magic fields affect wild shape too. Seriously, any evil warlord worth his weight should have several of these up.
See the above.
Fighter - Low Will saves. Dominate spells are fun to play with.
They can get decent will saves.
Monk - Golems. Really.
I can't even defend anyone taking this class.
Paladins - Ethical debates. Seriously. I had a paladin in a group I was running who just got so frusterated when he found out the group of planars he was tracking were a group of Azata. Chaos comes in good flavors too.
I think good creatures can have conflict also. I am not biased with my sword :). Seriously, their issues will depend more on the DM than the class.
Ranger - Unfamiliar terrain/enemies as well urban settings.
They get favored terrains now. If they choose everything wrong they were probably just not paying attention to the story.
Rogue - Separation. The Rogue is usually a scout, and if they get into a fight alone, well, you can't sneak attack something you can't flank. Oh, and Oozes and golems.
I think separation is bad for anyone. It just depends on what you have to solo.
Sorcerer/Wizard - Anti-magic Field arrows. Surprise rogues. Surprise fighters with the Step-up and Disruptive feats.
Actually, just being in melee with anyone is an issue. Hopefully the caster is never at the front or back of the formation which helps prevent such things.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I only recently got into ToB. What was this infamous interpretation?
Barring the infamous interpretation of IHS, was a fine book.IHS is Iron Heart Surge. It allows the character to end "one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you with a duration of 1 or more rounds". One interpretation of that is basically "any effect that isn't instantaneous" -- in other words, you could use IHS to force the sun to set (end daylight) or rise (end the night), resurrect yourself (end death), etc.
For the record, I think that's a pretty bad interpretation and one that is very obviously not intended. It is, however, a valid interpretation.
I think my favourite was that since it's (ex) you can 'end' an antimagic shell with it. Not quite as cheesy as the examples you gave, still colby though.
Edit: someone already posted it. Oh well, amusing thought. you're drowning. Does IHS throw you to the surface of the ocean? Can you then refocus and then IHS away the bends? ;-)
The problem with the "you're a team" argument is that I never see it bandied about on other classes.
Where are the threads where people point out wizard flaws with "You're a team, it's ok, you have a fighter there!"
A fighter without spellcasters is missing all his buffs, which hurts him pretty badly, and he's 100% reliant on magic items.
A wizard with no other party member can still cast a spell to summon fighters.
I believe the thread is Treantmonk's guide to wizard optimization where he points out the importants of having the big stupid fighter between the bad things and god (the wizard). There is a lot of toungue and cheek humor in there, but most experienced wizard/caster player are quite pleased to have their meat shields particularly at low to mid levels. You dont always have that summon prepared, and when you do, you dont always have time to cast it and buff it sufficiently to not get curb stomped by the bad guys.
Wait wait wait, so to the adventure is about deaf oracles trying to listen to gay paladins performing death metal. Why would that have it's own area on the forums?
I don't like the direction these new adventure paths are taking...
Philistine
RP = Character issues
G = Effectiveness issuesI'm going to throw out a wild suggestion that's against my better judgement but here goes: how effective a character is in a given campaign should never be a concern of the player. There are two components to a roleplaying game and while the overall concept and individual build choices belong to the player, managing balance and character effectiveness should be the GM's responsibility, not the player's.
Exactly. The issue being discussed here is only an issue at an optimized table. Granted, most games these days are all about optimization and doing as much damage as possible, but if you're looking to RP a character and the DM is looking to create a game for the players to enjoy, weaknesses such as the fighter's Will Save are not game killers but game enhancers. Players should be able to create characters they will enjoy playing without needing to make the PC as inhumanly powerful as possible. The GM should take the characters and give them an adventure that will make the game fun to play.
It's unfortunate that so many people equate fun with "OMG, my fighter just did 200 points of damage, beotch!" or requiring that every ability is as maxed out as possible but I'm here to say it doesn't have to be that way.
RP = Character issues
G = Effectiveness issuesI'm going to throw out a wild suggestion that's against my better judgement but here goes: how effective a character is in a given campaign should never be a concern of the player. There are two components to a roleplaying game and while the overall concept and individual build choices belong to the player, managing balance and character effectiveness should be the GM's responsibility, not the player's.
Exactly. The issue being discussed here is only an issue at an optimized table. Granted, most games these days are all about optimization and doing as much damage as possible, but if you're looking to RP a character and the DM is looking to create a game for the players to enjoy, weaknesses such as the fighter's Will Save are not game killers but game enhancers. Players should be able to create characters they will enjoy playing without needing to make the PC as inhumanly powerful as possible. The GM should take the characters and give them an adventure that will make the game fun to play.
It's unfortunate that so many people equate fun with "OMG, my fighter just did 200 points of damage, beotch!" or requiring that every ability is as maxed out as possible but I'm here to say it doesn't have to be that way.
Good RP and Optimization are not mutually exclusive. I would say that that most fun (for me) is when that well developed character who has interesting traits, quirks, and backstory elements just did something awesome in combat, and later he'll be playing it up in the local tavern with a new song his buddy bard will be writing for it.
That said, I think that an outright lack of optimization is indeed a problem for the dm, as much as a 'munchkin is'. Obviously a dm can adapt to any group of players, but if there is a gap between them in terms of optimization it is a problem regardless of which direction it goes (either totally minmaxed so it is stronger then everyone else, or a series of suboptimal choices that lead to a character who has difficulty contributing in combat). At that point the tools the dm has to help him or her are less useful. Challenge rating is the obvious one, but also in terms of tweaking monsters to better challenge the players, it becomes much harder in both situations.
I would agree that you dont have to take only the best options to be acceptable, if you deliberately ignore good options and the rest of the table doesn't, its not something the dm can readily handle. It becomes a real challenging balancing act that even the best dm will have trouble with.
So basically when it comes to optimization, either extreme (too much or too little) is an equal headache for a dm. And lord knows the fewer headaches we can give dms the better.
I had a good friend and co-DM tell me that fighters were teh suck, and he could take any fighter with any wizard, at any level. This was in 3.5. Ooook, 18th level, 25 point buy, PHB and DMG only. Random starting position on a megamat with randomly placed obstacles. We played 5 passes.
The fighter won EVERY SINGLE TIME. The last 2 runs I gave him initiative and still curbstomped him in 3-5 rounds. Only one pass was even close.
In this case, IMO, it came down to preparation. He didn't feel he needed to do any, I knew I did. Had he felt threatened, I would have likely had a harder time of it. All of this to say- Wizards are fun, but they are still squishy and die when enough holes get poked in them. With a PFRPG fighter, I have no doubt I could wipe the floor with an equivalent level wizard using just teh core rules. A little player creativity goes a long way.
It's unfortunate that so many people equate fun with "OMG, my fighter just did 200 points of damage, beotch!" or requiring that every ability is as maxed out as possible but I'm here to say it doesn't have to be that way.
I don't agree, and the way people discuss things on the boards is not necessarily the way they play. I am quick to call a build suboptimal, because I am assuming that DM X does not pull punches ever. No matter how I sound on the boards you don't need super character to get by in my games. Bad tactics though are frowned upon.
It's unfortunate that so many people equate fun with "OMG, my fighter just did 200 points of damage, beotch!" or requiring that every ability is as maxed out as possible but I'm here to say it doesn't have to be that way.
I dont agree, and the way people discuss things on the boards is not necessarily the way they play. I am quick to call a build suboptimal, because I am assuming that DM X does not pull punches ever. No matter how I sound on the boards you don't need super character to get by in my games. Bad tactics though are frowned upon.
So, on to Hardcore Facts.
1. A properly optimized lvl Fighter 20 can two-round a CR 20 encounter. Reference: Zurai's Fighter vs. Balor thread.
2. Which is cool, but he is THE most one-dimensional class in D&D. Reference: Fighter class ability list.
3. If you like such classes, then Fighter is a great choice. But if you are trying to tell me that a Fighter can do anything else apart from stabbing things in the face, please don't.
Fighters are also good at getting stabbed in the face and are better at it than just about anybody. So yeah, take that.
|
Fighters are also good at getting stabbed in the face and are better at it than just about anybody. So yeah, take that.So, on to Hardcore Facts.
1. A properly optimized lvl Fighter 20 can two-round a CR 20 encounter. Reference: Zurai's Fighter vs. Balor thread.
2. Which is cool, but he is THE most one-dimensional class in D&D. Reference: Fighter class ability list.
3. If you like such classes, then Fighter is a great choice. But if you are trying to tell me that a Fighter can do anything else apart from stabbing things in the face, please don't.
The poor, lonely Paladin with his heavy armor and good saves sat in the corner, weeping.
Fighters are also good at getting stabbed in the face and are better at it than just about anybody. So yeah, take that.So, on to Hardcore Facts.
1. A properly optimized lvl Fighter 20 can two-round a CR 20 encounter. Reference: Zurai's Fighter vs. Balor thread.
2. Which is cool, but he is THE most one-dimensional class in D&D. Reference: Fighter class ability list.
3. If you like such classes, then Fighter is a great choice. But if you are trying to tell me that a Fighter can do anything else apart from stabbing things in the face, please don't.
I agree that the fighter is pretty much a one trick pony, but it is a pretty damn good trick, IMHO.
Also, fighter are pretty good at lifting and carrying and breaking and other brute strength tasks. Kind of like me around the house. You always need someone to carry your stuff, at least until everybody has a bag of holding.
The poor, lonely Paladin with his heavy armor and good saves sat in the corner, weeping.Fighters are also good at getting stabbed in the face and are better at it than just about anybody. So yeah, take that.So, on to Hardcore Facts.
1. A properly optimized lvl Fighter 20 can two-round a CR 20 encounter. Reference: Zurai's Fighter vs. Balor thread.
2. Which is cool, but he is THE most one-dimensional class in D&D. Reference: Fighter class ability list.
3. If you like such classes, then Fighter is a great choice. But if you are trying to tell me that a Fighter can do anything else apart from stabbing things in the face, please don't.
I said just about anybody. It's not like I said they were the best, just that they were good at it and better than most. That paladin sounds like a baby anyways. Serves him right. Tell him crying will cause his shiny armor to rust.
I agree that the fighter is pretty much a one trick pony, but it is a pretty damn good trick, IMHO.
One trick it's quite exaggerated IMO. I can see that the tricks are not so many, exspecially compared to a spellcaster, but by level 20 you can afford several.
Well, 80-90% of Pathfinder tends to be combat, so that's not a bad "one trick" to have.
The Fighter is no more a social monkey than the Wizard is. That's what Rogues, Clerics and Bards are for.
One trick it's quite exaggerated IMO. I can see that the tricks are not so many, exspecially compared to a spellcaster, but by level 20 you can afford several.I agree that the fighter is pretty much a one trick pony, but it is a pretty damn good trick, IMHO.
Granted, you can come up with a lot of variations on how you do it, some of them quite entertaining, but in the end, a fighter's main strength is hitting something so hard that it's head spins around and it admie its own backside. And of course, being a meatshield so those namby-pamby spellchuckers don't get their fingernails dirty. And, of course, as I said before, carrying, lifting and breaking stuff. :)
Tongue in cheek aside, I love fighters. I love being able to say: "I hit you for 75 points of damage. Does that get your attention?" Or: "No, 75 points of damage does not kill me. But it does seriously tick me off." Or: "No, a 28 does not hit me." Long live the fighter!
Is it the most powerful class? Is it as powerful as a wizard? Who cares? When that giant comes calling, looking for trouble, I want to either play one or have one in front of me to protect me!
|
Logical Discussions: "Bearing fruit from Trolls since time immemorial."
Every tree that brings forth not good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. =)
I believe the thread is Treantmonk's guide to wizard optimization where he points out the importants of having the big stupid fighter between the bad things and god (the wizard). There is a lot of toungue and cheek humor in there, but most experienced wizard/caster player are quite pleased to have their meat shields particularly at low to mid levels. You dont always have that summon prepared, and when you do, you dont always have time to cast it and buff it sufficiently to not get curb stomped by the bad guys.
The problem with this argument is that it fails to take into account that other classes are equally good at shielding the Wizard. Paladin nearly hits the DPR of the Fighter and has good saves, brilliant self healing, and spells.
Here's the deal. I love the Fighter. But in an optimized party, there is seemingly no reason to use him instead of a Paladin, Ranger, Summoner, etc. Why not play with something with high DPR and skills, spells, and abilities? There is nothing that a Fighter adds to a party that another class cannot also and with more.
You can easily build a fighter with 14 int. That's 4, 5 if human, skill points per level. Not overwhelming, but the way skills work in PF, I guess you can deal with quite a few situations out of combat.
Complex combos of maneuvers need feats. A lot of feats. You can't just have them along with good damage dealing feats in short time if you are not a fighter.
And DPR is not everyhitng. Maneuvers have their weight, and fighter's one are more likely to land (because of wepon training and stuff), barring occasional barbarian strenght surge.
AND fighter and Paladin DPR is far more situational - it drops against the non- favored or non-evil enemies.
So, my opinion is that, from the standpoint of controlling the flow of the battle and peforming maneuvers, the fighter HAS an edge over other meleers.
|
|
You can easily build a fighter with 14 int. That's 4, 5 if human, skill points per level. Not overwhelming, but the way skills work in PF, I guess you can deal with quite a few situations out of combat.
But a Ranger could dump int and have that many skills. What's the cost to the rest of the Fighter's stats for having that many skills? What's the cost to you for needing traits to expand the crap class skill list?
Complex combos of maneuvers need feats. A lot of feats. You can't just have them along with good damage dealing feats in short time if you are not a fighter.
And DPR is not everyhitng. Maneuvers have their weight, and fighter's one are more likely to land (because of wepon training and stuff), barring occasional barbarian strenght surge.
AND fighter and Paladin DPR is far more situational - it drops against the non- favored or non-evil enemies.
So, my opinion is that, from the standpoint of controlling the flow of the battle and peforming maneuvers, the fighter HAS an edge over other meleers.
But my question is, "Is it worth it?" I know the Fighter can do good stuff. He has high DPR and can do maneuvers quite well. But is that worth not having someone who can do almost as much damage, do maneuvers almost as well, and cast spells, heal, etc?
The advantage of the Fighter, at least since 3.X, has been the classes flexibility. Sure it doesn't cast spells, or heal that's because it doesn't need to. Most of what you say the class lacks can be covered by magic items. Sure Fighters are not rearranging the very fabric of the universe but they are still a good class.
But my question is, "Is it worth it?" I know the Fighter can do good stuff. He has high DPR and can do maneuvers quite well. But is that worth not having someone who can do almost as much damage, do maneuvers almost as well, and cast spells, heal, etc?
My point was that I don't see the "quite as well" thing. I see a lot of "swear to finish a feat combo" and good DPR with certan enemies only.
Remember that the more combat feats you take, the better you can have them interact, and play a different battle basing on what "stance" you take in that moment (CE, PA, Lunge) and the weapons you are using.
Example: Whirlwind is cool, Shield Slam is cool, but a fighter can combine them. And the Whirlwind itself changes dramatically if you use a glaive and lunge, or you stay toe-to-toe with enemies and power attack with a greataxe.
Add in the new APG features, auto crits, move and full attack things, and you can't go par with fighter on these aspects anymore.
About the skills.. yeah, the ranger will be better. But less skilled with weapons. Enough to be a good combatant, but the fighter will be better. When PURE combat come in, the fighter is "the g%~$@$n fighter". My point was that even if less than the ranger you CAN do things out of combat with fighters. Less than the rogue? Yeah. So what?
Note that what I said can be subverted - the same way, I criticize people that say that "meleer X is subpar compared to fighter" because they only see raw damage and not other class features, skill points, uncanny dodge or whatever.
BTW, it's what I like of the game. I can have 2 archers, one with a companion, stealth, and spells, the other one as a mobile shooting platform. The one I want to play, i pick up. If you are not fond of fighter, it depends from your gamestyle, my players always made scary, awesome fighters.
My current PF game (eight players) has 2 fighters (and a fighter/barbarian in addition but that's another thing). One is a sword and board, specialized in tank and maneuvers. The other one is an archer. They are freaking scary. And the ranger is not upset from the fact that the fighter deals more damage, because he manages to play a skirmisher that plays smart by ambushes, movements, and control thanks to spells and animal companion, and shot on the run, opposed to the shotshotshot of the fighter.
EDIT: it seems to me that you are comparing fighter and paladins. Paladins are awesome - I love them. But code of conduct can deny some choices and strategies in game, when a fighter doesn't lose class features.. cannot "fall". Again I don't mean that paladins sucks - I mean that you should see the whole picture before say that a class is less optimal compared to others.
it seems to me that you are comparing fighter and paladins. Paladins are awesome - I love them. But code of conduct can deny some choices and strategies in game, when a fighter doesn't lose class features.. cannot "fall". Again I don't mean that paladins sucks - I mean that you should see the whole picture before say that a class is less optimal compared to others.
Actually the code doesn't prevent that many strategies in actual combat, nothing about the code prevents the party from getting in a more advantageous position before starting combat. The only strategies I can see the code preventing are killing the enemies in their sleep and other sneaky dishonorable things, which is something more akin to the rogue not really a fighter thing. The real problem with the code is when you try to integrate a Paladin in a party that does things that are unlawful or evil.
Actually the code doesn't prevent that many strategies in actual combat, nothing about the code prevents the party from getting in a more advantageous position before starting combat. The only strategies I can see the code preventing are killing the enemies in their sleep and other sneaky dishonorable things, which is something more akin to the rogue not really a fighter thing. The real problem with the code is when you try to integrate a Paladin in a party that does things that are unlawful or evil.
Yeah, I didn't meant the code as a part related to combat. But adventuring is more than combat, and one should see the whole picture.
Actually the code doesn't prevent that many strategies in actual combat, nothing about the code prevents the party from getting in a more advantageous position before starting combat. The only strategies I can see the code preventing are killing the enemies in their sleep and other sneaky dishonorable things, which is something more akin to the rogue not really a fighter thing. The real problem with the code is when you try to integrate a Paladin in a party that does things that are unlawful or evil.
Why would it not be a fighter thing? Sure, rogues are even better at doing it, but fighters are good as hell at it. And historically, several assassins and the like have been described as fighters (Jarlaxle Baenre being a prime example). Also, a fighter can disobey a direct order from a superior should the need arise, he can ally with evil creatures, use poison, and LIE.
Poison use, I think... Although I feel even that should be allowed, as long as the paladin tells their opponent they've poisoned their blade beforehand....
Maybe it should, but it's explicitly forbidden. I think it's the whole "it's not honorable" thingy, quite stupid if you ask me. It's okay to use a spell that deals 3 damage per hit on your weapon, but not a poison that deals 1 con damage?
You can easily build a fighter with 14 int. That's 4, 5 if human, skill points per level. Not overwhelming, but the way skills work in PF, I guess you can deal with quite a few situations out of combat.But a Ranger could dump int and have that many skills. What's the cost to the rest of the Fighter's stats for having that many skills? What's the cost to you for needing traits to expand the crap class skill list?
But my question is, "Is it worth it?" I know the Fighter can do good stuff. He has high DPR and can do maneuvers quite well. But is that worth not having someone who can do almost as much damage, do maneuvers almost as well, and cast spells, heal, etc?Complex combos of maneuvers need feats. A lot of feats. You can't just have them along with good damage dealing feats in short time if you are not a fighter.
And DPR is not everyhitng. Maneuvers have their weight, and fighter's one are more likely to land (because of wepon training and stuff), barring occasional barbarian strenght surge.
AND fighter and Paladin DPR is far more situational - it drops against the non- favored or non-evil enemies.
So, my opinion is that, from the standpoint of controlling the flow of the battle and peforming maneuvers, the fighter HAS an edge over other meleers.
The fighter actually does a good deal more damage than a paladin, unless smite comes up.
There are exceptions, but generally it's true.
I was actually thinking more about interaction with NPC, deals and similar things...
I was actually thinking more about interaction with NPC, deals and similar things...
Normally there is another party member that handles those things so it is not really an issue. Now if nobody is the social guy then it might be better to have the paladin than a fighter.
I was actually thinking more about interaction with NPC, deals and similar things...Normally there is another party member that handles those things so it is not really an issue. Now if nobody is the social guy then it might be better to have the paladin than a fighter.
I'd rather use the antisocial rogue, mad scientist wizard or introvert monk as a party face than a character that can't lie. A fighter is a far better party face than a paladin, even with the paladin's charisma and class skills.
Isn't the cleric and wizard helping protect the Fighter. You're creating a team not just one character. Fighter does damage and takes damage, spellcasters protect nonspellcasters from magic.
+1, in my games the fighter's job never ends, when it does... the cleric scrapes the slacker up off the ground and makes him fight some more!!
"Flamestrike?! I think you should heal me, unless of course you really WANT to 'tank' this dragon?" - Me (3.5 chain fighter)
STone Dragon required you to be in contact with a solid surface, i.e. BRACED. It's not like you were hauling up earth power (until you got to that PrC, anyways). It was simply predicated on always being braced to swing.Incorrect. From the Stone Dragon entry in Tome of Battle:
Unlike with other disciplines, adepts of this school rely on an external force -- the power of earth and stone -- to help power their maneuvers. As a result, Stone Dragon maneuvers can be initiated only if you are in contact with the ground.
HAH! Concede the flavor text, if not the thematics.
Wizards sweeping in like the Justice League, and then running into the Legion of Super Villains and get their ass kicked.
The one thing wizards who act like they are invincible is that enemy spellcasters can do everything they can do. And any campaign where you abuse the rules, the bad guys did it first, and did it better. An enemy fighter CANNOT do everything the party fighter can do...because they have less effective gear.
Wizards also suffer from massive kryptonite poisoning, i.e. anti-magic. One little dose, and they abruptly go squish. It's amazing to see. They just whine when you use it, but think nothing of doing the same to any other class. Really fun...and is completely what I'd do if I were facing down a wizard myself.
===Aelryinth
K, speaking about versatility of spells and stuff is completely reasonable comparing classes, and of course spellcasters are very powerful in this aspect. That's undenaiable.
Sitations that can be solved by magic are more than those that can be solved by physical means - even if people tend to understimate skills and ability to simply use magic item (regardless the class). That's undenaiable.
BUT if you come here sayin the fighter can't keep up in raw damage, you IMMEDIATELY stop to be able to be taken seriously.
Raw damage? Who cares about that?
Most encounters are won by tekken-juggling enemies so that they don't get actions and you do. Then your summons/henchmen whittle down enemies until they die. There are various ways to sleep, stun, nauseate, send them running with fear, hold, paralyze, grapple, or otherwise remove their ability to act. Sometimes, it's as simple as casting fly and firing arrows until the enemy dies because things like dire animals and most vermin and plants have no defense to that tactic.
It takes more rounds than rushing in and trading blows like real men, but the upshot is that you never actually take damage, get negative levels, or other weird debuffs that need a pile of magic to fix. I mean, I've literally gone entire campaigns where I can count the times I took ANY damage on one hand.
Otherwise, you play a Wizard with very high spell DCs and just use a save or die. Then stuff dies. (I avoid this because DMs hate when the BBEG dies in one round to a single spell).
That being said, Wizards can do very large amounts of no-save damage if they wish by using the various metamagics like Quicken and Empower and Maximize paired with the appropriate rods. For example, a 11th level Wizard can do 144+6d6 (average of 165 damage) in a single round with a Rod of Quickening and a Rod of Empowering and casting two Scorching Rays where both are Maximized (assuming all six touch attacks hit, which they will), which is almost enough damage to auto-kill a CR 11 Cloud Giant (3 short... so hope for a crit or slightly better than average damage).
Damage from summons climbs at a geometric rate as you pop them, so using various delaying tactics like walls means that the enemies lose several rounds while you mass an army on your side, so when the actual battle is joined your total damage per round can be very high indeed.
And that's Core, and they do that while using some of the most effective defenses in the game. Even more is possible with a few splatbooks.
Wizards also suffer from massive kryptonite poisoning, i.e. anti-magic. One little dose, and they abruptly go squish. It's amazing to see. They just whine when you use it, but think nothing of doing the same to any other class. Really fun...and is completely what I'd do if I were facing down a wizard myself.
Antimagic cast by.... wait for it.... a wizard or cleric.
It's a 10' ft radius spell. Spellcasters take a move out, then lock down that character with a Wall of Stone/Iron/Force. At best, you exchange one character's contribution to the battle for at least several turns in exchange for wasting a standard and a move.
Basically, only wizards who are very bad at tactics die to this.
Ya mean like the ones all over the realms?
Unless the DM blankets an entire area (I've seen antimagic cities, for example) in an antimagic field, which though such a spell has to my knowledge never actually existed in any book seemed to be very common in 3.X games that I played in.
EDIT: Yeah, those ones.
But K, what about DM-fiated AMFs that are naturally occurring to teach uppity PC casters a lesson in humility?
If the DM wants to eat your face, your face gets eaten.
As for Realms variants of this, I will paraphrase my players the last time I tried to get them into Undermountain: "no way man, that place is a deathtrap. Why would be ever go there when we could just adventure anywhere else?"
AMF hurts fighters almost as badly as it does spellcasters since all thier gear they need to live turns off. At best, it turns the Wizard into a Commoner and the Fighter into a slightly better Warrior with a masterwork sword and armor. The Fighter wins vs the Wizard, but vs monsters the whole party loses.
'We choose not to go into the Dungeon of Eternal Torment, and instead head back to town.'
And then all the crap from the DoET is in the bar for some reason.
"He doesn't like you. I don't like you either. We're wanted men...." blablabla....
Well, I guess I can't convince some people to give up their prejudice against the fighter, but I do want to debunk one major argument made by these people: A summon will always have worse AC, attack, damage and feat options than a fighter. So, the wizard who depends on a summon to tank not only needs to find the opportunity near the beginning of combat to summon (a full-round action easily interrupted by minor damage or many other spell-interrupt strategies), but that summon will last only a few rounds, if not just one, do little to no damage, and do little to master the battlefield, while the fighter will take little to no damage, dish out massive amounts of damage, and generally control the movement options of the BBEG.
"He doesn't like you. I don't like you either. We're wanted men...." blablabla....*waits for the DMPC to resolve the encounter*
Just how badarse -is- the DMPC?
He drop kicked both Chuck Norris and Charles Nelson Reilly, killing them both with a single blow.