In my experience haste is too powerful when the party has 3 melee classes or more.
I think for what the feat gives a character it should only affect one character and have a mass haste spell at a later level.
I removed a removed post that was reposted verbatim.
|
I've been using Haste as it affects only one target only for quite some time now - probably since 3.5 was released. And you know what - it's still one of the first 3 or 4 3rd level spells selected by casters (even with the restriction).
In the Shackled City game I ran using 3.5, the wizard even took Chain Spell to hike it's spell level up, just to be able to get it on other allies.
The point is - I think as written it's one of the best spells at it's given level irrespective of caster level. Even at 5 rounds, affecting 5 targets at 5th level, that spell is a combat changer more than any other at that level.
When I was a player Curse of Crimson Throne (as a player) our sorcerer cast that spell on our party every combat. Between PCs, summoned creatures, cohorts, and animal companions, there's always a plethora of applicable targets to benefit significantly from that spell.
Each player's group is different of course and the dynamics of the group's make-up will of course create a mileage may vary scenario. However, people arguing that "haste is only overpowered in groups with a lot of warrior types" would have nothing to balk at for the nerfing of that spell in a non-warrior heavy group - because they wouldn't be benefitting from the spell anyways. So by limiting it's effectiveness, it helps rein in warrior heavy parties, and for those with just one warrior....well, he'd be the only one benefitting from the spell anyways, so if it was 1 target spell, nothing is really lost.
Robert
|
|
And in what situation do the weakest party members need to be 'reined in'?
I guess I don't understand your question. I just re-read what I wrote - and I never made a mention that we wanted to rein in the weak characters. I never mentioned weak as descriptor to anything at all.
What I did indicate was that it was a way to rein in a tendency for it to get out of hand because it benefitted too many simultaneously. And therein lies the answer to your question. Not helping the weak ones necessarily. Mass Bull's Strength can do that, though. Very good on lots of weak creatures.
Robert
I guess I don't understand your question. I just re-read what I wrote - and I never made a mention that we wanted to rein in the weak characters. I never mentioned weak as descriptor to anything at all.
What I did indicate was that it was a way to rein in a tendency for it to get out of hand because it benefitted too many simultaneously. And therein lies the answer to your question. Not helping the weak ones necessarily. Mass Bull's Strength can do that, though. Very good on lots of weak creatures.
Robert
Well, THAT made me laugh out loud ! :D
Haste is pretty much my bard's favorite leading spell. The other spells mentioned which are also on his known list are very effective. I tend to use save or bad things happen less than a player in a more optimized game due to not wanting to ruin a GM's hard work. Haste makes the party more effective while glitterdust can quickly end an encounter. Slow is a spell I normally only use against encounters where we are at a numerical disadvantage. BTW, my bard is the only spell caster in a fairly low magic campaign so not I tread lightly.
Doug
In the Shackled City game I ran using 3.5, the wizard even took Chain Spell to hike it's spell level up, just to be able to get it on other allies.
At that point, wouldn't it be smarter to burn that feat on Craft Wondrous and make a shoe store's worth of Boots of Speed instead?
Haste is one of very few buff spells in the game that's both arguably worth casting in combat and can be cast on someone besides the caster. Why penalize your players for actually acting like a team?
|
|
You said you wanted to nerf Haste to rein in warrior heavy parties. As warrior heavy parties are weak character heavy parties, you are saying that you want to nerf those that are already weak.
Which means even if the party arcanist wasn't considering just using instant win spells instead, he will now.
Why would anyone build weak warriors? Or a whole party of them?
If by weak - you mean ineffective; I have a lot of players who prefer warrior types - and they rarely if ever have trouble being effective. I do not consider one's personal experiences with something to mean it si true for all.
I merely think that considering warrior types as obviously inferior to other characters to simply be operator errors.
Individually a warrior may be less optimal - but casters can quickly fix that. But that's the whole point of a "party" of heroes. Standing alone, most casters aren't nearly as effective as they are when they have warriors to keep the heat off of them. So it's a two-way street.
As for "Instant Win" spells: Most "instant win spells" are not instant win anymore.
And since you brought it up: what are instant win spells for sub-6th level parties when haste is first introduced? Or even sub-10th level parties?
Robert
Well I must agree with Mistah Green on a few points. While he may not always say them in the nicest of ways, many of the things he says are just plain true - mechanically speaking.
Glitterdust is a "win" spell, because against opponents who aren't immune to blindness (and that's MOST ENEMIES), it cuts their speed in half, robs them of dex to AC, grants a +2 bonus to hit them, prevents them from effectively targeting people with a variety of abilities, and likewise inflicts a heavy concealment penalty on their attacks. It also tends to be the big bruisers that have weaker Will saves, and thus the guys you'd want to target with it the most (unless you just like ogres beating you in the face).
Haste on the other hand, I think is indeed a great spell. I don't believe it's nerfed because it's entirely a team-based buff. Seriously, more people just need to learn to use and love haste. It lets a spellcaster throw the whole party a bone; and if your party primarily consists of warriors, then it's nice to have one spell to make everyone happy since you've got to pick up more of the magic slack yourself.
As to fighting for only 1-2 rounds a day, I think that is indeed highly subject to an individual campaign. The average rounds of combat in my games are at least 5, and at higher levels they tend to run upwards to 20 rounds at a time. The only time I've seen exceptionally short combats is with boring encounters that take place in wide open areas with no cover, concealment, obstacles, and so forth.
I am beginning to believe that all people want spellcasters to do is cast blasting spells, which is horrible. One of the things the casters are good at - and should be good at - is buffing to the high heavens, 'cause blasting is surely a terrible waste of spell-slots.
|
|
In the Shackled City game I ran using 3.5, the wizard even took Chain Spell to hike it's spell level up, just to be able to get it on other allies.
At that point, wouldn't it be smarter to burn that feat on Craft Wondrous and make a shoe store's worth of Boots of Speed instead?
True - but he didn't take the feat for "haste" only. He chained a number of spells. Haste just happened to be worth it to him to take up a 6th level slot or whatever it was.
Robert
|
|
Why penalize your players for actually acting like a team?
Personally I don't. In fact, personally, I reward it.
Acting like an army of one in my campaigns is the quickest way to a new shiny blank character sheet.
As I alluded to before, a warrior needs his spellcasting buddies to make him more optimally effective; and casters need their warrior buddies to keep him the aggro on them. Rogues need others to help them get flanks and make themselves ultimately effective, and bards...well...what's the point of morale boosting if you got no one to inspire?
Robert
|
|
Falchion Fred can 3 round a CR10 Fire Giant...
We all could provide a billion different scenarios that support or debunk a theory - based on the criteria used in the scenario. For every instance, it is optimally effective, there's another that is doesnt.
....use the same scenario an a beholder.
So ultimately, it's just a measure of one particular encounter with a controlled criteria based on the author of the debate.
EDIT: And thus one's own arbitrarily constructed encounter should not be grounds for determining the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of a particular spell, feat, character class etc.
Haste honestly seems to me to be necessary to keep the fighters as strong contributors.
Not denying that at all.
As I said - it is by far one of the premiere spells; an obvious choice.
Which takes us back full-circle to the OPs opening concerns. If it's that obvious of a choice for everyone....
Robert
|
|
Robert,
A fire giant is the same CR as the level for the DPR olympics. It's thus a fairly representative brute for 10th level characters.
I'm sorry but I do not know what DPR olympics is.
See the problem most posters make when making up these kinds of situations is that they fair to recognize that a CR 10 Giant is CR 10 against FOUR 10th level PCs. a 10th level fighter encountering a Fire Giant is a dire situation indeed - the advantage goes the Fire Giant already. As a solo character - a CR 8 is a more appropriate encounter.
That being said: a 10th level fighter should have an AC of about 30 (I'm assuming since you're making use of "highly optimized fighter build" that you'll allow me the same leeway in approaching the subject.)
With the fire giant power attacks (as you used in the equation), it's attacks are +18 (needing a 12) for it's first attack (45% chance of failure) and lowering by 5 for each subsequent strike (requiring a 17 with the next attack, and a 20 for the last).
This is by far not a given to kill the 100 hp fighter in one round.
If the fighter happened upon the giant a round before his 3 PC buddies were able to help him, he would be better off going full-defense, or using his tower shield for full cover, or using combat expertise, or some other means to dwinding the giants effectiveness for that first round until the friends were able to turn it back in to a fair fight.
If the the fighter decides foolishly to take on said giant without friends, or without any pre-combat enhancments, walking up to the giant alone, allowing for a full attack option by said giant, then once again I point to operator error on why the warrior types are the weakest.
Haste is honestly one of the few things keeping melee heavy parties viable.
And I contest that it makes one or two warriors viable - and a host of them, inflated beyond the challenge.
Robert
Maybe it's not a bad thing that some spells are stronger than others? Sometimes you'll have a tool that's better than others for the majority of situations, and there's nothing wrong with that.
In a game where one of the 'sides' is designed to almost always be defeated, why does it matter that some of the spells at casters disposal are stronger than some others?
Falchion Fred can 3 round a CR10 Fire Giant (he does @60 DPR, giant has 142 hit points). Said Fire giant hits for 3d6+15+9 or around 35 points a hit when he power attacks. Fred gets hit on 7/12/17 and is dying or dead on the 3rd hit. It's pretty clear that the fire giant can two round him most of the time, one round him sometimes (a crit or all 3 attacks hit) and 3 round him pretty much every time. A haste spell jacks Fred's DPR up to around 100, so Fred can do the same to said even con fire giant.
Now, consider what Fred's brother the wizard can do to said fire giant.
Saves Fort/Ref/Will 14/4/9
His DC's are going to be 10+spell level+6 (he started with 15 INT because his GM inflicted a simple standard array on him) + 2 GSF---so 18 + level, so 23 for his best spells. This sticks a Fort spell on an 8 or less (40%), a reflex spell on an 18 or less (90%, even a grease level 1 spell will almost always stick 70% to make said giant prone), and a will spell on a 13 or less (65%). He could slap a dominate person on the giant, freeze him with a cone of cold for 35ish damage (more if he's an evoker---seriously suboptimal IMO unless he's hitting a packed bunch of fire giants and hell hounds perhaps in the cone), play the magic jar game, or a number of other tactics. Haste honestly seems to me to be necessary to keep the fighters as strong contributors.
So, let see: the wizard has spells able to target fortitude, will and reflexes: wisely, choose the best to target the giant.
Fighter , instead of ambushing the giant and drop some of his HP with a bow, use wisely items, charges him directly when he's at full strenght.
Are you seriously telling us that the two PC are played with the same level of expertise?
This, of course not to say that haste is teh broken. Lol, no. It isn't.
|
|
Robert, the DPR olympics character has an AC around 24 or 25.
A DPR olypics CHARACTER? or a highly effective fighter to take one a fire giant one-on-one to prove the point that he'll die in one round? I'm confused - which is it that we've been using in these discussions? Different people are using different protagonists in this thread; it keeps changing on me and I can't keep up.
Check the thread. Search for DPR olympics and the character is on the first page.
I rarely put such stock in these types of comparisos. One thing that simple math cannot duplicate - is thinking aboutside the box. Tactics, having the wherewithal to have some consumable get out of jail card magic items, some various tricks etc up the players sleeve, or equipment, etc.
A CR+4 encounter is a you win half the time encounter for a group of 4. That'd be 4 fire giants vs 4 level 10 characters. A one on one 10th level character vs CR10 monster is similar. An encounter you lose half the time IS dire. You're not EXPECTED to be able to win it consistently, and it should be a very near run thing.
So this is a competitive thing - and not an actual a Pathfinder campaign model. So what you're really telling me that is what you're arguing and what the OP is concerned about are about as related as cranberry sauce and soccer balls.
If you want an AC of 30 at level 10 as a fighter, you're stepping into the weapon/shield/TWF builds, and you'll be lucky to crack 40 DPR with them, I think low 30s are more likely.
I build my characters based on fun factor, and to fit into a group's team cohesion. If I build my character for AC, that's what I would expect to do as far as damage output.
But not to worry - since I'm part of a group and team, I don't need to worry about being a one-man army. And since the game of D&D/Pathfinder game tranditionally game isn't designed to kill characters 50% of the time, that's not reall a concern of mine - and I daresay of the original author of this post either.
Ultimately of course any fighter/warrior type would benefit from a haste spell - or about 50 other spells. So to would the wizard typically benefit from having a fighter/meat-shield there too.
I'd invite you to enter a weapon/shield/TWF build into the DPR olympics thread.
No thanks; not my cup of tea. And I firmly believe that such olympics is a bad arena for making blanket assumptions on a spell's use.
D&D (or now Pathfinder RPG) is simply not played (traditionally) in that sort of a vacuum. And to base what should happen in such a game by how it adjudicates in such a setting is faulty logic and will result in flaws when it comes time to apply it to a team-based diverse ability possessing campaign adventure.
BTW, a CR fight for a band of 4 is anything but a 'fair fight'. You're supposed to be able to win 4 or 5 of those without running out of resources.
Exactly. Which supports my previous posts that haste in such a setting (not in a math-driven statistics vacuum scenario), is essentially one of the biggest encounter changers in the book.
Whether or not you or someone else is okay with that is personal preference.
It was not one of mine, perhaps not the OP's and I daresay a number of others.
What I did to combat this, was make the spell affect one target, but extended the duration to 1 minute/level; so that it could be cast pre-combat. But to do so on an entire party would definietly exhaust the appropriate amount of daily resources.
Robert
Fighter , instead of ambushing the giant and drop some of his HP with a bow, use wisely items, charges him directly when he's at full strenght.
Is a fighter who's built for melee and not archery really going to come out much ahead trading his bow shots with thrown heated rocks by the fire giant? Eh, maybe.
Exactly. Which supports my previous posts that haste in such a setting (not in a math-driven statistics vacuum scenario), is essentially one of the biggest encounter changers in teh book.
It's decent, but if you gimp it down to a one-target spell, suddenly a lot of other things often look better.
For example, displacement or slow, to pick two other spells of the same level. Granted, slow is one of the most neutering spells of any level to enemies that makes multiple attacks.
|
|
It's decent, but if you gimp it down to a one-target spell, suddenly a lot of other things often look better.
Our definition of decent differs.
If something is an obvious choice in the top 5% among it's peers, it's significantly more than decent.
Myself and many others (not saying everyone, not even saying a majority - though I'm willing to bet a majority does) would select haste among their first four third-level spells.
(unless the dynamics of the group consists of less than 2 who would benefit from it. In which case limiting it to effect only one creature still is not much of a nerf.)
Robert
Robert,
A fire giant is the same CR as the level for the DPR olympics. It's thus a fairly representative brute for 10th level characters. You could substitute in a bebilith (also CR10) if you like, or even a brachiosaur and get similar results. Even fairly tricked out, highly optimized fighter builds need 3 rounds to kill them, and can be themselves killed pretty easily in 2. Heck, the brachiosaur can oneshot a lot of the fighter builds if it crits them (45 point average power attack hit). Haste is honestly one of the few things keeping melee heavy parties viable.
All this really means is that the fighter shouldn't try to solo the Fire Giant or what have you. I guess it's a good thing he has others to rely on, including quite possibly a rogue and an archer ranger, who each contribute 30-40ish DPR without really trying. Now we have a team contributing 120dpr, or more than enough to take out your CR10 baddie before he crushes them.
Is a fighter who's built for melee and not archery really going to come out much ahead trading his bow shots with thrown heated rocks by the fire giant? Eh, maybe.Fighter , instead of ambushing the giant and drop some of his HP with a bow, use wisely items, charges him directly when he's at full strenght.
It depends. The damage with a simple deadly aim, a +1 composte bow and the fighter streght score and weapon training could be enough to gain an edge.
Unless you think that 3 attacks at 3d6 + 15 are less than one at d8 + 15 + d6. And there are not infinite rocks around there.
Once you see the giant more "tired", time to go melee.
You could even use smokestick and similar items to gain cover, move, and ambush again, gaining a litlle edge each time.
Think outside the box. DPR is something, is not all. Seriously guys, is more of winning a discussion for me, I think you lose something from this wonderful game. THIS is the point :)
I've not the intention of be harsh or so - I apologize in the case.
|
|
Using the same platform here to make a point - I believe it's that 40% increase in damage that makes some of us balk when it can be done to a half-dozen prospective recipients with one 3rd level spell.Falchion Fred can 3 round a CR10 Fire Giant (he does @60 DPR, giant has 142 hit points). Said Fire giant hits for 3d6+15+9 or around 35 points a hit when he power attacks. Fred gets hit on 7/12/17 and is dying or dead on the 3rd hit. It's pretty clear that the fire giant can two round him most of the time, one round him sometimes (a crit or all 3 attacks hit) and 3 round him pretty much every time. A haste spell jacks Fred's DPR up to around 100, so Fred can do the same to said even con fire giant.
Now, consider what Fred's brother the wizard can do to said fire giant.
Saves Fort/Ref/Will 14/4/9
He could slap a dominate person on the giant, freeze him with a cone of cold for 35ish damage (more if he's an evoker---seriously suboptimal IMO unless he's hitting a packed bunch of fire giants and hell hounds perhaps in the cone), play the magic jar game, or a number of other tactics.
Which of those does the wizard do at fifth level?
I belive the general contention is whether or not haste is on par with its peers in the 3rd level spell list.
Comparing it's effectiveness to Dominate or Magic Jar is not a genuine comparison.
Robert
[(unless the dynamics of the group consists of less than 2 who would benefit from it. In which case limiting it to effect only one creature still is not much of a nerf.)
In my opinion, if you have 3 or more people in the party who will legitimately benefit from being hasted, Haste as written is one of the bones the game designers have thrown your party to help them perform about as expected.
Along the same lines, if I'm playing a wizard/sorcerer with a party that's all rogues, yeah, I'm going to pick a lot of spells like Glitterdust that will help them get sneak attack off. In that situation, it's an no-brainer, but that doesn't mean that Glitterdust is too good for every situation.
I'm not going to tell you the warrior classes are awful or unplayable, but they typically do need caster help to perform at a level that lets them genuinely contribute. Making it easy/fun for them to get/give that help is more fun for everyone.
The game's a lot less fun/interesting once all the players realize that they probably should be playing casters if they want to be fully contributing members of the team instead of the person that needs someone else's help to contribute. It's to your advantage to do everything you can to forestall that insight. Letting Haste be good helps that.
Honestly, with the way haste is ruled in your game, not only wouldn't it make my top 4 choices, it wouldn't even make the list. An extra attack on a full attack is nice for what it is but I've got more important things to do -- and I actually don't mind playing a more support-style caster and letting someone else have the glory, but single-target Haste would mean I have about 50 better ways to do it.
|
|
All this really means is that the fighter shouldn't try to solo the Fire Giant or what have you. I guess it's a good thing he has others to rely on, including quite possibly a rogue and an archer ranger, who each contribute 30-40ish DPR without really trying. Now we have a team contributing 120dpr, or more than enough to take out your CR10 baddie before he crushes them.Robert,
A fire giant is the same CR as the level for the DPR olympics. It's thus a fairly representative brute for 10th level characters. You could substitute in a bebilith (also CR10) if you like, or even a brachiosaur and get similar results. Even fairly tricked out, highly optimized fighter builds need 3 rounds to kill them, and can be themselves killed pretty easily in 2. Heck, the brachiosaur can oneshot a lot of the fighter builds if it crits them (45 point average power attack hit). Haste is honestly one of the few things keeping melee heavy parties viable.
+1 FTW.
But in truth - alot of the 'my sword is bigger than your sword' comparisons that was being done is - who can get the first "full attack" action.
Just as I could create a 30+ AC sword and boarder that does less DPR, I could create a less AC two handed guy that CAN do enough damage to drop the guy (without haste); provided the fire giant has to spend its first turn moving up to the fighter and allowing the fighter to get the full-attack action first.
So that's why comparing in a DPR olympics is not a fair system to based game dynamics on.
It doesn't take tactics, or actual game concepts into account.
Robert
It depends. The damage with a simple deadly aim, a +1 composte bow and the fighter streght score and weapon training could be enough to gain an edge.
Unless you think that 3 attacks at 3d6 + 15 are less than one at d8 + 15 + d6. And there are not infinite rocks around there.
So now the fighter's got a 13 dex, deadly aim, point blank shot, rapid shot, and a magic bow? Exactly how many resources has this melee fighter spent on archery? And he's also somehow faster than the fire giant?
If you post a build that makes all that possible, I'll wager he's not a very good melee combatant.
Is a fighter who's built for melee and not archery really going to come out much ahead trading his bow shots with thrown heated rocks by the fire giant? Eh, maybe.Fighter , instead of ambushing the giant and drop some of his HP with a bow, use wisely items, charges him directly when he's at full strenght.
A 10th level melee focused fighter (let's say +5 strength, +3 dexterity) can afford a masterwork composite longbow with a +5 strength modifier for a mere 900 gp, out of his 62,000 WBL. He has a +14/+9 to hit with the bow without any form of specialization. If he bothered to pick bows as his secondary weapon group, then he's got a +15/+10 to hit. He would deal 1d8+6 damage without it being magical. He has a 55%/30% chance to hit, dealing an average of 10 damage per hit. If the party's wizard was nice enough to cast greater magic weapon on his bow earlier in the day (since it'll last 10 hours), then the fighter gets an additional +3 to hit and +3 to damage, raising it to +18/+12 (70%/55% with an average of 13 damage per shot. Likewise, the fighter can better make use of cover, concealment, and tactical terrain - whereas the giant is a big target.
Keep in mind the fire giant has a +10 to hit with his rock, and can only throw 1 rock at a time. If the fighter's AC is merely 25, then the giant only hits 25% of the time, and thus every round the fighter and the giant are duking it out at a distance, the fighter deals an average of about 16.25 damage per round, while the giant is dealing an average of 5.75 damage per round, since he will statistically hit the fighter roughly once every 4 rounds.
Meanwhile, the fighter hasn't even spent feats on improving his archery, but by spending 2/20 feats, he could grab Point Blank and Rapid Shot, allowing him to nearly double his damage, and Manyshot is the next in line. Heck, you could specialize in most of the archery line without ever running short on the amount of feats to spend on melee (Power Attack, Weapon Focus-line, Lunge, Combat Expertise?).
Heck, you could specialize in most of the archery line without ever running short on the amount of feats to spend on melee...
This. Above, people said that I suggested a crapload of archery feats. I suggested ONE. Deadly aim :)
This is not to say that everything is fine and every wiz spell it's fine as is and fighter with something better would be broken.
But.. sometimes someone in this (and other board) put things very simple.
Things are never simple and imaginative people can most times find a way.
If the party's wizard was nice enough to cast greater magic weapon on his bow earlier in the day (since it'll last 10 hours), then the fighter gets an additional +3 to hit and +3 to damage,
Wait, is this wizard level 10 or level 12? You're using one for duration and the other for the bonus.
And honestly, who has an extra 3rd level spell to spare for the fighter's secondary weapon? In 3.5 with Chain Spell applied to GMW at higher levels, maybe, but single cast? I'm not seeing it.
This. Above, people said that I suggested a crapload of archery feats. I suggested ONE. Deadly aim :)
But then you said he was taking enough attacks that necessitated more feats.
Well, Falchion fred could probably swing this by dropping a few feats (probably step up, lunge, and maybe greater iron will). He's got the dex already and he does have a masterwork composite strength bow. I'm not sure off hand what his DPR with his bow would be, but I think he'd outdamage the giant somewhat. My guess is the fight would probably go down like this, if we assume they start 100 feet or so apart since they're likely meeting in hills or worse terrain. Both move at 30'. Mr. Giant would probably hurl rocks while advancing at 30 on his turn, unless he's in charge range, in which case he'd probably do an improved overrun. If he wins by 5 and the fighter is prone, the fighter may find himself in dire straits next round when he has to stand up or do his full attack prone.
That's about what I was thinking. Tack onto that:
1) Giving up those feats for archery feats makes him better for this fight, but probably worse in a lot of other situations, so that's sort of a toss-up and
2) Does Falchion Fred have quickdraw to get his falchion out without losing a full attack when he needs to switch? I can't remember.
This. Above, people said that I suggested a crapload of archery feats. I suggested ONE. Deadly aim :)But then you said he was taking enough attacks that necessitated more feats.
Now I see. I was talking about the attacks of the giant. The single ranged one is more easy to resist, for a longer time.
|
|
I'm using the DPR olympics standards here, comparing the various character types at level 10 with a standard CR 10 monster much beloved of old grognards like myself (the fire giant). To get to parity with the fire giant (i.e., it's even money who dies), the fighter needs haste. The mage doesn't need anything in particular. He's got lots of options that defeat the encounter with greater than 50% probability, and that assumes he only gets one spell off before he's chopped into dog food.
Here's the fundamental problem, alluded to by a lot of the other...
Okay so I now gathered that you're not so much arguing that haste needs to be multiple targets (or not); you're trying to defend the age-old classic debate - which are better: Spellcasters or Warriors; illustrating that the fighter needs a wizard to cast his spells on the fighter in order to be effective.
Got it. In that case, you win - the fighter is definitely worse of a character choice than a wizard.
Of course for under 1000 gp, he could have a potion of haste, skip having the wizard buddy to rely on, and not worrying about splitting the treasure with anyone.
But other than that - clearly, the fighter is the weakest character.
I wonder how the numbers come out when you swap the Fire Giant with a Golem....
Robert