Fighter vs. Wizard.
Wizard wins hands down*.
This seems to be the consistent answer, Wizard wins, but with a caveat: They've had enough time to prepare, and have had time to tailor the battlefield to their advantage.
If assumed to have hundreds of thousands of gold in hand picked magic items, or that he's had the time to make them himself.
SO, go the oposite direction. No magic items.
Core base classes, with mundance equipment out of the core book, who wins? If you looked at this, level by level as they level, fighter wins until the wizard gets to the point where he can win initiative and can possibly one-shot the fighter.
You seem to be joking. Monsters intelligent enough to have language should ignore the lightly armored foes that are observably casting spells that are obviously dangerous so they can waste their actions on the heavily armored foes they can't hit?
Perhaps you are the one is not being challenged by the DM.
I am the GM almost 100% of the time. My players all feel challenged, at all levels of play. That's why they keep coming back to the table.
I fail to see how a creature with an Intelligence of 3 should have the same thought processes as a creature with an Intelligence of 18. That makes absolutely no sense. But like I said before, I play each of my NPCs/monsters as individuals. Each race, each NPC, each monster, is a different character. I use more than just the creature's Intelligence to determine it's actions. I think it makes for a much more interesting encounter than just throwing some dice and adding some constant.
And yes, fighters do occasionally have the ability to actually control a monster. Rarely.
Obviously they would have to be built that way, just like with any other class. The wizard can be built effectively without many controlling spells as well.
Pathdfinder made it a lot harder to successfully Trip and Grapple in their new system (and take a look at the number of monsters in the PRD who can't even be tripped).... and grappling means you aren't damaging in a meaningful way... and hoping for a crit at extremely high levels(13th-17th) when the Wizard is blasting things willy nilly and has more slots than he can use....
First of all, you need to understand that I do not use just the monsters in the Bestiary for opponents. I also use NPCs quite often. Yes, tripping or grappling some opponents is extremely difficult if not impossible. That doesn't mean that the tactic is fully useless. Just like the wizard can't use suggestion or geas or displacement 100% of the time. It's no different. I would also like to point out that there are levels before 13. You can't dismiss less than half the levels and declare something pointless. Another question, how is your wizard blasting things willy nilly with more slots than he can use? I think this is where the disparity lies. I try to limit wizards spells per day according to the rules set forth in the Core Book. That means they can run out of spells. As they get higher in level, yes they have more spells. I don't really see how they have unlimited spells though. Especially since they seem to need to cast several defensive, several offensive, and apparently some summoning spells each combat by the tactics you and others have given.
You're grasping at straws and seem to be basing your calculations on Hill Giants and Trolls when the enemies of the world look more like dragons.... fast and with more than enough abilities to ignore the Fighters of the world.
Grasping at straws? Aren't we using the Bestiary and Core Book for our opponents? Are those monsters in the Bestiary? Why do you think that only dragons are listed? My Bestiary has more than 350 different monsters. My copy of the Bestiary seems to have an extensive list of monsters ranging from less than CR 1 to more than CR 20. Did you get a defective copy? I suggest returning it for a full refund.
I mean, a demon simply teleports around a Fighter to attack whoever he wants.... a beholder fires multiply ranged save or dies or other battle ending spells.....heck, even hill giants can simply throw rocks.
Every demon can teleport? I can't seem to find the beholder in my Bestiary. The hill giants in my Bestiary seem to only be able to throw one rock per round for 14-15 points of damage on average. I don't see anything that prevents an attack of opportunity when throwing. Maybe I'm misreading something. It is possible that it's my Bestiary that's defective. I'll look into that.
My suggestion is to play in some tournaments with other DMs and other players. When there isn't a DM catering monsters to your weaknesses, the game plays quite differently.
Screw tournaments. I have played with many DMs since 1979 and been DMing since 1980. I've played in games all over the country with so many people I don't even remember most of their names. I have had great DMs and players and I have had very bad DMs and players. My experience is vast enough, thank you very much for the suggestion. I will file it in the appropriate place.
Fighter vs. Wizard.
Wizard wins hands down*.
This seems to be the consistent answer, Wizard wins, but with a caveat: They've had enough time to prepare, and have had time to tailor the battlefield to their advantage.
If assumed to have hundreds of thousands of gold in hand picked magic items, or that he's had the time to make them himself.
SO, go the oposite direction. No magic items.
Core base classes, with mundance equipment out of the core book, who wins? If you looked at this, level by level as they level, fighter wins until the wizard gets to the point where he can win initiative and can possibly one-shot the fighter.
Core using only mundane equipment would favor the caster, I should think. A fighter is almost determined by his gear as much as his feats. Without at least potions to allow him to fly a mage at level 3 with Levitate + Pro. Arrows + Damage dealing cantrip will likely take out a fighter before he gets the spell down with enough ranged attacks. Or any number of Will Save or lose spells, ranging from Tasha's Laughter all the way to Dominate Person.
Using magic equipment a fighter whose taken into account getting a good primary weapon, a decent secondary weapon should something happen to the first (dropped, sundered, ect), and a good ranged weapon along with a handful of defensive staples (cloak or resistances and the like) would have a fairly solid shot at taking down an unprepared wizard, of course it would all fall to initiative, battleground, the wizards spells prepared, and the almightly D20.
Core classes never stack up well when pitted against each other in an arena though; not only do the classes themselves have over arching strengths and weaknesses but how they are built offer even more variety. A better comparison would be to take a communally decided "average" fighter of various levels, and an "average" mage of various levels and pit them against several monsters of comparable CR's in a variety of battlefields.
The only problem is that you'd have to get a handful of people to decide what is the quintessential fighter and mage, and if agreeing on all of the countless factors to take into account you'd then have to decide what would make a fair and balanced set of trials.
In the end it really doesn't matter which would win as long as they are both playing to their strengths and accomplishing their goals. PF is a role-playing game, not a arena pit fight, although there is a TTG PnP game designed for such a thing. Can't remember what it was called, but it was downright silly. You built a character (anything from cyborgs to fuedal warriors), stuck them in a labrynth and awarded points as they mamed and killed one another and innocent bystanders. The point chart contained things like "Random act of brutality +10 points, and Macho action +2 points, and cowardly fleeing -20 points."
We already know, that you are tyrannical and unreasonable GM. Discussing players' desire to win the game as if it was something negative was a dead giveaway. So you can stop reminding everyone.
This isn't the first time I've said that this week. I can tell you that if you came to my table with a crap build like that, I would tell you to create a real character or find another group.
This is probably the funniest thing I've read all day. Oh, were you being serious? Are you one of the players at my table? Which one are you? Come on, you can tell me. I promise to let you win this time.
I know it may sound unreasonable, but honestly I'm here to tell a cooperative story with my friends. I am not here to have them bring in a new character each week because they thought 3 dump stats was a good idea. I have better things to do with my time and so do the others at the table. I'm glad that you enjoy your games. You need to understand that not everyone plays the same way you do.
Oh, and I have to keep reminding people how I DM because you and several others seem to have a problem understanding what is being said. You seem to be under the misconception that the types of games you are in are the exact same type of games that everyone else is in.
Fighter vs. Wizard.
Wizard wins hands down*.
This seems to be the consistent answer, Wizard wins, but with a caveat: They've had enough time to prepare, and have had time to tailor the battlefield to their advantage.
If assumed to have hundreds of thousands of gold in hand picked magic items, or that he's had the time to make them himself.
SO, go the oposite direction. No magic items.
Core base classes, with mundance equipment out of the core book, who wins? If you looked at this, level by level as they level, fighter wins until the wizard gets to the point where he can win initiative and can possibly one-shot the fighter.
I do think that wizards are extremely powerful and even without tons of preparation can still have a great chance of winning most battles. I rarely see a wizard without some prep. Those that fail to prep, even a little, don't live very long without a lot of luck or lots of DM fiat.
I also think that every other class, even the monk, can do just fine at all levels of play. It will depend entirely on the campaign and game style.
With only using Core and mundane equipment, the casters have the best chance of winning. The higher the level, the greater the chance. They are still going to have problems since they will most likely not have DCs into the stratosphere but they will still have the most options. In fact, I think the cleric or druid has the best chance at surviving since they have more spells available than the rest as well as some ways to remain effective even when they run low or even out of spells. That doesn't mean you can't be effective without equipment under the right circumstances. It just means that you can't expect to do very well.
Unlike casters, Melee has to actually pay out of WBL to have the implements neccessary to do their job at any given level.
4E saw this was a problem, and addressed it by forcing casters to have the same weapon and armor costs as Melees do. That is only fair.
Seriously, on another thread (wiz vs sorcs) we added up the costs of getting all the spells in the Core Rules. It was something like 310k gp against your WBL. That takes a massive hit against a wizard's gold. But most DM's hand-wave spell acquisition, while knuckling down against gettng a better sword and armor.
The Melee classes should basically get enhancements to their primary weapon and armor for free. That frees up half their wealth by level to shore up their defenses. You can do a LOT with an extra 300k...including afford an awesome off hand weapon.
===========
A monster that has to move around a fighter cannot charge, and so likely will not be able to make it to a spellcaster hanging back.
A monster doesn't usually have spellcraft or knowledge arcane to tell what the guy cowering way over there with fluttery hands is doing. Some do...those are the dangerous ones. They should go after spellcasters every bit as messily as spellcasters might go after them.
Readied actions to disrupt spellcasting are the province of minions. Unless this is a one-monster fight, spellcasters should basically be under the gun of minions with ranged attacks who know their tricks for avoiding getting hit and can overcome them, be it by using spells or missile fire.
Any caster who takes an AoO loses his spell. That's a total waste of an action AND it cost you Hit points. Now you have to win an acrobatics check against the monster to get out of range, or it's going to AoO you again, and that's if it didn't improved grab you and start the grapple. You trigger AoO's casting in a grapple, too.
Fighters can disrupt spellcasters just fine. Either they can AoO them, force defensive spellcasting and take readied actions, or lock them in place with stand still (3.5 version since K is using that, which is what cavaliars get). The monster isn't going anywhere if the fighter is smart.
If the monster uses missiles with a fighter in its face, it will take AoO's and likely be dead by the end of the round.
Using spell-likes with a fighter in front of you triggers AoO's too, and hastens that rapid fall to 0 Hit points.
K, every argument you are using has tons of loopholes. Does your DM not play your monsters appropriately at all? It seems to me like all your monsters are metagamers in an RPG, endowed with knowledge of numbers, the precise nature of all their foes, and the like. I mean, you go from 'there is no way a Fighter can have an AC high enough to evade a CR appropriate attack' to 'why would a monster try to swing at the heavily armored character it's going to miss?'
It's your complete lack of consistency that is destroying your creditability, despite how much you believe in your arguments. you keep bringing in 3.5 home rules, and don't realize it, and don't acknowledge that fighters can be played intelligently.
It's really rather strange, to see someone make such reasoned arguments that are so completely without foundation.
==Aelryinth
K, every argument you are using has tons of loopholes. Does your DM not play your monsters appropriately at all? It seems to me like all your monsters are metagamers in an RPG, endowed with knowledge of numbers, the precise nature of all their foes, and the like. I mean, you go from 'there is no way a Fighter can have an AC high enough to evade a CR appropriate attack' to 'why would a monster try to swing at the heavily armored character it's going to miss?
So intelligent monsters see fireballs and other spells coming off of enemies and can't reason out that they are spellcasters? They see heavily armored guys and can't assume they'd be harder to kill?
I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who buys that.
Remember, PCs can have INTs as low as 3 and still be considered intelligent enough to use complex and even cunning tactics. The rules don't say "Low INT characters have to use simple tactics" or that a PC with an Int of 3 can't make strategic plans or has to only attack the thing in front of him.
Remember, you can have a sage with an Int of 3 as long as he has a lot of ranks in his Knowledge (a -6 to a skill means little with you have 20 ranks and bonuses from feats and the like). Int is not actually intelligence, but more memory and patience to sit down and learn things by repetition.h
The most basic tactical reasoning would tell me that attacking the heavily armored guy is not going to be as productive as attacking the lightly armored guy, and not playing the monsters that way is just coddling your players.
Now animals do reason that way. It even makes sense that Golems and other Int 0 creature follow pre-programmed responses even when those don't make sense.
But it is clear the fighting guy's ability to "tank" is based almost entirely on DM pity. The number of abilities they have to bring to bear is vanishingly small and/or unreliable and that's a simple fact that can't be disputed. It's also a fact that lots of monsters have great movement abilities or ranged attacks that render a melee fighter irrelevant (and arguments like "hey, my fighter can use Step Up to force casting defensively and ready actions to foil spellscasting fall blatantly short when monsters can just take a move and cast). Even arguments about monster motivations fall apart under the slightest scrutiny.
But I think people have made the mistake to think that my criticism of the game is a criticism of them. I think fighting guys should be powered up to match their spellcasting peers so that DMs don't have to play monsters like MMO bots. I think it'd be great if fighting guys could actually play the role they think they are playing. I think DMs should focus more on story and less on making fighting guys think they are useful.
I think we get a richer experience for it.
Not at all. I point out the points that it suffers -- like the fact that with 82,000gp and level 11 the best spells you are going to have is level 6 with a DC of 28, you only have 3 of those 6th level spells, and the average creature is going to have a 45% chance of success against those spells.
What that you would fight at level 11 has +16 in its worst save?
Although, that being said, for the theoretical all-full-caster party, a half and half chance of success for the toughest single creatures you'd face is plenty good -- your chances of making 4 of those saves each round for very long aren't great.
That's just part of it -- the assumption that you'll have the right spell prepared to target the weak save.
You have 3 6th level slots at level 11 maximum. You have to choose the right ones with a prepared caster. If you are spotaneous you are dealing with 2 fifth level slots (by the way the best save DC for a prepped caster at level 11 is 27 -- an arcane sorcerer can get 28 with greater spell focus and robes of arcane heritage from the APG).
With an all caster party you have a decent chance one of you will get lucky -- but then how many spells did you go through before that happened? And again what spells are you using? sixth level and lower spells are very limited on their "I win" buttons and immunities are really starting to kick in at that point.
Also this relies at least a little on initiative. If the monster gets in first and you've spent all your wealth on getting your stuff good then your saves aren't. The cleric is ok on saves with specific builds but the wizard really isn't.
|
K, every argument you are using has tons of loopholes. Does your DM not play your monsters appropriately at all? It seems to me like all your monsters are metagamers in an RPG, endowed with knowledge of numbers, the precise nature of all their foes, and the like. I mean, you go from 'there is no way a Fighter can have an AC high enough to evade a CR appropriate attack' to 'why would a monster try to swing at the heavily armored character it's going to miss?So intelligent monsters see fireballs and other spells coming off of enemies and can't reason out that they are spellcasters? They see heavily armored guys and can't assume they'd be harder to kill?
I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who buys that.
Remember, PCs can have INTs as low as 3 and still be considered intelligent enough to use complex and even cunning tactics. The rules don't say "Low INT characters have to use simple tactics" or that a PC with an Int of 3 can't make strategic plans or has to only attack the thing in front of him.
Remember, you can have a sage with an Int of 3 as long as he has a lot of ranks in his Knowledge (a -6 to a skill means little with you have 20 ranks and bonuses from feats and the like). Int is not actually intelligence, but more memory and patience to sit down and learn things by repetition.h
The most basic tactical reasoning would tell me that attacking the heavily armored guy is not going to be as productive as attacking the lightly armored guy, and not playing the monsters that way is just coddling your players.
Now animals do reason that way. It even makes sense that Golems and other Int 0 creature follow pre-programmed responses even when those don't make sense.
But it is clear the fighting guy's ability to "tank" is based almost entirely on DM pity. The number of abilities they have to bring to bear is vanishingly small and/or unreliable and that's a simple fact that can't be disputed. It's also a fact that lots of monsters have great movement...
When are you throwing fireballs? So far you've said you would summon, then you said you wouldn't summon you would cast buff spells...
Seriously, the fighter is stabbing you with a sword. You don't think they are going to need to address that in order to not, you know, get stabbed to death.
Also, you can't have a sage with an Int of 3.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores#TOC-Intelligen ce-Int-
Aelryinth is right, it is like you are arguing about a different game with a whole different set of rules.
You are 100% right about context. The game is played in parties. And the Wizard and Fighter are complementary to each other, one can soak and keep baddies off the...
Except our whole argument is that we can replace the Fighter with another Wizard and get more soaking, leading to fewer rests and less resources wasted.
The Wizard soaks by using spells to control the battlefield, use summoned minions, giving the monsters conditions that make it hard to do damage (like blindness), or just using spells like Blink for a 50% damage reduction and 50% spell immunity above and beyond AC and saves.
Blink also comes with a 20% failure rate on your spells. Also casting those spells eats slots and actions. At 11th level each caster has at most 3 sixth level spells, 5 fifth level, 6 fourth level, and 8 of third and lower.
If the wizard is eating up spell slots to delay while everyone else handles it then how is it any different than if a fighter was in the party? With your extra wizard you delay longer - with a fighter you kill it quicker.
If your top end spells are SOD effects and you have overland flight then you have 4 other fifth level spells left. Saves matter -- after all as you pointed out supposedly attacking is the worse option a monster has -- if this is the case he'll hit your saves with abilities instead -- consider the Herzou with stench at DC 24 -- if he can grapple the wizard (which doesn't take an action because he has grab) and stenches the rest of the party and only gets 2 of them with that the party is in trouble.
With a CMD that low the Herzou can take the -20 on his check to maintain the grapple and still activate other abilities.
Now I'm not saying the Herzou will win -- he's equal CR so he shouldn't win but he's still going to be a pain.
Honestly the conversation of "party" doesn't really work either -- a party is supposed to win against an equal CR party -- a full party of casters will do so, a party of martial characters should do so as well as would a mixed party.
And why is the monster stopping? How did you buy that round?
Basically because one of the hundreds of martial builds out there with AC over 40 saves in the double digits and DPR of 100+ got in his face and hurt him badly.
How is the monster preventing the martial character from hurting it while it ignores him?
This gets at the crux of the problem -- you are saying that the martial character can do nothing to help the wizard -- but by simply hitting the monster hard the martial character proves you wrong -- he buys you the time to cast because the monster is going "Holy heck what just took out 2/3~3/4 of my HP in one round? That hurt!"
Also martial characters do have ways to control the monsters movement - trip for example will mean the monster needs a move action to just get up, which means it's not moving up to the wizard. The two weapon shield fighter can bullrush the thing for free -- meaning it must move to get into position again giving it less chance to attack. With swift aid and cavalier levels (or the bodyguard feat and In Harm's Way feat) I can intead help your AC and take the hit for you so you don't lose those full round casting spells.
This is just the easy to show stuff too -- completely ignoring the fact that I can give status penalties to monsters with martial classes too - especially with the new feats in the APG.
All the while the martial character offers an AC that can't be hit by CR equal creatures, damage that means the monsters don't want him around and saves that keep him from becoming just another pretty face.
The wizard isn't immune to the same effects you are suggesting he use, and his saves aren't going to be good if he's so focused on DC - while not focusing means the monsters can ignore his effects just as easily.
That's something else -- if the martial character will drop him in two rounds (and with the DPR presented he can) and the wizard is casting spells that fail almost half the time (with his best spells) then why worry about the caster that might control you (which at best is charm monster at this level) when the martial character will kill you.
Unlike casters, Melee has to actually pay out of WBL to have the implements neccessary to do their job at any given level.
Everyone has to pay out of wealth by level. Not just the martial characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When are you throwing fireballs? So far you've said you would summon, then you said you wouldn't summon you would cast buff spells...
Seriously, the fighter is stabbing you with a sword. You don't think they are going to need to address that in order to not, you know, get stabbed to death.Also, you can't have a sage with an Int of 3.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores#TOC-Intelligen ce-Int-
Aelryinth is right, it is like you are arguing about a different game with a whole different set of rules.
You're being incredibly nitpicky in response to basic descriptions here. People aren't getting on your case on the fact that a fighter can't trip with a sword or that suffering an AoO and maybe a charge (assuming they even hit) is actually appreciably less damage than a full-attack at the mid-levels. People are also being relatively generous, unless you're CoDZilla, in assuming that the fighter actually his fairly hard to hurt. Suffice it to say, the wizard is throwing spells that are by and large obvious and show way more potential than just stabbing.
Also, did you not read the page that you're trying to use to 'counter' the claim of an Int 3 sage?
Finally, you KEEP acting as if the stance being proposed is that wizards win everything and cannot lose when K has explicitly stated on more than one occasion the stance is just that wizards bring more to the table than fighters. In fact, a decent number of casters are capable of bringing their own fighting man to the scene that isn't too far behind the fighter (companions, summons, bindings, mind slaves, etc) while still maintaining their own usefulness of spelling their enemy's doom (pun intended).
|
|
When are you throwing fireballs? So far you've said you would summon, then you said you wouldn't summon you would cast buff spells...
Seriously, the fighter is stabbing you with a sword. You don't think they are going to need to address that in order to not, you know, get stabbed to death.Also, you can't have a sage with an Int of 3.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores#TOC-Intelligen ce-Int-
Aelryinth is right, it is like you are arguing about a different game with a whole different set of rules.
You're being incredibly nitpicky in response to basic descriptions here. People aren't getting on your case on the fact that a fighter can't trip with a sword or that suffering an AoO and maybe a charge afterwards is actually appreciably less damage than a full-attack.
Also, did you not read the page that you're trying to use to 'counter' the claim of an Int 3 sage?
Yes.
"The minimum Intelligence score needed to cast a wizard spell is 10 + the spell's level."
Having a 3 intelligence means you have the minimum to understand spoken language, and considering you will have minuses to Int, you will only be getting the minimum 1 skill point for level for those knowledge checks.
Not exactly a "sage"
The moving monster may be avoiding the fighters full round attack, but it is also sacrificing its full round attack while taking an attack of opportunity on the way.
If your DM does this, thank them.
Yes.
"The minimum Intelligence score needed to cast a wizard spell is 10 + the spell's level."
Having a 3 intelligence means you have the minimum to understand spoken language, and considering you will have minuses to Int, you will only be getting the minimum 1 skill point for level for those knowledge checks.
Not exactly a "sage"
Since when is a sage required to be a wizard? If you've got a decent bonus to Knowledge (history) or something, people are still going to consider you a sage when it comes time to research the sacking of the Gates of Despair in the year of the Cricket; they might also call you other things if you have a 3 Int (naive, focused, etc), but a historical sage would be included. It's even possible to be versed in a plurality of Knowledges with that low of an Intelligence.
|
|
Since when is a sage required to be a wizard? If you've got a decent bonus to Knowledge (history) or something, people are still going to consider you a sage when it comes time to research the sacking of the Gates of Despair; they might also call you other things if you have a 3 Int (naive, focused, etc), but a historical sage would be included. It's even possible to be versed in a plurality of Knowledges with that low of an Intelligence.Yes.
"The minimum Intelligence score needed to cast a wizard spell is 10 + the spell's level."
Having a 3 intelligence means you have the minimum to understand spoken language, and considering you will have minuses to Int, you will only be getting the minimum 1 skill point for level for those knowledge checks.
Not exactly a "sage"
You will only get one skill point per level to put into intelligence if you are talking Wizards, because that is the minimum they can give you. Maybe if you are playing the worlds dumbest Bard you could argue this but even then you would get 2 of the 6 allocated per level (-4 from Int) and start out with a -4 to all of your knowledge rolls.
Naive would be low wisdom. 3 Intelligence is one up from a dog.
A wizard has more potential options to bring to a given party. But it can't bring them all at once.
You will only get one skill point per level to put into intelligence if you are talking Wizards
Good thing I'm not talking about wizards then, as this was about sages. Naivety is not low Wisdom, it's limited experience or understanding; and in comparison to someone of equal level but higher Int, they will come off as having learned less (because they did).
So what if Int 3 is one up from a dog? That one point is a rather drastic jump. They're still a playable character that can understand a language and be literate. You can even feasibly have a sage with an Int of 3, which you continue to fail to disprove.
EDIT: And no, a wizard can't bring every option at once, which isn't the claim. The claim is that what they can/do bring is better than what the fighter offers if done with Intelligence, so you're nearly always better off filling that fighter slot with a wizard (or any primary caster).
|
|
You will only get one skill point per level to put into intelligence if you are talking WizardsGood thing I'm not talking about wizards then, as this was about sages. Naivety is not low Wisdom, it's limited experience or understanding; and in comparison to someone of equal level but higher Int, they will come off as having learned less (because they did).
So what if Int 3 is one up from a dog? That one point is a rather drastic jump. They're still a playable character that can understand a language and be literate. You can even feasibly have a sage with an Int of 3, which you continue to fail to disprove.
EDIT: And no, a wizard can't bring every option at once, which isn't the claim. The claim is that what they can/do bring is better than what the fighter offers if done with Intelligence, so you're nearly always better off filling that fighter slot with a wizard (or any primary caster).
Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition.
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.
Which one of the above do you feel better governs "limited experience or understanding"
But, if your character with a -4 to all knowledge checks and one skill point per level, 2 if they are a bard, 4 if they are a rogue, is going to use all of those points and even extra feats in learning a specific knowledge...
Seriously, if you can't even see why a 3 Intelligence couldn't be described as a sage...well I don't see any common ground on any other reasonable discussion.
And I'm guessing you are of the "K" and "CoDzilla" mindset on builds as well. Because by your logic, the burden is on me to disprove what you state as unquestionable fact in the fact of presentation of the limitations of the rules.
Still, strangely people continue to play non-casters and not die, and casters continue to die in games at a rate comparable to other classes...
Hey man, live how you want to live. In a world where 3 Intelligence isn't dumb, just limited experience...despite what the rules say...
Quoted for Truthiness!
Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition.
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.Which one of the above do you feel better governs "limited experience or understanding"
...
Seriously, if you can't even see why a 3 Intelligence couldn't be described as a sage...well I don't see any common ground on any other reasonable discussion.
And I'm guessing you are of the "K" and "CoDzilla" mindset on builds as well. Because by your logic, the burden is on me to disprove what you state as unquestionable fact in the fact of presentation of the limitations of the rules.
Still, strangely people continue to play non-casters and not die, and casters continue to die in games at a rate comparable to other classes...
Hey man, live how you want to live. In a world where 3 Intelligence isn't dumb, just limited experience...despite what the rules say...
Common sense isn't really under the purview of Wisdom unless you stretch the definition of perception (not the d20 skill) very wide. Seeing as how the ability to learn is influenced by Intelligence, I would think that 'limited understanding' would describe that fairly well.
As for the common ground for discussion, I was feeling like saying the same to you in this case. If someone's fairly knowledgeable about a subject, or even a plurality of them, I'm going to call them a sage. The low Int makes it take more effort to get a point where you're considered well-versed on a subject(s), but it doesn't make it impossible and it certainly doesn't somehow make a +10 /= +10 (or something).
I don't quite know what you're referring to when it comes to K and CoDzilla's mindset about builds. Are you talking about not making them? I can empathize with that mindset (if that's what you speak of), since people like you keep demanding a wizard build that can crush everything as the only thing that would sate you. If you're referring to something specific, such as the idiot savant sage (rather than the strawman god wizard), then I'm more willing to entertain such ideas.
|
|
Common sense isn't really under the purview of Wisdom unless you stretch the definition of perception (not the d20 skill) very wide. Seeing as how the ability to learn is influenced by Intelligence, I would think that 'limited understanding' would describe that fairly well.
My description of Wisdom was a direct quote from the rulebook.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores#TOC-Wisdom-Wis -
And why is the monster stopping? How did you buy that round?
Basically because one of the hundreds of martial builds out there with AC over 40 saves in the double digits and DPR of 100+ got in his face and hurt him badly.
That's something else -- if the martial character will drop him in two rounds (and with the DPR presented he can) and the wizard is casting spells that fail almost half the time (with his best spells) then why worry...
Good Point. Something like a lvl 20 Two Weapon Warrior has an AC of 38 on a move, 43 onj a full attack (defensive flurry).
Rd 1.
Sure, lets do level 20.
At CR 20, three of the four monsters in the PRD cast greater teleport. They move past the fighter without a second thought.
The only one left is the Tarn Linnorn. It can't be tripped, has Freedom of Movement and a fly speed of 100. It moves past the fighter and takes one AoO. It also has DR 20/cold iron so probably only takes 30 points of damage which is less than 10% of it's HPs and tiny compared to it's Regen 15.
So at level 20, the Fighter can't stop ANY CR 20 monster in the PRD from ignoring him (barring templated monsters specially designed to fail this test).
I also feel that my point has been entirely proved on the Int 3 Sage matter. The people who think Fighters can "Tank" at all also seem to think that despite having very high checks on Knowledge skills based on level and feats spent, you can't be a sage because obviously you don't know anything because you have a low Int. It's a patten of non-rational thinking that ignores evidence combined with an preconceived ideas about how the game should be played.
Sorry, but saying that Fighters are tanks because they should be doesn't change the fact that they aren't.
|
|
I also feel that my point has been entirely proved on the Int 3 Sage matter. The people who think Fighters can "Tank" at all also seem to think that despite having very high checks on Knowledge skills based on level and feats spent, you can't be a sage because obviously you don't know anything because you have a low Int. It's a patten of non-rational thinking that ignores evidence combined with an preconceived ideas about how the game should be played.
No it is a -4 to all knowledge checks combined with only getting 1 skill point a level that shows a lack of reading of the rules.
Intelligence = Ability to gain knowledge
Wisdom = Process Knowledge
Intelligence = (basic terms) Book smarts
Wisdom = (basic terms) Street smarts
Common Sense = Street smarts
Imagine the absent minded professor (a given example in 3.5 Players handbook) High int low wisdom.
Wise monk who is illiterate might have many insightful observations about life but does not know much about physics and its mechanics. He knows rocks fall because they must.
perfect examples of why common sense is not intelligence.
K we both know the fighter example he offered was a horrible one. A fighter at level twenty can have AC of 60 excellent saves, and be fully capable of dropping CR creatures in 1~2 rounds (and still have the HP to survive).
Moving past the fighter still takes a standard action and moving past him doesn't mean he isn't capable of dealing with the monster still. Also the fighter will have a full +5 magic sword which means that the DR doesn't do crap for the Tarn. The stand still feat would mean that the Tarn is stopped without having to trip it.
Now the monster probably can distinguish between the caster and the fighter -- but that doesn't mean he can't be dropped by the fighter.
Now you'll claim that a fighter such as what I suggest can't exist, and I'll be willing to prove it but you won't be willing to show your fabled wizard that can do everything, be everywhere, and stop everything with it's spells.
Despite the point that at level 20 the Best DC the wizard will have is 34 against creatures that have save bonuses over 25 and outright immunities to many of the spell effects you are relying on.
I also feel that my point has been entirely proved on the Int 3 Sage matter. The people who think Fighters can "Tank" at all also seem to think that despite having very high checks on Knowledge skills based on level and feats spent, you can't be a sage because obviously you don't know anything because you have a low Int. It's a patten of non-rational thinking that ignores evidence combined with an preconceived ideas about how the game should be played.No it is a -4 to all knowledge checks combined with only getting 1 skill point a level that shows a lack of reading of the rules.
Lol!
A level 20 Expert with Skill Focus can have a check on Knowledge: Arcana of +22 even with an Int of 3. If he's getting a circumstance bonus due to a library or books and has a research assistant, that check goes even higher.
Sounds like a sage to me. But then, I only read the rules.
|
|
Sure, lets do level 20.At CR 20, three of the four monsters in the PRD cast greater teleport. They move past the fighter without a second thought.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/disruptive-combat---final
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/spellbreaker-combat---finalhttp://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/teleport-tactician-combat
Two can play the no build game.
The rules, they are for reading.
K we both know the fighter example he offered was a horrible one. A fighter at level twenty can have AC of 60 excellent saves, and be fully capable of dropping CR creatures in 1~2 rounds (and still have the HP to survive).
Moving past the fighter still takes a standard action and moving past him doesn't mean he isn't capable of dealing with the monster still. Also the fighter will have a full +5 magic sword which means that the DR doesn't do crap for the Tarn. The stand still feat would mean that the Tarn is stopped without having to trip it.
Stand Still requires a combat maneuver check. The Tarn Linnorn has a CMD of 64.
What's your fighter's CMB?
|
|
I also feel that my point has been entirely proved on the Int 3 Sage matter. The people who think Fighters can "Tank" at all also seem to think that despite having very high checks on Knowledge skills based on level and feats spent, you can't be a sage because obviously you don't know anything because you have a low Int. It's a patten of non-rational thinking that ignores evidence combined with an preconceived ideas about how the game should be played.No it is a -4 to all knowledge checks combined with only getting 1 skill point a level that shows a lack of reading of the rules.
Lol!
A level 20 Expert with Skill Focus can have a check on Knowledge: Arcana of +22 even with an Int of 3. If he's getting a circumstance bonus due to a library or books and has a research assistant, that check goes even higher.
Sounds like a sage to me. But then, I only read the rules.
Yes, he would be an epic idiot with one knowledge skill and absolutely nothing else going for him, with minuses in all of his other knowledge skills.
That is exactly the description of a sage.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sage
You could also give him an 18 Wisdom and hit the definition above I guess.
So congratulations, you have met the incredibly low bar that you set for yourself.
Sure, lets do level 20.At CR 20, three of the four monsters in the PRD cast greater teleport. They move past the fighter without a second thought.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/disruptive-combat---final
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/spellbreaker-combat---final
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/teleport-tactician-combatTwo can play the no build game.
The rules, they are for reading.
What's your point?
Your non-Core feats only give the Fighter an AoO...... and none of those monsters actually fail to escape because making a casting defensively check is really easy even with those penalties AND they can still just take a move and cast.
I declare weak sauce.
Sure, lets do level 20.At CR 20, three of the four monsters in the PRD cast greater teleport. They move past the fighter without a second thought.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/disruptive-combat---final
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/spellbreaker-combat---final
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/teleport-tactician-combatTwo can play the no build game.
The rules, they are for reading.
What's your point?
Your non-Core feats only give the Fighter an AoO...... and none of those monsters actually fail to escape because making a casting defensively check is really easy even with those penalties AND they can still just take a move and cast.
I declare weak sauce.
Please elaborate how the check is easy??
And Spellbreaker and Disruptive are core feats... I question your knowledge of fighter abilities alot now.
Also Teleport tactician gets an AoO no matter what. even for CD
|
|
Sure, lets do level 20.At CR 20, three of the four monsters in the PRD cast greater teleport. They move past the fighter without a second thought.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/disruptive-combat---final
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/spellbreaker-combat---final
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/teleport-tactician-combatTwo can play the no build game.
The rules, they are for reading.
What's your point?
Your non-Core feats only give the Fighter an AoO...... and none of those monsters actually fail to escape because making a casting defensively check is really easy even with those penalties AND they can still just take a move and cast.
I declare weak sauce.
"Teleport Tactician (Combat)
You are highly alert for enemies using teleportation to approach you or flee from you.
Prerequisites: Combat reflexes, Disruptive, Spellbreaker.
Benefit: Any creature using a teleportation effect to enter or leave a square threatened by you provokes an attack of opportunity, even if casting defensively or using a supernatural ability."
+
"Injury
If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action)."
= Stationary Monster who just wasted a spell.
The rules, they are awesome!
|
I also feel that my point has been entirely proved on the Int 3 Sage matter. The people who think Fighters can "Tank" at all also seem to think that despite having very high checks on Knowledge skills based on level and feats spent, you can't be a sage because obviously you don't know anything because you have a low Int. It's a patten of non-rational thinking that ignores evidence combined with an preconceived ideas about how the game should be played.No it is a -4 to all knowledge checks combined with only getting 1 skill point a level that shows a lack of reading of the rules.
Lol!
A level 20 Expert with Skill Focus can have a check on Knowledge: Arcana of +22 even with an Int of 3. If he's getting a circumstance bonus due to a library or books and has a research assistant, that check goes even higher.
Sounds like a sage to me. But then, I only read the rules.
You've just described Rain Man. He's not a sage, he's an Idiot Savant. And that is how he should be played. The knowledge is all there, but he's too stupid to string it together coherently and only brings it up when the right triggers come his way.
When you build your super wizards/sages whatever with their gimped out dump stats, I'm going to use your own rule of thumb against you. You keep telling everyone to play the NPC's to their stats, and make a base line assumption about that. Well, I'm going to make you play your character to yours.
You've mentioned a number of scenarios now where the monsters are playing well and truly beyond their in game knowledge and instead play to the metagame mechanics of the DM. Play by the rules for Knowledge checks for monsters the same as you would for characters. I enforce no metagaming for my players and make them use skills in order to come up with certain tactics. My players keep me honest with my baddies the same way. If a creature has no skills in knowledge Arcana, and comes from no discernable culture that uses magic regularly enough to make it a common knowledge check, then how the hell do they know what the guy at the back using robes is capable of again? Chances are they may not even recognise what you are if you're extraplanar traveling since they spend their time battling other things besides your group.
I have no qualms with creatures responding intelligently to things they've witnessed a character doing, but you seem to think they can do it before hand. Again, it looks like your GM is pandering to your group by ignoring certain rules. A GM can make any class look crappy if he only implements some of the rules specifically designed to gimp them. You sound like you play in a group where you and the DM only play by the rules that advantage casters. No wonder you think there's an imbalance.
Cheers
|
|
The rules, they are for reading.
What's your point?
Your non-Core feats only give the Fighter an AoO...... and none of those monsters actually fail to escape because making a casting defensively check is really easy even with those penalties AND they can still just take a move and cast.
I declare weak sauce.
Please elaborate how the check is easy??
Also Teleport tactician gets an AoO no matter what. even for CD
Easy. He didn't read the rule fully.
This is a recurring theme in this thread.
The developers did a better job balancing than people realize. Mainly, because they don't fully read the rules.
I would like to point out that I've seen several instances in this thread where a challenge is presented and the wizard's response is 'dimension door away' or 'turn invisible and fly out of reach.'
I guess that we have conclusively proven that the wizard is much better at running away than a fighter, but I am still unsure if this means that a full wizard party is better than a balanced party. It sounds as though there would be significantly more running away and less actually dealing with threats, and when the threats are dealt with it would be by way of 'Roll four saves vs death/suck'
...
Actually, this seems pretty fitting considering Wizards are basically ascended nerds. They must to avoid the bullies completely or beat them with a single decisive strike.
The rules, they are for reading.
What's your point?
Your non-Core feats only give the Fighter an AoO...... and none of those monsters actually fail to escape because making a casting defensively check is really easy even with those penalties AND they can still just take a move and cast.
I declare weak sauce.
Please elaborate how the check is easy??
Also Teleport tactician gets an AoO no matter what. even for CD
Easy. He didn't read the rule fully.
This is a recurring theme in this thread.
The developers did a better job balancing than people realize. Mainly, because they don't fully read the rules.
A Balor has a +28 to his check vs a base target of 24 for casting greater teleport defensively, so even with penalties his basic Casting Defensively check is an auto-succeed.
The Teleport Tactician has an AoO, which has to hit. If it hits and you can still do decent AoO damage after the Balor might fail his check.
Or he might just use his own Telekinesis to move himself in a way that it unstoppable by feats or class features and then cast where he doesn't have to make a check. Whatever.
Bored now. Thanks for making DnD boring.
|
|
The rules, they are for reading.
What's your point?
Your non-Core feats only give the Fighter an AoO...... and none of those monsters actually fail to escape because making a casting defensively check is really easy even with those penalties AND they can still just take a move and cast.
I declare weak sauce.
Please elaborate how the check is easy??
Also Teleport tactician gets an AoO no matter what. even for CD
Easy. He didn't read the rule fully.
This is a recurring theme in this thread.
The developers did a better job balancing than people realize. Mainly, because they don't fully read the rules.
A Balor has a +28 to his check vs a base target of 24 for casting greater teleport defensively, so even with penalties his basic Casting Defensively check is an auto-succeed.
The Teleport Tactician has an AoO, which has to hit. If it hits and you can still do decent AoO damage after the Balor might fail his check.
Or he might just use his own Telekinesis to move himself in a way that it unstoppable by feats or class features and then cast where he doesn't have to make a check. Whatever.
Bored now. Thanks for making DnD boring.
Rules tend to be boring. Which is probably why you have not been reading them.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/telekinesis
So how would he do what now?
Core base classes, with mundance equipment out of the core book, who wins? If you looked at this, level by level as they level, fighter wins until the wizard gets to the point where he can win initiative and can possibly one-shot the fighter.
That's not a great angle because that level is 1.
Note that you said possibly, not that it would be likely.
I figured you'd get the obvious understanding that we refer to a sage as a scholarly, knowledgeable person. If you're going to pull out the damn dictionary, look up wisdom on that site of yours, because one of the definitions include "scholarly knowledge". It's not hard to understand that there is to a True Sageman.
I'd almost say that K's referring to the line in TK that says it can perform a bull rush where no AoOs are provoked, which includes the one from the victim moving. That's a debatable point, and I might be wrong.
But really, how is this fighter spending the necessary feats for this? A fighter actually has a finite number and can't have the answer to everything the balor does, especially since we're assuming he's not metagaming and actually plans to fight things other than a balor. Your hypothetical fighter can apparently maintain a very high CMD, AC, saving throws (both Fort and Will), fire resistance, anti-teleportation, create impossible Concentration DCs, and all while able to hit it accurately and hard enough that he will defeat the balor because he got an extra three hits from it taking out the wizard first.
|
|
I figured you'd get the obvious understanding that we refer to a sage as a scholarly, knowledgeable person. If you're going to pull out the damn dictionary, look up wisdom on that site of yours, because one of the definitions include "scholarly knowledge". It's not hard to understand that there is to a True Sageman.
I'd almost say that K's referring to the line in TK that says it can perform a bull rush where no AoOs are provoked, which includes the one from the victim moving. That's a debatable point, and I might be wrong.
But really, how is this fighter spending the necessary feats for this? A fighter actually has a finite number and can't have the answer to everything the balor does, especially since we're assuming he's not metagaming and actually plans to fight things other than a balor. Your hypothetical fighter can apparently maintain a very high CMD, AC, saving throws (both Fort and Will), fire resistance, anti-teleportation, create impossible Concentration DCs, and all while able to hit it accurately and hard enough that he will defeat the balor because he got an extra three hits from it taking out the wizard first.
Fighters would have 21 feats by that level. 22 if they are human. They would have the highest AC and CMD, by the design of the class.
Post a build works both ways. I am amused to see you try to turn it the other way after so much complaint from your side of the argument.
As to your "Sage"...someone above already called him Rain Man, that is about right.
And the Telekinesis...he didn't read the spell. You can try to defend him, but he clearly didn't read the spell. This happens a lot in these threads.
This is probably the funniest thing I've read all day.
On the contrary, things you write make me sad.
I know it may sound unreasonable, but honestly I'm here to tell a cooperative story with my friends. I am not here to have them bring in a new character each week because they thought 3 dump stats was a good idea.
Both of these sentences cannot be true at the same time. Either you want to tell cooperative story. Or you screw players over in passive-aggressive way for assuming there is actually supposed to be some cooperation going on, and therefore their preferences count.
Oh, and I have to keep reminding people how I DM because you and several others seem to have a problem understanding what is being said.
No, I understand things you say all too well. That's why they make me sad.
You seem to be under the misconception that the types of games you are in are the exact same type of games that everyone else is in.
And you seem be under the misconception that arbitrary GM dickery is justified because it is "that type of game".
I figured you'd get the obvious understanding that we refer to a sage as a scholarly, knowledgeable person. If you're going to pull out the damn dictionary, look up wisdom on that site of yours, because one of the definitions include "scholarly knowledge". It's not hard to understand that there is to a True Sageman.
I'd almost say that K's referring to the line in TK that says it can perform a bull rush where no AoOs are provoked, which includes the one from the victim moving. That's a debatable point, and I might be wrong.
But really, how is this fighter spending the necessary feats for this? A fighter actually has a finite number and can't have the answer to everything the balor does, especially since we're assuming he's not metagaming and actually plans to fight things other than a balor. Your hypothetical fighter can apparently maintain a very high CMD, AC, saving throws (both Fort and Will), fire resistance, anti-teleportation, create impossible Concentration DCs, and all while able to hit it accurately and hard enough that he will defeat the balor because he got an extra three hits from it taking out the wizard first.
Fighters would have 21 feats by that level. 22 if they are human. They would have the highest AC and CMD, by the design of the class.
Post a build works both ways. I am amused to see you try to turn it the other way after so much complaint from your side of the argument.
As to your "Sage"...someone above already called him Rain Man, that is about right.
And the Telekinesis...he didn't read the spell. You can try to defend him, but he clearly didn't read the spell. This happens a lot in these threads.
+1
I love it whenever people argue that fighters are the metagamers...
Disruptive, Spellbreaker, and Teleport Tactician are hardly and I mean HARDLY bad choices for any fighter of that level because almost everything by that level has magic of some sort and teleportation is almost a given.
Its insulting to assume the fighter wouldnt take those feats unless he was metagaming when I have had to put up with countless full-caster arguements about spells they just so happen to have prepared.
Fighter vs. Wizard.
Wizard wins hands down*.
This seems to be the consistent answer, Wizard wins, but with a caveat: They've had enough time to prepare, and have had time to tailor the battlefield to their advantage.
If assumed to have hundreds of thousands of gold in hand picked magic items, or that he's had the time to make them himself.
SO, go the oposite direction. No magic items.
Core base classes, with mundance equipment out of the core book, who wins? If you looked at this, level by level as they level, fighter wins until the wizard gets to the point where he can win initiative and can possibly one-shot the fighter.
Whut? The equipment is the only thing that allows the fighter to keep up at all. Without equipment, even most basic wizard tricks like invisibility and flight become either flatly impossible to counter, or impossible to counter for most builds. So the fighter needs BS conditions like starting at the open arena with both combatants unprepared* to even try being a challenge.
*For the record, the last time I was a player, the party - including the wizard of course - never was unprepared. We delved deeper into the dungeon until 10 minutes/level buffs expired, and then retreated to search cleared rooms for loot and rest.
And the Telekinesis...he didn't read the spell. You can try to defend him, but he clearly didn't read the spell. This happens a lot in these threads.
You can bullrush yourself with the spell which is a way around things that stop normal movement or trigger off normal movement. You can also avoid AoOs. Then you take a move when you are out of range.
My only mistake was not checking a Balor's CMD. It's much higher than his own Telekinesis can affect.
My real mistake was letting various distractions derail my point, which is that Wizard are much better at meatshielding than Fighters and not that Fighters are completely ineffective or that WIzards are gods.
So offer up a level 20 fighter build that is better than a level 20 Wizard at protecting a party. That's the challenge. Then we can see how things shake out with some CR 18-22 monsters. PRD only.
If it doesn't derail into a bloody flamewar we can try other levels.
I don't quite know what you're referring to when it comes to K and CoDzilla's mindset about builds. Are you talking about not making them? I can empathize with that mindset (if that's what you speak of), since people like you keep demanding a wizard build that can crush everything as the only thing that would sate you.
The issue is that they have claimed that the wizard is always prepared and can just cast his "win" spell, whatever that may be. They have actually claimed that the wizard can cast constantly. They have yet to show how this is possible. Until they can post a build that does that, many of us will just assume that they are just arguing to argue and actually have little to no understanding of the system. We want to be proved wrong. I'm willing to bet that the designers would also like to see this so that they can address a real problem with the game. Alas, the problem doesn't really exist. No one has ever been able to provide this fabled build using only Pathfinder materials. Heck, beyond Pun-Pun (and he wasn't even a caster), I have not seen this build in any version of DnD.
When we discuss things like Trip, Grapple, or any other control feat chain, it is in response to arguments that there is nothing a fighter can do. There are things the fighter can do. He must be built that way and we acknowledge this. These are things the fighter can do. Being bonus feats, they are definitely fighter options. Not every option is ideal in every situation. It is very easy to build a fighter that has several options and remains effective at all levels of play.
So offer up a level 20 fighter build that is better than a level 20 Wizard at protecting a party. That's the challenge. Then we can see how things shake out with some CR 18-22 monsters. PRD only.
If it doesn't derail into a bloody flamewar we can try other levels.
Who said the fighter was better? You made the claim that the fighter can't do this. No one has said the fighter is better than the wizard. This is the crux of the problem. You are misreading what we are saying. The fighter can keep the bad guys off the wizard so the wizard can cast his spells. That's it. That's the claim. If the wizard is able to stay away from the bad guys while the fighter inflicts pain on the bad guys, that works too. The point is that the fighter is a useful member of the group at all levels of play and the wizard is not invincible.
Fighters would have 21 feats by that level. 22 if they are human. They would have the highest AC and CMD, by the design of the class.
Post a build works both ways. I am amused to see you try to turn it the other way after so much complaint from your side of the argument.
As to your "Sage"...someone above already called him Rain Man, that is about right.
And the Telekinesis...he didn't read the spell. You can try to defend him, but he clearly didn't read the spell. This happens a lot in these threads.
That was honestly an attempt to see how you respond to the same rhetoric you keep using, which is a bit different because my side of the fence isn't hung up on specifics like you obsess over.
Regardless of whether you want to bring up false claims of Hollywood autism, someone of respectable scholarly authority remains a sage.
I don't quite know what you're referring to when it comes to K and CoDzilla's mindset about builds. Are you talking about not making them? I can empathize with that mindset (if that's what you speak of), since people like you keep demanding a wizard build that can crush everything as the only thing that would sate you.The issue is that they have claimed that the wizard is always prepared and can just cast his "win" spell, whatever that may be. They have actually claimed that the wizard can cast constantly. They have yet to show how this is possible. Until they can post a build that does that, many of us will just assume that they are just arguing to argue and actually have little to no understanding of the system. We want to be proved wrong. I'm willing to bet that the designers would also like to see this so that they can address a real problem with the game. Alas, the problem doesn't really exist.
The problem doesn't exist because no one has ever claimed that spellcasters can cast constantly, or that they can beat everything.
Please do a google search on "Strawman Argument". Then come back.
Who said the fighter was better? You made the claim that the fighter can't do this. No one has said the fighter is better than the wizard. This is the crux of the problem. You are misreading what we are saying. The fighter can keep the bad guys off the wizard so the wizard can cast his spells. That's it. That's the claim. If the wizard is able to stay away from the bad guys while the fighter inflicts pain on the bad guys, that works too. The point is that the fighter is a useful member of the group at all levels of play and the wizard is not invincible.So offer up a level 20 fighter build that is better than a level 20 Wizard at protecting a party. That's the challenge. Then we can see how things shake out with some CR 18-22 monsters. PRD only.
If it doesn't derail into a bloody flamewar we can try other levels.
Also google "moving goalposts."