|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's something I've noticed quite a few times on these forums, especially when discussing touchy issues like class balance, power gaming, martial/caster disparity, and theory-craft builds: Some people try to prove their points by using the worst possible examples, hyperbolic situations carefully engineered to support their opinions.
For example, some people try to prove that class A is better than class B by showing sample builds from each where class A is perfectly optimized and class B is not.
Another example that really bothers me, from the rogue vs. wizard debate, is how wizards can supposedly replace rogues because they have spells that accomplish most of the iconic thief skills. This requires a wizard to:
- Have all those spells in his spellbook
- Memorize all those spells (as opposed to more useful combat stuff)
- Know beforehand which he's going to need ("The dungeon has three locked doors? Okay, I memorize knock three times.")
- Succeed on all the required rolls (remember, disguise self, knock, and invisibility still require skill rolls; they just grant bonuses to those rolls
- Assume there are no magical deterrents in place (antimagic fields, enemy spellcasters to counterspell, spell resistance, etc)
- That others will not mind and/or not react to spells being cast (charm person sounds like it replaces Diplomacy, but you can't just walk up to the king and cast a spell on him without the guards jumping you.
Naturally, this makes a lot of assumptions about the wizard's build, the adventure situation, and how accommodating the DM is. It also assumes the rogue is a bumbling moron who has not bolstered his skills with his own magical advantages.
Now, I'm not trying to open up new debates on either of these topics, just saying that, from now on, whenever I hear someone try to prove a point using an absurd, hyperbolic, unequal example comparing two design features, I'm going to refer to this thread and call it a Straw Golem Argument. Linking back to this thread is going to be a much easier way of expressing this point than having to write all this down again and again. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, I'm not trying to open up new debates on either of these topics...
But that's exactly what's going to happen. I don't really know how you could expect anything else.
Your own argument seems to be a bit of a 'straw golem' too; invisibility doesn't just give a +20 bonus, it can be used when stealth can't, say because you want to move fast. A spell or item for disguise is often a smaller investment of character resources than 7-10 ranks in the skill & stacks with any skill the caster has. Antimagic fields are ridiculously difficult to set up, counterspelling spellcasters would often be more effective doing something other than counterspelling, effective levels of spell resistance aren't that common.
Schrödinger's wizard is a problem in online debates (if overstated IMO). A good magical 'rogue' uses certainly magic and skill both, but skills are available to all classes and magic is much more available to casters.
It costs almost nothing to to add Rogue-replacing spells to your spellbook.
Anti-magic fields, on the other hand, costs a high-level spellcaster doing pretty much nothing but standing around while he maintains the field. Permanent anti-magic fields are very conspicuously NOT something you can create by using the rules, they're a tool of ham-handed adventure writers and bad GMs.
Furthermore, the kind of magic that makes Rogue players cry usually doesn't have to contend with counterspelling and spell resistance.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If what you're saying is that strawman argument regarding Pathfinder should be called a Straw Golem Argument since Pathfinder has golems and Paizo uses one as their logo then I guess that's not a completely unreasonable suggestion. I can see how you might find that wordplay amusing. Something I find amusing and perhaps more relevant to the discussion of Wizards vs Rogues is Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit.
|
- Have all those spells in his spellbook
- Memorize all those spells (as opposed to more useful combat stuff)
- Know beforehand which he's going to need ("The dungeon has three locked doors? Okay, I memorize knock three times.")
- Succeed on all the required rolls (remember, disguise self, knock, and invisibility still require skill rolls; they just grant bonuses to those rolls
- Assume there are no magical deterrents in place (antimagic fields, enemy spellcasters to counterspell, spell resistance, etc)
- That others will not mind and/or not react to spells being cast (charm person sounds like it replaces Diplomacy, but you can't just walk up to the king and cast a spell on him without the guards jumping you.
-If a wizard's working on replacing a rogue, why wouldn't they have all those spells in their book?
-See previous statement, as well as the fact that wizards can leave some slots open to prepare later.
-Man, if only there was a school of magic based on knowing the future, some way to DIVINE what they would need? Sure, divination won't tell them all the answers, but it'll answer simple things.
-EDIT: As for the rolls, Wizard has enough skill points to invest in skills same as the rogue, and if the +3 to them is super important, they can take traits to shore up the difference, so yeah, not a huge issue there either. I mean if it's a rogue replacement, they probably have the skills anyways.
-Assuming APs are the standard the game is to be played at, I think I've heard of ONE antimagic field ever, if that. Why do people assume they're all over the place? Also if a wizard's casting where they can be counterspelled, they're probably in combat, and that enemy just wasted their turn for a CHANCE to stop the wizard from doing something. Most rogue replacement spells aren't really SR heavy and most objects don't have SR, so...
-Most skills are superseded by magic, that's the system. Skill unlocks help, but end of the day, magic beats skills.
Any cash the rogue spends on being a better rogue, the wizard can spend on being a better rogue and wizard (scrolls to scribe into spellbook, whatever magical doodad the rogue is picking up to be better), as well as not needing to sink cash into a primary weapon and armor, putting the wizard ahead on the cash race.
Seriously, this wasn't even hard to refute, so if you're going to link back to this thread whenever this comes up, I'll be sure to link back to my post to refute it.
Not to mention that the wizard is, in all likelihood, going to eventually exceed the rogue in skill ranks anyway since they'll be pumping their intelligence into the statosphere. Practically speaking, it makes a lot more sense to have a good skills so you can save your spells for when you really need them, rather than burning a second level slot to open a DC 1 lock.
Since both sides get the skill ranks, it comes down to whether skill unlocks + rogue talents can beat 9-level spellcasting. Something I think has a pretty obvious answer.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Skills vs. Spells - Some martials have substantial access to skills, however, even max ranks and a decent ability modifier in a class skill is often a very poor substitute for what a spell can accomplish. Skills are useful if you need to do a fairly easy task for a long time, but in many cases, magic allows automatic success for more time then you need to accomplish the task. For example, rather then make a bunch of climb and acrobatics checks to climb up a 100' wall and cross a narrow ledge, the caster can just fly right up, much quicker, and with no checks required. While skills do have their place, they are severely limited for classes like the fighter, and many other martial classes lack the ranks or class skills to use them effectively. Casters generally also have ways to increase their use of skills, while martials have none. Several casting classes are better able to use skills, and even the "master of skills" - the rogue, is often outdone by bards and even wizards."
For the full breakdown of the caster martial disparity:
Or The Angel summoner and the BMX Bandit.
The caster/martial disparity is a tendency for higher level magic using characters to outshine their non-magic using counterparts in many aspects of adventuring.
Before we go further, let's get specific about what we are talking about here:
Casters: For purposes of this topic, casters are the classes that have a caster level equal to class level, and generally have access to 9th level magic. Wizards are the most classic example of "caster", while druids, clerics, sorcerers, generally present similar issues. Classes that only have access to 6th level spells are generally considered "casters", although many people have far more problems with summoners then bards. Each class fits into the disparity is slightly different ways, although the end result is usually similar.
Martials: Martials are classes that never have a caster level, and whose class features are usually extraordinary special abilities, not supernatural or spell-like abilities. Fighters are the most representative martial class, with rogues, barbarians, and monks presenting fairly similar issues.
Others: Classes that have access to 4th level spells such as rangers and paladins are generally not considered to be representative of balance problems, and are used more as a reference point for appropriate class power rather then an exception to it. Some people put bards into this category, although summoners are almost always considered representative of casters.
Now that we have defined the caster/martial part, let's move on to "disparity". While many words such as imbalance and inequity get used to describe the issue, it is important to realize this is NOT about identical performance, perfect balance or sameness! No one is asking for the classes to perform the same, or have perfect mathematical equality. Generally, people find the core problem to be a lack of options for out of combat effectiveness for martial characters. Beyond use of skills, martial characters generally have no class features that allow them to influence the narrative. Monks and rogues have adequate and great skills respectively, however both classes infamously struggle to stay relevant in combat. As both classes were recently rewritten in Pathfinder Unchained, I'm not going to bother discussing their previous issues, except to mention that they both required full round actions to contribute well, and almost completely lacked a decent ranged attack option.
At the lowest levels of play, martial characters are often considered to be better off then casters. A strong fighter or skilled rogue can effectively solve most problems that low level adventures face, and magic is usually fairly limited. This is not to say that casters are weak, they are fully effective at facing CR appropriate encounters, and if built for it, can disrupt encounters from level 1.
Most effects of the disparity begin around level 6, although they frequently don't affect gameplay much until level 11 or so. These effects can be broken into several categories.
- Point Buy Economy. Casters generally need only one really good stat, and have numerous class features (magic!), and supernatural and spell-like abilities that benefit from that stat. They also have class features to boost that stat, or compensate for a lack of other stats. Wizards often have more skill ranks then rogues later in the game, and the spellcraft skill is what item crafting is based off of. Bards and sorcerers are well set up to dominate social encounters. Druids and clerics can have great perception and whopping will save modifiers.
- Action Economy. Generally, martial characters need a full attack action to be fully effective, while casters can generally do almost everything as standard actions. Casters are also given numerous class features that allow their player additional actions. From an animal companion or familiar, to summoned creatures, to dominated or bound minions, casters frequently act for several creatures, while martials are often forced to spend actions moving, switching weapons, etc.
- Economy Economy. Casters are far more adept at creating their own magic items. This can have a drastic effect on individual power as magic items make up a substantial chunk of a characters power, especially as they get to the mid to high levels. Wizards easily have whopping spellcraft, bonus crafting feats, and the ability to access or bypass many crafting requirements. While a caster can craft for other party members, those items are treated as purchased when calculating WBL, while items the caster makes for themselves count as cost to craft. This results in casters often having 125% to 175% of WBL. Since casters often don't need weapons (some of the most expensive items) and get amazing use out of stat boosting items, they are much better served by the game economy.
- Skills vs. Spells - Some martials have can have substantial access to skills, however, even max ranks and a decent ability modifier in a class skill is often a very poor substitute for what a spell can accomplish. Skills are useful if you need to do a fairly easy task for a long time, but in many cases, magic allows automatic success for more time then you need to accomplish the task. For example, rather then make a bunch of climb and acrobatics checks to climb up a 100' wall and cross a narrow ledge, the caster can just fly right up, much quicker, and with no checks required. While skills do have their place, they are severely limited for classes like the fighter, and many other martial classes lack the ranks or class skills to use them effectively. Casters generally also have ways to increase their use of skills, while martials have none. Several casting classes are better able to use skills, and even the "master of skills" - the rogue, is often outdone by bards and even wizards.
- Versatility. Martial characters generally have three basic options for dealing with a combat situation: Melee attack vs. AC, Ranged attack vs. AC, or Attack vs. CMD. In social or adventuring encounters, they can use a skill. Casters on the other hand, can target AC, touch AC, 3 saves, etc. they can use deal damage from 5 different elements, force, positive/negative energy, etc. The can alter the environment, add allies, move friends or foes, buff/debuff, etc. Outside of combat, they can do... well... anything they wish. Prepared casters also have the option of selecting spells based on what they expect to face on a given day. Martials generally have no class options to customize their PC for specific situations.
What the caster martial disparity does NOT say (Or Myths about the caster martial disparity):
- "Casters are better at fighting then martials" - Most people consider fighters and barbarians to excel at combat, however that is generally all they excel at. Due to limited skills and ability scores, and no class skills related to most social encounters, these classes are generally only able to contribute to combat, and even then frequently suffer if situations don't allow effective full attacking. While druids and clerics can be very effective in combat, it generally requires a few rounds, and the caster must sacrifice some casting power in exchange for martial prowess. The problem is that while the caster can play martial, martials can never play casters.
- "Casters can finish any encounter with a single spell." - While this is occasionally true, the reality is that a spell is often enough to decide the encounter, while the martial characters often are just needed for coup de grace, or other shooting fish in a barrel uses.
- "Casters are squishy" - Many people think that sorcerers and wizards are fragile and vulnerable on the battlefield. This has never been less true. Casters generally have good HP and thanks to spells like mirror image, invisibility, displacement and fly, they are often the safest PCs on the battlefield. All casters have good will saves, some have good fortitude saves, and they have numerous options for boosting saves, AC, HP, and other defenses. Casters also have ways to make themselves basically immune to everything from fire, to grappling, to mental effects. 3/4 BAB casters are generally not considered vulnerable on the battlefield.
- "spells are a limited resource" - This was largely the balancing factor back in the AD&D era, however, running out of useful spells can easily be avoided once you get past the lower levels of the game. Most casters start with a few infinite-use 0 level spells, and frequently class abilities that can be used a half dozen times per day. Once you add in scrolls, wands, and other items, casters can frequently participate effectively in encounters without using any of their memorized spells or spell slots. Once you get past 10th level or so, most casters will have several dozen different daily options for effective magic use.
Why the Caster Martial Disparity might not appear in your games.
After leading a sheltered existence surrounded by luxury and game balance in his younger years, Prince Siddhārtha ventured out of his palace for the first time at the age of 29, accompanied by his charioteer Channa.
Prince Siddhārtha - "Why is that Fighter limping and covered in blood?"
Channa responded, "That Fighter has been injured in combat, and has no spells to heal with. Even the Heal skill is not a class skill for him."
As Pathfinder is a highly complex game, and varies widely from table to table, there are almost in infinite number of reasons it might appear or not. Here are some of the most common reasons it might not affect your games:
- Most of your play happens under 10th level.
- Players don't choose to play pure martial, or pure caster characters.
- Caster players don't optimize, and/or martial players optimize heavily.
- There is a spoken or unspoken agreement not to use some options and spells.
- The GM is highly skilled in pacing, presenting a campaign setting, presenting challenges, and giving rewards that even out or minimize the disparity.
- The GM alters dice rolls, and/or encounters so that everyone has fairly equal amounts of success.
- The group views combat and/or other rules heavy parts of the game as something to get resolved as quickly as possible, in order to move on to more roleplay and storytelling elements.
- House rules.
How to Fix the Disparity
"...I don't think its as big a deal as the internet makes it out to be. In my games, casters and non-casters tend to be equally valuable to the party, and equally dangerous in various situations as enemies. ...
...responsibility to keep things fair and fun for all involved lands on the GM's shoulders. ....
It's a balancing act."
-James Jacobs
- 1) When making characters, no starting ability scores above 16, or below 10 after racial adjustment.
That fixes many of the problems of class power imbalance, without altering any rule.
- 2) Remove hold person and dominate person from the game. (If you want to keep hold/dominate monster, at least they are higher level spells.)
- 3) 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells take at least a full round action to cast. Optionally, all save or suck/die spells take 1 round to cast. Removing the highest level spells from the game, and using the slots for metamagiced lower level spells (heighten spell feat free?) is a more extreme option.
- 4) Spells with a duration of days/level get changed to hours/level. Some permanent spells might have their duration reduced.
- 5) Remove quicken spell from the game, or make it apply only to spells with a range of personal.
- 6) Remove or rewrite known problems like dazing spell meta-magic, witches slumber hex, and other obviously broken stuff.
- 7)Consider crafted items the same as purchased when determining Wealth By Level. I would also make master craftsman into a more useful feat. To take it a step further, you could make crafted items cost market price to craft.
- 8)It should be noted that many aspects of casters are intended to be limited by the GM. Access to new spells, planar binding/ally, divination magic, etc. are not blank checks or guaranteed success.
- 9)Many intelligent foes will ready actions to disrupt spell casting. While it should be done rarely and only by appropriate foes, things like targeting a casters component pouch, wands, familiar and even spell books are not out of the question.
- 10) Communicate with the players and explain that you don't want a lot of action denial techniques used in the game. RPG-Tag is not a fun way to play. This applies on both sides of the screen. I don't want to consistently take a player out of action with save-or-suck and for similar reasons, I don't want players using those tactics on my named NPC/monsters.
I agree with the OP that spells are not as much of a sure thing as they were in 3.5 (and are presented on the message boards), but they are still disproportionately powerful compared to skills. Also, assuming that the only way a wizard can open a door is with a knock spell misses the amazing versatility of magic. The wizard doesn't need knock when he can have a dominated rogue minion.
Anyway, I like the concept of the Straw Golem Argument, but it is more relevant to power balances between 3.5 and Pathfinder then the caster martial disparity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was really hoping this was going to be about having a kickstarter for a pathfinder themed burning man type festival.
Can I still torch a giant straw wizard? Yes, but it's not as fun without an audience.
|
Now, I'm not trying to open up new debates on either of these topics, just saying that, from now on, whenever I hear someone try to prove a point using an absurd, hyperbolic, unequal example comparing two design features, I'm going to refer to this thread and call it a Straw Golem Argument. Linking back to this thread is going to be a much easier way of expressing this point than having to write all this down again and again. :)I'm not trying to start a debate, I'm just saying that anyone who ever disagrees with me is stupid and objectively wrong.
I get the sense that Headfirst has started threads with similar sentiment before... and then got upset when people called him on it. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Fergie - I'm happy to see another fan of the BMX Bandit out there! A bard with a green clarinet isn't bad, but watch out for the red tuba.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One quick point about optimization and class balance:
Usually, martials need to optimize to be good at specific features or tasks. For example, a rogue can optimize for dex based features, which is everything from armor class and reflex saves, to stealth to attack rolls. However, the rogue will have less to invest in social encounters, knowledge skills and some other aspects of the character, like doing damage without sneak attack. Most of these investments are permanent, and can't be changed short of character rebuilding.
Casters on the other hand just invest in magic, and magic does almost everything for them. This means that if the wizard wants to be better at defense, he invests in his intelligence score, and maybe crafts a wand or two. If the wizard wants to be better at offense, he invests in his intelligence score, and maybe crafts a wand or two. If the wizard wants to be better at anything, he invests in his intelligence score, etc. etc. If the wizard wants to switch to a new specialization, it is usually as simple as memorizing different spells, but "being good at magic" lets you be good at almost anything, and is almost always relevant.
I like the straw golem concept even though the opening post is not a good example.
Although I am not sure how I will react when someone uses it against me!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
These examples of a wizard replacing a rogue because of high int+spells are covered in several debates. People should not even bring uo certain topics and not be aware of what the counters will be. Maybe I will call that the "I have a selective memory" fallacy, or the "I didn't do my homework(research)" fallacy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rogue skillset seems barely necessary most of the time. It's either stuff lots of classes can do (spotting traps, stealth), or boring 'roll to disarm the trap' stuff that gets added to the campaign to make the rogue feel useful (and, again, is something that lots of characters could do in various ways).
While one might reasonably assume that fire destroys a straw golem, it in fact makes the resultant flaming straw golem far more threatening.
It's amazing they burn for so long. It's almost as if a bunch of people were stuffing more straw into them...
Well, I for one really like the idea. I will totally link back here. Good on you, it needed to be said.
Well, I for one really like the idea. I will totally link back here. Good on you, it needed to be said.
You can refer back to it, but nobody will care because many of his points are wrong. I think he should have stuck with something general such as don't use extremes/corner cases because they make your argument look weak. The same people who go to extremes will be the ones picking about the weak points in his argument. People taking things to extremes and making terrible debate points has been mentioned before. All that happens is that they normally double down on their point, and "have no idea" that their point is a corner case or extreme.
Given that you used a term that was obviously a play on "Straw Man Arugment", it should be noted that your description of the debate tactic/fallacy doesn't quite match what a straw man argument actually is.
Given that you defined what you meant by Straw Golem Agrument that is fine, but if you actually meant it to be a funny rename of the actual debate tactic, then you missed a little.
Pretty sure OP is counting on the fact that people will see that they have taken the time to make a reference post defining a fallacy and assume that it is sound. Rename this post: The Anti-Magic Fallacy.
The Anti-Magic Fallacy: When a counter to the opinion that magic dominates the game is rooted in the firm belief that anti-magic fields can and should be liberally applied to any game so that the wizard has to try harder.
We tried it. Had wizard fill the rogues place in party of 4. Had a cleric, ranger, 2 wizards. One wizard filled rogues role in party. They had disable device and good Dex so the wizard could pick locks and disarm trap of non magical nature. At higher levels they had more spells to pull off the tricks.
By not having an actual rogue in the party the Ranger and Cleric took the front lines. The sneak attack damage was missed a bit and the party was weaker at the low levels. At high level the wizard did just as good as rogue and more versatile in some ways while limited in others.
Where the wizard as rogue fails is when they are also filling the role of arcane caster. It's kind of funny really when wizard is taking the rogues role, they are much weaker than the wizard filling the arcane role. Still fun to play from I saw.
I like the idea of defining a "Straw Golem Argument" as something that is often said on the messageboards as theorycrafting, but does not hold up to real world play or a mathematical analysis.
Things like:
Healing is a waste of actions
AC becomes irrelevant at higher levels
Wizards are squishy
Coup De Grace is difficult to pull off
etc.
I started a thread a while ago:
Myth Busters Pathfinder Edition
I realize these are not "strawmen" in the normal sense, but they are close enough. (Also, if you alter them slightly - "Never heal in combat" they become classic strawman arguments.
EDIT:
I saw this post, and thought it was very insightful.
I think a lot of "myths" in pathfinder comes from people aknowledging that something is often in a certain way, and extrapolating that to a rule of "this is always in a certain way", as well as people assuming that others do this when they don't.
I think the myths largely stems from people ignoring all the shades of gray within the system.
I like the idea of defining a "Straw Golem Argument" as something that is often said on the messageboards as theorycrafting, but does not hold up to real world play or a mathematical analysis.
Things like:
Healing is a waste of actions
AC becomes irrelevant at higher levels
Wizards are squishy
Coup De Grace is difficult to pull off
etc.
I started a thread a while ago:
Myth Busters Pathfinder Edition
I realize these are not "strawmen" in the normal sense, but they are close enough. (Also, if you alter them slightly - "Never heal in combat" they become classic strawman arguments.
Good idea, that is how I am going to use the phrase: "straw golem argument".
And when someone completely misses the point it will be: "can't see the woods for the treants".
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's something I've noticed quite a few times on these forums, especially when discussing touchy issues like class balance, power gaming, martial/caster disparity, and theory-craft builds: Some people try to prove their points by using the worst possible examples, hyperbolic situations carefully engineered to support their opinions.
Ironically, your post is itself an example. See below:
Another example that really bothers me, from the rogue vs. wizard debate, is how wizards can supposedly replace rogues because they have spells that accomplish most of the iconic thief skills. This requires a wizard to:
• Have all those spells in his spellbook
• Memorize all those spells (as opposed to more useful combat stuff)
• Know beforehand which he's going to need ("The dungeon has three locked doors? Okay, I memorize knock three times.")
This part is a "Straw Golem" argument of exactly the sort you describe: somebody actually looking to do these things would buy/craft wands or scrolls (and the wizard even has class features to make it easier to do so) so he doesn't have to do ANY of your first three bullet points. But here you are presenting this "hyperbolic situation carefully engineered to support your opinion".
• Succeed on all the required rolls (remember, disguise self, knock, and invisibility still require skill rolls; they just grant bonuses to those rolls
The rogue has to succeed on the rolls as well, but without the bonuses (or other benefits, like range or loosened restrictions) granted by the spells unless he spends a substantially higher proportion of his wealth to get them. So here you're presenting a point in the wizard's favor as though it were in the rogue's favor. Technically not an example of your "Straw Golem", but it's got ethical issues aplenty.
• Assume there are no magical deterrents in place (antimagic fields, enemy spellcasters to counterspell, spell resistance, etc)
There are just as many magical deterrents that could interfere with a rogue as a wizard, and the wizard has more tools with which to detect and attempt to overcome said deterrents than the rogue has. "There might be deterrents in place" is not a bigger deal for wizards than rogues.
Buuuut your "hyperbolic situation carefully engineered to support your opinion" omits those facts in order to skew the situation.
• That others will not mind and/or not react to spells being cast (charm person sounds like it replaces Diplomacy, but you can't just walk up to the king and cast a spell on him without the guards jumping you.
But on the other hand, the rogue is actually no better at Diplomacy than the wizard. Neither class gives any bonuses to Diplomacy checks, and the wizard has more skill points (therefore more able to afford investing in Diplomacy), has fewer demands on his stat points (therefore more able to have a decent CHA), and has more room in his budget (thanks to bonus crafting feats and the lack of need for magic armor/weapons or AC-boosting wondrous items) for Diplomacy-boosting magic like a circlet of persuasion.
So here AGAIN we have a situation where if you look at ALL the pertinent facts the point is in favor of the wizard, but your "hyperbolic situation carefully engineered to support your opinion" only looks at the singular detail that, in a vacuum, might make your idea seem plausible.
Naturally, this makes a lot of assumptions about the wizard's build, the adventure situation, and how accommodating the DM is. It also assumes the rogue is a bumbling moron who has not bolstered his skills with his own magical advantages.
The argument that you claim gets made is using those assumptions. The arguments that actually get made assume far less. But, your "hyperbolic situation carefully engineered to support your opinion" prefers to represent your opponents (by the way you talk about them, I can't really call them anything else) quite falsely.
So all in all, you've created an ironically self-condemning thread. But the really nasty part is this:
...from now on, whenever I hear someone try to prove a point using an absurd, hyperbolic, unequal example comparing two design features, I'm going to refer to this thread...
So you've declared your intent to get involved in other discussions not by actually engaging, but by dropping a link for the explicit purpose of easily dismissing them.
That's seriously not-cool, Headfirst.
