Class viewpoints I never knew, what am I missing? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Class viewpoints I never knew, what am I missing? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Nirid
07-13-07, 01:04 AM Ok so I'm new to the forums and began browsing. I was, in a word, shocked. Fighters gimped? Wizards are unstoppable killing machines? I've only traveled in a relatively small group of people for D&D and these ideas are new and strange to me. I'd like to understand more about why classes have such different power scales to other people then what I've known.

Why do people call fighters weak? Melee has always been very devastating in games I've been in. Sure it's not a dynamic class but most the core classes aren't. Cleric might as well be 5 levels only for all most people take it. Wizards don't fair much better and sorcerer could stop at 6 and no one would notice. So why the fighter hate?
OneWinged4ngel
07-13-07, 01:07 AM Ok so I'm new to the forums and began browsing. I was, in a word, shocked. Fighters gimped? Wizards are unstoppable killing machines? I've only traveled in a relatively small group of people for D&D and these ideas are new and strange to me. I'd like to understand more about why classes have such different power scales to other people then what I've known.

Why do people call fighters weak? Melee has always been very devastating in games I've been in. Sure it's not a dynamic class but most the core classes aren't. Cleric might as well be 5 levels only for all most people take it. Wizards don't fair much better and sorcerer could stop at 6 and no one would notice. So why the fighter hate?

Save yourself the trouble of waiting for thread replies and google it. Seriously. It's been covered many times.

One reason for the disparity with your personal observations could be the level of tactics used in your game. There's a big difference between a Wizard who casts Fireball and one who casts Web + Stinking Cloud. Likewise, Fighters are going to do better in a world where stupid monsters walk up to you and let you full attack, or leave themselves open to charges, and merely attack you with rather weak direct damage attacks.
Nirid
07-13-07, 01:12 AM I don't think googling "fighters sucking" or "overpowered wizards" will net me a reasonble response. Before I wade through the deluge of idoicy and adult material that google will assalt me with, could you give a nudge in what aspects I should focus on?
OneWinged4ngel
07-13-07, 01:18 AM I don't think googling "fighters sucking" or "overpowered wizards" will net me a reasonble response. Before I wade through the deluge of idoicy and adult material that google will assalt me with, could you give a nudge in what aspects I should focus on?

I think you don't understand how to really use google fully. Use Advanced Search. Domain boards1.wizards.com. No adult material there, save the "Mature" boards.
Nirid
07-13-07, 01:20 AM I will be in for a long day of reading it would seem. Thanks for the heads up.
OneWinged4ngel
07-13-07, 01:27 AM I will be in for a long day of reading it would seem. Thanks for the heads up.

It's not that complicated really. Wizards have some of the toughest defenses in the game (Hi, I just used Swift Displacement and Greater Mirror Image (an immediate action) and then blasted you with Solid Fog. Have fun trying to hit me with your greatsword. Or I just used Hesitate as an Immediate Action and you can't use your greatsword, and I still get to blast you. Or I have a better AC than you in conjunction with other defenses. Or I move 200 feet away from you every round on my flying Phantom Steed while blasting you, all the while shielded completely from arrow fire. Or... the list goes on), some of the best utility in the game (Must I even say anything? There's a spell to beat out any skill, and spells can do a lot of things skills can't), and some of the most frightening offensive powers in the game (Including some "You don't save, you just lose" abilities like Otto's Irresistable Dance and Forcecage). You also can fill out your actions incredibly well, decimating the enemy with swift, immediate, and standard actions... and then you have your minions help too. And then you get things like Contingency and Time Stop.

You can scry, teleport, cheat death, mitigate actions incredibly well, blow up buildings, fly, become invisible, read minds, stop time, instantly slay giant monsters, transform into a war troll, break the economy over your knee, or gain powerful minion hordes. You name it, the Wizard can do it.

The list of powerful things the Wizard can do are too numerous to list in one post! The Fighter, however, can usually do only a couple of things well, and he'll usually only do a couple of them at a time. He might be a good archer, a dangerous charger, or an annoying tripper. But that's about it. And you can counter those things. And the Fighter honestly isn't generally filling as much of a teamwork role as the rest of the party.

Of course, in a world where the Wizards just cast one spell a round, which is something like Fireball, and the monsters walk right up to you and bare their chests for a full attack while dishing out a single claw attack or something, and no one decides to interrupt charges, then in your game it doesn't matter because the players and the DM aren't using good tactics. If no one's smart enough to make that Wizard kill everything, then that Wizard's not going to be that powerful. *Shrug*
bkdubs123
07-13-07, 01:35 AM Also, Fighter is a relatively weak class because of its very few, or very difficult to obtain options for improvement. The feat trees don't grant fast enough increases to power level to compete with Barbarian rage, or even a Divine Powered Cleric, and they ONLY give advantages for in combat situations. If the class is a "Fighter" then I'm all for making them shine next to nowhere but combat situations, but they had better be the undisputed masters of battle that they are supposed to reflect. The sad fact is that they are not.
Nebosuke
07-13-07, 02:01 AM In the end, the actual results in any given campaign will depend on the DM and the other players. The comparisons done here (on these boards) assume that the game is being played by knowledgeable players according to RAW (rules as written), and governed by an impartial DM.

The reason for that last point above is that it is a logical and widely accepted 'common ground' without which mechanical comparisons would be meaningless.

These assumptions ignore the fact that, in practice, the requirement of deeper knowledge of game material and mechanics (e.g., wizard, druid, cleric vs. fighter) can be a very significant (in some cases (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=881022) overpowering) balancing mechanic in actual campaigns. It does not matter if it is mechanically possible for a character to be overpowering if the player of the character has insufficient knowledge and experience to realize that potential. Even if a player is capable of realizing that potential, the simple fact that it is not automatic means that the player must deliberately decide to do so.

Another common reason is that no DM is impartial as is assumed by necessity when doing an objective comparison. A real DM will skew outcomes in many ways (house rules, outright lack of knowledge of the rules, enemy tactics, campaign theme/environment, etc.) either deliberately or accidentally/inadvertently. Skewing things in favor of the fighter (the most common scenario) will mask the mechanical shortcomings of the class, while skewing things against the fighter will also hide the class' weaknesses from superficial observation, which will conclude that fighters' problems are solely due to the DM being unfair.

In other words, the mechanics are easily lost in the combined noise of house rules, misinterpretation of the rules, favoritism, situational circumstances, and individual player/DM ability and disposition.
Nirid
07-13-07, 02:19 AM Hmm. So basically the concept of the weak fighter is based on an impartial and universally even arena. Not a common event as you said. But how much would you say the supplemental books have contributed to these mechanical failings? Are feats coming out in them that compare to the power of the new spells?

When I DM most of my group are non-casters. We get a few psions but the way they operate makes them markedly more powerful then traditional casters. It helps that they rely on a better system then spells/day. So I don't see much of the terrible uses of all this new magic coming out.

I haven't been a player for a while, but when I do I prefer to play casters (mostly wiz or dru) because I do like the flexibility. But I don't get surprised when the fighter type charges in and does more raw damage then me. That is not to say I can't gleefully abuse spells when going solely by the books. I've made shrink item into the end all be all of damage spells. It's just that I was repeatedly told that I wasn't supposed to use magic this way. Are there actually DMs who would let you use Teleportation Circle to send people to the moon?
OneWinged4ngel
07-13-07, 02:27 AM We get a few psions but the way they operate makes them markedly more powerful then traditional casters.

Actually, traditional casters are generally considered to be, well, notably more powerful than any psionic class. What "way they operate" makes them more powerful? Traditional casters are the ones with the free scaling.

Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and Artificers are still frequently considered the most powerful classes in D&D, by a healthy margin.

But I don't get surprised when the fighter type charges in and does more raw damage then me.

You shouldn't be. Barring a few specific builds, Wizards are generally *bad* at direct damage. Evocation and the like simply doesn't scale as well as the Wizard's other offensive options. The Wizard's best offensive options are generally *not* things like Magic Missile or Cone of Cold. However, a Druid should be able to dish out around as much melee damage as a Fighter, while doing plenty of other things to spare.

Are there actually DMs who would let you use Teleportation Circle to send people to the moon?

You don't actually need to have a DM allow silly things like that in order to make your Wizard (and ESPECIALLY druid) a killing machine. Before you even go into the game-breaking realm of spell-abuse, you still get a very powerful character, simply using spells "as intended." You just need to know how to play the Wizard or Druid tactically well, instead of just moving and casting Cone of Cold in a round and thinking that you're actually playing well.
Jungingen
07-13-07, 02:42 AM To come at it from another direction, there's nothing that a 20 Fighter can do that a multiclassed Gith/Druid/Cleric cannot do better. Fighters can't cast spells and therefore there's a vast, vast skillset that they will never have access to, whereas the strengths of a Fighter can be mimicked handily by casters.

Wizards, Clerics and Druids can very easily beat Fighters at their own game by using spells which allow them to emulate the Fighter's high BAB and HP. All of the feats in the world can't turn a human Fighter into a twelve-headed hydra, but spells easily can.

You might answer that this is all at higher levels, but really it's quite possible from 7th level and up, if not sooner. Really a Fighter can never expect to do better than a Druid, between starting with an Animal Companion and getting even more beastly with Wild Shape. There are no real downsides to playing a caster either–in skilled hands they're not bad at anything except skill monkeying unless you design them to be.
Nirid
07-13-07, 02:46 AM You value free scaling. I value no wasted spell slot just about as much. Having water breathing sucks if you don't encounter any water. Not having water breathing and comming to a large body of water you must traverse sucks as well. Having water breathing but being able to freely spend the power it would need on something else including more powerful effects if needed is great. Psions are not broken, but their system of casting is what magic should have been.

Side note clerics and druids are broken because at high levels they have good melee and casting of all types with the HD and saves to back it up. Wizards just have a lot of potential spell options that could be powers just as easily if your DM allowed it. Which completely reasonable since fewer powers are published then spells.
OneWinged4ngel
07-13-07, 02:59 AM You value free scaling. I value no wasted spell slot just about as much. Having water breathing sucks if you don't encounter any water. Not having water breathing and comming to a large body of water you must traverse sucks as well. Having water breathing but being able to freely spend the power it would need on something else including more powerful effects if needed is great. Uhhh, do you not realize that Sorcerors can do that too? It's not a psionics v. magic thing. It's a spontaneous v. prepared thing. Also, a smart Wizard will probably have a scroll of Water Breathing or Deep Breath, rather than actually preparing the spell, unless you were actually planning to go underwater. Also, if you just need to traverse the water, you can always use something like Fly or Phantom Mount. You only need water breathing to actually go underwater for an extended period of time. And again, you can totally just get a scroll for that. Further, a Sorceror is unlikely to learn Water Breathing because of their limited spell selection.

IN FACT, a Wizard can keep a few "empty slots" for utility spells he won't need immediately, like Water Breathing, and thus cast "spontaneously," just with an extended casting time of 15 minutes or so, which doesn't even matter since it's a utility spell. You may not have realized this, because you haven't fully read the rules on how a Wizard WORKS, which is why you don't realize just how potent they are.

Your comments hold no water. At all. You still have not listed *one way* in which psionics is more powerful than magic. Spontanaity doesn't count, because magic gets spontanaity too! *Points at the Sorceror.*

Further, preparation is a LOT less of a penalty than some less experienced players might think. You get a sort of "limited spontanaity" for utility spells, you get lots of versatile spells that can cover a great variety of situations, and you get Scrolls and Wands and Staffs to cover any "unexpected situations." Then you can even count things like quickrest tricks if you just want to make it crazy...

The thing is, it's fairly hard to catch a well-played Wizard off guard, because a good wizard is played like Batman (in fact, Logic Ninja's guide to playing Wizards is called "Being Batman" for just this reason): He's got the right tool for just about every foreseeable situation.

I think your problem is that you don't know how to stock the utility belt just right ;)
Lotus Crane
07-13-07, 03:03 AM Nebosuke described it pretty well.

Assuming an impartial, practically computer-like DM, and highly experienced players who know all the ins-and-outs of the material they have at their disposal (whether all books or only core), yes, it's nearly impossible to build a fully optimized fighter who can compete with a fully optimized wizard or CoDzilla.

Of course, it is possible to build a fully optimized fighter who can compete with (and perhaps even defeat on a regular basis) non-optimized wizards and CoDzillas. Heck, if all the players are complete newbs, it's even possible for the situation to arise where a non-optimized fighter competes with/defeats non-optimized spellcasters who try to focus on direct damage, which 1) is the weakest use of spellcasting, 2) is the one area where non-spellcasters actually do better than spellcasters.

If you play a wizard who uses burning hands and meteor swarm more often than color spray and time stop, then no, you won't dominate the game.

If you play a cleric who actually prepares cure wounds spells and never uses divine favor, divine power, and righteous might (even without the idiocy of Divine Metamagic + Persistent Spell), then no, you won't dominate the game.

If you play a druid who doesn't take Natural Spell, and doesn't tagteam foes with wildshape + animal companion, then no, you won't dominate the game.

Basically, even though it's more or less a fact that in fully optimized play, spellcasters are more powerful than non-spellcasters, in the end an individual player's skills are more important than the class he picks.
OneWinged4ngel
07-13-07, 03:20 AM an individual player's skills are more important than the class he picks.

Absolutely true, Lotus Crane. A terrible class can still be the highest performing member of the party if everyone else is a bunch of newbies. When you've got a case where no one knows what they're doing, class power issues shows up a lot less regularly (though they show up more erratically, such as the example of the newb thinking Wizards are weak because he runs up and gets himself poked with a pointy stick with no defensive spells up. As far as these players go, you can find examples of them calling EVERY class weak or broken for no actual intelligent reason).
Kratch
07-13-07, 03:37 AM I find the descrepancy comes from 2 main sources:

1: Fighters don't have the ability to be abused as readily as casters, who have a plethora more material with which to come up with said abuses. Additionally, they can simply add any new spell abuse material that comes in in a new release rather easily.

2: the vast number of spells available can, in theory, solve any dillema that can be set before a caster, and for this reason, many assume that because a caster can theoretically have the solution, they will therefor have it available when it is required. On the flip side, when a fighter build is offered up in the various threads, it is a set build and thus, can be picked apart and it's weakness's found and an encounter tailored to show how ineffective fighters are. The counter argument is that many of those weakness's are easily covered by gear choices, to which the reply, gear dependency is evidence of a class's failing, back and forth, back and forth, so on and so forth.

They're long reads, and often go off tangent, but here are some links to some of the debates on the subject.

Any Reason to have a fighter part 1 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=788907)
Any Reason to have a fighter part 2 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=845718)
Question: Is the fighter really that underpowered (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=791914)
there are many many more available

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nirid 07-13-07, 01:04 AM	Ok so I'm new to the forums and began browsing. I was, in a word, shocked. Fighters gimped? Wizards are unstoppable killing machines? I've only traveled in a relatively small group of people for D&D and these ideas are new and strange to me. I'd like to understand more about why classes have such different power scales to other people then what I've known. Why do people call fighters weak? Melee has always been very devastating in games I've been in. Sure it's not a dynamic class but most the core classes aren't. Cleric might as well be 5 levels only for all most people take it. Wizards don't fair much better and sorcerer could stop at 6 and no one would notice. So why the fighter hate?
OneWinged4ngel 07-13-07, 01:07 AM	Ok so I'm new to the forums and began browsing. I was, in a word, shocked. Fighters gimped? Wizards are unstoppable killing machines? I've only traveled in a relatively small group of people for D&D and these ideas are new and strange to me. I'd like to understand more about why classes have such different power scales to other people then what I've known. Why do people call fighters weak? Melee has always been very devastating in games I've been in. Sure it's not a dynamic class but most the core classes aren't. Cleric might as well be 5 levels only for all most people take it. Wizards don't fair much better and sorcerer could stop at 6 and no one would notice. So why the fighter hate? Save yourself the trouble of waiting for thread replies and google it. Seriously. It's been covered many times. One reason for the disparity with your personal observations could be the level of tactics used in your game. There's a big difference between a Wizard who casts Fireball and one who casts Web + Stinking Cloud. Likewise, Fighters are going to do better in a world where stupid monsters walk up to you and let you full attack, or leave themselves open to charges, and merely attack you with rather weak direct damage attacks.
Nirid 07-13-07, 01:12 AM	I don't think googling "fighters sucking" or "overpowered wizards" will net me a reasonble response. Before I wade through the deluge of idoicy and adult material that google will assalt me with, could you give a nudge in what aspects I should focus on?
OneWinged4ngel 07-13-07, 01:18 AM	I don't think googling "fighters sucking" or "overpowered wizards" will net me a reasonble response. Before I wade through the deluge of idoicy and adult material that google will assalt me with, could you give a nudge in what aspects I should focus on? I think you don't understand how to really use google fully. Use Advanced Search. Domain boards1.wizards.com. No adult material there, save the "Mature" boards.
Nirid 07-13-07, 01:20 AM	I will be in for a long day of reading it would seem. Thanks for the heads up.
OneWinged4ngel 07-13-07, 01:27 AM	I will be in for a long day of reading it would seem. Thanks for the heads up. It's not that complicated really. Wizards have some of the toughest defenses in the game (Hi, I just used Swift Displacement and Greater Mirror Image (an immediate action) and then blasted you with Solid Fog. Have fun trying to hit me with your greatsword. Or I just used Hesitate as an Immediate Action and you can't use your greatsword, and I still get to blast you. Or I have a better AC than you in conjunction with other defenses. Or I move 200 feet away from you every round on my flying Phantom Steed while blasting you, all the while shielded completely from arrow fire. Or... the list goes on), some of the best utility in the game (Must I even say anything? There's a spell to beat out any skill, and spells can do a lot of things skills can't), and some of the most frightening offensive powers in the game (Including some "You don't save, you just lose" abilities like Otto's Irresistable Dance and Forcecage). You also can fill out your actions incredibly well, decimating the enemy with swift, immediate, and standard actions... and then you have your minions help too. And then you get things like Contingency and Time Stop. You can scry, teleport, cheat death, mitigate actions incredibly well, blow up buildings, fly, become invisible, read minds, stop time, instantly slay giant monsters, transform into a war troll, break the economy over your knee, or gain powerful minion hordes. You name it, the Wizard can do it. The list of powerful things the Wizard can do are too numerous to list in one post! The Fighter, however, can usually do only a couple of things well, and he'll usually only do a couple of them at a time. He might be a good archer, a dangerous charger, or an annoying tripper. But that's about it. And you can counter those things. And the Fighter honestly isn't generally filling as much of a teamwork role as the rest of the party. Of course, in a world where the Wizards just cast one spell a round, which is something like Fireball, and the monsters walk right up to you and bare their chests for a full attack while dishing out a single claw attack or something, and no one decides to interrupt charges, then in your game it doesn't matter because the players and the DM aren't using good tactics. If no one's smart enough to make that Wizard kill everything, then that Wizard's not going to be that powerful. Shrug
bkdubs123 07-13-07, 01:35 AM	Also, Fighter is a relatively weak class because of its very few, or very difficult to obtain options for improvement. The feat trees don't grant fast enough increases to power level to compete with Barbarian rage, or even a Divine Powered Cleric, and they ONLY give advantages for in combat situations. If the class is a "Fighter" then I'm all for making them shine next to nowhere but combat situations, but they had better be the undisputed masters of battle that they are supposed to reflect. The sad fact is that they are not.
Nebosuke 07-13-07, 02:01 AM	In the end, the actual results in any given campaign will depend on the DM and the other players. The comparisons done here (on these boards) assume that the game is being played by knowledgeable players according to RAW (rules as written), and governed by an impartial DM. The reason for that last point above is that it is a logical and widely accepted 'common ground' without which mechanical comparisons would be meaningless. These assumptions ignore the fact that, in practice, the requirement of deeper knowledge of game material and mechanics (e.g., wizard, druid, cleric vs. fighter) can be a very significant (in some cases (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=881022) overpowering) balancing mechanic in actual campaigns. It does not matter if it is mechanically possible for a character to be overpowering if the player of the character has insufficient knowledge and experience to realize that potential. Even if a player is capable of realizing that potential, the simple fact that it is not automatic means that the player must deliberately decide to do so. Another common reason is that no DM is impartial as is assumed by necessity when doing an objective comparison. A real DM will skew outcomes in many ways (house rules, outright lack of knowledge of the rules, enemy tactics, campaign theme/environment, etc.) either deliberately or accidentally/inadvertently. Skewing things in favor of the fighter (the most common scenario) will mask the mechanical shortcomings of the class, while skewing things against the fighter will also hide the class' weaknesses from superficial observation, which will conclude that fighters' problems are solely due to the DM being unfair. In other words, the mechanics are easily lost in the combined noise of house rules, misinterpretation of the rules, favoritism, situational circumstances, and individual player/DM ability and disposition.
Nirid 07-13-07, 02:19 AM	Hmm. So basically the concept of the weak fighter is based on an impartial and universally even arena. Not a common event as you said. But how much would you say the supplemental books have contributed to these mechanical failings? Are feats coming out in them that compare to the power of the new spells? When I DM most of my group are non-casters. We get a few psions but the way they operate makes them markedly more powerful then traditional casters. It helps that they rely on a better system then spells/day. So I don't see much of the terrible uses of all this new magic coming out. I haven't been a player for a while, but when I do I prefer to play casters (mostly wiz or dru) because I do like the flexibility. But I don't get surprised when the fighter type charges in and does more raw damage then me. That is not to say I can't gleefully abuse spells when going solely by the books. I've made shrink item into the end all be all of damage spells. It's just that I was repeatedly told that I wasn't supposed to use magic this way. Are there actually DMs who would let you use Teleportation Circle to send people to the moon?
OneWinged4ngel 07-13-07, 02:27 AM	We get a few psions but the way they operate makes them markedly more powerful then traditional casters. Actually, traditional casters are generally considered to be, well, notably more powerful than any psionic class. What "way they operate" makes them more powerful? Traditional casters are the ones with the free scaling. Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and Artificers are still frequently considered the most powerful classes in D&D, by a healthy margin. But I don't get surprised when the fighter type charges in and does more raw damage then me. You shouldn't be. Barring a few specific builds, Wizards are generally bad at direct damage. Evocation and the like simply doesn't scale as well as the Wizard's other offensive options. The Wizard's best offensive options are generally not things like Magic Missile or Cone of Cold. However, a Druid should be able to dish out around as much melee damage as a Fighter, while doing plenty of other things to spare. Are there actually DMs who would let you use Teleportation Circle to send people to the moon? You don't actually need to have a DM allow silly things like that in order to make your Wizard (and ESPECIALLY druid) a killing machine. Before you even go into the game-breaking realm of spell-abuse, you still get a very powerful character, simply using spells "as intended." You just need to know how to play the Wizard or Druid tactically well, instead of just moving and casting Cone of Cold in a round and thinking that you're actually playing well.
Jungingen 07-13-07, 02:42 AM	To come at it from another direction, there's nothing that a 20 Fighter can do that a multiclassed Gith/Druid/Cleric cannot do better. Fighters can't cast spells and therefore there's a vast, vast skillset that they will never have access to, whereas the strengths of a Fighter can be mimicked handily by casters. Wizards, Clerics and Druids can very easily beat Fighters at their own game by using spells which allow them to emulate the Fighter's high BAB and HP. All of the feats in the world can't turn a human Fighter into a twelve-headed hydra, but spells easily can. You might answer that this is all at higher levels, but really it's quite possible from 7th level and up, if not sooner. Really a Fighter can never expect to do better than a Druid, between starting with an Animal Companion and getting even more beastly with Wild Shape. There are no real downsides to playing a caster either–in skilled hands they're not bad at anything except skill monkeying unless you design them to be.
Nirid 07-13-07, 02:46 AM	You value free scaling. I value no wasted spell slot just about as much. Having water breathing sucks if you don't encounter any water. Not having water breathing and comming to a large body of water you must traverse sucks as well. Having water breathing but being able to freely spend the power it would need on something else including more powerful effects if needed is great. Psions are not broken, but their system of casting is what magic should have been. Side note clerics and druids are broken because at high levels they have good melee and casting of all types with the HD and saves to back it up. Wizards just have a lot of potential spell options that could be powers just as easily if your DM allowed it. Which completely reasonable since fewer powers are published then spells.
OneWinged4ngel 07-13-07, 02:59 AM	You value free scaling. I value no wasted spell slot just about as much. Having water breathing sucks if you don't encounter any water. Not having water breathing and comming to a large body of water you must traverse sucks as well. Having water breathing but being able to freely spend the power it would need on something else including more powerful effects if needed is great. Uhhh, do you not realize that Sorcerors can do that too? It's not a psionics v. magic thing. It's a spontaneous v. prepared thing. Also, a smart Wizard will probably have a scroll of Water Breathing or Deep Breath, rather than actually preparing the spell, unless you were actually planning to go underwater. Also, if you just need to traverse the water, you can always use something like Fly or Phantom Mount. You only need water breathing to actually go underwater for an extended period of time. And again, you can totally just get a scroll for that. Further, a Sorceror is unlikely to learn Water Breathing because of their limited spell selection. IN FACT, a Wizard can keep a few "empty slots" for utility spells he won't need immediately, like Water Breathing, and thus cast "spontaneously," just with an extended casting time of 15 minutes or so, which doesn't even matter since it's a utility spell. You may not have realized this, because you haven't fully read the rules on how a Wizard WORKS, which is why you don't realize just how potent they are. Your comments hold no water. At all. You still have not listed one way in which psionics is more powerful than magic. Spontanaity doesn't count, because magic gets spontanaity too! Points at the Sorceror. Further, preparation is a LOT less of a penalty than some less experienced players might think. You get a sort of "limited spontanaity" for utility spells, you get lots of versatile spells that can cover a great variety of situations, and you get Scrolls and Wands and Staffs to cover any "unexpected situations." Then you can even count things like quickrest tricks if you just want to make it crazy... The thing is, it's fairly hard to catch a well-played Wizard off guard, because a good wizard is played like Batman (in fact, Logic Ninja's guide to playing Wizards is called "Being Batman" for just this reason): He's got the right tool for just about every foreseeable situation. I think your problem is that you don't know how to stock the utility belt just right ;)
Lotus Crane 07-13-07, 03:03 AM	Nebosuke described it pretty well. Assuming an impartial, practically computer-like DM, and highly experienced players who know all the ins-and-outs of the material they have at their disposal (whether all books or only core), yes, it's nearly impossible to build a fully optimized fighter who can compete with a fully optimized wizard or CoDzilla. Of course, it is possible to build a fully optimized fighter who can compete with (and perhaps even defeat on a regular basis) non-optimized wizards and CoDzillas. Heck, if all the players are complete newbs, it's even possible for the situation to arise where a non-optimized fighter competes with/defeats non-optimized spellcasters who try to focus on direct damage, which 1) is the weakest use of spellcasting, 2) is the one area where non-spellcasters actually do better than spellcasters. If you play a wizard who uses burning hands and meteor swarm more often than color spray and time stop, then no, you won't dominate the game. If you play a cleric who actually prepares cure wounds spells and never uses divine favor, divine power, and righteous might (even without the idiocy of Divine Metamagic + Persistent Spell), then no, you won't dominate the game. If you play a druid who doesn't take Natural Spell, and doesn't tagteam foes with wildshape + animal companion, then no, you won't dominate the game. Basically, even though it's more or less a fact that in fully optimized play, spellcasters are more powerful than non-spellcasters, in the end an individual player's skills are more important than the class he picks.
OneWinged4ngel 07-13-07, 03:20 AM	an individual player's skills are more important than the class he picks. Absolutely true, Lotus Crane. A terrible class can still be the highest performing member of the party if everyone else is a bunch of newbies. When you've got a case where no one knows what they're doing, class power issues shows up a lot less regularly (though they show up more erratically, such as the example of the newb thinking Wizards are weak because he runs up and gets himself poked with a pointy stick with no defensive spells up. As far as these players go, you can find examples of them calling EVERY class weak or broken for no actual intelligent reason).
Kratch 07-13-07, 03:37 AM	I find the descrepancy comes from 2 main sources: 1: Fighters don't have the ability to be abused as readily as casters, who have a plethora more material with which to come up with said abuses. Additionally, they can simply add any new spell abuse material that comes in in a new release rather easily. 2: the vast number of spells available can, in theory, solve any dillema that can be set before a caster, and for this reason, many assume that because a caster can theoretically have the solution, they will therefor have it available when it is required. On the flip side, when a fighter build is offered up in the various threads, it is a set build and thus, can be picked apart and it's weakness's found and an encounter tailored to show how ineffective fighters are. The counter argument is that many of those weakness's are easily covered by gear choices, to which the reply, gear dependency is evidence of a class's failing, back and forth, back and forth, so on and so forth. They're long reads, and often go off tangent, but here are some links to some of the debates on the subject. Any Reason to have a fighter part 1 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=788907) Any Reason to have a fighter part 2 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=845718) Question: Is the fighter really that underpowered (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=791914) there are many many more available