Battle+mage=stupid? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Battle+mage=stupid? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Herobane
04-30-06, 10:32 PM I personally think that war should be left to warriors, yet somehow we always get battles with mages in them, like Helm's Deep, Minas Titith, Obould's attack on the town of Shallows, etc.

Yet is there anyone who disagrees that mages have nothing to contribute to the battlefield than a slashed-up body in fancy robes?
Dessirris
04-30-06, 10:44 PM My warmage disagrees quite vehemently. Full plate + shielded casting + plenty of nasty spells = who needs a weapon? I'll blow you up while you're wailing on me.
myusernameis
04-30-06, 11:00 PM What the heck is wrong with you? Medieval battle field + area of effect spells = meat grinder. Plus the "mass" spells are great for buffing up an entire platoon.
Fayle
04-30-06, 11:08 PM I completely disagree. The simple fact is that wizards/sorcerers are far better combatants than fighters. An army of 100 mages against an army of 100 fighters will almost never lose, based on skill alone. Perhaps if they were all level 1, the fighters would win....perhaps. However, as they both increase in power and skill, the mage greatly surpasses the fighter in both destructive force and combat techniques. Some specialized mages (warmages) can even wear full-plate armor with no ASF chance, given the appropriate training (Battle Caster feat and level 8). A wizard, if played correctly, could route and destroy a group of fighters of the same level, usually with little effort. While fighters can indeed be fun to play, they are simply no match for a mage in the art of war.
serow_#R
04-30-06, 11:13 PM i disagree.
mages are very scary things to fight against in a battle
StarDrifter
04-30-06, 11:29 PM Have to disagree here, spells such as invisibility, fly, blur, protection from arrows, entropic shield, displacement, wall spells, and antilife shell are all excellent protection from melee and/or range (and others but it would take up too much of the page).

Then you have spells like bull's strength, true strike, keen edge, etc which can buff friendly warriors.

Then you have the offensive spells (too many to list).

Even a 1st level wizard would have a few spells to let off then have some alchemist fire and acid flasks for when he ran out. A mid level wizard would have access to fireball and lightning bolt, as well as possibly energy substitution to tailor them to the enemy, taking out multiple soldiers at once. As for the high level wizard, there is always the time stop, meteor swarm combination. Not much the warrior can do about that one.
Kastas
05-01-06, 04:00 AM I'm going to have to disagree here, too. Maybe you have a very different concept of what a mage is or should be, but in D&D they are far from defenseless. An experienced spellcaster in this game can be far more deadly on a large battlefield than his or her martial counterparts.
Kresalak
05-01-06, 04:03 AM I think a properly made Gish can give a pure melee combatant a run for his life. And money, since D&D has taught us to always loot the bodies.
Dhavaer
05-01-06, 04:03 AM I also disagree, for all the reason above.

I'd like to hear your reasons, though.
Terraneaux
05-01-06, 06:54 AM l3rn2tr0ll

But seriously, mages are very *powerful* on the battlefield, but I think it would be counterproductive to have an entire army of them. In general I'd rather bring clerics to war, but if I did have mages I'd mix them in with the archer corps.

On a somewhat related note, I have the "tactics check" be your BAB modified depending on the situation, so I clearly give fighters a nod in that respect.
Pegasos989
05-01-06, 08:36 AM Troll, troll, troll your post, Gently down the feed. Merrily, merrily troll along, A life is what you need!

-Noddy, from bash.org
Ralphius_Maximus
05-01-06, 10:34 AM Yet is there anyone who disagrees that mages have nothing to contribute to the battlefield than a slashed-up body in fancy robes?

I played in a party which had a Wu Jen/Samurai. He became the party tank and mass destruction spellcaster and generally had more kills than the rest of the party combined.

I also played a 20th level wizard in a major battle and caused more pain than anything else on the field with high level mass destruction and shapechange (dragons are fun).

So, all things considered, i'd have to say you are dead wrong on this one.
Nobunaga Oda
05-01-06, 10:47 AM I completely disagree. The simple fact is that wizards/sorcerers are far better combatants than fighters. An army of 100 mages against an army of 100 fighters will almost never lose, based on skill alone. Perhaps if they were all level 1, the fighters would win....perhaps. However, as they both increase in power and skill, the mage greatly surpasses the fighter in both destructive force and combat techniques. Some specialized mages (warmages) can even wear full-plate armor with no ASF chance, given the appropriate training (Battle Caster feat and level 8. A wizard, if played correctly, could route and destroy a group of fighters of the same level, usually with little effort. While fighters can indeed be fun to play, they are simply no match for a mage in the art of war.

If there are all level 1 the fighters would win.(I am talking about the core Mage vs. the core Fighter.) they don´t have enough fire power on level 1 while the fighters can kill them in just one swing.

Personally? I don´t care about "who is better in combat"...It all depends of the build. Sure, the Wizard&friends are stronger than the fighter....That´s because the fighter sucks.
Mist of Shadows
05-01-06, 11:02 AM Actually I would like to dispute that :)

At level one the army of mages would win.

I sleep them. 1 mage takes out 4 fighters :)

There is enough overlap to drop the rest.
All you need is to drop enough cut their throats then continue the sleep has a range.
Ezell Pike
05-01-06, 11:06 AM I also disagree. Mages have thier place on a battlefield. Your compariseon is like comparing an infantryman to a fighter pilot. You could raise an army of ten thousand soldiers and arm them for less than you could train a few hundred mages.

Pike
snowstrider
05-01-06, 11:21 AM As long as both sides have the same amount of resources, and the fighter commanders aren't idiots. I believe that either would be a match for the other.

Mages: small, elite force capable of mass devastation.

Fighters: huge, well-trained force with the power of attrition on its side.

1 for one though, a mage would probably turn a fighter into a small pool of molten goo...

An unfortunate end to a proud warrior...
dragonseth
05-01-06, 11:25 AM Well, if you get a straight Wiz/Sorc who goes around getting into melee, you have a very dead mage. But, if you have one who stands behind fighters, you have a cannon, a big, fiery, death-dealing cannon. Or, a big, fiery, death-stopping Cleric. :D I also find that Warmages, Spellswords etc... can do REALLY well on the battlefield.
chitzk0i
05-01-06, 01:55 PM A warmage with an arrow of bone + true strike would rule at sniping enemy commanders. A light, heck, a heavy crossbow with accuracy on it has a range increment of 240 feet. Anyone he can see, he can slay with the death effect or seriously wound with the 1d10+4+3d6 damage if they manage to pass the approx. DC 20 fort save.
Wonton2006
05-01-06, 03:49 PM Yet is there anyone who disagrees that mages have nothing to contribute to the battlefield than a slashed-up body in fancy robes?

Depends on what you mean by that.

If you mean that mages shouldn't fight directly on the battlefield, that's not true. Mages can get riduculous melee power with things like Polymorph, Tenser's Transformation, Body of War, etc. Also, ever heard of touch spells?

If you mean that mages are of no help on a battlefield... WTF??
Area spells+battlefields=a lot of dead people!
My Sorcerer recently used Pyrotechnics, a level 2 spell, to blind the front half of a charging army, causing them to be trampled by their comrades from behind (conveniently enough, every man from the army was carrying a torch). Also, just before the hack-and-slash zone where the city guards were slaughtering the starving barbarians, he set up a choking cloud to weaken anyone coming up to the guards by 4 str and dex. He also greased that area so the charging guys would slip, fall and slide over to their doom. And this is a level 5 human sorcerer with 17 charisma using level 1 and 2 spells!!
Fayle
05-01-06, 04:01 PM If there are all level 1 the fighters would win.(I am talking about the core Mage vs. the core Fighter.) they don´t have enough fire power on level 1 while the fighters can kill them in just one swing.

That is exactly what I said. At level 1, the fighters would win.

The reasoning behind this is that in the early levels, mages can burn through their arsenal very quickly and once their spells are used up, they're done for. Whereas a fighter can keep swinging and swinging away. This is only for level 1 (maybe 2) though. After that, sorry...the mage has the upperhand against the fighter. They are the most vital part of any warband, imo, if for nothing more than their versitility.
Wonton2006
05-01-06, 04:18 PM I agree. While a fighter's power scales linearly, a mage's scales exponentially. It will always catch up and overtake them. Compare the result of a level 1 battle with the result of a level 20 battle. Wail of the banshee, anyone? Meteor Swarm? Power Word Kill?
Fayle
05-01-06, 04:32 PM Exactly. Fighters are very 1-dimensional compared to mages. Compare the powers of a level 10 fighter with those of a level 10 wizard. With one evocation spell, the wizard has a chance to dose out 60 points of damage. This is, of course, on top of all the other handy spells a wizard of that level can cast; Wall of Force, Baleful Polymorph, Dominate Person, Summon Monster 1-5, Bestow Curse, Phantasmal Killer, etc. Bah, this is getting off topic.

The point is that on the battlefield, the fighter, whom many consider to be the focal point of the warband, is inferior to the mage.
Kyuketsukiouji
05-01-06, 10:04 PM Well, let's be reasonably intelligent here.

People who say spellcasters are useless apparently have never heard of the Fireball spell.

People who say warriors are useless also apparently have never heard of range weapons.

So, sure, if you put your level 1 Fighter with a sword 50 feel away from your level 1 Wizard with a Sleep spell, the Fighter is toast, and if you put your level 1 Wizard with Magic Missile right in front of your level 1 Fighter, the Wizard is hamburger, but, honestly, all you've managed to prove is that stupid people die in a war, which isn't exactly late-breaking news.

So, how about we look at things in a sensible way?

Now, for starters, outfitting a level 1 Fighter with a handful of javelins, a chain shirt and a short spear is a lot cheaper than outfitting a Level 1 Wizard with a basic spellbook, so there's one obvious reason to have Fighters in your army.

Second, anyone can be a Fighter, but you need at leat an 11 in Intelligence or Charisma to be an arcane caster, which disqualifies a good part of the typical population (unless you're of a race that gets a bonus to your mental stats by default).

Third, spellcasters are fragile. At low levels, you can often down a spellcaster with only one hit from a melee or ranged weapon, and there are numerous weapon enchantments that can be put on range weapons to make them dangerous at any level (magebane, in particular, is a cheap and efficient way to take out caster). Fighters might not be able to kill as many people as Wizards, but they die a lot more slowly. In fact, level per level, a Wizard will have problems killing a Fighter of the same level in one round, while a fighter has more chances of being able to do the opposite. Even at range, a Light Crossbow wielded by someone with Rapid Reload and Rapid Fire can put between 2 and 5 bolts (without haste paying a factor) in the air, and if those bolts are Frost Magebane bolts, you're taking 1d8+2d6+1d6 points of damage per hit, which is actually enough to kill a spellcaster of equivalent level if he doesn't have the right elemental protection (at level 20, a crossbow sniper specialist with just the listed bolts and a Light Crossbow of Speed +5 can do 6d8+12d6+6d6 + 42 damage, which more than enough to kill a 20d4 hp Wizard)

So, there's certainly a place on the battlefield for both classes. The fighters will still be the main part of any fighting force, with spellcasters acting as special units/artillery. Just a single wizard with a Wand of Fireball/Staff of Chain Lightning will be able to make a huge difference (spells level 3-6 are where war spells are really concentrated) in a war situation. Don't expect them to be striding the front lines (or be there for a long time, anyways), but they'll be there.

D&D warfare is some kind of odd hybrid of medieval warfare and modern warfare. It's erroneous to look at it from just one side.
tiercel
05-01-06, 10:39 PM It's been pointed out, but "magic power" plays much the same role in D&D battles that "air power" plays in modern warfare. Having outright superiority will very likely win you most any battle, and allows you to project power further and more quickly than conventional ground troops... but is more expensive, smaller, rarer, and doesn't give you the same presence of "boots on the ground" that you need to hold and fortify territory.

The more *practical* aspect is, if you are planning to have warfare in your D&D campaign, the impact that a few PC spellcasters can have on a battlefield in just a few rounds. No D&D army should go to war without accounting for the possibility of a small number of high-level enemy casters -- things like liberal use of low-level illusion and fog spells, as well as skirmish formations and, of course, your own small bands of elite "adventurer-grade" casters to engage enemy SpecialOps personnel.
Wonton2006
05-01-06, 11:04 PM to Kyuketsukiouji

let's be reasonable, eh?
At 20th level, a wizard would likely have a contingent dimension door prepared, and right after the fighter would waste his shots, he would proceed with this.

Let's see, you didn't give the WIZARD a Con bonus, so I'll be nice and do the same to you. 20d10, average 110 hp. Interesting.
Quickened Magic Missile.
Power Word Kill.

Let's not argue over who'd win. There's always a way to counter something, so we'd be arguing endlessly.
mrurbanitesmiley
05-01-06, 11:05 PM Why use 1st level fighters? I'd rather use either

A: 1st level barbarians. Advantages to 1st level barbarians include
1: They're cheap. Your average barbarian village is going to be filled with 1st level barbarians, who already have their own weapons and hide armor. You could probably get away with not paying them, and promising them looting privilidges of any cities you conquer.
2: They're fast. While +10 base speed might not seem tactically awesome in a dungeon, where you start out 50 feet away from your opponent, and you need to not move faster than your party, it's great in a military unit. An all-barbarian unit could march an additional mile in an hour, or an additional 8 miles in a day. That's nice for strategic positioning of troops. Furthermore, they could use a 4X move run action to move 160 feet, which is more than medium range for a 5th level wizard. The best way to not get killed by magic is to stay out of range until you choose to attack.
3: They're tough. The average 1st level barbarian is going to have 6 HP, 8 HP while raging. While this doesn't seem like alot in normal D&D terms, an average 1st level wizard will have 2 hp, and an average 1st level fighter will have 5.
4: They have nice saves. While this may seem not true, a 1st level barbarian with average stats will have +2 Fort save, or +2 Will, +4 Fort while raging. While I agree that a majority of combat spells will be ref saves, Will saves prevent your troops from being illusioned or turned, and fort prevents stuff like poisonous gas.
5: Jumping: A 1st level barbarian with no ranks in jump gains a +6 bonus to jump checks while raging. This allows them to jump 15 feet horizontally, or 4 feet vertically (plus the 8 feet of reach), allowing them to easily navigate normal battlefield obstacles like trenches or walls.

B: 1st level rogues
While i'm not going to go in depth as I did with Barbs, 1st level rogues are able to sneak around (which should be easy given the noise and furor of the battlefield), and you seriously don't want to be a wizard of any level surrounded by 8 1st level rogues. Plus, they have nice ref saves, which helps stop fireball death of the entire party. Plus, imagine an entire battalion of rogues setting up hundreds of trip wires and other nefarious traps on the battlefield the night beforehand.
Kyuketsukiouji
05-01-06, 11:18 PM Let's not argue over who'd win. There's always a way to counter something, so we'd be arguing endlessly.

Which, of course, is the point I was making. The original poster posited the statement that wizards are useless on the battlefield.

You saying "either can beat the other" quite nicely proves that both have their place.
Vaalingrade Ashland
05-01-06, 11:37 PM You know, if the mages in those books, even the DnD books, were even a tiny bit like DnD casters, the books would have been much shorter.

I was just reading one of the Salvatore books where the dwarves were being seiged by orcs and giants and all I could think was; You've got a ranger somewhere in the high teens, a Fighter and I guess a Rogue that are up there too, a druid and a cleric... but NO ONE thought a mage with a frick'in wall of stone or lightning bolt would have been bleeding useful?!

Oh, look, the druid made some rocks to roll down on them -- where's the earth elementals, you idiot?! SUMMON NATURE'S ALLY! IT IS A CLASS FEATURE. USE IT!

Magic is very dumbed down in the books. Just one of those hight powered FR guys could have enslaved the planet or blasted it into a new dark age before any of the others noticed.
epifreak
05-02-06, 02:43 AM Magic is very dumbed down in the books. Just one of those hight powered FR guys could have enslaved the planet or blasted it into a new dark age before any of the others noticed.

Alternately, knock off Gandalf and his occasional wussy fireball; replace with a D&D mage. Goblin army? meh....cloudkill. Next? Oh, siege of Minas Tirith.......cloudkill.....So, anyone wanna mop up those trolls and unmanned elephants?

Ultimately, though, it's a very good thing that books dumb down magic from D&D. Imagine reading a book, where the world was filled with D&D-style upper-level casters. It must make for a lousy book, when statistically, the villan's master plan gets foiled (no matter how tough he is) by a simple slay living 1/20 times.
Vaalingrade Ashland
05-02-06, 03:00 AM It must make for a lousy book, when statistically, the villan's master plan gets foiled (no matter how tough he is) by a simple slay living 1/20 times.
Saves didn't used to auto-fail on 1's :mad:
Kyuketsukiouji
05-02-06, 09:30 AM Actually, in 1st edition, saves did always fail on a 1.

Not to mention, with the Player's Handbook 2, we're seeing ways of ignoring the "fail on 1" rule.

In any case, I think the point was proven: casters have their place in a war, just like any other class.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Herobane 04-30-06, 10:32 PM	I personally think that war should be left to warriors, yet somehow we always get battles with mages in them, like Helm's Deep, Minas Titith, Obould's attack on the town of Shallows, etc. Yet is there anyone who disagrees that mages have nothing to contribute to the battlefield than a slashed-up body in fancy robes?
Dessirris 04-30-06, 10:44 PM	My warmage disagrees quite vehemently. Full plate + shielded casting + plenty of nasty spells = who needs a weapon? I'll blow you up while you're wailing on me.
myusernameis 04-30-06, 11:00 PM	What the heck is wrong with you? Medieval battle field + area of effect spells = meat grinder. Plus the "mass" spells are great for buffing up an entire platoon.
Fayle 04-30-06, 11:08 PM	I completely disagree. The simple fact is that wizards/sorcerers are far better combatants than fighters. An army of 100 mages against an army of 100 fighters will almost never lose, based on skill alone. Perhaps if they were all level 1, the fighters would win....perhaps. However, as they both increase in power and skill, the mage greatly surpasses the fighter in both destructive force and combat techniques. Some specialized mages (warmages) can even wear full-plate armor with no ASF chance, given the appropriate training (Battle Caster feat and level 8). A wizard, if played correctly, could route and destroy a group of fighters of the same level, usually with little effort. While fighters can indeed be fun to play, they are simply no match for a mage in the art of war.
serow_#R 04-30-06, 11:13 PM	i disagree. mages are very scary things to fight against in a battle
StarDrifter 04-30-06, 11:29 PM	Have to disagree here, spells such as invisibility, fly, blur, protection from arrows, entropic shield, displacement, wall spells, and antilife shell are all excellent protection from melee and/or range (and others but it would take up too much of the page). Then you have spells like bull's strength, true strike, keen edge, etc which can buff friendly warriors. Then you have the offensive spells (too many to list). Even a 1st level wizard would have a few spells to let off then have some alchemist fire and acid flasks for when he ran out. A mid level wizard would have access to fireball and lightning bolt, as well as possibly energy substitution to tailor them to the enemy, taking out multiple soldiers at once. As for the high level wizard, there is always the time stop, meteor swarm combination. Not much the warrior can do about that one.
Kastas 05-01-06, 04:00 AM	I'm going to have to disagree here, too. Maybe you have a very different concept of what a mage is or should be, but in D&D they are far from defenseless. An experienced spellcaster in this game can be far more deadly on a large battlefield than his or her martial counterparts.
Kresalak 05-01-06, 04:03 AM	I think a properly made Gish can give a pure melee combatant a run for his life. And money, since D&D has taught us to always loot the bodies.
Dhavaer 05-01-06, 04:03 AM	I also disagree, for all the reason above. I'd like to hear your reasons, though.
Terraneaux 05-01-06, 06:54 AM	l3rn2tr0ll But seriously, mages are very powerful on the battlefield, but I think it would be counterproductive to have an entire army of them. In general I'd rather bring clerics to war, but if I did have mages I'd mix them in with the archer corps. On a somewhat related note, I have the "tactics check" be your BAB modified depending on the situation, so I clearly give fighters a nod in that respect.
Pegasos989 05-01-06, 08:36 AM	Troll, troll, troll your post, Gently down the feed. Merrily, merrily troll along, A life is what you need! -Noddy, from bash.org
Ralphius_Maximus 05-01-06, 10:34 AM	Yet is there anyone who disagrees that mages have nothing to contribute to the battlefield than a slashed-up body in fancy robes? I played in a party which had a Wu Jen/Samurai. He became the party tank and mass destruction spellcaster and generally had more kills than the rest of the party combined. I also played a 20th level wizard in a major battle and caused more pain than anything else on the field with high level mass destruction and shapechange (dragons are fun). So, all things considered, i'd have to say you are dead wrong on this one.
Nobunaga Oda 05-01-06, 10:47 AM	I completely disagree. The simple fact is that wizards/sorcerers are far better combatants than fighters. An army of 100 mages against an army of 100 fighters will almost never lose, based on skill alone. Perhaps if they were all level 1, the fighters would win....perhaps. However, as they both increase in power and skill, the mage greatly surpasses the fighter in both destructive force and combat techniques. Some specialized mages (warmages) can even wear full-plate armor with no ASF chance, given the appropriate training (Battle Caster feat and level 8. A wizard, if played correctly, could route and destroy a group of fighters of the same level, usually with little effort. While fighters can indeed be fun to play, they are simply no match for a mage in the art of war. If there are all level 1 the fighters would win.(I am talking about the core Mage vs. the core Fighter.) they don´t have enough fire power on level 1 while the fighters can kill them in just one swing. Personally? I don´t care about "who is better in combat"...It all depends of the build. Sure, the Wizard&friends are stronger than the fighter....That´s because the fighter sucks.
Mist of Shadows 05-01-06, 11:02 AM	Actually I would like to dispute that :) At level one the army of mages would win. I sleep them. 1 mage takes out 4 fighters :) There is enough overlap to drop the rest. All you need is to drop enough cut their throats then continue the sleep has a range.
Ezell Pike 05-01-06, 11:06 AM	I also disagree. Mages have thier place on a battlefield. Your compariseon is like comparing an infantryman to a fighter pilot. You could raise an army of ten thousand soldiers and arm them for less than you could train a few hundred mages. Pike
snowstrider 05-01-06, 11:21 AM	As long as both sides have the same amount of resources, and the fighter commanders aren't idiots. I believe that either would be a match for the other. Mages: small, elite force capable of mass devastation. Fighters: huge, well-trained force with the power of attrition on its side. 1 for one though, a mage would probably turn a fighter into a small pool of molten goo... An unfortunate end to a proud warrior...
dragonseth 05-01-06, 11:25 AM	Well, if you get a straight Wiz/Sorc who goes around getting into melee, you have a very dead mage. But, if you have one who stands behind fighters, you have a cannon, a big, fiery, death-dealing cannon. Or, a big, fiery, death-stopping Cleric. :D I also find that Warmages, Spellswords etc... can do REALLY well on the battlefield.
chitzk0i 05-01-06, 01:55 PM	A warmage with an arrow of bone + true strike would rule at sniping enemy commanders. A light, heck, a heavy crossbow with accuracy on it has a range increment of 240 feet. Anyone he can see, he can slay with the death effect or seriously wound with the 1d10+4+3d6 damage if they manage to pass the approx. DC 20 fort save.
Wonton2006 05-01-06, 03:49 PM	Yet is there anyone who disagrees that mages have nothing to contribute to the battlefield than a slashed-up body in fancy robes? Depends on what you mean by that. If you mean that mages shouldn't fight directly on the battlefield, that's not true. Mages can get riduculous melee power with things like Polymorph, Tenser's Transformation, Body of War, etc. Also, ever heard of touch spells? If you mean that mages are of no help on a battlefield... WTF?? Area spells+battlefields=a lot of dead people! My Sorcerer recently used Pyrotechnics, a level 2 spell, to blind the front half of a charging army, causing them to be trampled by their comrades from behind (conveniently enough, every man from the army was carrying a torch). Also, just before the hack-and-slash zone where the city guards were slaughtering the starving barbarians, he set up a choking cloud to weaken anyone coming up to the guards by 4 str and dex. He also greased that area so the charging guys would slip, fall and slide over to their doom. And this is a level 5 human sorcerer with 17 charisma using level 1 and 2 spells!!
Fayle 05-01-06, 04:01 PM	If there are all level 1 the fighters would win.(I am talking about the core Mage vs. the core Fighter.) they don´t have enough fire power on level 1 while the fighters can kill them in just one swing. That is exactly what I said. At level 1, the fighters would win. The reasoning behind this is that in the early levels, mages can burn through their arsenal very quickly and once their spells are used up, they're done for. Whereas a fighter can keep swinging and swinging away. This is only for level 1 (maybe 2) though. After that, sorry...the mage has the upperhand against the fighter. They are the most vital part of any warband, imo, if for nothing more than their versitility.
Wonton2006 05-01-06, 04:18 PM	I agree. While a fighter's power scales linearly, a mage's scales exponentially. It will always catch up and overtake them. Compare the result of a level 1 battle with the result of a level 20 battle. Wail of the banshee, anyone? Meteor Swarm? Power Word Kill?
Fayle 05-01-06, 04:32 PM	Exactly. Fighters are very 1-dimensional compared to mages. Compare the powers of a level 10 fighter with those of a level 10 wizard. With one evocation spell, the wizard has a chance to dose out 60 points of damage. This is, of course, on top of all the other handy spells a wizard of that level can cast; Wall of Force, Baleful Polymorph, Dominate Person, Summon Monster 1-5, Bestow Curse, Phantasmal Killer, etc. Bah, this is getting off topic. The point is that on the battlefield, the fighter, whom many consider to be the focal point of the warband, is inferior to the mage.
Kyuketsukiouji 05-01-06, 10:04 PM	Well, let's be reasonably intelligent here. People who say spellcasters are useless apparently have never heard of the Fireball spell. People who say warriors are useless also apparently have never heard of range weapons. So, sure, if you put your level 1 Fighter with a sword 50 feel away from your level 1 Wizard with a Sleep spell, the Fighter is toast, and if you put your level 1 Wizard with Magic Missile right in front of your level 1 Fighter, the Wizard is hamburger, but, honestly, all you've managed to prove is that stupid people die in a war, which isn't exactly late-breaking news. So, how about we look at things in a sensible way? Now, for starters, outfitting a level 1 Fighter with a handful of javelins, a chain shirt and a short spear is a lot cheaper than outfitting a Level 1 Wizard with a basic spellbook, so there's one obvious reason to have Fighters in your army. Second, anyone can be a Fighter, but you need at leat an 11 in Intelligence or Charisma to be an arcane caster, which disqualifies a good part of the typical population (unless you're of a race that gets a bonus to your mental stats by default). Third, spellcasters are fragile. At low levels, you can often down a spellcaster with only one hit from a melee or ranged weapon, and there are numerous weapon enchantments that can be put on range weapons to make them dangerous at any level (magebane, in particular, is a cheap and efficient way to take out caster). Fighters might not be able to kill as many people as Wizards, but they die a lot more slowly. In fact, level per level, a Wizard will have problems killing a Fighter of the same level in one round, while a fighter has more chances of being able to do the opposite. Even at range, a Light Crossbow wielded by someone with Rapid Reload and Rapid Fire can put between 2 and 5 bolts (without haste paying a factor) in the air, and if those bolts are Frost Magebane bolts, you're taking 1d8+2d6+1d6 points of damage per hit, which is actually enough to kill a spellcaster of equivalent level if he doesn't have the right elemental protection (at level 20, a crossbow sniper specialist with just the listed bolts and a Light Crossbow of Speed +5 can do 6d8+12d6+6d6 + 42 damage, which more than enough to kill a 20d4 hp Wizard) So, there's certainly a place on the battlefield for both classes. The fighters will still be the main part of any fighting force, with spellcasters acting as special units/artillery. Just a single wizard with a Wand of Fireball/Staff of Chain Lightning will be able to make a huge difference (spells level 3-6 are where war spells are really concentrated) in a war situation. Don't expect them to be striding the front lines (or be there for a long time, anyways), but they'll be there. D&D warfare is some kind of odd hybrid of medieval warfare and modern warfare. It's erroneous to look at it from just one side.
tiercel 05-01-06, 10:39 PM	It's been pointed out, but "magic power" plays much the same role in D&D battles that "air power" plays in modern warfare. Having outright superiority will very likely win you most any battle, and allows you to project power further and more quickly than conventional ground troops... but is more expensive, smaller, rarer, and doesn't give you the same presence of "boots on the ground" that you need to hold and fortify territory. The more practical aspect is, if you are planning to have warfare in your D&D campaign, the impact that a few PC spellcasters can have on a battlefield in just a few rounds. No D&D army should go to war without accounting for the possibility of a small number of high-level enemy casters -- things like liberal use of low-level illusion and fog spells, as well as skirmish formations and, of course, your own small bands of elite "adventurer-grade" casters to engage enemy SpecialOps personnel.
Wonton2006 05-01-06, 11:04 PM	to Kyuketsukiouji let's be reasonable, eh? At 20th level, a wizard would likely have a contingent dimension door prepared, and right after the fighter would waste his shots, he would proceed with this. Let's see, you didn't give the WIZARD a Con bonus, so I'll be nice and do the same to you. 20d10, average 110 hp. Interesting. Quickened Magic Missile. Power Word Kill. Let's not argue over who'd win. There's always a way to counter something, so we'd be arguing endlessly.
mrurbanitesmiley 05-01-06, 11:05 PM	Why use 1st level fighters? I'd rather use either A: 1st level barbarians. Advantages to 1st level barbarians include 1: They're cheap. Your average barbarian village is going to be filled with 1st level barbarians, who already have their own weapons and hide armor. You could probably get away with not paying them, and promising them looting privilidges of any cities you conquer. 2: They're fast. While +10 base speed might not seem tactically awesome in a dungeon, where you start out 50 feet away from your opponent, and you need to not move faster than your party, it's great in a military unit. An all-barbarian unit could march an additional mile in an hour, or an additional 8 miles in a day. That's nice for strategic positioning of troops. Furthermore, they could use a 4X move run action to move 160 feet, which is more than medium range for a 5th level wizard. The best way to not get killed by magic is to stay out of range until you choose to attack. 3: They're tough. The average 1st level barbarian is going to have 6 HP, 8 HP while raging. While this doesn't seem like alot in normal D&D terms, an average 1st level wizard will have 2 hp, and an average 1st level fighter will have 5. 4: They have nice saves. While this may seem not true, a 1st level barbarian with average stats will have +2 Fort save, or +2 Will, +4 Fort while raging. While I agree that a majority of combat spells will be ref saves, Will saves prevent your troops from being illusioned or turned, and fort prevents stuff like poisonous gas. 5: Jumping: A 1st level barbarian with no ranks in jump gains a +6 bonus to jump checks while raging. This allows them to jump 15 feet horizontally, or 4 feet vertically (plus the 8 feet of reach), allowing them to easily navigate normal battlefield obstacles like trenches or walls. B: 1st level rogues While i'm not going to go in depth as I did with Barbs, 1st level rogues are able to sneak around (which should be easy given the noise and furor of the battlefield), and you seriously don't want to be a wizard of any level surrounded by 8 1st level rogues. Plus, they have nice ref saves, which helps stop fireball death of the entire party. Plus, imagine an entire battalion of rogues setting up hundreds of trip wires and other nefarious traps on the battlefield the night beforehand.
Kyuketsukiouji 05-01-06, 11:18 PM	Let's not argue over who'd win. There's always a way to counter something, so we'd be arguing endlessly. Which, of course, is the point I was making. The original poster posited the statement that wizards are useless on the battlefield. You saying "either can beat the other" quite nicely proves that both have their place.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-01-06, 11:37 PM	You know, if the mages in those books, even the DnD books, were even a tiny bit like DnD casters, the books would have been much shorter. I was just reading one of the Salvatore books where the dwarves were being seiged by orcs and giants and all I could think was; You've got a ranger somewhere in the high teens, a Fighter and I guess a Rogue that are up there too, a druid and a cleric... but NO ONE thought a mage with a frick'in wall of stone or lightning bolt would have been bleeding useful?! Oh, look, the druid made some rocks to roll down on them -- where's the earth elementals, you idiot?! SUMMON NATURE'S ALLY! IT IS A CLASS FEATURE. USE IT! Magic is very dumbed down in the books. Just one of those hight powered FR guys could have enslaved the planet or blasted it into a new dark age before any of the others noticed.
epifreak 05-02-06, 02:43 AM	Magic is very dumbed down in the books. Just one of those hight powered FR guys could have enslaved the planet or blasted it into a new dark age before any of the others noticed. Alternately, knock off Gandalf and his occasional wussy fireball; replace with a D&D mage. Goblin army? meh....cloudkill. Next? Oh, siege of Minas Tirith.......cloudkill.....So, anyone wanna mop up those trolls and unmanned elephants? Ultimately, though, it's a very good thing that books dumb down magic from D&D. Imagine reading a book, where the world was filled with D&D-style upper-level casters. It must make for a lousy book, when statistically, the villan's master plan gets foiled (no matter how tough he is) by a simple slay living 1/20 times.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-02-06, 03:00 AM	It must make for a lousy book, when statistically, the villan's master plan gets foiled (no matter how tough he is) by a simple slay living 1/20 times. Saves didn't used to auto-fail on 1's :mad:
Kyuketsukiouji 05-02-06, 09:30 AM	Actually, in 1st edition, saves did always fail on a 1. Not to mention, with the Player's Handbook 2, we're seeing ways of ignoring the "fail on 1" rule. In any case, I think the point was proven: casters have their place in a war, just like any other class.