Ah, so you are taking the "wizards have access to all of the potential spells all the time" approach, with a dash of "opponents never have ranged attacks".

Good to know.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577695Ah, so you are taking the "wizards have access to all of the potential spells all the time" approach, with a dash of "opponents never have ranged attacks".

Good to know.

Ah, so you're taking the 'don't read posts' approach, with a dash of 'reality is inconvenient so I shall ignore it'.

Good to know.

Quote from: soviet;577703Ah, so you're taking the 'don't read posts' approach, with a dash of 'reality is inconvenient so I shall ignore it'.

Good to know.

I read your post.  And in your post, you started off with "wizards have this spell and that spell" (i.e., assuming they have access to all these spells all the time) and you said if a MU takes hp damage, it's a mistake (i.e., monsters must have no way to damage them...like ranged weapons for example)

In other words, your reasoning only holds true if you a) assume that MUs can cast any spell at any time, or b) opponents have no way of attacking a MU at distance.

Neither of those are actually true as constants in gameplay, of course.  Not to mention, a MU has to be 9th level just to cast teleport, which takes a long time to get to.  And then you have this:

MU: "Woot!  Level 9, now I can cast teleport!"
Party leader: "Great, how is that going to help us clear this dungeon?"
MU: "I can totally teleport to the idol and grab it without needing to cross the lava and trapped floor!"
Party Leader: "How will you get back?"
MU: "Nevermind that.  I can teleport out of the dungeon!"
Party Leader: "How is that going to help?"
MU: "Um....well....I guess when you all die, I can teleport back and notify next of kin."

Quote from: Bill;577685Save or dies spells do not make HP unimportant.

Many of those spells simply do not effect many enemies as well.

Save vs Death comes up less often that save vs lose which is more broad.

Color Spray is a save or lose if you fail your save and have less than 2hd you're unconscious for 2d4 rounds but you might as well be dead though because people can CDG you with impunity.

Stone to Flesh/Salt/Ice/whatever is also basicly a save or die because getting unpertriyed is about as hard a coming back from the dead. Those spells work on almost anything made of meat (so most things you will be fighting.)

I've always considered save or die spells to be a little extravagant, my prefered style is to cripple encounters and then let the peons with melee classes finish up. (If I'm not playing a Gish and thus a melee peon myself.)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577711I read your post.  And in your post, you started off with "wizards have this spell and that spell" (i.e., assuming they have access to all these spells all the time)

No I didn't:

Quote from: soviet;577691No, but I'm assuming fighters get attacked more.

Unless he's just plinking away with a longbow, the fighter needs to get into melee before he can really do his thing. That means potentially crossing the battlefield in the face of missile fire. It means negotiating potential reach attacks, auras, and attacks of opportunity. And above all else it probably means that the other monsters can now get to him and smack him around at the same time. Further, 'run in and one-shot the monster' is rarely a viable strategy due to HP totals. So even if the fighter carefully positions himself against a single target, he's still got a few more rounds of toe-to-toe exchanges before he wins. Each exchange, there's a good chance he loses some more hit points. This is much worse in 3e and 4e due to HP inflation, but it's still there in 2e and earlier.

The wizard, by contrast, is a ranged skirmisher. In 3e he can move and cast a spell against a foe some distance away. If it works, that spell can very easily take out the monster in one hit. 2e and earlier casters don't have the mobility but they still have the firepower. If their plan works, they could very easily be in no danger of taking a hit at all. And because they have a range of spell levels, they can modulate this by pulling out the big guns for the scary encounters and sticking to the basics for the easy-looking ones. They also potentially have 'get out of jail free' cards like teleport or invisibility. Fighters have none of these options. They operate at the same basic level of ability in all fights, they have no way of escalating things due to perceived danger, and they have no easy way of escaping the shitstorm if things go bad.  

Ultimately, for a caster, HP loss is punishment for making a mistake. For a fighter, HP loss is simply a natural part of doing business.

See?

There are lots of wizard ranged attack spells at each spell level. I'm not assuming he has access to any particular ones. But I am assuming he has access to at least some of them.

And there are several wizard 'escape from a bad situation' spells, at least one per level with the exception of first (unless you count stuff like sleep or colour spray, which I'm not). Again, I am not assuming that the wizard has access to teleport or invisibility or whatever specifically. But I am assuming that he has access to at least something along those lines.

Are either of these assumptions unfair?

Quote from: soviet;577691The wizard, by contrast, is a ranged skirmisher. In 3e he can move and cast a spell against a foe some distance away. If it works, that spell can very easily take out the monster in one hit. 2e and earlier casters don't have the mobility but they still have the firepower. If their plan works, they could very easily be in no danger of taking a hit at all. And because they have a range of spell levels, they can modulate this by pulling out the big guns for the scary encounters and sticking to the basics for the easy-looking ones. They also potentially have 'get out of jail free' cards like teleport or invisibility. Fighters have none of these options. They operate at the same basic level of ability in all fights, they have no way of escalating things due to perceived danger, and they have no easy way of escaping the shitstorm if things go bad.  

Ultimately, for a caster, HP loss is punishment for making a mistake. For a fighter, HP loss is simply a natural part of doing business.

Uh..yeah you did.  Bolded by me.  Although, at this point I'm beginning to wonder if reading comprehension is a struggle for you.

Firstly, you're assuming the MU has learned and memorized specific spells ahead of time to avoid combat (invisibility and teleport were your specific examples.  In actual play, if you memorize those spells, what ones are you bypassing?  The ones you were using earlier (the "big guns')?  You do realize that MUs have limited spell slots, right?  This is you assuming the MU would have access to all spells in order for your logic to work

Secondly, you said taking damage for caster is punishment for a mistake.  How exactly is it a mistake for the party to come across a band of bugbears who launch a volley of crossbow bolts at the caster, knowing he is the #1 target?  Or a group of giants who hurl boulders?  

A 5th level MU is going to have an AC around 7-9 with about 14 hit points, compared to a fighter around AC 0-2 with 33 hp.  An equal 5th level monster is going to hit the MU about 70% of the time, compared to only about 30% to the fighter.  If averaging 5 points of damage per hit, that's 4 rounds to kill the MU and 22 rounds to kill the fighter.

If that wasn't bad enough, you're also assuming that when the MU is casting a spell, he doesn't get interrupted while doing so, which is easily done at a 70% hit rate the monsters have against him.

Quote from: soviet;577716There are lots of wizard ranged attack spells at each spell level. I'm not assuming he has access to any particular ones. But I am assuming he has access to at least some of them.

And there are several wizard 'escape from a bad situation' spells, at least one per level with the exception of first (unless you count stuff like sleep or colour spray, which I'm not). Again, I am not assuming that the wizard has access to teleport or invisibility or whatever specifically. But I am assuming that he has access to at least something along those lines.

Are either of these assumptions unfair?

Separately no, but what you're doing is assuming the MU has access to both of them ad hoc.  Which ones are you memorizing? A 5th level Mu has 3/2/1 spells.  Go ahead and list what spells those are being spent on, and then explain how that is going to last a half dozen encounters before they can find an area to rest.

No, neither of those assumptions are unfair.

Neither is it unfair to assume that Fighters lose more hit points on average than wizards do.  Everyone in this thread, if posting in good faith, would remark that it is a feature of their game that Fighters take more hit point damage than Wizards do.  They'll also admit that Fighters take hit point damage more often than Wizards do.  

But there is a fear that admitting something that is true, even in their own game, will provide you some kind of advantage that you're going to use to change the way they play.

If they were being honest, they'd admit that Fighters take more damage, and the system is DESIGNED for that, which is one reason that Fighters get more hit points than Wizards.  

If they really wanted to make their point, they could say 'in my games, fighters have 2.5x as many hit points as wizards, on average, but they take only twice the damage, on average, so Fighters actually take a lower percentage of their total hit points in damage each fight than wizards.  But they won't say that because it's not true, and if it was, it would involve tracking numbers that they don't care to track (because it's D&D not OCD).  

Or something to that effect.  

But I think it's fun to continue pointing out that their points range from stupid to pointless.  It makes me feel smart to post on the right side of an obvious argument.

Not every encounter has ranged attacks.  

Trolls are a common encounter.  Trolls don't usually use crossbows.  Giant scorpions don't usually use crossbows.

Even if you posit that 100% of the encounters with ranged attacks do their BEST to lock down the Wizard (which is fine - if they all know who the wizard is and they all agree that's the best strategy) unless 100% of encounters have that as an option, the Fighter is still likely to take more hit point damage.  Melee bruisers (like, say, a Fire Giant) do more damage in a single hit than a large number of bugbears with crossbows.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577719Separately no, but what you're doing is assuming the MU has access to both of them ad hoc.  Which ones are you memorizing? A 5th level Mu has 3/2/1 spells.  Go ahead and list what spells those are being spent on, and then explain how that is going to last a half dozen encounters before they can find an area to rest.

Why do you keep trying to narrow the focus to second edition?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577718Uh..yeah you did.  Bolded by me.  Although, at this point I'm beginning to wonder if reading comprehension is a struggle for you.

Seriously, you're wondering that about me? Priceless.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577718Firstly, you're assuming the MU has learned and memorized specific spells ahead of time to avoid combat (invisibility and teleport were your specific examples.  In actual play, if you memorize those spells, what ones are you bypassing?  The ones you were using earlier (the "big guns')?  You do realize that MUs have limited spell slots, right?  This is you assuming the MU would have access to all spells in order for your logic to work

Secondly, you said taking damage for caster is punishment for a mistake.  How exactly is it a mistake for the party to come across a band of bugbears who launch a volley of crossbow bolts at the caster, knowing he is the #1 target?  Or a group of giants who hurl boulders?  

A 5th level MU is going to have an AC around 7-9 with about 14 hit points, compared to a fighter around AC 0-2 with 33 hp.  An equal 5th level monster is going to hit the MU about 70% of the time, compared to only about 30% to the fighter.  If averaging 5 points of damage per hit, that's 4 rounds to kill the MU and 22 rounds to kill the fighter.

If that wasn't bad enough, you're also assuming that when the MU is casting a spell, he doesn't get interrupted while doing so, which is easily done at a 70% hit rate the monsters have against him.

Again with the narrowing to 2e.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;577726Trolls are a common encounter. .

Says who?  I don't think I'm going out on a limb here when I say the most common opponents in D&D are monstrous humanoids (orcs, goblins, kobolds, bugbears, ogres, gnolls, etc).

Quote from: soviet;577727Why do you keep trying to narrow the focus to second edition?

Because that was the context of what I was talking about in the first place.  Well, technically AD&D, not just 2e.  I believe my exact words were, "25 years of D&D before 3e ever came out".

Quote from: deadDMwalking;577726Not every encounter has ranged attacks.  

Trolls are a common encounter.  Trolls don't usually use crossbows.  Giant scorpions don't usually use crossbows.

Even if you posit that 100% of the encounters with ranged attacks do their BEST to lock down the Wizard (which is fine - if they all know who the wizard is and they all agree that's the best strategy) unless 100% of encounters have that as an option, the Fighter is still likely to take more hit point damage.  Melee bruisers (like, say, a Fire Giant) do more damage in a single hit than a large number of bugbears with crossbows.

Ideally this is the case for the party. You want the wizard in back taking fewer hits because their hp are so low. The issue is you cant always do this (even in melee battles) so Hp is a significant weakness for the wizard because he is so much more vulnerable when he does get hit. Depending on the scenario, inlcuding terrain and monsters this can vary. Obviously the party usually works to get those wizards in back and far from the line where they can safely launch spells. But sometimes they are forced into closer quarters with stuff like trolls. Generally speaking the fighter will take more damage if the party is followin standard D&D tactics. But the wizard has very few hp to mess with and doesn't have the benefit of armor, so i do see a lot of wizards proportionally get about as low as the fighter over the course of battles.

Either way both characters are useless when they reach zero Hp. So saying hp is a resource for the fighter but not the wizard seems a bit odd.  The point people are making is the fighter's attack resources don't go down (unless he is firing arrows or something). He still has the same number of attacks and potential damage at the beginning of the battle as at the end, but the wizard depletes his spell resources and his attack effectiveness goes down as this occurs.