Ranger vs. Wizard

[CombatOwl]

Archery has 2 paths: Swift Hunter, and Arcane Permafrost Archer. Swift Hunter is Innately DEAD vs the wizard. the Permafrost Archer is a Wizard himself. The only other thing is a Targeteer variant Fighter that will Instagib anything, but this is PF, so no.

Astral Projection works anywhere in PF, and there is no RAW way to sever the silver cord. You will never be fighting a wizard directly as a Ranger unless you can cast Planar travel spells, because there is no wizard to kill, just an astral projection. And this is for very unoptimal choices of invulnerability.

Pathfinder archery really only has one path, with slight variations depending on class. I guess you might classify archery bards as a different sort of path, but the feats and principles are largely the same. That one path just happens to be insanely devastating.

Any ghost touch weapon would do. Any force effect. PF silver cords are merely incorporeal. That is their only defense. it doesn't require special conditions like the 3.5e silver cords. Not sure where this meme that you can't damage incorporeal things comes from? Do your high level characters not carry some weapon or another that's been enchanted with ghost touch? Wizards usually have a low CMD--they're pretty foolish if they use Astral Projection without at least picking up Defensive Combat Training.

Alternately any magic weapon, since it still deals 50% damage to incorporeal things. The cord isn't even invisible anymore.

Pathfinder nerfs most of the "lol, I never leave my sanctum" nonsense from 3.5e. If you want to actually get things done in Pathfinder, you usually have to get up out of your chair and teleport there.

[toapat]

Pathfinder archery really only has one path, with slight variations depending on class. I guess you might classify archery bards as a different sort of path, but the feats and principles are largely the same. That one path just happens to be insanely devastating.

Its still Invisible, its still Incorporal, and it is still Undefined asto HP and hardness. and you cant claim that Alchemical silver is usable as the standard because its not Alchemical silver.

And archery in PF isnt as effective as in 3.5. It cant be when its competition is 12d6 bonus damage per round with an armor boost, Herald of the end times, or a Fighter who in a single full attack action fires NI crossbow bolts

[CombatOwl]

Its still Invisible,

Sure, but that is a solvable problem.

its still Incorporal,

Which is a non-issue for a 20th level character. Even without a ghost touch weapon, surely they have a magic weapon.

and it is still Undefined asto HP and hardness.

AKA DM's call. He'll probably just crib the stats from 3.5e except as changed by Pathfinder (for example, it no longer requires a special weapon or environmental effect--anything that damages incorporeal things works against one). So, hardness 10, HP 20. No big deal at those levels.

and you cant claim that Alchemical silver is usable as the standard because its not Alchemical silver.

No longer requires silver. Its only protection is being invisible and incorporeal.

And archery in PF isnt as effective as in 3.5. It cant be when its competition is 12d6 bonus damage per round with an armor boost,

12d6/round is 42/round on average. There are plenty of archery builds that far exceed that. The Deadly Aim feat alone will add 70 damage per round at level 20, and not available in 3.5e. You'd have a point if it was 42 per arrow in a full attack, but per round? No way. Even if you rolled all 6s, your bonus damage from that does not exceed the deadly aim feat all by itself.

Herald of the end times,

Not sure what you're referring to.

or a Fighter who in a single full attack action fires NI crossbow bolts

Name me one DM who has ever allowed the splitting hand crossbow trick in actual play.

[Doc_Maynot]

Name me one DM who has ever allowed the splitting hand crossbow trick in actual play.

*Slowly Raises Hand*

[CombatOwl]

*Slowly Raises Hand*

Really? Why?

[Snowbluff]

C)

I'd like to remind everyone that if anyone is getting an ambush, it's not the ranger. For the sake of parity, if the ranger knows anything about his target, the wizard is also aware of the ranger, and is much more capable of preparing a head of time.

Also, you still can't full attack on a surprise round, where as a combination of quickened spells and immediate spells would be enough to ward a wizard.

Also, the ranger could just precede his attack by shouting "Hail there, traveler!" as loudly as possible and taking surprise rounds out of the equation. You only get to act in the surprise round if there is a surprise round, and the ranger making everyone aware of his presence eliminates the surprise round entirely. The diviner ability just lets you always count as aware in surprise rounds, it doesn't guarantee a surprise round. Nothing about the ranger's ability to one-shot the wizard in a full round requires him to be hidden. The only thing that spoils it is the theoretical possibility that the wizard might have a simulacrum with shield other--which is getting rather too specific to argue that the contest is inherently in the wizard's favor.

To be fair, it could be familiar using a wand of Shield Other. Some of them have regeneration.

Again, parity. The wizard would attack the ranger or put up a spell if he located the ranger.

You're getting into an awful lot of "ifs" to argue that the wizard is so superior that the contest is laughable.

A solar is the first thing a person with Simulacrum would make when he gets the spell.

Please, they don't have blind-sense at hundreds of feet.

They have telepathy, and communicate to each other silently. It's kind of like the hive mind for drones DARPA is working on. Any creatures within an attack range or simulacrums lost could be reported to the wizard.

Third level sorcerer isn't going to change that contest. The DCs are laughable for a 20th level character and the awful no-save-and-sucks at low level were taken out of Pathfinder. Best he could do is put invisibility on the wizard, but the simulacrum gets its own initiative so that doesn't matter.

You have to roll a one sometime. 100 of these is only 50 kgp. If I was aware of the attack, I would totally have them spam things like grease on ranger's equipment.

The only simulacrum you've mentioned that would prevent the wizard from being killed in one round is the solar having shield other up. Which is now bringing us into some absurdly specific circumstances. Must be a diviner with a solar simulacrum holding shield other up all the time, etc. Whereas the ranger must be... a guide who learned archery. Might as well just assume the ranger has a [wizard's race] bane bow with [wizard's race] greater slaying arrows. I mean, even with shield other that wizard dies to 910 damage. Even if he makes every save he'd take 910 damage. With shield other up, that would kill both the wizard and the solar. 7 greater slaying arrows of a humanoid type is only 28,000. Totally in the price range for a 20th level ranger.

You mean a guide in his favored terrain who happens to have the... wait, no master hunter? Even with readied shots on "casts a spell," this sucks. You can't kill the wizard in a standard action, and that's assuming he's done nothing to avoid being ambushed.

Guide doesn't even match up to the Diviner's +10 to initiative and +4 from a familiar. When speaking of potential init, the wizard seems to be winning handily. Do you have other bonuses past your higher dex that a wizard can't access?

The only assumption I am making is that the wizard is making a singular spell choice and an intelligent school choice, which is a fraction of a feat in terms of selection. I mean, for 28 kgp a wizard can have 5 simulacrums of himself as decoys. That's assuming he doesn't spend all of his free time casting Blood Money (having a Solars restore his stats and health) and making more Simulacra. This is just an example of how one spell grants a significant advantage over a ranger. I haven't otherwise touched his wibblemancy, said anything about Astral Projection, Gate, Planar Binding, Genesis, Blood Money subsidized Wishes...

To paraphrase Tippy "If a wizard makes it to level 20 without dying, he's already a better optimizer than you."

One feat with no penalty for an extra +15 damage per round? That's quite feat efficient.

You would have to hit with each attack, at -2 and iterative penalties, with the highest damage attack being done with the large penalty. If you do the math, I think the damage falls short quite easily.

More investment for a weaker bonus. That's not efficient.

Making a 16 is easy, and it doesn't require a higher level feat slot. However, this also includes an equal bonus to attack. It also can give +5 atk/dmg, which means it does twice as much damage as the above feat and grants another ~25% chance to hit.

Feats are for establishing how you attack.

Not in PF. AFAICT, no combat-centric feats offer new abilities. They merely improve upon options that are available to everyone.

Oh, CombatOwl replied to one of your posts that I didn't really read with a big long argument I didn't read. Toapat told him he was wrong and had lost, not due to the content of his post, but because he was arguing with YOU.

I objected on principle!

Oh, he posted against me again. I thought he bowed out. To be fair, this is a little crazy.

[Vknight]

The guy is working on a slippery slope.
Because A can happen Z will happen so don't allow A.

Also I know a Wizard can easily win initiative but he won't listen too that reasoning because Rangers have higher dex.

Also leave the Paladin vs. Ranger fight alone thank you.

CombatOwl the point isn't that the ranger can counter it. But look at what the Ranger needs too counter it. The Wizard spends some time makes something and then the Ranger needs too carry around all these things too counter just one thing.
CombatOwl you must also remember that too take a readied action the Ranger has too have a higher initiative, because that determines who acts first in a surprise round.

Also he brought up hiring another Wizard too cast dispel/Anti-Magic then attacking the wizard. And hiring a Wizard too beat the opponents wizard is somehow the ranger besting the wizard/makes the wizard balanced.

Also what is the max caster level one can make a scroll and rod. And what are the Will Saves for magic items or where are they in the book.

[toapat]

12d6/round is 42/round on average. There are plenty of archery builds that far exceed that. The Deadly Aim feat alone will add 70 damage per round at level 20, and not available in 3.5e. You'd have a point if it was 42 per arrow in a full attack, but per round? No way. Even if you rolled all 6s, your bonus damage from that does not exceed the deadly aim feat all by itself.

I forgot Greater Manyshot and splitting, its 24d6/standard action to 4 targets with multi-designation possible. on a single target that is +344 damage/round

the other build is an arcane archer who uses spells like Fimbulwinter as a standard action to completely screw with their enemies.

[Sjlver]

Snowbluff would be right because he is right, not because he is an authority. The fact that he is an authority on the matter certainly doesn't hurt and I'd say it helps the credibility of the argument.

[Snowbluff]

I forgot Greater Manyshot and splitting, its 24d6/standard action to 4 targets with multi-designation possible. on a single target that is +344 damage/round

In 3.5? Damage is higher for a 3.5 archer with splitting and energy bow, which can up to +20 damage per attack.

the other build is an arcane archer who uses spells like Fimbulwinter as a standard action to completely screw with their enemies.

Wasn't that a hexblade build?

[toapat]

In 3.5? Damage is higher for a 3.5 archer with splitting and energy bow, which can up to +20 damage per attack.


Wasn't that a hexblade build?

its +~344 from the weapon alone, i dont know what the other +7 worth of enhancements is that yields +7d6, but i accounted for the manditory +1 and Splitting.

the original, yes, but it spawned a few evolutionary builds that actually can do things that arent completely lock down the battlefield forever.

[CombatOwl]

I'd like to remind everyone that if anyone is getting an ambush, it's not the ranger. For the sake of parity, if the ranger knows anything about his target, the wizard is also aware of the ranger, and is much more capable of preparing a head of time.

Nothing I have stated here requires any of the above. The two could be standing a hundred feet apart on an open field and the ranger could still rocket tag him by winning initiative. As you point out, it would actually be easier for the Ranger in this case because he could open with a full round volley of death.

A solar is the first thing a person with Simulacrum would make when he gets the spell.

Where are you getting an ice sculpture of a solar from? The material component of the Pathfinder Simulacrum is quite a bit harder to cough up because it has to specifically be an ice sculpture of the target--a specific solar, as it were. What Solar is going to stand around and let you carve an ice sculpture of it? I mean, yeah, you could probably eventually get one if you really wanted to and were high enough level, but that's hardly the first thing on the list unless you planned on not using simulacrums for awhile. I've been playing D&D for over two decades now. I have literally never seen anyone playing a wizard who walked around every day with a solar simulacrum shielding him.

Also, how is this 11 HD solar surviving your encounters when it rolls around with shield other on all the time? Its regeneration doesn't apply against the damage from shield other, and it has fewer hit points than you do. You not only have to get an ice sculpture of a solar, you have to keep getting ice sculptures of solars every time some random encounter rolls your simulacrum. Every time that thing gets destroyed you're looking at 11,500gp lost and another quest to go carve a new ice sculpture of a solar. It's highly impractical. This was a valid strategy in 3.5e because of the easier material components, but not in Pathfinder. Simulacrums of common creatures are one thing, simulacrums of exotic ones are quite another. Even if you had a captive solar in your laboratory, that's just inviting outsiders to hassle you. Impractical.

Let us not forget also that simulacrums are still quite specifically made of ice. There is nothing in the description that even remotely suggests that they do not melt in above-freezing weather like normal ice. Admittedly, this is up to the DM since there are no first party rules on ice melting.

They have telepathy, and communicate to each other silently. It's kind of like the hive mind for drones DARPA is working on. Any creatures within an attack range or simulacrums lost could be reported to the wizard.

Another use for that ranger's infinite horde of friendly woodland animals (or animal companion). Blindsense just tells you were a creature is, not anything about the creature.

You have to roll a one sometime. 100 of these is only 50 kgp.

Well, it is more practical than the Solar.

If I was aware of the attack, I would totally have them spam things like grease on ranger's equipment.

And there's about a dozen ways he can foil them ever noticing him till he popped out and spoiled the surprise round. If nothing else, Burrow would work, and it's only a 3rd level spell. The ground blocks line of effect, so blindsense doesn't work. He would obviously need a necklace of adaptation, but I've barely even spent any of his money.

You mean a guide in his favored terrain who happens to have the... wait, no master hunter? Even with readied shots on "casts a spell," this sucks.

It's probably about the best he could do with a standard action--there are a few spells that might be helpful, but none more than hindering the wizard's casting. Which is, again, why he should spoil the surprise round and just full attack. Also, there's a ranger spell that solves that favored terrain problem (Terrain Bond, hour/2 levels), so that's a non-factor.

You can't kill the wizard in a standard action, and that's assuming he's done nothing to avoid being ambushed.

Again, why he would be better off spoiling the surprise and using a full round action.

Guide doesn't even match up to the Diviner's +10 to initiative and +4 from a familiar.

Sorry, sorry, it was Warden, not guide. Guide gets something better than favored enemy, but I meant Warden above. He actually does give up favored enemy, but he gains up to five favored terrains (so a +10 to initiative with Terrain Bond). He gets an additional +2 from being able to hear himself after level 4 (because of some stupid interactions about who counts as an ally--you are your own ally). That's +12. It's likely that the ranger would have a better dex than the wizard which should make up the difference. Traits, races, and feats are the same for both classes for initiative bonuses. Both classes can Anticipate Peril. If he really needed to mess with this, the ranger could buy a dueling cestus and still use his bow, which is actually reasonable since it's cheap and lets him threaten adjacent squares without snap shot.

When speaking of potential init, the wizard seems to be winning handily. Do you have other bonuses past your higher dex that a wizard can't access?

It seems to be that the ranger would eck out +1 over the wizard assuming the wizard optimized for con rather than dex as his secondary attribute.

The only assumption I am making is that the wizard is making a singular spell choice and an intelligent school choice,

Only assumption about the ranger is that he picked an archetype and focused on a bow. But you are also assuming quite a bit more than that by devoting large portions of your starting gold to simulacrums and that your character regularly acquires ice sculptures of solars and such. Again, I wasn't even giving that ranger particularly good equipment. An archery ranger at level 20 with a +5 bow? Please?

which is a fraction of a feat in terms of selection. I mean, for 28 kgp a wizard can have 5 simulacrums of himself as decoys.

Actually 50k--they cannot be assumed to last forever because eventually they would either be destroyed or melt.

That's assuming he doesn't spend all of his free time casting Blood Money (having a Solars restore his stats and health) and making more Simulacra. This is just an example of how one spell grants a significant advantage over a ranger. I haven't otherwise touched his wibblemancy, said anything about Astral Projection, Gate, Planar Binding, Genesis, Blood Money subsidized Wishes...

Ranger's got money, means he's got wizardry. Anything you can do, he can do 1/day. Anyone at that level can pull stupid spell tricks.

To paraphrase Tippy "If a wizard makes it to level 20 without dying, he's already a better optimizer than you."

And Tippy is flat out just plain wrong about that in 99% of cases. Funny how all them sub-optimal fighters, ranger, rogues, etc make it to 20th level without being optimized wizards. Might suggest unoptimized wizards can make it there too.

You would have to hit with each attack, at -2 and iterative penalties,

Not really a problematic assumption at that level against a wizard who isn't buffed for combat.

with the highest damage attack being done with the large penalty. If you do the math, I think the damage falls short quite easily.

My calculation didn't even include hammer the gap. Note how I point out that it does not include critical hits, hammer the gap, favored enemy bonuses, etc. That's over 210 average off a **** weapon with nothing but a high strength and deadly aim. Plus 7d6 in elemental damage which may or may not be resisted. Literally, I'm not even counting everything and I've got your wizard's HP beat.

Oh, he posted against me again. I thought he bowed out. To be fair, this is a little crazy.

Well, I admit I'm getting a bit tired of you ignoring whole portions of the argument, such as the parts where I'm not even including the things you're arguing about int he calculation. I'm being super conservative on this estimate, and it's pretty clear the wizard is in danger of dying in the first round. Which is pretty much always the case for any contest between 20th level optimized characters.

Wizards aren't high tier because of their combat potential, they're high tier because of their versatility. There's lots of stuff that can kick the **** out of them in a straight numbers game. Rangers included. Wizards are Tier 1 because they can avoid this ever happening, but were it to happen, it's pretty clear the ranger could very easily kill the wizard or at least force them to emergency teleport out.

[Talya]

Well, I admit I'm getting a bit tired of you ignoring whole portions of the argument

To go the other way, I do this frequently. Sometimes a person's argument against me is so convoluted and nonsensical there's no point to addressing some portion of it. Much like at a trial, the defense and prosecution don't go back and forth ad nauseum, sometimes the crossexamination simply doesn't do enough to contest their point, so you ignore it.

I only address the items I feel need to be addressed in any given post.

(With the same caveat as before - I didn't read the argument in question.)

[Vhaidara]

And its 3rd/3.5 Edition no Pathfinder.

And thus, we are using the 3.5 Simulacrum, not the PF one. And all of your various archetype bonuses are gone.

[CombatOwl]

The guy is working on a slippery slope.
Because A can happen Z will happen so don't allow A.

Also I know a Wizard can easily win initiative but he won't listen too that reasoning because Rangers have higher dex.

Rangers get some stupid class bonuses to initiative if you keep terrain bond up. Which, at level 20, is totally doable. Wardens specifically are right up there with diviners. Literally the diviner gets a +14 init bonus from his class @ 20, the Warden gets a +12 @ 20. They both have the same ability to automatically take 20 an initiative check. It seems reasonable to assume that an archery focused character can squeak out an extra +2 or +3 over the wizard regarding dex. They can both do stupid things with initiative.

CombatOwl the point isn't that the ranger can counter it. But look at what the Ranger needs too counter it.

... picking an archetype, the one count-um martial archery chain, and a crappy bow? I'm not really giving the ranger very much here. His simulacrums cost more than that archer's entire specified loadout. There's no countering here--ranger wins initiative, he plugs the wizard. Wizard wins initiative, he plugs the ranger. This is how 20th level combat works. Pretty much anyone who focuses on fighting can one-shot anyone else in an even contest in one round. Mounted chargers, pounce barbarians, archers, wizards, they all have options for one-shotting pretty much anyone.

The Wizard spends some time makes something and then the Ranger needs too carry around all these things too counter just one thing.

Carry around what? A really bad bow? I've not given the ranger hardly any equipment.

CombatOwl you must also remember that too take a readied action the Ranger has too have a higher initiative, because that determines who acts first in a surprise round.

Both of them have ludicrous initiative, and it's very likely the archer's is one or two higher than the wizard. Which is important, since the initiative is automatic here.

Also he brought up hiring another Wizard too cast dispel/Anti-Magic then attacking the wizard. And hiring a Wizard too beat the opponents wizard is somehow the ranger besting the wizard/makes the wizard balanced.

I never mentioned a damn thing about hiring anyone. Requirements for killing a wizard: the martial archery build, the warden archetype, a ****ty +2 speed bow, being 20th level. Those are actually the only things I've made a requirement here. If the wizard isn't a diviner, then you can pick pretty much any archer archetype instead.

[Vhaidara]

Rangers get some stupid class bonuses to initiative if you keep terrain bond up. Which, at level 20, is totally doable. Wardens specifically are right up there with diviners. Literally the diviner gets a +14 init bonus from his class @ 20, the Warden gets a +12 @ 20. They both have the same ability to automatically take 20 an initiative check. It seems reasonable to assume that an archery focused character can squeak out an extra +2 or +3 over the wizard regarding dex. They can both do stupid things with initiative.

PF, irrelevant

Both of them have ludicrous initiative, and it's very likely the archer's is one or two higher than the wizard. Which is important, since the initiative is automatic here.

Not in 3.5

I never mentioned a damn thing about hiring anyone. Requirements for killing a wizard: the martial archery build, the warden archetype, a ****ty +2 speed bow, being 20th level. Those are actually the only things I've made a requirement here. If the wizard isn't a diviner, then you can pick pretty much any archer archetype instead.

not PF, no archetypes.

[CombatOwl]

PF, irrelevant



Not in 3.5



not PF, no archetypes.

This tangent is about pathfinder ranger vs. pathfinder wizard, for reasons discussed when I started it. If you're going to argue rangers are better than wizards, you obviously aren't talking about 3.5e.

[Snowbluff]

Wow, these posts are bloated. Thanks, Talya.

Read Simulacrum. 500 GP per HD of the simulacrum, not of the original creature.

Read Bloody Money. I don't have to pay for the simulacra. Not really.

As for buying wizard services, that's not the ranger winning. We know this.

For the numbers game thing, I don't know about optimizing wizard AC. I know he can match all but ~12 of the ranger's dex. He can carry all the same items for init, too. Wearing some armor with reduced ASF (Arcane Armor Training? Maybe), using Limited Wish to buff the AC of the Buckler and Armor. When all is said and done, the Ranger shouldn't have 100% to hit.

Hammer the Gap is actually a seperate argument. If you want, I can crunch the numbers and give a numerical objective level of how good/bad it is. 18+10+6= 34 dex, with a 14 bonus, 20 BAB, +5 from weapon sounds good, right?

[CombatOwl]

As for buying wizard services, that's not the ranger winning. We know this.

Fine, he buys cleric services. At 20th level it's about your treasure and initiative bonus anyway.

For the numbers game thing, I don't know about optimizing wizard AC. I know he can match all but ~12 of the ranger's dex. He can carry all the same items for init, too. Wearing some armor with reduced ASF (Arcane Armor Training? Maybe), using Limited Wish to buff the AC of the Buckler and Armor. When all is said and done, the Ranger shouldn't have 100% to hit.

It is unlikely that an optimized wizard will use ASF, because it requires a swift action to use meaning no quickened spells. You put on bracers of armor and a ring of protection and that's about all you get. It's not very high. Exactly where it is depends on how much you want to spend on what is usually irrelevant protections. It is possible that the last arrow has a reasonable chance of missing. However, I was also not considering critical hits in that calculation. That's probably a wash since he'd be using a 19-20/x3 weapon and will almost certainly confirm any earlier crits.

Hammer the Gap is actually a seperate argument. If you want, I can crunch the numbers and give a numerical objective level of how good/bad it is. 18+10+6= 34 dex, with a 14 bonus, 20 BAB, +5 from weapon sounds good, right?

Not really much of a point. It's widely regarded as extremely feat efficient because it's a fair bit of extra damage that costs nothing but a feat. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 is still +15, even if the last hit misses--which is really the only one likely to miss.

The problem here is that it's not actually required for this scenario. Even if you didn't take hammer the gap, even if you don't have favored enemy bonuses, even if you haven't boosted your strength with tomes, even if you use a ****ty +2 speed bow, it's still doing enough damage to kill a wizard who started with 16 con (who has a +6 con item), on average. Rangers aren't even particularly good archers in PF without their favored enemy bonus, and even a bad archer is enough to kill a wizard with optimal HP at the level. Admittedly, if it was another class, the initiative would be a problem--the wizard would be able to flee or wind wall to save himself. But the particular case given here--a pathfinder ranger with Warden faces a pathfinder wizard (diviner) without anything but very long term buffs up... the ranger has good odds of being able to win that combat. Because he's probably going to edge out the wizard by +1 or +2 init and can throw enough damage to win. It is possible that the last shot misses, in which case the wizard will likely be able to turn that around on the archer.

Even being generous here, that wizard can easily get rocket tagged in this encounter. It's not a slam dunk victory as was originally portrayed. Absolutely the wizard has more options on how to deal with this or avoid it--that's the point of a wizard. But they certainly are not the kings of the combat numbers game.

[Vknight]

This tangent is about pathfinder ranger vs. pathfinder wizard, for reasons discussed when I started it. If you're going to argue rangers are better than wizards, you obviously aren't talking about 3.5e.

I don't care CombatOwl... go whine about that somewhere else not here.
This is 3/3.5 because that is the system in question, pathfinder is irrelevant too this.
Finally your assuming the Ranger with a bow setup too counter all wizard defenses. Which is kind of hard.
Also the Wizard at level 20 doesn't go out and adventure he hides away he can bring out armies with summon. Gate in a Solar too fight for him and leave directions too an Astral Projection

I was also talking about the guy who is claiming a Ranger beats a Wizard. His solution or at least one of them was hiring a Wizard.

[Snowbluff]

Fine, he buys cleric services. At 20th level it's about your treasure and initiative bonus anyway.

*facedesk* That's not any better. Not a win for the Ranger, either.

It is unlikely that an optimized wizard will use ASF, because it requires a swift action to use meaning no quickened spells. You put on bracers of armor and a ring of protection and that's about all you get. It's not very high. Exactly where it is depends on how much you want to spend on what is usually irrelevant protections. It is possible that the last arrow has a reasonable chance of missing. However, I was also not considering critical hits in that calculation. That's probably a wash since he'd be using a 19-20/x3 weapon and will almost certainly confirm any earlier crits.

Bracers of Armor? Maybe, depending on the build. +8 bracers +5 Nat Armor, +5 def, +6 Shield from mithril buckler (Magic Vestment Limited Wish), some dexterity mod(variable, but at least 21 dexterity) isn't much, though. This turns out to be 38ish. 51 would be a desirable , but iteratives past the second attack can miss without a 1.

Not really much of a point. It's widely regarded as extremely feat efficient because it's a fair bit of extra damage that costs nothing but a feat. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 is still +15, even if the last hit misses--which is really the only one likely to miss.

I don't care how you use it. This is a bit about PF feats, which agitate me. I was going to run the numbers with the average values of AC at various level to determine how much damage it actually adds, or at least determine the odds it actually does 15 damage (which relies on many conditional calculations). All to show why a 3.5 exclusive feat is better.

Numbers are something I am not to concerned with in the end. You can claim Numbers King, but that was never what made a Wizard good.

[Vhaidara]

I was also talking about the guy who is claiming a Ranger beats a Wizard. His solution or at least one of them was hiring a Wizard.

Then point out that your Wizard could hire a Ranger to kill the Ranger. It's only fair, since the Ranger gets to hire a Wizard to kill the Wizard.

[toapat]

Fine, he buys cleric services. At 20th level it's about your treasure and initiative bonus anyway.

Buying the services of any other class is forbidden in class vs class debates

[Talya]

But... Lex Luthor is physically stronger than Superman because he can buy Kryptonite!

[eggynack]

Also I know a Wizard can easily win initiative but he won't listen too that reasoning because Rangers have higher dex.

Why exactly are you arguing against this person? It honestly doesn't seem worthwhile, if he's doing things like this. I mean, you can demonstratively prove to him that he's wrong on this count. If he's just going to ignore the things you say, why say things at all?

[Doc_Maynot]

Buying the services of any other class is forbidden in class vs class debates

Not saying i'm for or against either side, just want to bring up a point.

Wouldn't magic items be reliant of another class unless you made them yourself?

[Talya]

Why exactly are you arguing against this person? It honestly doesn't seem worthwhile, if he's doing things like this. I mean, you can demonstratively prove to him that he's wrong on this count. If he's just going to ignore the things you say, why say things at all?

Most people were trained to debate on the Internet?

[Vhaidara]

Not saying i'm for or against either side, just want to bring up a point.

Wouldn't magic items be reliant of another class unless you made them yourself?

That isn't hiring the services of. Equipment is fine, the problem is when your reasoning for a Ranger being stronger than a Wizard is that the Ranger can hire a Wizard to help him fight the Wizard. Or rather, to fight the Wizard for him.

[toapat]

Not saying i'm for or against either side, just want to bring up a point.

Wouldn't magic items be reliant of another class unless you made them yourself?

That isn't hiring the services of. Equipment is fine, the problem is when your reasoning for a Ranger being stronger than a Wizard is that the Ranger can hire a Wizard to help him fight the Wizard. Or rather, to fight the Wizard for him.

Alternatively: An arguement for all magic items without getting classes involved: its all crafted by a neutral third party of Midgard dwarves.

[CombatOwl]

*facedesk* That's not any better. Not a win for the Ranger, either.

Why not? It's using an option at his disposal. I mean, if you want to argue about all these long term buffs and such--bonuses and creatures that last for days--you kind of have to acknowledge that the ranger could just devote some of his treasure to the task of solving that deficiency.

Bracers of Armor? Maybe, depending on the build. +8 bracers +5 Nat Armor, +5 def, +6 Shield from mithril buckler (Magic Vestment Limited Wish), some dexterity mod(variable, but at least 21 dexterity) isn't much, though. This turns out to be 38ish. 51 would be a desirable , but iteratives past the second attack can miss without a 1.

I don't care how you use it. This is a bit about PF feats, which agitate me. I was going to run the numbers with the average values of AC at various level to determine how much damage it actually adds, or at least determine the odds it actually does 15 damage (which relies on many conditional calculations). All to show why a 3.5 exclusive feat is better.

Numbers are something I am not to concerned with in the end. You can claim Numbers King, but that was never what made a Wizard good.

I agree that it isn't the point of playing a wizard, which is why I think this whole line of argumentation is rather absurd. Obviously the ranger is going to kill that wizard if it becomes a numbers game. Why? Because combat numbers are what martial characters are designed to be good at doing. Obviously no wizard worth their salt will actually be caught in this situation--because the whole point of a wizard is to have enough options to avoid this sort of thing. In actual late game play, martial supremacy doesn't mean much because you just avoid the situations where martial supremacy means anything. But if you want to compare whether one can ace the other reliably, you have to have some common basis for comparison. You kind of have to assume that neither side has used all of the stupid tricks available because if they had A) the contest would never happen and B) late game gold trumps everything but initiative bonuses.

Buying the services of any other class is forbidden in class vs class debates

So, is equipment allowed? Because if it is, he can buy one-use items or 1/day items to fill his spellcasting needs. Arguing 20th level characters without considering what their gold brings to the table is silly. The class features don't exist in a vacuum--actual characters have equipment to fill in weak points.