In Defense of the Champion

[hawklost]

@ hawklost: how does that prove anything? I've already shown what the wizard can do with just one specific spell, and mentioned a variety of other spells that can be used in different ways. based on your beliefs that apparently antimagic fields are all over the place to the point where it's a determining factor in a class's ability to adapt, I quite frankly don't believe for even a second that *you* are the person most qualified to design an unbiased dungeon for this challenge, because I'm pretty sure if we were to do a quick poll on these boards, we'd find two things:

1) most people don't care enough to answer.
2) most people don't routinely encounter antimagic traps such that it becomes a critical determining factor in whether a class is adaptable or not.

So you believe you are the only one qualified to 'prove' the wizard is adaptable by....
1) Choosing a specific spell
2) Choosing the specific scenarios the spell is used in
3) Ignoring that you now used the spell in only the optimal situations
<---- this is proving that the wizard is versatile, not adaptable. IF the wizard has this spell and IF the scenario works for it and IF the situation is optimal for the spell, the wizard is awesome.


I find it funny that you assumed i was going to use anti-magic fields in a dungeon, which would not prove that the Wizard couldn't adapt at all. You assumed that because you see that as the only answer to your wizards awesome versatility. I was going to prove it in a completely different way but you seem to fear that it would prove you wrong so you reject the challenge and make straw man arguments about how I am just going to screw the wizard. (I will note that out of 7 characters in DnD, I have played a Wizard thrice since I love to play them, but I can acknowledge that they are not the ultimate class in the game and require allies like a Champion to do things when they are incapable of it).

[CrusaderJoe]

That is not what I said at all. I said that each of those uses is using Wall of Stone as it was intended. Not adapting it to uses it was never meant to do. In each of your scenarios above you are using it to Block (scout path, alarm sound), separate (enemy groups), or bridge (for escape). All of these things are what it is normally used for. The spell has many uses within these confines because it is a versatile spell.

Using a Wall of Stone to open a door or say, disarm the BBEG are uses the Wall of Stone isn't actually designed for. That is being adaptable. Using something in a way it was not meant to be used as/for.

Think of an adapter. It is designed so you can plug something into something that doesn't have the corresponding socket. You are attempting to plug something into another thing that it isn't designed to be plugged into using the plug you have.

No. Wall of stone was made so you can have a wall of stone. Anything you do with it beyond just making a wall of stone is adapting.

Does it have limitations? Yes. But that doesn't mean you can't adapt your wall of stone.

You are focusing so much on your argument that you are ignoring basic facts. Wall of stone is adaptable.


But for giggles.


I want to open a door with wall of stone? Wall of stone + telekinesis. I drop the wall of stone on the roof of the building and go in that way. Or if I want to be sneaky, I drop the wall of stone on another house or whatever (so the authorities go to that place) and then use my urchin background to pick the lock and go through the door.

Or I use wall of stone to block/desecrate some land mark (wall in front of a statue) while everyone is freaking out I go through the door using my criminal background.

I'm guessing I'm a criminal or urchin, why else would I be breaking into a house all by myself? Plus urchin is the most popular background that I'm aware of (maybe sailor).

[Fwiffo86]

I want to open a door with wall of stone? Wall of stone + telekinesis. I drop the wall of stone on the roof of the building and go in that way. Or if I want to be sneaky, I drop the wall of stone on another house or whatever (so the authorities go to that place) and then use my urchin background to pick the lock and go through the door.

Entertaining. But that is using Telekinesis. This is not adaption. This is using telekinesis to drop a heavy thing on a roof.

Or I use wall of stone to block/desecrate some land mark (wall in front of a statue) while everyone is freaking out I go through the door using my criminal background.

Doesn't desecration require the removal of the sanctified/holy benefits of a particular area? Especially in a world that has such things commonly? Generating a random wall to block the view of a statue doesn't exactly qualify. Again, using the Wall of Stone to block something (view in this case). I suppose you could argue its a "distraction" allowing you to sneak inside. But that is Sneaking through a door. Not opening it with the wall of stone.

As for focusing on my scenario.... I wouldn't have to spend so much time focusing on it if it would be understood the first time around. I will attempt to simplify it for others....

Using a wall of stone to open the door, as if you were to turn the knob, and push it open with your hand. That is using wall of stone not to block, not to separate, not to bridge. It is a non-standard use of the spell.

[SharkForce]

So you believe you are the only one qualified to 'prove' the wizard is adaptable by....
1) Choosing a specific spell
2) Choosing the specific scenarios the spell is used in
3) Ignoring that you now used the spell in only the optimal situations
<---- this is proving that the wizard is versatile, not adaptable. IF the wizard has this spell and IF the scenario works for it and IF the situation is optimal for the spell, the wizard is awesome.


I find it funny that you assumed i was going to use anti-magic fields in a dungeon, which would not prove that the Wizard couldn't adapt at all. You assumed that because you see that as the only answer to your wizards awesome versatility. I was going to prove it in a completely different way but you seem to fear that it would prove you wrong so you reject the challenge and make straw man arguments about how I am just going to screw the wizard. (I will note that out of 7 characters in DnD, I have played a Wizard thrice since I love to play them, but I can acknowledge that they are not the ultimate class in the game and require allies like a Champion to do things when they are incapable of it).

right, so here we are, back to the completely nonsensical assumption that a guy who refuses to use any tools for the appropriate use is somehow "more adaptable" than the guy who uses the tools appropriately. what a load of BS.

and we're also back to adaptability not being about using the tools you have in different ways, which is what you were claiming earlier, but only about using tools in the wrong way, as the method of proving adaptability. because apparently just because something can be used in multiple ways, that isn't adapting at all to use it in the right way.

news flash: there's are things in this world called adapters. guess what: they are DESIGNED to be used to ADAPT two different things to work together. for example, an AC/DC electrical adapter is specifically designed to allow you to connect DC powered devices to an AC power source, or vice versa. note that the device is called an adapter, NOT a versatiliter or something like that.

the fact that something can be used legitimately for multiple purposes does not make it something you cannot adapt with. you use it the right way for the right purpose, and that is how you adapt with it.

[hawklost]

No. Wall of stone was made so you can have a wall of stone. Anything you do with it beyond just making a wall of stone is adapting.

Does it have limitations? Yes. But that doesn't mean you can't adapt your wall of stone.

You are focusing so much on your argument that you are ignoring basic facts. Wall of stone is adaptable.


But for giggles.


I want to open a door with wall of stone? Wall of stone + telekinesis. I drop the wall of stone on the roof of the building and go in that way. Or if I want to be sneaky, I drop the wall of stone on another house or whatever (so the authorities go to that place) and then use my urchin background to pick the lock and go through the door.

Or I use wall of stone to block/desecrate some land mark (wall in front of a statue) while everyone is freaking out I go through the door using my criminal background.

I'm guessing I'm a criminal or urchin, why else would I be breaking into a house all by myself? Plus urchin is the most popular background that I'm aware of (maybe sailor).

You might want to re-read Wall of Stone, it does require the new stone to merge with existing stone and be solidly supported by it, meaning that it is locked into a place and cannot be moved without pulling all the stone up.

[Fwiffo86]

news flash: there's are things in this world called adapters. guess what: they are DESIGNED to be used to ADAPT two different things to work together. for example, an AC/DC electrical adapter is specifically designed to allow you to connect DC powered devices to an AC power source, or vice versa. note that the device is called an adapter, NOT a versatiliter or something like that.

The adapter is used to allow two things that normally can NOT connect together, to connect (AC vs. DC, not normally compatible). You're own example proves your argument incorrect.

THUS you would have to use a spell in a way it is NOT designed to do to accomplish your goal to consider that use ADAPTING.

the fact that something can be used legitimately for multiple purposes does not make it something you cannot adapt with. you use it the right way for the right purpose, and that is how you adapt with it.

Using it the right way, as in how the spell is normally used.

A versatile example in the device scenario would be a splitter. Allowing multiple of the same device to connect to each other. The splitter allows the original device to be versatile and connect to more than one thing it was already designed to connect to in the first place.

THUS one spell doing multiple things within its normal usage is VERSATILE.

[CrusaderJoe]

Entertaining. But that is using Telekinesis. This is not adaption. This is using telekinesis to drop a heavy thing on a roof.



Doesn't desecration require the removal of the sanctified/holy benefits of a particular area? Especially in a world that has such things commonly? Generating a random wall to block the view of a statue doesn't exactly qualify. Again, using the Wall of Stone to block something (view in this case). I suppose you could argue its a "distraction" allowing you to sneak inside. But that is Sneaking through a door. Not opening it with the wall of stone.

As for focusing on my scenario.... I wouldn't have to spend so much time focusing on it if it would be understood the first time around. I will attempt to simplify it for others....

Using a wall of stone to open the door, as if you were to turn the knob, and push it open with your hand. That is using wall of stone not to block, not to separate, not to bridge. It is a non-standard use of the spell.

Yeah and when no heavy objects around? I can make one!

Desecration can take many forms. Just standing on a site you are not allowed on can be considered desecration. Blocking the view, or having a an oddly shaped bridge (very crude) blocking a site or making a bridge comes from a statue's crotch (I'm thinking big Greece like statues) would work just fine. Do note that many statues to fallen heroes are considered holy just as a statue to a god. Folk heroes are like gods to them.

But if one isn't allowed to use their means to adapt then how can you gauge their adaptability? A fighter may need to pair up their athletics with a battering ram after all.

The problem here is that you don't want the wizard to be adaptable so any facts or uses to contrary your thoughts will just be met with flimsy excuses as to why they are not.

[SharkForce]

the adapter is being used for its designed purpose. if using something for its designed purpose is *not* adapting, then the adapter is not an adapter. but it is an adapter, because it doesn't matter if it was designed to adapt things or not. all that matters is that you can use it to adjust two things to work together.

wall of stone does not say "this spell is designed to split up your enemies, cover your retreat, cut off your enemy's retreat, create bridges, or rapidly build stone structures". it just says it makes a stone wall, with some limitations. there is no "this is what the spell is designed for" anywhere, rather, the spell can simply be used in a variety of ways, some of which I have listed. the spell makes a stone wall. what you do with that wall is up to you. there is no "correct" or "incorrect" way to use it, except as defined by whether or not it accomplished what you wanted to accomplish.

using tools incorrectly is not the hallmark of adaptation.

[Fwiffo86]

The problem here is that you don't want the wizard to be adaptable so any facts or uses to contrary your thoughts will just be met with flimsy excuses as to why they are not.

Except you aren't providing any examples of the wizard adapting with his magic. You are doing exceedingly well at proving the Wizard as versatile.

Your fundamental misunderstanding of the difference is why you can't seem to grasp that you are incorrect.

Again, I will simplify it for you.

Adaption
Use a spell in a way that does not fit its normal usage is adapting that spell to the situation.

Examples) Wall of Stone to open a door. Fireball to put out a fire. Fly to increase swimming speed. Comprehend languages to write complete gibberish that doesn't correspond to any language.

Versatility
Use a spell in a variety of ways that fits its normal usage is being versatile with the spell.

Wall of Stone - block something, close something, bridge something
Fireball - Deal damage, set something on fire
Comprehend languages - read an unfamiliar language, break a complex code

the adapter is being used for its designed purpose. if using something for its designed purpose is *not* adapting, then the adapter is not an adapter. but it is an adapter, because it doesn't matter if it was designed to adapt things or not. all that matters is that you can use it to adjust two things to work together.

You are sort of there. An adapter is not adapting. It IS the adaption.

While all of this is entertaining. I feel compelled to end this discussion. You will continue to refuse what has been proven (even using your own examples), that you don't understand the difference between Adaption and Versatility. Your opinions are noted.

[SharkForce]

Except you aren't providing any examples of the wizard adapting with his magic. You are doing exceedingly well at proving the Wizard as versatile.

Your fundamental misunderstanding of the difference is why you can't seem to grasp that you are incorrect.

Again, I will simplify it for you.

Adaption
Use a spell in a way that does not fit its normal usage is adapting that spell to the situation.

Examples) Wall of Stone to open a door. Fireball to put out a fire. Fly to increase swimming speed. Comprehend languages to write complete gibberish that doesn't correspond to any language.

Versatility
Use a spell in a variety of ways that fits its normal usage is being versatile with the spell.

Wall of Stone - block something, close something, bridge something
Fireball - Deal damage, set something on fire
Comprehend languages - read an unfamiliar language, break a complex code



You are sort of there. An adapter is not adapting. It IS the adaption.

it isn't. it's being used for the exact purpose it was intended for. based on your explanation, the only way an AC/DC adapter can adapt anything would be to convert electricity in the opposite of the direction it's designed for... for example, an AC ==> DC adapter would need to be used to convert a DC current to an AC one. otherwise, all 3 devices are functioning precisely as intended. the AC power source is generating an AC current. the DC-powered device is operating off of DC power. and the adapter is converting the AC current into a DC current. all doing precisely what they are designed to do, none of them being used in a remotely unusual way.

this goes right back to the two champions I mentioned earlier, each with 3 tools: which one has adapted better to their situation; the one that uses the tools in their intended way, or the one that uses them to do what the other tools were intended for?

[hawklost]

it isn't. it's being used for the exact purpose it was intended for. based on your explanation, the only way an AC/DC adapter can adapt anything would be to convert electricity in the opposite of the direction it's designed for... for example, an AC ==> DC adapter would need to be used to convert a DC current to an AC one. otherwise, all 3 devices are functioning precisely as intended. the AC power source is generating an AC current. the DC-powered device is operating off of DC power. and the adapter is converting the AC current into a DC current. all doing precisely what they are designed to do, none of them being used in a remotely unusual way.

this goes right back to the two champions I mentioned earlier, each with 3 tools: which one has adapted better to their situation; the one that uses the tools in their intended way, or the one that uses them to do what the other tools were intended for?

I think you are getting confused because of the name.

an Adapter changes something from one form to a single other form. It in and of itself is not adaptable. You cannot take an Adapter who changes A to B and stick C in it to get anything. Therefore the adapter does a single purpose. In fact, it is there specifically because an object that used form B is not adaptable enough to handle form A.

[SharkForce]

I think you are getting confused because of the name.

an Adapter changes something from one form to a single other form. It in and of itself is not adaptable. You cannot take an Adapter who changes A to B and stick C in it to get anything. Therefore the adapter does a single purpose. In fact, it is there specifically because an object that used form B is not adaptable enough to handle form A.

and it didn't adapt to handle form A. it's still getting form B. it is still being used in precisely the manner it was intended. in fact, most likely it is even getting form B through an adapter that was specifically designed for that one device (using an incorrect adapter can potentially lead to electrical fires, which are generally considered to be a bad thing; that's why devices tend to come with an AC/DC adapter, rather than just assuming you've bought one from the store. each device has it's own special power requirements beyond merely calling for DC).

[Chronos]

Quoth Gwendol:

I never said that. I have said that once the wizard has selected his spells for the day they are set. I.e. not adaptable.

And once the fighter picks his archetype, feats, and combat styles, they're also set. Except he can't even change them the next day; they're set forever. The champion has, in fact, no class features whatsoever that can ever be changed in any amount of time.

I'm now really curious to see in what ways a fighter actually can adapt, not just the ways a wizard supposedly can't. Give me one example of a fighter adapting to something. Anything the fighter can do to adapt, everyone in the game can also do.

Now, it is true that the fighter is forced to adapt more, that is, to figure out how to use the wrong tool for the job more effectively. But that's just because the tools he has are more often the wrong ones. Having the wrong tools for the job is not a strength. Sure, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, but that doesn't mean that handing a screwdriver the guy with a hammer makes him less adaptable.

[Cazero]

I'm now really curious to see in what ways a fighter actually can adapt, not just the ways a wizard supposedly can't. Give me one example of a fighter adapting to something. Anything the fighter can do to adapt, everyone in the game can also do.

Challenge accepted.

Ambush ! Goblins come from everywhere and you are all grappled !
Fighter : I punch the little pest to death with my bare hands, then draw my sword to deal with the rest.
Wizard : well, darn, spell X would have been perfect for that situation but has a somatic component. I guess I'll have to waste spell Y and one round to get free, and then maybe cast spell X if I don't get grappled again.

Here, the wizard adaptated because he is a smart planner, and his adaptation still suck compared to what the fighter can do. The fighter lost litteraly nothing to the ambush, the wizard have to waste at least one spell and might lose the fight because of it.

[MadBear]

I'll point this out again. If we're using Fwiffo86 definition of the words adaptating, and versatility, then he is in fact correct that the champion is more adaptable then the wizard.

I'm still not sure why we should use his definition though. Just looking it up gave 2 quick definitions:

Adapting:
1. to make suitable to requirements or conditions; adjust or modify fittingly
2. to adjust oneself to different conditions, environment, etc.:


Using these definition the wizard is clearly more adaptable and versatile. To be honest though, I don't particularly care which definition we use.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secondly, I'd point out that what Fwiff086's has said about the wizards abilities could be equally applied to the champion. For example, being better at using the athletics skill doesn't make you more adaptable, because you are using the ability for its intended use. Heck let's take Fwiffo86's statement and apply it:

Adaption
Use a athletics in a way that does not fit its normal usage is adapting that ability to the situation.

Examples) Using athletics to understand another creatures language. Using your improved crit range to heal the wounded. Using your protection style to increase your personal DPR.

Versatility
Use an ability in a variety of ways that fits its normal usage is being versatile with the ability.

Athletics - grapple, run faster/farther, climb, swim
crit range- Deal damage more damage and hit more often
Protection style - give disadvantage to those attacking your friends

Now if what I've said is in error, please show me the difference, because what it looks like you've done is take things that are impossible to do with a spell and say doing that makes it adaptable, meanwhile doing a variety of things with a spell only makes it versatile. In that regard how does the champion differ?

[Fwiffo86]

I'll point this out again. If we're using Fwiffo86 definition of the words adaptating, and versatility, then he is in fact correct that the champion is more adaptable then the wizard.

I'm still not sure why we should use his definition though. Just looking it up gave 2 quick definitions:

Adapting:
1. to make suitable to requirements or conditions; adjust or modify fittingly
2. to adjust oneself to different conditions, environment, etc.:


Using these definition the wizard is clearly more adaptable and versatile. To be honest though, I don't particularly care which definition we use.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secondly, I'd point out that what Fwiff086's has said about the wizards abilities could be equally applied to the champion. For example, being better at using the athletics skill doesn't make you more adaptable, because you are using the ability for its intended use. Heck let's take Fwiffo86's statement and apply it:



Now if what I've said is in error, please show me the difference, because what it looks like you've done is take things that are impossible to do with a spell and say doing that makes it adaptable, meanwhile doing a variety of things with a spell only makes it versatile. In that regard how does the champion differ?

Except all the things i listed for adaptability are possible. Unlike your examples. I will demonstrate.

Using wall of stone to force open a door from underneath for instance. The stone erupts from the ground to its maximum height, crushing the wooden door, lifting the portcullis, etc. (Adapting Wall of Stone to achieve Knock's effect.)

Using the fly speed to move faster through water instead of your reduced swim speed. Doesn't help breath water, but you move way faster in the water.

Using comprehend languages to pen giggerish because you know it doesn't correspond to any language the magic is capable of deciphering.

Using Fireball to put out a fire. This is a technique used by fire departments around the world. Feel free to look it up. More precisely, because fire ball is an explosion.

[MadBear]

Except all the things i listed for adaptability are possible. Unlike your examples. I will demonstrate.

Using wall of stone to force open a door from underneath for instance. The stone erupts from the ground to its maximum height, crushing the wooden door, lifting the portcullis, etc. (Adapting Wall of Stone to achieve Knock's effect.)

Using the fly speed to move faster through water instead of your reduced swim speed. Doesn't help breath water, but you move way faster in the water.

Using comprehend languages to pen giggerish because you know it doesn't correspond to any language the magic is capable of deciphering.

Using Fireball to put out a fire. This is a technique used by fire departments around the world. Feel free to look it up. More precisely, because fire ball is an explosion.

Ok, perfect. Then in that regard you just listed many ways for the wizard to be adaptable with a small number of spells. Considering they have a vast array of them, we can now say the wizard is highly adaptable then right?

[Gwendol]

Challenge accepted. Why don't you provide the martial combat scenarios?

[Fwiffo86]

Ok, perfect. Then in that regard you just listed many ways for the wizard to be adaptable with a small number of spells. Considering they have a vast array of them, we can now say the wizard is highly adaptable then right?

I didn't say he wasn't. I was pointing out that people can't understand the difference between Adaptable and Versatile.

Specifically I said that wizards without spells can't adapt to a situation
Fighters deprived of their weapons can.

[Easy_Lee]

@MadBear I think the difference between adaptability and versatility is that versatility is having lots of options, while adaptability is being able to adapt the options you have to a given situation.

Fighters, and melee in general, can adapt quite well. It's hard to envision a scenario where beating the crap out of the right thing is not a viable strategy, particularly if one has a magic weapon. And remarkable athlete further allows the champion to decently adapt to literally any problem that can be solved physically (including ones the DM didn't intend to be solved physically, wink wink).

Spells tend to offer versatility, but individual spells usually aren't as versatile. There are certainly exceptions, such as p-diddy, wish, misty step, and so on. But the caster has to know to keep these spells, must have access to them, and can only use them a relatively small number of times each day. The exception here would be some of the better archetype abilities, such as the conjures's ability to dynamically conjure any object that he can hold in his hand, a feature that's even better for players with Keen Mind.

In short, it's a trade off. But the point is that champions are quite good at adapting their options to a given situation. A wizard will need a spell for that, and can only cast so many per day. While the wizard's answers are sometimes more reliable, he can't use them as often.

[MadBear]

@MadBear I think the difference between adaptability and versatility is that versatility is having lots of options, while adaptability is being able to adapt the options you have to a given situation.

Fighters, and melee in general, can adapt quite well. It's hard to envision a scenario where beating the crap out of the right thing is not a viable strategy, particularly if one has a magic weapon. And remarkable athlete further allows the champion to decently adapt to literally any problem that can be solved physically (including ones the DM didn't intend to be solved physically, wink wink).

Spells tend to offer versatility, but individual spells usually aren't as versatile. There are certainly exceptions, such as p-diddy, wish, misty step, and so on. But the caster has to know to keep these spells, must have access to them, and can only use them a relatively small number of times each day. The exception here would be some of the better archetype abilities, such as the conjures's ability to dynamically conjure any object that he can hold in his hand, a feature that's even better for players with Keen Mind.

In short, it's a trade off. But the point is that champions are quite good at adapting their options to a given situation. A wizard will need a spell for that, and can only cast so many per day. While the wizard's answers are sometimes more reliable, he can't use them as often.

I think the hang-up then is that while individual spells are not very adaptable compared to the Champion as a whole, that the wizard is extremely adaptable given a large spell selection.

If I've take a variety of different spells for the day. Each different choice allows me to be more versatile (I have a wide array of options). Now this also additionally makes me more adaptable to any given scenario, based on how the new spell system works (For instance if my 5th level slot is a social skill, I can put a 3rd level fireball into it if need be).

One thing that keeps popping up is that we're treating versatility and adaptability as always being separate. Someone who is extremely versatile (has many different abilities) is also a more adaptable (can use those abilities to solve a wide array of problems).

So if the hang-up is that individual spells aren't adaptable but the champion is, then were confusing an ability (spells) with a class (champion).

What we should be applying is the adaptability of a class (wizard) with the champion (other class).

[Chronos]

OK, in the extremely unlikely event that the wizard has no spells, not even cantrips, without somatic components, then he punches goblins to death, too. There, he's adapted in exactly the same way as the fighter has. Mind you, punching things to death is a terrible choice for anyone but a mid-level monk, but I'll grant that it is possible for both fighters and wizards.

[Easy_Lee]

OK, in the extremely unlikely event that the wizard has no spells, not even cantrips, without somatic components, then he punches goblins to death, too. There, he's adapted in exactly the same way as the fighter has. Mind you, punching things to death is a terrible choice for anyone but a mid-level monk, but I'll grant that it is possible for both fighters and wizards.

Ever seen a wizard in melee? Low HP, low armor, no CON, STR, or DEX saves, no shield...it's not good.

The point everyone is making is that a champion is extremely good at melee, probably the overall best at weapon DPR, and can solve most problems that can't be solved through violence with creative application of remarkable athlete. A wizard might have exactly the right spell prepared for a given situation, such as hold person when dealing with another Wizard. But he is limited in his ability to prepare enough spells, find the right spells, and in how many spells he can cast.

Said another way, a champion caught in a situation without the perfect answer will be just fine, because killing / breaking / destroying the right thing is always a viable solution. The champion has the health pool and armor to survive these kinds of situations. A wizard, on the other hand, can be killed very quickly if he's unprepared for a specific situation.

There does not exist a wizard who could survive am ambush from a foe who can cast counterspell, or who traps him in an anti magic field, or various other tactics designed specifically for dealing with wizards. In comparison, the champion is much harder to deal with even if one knows he is coming. Even those things specifically designed for dealing with mundanes, such as wisdom saves, the champion has answers for in the form of indomitable and two extra ASIs over a caster class. In spite of his lack of elaborate spellcasting, the champion does just fine in pretty much any scenario one can imagine.

So like I and many others have said, the champion has advantages over the Wizard and vice versa. Also like many others have said, this is not a thread about wizard's vs. champions. If you wish to debate the merits of each, I would very much appreciate it if you created a separate thread.

[Fwiffo86]

I think the hang-up then is that while individual spells are not very adaptable compared to the Champion as a whole, that the wizard is extremely adaptable given a large spell selection.

If I've take a variety of different spells for the day. Each different choice allows me to be more versatile (I have a wide array of options). Now this also additionally makes me more adaptable to any given scenario, based on how the new spell system works (For instance if my 5th level slot is a social skill, I can put a 3rd level fireball into it if need be).

One thing that keeps popping up is that we're treating versatility and adaptability as always being separate. Someone who is extremely versatile (has many different abilities) is also a more adaptable (can use those abilities to solve a wide array of problems).

So if the hang-up is that individual spells aren't adaptable but the champion is, then were confusing an ability (spells) with a class (champion).

What we should be applying is the adaptability of a class (wizard) with the champion (other class).

I agree with much of this. Except for this bit...

So if the hang-up is that individual spells aren't adaptable but the champion is, then were confusing an ability (spells) with a class (champion).

What we should be applying is the adaptability of a class (wizard) with the champion (other class).

In the case of the wizard specifically, his spells ARE his class. All other class and tradition abilities tie directly to his spellcasting. So the comparison of Spells vs. Champion class abilities is still valid. If you are talking casters in general, this does not hold true.

My apologies to Lee, as I was the derailment in this thread I believe. Carry on.

[MadBear]

I agree with much of this. Except for this bit...



In the case of the wizard specifically, his spells ARE his class. All other class and tradition abilities tie directly to his spellcasting. So the comparison of Spells vs. Champion class abilities is still valid. If you are talking casters in general, this does not hold true.

My apologies to Lee, as I was the derailment in this thread I believe. Carry on.

You misunderstand. I'm saying while individual spells are not as adaptable as a champion (most spells are limited in scope), that it is a mistake to compare the limited adaptability of individual spells to that of the entire class (champion).

Like I was trying to convey, spells when taken as a whole make a character very adaptable, even if each individual spells isn't adaptable itself. A wizard who has prepared some social, combat, and utility spells has a lot of versatility and adaptability. Most of this is due to the way spell slots work now (for instance if a session is social exclusively, the wizard can always use other spell slots to continue to use his social spells, or visa versa for a combat heavy session). (sorry if I was unclear, I often find that my thoughts don't translate well to my speech and even less so to my writing).

[Fwiffo86]

You misunderstand. I'm saying while individual spells are not as adaptable as a champion (most spells are limited in scope), that it is a mistake to compare the limited adaptability of individual spells to that of the entire class (champion).

Like I was trying to convey, spells when taken as a whole make a character very adaptable, even if each individual spells isn't adaptable itself. A wizard who has prepared some social, combat, and utility spells has a lot of versatility and adaptability. Most of this is due to the way spell slots work now (for instance if a session is social exclusively, the wizard can always use other spell slots to continue to use his social spells, or visa versa for a combat heavy session). (sorry if I was unclear, I often find that my thoughts don't translate well to my speech and even less so to my writing).

I understand. You were correct, I was misunderstanding. But my logic still holds true. A wizard without his spells is literally featureless. I think the conjurer can summon objects, but that's about it.

You are correct. Spells offer a lot of versatility when used and prepared with an eye to multiple scenarios.

[MadBear]

I understand. You were correct, I was misunderstanding. But my logic still holds true. A wizard without his spells is literally featureless. I think the conjurer can summon objects, but that's about it.

You are correct. Spells offer a lot of versatility when used and prepared with an eye to multiple scenarios.

Wait. You're point was that a wizard without spells wasn't very adaptable? With that I totally agree.

Wow, I thought your point was that a champion was more adaptable then a wizard in general.

[Fwiffo86]

Wait. You're point was that a wizard without spells wasn't very adaptable? With that I totally agree.

Wow, I thought your point was that a champion was more adaptable then a wizard in general.

You are correct. In any event where the Wizard cannot access his magic, he becomes nothing more than a bag of hp to be targeted. Sure, he can apply skill checks, etc. But anyone can do that, and he does not have any particular bonuses to these unlike the champion does.

Champion effectiveness is based on being in or out of combat. In combat, he excels at what he does. He has some abilities that give him adaptability outside of combat, but being a fighter, that is not his primary focus. Generally? I really can't say one way or the other. I am inclined to always go with those who have unlimited resources as far better than those that don't, despite what those resources are capable of.

See any of Lee's posts. He has done a far better job pointing this out.

[SharkForce]

Ever seen a wizard in melee? Low HP, low armor, no CON, STR, or DEX saves, no shield...it's not good.

The point everyone is making is that a champion is extremely good at melee, probably the overall best at weapon DPR, and can solve most problems that can't be solved through violence with creative application of remarkable athlete. A wizard might have exactly the right spell prepared for a given situation, such as hold person when dealing with another Wizard. But he is limited in his ability to prepare enough spells, find the right spells, and in how many spells he can cast.

Said another way, a champion caught in a situation without the perfect answer will be just fine, because killing / breaking / destroying the right thing is always a viable solution. The champion has the health pool and armor to survive these kinds of situations. A wizard, on the other hand, can be killed very quickly if he's unprepared for a specific situation.

There does not exist a wizard who could survive am ambush from a foe who can cast counterspell, or who traps him in an anti magic field, or various other tactics designed specifically for dealing with wizards. In comparison, the champion is much harder to deal with even if one knows he is coming. Even those things specifically designed for dealing with mundanes, such as wisdom saves, the champion has answers for in the form of indomitable and two extra ASIs over a caster class. In spite of his lack of elaborate spellcasting, the champion does just fine in pretty much any scenario one can imagine.

So like I and many others have said, the champion has advantages over the Wizard and vice versa. Also like many others have said, this is not a thread about wizard's vs. champions. If you wish to debate the merits of each, I would very much appreciate it if you created a separate thread.

ummm... ok, the answer to your antimagic field and counterspelling enemy are the same. walk briskly until you are out of range, and then cast your spell. problem solved.

and wizards can prepare for a lot of different situations with a few spells. not all spells can do a lot of different things, but many can.

as to remarkable athlete, there aren't really a ton of things it applies to that actual skills wouldn't, and a maximum of +3 to a check isn't exactly a massive difference.

really, I don't see the champion as being particularly adaptable. in any event, not more so than any other class.

reliable source of damage, sure. they (along with every other melee class) can make that claim.

[Fwiffo86]

ummm... ok, the answer to your antimagic field and counterspelling enemy are the same. walk briskly until you are out of range, and then cast your spell. problem solved.

and wizards can prepare for a lot of different situations with a few spells. not all spells can do a lot of different things, but many can.

as to remarkable athlete, there aren't really a ton of things it applies to that actual skills wouldn't, and a maximum of +3 to a check isn't exactly a massive difference.

really, I don't see the champion as being particularly adaptable. in any event, not more so than any other class.

reliable source of damage, sure. they (along with every other melee class) can make that claim.

What is your answer to the same situation in which you cannot use your magic. Period. There is no possibility of getting it back. What do you do? This is a temporary situation. The rest of the party is doing something other than using magic because they are in the same situation. What are you as the wizard doing?