So you're going to cherry pick bits out of context to provide a rebuttal. No point demonstrating further how you're wrong.

In any event: If you want to buff a mage's attack bonus, then use all the same things you'd use to buff a fighter's attack bonus (except for things that can specifically only be used by fighters).

It's not known as shifting the goal posts I am afraid. I mean really, what do you do except take weapon master? You're only ever going to use the one weapon type after all. And you should have fucking known I meant weapon master due to me saying x4 multiplier. What way is there to get that? You see, the issue here is that you're not interested in real answers, you just want to whine at me that I'm wrong so you ignored the obvious thing that I meant due to it being the only possiblility so you could blow raspberries at me.

And the -10 doesnt really matter due to the amount of to hit you have. You're acting as if I have never played a fighter :D I literally started on the chapter with a two hander (though greatsword actually as I prefer the aesthetic) just to compare.
I've not cherrypicked anything yet.

Also problem with buffing a mages attack bonus like a fighters is when you're in tensers mode you can't wear things which is pretty major. (Add on the wierdness with how the bonuses on the clothes you're wearing before your transform get applied after, and the way many useful items are locked behind feats for a wizard.)

Considering you complained about how I used normal damage for a Fighter's attack and then cut the damage in half, yeah, you're cherry picking. You completely ignored the context behind why I cut the damage in half.

I compared a Mage's 'average' spell damage to a Fighter's 'max' weapon damage (setting aside most Crits to simplify the math), to demonstrate that a great round for the fighter is only somewhat better than a mediocre round for the Mage, and I also showed that even a mediocre round for the mage sometimes outclasses a great round for the Fighter.

If you want to demonstrate otherwise, then I invite you to show your math. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.

If it doesn't work, then obviously don't use it. I gave you a starting point that answered the specific question in the OP.

Actually judging by your inane comments in this post and others, you're acting like you don't know anything about the game. Some I question if you aren't just outright making up for attention. Weapons unequiping themselves, characters spontaneously dying. .

The -10 for IPA, will put your fighter behind the Tensored Mage that you started this thread whining about.

Tensors give you equivalent AB to a fighter and 20Str and +3 sword. A real fighter might have slightly better strength and sword, but nothing that will compensate for -10 to hit.

That's not what cherry picking means. Cherrypicking is the usage of specific instances that support a claim or argument while disregarding everything else. What I did was complain about your methods. It's different.

And yeah, you weren't comparing correctly.

I mean lets actually look at it; 13 fighter; 13 BAB, 10 STR, +1 WF, +4 MW (Shayla or whatever the bard is called), (Scabbard +1 Bless +1 Aid), +2 PoWC (since you can brew those for some reason, dont know if you find them), +2 BS, +2 SM. I'm fairly sure there are to hit items as well but can't remember them so screw it.

FInal attack bonus of 34. You had 27 and even 34 is most likely too low, for instance flanking or + to hit items.

Since we're only looking at 13 fighter here, let's ignore the x4 mod cause that's up the weapon master tree.

34 v 37AC (-2 Size modifier).

Roll 1: 1-2 = Miss
3-18 = Hit
19-20 = Crit
alt for keen weapon since it apparently stacks in nwn1
3-16 = hit
17-20= Crit

Average damage for a hit = 1d12 (6.5) + 15 STR + 4 MW + 2 WS + 2 WC + 2 BS = 31.5 . Average damage for a crit (excluding crit damage boosts) 94.5

As such the average damage for swing 1 is 34.7 or 41 for a keen axe.

This is also the average for the free attack.

Roll 2 : 29v37
I'm sure you understand my working at this point. Average damage is 25.2 or 31.5 for a keen axe

Roll 3 24v37
Average damage is 19 or 25.2 for a keen axe.

So as you can see the actual average damage for a fighter is 113.6 per round or 138.7 for a keen axe

Or in other words the actual average is more than double what you claim the maximum is.

Do you see now why I had issue?

A thing to point out is I may be giving 2 more AB than is correct due to not being bothered to look up how the size modifier works exactly but that 2 AB isnt going to drop the damage down more than 50%.

You betray your lack of reading comprehension friend. The weapons unequipping themselves wasn't me and the character dying was a random glitch in loading up a new campaign.

But you want it to be me being a baddie, right? See, exactly what I was saying earlier with the x4 mod...

Look, you're scum. Probably shouldnt be that frank but hey-oh. Stop replying if the truth is upsetting you quite this much.

That is exactly what you did. XD

You complained that I cut the fighter's normal damage in half when making the damage comparison. As it turns out, not factoring in the crits cut his dps by about a third, but the numbers simply don't show the Fighter dps out-classing the Wizard dps by nearly as much as you've been indicating.

Yay numbers!

I'm assuming MW is Magic Weapon (so a +4 weapon), WF is Weapon Focus, SM is Size Modifier, and BS is Bard Song.

What is PoWC? I wasn't sure, so I left it in my counter calculations.

I'm not sure how the Size Modifier works from the Fighter's end, so that bonus stayed as well.

You don't get to count the Bard Song (the Hireling's action) helping the Fighter unless DPS you let the Wizard add a hireling's action to the Wizard's damage. And once we start counting help, the Wizard can also add summons to their DPS; I haven't even tried factoring in wizard summons or passive spells (ex. Mestil's Acid Sheath) that would add damage to whatever the Wizard casts when the battle actually starts.

I'm assuming the AC listed for the Dragon already deals with size modifier, so 32 (no bard song) vs 39 AC.

This assumes that all criticals are confirmed, which is not the case.

Roll 1:
1-6 = Miss
7-18 = Hit
19-20 = Crit Threat

Average non-crit damage = 1d12 (6.5) + 15 Str + 4 MW + 2 WS + 2 WC = 29.5. Crit damage is 88.5 on average when it confirms, but there is an extra attack roll to confirm it occurred so expected average damage from crits is lower.
(What is WC? Wasn't sure, so counted it)
(Again, no bard song.)

First one 32v39(70% chance crit confirms, so 70.8 ave damage from crits): average damage is 24.78

Free attack: Same as first attack (24.78)

Second attack 27vs39(55% crit confirms, so 56.05 ave damage from crits): average damage is 15.93

Third attack 22v39(20% crit confirms, so ~41.3 ave damage from crits): average damage is 8.555

So average damage per round is 74.045 from the 4 attacks, non-Keen greataxe. If it stacks, then Keen will push the DPS a little higher.

Give the Wizard the full average from IGMS, and we have 26*3.5*.75 = 68.25 damage for the round.

Once we factor in the crits, the Fighter does look to be doing a little better than the Wizard on DPS (74 vs 68), but the Fighter requires a number of magic items, including consumables, to compete with the Wizard's single spell. The Wizard's damage could have been done while naked, and it doesn't count anything he might have prepared before combat.

Respect to Peter and Bookwyrm for putting up with this guy for as long and calmly as you did. I agree on both the shifting the goal posts and cherry picking counts. But that's just one man's opinion.

It's interesting to follow the numbers game - thanks for all the effort from all three of you.

I like fighters more than I like wizards. Here's why:

While it may be true that a wizard can do "naked" what a fighter can do only with a lot of equipment, the wizard gets spent. The fighter can keep at it the whole day. I've always had a gripe with DnD in this sense: wizards are overpowered if they can rest frequently, while they become liabilities if, for long stretches, they cannot. Of course, in NWN, a wizard player can ensure he gets the rests he needs and then just rofl stomp through the game.

The other thing that fighters can do that wizards can't, is to take a hit. Nice, high AC and a ton of HP.

My preferred way of playing is to have both, and to let the casters buff the martial guys (because the buffs tend to last nice and long). When needed, the wizards can then cast those ridiculously powerful spells.

I generally agree with you on these points, except that Wizards have to be much more careful about rationing their abilities than a Fighter (they might become liabilities if they don't ration well, but they can still be a huge asset even if they can't/don't spam spells in every fight).

Wizards can't take a hit like Fighters can, but Wizards get lots of tools to prevent those hits from connecting in the first place. This is why low level wizards get dominated, while high level wizards do the dominating. For example, Stoneskin provides much better protection (while active) than Plate armor.

No, that isnt what I did, I did not cherry pick. What do you think you're achieving by lying? Or do you really not understand the concept? en wikipedia org/wiki/Cherry_picking As an aside, you do know your "I dont like that you're including the bard so I'm not counting it! is cherry picking, right? Same thing with your "The fighter needs magic items to achieve this so doesn't count!" thing (though to be fair, that barely counts as cherry picking and is closer to simple stupidity as magical items are the norm).

PoWC is potion of War Cry. Bards can brew them so that you can apply it to other characters despite it being a lvl 4 spell. I mention that I dont know whether you can find them as IIRC since brewing was added in HotU they never went and added any supplies for it in the OC. It's fair to ignore that.

You do get to count the hireling's effects helping the warrior simply because the hirelings do help the warrior. There is no hireling that buffs the wizards spell damage by 100+%. If there is then yeah, count it, otherwise nope. And yeah, you can add summons to the wizards DPS if you want. Problem is summons are complete garbage and dont do anything even when buffed to the gills. The only purpose summons serve is as distractions so your henchmen can get flanking bonuses. Oh and let's not forget that there's multiple items that let fighters summon anyway so it's not even like that's something unique to the wizard

Acid sheath, elemental shield and death guard are actually fantastic spells. Problem is that to leverage them you have to be in tensers, which is getting right back to what I said at the start.

So anyway, to cut this short. I have proven you wrong. When you reevaluate it yourself factoring in one of the main ommissions you left out initially (you know, that thing I complained about) even you see that despite purposefully downplaying the character.

But you're still unwilling to admit it..? Because "The wizard could have done the damage naked" as if that matters, and as if 60 damage a round is enough to put an enemy down before it KO's a naked wizard....

Your opinion is wrong. Please look up what those things are before agreeing with them. Irks the shit out of me.

Wizards aren't OP if they can rest though. That's the whole issue. You can rest anywhere and everywhere in these games which is kind of silly.

The only powerful thing a wizard has is Finger of Death and Wail of the Banshee (also time stop kind of, but all that allows you to do is spam the previous two spells). Except the problem with both of those is that even trash mobs have good enough fortitude saves to ignore it half the time and the enemies that tend to be worth casting the spells on in the first place are almost always immune to death effects.

Otherwise the buffs are of questionable utility because of the short durations (especially in NWN2), the status effects are only useful against boss enemies but then those enemies generally are able to reliably save them, and the wizards direct damage capability is just pure garbage.

Wizards are piss weak. It's the simple fact. I enjoy playing them for the flavor but you have to be smoking something strong enough to be genuinely frying your brain to think they're powerful, never mind overpowered.

A really nice illustration of this actually is NWN2's Mask of the Betrayer campaign. Because you dont get a fighter companion until half way through the expansion for some goddamn insane reason. Roll a completely new mage and a completely new fighter and see which one strolls effortlessly through the campaign and which one doesn't. Hell fighters are gimped in MotB because half the things you fight are crit immune and it's still night and day.

Didnt notice your silly post.

Main difference though is even with buffs out the ass, tensers still isnt THAT survivable, whereas a buffed fighter sits there all day and all night, so your misses dont matter as much.

lulz. XD

Mages kill enemies with spells, not with physical attacks, generally. (And I consider killing enemies while using Tenser's Transformation using physical attacks to be killing them with a spell, essentially). Mages don't need a higher attack bonus..

Another option for you is a summoning spell such as Gate... Mages have some decent ones that are pretty good up until about level 20-25, at which point their strength diminishes when you go into higher epic levels. You can also summon a creature, and then buff it up with buffing spells to fight for you.

I think a bigger problem with spells like Tenser's Transformation isn't their ineffectiveness, but rather the fact you lose your spell slots when you do the transformation. The spells itself seem decent at least at lower levels when you first get them.

Don't feed the troll.

edit: hyperlink syntax

While I agree with your sentence, I'm unclear about your purpose in linking the article.

The post you quoted is me acknowledging that the person with whom I had been conversing has been arguing in bad faith, and my post was also an indication that I'm not going to be investing any significant length of time in further discussion with said person.