I think Abjuration Wizard is a better choice than Divination Wizard. Having three d20s to use doesn't mean you'll get rolls on the dice that you want - you might end up rolling 9,9,9 at the start of the day for all we know. That's pretty much all the Divination Wizard gets. The buff it chooses at level 10 after every short rest isn't that powerful, and I still can't get an answer about what buffs are allowed and what buffs are not allowed.
I like the Abjuration Wizard having a +6 bonus when trying to Counterspell a higher level spell, as well as having advantage on saving throws against spells and resistance to the damage from spells, and having the 45 HP Arcane Ward.
I think Abjuration Wizard is a better choice than Divination Wizard. Having three d20s to use doesn't mean you'll get rolls on the dice that you want - you might end up rolling 9,9,9 at the start of the day for all we know. That's pretty much all the Divination Wizard gets. The buff it chooses at level 10 after every short rest isn't that powerful, and I still can't get an answer about what buffs are allowed and what buffs are not allowed.
I like the Abjuration Wizard having a +6 bonus when trying to Counterspell a higher level spell, as well as having advantage on saving throws against spells and resistance to the damage from spells, and having the 45 HP Arcane Ward.
I vote for no buffs.
A divination wizard might roll 9,9,9, but the odds are very unlikely. There's a 48.8% probability that the lowest 1 of 3d20 is <= 4. That's low enough to practically ensure a failed saving throw on an encounter-ending spell. The only way for the warlock to win is to ensure that they're never put in that situation.
I've also been operating under the assumption that, unless it's for some reason impossible, every counterspell is going to be counterspelled. Nobody wants to risk their encounter-ending spell on a spellcasting ability check for a counterspell. That means that the benefit to the abjuration wizard isn't that great, it just saves higher level spell slots from needing to be used for counterspell. This fight will never be one of attrition so it's not that important. Warlock casts encounter-ending spell, wizard uses highest-level-practical slot to counterspell, warlock uses 5th-level slot to counterspell that and has to roll. Either the encounter is ended because the warlock's counterspell was successful and the warlock wins, or the wizard now gets to cast its encounter-ending spell, the warlock casts 5th-level counterspell, the wizard casts 5th-level counterspell and the wizard wins.
I think Abjuration Wizard is a better choice than Divination Wizard. Having three d20s to use doesn't mean you'll get rolls on the dice that you want - you might end up rolling 9,9,9 at the start of the day for all we know. That's pretty much all the Divination Wizard gets. The buff it chooses at level 10 after every short rest isn't that powerful, and I still can't get an answer about what buffs are allowed and what buffs are not allowed.
I like the Abjuration Wizard having a +6 bonus when trying to Counterspell a higher level spell, as well as having advantage on saving throws against spells and resistance to the damage from spells, and having the 45 HP Arcane Ward.
I vote for no buffs.
So you're not going to let the Diviner use one of its key abilities?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think Abjuration Wizard is a better choice than Divination Wizard. Having three d20s to use doesn't mean you'll get rolls on the dice that you want - you might end up rolling 9,9,9 at the start of the day for all we know. That's pretty much all the Divination Wizard gets. The buff it chooses at level 10 after every short rest isn't that powerful, and I still can't get an answer about what buffs are allowed and what buffs are not allowed.
I like the Abjuration Wizard having a +6 bonus when trying to Counterspell a higher level spell, as well as having advantage on saving throws against spells and resistance to the damage from spells, and having the 45 HP Arcane Ward.
I vote for no buffs.
A divination wizard might roll 9,9,9, but the odds are very unlikely. There's a 48.8% probability that the lowest 1 of 3d20 is <= 4. That's low enough to practically ensure a failed saving throw on an encounter-ending spell. The only way for the warlock to win is to ensure that they're never put in that situation.
I've also been operating under the assumption that, unless it's for some reason impossible, every counterspell is going to be counterspelled. Nobody wants to risk their encounter-ending spell on a spellcasting ability check for a counterspell. That means that the benefit to the abjuration wizard isn't that great, it just saves higher level spell slots from needing to be used for counterspell. This fight will never be one of attrition so it's not that important. Warlock casts encounter-ending spell, wizard uses highest-level-practical slot to counterspell, warlock uses 5th-level slot to counterspell that and has to roll. Either the encounter is ended because the warlock's counterspell was successful and the warlock wins, or the wizard now gets to cast its encounter-ending spell, the warlock casts 5th-level counterspell, the wizard casts 5th-level counterspell and the wizard wins.
That's why it is so important to be able to see the enemy. You can only cast counterspell if you can see the enemy casting a spell.
If the Warlock has Shadow of Moil up, the Wizard cannot counterspell him. I don't think people in this thread have been talking enough about the role that sight plays in this duel, when seeing your target is necessary for many of the spells people want to use, including counterspell.
I think Abjuration Wizard is a better choice than Divination Wizard. Having three d20s to use doesn't mean you'll get rolls on the dice that you want - you might end up rolling 9,9,9 at the start of the day for all we know. That's pretty much all the Divination Wizard gets. The buff it chooses at level 10 after every short rest isn't that powerful, and I still can't get an answer about what buffs are allowed and what buffs are not allowed.
I like the Abjuration Wizard having a +6 bonus when trying to Counterspell a higher level spell, as well as having advantage on saving throws against spells and resistance to the damage from spells, and having the 45 HP Arcane Ward.
I vote for no buffs.
So you're not going to let the Diviner use one of its key abilities?
I see your point, but allowing prebuffs of any kind is opening a pandora's box. Also, it's not that key. The see invisibility range is only 10 feet, unless you were thinking of another option.
That's why it is so important to be able to see the enemy. You can only cast counterspell if you can see the enemy casting a spell.
If the Warlock has Shadow of Moil up, the Wizard cannot counterspell him. I don't think people in this thread have been talking enough about the role that sight plays in this duel, when seeing your target is necessary for many of the spells people want to use, including counterspell.
You might be right. I'll think about the visibility thing, but dispel magic is still a thing. If the warlock can't actually cast an encounter-ending spell at all, then an inability to be counterspelled doesn't matter much.
I assume that the duel will take place in either bright light or dim light, and not darkness. In darkness, the Warlock's Devil's Sight invocation gives them a huge advantage. Especially if we're not permitting buffs.
It might make sense to start the duel with both characters behind full cover so that winning initiative is less important. That also allows both characters a chance to cast buffs on themselves once the duel starts.
I think Abjuration Wizard is a better choice than Divination Wizard. Having three d20s to use doesn't mean you'll get rolls on the dice that you want - you might end up rolling 9,9,9 at the start of the day for all we know. That's pretty much all the Divination Wizard gets. The buff it chooses at level 10 after every short rest isn't that powerful, and I still can't get an answer about what buffs are allowed and what buffs are not allowed.
I like the Abjuration Wizard having a +6 bonus when trying to Counterspell a higher level spell, as well as having advantage on saving throws against spells and resistance to the damage from spells, and having the 45 HP Arcane Ward.
I vote for no buffs.
So you're not going to let the Diviner use one of its key abilities?
I see your point, but allowing prebuffs of any kind is opening a pandora's box. Also, it's not that key. The see invisibility range is only 10 feet, unless you were thinking of another option.
Any prebuff? Doesn't portent fall into the same category, then? Isn't it considered a buff to have all your spell slots?
The fairest way to do a fight is to allow each character every ability that they gain after a short or long rest with no uses taken away, with them allowed to choose the choice best for the fight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Moderator and 2 opposing opponents. Just like a debate the moderator sets the expectations for what is and is not acceptable beforehand. There is a vast degree of luck in dice rolls so this would have to be done with the same set of rules anywhere from 20-50 times to produce meaningful results. Also, the participants and viewers would have to agree that the rules set beforehand favored no particular opponent. If any particular bias is determined at any point the count would have to be reset and everything ran again. Once all that is set duke it out in Play By Post.
Moderator and 2 opposing opponents. Just like a debate the moderator sets the expectations for what is and is not acceptable beforehand. There is a vast degree of luck in dice rolls so this would have to be done with the same set of rules anywhere from 20-50 times to produce meaningful results. Also, the participants and viewers would have to agree that the rules set beforehand favored no particular opponent. If any particular bias is determined at any point the count would have to be reset and everything ran again. Once all that is set duke it out in Play By Post.
Good idea, terribly impractical.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think you have to start both players behind full cover. If you're going to face a powerful spellcaster in battle, you're not going to stand out where he can see you, even if you yourself are a powerful spellcaster.
I think you have to start both players behind full cover. If you're going to face a powerful spellcaster in battle, you're not going to stand out where he can see you, even if you yourself are a powerful spellcaster.
Uh, no. It is not fair to give both spellcasters a massive boost.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think you have to start both players behind full cover. If you're going to face a powerful spellcaster in battle, you're not going to stand out where he can see you, even if you yourself are a powerful spellcaster.
Uh, no. It is not fair to give both spellcasters a massive boost.
I guess if both have a 6 in Wisdom and have no survival skills, they'd be foolish enough to stand out in the open when facing a powerful enemy spellcaster :)
I guess it's the Rogue in me that says hide behind cover instead of standing out in the open fully assured of your own invincibility like a Barbarian.
I think you have to start both players behind full cover. If you're going to face a powerful spellcaster in battle, you're not going to stand out where he can see you, even if you yourself are a powerful spellcaster.
Uh, no. It is not fair to give both spellcasters a massive boost.
I guess if both have a 6 in Wisdom and have no survival skills, they'd be foolish enough to stand out in the open when facing a powerful enemy spellcaster :)
I guess it's the Rogue in me that says hide behind cover instead of standing out in the open fully assured of your own invincibility like a Barbarian.
Any fair fight doesn't take place in an arena or area where any other character could get environmental support. Any fair battle would have them both start fighting as if they had been teleported there and the battle begins at once, like most battle royales work. You don't start with environmental cover, that's not fair. It doesn't matter what their Intelligence or Wisdom is, they don't get boosts that they ordinarily wouldn't have, before the battle starts.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think you have to start both players behind full cover. If you're going to face a powerful spellcaster in battle, you're not going to stand out where he can see you, even if you yourself are a powerful spellcaster.
Uh, no. It is not fair to give both spellcasters a massive boost.
I guess if both have a 6 in Wisdom and have no survival skills, they'd be foolish enough to stand out in the open when facing a powerful enemy spellcaster :)
I guess it's the Rogue in me that says hide behind cover instead of standing out in the open fully assured of your own invincibility like a Barbarian.
Any fair fight doesn't take place in an arena or area where any other character could get environmental support. Any fair battle would have them both start fighting as if they had been teleported there and the battle begins at once, like most battle royales work. You don't start with environmental cover, that's not fair. It doesn't matter what their Intelligence or Wisdom is, they don't get boosts that they ordinarily wouldn't have, before the battle starts.
Moderator and 2 opposing opponents. Just like a debate the moderator sets the expectations for what is and is not acceptable beforehand. There is a vast degree of luck in dice rolls so this would have to be done with the same set of rules anywhere from 20-50 times to produce meaningful results. Also, the participants and viewers would have to agree that the rules set beforehand favored no particular opponent. If any particular bias is determined at any point the count would have to be reset and everything ran again. Once all that is set duke it out in Play By Post.
Good idea, terribly impractical.
If it is impractical then it is generally understood that it is not a good idea. The good idea tends to be practical. That is why it is a good idea.
I think you have to start both players behind full cover. If you're going to face a powerful spellcaster in battle, you're not going to stand out where he can see you, even if you yourself are a powerful spellcaster.
Uh, no. It is not fair to give both spellcasters a massive boost.
I guess if both have a 6 in Wisdom and have no survival skills, they'd be foolish enough to stand out in the open when facing a powerful enemy spellcaster :)
I guess it's the Rogue in me that says hide behind cover instead of standing out in the open fully assured of your own invincibility like a Barbarian.
Any fair fight doesn't take place in an arena or area where any other character could get environmental support. Any fair battle would have them both start fighting as if they had been teleported there and the battle begins at once, like most battle royales work. You don't start with environmental cover, that's not fair. It doesn't matter what their Intelligence or Wisdom is, they don't get boosts that they ordinarily wouldn't have, before the battle starts.
Alright then. No spellbook for the wizard.
What, no!?! Also, they wouldn't even need it unless they're the Scribe Wizard. What the heck is that supposed to mean? Spellbooks aren't environmental. They're not something that Wizards normally wouldn't have access to. Wizards have spellbooks, Warlocks have spellcasting focuses/weapons for Bladepacters/Hexblades.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Moderator and 2 opposing opponents. Just like a debate the moderator sets the expectations for what is and is not acceptable beforehand. There is a vast degree of luck in dice rolls so this would have to be done with the same set of rules anywhere from 20-50 times to produce meaningful results. Also, the participants and viewers would have to agree that the rules set beforehand favored no particular opponent. If any particular bias is determined at any point the count would have to be reset and everything ran again. Once all that is set duke it out in Play By Post.
Good idea, terribly impractical.
If it is impractical then it is generally understood that it is not a good idea. The good idea tends to be practical. That is why it is a good idea.
I mean, it's not practical to run them in a PbP or in real life or online. It would take forever, and probably wouldn't yield correct results. The best thing to do would develop a computer program that can put 2 different builds against each other and find the result of a battle in the blink of an eye.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Moderator and 2 opposing opponents. Just like a debate the moderator sets the expectations for what is and is not acceptable beforehand. There is a vast degree of luck in dice rolls so this would have to be done with the same set of rules anywhere from 20-50 times to produce meaningful results. Also, the participants and viewers would have to agree that the rules set beforehand favored no particular opponent. If any particular bias is determined at any point the count would have to be reset and everything ran again. Once all that is set duke it out in Play By Post.
Good idea, terribly impractical.
If it is impractical then it is generally understood that it is not a good idea. The good idea tends to be practical. That is why it is a good idea.
I mean, it's not practical to run them in a PbP or in real life or online. It would take forever, and probably wouldn't yield correct results. The best thing to do would develop a computer program that can put 2 different builds against each other and find the result of a battle in the blink of an eye.
Don't happen to have A) a program like that or B) money to pay someone to write a program like that and C) even more money to make sure it is tested and not flawed somehow and just producing bad results. I do happen to see a bunch of people with a lot of time though. The program idea is wishing in one hand and well... I think you know the rest.
Moderator and 2 opposing opponents. Just like a debate the moderator sets the expectations for what is and is not acceptable beforehand. There is a vast degree of luck in dice rolls so this would have to be done with the same set of rules anywhere from 20-50 times to produce meaningful results. Also, the participants and viewers would have to agree that the rules set beforehand favored no particular opponent. If any particular bias is determined at any point the count would have to be reset and everything ran again. Once all that is set duke it out in Play By Post.
Good idea, terribly impractical.
If it is impractical then it is generally understood that it is not a good idea. The good idea tends to be practical. That is why it is a good idea.
I mean, it's not practical to run them in a PbP or in real life or online. It would take forever, and probably wouldn't yield correct results. The best thing to do would develop a computer program that can put 2 different builds against each other and find the result of a battle in the blink of an eye.
Don't happen to have A) a program like that or B) money to pay someone to write a program like that and C) even more money to make sure it is tested and not flawed somehow and just producing bad results. I do happen to see a bunch of people with a lot of time though. The program idea is wishing in one hand and well... I think you know the rest.
I know. I'm saying, there's no proper way to test this unless you have a lot of them going at once or a program that can do so. I don't think such a program exists, but is the most accurate way to test this kind of thing out, because of human error.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think you have to start both players behind full cover. If you're going to face a powerful spellcaster in battle, you're not going to stand out where he can see you, even if you yourself are a powerful spellcaster.
Uh, no. It is not fair to give both spellcasters a massive boost.
I guess if both have a 6 in Wisdom and have no survival skills, they'd be foolish enough to stand out in the open when facing a powerful enemy spellcaster :)
I guess it's the Rogue in me that says hide behind cover instead of standing out in the open fully assured of your own invincibility like a Barbarian.
Any fair fight doesn't take place in an arena or area where any other character could get environmental support. Any fair battle would have them both start fighting as if they had been teleported there and the battle begins at once, like most battle royales work. You don't start with environmental cover, that's not fair. It doesn't matter what their Intelligence or Wisdom is, they don't get boosts that they ordinarily wouldn't have, before the battle starts.
Alright then. No spellbook for the wizard.
What, no!?! Also, they wouldn't even need it unless they're the Scribe Wizard. What the heck is that supposed to mean? Spellbooks aren't environmental. They're not something that Wizards normally wouldn't have access to. Wizards have spellbooks, Warlocks have spellcasting focuses/weapons for Bladepacters/Hexblades.
I don't get what you're going for. Do you want them to be prepared for battle, or not prepared for battle?
And you think a fair fight means a huge open area with no cover anywhere at all? And that it's not fair to give them both cover, but the fair way to do it is just to have them roll for initiative while standing out in the open?
Are you trolling us?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think Abjuration Wizard is a better choice than Divination Wizard. Having three d20s to use doesn't mean you'll get rolls on the dice that you want - you might end up rolling 9,9,9 at the start of the day for all we know. That's pretty much all the Divination Wizard gets. The buff it chooses at level 10 after every short rest isn't that powerful, and I still can't get an answer about what buffs are allowed and what buffs are not allowed.
I like the Abjuration Wizard having a +6 bonus when trying to Counterspell a higher level spell, as well as having advantage on saving throws against spells and resistance to the damage from spells, and having the 45 HP Arcane Ward.
I vote for no buffs.
A divination wizard might roll 9,9,9, but the odds are very unlikely. There's a 48.8% probability that the lowest 1 of 3d20 is <= 4. That's low enough to practically ensure a failed saving throw on an encounter-ending spell. The only way for the warlock to win is to ensure that they're never put in that situation.
I've also been operating under the assumption that, unless it's for some reason impossible, every counterspell is going to be counterspelled. Nobody wants to risk their encounter-ending spell on a spellcasting ability check for a counterspell. That means that the benefit to the abjuration wizard isn't that great, it just saves higher level spell slots from needing to be used for counterspell. This fight will never be one of attrition so it's not that important. Warlock casts encounter-ending spell, wizard uses highest-level-practical slot to counterspell, warlock uses 5th-level slot to counterspell that and has to roll. Either the encounter is ended because the warlock's counterspell was successful and the warlock wins, or the wizard now gets to cast its encounter-ending spell, the warlock casts 5th-level counterspell, the wizard casts 5th-level counterspell and the wizard wins.
So you're not going to let the Diviner use one of its key abilities?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That's why it is so important to be able to see the enemy. You can only cast counterspell if you can see the enemy casting a spell.
If the Warlock has Shadow of Moil up, the Wizard cannot counterspell him. I don't think people in this thread have been talking enough about the role that sight plays in this duel, when seeing your target is necessary for many of the spells people want to use, including counterspell.
I see your point, but allowing prebuffs of any kind is opening a pandora's box. Also, it's not that key. The see invisibility range is only 10 feet, unless you were thinking of another option.
You might be right. I'll think about the visibility thing, but dispel magic is still a thing. If the warlock can't actually cast an encounter-ending spell at all, then an inability to be counterspelled doesn't matter much.
I assume that the duel will take place in either bright light or dim light, and not darkness. In darkness, the Warlock's Devil's Sight invocation gives them a huge advantage. Especially if we're not permitting buffs.
It might make sense to start the duel with both characters behind full cover so that winning initiative is less important. That also allows both characters a chance to cast buffs on themselves once the duel starts.
Any prebuff? Doesn't portent fall into the same category, then? Isn't it considered a buff to have all your spell slots?
The fairest way to do a fight is to allow each character every ability that they gain after a short or long rest with no uses taken away, with them allowed to choose the choice best for the fight.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Moderator and 2 opposing opponents. Just like a debate the moderator sets the expectations for what is and is not acceptable beforehand. There is a vast degree of luck in dice rolls so this would have to be done with the same set of rules anywhere from 20-50 times to produce meaningful results. Also, the participants and viewers would have to agree that the rules set beforehand favored no particular opponent. If any particular bias is determined at any point the count would have to be reset and everything ran again. Once all that is set duke it out in Play By Post.
Good idea, terribly impractical.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think you have to start both players behind full cover. If you're going to face a powerful spellcaster in battle, you're not going to stand out where he can see you, even if you yourself are a powerful spellcaster.
Uh, no. It is not fair to give both spellcasters a massive boost.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I guess if both have a 6 in Wisdom and have no survival skills, they'd be foolish enough to stand out in the open when facing a powerful enemy spellcaster :)
I guess it's the Rogue in me that says hide behind cover instead of standing out in the open fully assured of your own invincibility like a Barbarian.
Any fair fight doesn't take place in an arena or area where any other character could get environmental support. Any fair battle would have them both start fighting as if they had been teleported there and the battle begins at once, like most battle royales work. You don't start with environmental cover, that's not fair. It doesn't matter what their Intelligence or Wisdom is, they don't get boosts that they ordinarily wouldn't have, before the battle starts.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Alright then. No spellbook for the wizard.
If it is impractical then it is generally understood that it is not a good idea. The good idea tends to be practical. That is why it is a good idea.
What, no!?! Also, they wouldn't even need it unless they're the Scribe Wizard. What the heck is that supposed to mean? Spellbooks aren't environmental. They're not something that Wizards normally wouldn't have access to. Wizards have spellbooks, Warlocks have spellcasting focuses/weapons for Bladepacters/Hexblades.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I mean, it's not practical to run them in a PbP or in real life or online. It would take forever, and probably wouldn't yield correct results. The best thing to do would develop a computer program that can put 2 different builds against each other and find the result of a battle in the blink of an eye.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Don't happen to have A) a program like that or B) money to pay someone to write a program like that and C) even more money to make sure it is tested and not flawed somehow and just producing bad results. I do happen to see a bunch of people with a lot of time though. The program idea is wishing in one hand and well... I think you know the rest.
I know. I'm saying, there's no proper way to test this unless you have a lot of them going at once or a program that can do so. I don't think such a program exists, but is the most accurate way to test this kind of thing out, because of human error.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I don't get what you're going for. Do you want them to be prepared for battle, or not prepared for battle?
And you think a fair fight means a huge open area with no cover anywhere at all? And that it's not fair to give them both cover, but the fair way to do it is just to have them roll for initiative while standing out in the open?
Are you trolling us?