So it's not fair to put them both behind cover where the person with the a better strategy will win. Instead, let's drop them both in the middle of a huge plain with no cover anywhere and let the initiative roll determine who wins. Because we aren't interested in who has the better strategy, just who rolls better on the d20 for initiative. No wonder people like the Divination Wizard for this competition so much.
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?
Me trolling? I honestly thought you were. It obviously isn't fair to give them both cover.
Big arena, spherical or cubic. It's mostly empty, possibly one place on each side for the characters to hide behind. They appear with no cover, 60 feet apart. They roll initiative in the open.
They are kind of prepared for battle. The builds are designed to foil each other. When the characters are being made, each feature that the other character has is known by the other player and they can change/design their characters until they are both satisfied with the end result.
Effectively, the arena is separate from the outside world. There's no way in or out, no one can help, and no one can escape. One must perish. They are not aware when they will be transported to the arena, and they are not allowed to have any spells up before in the battle. No Mage Armor, no Contingency. They cannot prepare any abilities for the combat, either. A Chronurgist cannot have an Arcane Abeyance already up. A warlock cannot have False Life already on themselves. You are allowed something you would normally have, like all spell slots and hit points. You're allowed your normal equipment. You can have a familiar, because it has no duration.
This is what I'd consider fair.
There may be other things that need to be stated
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
So it's not fair to put them both behind cover where the person with the a better strategy will win. Instead, let's drop them both in the middle of a huge plain with no cover anywhere and let the initiative roll determine who wins. Because we aren't interested in who has the better strategy, just who rolls better on the d20 for initiative. No wonder people like the Divination Wizard for this competition so much.
In the Fighter 20 vs. Wizard 20 the Divination and Chronurgist wizard subclasses were the most popular.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Big arena, spherical or cubic. It's mostly empty, possibly one place on each side for the characters to hide behind. They appear with no cover, 60 feet apart. They roll initiative in the open.
They are kind of prepared for battle. The builds are designed to foil each other. When the characters are being made, each feature that the other character has is known by the other player and they can change/design their characters until they are both satisfied with the end result.
Effectively, the arena is separate from the outside world. There's no way in or out, no one can help, and no one can escape. One must perish. They are not aware when they will be transported to the arena, and they are not allowed to have any spells up before in the battle. No Mage Armor, no Contingency. They cannot prepare any abilities for the combat, either. A Chronurgist cannot have an Arcane Abeyance already up. A warlock cannot have False Life already on themselves. You are allowed something you would normally have, like all spell slots and hit points. You're allowed your normal equipment. You can have a familiar, because it has no duration.
This is what I'd consider fair.
There may be other things that need to be stated
This seems mostly fair. I'd say no familiar unless it's justified in some other way because simulacra don't have duration either. This is also why I think the Diviner shouldn't get their vision buff, it takes an action.
So it's not fair to put them both behind cover where the person with the a better strategy will win. Instead, let's drop them both in the middle of a huge plain with no cover anywhere and let the initiative roll determine who wins. Because we aren't interested in who has the better strategy, just who rolls better on the d20 for initiative. No wonder people like the Divination Wizard for this competition so much.
This would vastly favor the wizard anyways. First cast wish for simulacrum. The wizard just doubled its action economy. That's not strategy either. A
I no longer believe that the warlock can win even if it wins initiative, unfortunately.
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?
Me trolling? I honestly thought you were. It obviously isn't fair to give them both cover.
Big arena, spherical or cubic. It's mostly empty, possibly one place on each side for the characters to hide behind. They appear with no cover, 60 feet apart. They roll initiative in the open.
They are kind of prepared for battle. The builds are designed to foil each other. When the characters are being made, each feature that the other character has is known by the other player and they can change/design their characters until they are both satisfied with the end result.
Effectively, the arena is separate from the outside world. There's no way in or out, no one can help, and no one can escape. One must perish. They are not aware when they will be transported to the arena, and they are not allowed to have any spells up before in the battle. No Mage Armor, no Contingency. They cannot prepare any abilities for the combat, either. A Chronurgist cannot have an Arcane Abeyance already up. A warlock cannot have False Life already on themselves. You are allowed something you would normally have, like all spell slots and hit points. You're allowed your normal equipment. You can have a familiar, because it has no duration.
This is what I'd consider fair.
There may be other things that need to be stated
It's not fair to give them both cover? Who is it not fair to? The one with more skill? Why should d&d be about skill instead of being about dice rolls, right?
It's not fair to give them both cover? Who is it not fair to? The one with more skill? Why should d&d be about skill instead of being about dice rolls, right?
Because this isn't a question of skill, it's a question of game theory. Also, as I wrote above, starting in cover massively favors the wizard. One action to wish for a simulacrum and suddenly they've doubled their action economy and spell slots.
It's not fair to give them both cover? Who is it not fair to? The one with more skill? Why should d&d be about skill instead of being about dice rolls, right?
Because this isn't a question of skill, it's a question of game theory. Also, as I wrote above, starting in cover massively favors the wizard. One action to wish for a simulacrum and suddenly they've doubled their action economy and spell slots.
Except you don't need to be behind cover to cast Simulacrum....
Do you guys even read the spells? Simulacrum is a 12 hour cast, go ahead and start that while a lvl 5 anything kills you lol
I can tell you after taking a Abjuration Wizard all the way to 20 in a party with a Warlock, he had no chance against me. We even battled it out when we hit tier 4 just for fun and it wasn't even close. The amount of spell slots is the deciding factor. After countering every spell slot he had I still had more than enough to wipe the floor with him.
Do you guys even read the spells? Simulacrum is a 12 hour cast, go ahead and start that while a lvl 5 anything kills you lol
I can tell you after taking a Abjuration Wizard all the way to 20 in a party with a Warlock, he had no chance against me. We even battled it out when we hit tier 4 just for fun and it wasn't even close. The amount of spell slots is the deciding factor. After countering every spell slot he had I still had more than enough to wipe the floor with him.
It's not fair to give them both cover? Who is it not fair to? The one with more skill? Why should d&d be about skill instead of being about dice rolls, right?
Because this isn't a question of skill, it's a question of game theory. Also, as I wrote above, starting in cover massively favors the wizard. One action to wish for a simulacrum and suddenly they've doubled their action economy and spell slots.
Except you don't need to be behind cover to cast Simulacrum....
You don't need to be behind cover to cast any spell. My point is that giving the wizard opportunity to cast spells unobstructed is detrimental to the warlock, i.e., warlocks cannot buff themselves better than wizards. If the warlock hopes to win, they need to disable the wizard before the wizard can cast spells.
Think about this situation. Wizard and warlock each get 1 round to buff. Wizard wishes for a simulacrum, warlock casts any buff. Then it doesn't matter who wins initiative. Warlock wins and casts any spell, wizard counterspells, warlock counterspells, simulacrum counterspells, and the spell doesn't take effect. Now it's the wizard's turn. They cast either an encounter-ending spell or dispel magic, warlock counterspells, wizard counterspells, spell takes effect. Now, if the encounter isn't over, it's the simulacrum's turn.
I want this to be more fair than it is. I don't think cover is going to help the warlock. What do you propose the warlock would do with extra time/cover that the wizard couldn't counter?
Do you guys even read the spells? Simulacrum is a 12 hour cast, go ahead and start that while a lvl 5 anything kills you lol
I can tell you after taking a Abjuration Wizard all the way to 20 in a party with a Warlock, he had no chance against me. We even battled it out when we hit tier 4 just for fun and it wasn't even close. The amount of spell slots is the deciding factor. After countering every spell slot he had I still had more than enough to wipe the floor with him.
True, you could use your 9th for Simulacrum, but Warlocks don't have that and as a Wizard you wouldn't need it. I guess if you wanted to really beat the crap out of the lock you could, but it wouldn't be close even without it. There are certain classes that don't do well against other ones, the lock doesn't do well at all against a Wizard at all.
It's not fair to give them both cover? Who is it not fair to? The one with more skill? Why should d&d be about skill instead of being about dice rolls, right?
Because this isn't a question of skill, it's a question of game theory. Also, as I wrote above, starting in cover massively favors the wizard. One action to wish for a simulacrum and suddenly they've doubled their action economy and spell slots.
Except you don't need to be behind cover to cast Simulacrum....
You don't need to be behind cover to cast any spell. My point is that giving the wizard opportunity to cast spells unobstructed is detrimental to the warlock, i.e., warlocks cannot buff themselves better than wizards. If the warlock hopes to win, they need to disable the wizard before the wizard can cast spells.
Think about this situation. Wizard and warlock each get 1 round to buff. Wizard wishes for a simulacrum, warlock casts any buff. Then it doesn't matter who wins initiative. Warlock wins and casts any spell, wizard counterspells, warlock counterspells, simulacrum counterspells, and the spell doesn't take effect. Now it's the wizard's turn. They cast either an encounter-ending spell or dispel magic, warlock counterspells, wizard counterspells, spell takes effect. Now, if the encounter isn't over, it's the simulacrum's turn.
I want this to be more fair than it is. I don't think cover is going to help the warlock. What do you propose the warlock would do with extra time/cover that the wizard couldn't counter?
What good does letting the Warlock see the Wizard do? So the Warlock can counterspell him, and he gets to roll to try to counterspell a 9th level spell. And the Wizard can counterspell him using a 5th level spell slot with guaranteed success. With the number of spell slots, getting into a "I counterspell you" and then "I counterspell your counterspell" competition clearly favors the Wizard who has a lot more spell slots.
I didn't say that cover was going to help the Warlock. I just said it would be the fair thing to let both characters hide behind cover instead of just plopping them down in the middle of a field with no cover. But apparently, it's not fair to either party if the guy you're trying to kill doesn't let you see him?
If you want a wild west type shootout, where two "civilized" people agree to stand in an open field and shoot each other, that gives you one type of comparison. You could do a second type of comparison where there is cover on the battlefield, and players can use guerrilla tactics. I think the latter is a much better way to compare characters. If you want a wild west shootout, that's fine. But I don't think that's a fair way to compare characters when guerrilla tactics are such a major part of this game and you're forcefully removing them by having a wild west shootout without cover.
I didn't say that cover was going to help the Warlock. I just said it would be the fair thing to let both characters hide behind cover instead of just plopping them down in the middle of a field with no cover. But apparently, it's not fair to either party if the guy you're trying to kill doesn't let you see him?
If you want a wild west type shootout, where two "civilized" people agree to stand in an open field and shoot each other, that gives you one type of comparison. You could do a second type of comparison where there is cover on the battlefield, and players can use guerrilla tactics. I think the latter is a much better way to compare characters. If you want a wild west shootout, that's fine. But I don't think that's a fair way to compare characters when guerrilla tactics are such a major part of this game and you're forcefully removing them by having a wild west shootout without cover.
You make a compelling argument. My argument is that the wild west shootout favors the wizard and the guerilla warfare situation favors the wizard even more, so why consider it?
I didn't say that cover was going to help the Warlock. I just said it would be the fair thing to let both characters hide behind cover instead of just plopping them down in the middle of a field with no cover. But apparently, it's not fair to either party if the guy you're trying to kill doesn't let you see him?
If you want a wild west type shootout, where two "civilized" people agree to stand in an open field and shoot each other, that gives you one type of comparison. You could do a second type of comparison where there is cover on the battlefield, and players can use guerrilla tactics. I think the latter is a much better way to compare characters. If you want a wild west shootout, that's fine. But I don't think that's a fair way to compare characters when guerrilla tactics are such a major part of this game and you're forcefully removing them by having a wild west shootout without cover.
You make a compelling argument. My argument is that the wild west shootout favors the wizard and the guerilla warfare situation favors the wizard even more, so why consider it?
I'm not worried about which situation benefits the Wizard or which situation benefits the Warlock. I'm not trying to stack the deck in favor of either class. I care about which situation is better for determining the better combatant. And I don't think that an open field with no cover like a wild west shootout is the way to do this. I don't care who it benefits, because that shouldn't be relevant when deciding what conditions are appropriate in terms of the amount of cover possible, the amount of preparation possible, the amount of buffs one can use ahead of time, etc.
If you're letting who it benefits determine how you want to set the battle up, then you're setting the battle up with the intent to benefit one particular party, and that's not appropriate.
I didn't say that cover was going to help the Warlock. I just said it would be the fair thing to let both characters hide behind cover instead of just plopping them down in the middle of a field with no cover. But apparently, it's not fair to either party if the guy you're trying to kill doesn't let you see him?
If you want a wild west type shootout, where two "civilized" people agree to stand in an open field and shoot each other, that gives you one type of comparison. You could do a second type of comparison where there is cover on the battlefield, and players can use guerrilla tactics. I think the latter is a much better way to compare characters. If you want a wild west shootout, that's fine. But I don't think that's a fair way to compare characters when guerrilla tactics are such a major part of this game and you're forcefully removing them by having a wild west shootout without cover.
You make a compelling argument. My argument is that the wild west shootout favors the wizard and the guerilla warfare situation favors the wizard even more, so why consider it?
I'm not worried about which situation benefits the Wizard or which situation benefits the Warlock. I'm not trying to stack the deck in favor of either class. I care about which situation is better for determining the better combatant. And I don't think that an open field with no cover like a wild west shootout is the way to do this. I don't care who it benefits, because that shouldn't be relevant when deciding what conditions are appropriate in terms of the amount of cover possible, the amount of preparation possible, the amount of buffs one can use ahead of time, etc.
If you're letting who it benefits determine how you want to set the battle up, then you're setting the battle up with the intent to benefit one particular party, and that's not appropriate.
It's entirely appropriate and it's called handicapping. Handicapping helps determine not just who is the winner, but by how much. If the winner is already winning in unfavorable conditions, it doesn't make sense to change the venue to one which advantages the winner more just because it's more realistic/representative.
We argued it for several pages of this thread and my best strategy for warlock winning has been defeated. Ultimately, all it took was any wizard with more than 150 hp. That was even with conditions that I consider to be slightly favorable to the warlock. The situation, as I currently see it and much to my displeasure, is that the wizard wins even in conditions favorable to the warlock. If you don't think that's the case, present a strategy by which the warlock wins with any conditions you think are fair. We can discuss afterward whether the conditions you chose are actually fair.
Well, if we're going to look at who benefits from a rule when deciding which rules to use, why are we assuming that the Wizard has all of his spell slots, all of his portents, and everything that you get from a long rest? Why not give both players only the things that they receive after a short rest?
By giving both players everything they get after a long rest, you're basically giving them 8 hours to buff themselves before combat starts.
If you give the Wizard all of his portents and all of his spell slots, you're stacking the deck in his favor intentionally. If giving both players the same thing, such as giving them both cover, is unfair, how the hell is it fair to give both players a long rest before combat starts???
Everyone needs a long rest. Some people do not need nor want cover.
There are two kinds of such battles. The Duel, where there are some rules and both show up at a predetermined location and be seen before the battle begins, and the Assassination, where there are no rules.
For an Assassination, basically think of two wizard towers a mile apart. Both start in their tower, awake from a full long rest.
Well, if we're going to look at who benefits from a rule when deciding which rules to use, why are we assuming that the Wizard has all of his spell slots, all of his portents, and everything that you get from a long rest? Why not give both players only the things that they receive after a short rest?
By giving both players everything they get after a long rest, you're basically giving them 8 hours to buff themselves before combat starts.
If you give the Wizard all of his portents and all of his spell slots, you're stacking the deck in his favor intentionally. If giving both players the same thing, such as giving them both cover, is unfair, how the hell is it fair to give both players a long rest before combat starts???
I disagree with literally everything you wrote here.
The purpose of looking at who benefits from the terrain was to save us work here on the forum, not to try to change the outcome.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So it's not fair to put them both behind cover where the person with the a better strategy will win. Instead, let's drop them both in the middle of a huge plain with no cover anywhere and let the initiative roll determine who wins. Because we aren't interested in who has the better strategy, just who rolls better on the d20 for initiative. No wonder people like the Divination Wizard for this competition so much.
Me trolling? I honestly thought you were. It obviously isn't fair to give them both cover.
Big arena, spherical or cubic. It's mostly empty, possibly one place on each side for the characters to hide behind. They appear with no cover, 60 feet apart. They roll initiative in the open.
They are kind of prepared for battle. The builds are designed to foil each other. When the characters are being made, each feature that the other character has is known by the other player and they can change/design their characters until they are both satisfied with the end result.
Effectively, the arena is separate from the outside world. There's no way in or out, no one can help, and no one can escape. One must perish. They are not aware when they will be transported to the arena, and they are not allowed to have any spells up before in the battle. No Mage Armor, no Contingency. They cannot prepare any abilities for the combat, either. A Chronurgist cannot have an Arcane Abeyance already up. A warlock cannot have False Life already on themselves. You are allowed something you would normally have, like all spell slots and hit points. You're allowed your normal equipment. You can have a familiar, because it has no duration.
This is what I'd consider fair.
There may be other things that need to be stated
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
In the Fighter 20 vs. Wizard 20 the Divination and Chronurgist wizard subclasses were the most popular.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
This seems mostly fair. I'd say no familiar unless it's justified in some other way because simulacra don't have duration either. This is also why I think the Diviner shouldn't get their vision buff, it takes an action.
This would vastly favor the wizard anyways. First cast wish for simulacrum. The wizard just doubled its action economy. That's not strategy either. A
I no longer believe that the warlock can win even if it wins initiative, unfortunately.
It's not fair to give them both cover? Who is it not fair to? The one with more skill? Why should d&d be about skill instead of being about dice rolls, right?
Because this isn't a question of skill, it's a question of game theory. Also, as I wrote above, starting in cover massively favors the wizard. One action to wish for a simulacrum and suddenly they've doubled their action economy and spell slots.
Except you don't need to be behind cover to cast Simulacrum....
Do you guys even read the spells? Simulacrum is a 12 hour cast, go ahead and start that while a lvl 5 anything kills you lol
I can tell you after taking a Abjuration Wizard all the way to 20 in a party with a Warlock, he had no chance against me. We even battled it out when we hit tier 4 just for fun and it wasn't even close. The amount of spell slots is the deciding factor. After countering every spell slot he had I still had more than enough to wipe the floor with him.
wish
You don't need to be behind cover to cast any spell. My point is that giving the wizard opportunity to cast spells unobstructed is detrimental to the warlock, i.e., warlocks cannot buff themselves better than wizards. If the warlock hopes to win, they need to disable the wizard before the wizard can cast spells.
Think about this situation. Wizard and warlock each get 1 round to buff. Wizard wishes for a simulacrum, warlock casts any buff. Then it doesn't matter who wins initiative. Warlock wins and casts any spell, wizard counterspells, warlock counterspells, simulacrum counterspells, and the spell doesn't take effect. Now it's the wizard's turn. They cast either an encounter-ending spell or dispel magic, warlock counterspells, wizard counterspells, spell takes effect. Now, if the encounter isn't over, it's the simulacrum's turn.
I want this to be more fair than it is. I don't think cover is going to help the warlock. What do you propose the warlock would do with extra time/cover that the wizard couldn't counter?
True, you could use your 9th for Simulacrum, but Warlocks don't have that and as a Wizard you wouldn't need it. I guess if you wanted to really beat the crap out of the lock you could, but it wouldn't be close even without it. There are certain classes that don't do well against other ones, the lock doesn't do well at all against a Wizard at all.
What good does letting the Warlock see the Wizard do? So the Warlock can counterspell him, and he gets to roll to try to counterspell a 9th level spell. And the Wizard can counterspell him using a 5th level spell slot with guaranteed success. With the number of spell slots, getting into a "I counterspell you" and then "I counterspell your counterspell" competition clearly favors the Wizard who has a lot more spell slots.
I didn't say that cover was going to help the Warlock. I just said it would be the fair thing to let both characters hide behind cover instead of just plopping them down in the middle of a field with no cover. But apparently, it's not fair to either party if the guy you're trying to kill doesn't let you see him?
If you want a wild west type shootout, where two "civilized" people agree to stand in an open field and shoot each other, that gives you one type of comparison. You could do a second type of comparison where there is cover on the battlefield, and players can use guerrilla tactics. I think the latter is a much better way to compare characters. If you want a wild west shootout, that's fine. But I don't think that's a fair way to compare characters when guerrilla tactics are such a major part of this game and you're forcefully removing them by having a wild west shootout without cover.
You make a compelling argument. My argument is that the wild west shootout favors the wizard and the guerilla warfare situation favors the wizard even more, so why consider it?
I'm not worried about which situation benefits the Wizard or which situation benefits the Warlock. I'm not trying to stack the deck in favor of either class. I care about which situation is better for determining the better combatant. And I don't think that an open field with no cover like a wild west shootout is the way to do this. I don't care who it benefits, because that shouldn't be relevant when deciding what conditions are appropriate in terms of the amount of cover possible, the amount of preparation possible, the amount of buffs one can use ahead of time, etc.
If you're letting who it benefits determine how you want to set the battle up, then you're setting the battle up with the intent to benefit one particular party, and that's not appropriate.
It's entirely appropriate and it's called handicapping. Handicapping helps determine not just who is the winner, but by how much. If the winner is already winning in unfavorable conditions, it doesn't make sense to change the venue to one which advantages the winner more just because it's more realistic/representative.
We argued it for several pages of this thread and my best strategy for warlock winning has been defeated. Ultimately, all it took was any wizard with more than 150 hp. That was even with conditions that I consider to be slightly favorable to the warlock. The situation, as I currently see it and much to my displeasure, is that the wizard wins even in conditions favorable to the warlock. If you don't think that's the case, present a strategy by which the warlock wins with any conditions you think are fair. We can discuss afterward whether the conditions you chose are actually fair.
This honestly depends on the wizard subclass. If it's a school of abjuration wizard, the wizard wins. No question.
There is no dawn after eternal night.
Homebrew: Magic items, Subclasses
Well, if we're going to look at who benefits from a rule when deciding which rules to use, why are we assuming that the Wizard has all of his spell slots, all of his portents, and everything that you get from a long rest? Why not give both players only the things that they receive after a short rest?
By giving both players everything they get after a long rest, you're basically giving them 8 hours to buff themselves before combat starts.
If you give the Wizard all of his portents and all of his spell slots, you're stacking the deck in his favor intentionally. If giving both players the same thing, such as giving them both cover, is unfair, how the hell is it fair to give both players a long rest before combat starts???
Everyone needs a long rest. Some people do not need nor want cover.
There are two kinds of such battles. The Duel, where there are some rules and both show up at a predetermined location and be seen before the battle begins, and the Assassination, where there are no rules.
For an Assassination, basically think of two wizard towers a mile apart. Both start in their tower, awake from a full long rest.
I disagree with literally everything you wrote here.
The purpose of looking at who benefits from the terrain was to save us work here on the forum, not to try to change the outcome.