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???
It is clearly unfair to have them enter the battlefield without their key abilities. You are clearly benefiting the warlock here more than the wizard. It's fair to give them their core abilities because we're comparing the overall combat effectiveness of both classes, not judging which wins when one gets a serious debuff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
For sure this is gonna be a close decision either way, but honestly I think that if you put a Wizard Against a Warlock, I think that the Wizard would win if he has the right spells prepared and all his potions.
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???
It is clearly unfair to have them enter the battlefield without their key abilities. You are clearly benefiting the warlock here more than the wizard. It's fair to give them their core abilities because we're comparing the overall combat effectiveness of both classes, not judging which wins when one gets a serious debuff.
It's not fair if you don't give the Wizard 8 hours to do a long rest before the battle? The level 20 Warlock can get his spell slots back after 1 minute, but he has to wait another 7 hours 59 minutes for the Wizard to prepare out of fairness?
The Warlock's key ability is that he gets so much back after a short rest, and you're taking that ability away out of "fairness"?
The Warlock does his 1 minute short rest and says "I'm ready" and then the Wizard says "give me another 7 hours 59 minutes to prepare" and it's not fair unless we indulge the Wizard and fight on his terms? What type of enemies do you face that are ready to fight you, but will indulge your request for an 8 hour 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???
It is clearly unfair to have them enter the battlefield without their key abilities. You are clearly benefiting the warlock here more than the wizard. It's fair to give them their core abilities because we're comparing the overall combat effectiveness of both classes, not judging which wins when one gets a serious debuff.
It's not fair if you don't give the Wizard 8 hours to do a long rest before the battle? The level 20 Warlock can get his spell slots back after 1 minute, but he has to wait another 7 hours 59 minutes for the Wizard to prepare out of fairness?
The Warlock's key ability is that he gets so much back after a short rest, and you're taking that ability away out of "fairness"?
The Warlock does his 1 minute short rest and says "I'm ready" and then the Wizard says "give me another 7 hours 59 minutes to prepare" and it's not fair unless we indulge the Wizard and fight on his terms? What type of enemies do you face that are ready to fight you, but will indulge your request for an 8 hour long rest?
This isn't for the sake of D&D realism! This is to compare the class's combat effectiveness at full power! It is 100% not a fair fight between any two characters if they don't have their main abilities! [REDACTED]
You're not fighting on the Wizard's terms or the Warlock's terms. Neither of them is in charge of this scenario. They both magically appear in an arena and battle to the death. You can assume that they just finished a long rest if you want to plug this into a story, or have it more realistic. The fact is, we're not trying to be realistic in this fight. We're supposed to be fair.
You advocating for no long rest is like saying, "Well, it's obviously not a fair fight between a Fighter and a Monk if the fighter gets weapons and armor! Monks don't use weapons or armor, so the fighter shouldn't get them!" You can't take away key and defining features from a character in the battle and call it a fair fight!
Notes: Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.
The Necromancer Wizard's main ability is his ability to command an undead army. So it's not fair if we don't let him bring his undead army with him to the battle, right? I mean you can't take away someone's key ability, right?
[REDACTED] Your idea of fairness is to stack the deck in favor of your preferred play style. If someone else does more than one combat per day, or likes to start combat hidden, or likes to raise an undead army, it's not "fair" if the rules aren't designed to benefit you.
There are many different ways to determine which class wins. [REDACTED]
Notes: Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.
No, because it is not the Necromancer's main ability. No one's main ability is one on spell. Also, I wouldn't allow the necromancer to bring their whole army, because that clearly is breaking one of the rules I outlined before: Casting spells prior to the battle is not allowed.
It isn't trolling to point out logical inconsistencies, and I admit there are problems with what is and isn't fair, but there is no perfect fairness in a game as complex as D&D. You just have to go with what feels the fairest instead of what possibly makes the most "logical" sense. Also, your rules were obviously stacked against certain classes. Your first suggestion of giving them both full cover clearly benefitted the wizard more and wasn't fair to either. It isn't fair to not know the position of the other opposition, even if the opposition doesn't know your position. Sure, they can eventually hide, but you start knowing where the other is. It is very obviously clear that both classes get a long rest before the fight [REDACTED]. To not give one character this is clearly beneficial to the other. Your rule was clearly more beneficial to the Warlock, so don't talk about my rules not being fair, because they're much fairer than yours.
What do you mean "many different ways to determine which class wins?" It is clearly heavily weighted to whomever rolls the highest initiative, and in either case, the Wizard is obviously more likely to win than the Warlock. I'm not supporting my "play style", I'm obviously not advocating for the Wizard winning. I don't care if either wins as long as the fight was fair. [REDACTED]
Notes: Please keep comments constructive and respectful.
The fair way to do it is to acknowledge that there are many different valid ways to compare the two. Under one set of conditions the Divination Wizard would be best. Under a second set of conditions, the Abjuration Wizard would be best. Under a third set of conditions, the Fiend Warlock would be best. Under a fourth set of conditions, the Necromancy Wizard would be best. Under a fifth set of conditions, the Celestial Warlock would be best. And so on.
To pretend that there's only one fair way to determine this is a ridiculous position to take, and it leads to you choosing the conditions that suit your play style, and then pretending that anyone who doesn't want to play by your rules isn't interested in playing fairly.
When you're the DM, you get to set the rules. But you're not the DM here. You need to understand that. You can't go around telling everyone that if we don't accept your rules that it's not fair. You're not the DM. If another player likes playing a sneakier type of caster and doesn't want to stand out in the open without cover, that's a valid way to play. You need to be mature enough to handle people having a different play style than you do. Not everyone does a long rest after every combat. Deal with it. [REDACTED] You need to learn that not everyone plays like you, and it's okay if they're not like you.
Notes: Please keep comments constructive and respectful.
The fair way to do it is to acknowledge that there are many different valid ways to compare the two. Under one set of conditions the Divination Wizard would be best. Under a second set of conditions, the Abjuration Wizard would be best. Under a third set of conditions, the Fiend Warlock would be best. Under a fourth set of conditions, the Necromancy Wizard would be best. Under a fifth set of conditions, the Celestial Warlock would be best. And so on.
The thing is, though the subclasses do vary in combat power, there is a key flaw in the way of thinking that we have to change the circumstances based on the subclass. The flaw is: This battle is between the 2 subclasses, and you cannot change the circumstances of the battlefield based on character options. The options and rules have to be laid out before the battle starts. It is not fair to say, "The Fiend Warlock can't win if it starts out hidden, so it has to be in the open battlefield" because that is changing the rules of the battle due to player options. The fairest way to do a battle royale in a battle between any two classes is to lay out the rules in a fair way, and then the players design their characters around that circumstance.
To pretend that there's only one fair way to determine this is a ridiculous position to take, and it leads to you choosing the conditions that suit your play style, and then pretending that anyone who doesn't want to play by your rules isn't interested in playing fairly.
There is only one fair way to do the battle. The fairest way is to not change the battlefield based on player choices, because that would favor the characters. These rules aren't based on my playstyle, the fact is, your suggestions are more based on play style than mine. Why is it wrong of me to lay out rules that would make the battle fair? Why is it wrong of me to have an opinion of what is fair and defend that? Can you point out anything in the rules that I previously outlined that would not be fair? Also, fairness isn't measured based on how it would benefit certain characters, it is measured on how it would unbalance the fight.
When you're the DM, you get to set the rules. But you're not the DM here. You need to understand that. You can't go around telling everyone that if we don't accept your rules that it's not fair. You're not the DM. If another player likes playing a sneakier type of caster and doesn't want to stand out in the open without cover, that's a valid way to play. You need to be mature enough to handle people having a different play style than you do. Not everyone does a long rest after every combat. Deal with it. [REDACTED] You need to learn that not everyone plays like you, and it's okay if they're not like you.
There is obviously no DM of the threads, but everything posted on this thread aside from rules are completely opinion based. I can go around telling people why my rules for this are more fair than others because of certain parts. You are advocating for changing the battlefield based on what the characters are, I'm advocating for keeping them the same no matter what the characters are. The fact is, it is more fair to assume that the fight starts with a long rest before hand because that clearly doesn't benefit one class more than the other and is common sense to have them start out with a long rest. The idea that they don't start out on the same terms is so absurd I sincerely believed you were trolling because of how obvious it is that they should start out with all hit points and abilities. I don't care what your style of play is at all, I care about making the fight fair, which your suggestions clearly aren't. I don't care at all what your experience is, most people on this website are more experienced with D&D overall than I, but I have an understanding of what fair is. This isn't about how you or I play, this is about the most important question of the thread:
It's not fair if you don't give the Wizard 8 hours to do a long rest before the battle? The level 20 Warlock can get his spell slots back after 1 minute, but he has to wait another 7 hours 59 minutes for the Wizard to prepare out of fairness?
The Warlock's key ability is that he gets so much back after a short rest, and you're taking that ability away out of "fairness"?
The Warlock does his 1 minute short rest and says "I'm ready" and then the Wizard says "give me another 7 hours 59 minutes to prepare" and it's not fair unless we indulge the Wizard and fight on his terms? What type of enemies do you face that are ready to fight you, but will indulge your request for an 8 hour long rest?
It's not taking anything away from either. They both get a long rest. Does it benefit the wizard more? That depends mostly on how many spell slots were expended the day before. You are making unfounded assumptions for an analysis of hypothetical 20th-level characters. The most common state for a player character is fully rested. We just usually skip over the mundane days in the character's lives.
The Necromancer Wizard's main ability is his ability to command an undead army. So it's not fair if we don't let him bring his undead army with him to the battle, right? I mean you can't take away someone's key ability, right?
[REDACTED] Your idea of fairness is to stack the deck in favor of your preferred play style. If someone else does more than one combat per day, or likes to start combat hidden, or likes to raise an undead army, it's not "fair" if the rules aren't designed to benefit you.
There are many different ways to determine which class wins. [REDACTED]
I'm not sure it's possible to set up truly "fair" conditions, but we can set up equal conditions that approach fairness. In my judgement, and apparently many others', having all abilities, spell slots and mundane equipment available, but no buffs or pets, is fair. What you seem to be suggesting is analogous to giving the warlock a fighting chance by tying the wizard's arms up before the fight. Or another analogy, if you were going to play some 1v1 basketball against LeBron, does he have to run a marathon first to make it fair? Of course not, that's stupid and not an accurate measure of who is better at basketball. If that's what it takes for the warlock to win, the warlock loses by a lot.
Since you seem to have such strong opinions about what is not fair, why don't you tell us what you think is fair?
Exactly. There is no true fair in this circumstance, which is why we're ignoring the characters' lives and existences before the combat. The fairest way is to have them just exist at full hit points, full spell slots, and full charges of every ability they have. It is very clearly and obviously not fair to have them not start out with a long rest. The best we can do is get close to fair.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Since you seem to have such strong opinions about what is not fair, why don't you tell us what you think is fair?
As I said before, the fair way to do this is to look at many different types of situations and to treat them all as valid ways to compare.
Why is no cover better than cover? Why is cover better than no cover? Why not just treat them as two different equally valid situations? Why do we have to pick one way to do this and decree that to be the only fair way to do it? The answer is simple: we don't have to do it that way.
When comparing the two classes, the reasonable answer is that it depends on the conditions of the combat. There is not one best way to compare the two.
Exactly. There is no true fair in this circumstance, which is why we're ignoring the characters' lives and existences before the combat. The fairest way is to have them just exist at full hit points, full spell slots, and full charges of every ability they have. It is very clearly and obviously not fair to have them not start out with a long rest. The best we can do is get close to fair.
It's not fair to the Wizard to not give him 8 hours to long rest. But it's not fair to the Warlock to make him wait 7 hours 59 minutes for the Wizard to complete his long rest. No matter how you do it, it's not fair to somebody.
Stop throwing a tantrum just because there's a possibility that it might not be the conditions that suit you.
Exactly. There is no true fair in this circumstance, which is why we're ignoring the characters' lives and existences before the combat. The fairest way is to have them just exist at full hit points, full spell slots, and full charges of every ability they have. It is very clearly and obviously not fair to have them not start out with a long rest. The best we can do is get close to fair.
@LeviRocks has a point, both classes have their ups and downs, and all we can get is "...Close to fair..."
For sure this is gonna be a close decision either way, but honestly I think that if you put a Wizard Against a Warlock, I think that the Wizard would win if he has the right spells prepared and all his potions.
Like I said, "For sure its gonna be a close decision either way..."
But honestly if we put a Warlock at his full power and a Wizard at a fourth of his full power, that kinda seems unfair. If we are comparing two classes at their full power than that would be close to fair. (Even though Wizards at full power/Level 20 can do more things that have more power that give the Warlock disadvantage to the fight.)
Since you seem to have such strong opinions about what is not fair, why don't you tell us what you think is fair?
As I said before, the fair way to do this is to look at many different types of situations and to treat them all as valid ways to compare.
Why is no cover better than cover? Why is cover better than no cover? Why not just treat them as two different equally valid situations? Why do we have to pick one way to do this and decree that to be the only fair way to do it? The answer is simple: we don't have to do it that way.
When comparing the two classes, the reasonable answer is that it depends on the conditions of the combat. There is not one best way to compare the two.
This brings us back to my earlier challenge to which you never responded.
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.
Since you seem to have such strong opinions about what is not fair, why don't you tell us what you think is fair?
As I said before, the fair way to do this is to look at many different types of situations and to treat them all as valid ways to compare.
Why is no cover better than cover? Why is cover better than no cover? Why not just treat them as two different equally valid situations? Why do we have to pick one way to do this and decree that to be the only fair way to do it? The answer is simple: we don't have to do it that way.
When comparing the two classes, the reasonable answer is that it depends on the conditions of the combat. There is not one best way to compare the two.
This brings us back to my earlier challenge to which you never responded.
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.
I think the Wizard is probably better, especially the Abjuration Wizard or a Svirfneblin Wizard. If I had to choose a strategy for the Warlock, and conditions that favor the Warlock, I think just being in darkness would be a sufficient advantage for the Warlock with his Devil's Sight 120ft range and the Wizard likely having just 60ft dark vision (one reason the Svirfneblin Wizard is a great choice). The Warlock wants to stay at least 60ft away from the Wizard anyways in order to avoid getting into a Counterspelling competition which the Wizard will always win due to his much larger number of spell slots (especially an Abjuration Wizard). The Warlock also wants to stay unseen because many of the Wizard's best spells (including Counterspell and Feeblemind) require the Wizard to see his target.
I think the best strategy for the Warlock is to cast ForceCage on the Wizard. You clearly don't want to target an Intelligence or Wisdom save on the Wizard. This spell also has a 100 foot range, allowing it to be cast when you're out of range for the Wizard to Counterspell you. With a Rod of the Pact Keeper equipped, and the Wizard not having proficiency in charisma saving throws and unlikely to have a charisma score better than 13, it can be almost impossible for a Wizard to escape from the Force Cage.
If you make the spell into a cage, and not a box, spells can still affect what is inside the cage, and the Wizard is trapped in the cage unless he can succeed his Charisma save (which might be literally impossible, even if he rolls a 20). Thus, if you can cast Sickening Radiance on the cage, he's trapped in there. Once he suffers three levels of exhaustion he has disadvantage on saving throws, and he's really screwed. A Gnome Wizard or an Abjuration Wizard would have advantage on saving throws, and that would make escaping much easier (as long as you can indeed escape on a 20). Sickening Radiance has a 120ft range and doesn't require you to see an enemy, so it's also a spell that can be cast from far enough away that you can't be counterspelled. If you're fighting in the dark and you're not fighting against a svirfneblin gnome, you can safely cast this spell without being seen by the Wizard, and not having to risk being hit by one of his spells that requires him to see you (such as Feeblemind). Fighting in the dark against a Wizard that isn't a svirfneblin gives the Warlock the ability to move around in the 65-120ft range without being seen, but while seeing his enemy.
If being seen is a big risk, the Misty Visions invocation is a great way for a Warlock to create cover for himself, but it has the downside of requiring an action to create the cover. But one of the things you learn from fighting enemy spellcasters is that not being seen is very useful in combat.
I do think it's somewhat fair to have combat in the dark. It's also somewhat fair to have combat in dim light or bright light. A Warlock with Devil's Sight would prefer to fight in the dark, and in general, the theme of a Warlock is a character that likes to fight in the dark. And in a game called DUNGEONS and dragons, darkness is fairly common. So there are reasonably fair conditions under which the Warlock could indeed win. There are so many classes in D&D that prefer to fight in darkness - not just Warlocks, but also Rogues, Shadow Sorcerers, Shadow Monks, Gloom Stalker Rangers, and more, that it's reasonably fair to include fighting in darkness as a reasonable situation. And when Devil's Sight is one of the most common and most popular invocations for Warlocks to choose, it's quite unreasonable to exclude darkness from the possible battleground environments. After all, if we're going to exclude darkness in the Wizard vs Warlock fight, would we do the same thing in a Wizard vs Rogue fight, and say that it's only fair if the Rogue has to fight in dim light or bright light all the time, and that he never gets the advantage of darkness? Fighting in darkness is certainly a reasonable situation. It's not unreasonable to have light sometimes as well. Both situations are reasonable, and are worth discussing.
Since you seem to have such strong opinions about what is not fair, why don't you tell us what you think is fair?
As I said before, the fair way to do this is to look at many different types of situations and to treat them all as valid ways to compare.
Why is no cover better than cover? Why is cover better than no cover? Why not just treat them as two different equally valid situations? Why do we have to pick one way to do this and decree that to be the only fair way to do it? The answer is simple: we don't have to do it that way.
When comparing the two classes, the reasonable answer is that it depends on the conditions of the combat. There is not one best way to compare the two.
This brings us back to my earlier challenge to which you never responded.
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.
I think the Wizard is probably better, especially the Abjuration Wizard or a Svirfneblin Wizard. If I had to choose a strategy for the Warlock, and conditions that favor the Warlock, I think just being in darkness would be a sufficient advantage for the Warlock with his Devil's Sight 120ft range and the Wizard likely having just 60ft dark vision (one reason the Svirfneblin Wizard is a great choice). The Warlock wants to stay at least 60ft away from the Wizard anyways in order to avoid getting into a Counterspelling competition which the Wizard will always win due to his much larger number of spell slots (especially an Abjuration Wizard). The Warlock also wants to stay unseen because many of the Wizard's best spells (including Counterspell and Feeblemind) require the Wizard to see his target.
I think the best strategy for the Warlock is to cast ForceCage on the Wizard. You clearly don't want to target an Intelligence or Wisdom save on the Wizard. This spell also has a 100 foot range, allowing it to be cast when you're out of range for the Wizard to Counterspell you. With a Rod of the Pact Keeper equipped, and the Wizard not having proficiency in charisma saving throws and unlikely to have a charisma score better than 13, it can be almost impossible for a Wizard to escape from the Force Cage.
If you make the spell into a cage, and not a box, spells can still affect what is inside the cage, and the Wizard is trapped in the cage unless he can succeed his Charisma save (which might be literally impossible, even if he rolls a 20). Thus, if you can cast Sickening Radiance on the cage, he's trapped in there. Once he suffers three levels of exhaustion he has disadvantage on saving throws, and he's really screwed. A Gnome Wizard or an Abjuration Wizard would have advantage on saving throws, and that would make escaping much easier (as long as you can indeed escape on a 20). Sickening Radiance has a 120ft range and doesn't require you to see an enemy, so it's also a spell that can be cast from far enough away that you can't be counterspelled. If you're fighting in the dark and you're not fighting against a svirfneblin gnome, you can safely cast this spell without being seen by the Wizard, and not having to risk being hit by one of his spells that requires him to see you (such as Feeblemind). Fighting in the dark against a Wizard that isn't a svirfneblin gives the Warlock the ability to move around in the 65-120ft range without being seen, but while seeing his enemy.
If being seen is a big risk, the Misty Visions invocation is a great way for a Warlock to create cover for himself, but it has the downside of requiring an action to create the cover. But one of the things you learn from fighting enemy spellcasters is that not being seen is very useful in combat.
Disintegrate kills forcecage so that isn't a winning strategy. It just wastes a mystic arcanum.
Disintegrate does have the ability to defeat Wall of Force (the spell explicitly indicates this), but it's not clear whether or not you need to have a See Invisibility type buff up in order to use it that way. Disintegrate requires you to see your target (once again, vision plays a big role for so many spells), and Wall of Force and Forcecage are both invisible, so you can't see them without having a buff like See Invisibility or True Seeing up. But this would just mean that escaping a Forcecage would require a level 2 spell and a level 6 spell instead of just a level 6 spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It is clearly unfair to have them enter the battlefield without their key abilities. You are clearly benefiting the warlock here more than the wizard. It's fair to give them their core abilities because we're comparing the overall combat effectiveness of both classes, not judging which wins when one gets a serious debuff.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
For sure this is gonna be a close decision either way, but honestly I think that if you put a Wizard Against a Warlock, I think that the Wizard would win if he has the right spells prepared and all his potions.
It's not fair if you don't give the Wizard 8 hours to do a long rest before the battle? The level 20 Warlock can get his spell slots back after 1 minute, but he has to wait another 7 hours 59 minutes for the Wizard to prepare out of fairness?
The Warlock's key ability is that he gets so much back after a short rest, and you're taking that ability away out of "fairness"?
The Warlock does his 1 minute short rest and says "I'm ready" and then the Wizard says "give me another 7 hours 59 minutes to prepare" and it's not fair unless we indulge the Wizard and fight on his terms? What type of enemies do you face that are ready to fight you, but will indulge your request for an 8 hour long rest?
This isn't for the sake of D&D realism! This is to compare the class's combat effectiveness at full power! It is 100% not a fair fight between any two characters if they don't have their main abilities! [REDACTED]
You're not fighting on the Wizard's terms or the Warlock's terms. Neither of them is in charge of this scenario. They both magically appear in an arena and battle to the death. You can assume that they just finished a long rest if you want to plug this into a story, or have it more realistic. The fact is, we're not trying to be realistic in this fight. We're supposed to be fair.
You advocating for no long rest is like saying, "Well, it's obviously not a fair fight between a Fighter and a Monk if the fighter gets weapons and armor! Monks don't use weapons or armor, so the fighter shouldn't get them!" You can't take away key and defining features from a character in the battle and call it a fair fight!
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The Necromancer Wizard's main ability is his ability to command an undead army. So it's not fair if we don't let him bring his undead army with him to the battle, right? I mean you can't take away someone's key ability, right?
[REDACTED] Your idea of fairness is to stack the deck in favor of your preferred play style. If someone else does more than one combat per day, or likes to start combat hidden, or likes to raise an undead army, it's not "fair" if the rules aren't designed to benefit you.
There are many different ways to determine which class wins. [REDACTED]
No, because it is not the Necromancer's main ability. No one's main ability is one on spell. Also, I wouldn't allow the necromancer to bring their whole army, because that clearly is breaking one of the rules I outlined before: Casting spells prior to the battle is not allowed.
It isn't trolling to point out logical inconsistencies, and I admit there are problems with what is and isn't fair, but there is no perfect fairness in a game as complex as D&D. You just have to go with what feels the fairest instead of what possibly makes the most "logical" sense. Also, your rules were obviously stacked against certain classes. Your first suggestion of giving them both full cover clearly benefitted the wizard more and wasn't fair to either. It isn't fair to not know the position of the other opposition, even if the opposition doesn't know your position. Sure, they can eventually hide, but you start knowing where the other is. It is very obviously clear that both classes get a long rest before the fight [REDACTED]. To not give one character this is clearly beneficial to the other. Your rule was clearly more beneficial to the Warlock, so don't talk about my rules not being fair, because they're much fairer than yours.
What do you mean "many different ways to determine which class wins?" It is clearly heavily weighted to whomever rolls the highest initiative, and in either case, the Wizard is obviously more likely to win than the Warlock. I'm not supporting my "play style", I'm obviously not advocating for the Wizard winning. I don't care if either wins as long as the fight was fair. [REDACTED]
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The fair way to do it is to acknowledge that there are many different valid ways to compare the two. Under one set of conditions the Divination Wizard would be best. Under a second set of conditions, the Abjuration Wizard would be best. Under a third set of conditions, the Fiend Warlock would be best. Under a fourth set of conditions, the Necromancy Wizard would be best. Under a fifth set of conditions, the Celestial Warlock would be best. And so on.
To pretend that there's only one fair way to determine this is a ridiculous position to take, and it leads to you choosing the conditions that suit your play style, and then pretending that anyone who doesn't want to play by your rules isn't interested in playing fairly.
When you're the DM, you get to set the rules. But you're not the DM here. You need to understand that. You can't go around telling everyone that if we don't accept your rules that it's not fair. You're not the DM. If another player likes playing a sneakier type of caster and doesn't want to stand out in the open without cover, that's a valid way to play. You need to be mature enough to handle people having a different play style than you do. Not everyone does a long rest after every combat. Deal with it. [REDACTED] You need to learn that not everyone plays like you, and it's okay if they're not like you.
The thing is, though the subclasses do vary in combat power, there is a key flaw in the way of thinking that we have to change the circumstances based on the subclass. The flaw is: This battle is between the 2 subclasses, and you cannot change the circumstances of the battlefield based on character options. The options and rules have to be laid out before the battle starts. It is not fair to say, "The Fiend Warlock can't win if it starts out hidden, so it has to be in the open battlefield" because that is changing the rules of the battle due to player options. The fairest way to do a battle royale in a battle between any two classes is to lay out the rules in a fair way, and then the players design their characters around that circumstance.
There is only one fair way to do the battle. The fairest way is to not change the battlefield based on player choices, because that would favor the characters. These rules aren't based on my playstyle, the fact is, your suggestions are more based on play style than mine. Why is it wrong of me to lay out rules that would make the battle fair? Why is it wrong of me to have an opinion of what is fair and defend that? Can you point out anything in the rules that I previously outlined that would not be fair? Also, fairness isn't measured based on how it would benefit certain characters, it is measured on how it would unbalance the fight.
There is obviously no DM of the threads, but everything posted on this thread aside from rules are completely opinion based. I can go around telling people why my rules for this are more fair than others because of certain parts. You are advocating for changing the battlefield based on what the characters are, I'm advocating for keeping them the same no matter what the characters are. The fact is, it is more fair to assume that the fight starts with a long rest before hand because that clearly doesn't benefit one class more than the other and is common sense to have them start out with a long rest. The idea that they don't start out on the same terms is so absurd I sincerely believed you were trolling because of how obvious it is that they should start out with all hit points and abilities. I don't care what your style of play is at all, I care about making the fight fair, which your suggestions clearly aren't. I don't care at all what your experience is, most people on this website are more experienced with D&D overall than I, but I have an understanding of what fair is. This isn't about how you or I play, this is about the most important question of the thread:
"What is fair?"
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It's not taking anything away from either. They both get a long rest. Does it benefit the wizard more? That depends mostly on how many spell slots were expended the day before. You are making unfounded assumptions for an analysis of hypothetical 20th-level characters. The most common state for a player character is fully rested. We just usually skip over the mundane days in the character's lives.
I'm not sure it's possible to set up truly "fair" conditions, but we can set up equal conditions that approach fairness. In my judgement, and apparently many others', having all abilities, spell slots and mundane equipment available, but no buffs or pets, is fair. What you seem to be suggesting is analogous to giving the warlock a fighting chance by tying the wizard's arms up before the fight. Or another analogy, if you were going to play some 1v1 basketball against LeBron, does he have to run a marathon first to make it fair? Of course not, that's stupid and not an accurate measure of who is better at basketball. If that's what it takes for the warlock to win, the warlock loses by a lot.
Since you seem to have such strong opinions about what is not fair, why don't you tell us what you think is fair?
Exactly. There is no true fair in this circumstance, which is why we're ignoring the characters' lives and existences before the combat. The fairest way is to have them just exist at full hit points, full spell slots, and full charges of every ability they have. It is very clearly and obviously not fair to have them not start out with a long rest. The best we can do is get close to fair.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
As I said before, the fair way to do this is to look at many different types of situations and to treat them all as valid ways to compare.
Why is no cover better than cover? Why is cover better than no cover? Why not just treat them as two different equally valid situations? Why do we have to pick one way to do this and decree that to be the only fair way to do it? The answer is simple: we don't have to do it that way.
When comparing the two classes, the reasonable answer is that it depends on the conditions of the combat. There is not one best way to compare the two.
It's not fair to the Wizard to not give him 8 hours to long rest. But it's not fair to the Warlock to make him wait 7 hours 59 minutes for the Wizard to complete his long rest. No matter how you do it, it's not fair to somebody.
Stop throwing a tantrum just because there's a possibility that it might not be the conditions that suit you.
@LeviRocks has a point, both classes have their ups and downs, and all we can get is "...Close to fair..."
Like I said, "For sure its gonna be a close decision either way..."
But honestly if we put a Warlock at his full power and a Wizard at a fourth of his full power, that kinda seems unfair. If we are comparing two classes at their full power than that would be close to fair. (Even though Wizards at full power/Level 20 can do more things that have more power that give the Warlock disadvantage to the fight.)
This brings us back to my earlier challenge to which you never responded.
I think the Wizard is probably better, especially the Abjuration Wizard or a Svirfneblin Wizard. If I had to choose a strategy for the Warlock, and conditions that favor the Warlock, I think just being in darkness would be a sufficient advantage for the Warlock with his Devil's Sight 120ft range and the Wizard likely having just 60ft dark vision (one reason the Svirfneblin Wizard is a great choice). The Warlock wants to stay at least 60ft away from the Wizard anyways in order to avoid getting into a Counterspelling competition which the Wizard will always win due to his much larger number of spell slots (especially an Abjuration Wizard). The Warlock also wants to stay unseen because many of the Wizard's best spells (including Counterspell and Feeblemind) require the Wizard to see his target.
I think the best strategy for the Warlock is to cast ForceCage on the Wizard. You clearly don't want to target an Intelligence or Wisdom save on the Wizard. This spell also has a 100 foot range, allowing it to be cast when you're out of range for the Wizard to Counterspell you. With a Rod of the Pact Keeper equipped, and the Wizard not having proficiency in charisma saving throws and unlikely to have a charisma score better than 13, it can be almost impossible for a Wizard to escape from the Force Cage.
If you make the spell into a cage, and not a box, spells can still affect what is inside the cage, and the Wizard is trapped in the cage unless he can succeed his Charisma save (which might be literally impossible, even if he rolls a 20). Thus, if you can cast Sickening Radiance on the cage, he's trapped in there. Once he suffers three levels of exhaustion he has disadvantage on saving throws, and he's really screwed. A Gnome Wizard or an Abjuration Wizard would have advantage on saving throws, and that would make escaping much easier (as long as you can indeed escape on a 20). Sickening Radiance has a 120ft range and doesn't require you to see an enemy, so it's also a spell that can be cast from far enough away that you can't be counterspelled. If you're fighting in the dark and you're not fighting against a svirfneblin gnome, you can safely cast this spell without being seen by the Wizard, and not having to risk being hit by one of his spells that requires him to see you (such as Feeblemind). Fighting in the dark against a Wizard that isn't a svirfneblin gives the Warlock the ability to move around in the 65-120ft range without being seen, but while seeing his enemy.
If being seen is a big risk, the Misty Visions invocation is a great way for a Warlock to create cover for himself, but it has the downside of requiring an action to create the cover. But one of the things you learn from fighting enemy spellcasters is that not being seen is very useful in combat.
I do think it's somewhat fair to have combat in the dark. It's also somewhat fair to have combat in dim light or bright light. A Warlock with Devil's Sight would prefer to fight in the dark, and in general, the theme of a Warlock is a character that likes to fight in the dark. And in a game called DUNGEONS and dragons, darkness is fairly common. So there are reasonably fair conditions under which the Warlock could indeed win. There are so many classes in D&D that prefer to fight in darkness - not just Warlocks, but also Rogues, Shadow Sorcerers, Shadow Monks, Gloom Stalker Rangers, and more, that it's reasonably fair to include fighting in darkness as a reasonable situation. And when Devil's Sight is one of the most common and most popular invocations for Warlocks to choose, it's quite unreasonable to exclude darkness from the possible battleground environments. After all, if we're going to exclude darkness in the Wizard vs Warlock fight, would we do the same thing in a Wizard vs Rogue fight, and say that it's only fair if the Rogue has to fight in dim light or bright light all the time, and that he never gets the advantage of darkness? Fighting in darkness is certainly a reasonable situation. It's not unreasonable to have light sometimes as well. Both situations are reasonable, and are worth discussing.
Ya I agree, both classes have advantages to them and disadvantages to them. This was a good discussion that we could keep discussing. Great topic.
Shall we say that both are Variant Humans? That would make the Wizard lose in darkness though.
There is no dawn after eternal night.
Homebrew: Magic items, Subclasses
Disintegrate kills forcecage so that isn't a winning strategy. It just wastes a mystic arcanum.
Where does it say that disintegrate defeats forcecage?
There is no dawn after eternal night.
Homebrew: Magic items, Subclasses
Disintegrate does have the ability to defeat Wall of Force (the spell explicitly indicates this), but it's not clear whether or not you need to have a See Invisibility type buff up in order to use it that way. Disintegrate requires you to see your target (once again, vision plays a big role for so many spells), and Wall of Force and Forcecage are both invisible, so you can't see them without having a buff like See Invisibility or True Seeing up. But this would just mean that escaping a Forcecage would require a level 2 spell and a level 6 spell instead of just a level 6 spell.