Friday, August 5, 2011

Wizards in Close Combat

In my last post I described 5th edition rogues, at least at low levels, as poor excuses for warriors. This may seem a bit harsh but it is only my opinion. It is certainly not the case for 7th edition rogues. In a comment to this post, Soren stated that while rogues were not as good as warriors in combat, a wizard in close combat was simply a dead wizard but not so for rogues. That got me wondering. Was that really true? It is certainly the common assumption; but how do the combat abilities of rogues and wizards stack up in 5th edition and how likely is either type to survive a typical solo adventure where they would be forced to fight at least once.

In 5th edition, wizards are limited to weapons with 2 or fewer dice. This includes all daggers, the manople, foil, baton, piton hammer, crowbar, bagh nakh, quarterstaff, assegai, javelin, very light bow, common sling, chakram, shurikin, war bola, and caltrops. That's actually not a bad assortment of weapons especially considering the starting funds of most delvers; it also includes a good number of missile weapons. The rules state that wizards must only use 2 die weapons, but it does not say that they cannot use two of these at the same time. At a minimum, a wizard can use two banks, getting 4D+6 in combat and only requiring a STR and DEX of 2. At best, a wizard can use two kukri and get 4D+10 in combat requiring a STR and DEX of 12. That's not bad in either case. Even with two banks the wizard should be able to handle a MR 20 monster single handed. Keep in mind that there is also nothing saying that a wizard cannot use poison to increase the effectiveness of these weapons. It is also important to remember, there is no limit on armor or shields for wizards in T&T. A wizard with enough money (and strength) can deck himself out in plate armor and carry a tower shield is he or she so chooses. The wizards of T&T need not rely on the protection of warriors, nor should they.

Now, what about the combat ability of rogues? They have no restriction on which weapons they can use just like warriors meaning they can use whatever they want in the lists as long as they have the money, strength, and dexterity. But what does that mean really? Will the rogue necessarily have a much higher strength or dexterity than the wizard? How many more dice and adds can the rogue bring to bear than the wizard? One most likely, maybe two. This lack of a difference is most evident at low levels. Rogues get the same use out of armor that wizards do, so they are completely even on that front.

What do wizards have that rogues do not in 5th edition? Ten spells. Starting wizards can blast their enemies to smithereens, freeze them in place, briefly enchant their own weapons doubling their effectiveness, panic their enemies so that they flee, locate hidden objects or invisible monsters, open locked doors, magically lock doors, make magical light without need for torches or lanterns, and detect the presence of magic. Oh, they can also enchant a piece of wood so that their spells require less strength to cast. True they also have a spell that allows them to teach spells to rogues, but why do that? That would cut down their edge. It is true that in 5th edition wizard spells are powered by strength and this can be a problem if the wizard is suddenly forced into combat. But it's all about being smart and conserving your strength, especially when you are delving alone. Use spells only when they will do the most good, otherwise save your strength and rely on your daggers.

Like Soren I had considered wizard useless in combat and therefore lost causes when it came to solo delving. I'm not so sure any more. As long as the mechanics of the solo allow magic to be used, a wizard should be able to survive as equally as a rogue or even a warrior. Well, most of the time.

18 comments:

  1. Intriguing post...Since the focus is on beginning rogues and wizards, I’ll point out the things that make a rogue attractive at beginning levels, and touch on its appeal at higher levels.

    True, the difference between a beginning wizard and rogue in 5th edition melee combat boils down to 2d6 for weapons, everything else being equal (4d6 for a wizard with two daggers. For rogues, it’s rather easy when using the example put forth of the 12-STR and 12-DEX character, to get 6 dice in combat). On average, the two dice difference will provide 7 more hits per round for the rogue over the wizard.

    The post passed this difference off as next to nothing. In reality, at first level, for a beginning character, where Hit Point Totals aren’t all that high, those 7 points are huge. If we’re using spite damage, those two extra dice give even more of an advantage to the rogue. In a round with equal Hit Point Totals before adds, the wizard would have to take 7 hits off his CON, before accounting for armor, whereas the rogue breaks even. Where the wizard breaks even, the rogue does 7 points of damage to the enemy. In subsequent rounds, there’s no reason to think similar results wouldn’t follow, unless either the rogue rolled very well, or the wizard rolled poorly.

    That makes the 1st level rogue (6d6+weapon adds+personal adds) able to stand toe-to-toe with a MR-30 monster (4d6+15). Whereas the 1st level wizard with two daggers can stand toe-to-toe with only a MR-20 monster. But let’s be honest, how many solos, even for 1st level characters, do you encounter where the highest rated MR is only 20? Not many; I haven’t anyway. Disadvantage to the wizard, or Advantage Rogue, depending on one’s perspective.

    Poison use, using magic intelligently, wearing armor, using shields---all that applies to the rogue, too; there’s no advantage to wizards there. Poison--is it even affordable to beginning characters? It doesn’t appear to be, not when buying the basics will zap most of a beginning character’s gold.

    As their levels increase (in 5th edition), the rogue is likely to put his level boons in Luck, making him more effective in melee, and more importantly, incredibly skillful at making Saving Rolls, while the wizard is likely to put his level increases--or at least some of them--in INT to be able to cast higher level spells. This creates a further discrepancy in the two types melee prowess. Note the increases in LK are doubled for level number, while the INT increases are half the new level number.

    Yes, a wizard starts his career knowing 10 spells. But a wizard or rogue can only cast one spell at a time. Knowledge of one attack spell is sufficient to start. How many different ways does one need to blast or drive away an enemy with arcane might? Only one. Yep, a wizard can cast spells to find secret doors, but can a rogue use his Luck to accomplish the same thing? In the T&T world, a rogue with a high Luck can accomplish what exactly...? Well, quite a lot depending on the ingenuity of the player, and since Luck is the default Saving Roll, this makes rogues particularly valuable (in the solo Buffalo Castle, when a SR is needed, the text states “Make your saving roll” without an attribute listed; it’s assumed to be Luck).

    More to come...

    ReplyDelete
  2. A warrior and wizard with high Lucks are better at SRs, too. But again, it doesn’t make sense for a wizard to put those level boons in Luck. It’s needed in INT, and to a lesser extent STR and DEX to cast higher level spells. With warriors, it’s needed in STR and DEX to wield more powerful weapons, and to use ranged weapons more effectively. We can even say, as they increase in levels, the rogue will become MORE powerful than the warrior in melee combat for sinking level boons into Luck, which give him greater increases, than the warrior who is likely to put them in STR or DEX. LK=x2 in level; STR=level; DEX=half the new level.

    But the biggest point is that a player creates a wizard to cast magic, not to engage enemies with dual daggers; a player creates a rogue to have a middle-ground between warrior and wizard. If a rogue can’t start his career with at least one spell at 1st level, then yes, there is no point to the rogue. As a GM, I’ve always allowed rogues to start with one spell at 1st level. They then have to buy their spells from other players’ wizards, or pay the exorbitant fee NPC wizards would charge.

    Now let’s look at a typical solo combat with a wizard vs. a monster. Many, many past examples of such a combat spawned my comment in the last post, which you referenced at the beginning of this post.

    1st round, our beginning wizard casts Take That You Fiend at the aforementioned MR-20 beast. What’s the INT of a 1st level wizard? It usually isn’t higher than 20, which would be enough to kill the monster. So, let’s say his INT is 15--pretty good for a 1st level wizard. Okay, he just did 15 points of damage to the beast.

    Unfortunately, now the beast gets to swing at 3d6+10. The 15 hits in offense for the TTYF spell don’t count as defense for the wizard (and this is where the wizard loses to the rogue in melee). The monster’s 3d6+10 come straight off the wizard’s CON, minus armor. This is an average of about 21 hits. At character creation, did our 1st level wizard buy the best armor? Probably not. He couldn’t afford it. Maybe he could afford leather armor, in which case it absorbs 6 hits. Result: Either 14 or 15 points come straight off our wizard’s CON in the first round. More than likely, 1st level wizard=dead wizard.

    And if he survived the first round, our wizard now has 5 less points of Strength--subtract that from his personal adds--with which to fight the monster with his twin daggers.

    Okay, you want to give your wizard a shield as well? Now he has one dagger less for melee, just one two-dice weapon. Can he even afford a shield at 1st level? Can he buy armor and a shield AND the other things he needs, like two daggers and basic supplies? Emm...more than likely, no. Does the shield he holds in one hand interfere with his spell use? Should it? A lot of GMs out there think so.

    The rogue and wizard offer different things. One’s a pure spellcaster, the other a combination of warrior and wizard, who’s neither better at magic than a wizard, nor better at straight melee combat than a warrior--at least not to start. Instead, the rogue offers a nice middle-ground that is a very attractive option for a lot of players.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good analysis.

    It should also be noted that rogues can pick up spells during adventures, as well, by finding scrolls, pages from old spell books, forcing captured wizards to teach them, free of charge...They needn't be limited to paying high prices to other wizards to obtain their spells.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for the lengthy comments Soren. I think that's the longest comment(s) I've ever gotten for a post. This Wizard vs Rogue thing seems to have some legs.

    I'm sure that the rogue is an attractive character option, the 7th edition rogue certainly is for me. This post was not meant to malign rogues in any way, simply to show that wizards were not completely hopeless in combat.

    To that end, some comments on your comments:

    Regarding the number of extra dice. I'm not sure what combination of weapons you were using but you could use a scimitar (4D, ST10 DX11) and a bank (2D+3, ST1 DX1) and get 6D+3. That will give you an average of 21 hits per turn. But the two kukri get 4D+10 and will give you an average of 22 hits per turn. Minimum damage for the scimitar and bank is 9 hits, for the two kukri, 14 hits. Maximum damage for each set of weapons is 39 and 34 respectively. Is 5 hits a big difference? It can be sure; but so can the 1 hit for the average and the 5 hits for the minimum. Never underestimate the weapon adds; I always go for maximum adds over dice for just this reason. So our two-dagger wielding wizard could also handle a MR30 (4D+15) monster as long as he/she had sufficient personal adds.

    Increasing attributes? Adding to IQ at 2nd level just isn't worth it (+1 IQ). I always add to Luck no matter what. The 4 point boost is just too good. Besides, if your wizard did not start with an IQ of at least 12 (the minimum for 2nd level spells) then you probably should not have chosen a wizard. So that's bonus
    personal adds for the wizard as well.

    How many different ways do you need to blast or drive away your enemies with magic? It all depends on the situation. Take your classic example using Take That You Fiend. In the situation you describe, a wizard should not cast TTYF; it's a suicidal move. This comes back to using magic intelligently. You cast TTYF as an archer would fire a bow, at a distance. If you can get a free attack, then cast TTYF. If not, then fight or cast another spell like Oh Go Away. Any wizard that uses TTYF in the way you described deserves to get killed.

    If you are giving a starting rogue one 1st level spell to start, then you are entering the world of the 7th edition rogue which started this whole thing. I agree that doing that makes the rogue very appealing (and the Roguery talent puts it over the top). But the 5th edition rules say no such thing.

    Regarding money, does the rogue have any advantage here? Does the warrior? All character start off with very little money. Can the rogue afford six dice worth of weapons, plus fancy armor and equipment? A wizard can buy two banks for a mere 36 gp or two kukri for 60 gp. Here I think the wizard actually has the advantage over those trying to buy swords, axes, and spears.

    Finally, the T&T rules say nothing about the wizard needing to make special signs, use special powders, or rub their bellies while patting their heads to cast spells. Therefore using two weapons or a shield should not interfere with spell casting. If it did, then rogues would be at an equal disadvantage.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My two cents for what it's worth, as a late comer to this discussion.

    I think it would have been more accurate to say the rogue is a "poor excuse for a warrior-wizard," than saying it's a poor excuse for a warrior, since the rogue and warr-wiz can both fight with bigger weapons and cast spells, but the warr-wiz's proficiency with spells gives it the obvious edge.

    Comparing warriors to rogues is like comparing apples to oranges; same with rogues to wizards--they're too different.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you are giving a starting rogue one 1st level spell to start, then you are entering the world of the 7th edition rogue which started this whole thing. I agree that doing that makes the rogue very appealing (and the Roguery talent puts it over the top). But the 5th edition rules say no such thing.


    You never let a rogue player begin a game (5th edition) with even one spell? Do you allow players to write-up a character's background before play and have that background determine some basic starting points for the character, like "Okay, your rogue has this one spell"?

    That's a tough stance you take, if that's truly the case. Anyway, I've allowed rogues to begin with at least one spell, and this is dipping back to a time long before the internet, and a time when T&T house rules began springing up on the internet (which, I believe led to many rules changes we see in 7/7,5, including rogue's starting with a spell).

    Note: The 5th edition rules don't say anything about STR and DEX requirements for using two weapons at once, so why add the minimum requirement in each to determine two-weapon use? That's a 7th edition thing. The rogue, in 5th edition, can well walk in with two scimitars (8d6) or two tridents (8d6+6) while only having a STR and DEX of 12, as well as cast spells. The rules mention nothing of it, so he can do it, correct? That would certainly give the rogue a decisive advantage over wizards in melee. My point here is that, in T&T particularly, the players are encouraged to change the rules to suit their needs or playing desires (to a lesser extent many of the older RPGs were this way--T&T came right out and said it "Change me, please")

    So, you can't really fault someone in T&T for doing something outside the box, and giving the rogue one starting spell to begin with is nothing, really.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A quick note to say I don't plan on adding anything more to this discussion. The various points have been made, and my brief experience on Blog-O-Spheres has told me it's at this point where the "discussion" could start turning ugly. So, I will just wrap-up by saying we'll agree to disagree on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Uwarr said...So, you can't really fault someone in T&T for doing something outside the box, and giving the rogue one starting spell to begin with is nothing, really.

    I'm not faulting Soren for his house rule at all. I am a huge fan of house rules. I have posted my own house rules in numerous posts on this blog and have a multitude for my 5th edition game that I am running on Trollbridge. I think allowing a starting rogue to have a 1st level spell is a great idea (as I have previously said); it definitely makes the type much more appealing to me as a player character. However, my original post about rogues (the one just below) dealt with my feeling that the rogue type was a poor choice as written in the 5th edition rules. The addition of a house rule granting the rogue some additional abilities beyond the rules as written indicates that Soren felt the same way. True? The addition of new abilities for rogues in the 7th edition rules implies that Ken also felt this way.

    Uwarr said...Note: The 5th edition rules don't say anything about STR and DEX requirements for using two weapons at once, so why add the minimum requirement in each to determine two-weapon use? That's a 7th edition thing.

    Actually it's a 4th edition thing that did not make it into the 5th edition rules for one reason or another. There is, however, a section on dealing with wielding too heavy weapons (2.35) leading to the loss of strength and eventual collapse from exhaustion.

    I'm not sure why this discussion needs to turn "ugly" Soren. I am pretty amazed when this happens elsewhere. We are simply talking about a small point in the rules to a game. There are no big stakes here. I am simply stating my opinions and ideas about T&T on this blog. Anyone who reads this is free to post their own ideas whether they agree or disagree. If you disagree then tell me why. I like to hear more ideas, it fuels the creative process. If I disagree with you then I will likely comment right back saying why. Does it matter? No, not really. I do this as a distraction from the stressful elements of my life not as a means of causing more stress.

    But back to the topic of this post: the combat effectiveness of Wizards. I'll be writing some more posts related to this issue; not comparing wizards to rogues or warriors mind you, but about wizards on their own as solo delvers.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Soren made a good point when he raised the money issue. Obviously, wizards will tend to invest in a magic staff, a dagger, and spells. Spells are bound to cost them lots of money. Other character types can invest more in weapons and armor.

    However, the example given by Soren misses one point: TTYF and other combat spells have a shock effect (see the article I wrote with Ken's contribution in the next issue of TrollsZine).

    So, when the beginning wizard casts Take That You Fiend (INT=15=15 hits) at a MR-20 beast, the monster’s 3d6+10 do not come straight off the wizard’s CON, minus armor.

    Monster's average hit total = 21, minus 15 (due to the "shock effect" of TTYF) minus any armor. Our wizard will probably survive (and even if his CON were reduced below 0, he wuld still be alive, though dying).

    On the other hand, the monster will lose 15 MR points, which leaves it 5 points (3d6+3).

    The wizard's combat adds are unaffected, since his WIZ score will be reduced by 6 points while his STR will remain the same.

    The question is then: how many combats will our wizard survive? (And you have to take the spite damage into account).

    The odds are the wizard probably would not survive any T&T solo (unless it has been specifically tailored to wizards).

    To counterbalance that handicap, I think someone invented a Solo Mage Specialist.

    Grrraall

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'd completely forgotten about "shock effects." Hence, my deleted post above.

    Lone Delver said...
    There is, however, a section on dealing with wielding too heavy weapons (2.35) leading to the loss of strength and eventual collapse from exhaustion.

    C'mon, Lone Delver. You know that doesn't have anything to do with wielding two weapons at once and the STR, DEX requirements needed to do so. As the example states it simply deals with wielding a weapon the PC doesn't have the necessary STR to wield, and how to account for that. My point remains that in 5th edition there's no reason to believe, for example, that a PC with, say, a STR of 11 can't wield two short swords (STR 7 required) without any harmful effects.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Actually, the rule about dealing with two weapons simultaneously is explained in the abridged T&T rules (that you can find easily on the Internet, for example here: http://www.freedungeons.com/rules/ or here http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=54407).

    "An asterisk (*) indicates a weapon that requires two hands for proper use. You can’t use a second weapon or shield unless you have more than two hands. Two weapons without asterisks may be used simultaneously IF the
    user has the ST and DEX requirements for BOTH weapons (e.g. to fight with a dirk in each hand requires a minimum ST of 2 and a DEX of 8)." (P.S. to fight with only one dirk, you only need a minimum ST of 1 and DEX of 4).

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ Grrraall

    The discussion here centers on 5th edition rules, circa late 70s, early 80s that appeared in boxed sets (maybe the rules were sold individually also). The quote you provided is actually from the Corgi edition of T&T solos that were published in the UK some ...10 years later? Once again, there's no mention of a rule for two-weapon use in 5th edition.

    ReplyDelete
  14. We are getting off topic, but...

    Uwarr said...C'mon, Lone Delver. You know that doesn't have anything to do with wielding two weapons at once and the STR, DEX requirements needed to do so.

    But that is exactly how I interpret that rule Uwarr. Why do you think "I know" that is not the case?

    Why would it be that character with a Strength of 10 is could not wield a falchion with a 4' blade, requiring a ST of 12, and weighing 110 wu without risking exhaustion, but the same character could easily wield two scimitars each with 3' blades, each requiring a ST of 10, and weighing a total of 200 wu? To me that is not logical, and I do require a little logic in my games. In my view your character's Strength score is not a measure of the strength of each arm or other body part but is a measure of total strength. Also, the Strength requirements for body armor and shields are additive (check out footnote 1 in the armor table), so why wouldn't those of weapons be as well?

    Uwarr said...The discussion here centers on 5th edition rules, circa late 70s, early 80s that appeared in boxed sets (maybe the rules were sold individually also). The quote you provided is actually from the Corgi edition of T&T solos that were published in the UK some ...10 years later? Once again, there's no mention of a rule for two-weapon use in 5th edition.

    As I mentioned previously, the two weapon rule is from 4th edition and actually precedes the 5th edition rules. It was not in the rule book but was added as a errata in an issue of Sorcerer's Apprentice published soon after the 5th edition rules (I'll have to find the actual issue number).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Grrraall said...The odds are the wizard probably would not survive any T&T solo (unless it has been specifically tailored to wizards).

    This is the assumption that I plan to put to the test.

    Thanks for mentioning the "shock effect" of spells, Grrraall. As you can see this dramatically increases the effectiveness of combat magic.

    ReplyDelete
  16. OK, OK. Anyway, Tunnels & Trolls is very flexible. In my version of Trollworld, Wizarsd tend to be reluctant to use any kind of weapond except their good old staff (BTW, did you notice that deluxe staves have 4d6 under the 7th edition?), but I can perfectly imagine another Trollworld where Wizards can cut you in pieces while wielding 2 saxes like whirlwinds :-)

    Still, I think most of you would agree that having a beginning Wizard surviving most T&T solos is no little feat.

    I looked up im my archives and saw very interesting suggestions by Michael "Khayd'haik" Eidson: Specialist Character Type: The Solitary Wizard (or Solo Wizard).

    ReplyDelete
  17. Why would it be that character with a Strength of 10 is could not wield a falchion with a 4' blade, requiring a ST of 12, and weighing 110 wu without risking exhaustion, but the same character could easily wield two scimitars each with 3' blades, each requiring a ST of 10, and weighing a total of 200 wu?

    Now, like Bennet mentioned above, we're comparing apples and oranges. Faulty Analogy, I guess it would be called. I speaking specifically of two-weapon use and it being addressed, while you're referencing a section of rules that addresses the use of a weapon that is too heavy for the PC to begin with. Yes, I would assume you know better--you're a smart guy, right? And can see the fallacy of a False Analogy in your comment.

    I'm going to side with Soren and part from this conversation as it's become frustrating. To make one's position seem "correct" or build it, rules and references that have nothing to do with the original point are being brought up.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Uwarr...Yes, I would assume you know better--you're a smart guy, right? And can see the fallacy of a False Analogy in your comment.

    Seriously? You're reading my mind again? I would appreciate if you actually address my comments rather than make comments like this.

    But to the matter at hand (or is it? Wizards in Close Combat?):

    Uwarr said...To make one's position seem "correct" or build it, rules and references that have nothing to do with the original point are being brought up.

    This is not a "false analogy" at all Uwarr and the rules and references I have cited all apply. A rules system is just that, a system. All of the parts work together as a whole. But here I'm not even talking about unrelated parts of the T&T rules; we're talking about the combat system. Within that combat system this is not a case of you talking about two-weapon fighting and me talking about saving roll requirements for missile fire. We're talking about the kinds of weapons a particular character can use with specific attributes, in this case Strength. Is that not true? This applies whether you're talking about using one weapon or two.

    But back to the example I presented:

    In your house rules for two weapon fighting a character can use any two weapons as long as he/she has the strength and dexterity requirements to use either one. This means a character with a Strength of 10 can wield two scimitars at the same time each requiring a Strength of 10 and weighing 100 weight units each with.

    Looking at the using too-heavy weapons rule in the same rule system that same character cannot wield a falchion with two hands (it is a 2-handed weapon in 5th edition) without risk of rapid exhaustion because it requires a Strength of 12 even though it is only 1' longer and weighs 90 weight units less (110 wu) than the two scimitars.

    Where is the logical consistency there between these two parts of the same rule system? I am not trying to say your system is wrong, I am simply trying to understand your line of reasoning.

    Also, why is it that the Strength requirements of armor and shields is additive (as stated in the armor table) but weapons are not?

    No, the 5th edition rule book does not mention fighting with two weapons at once. But as I have said, it is in the 4th edition rules where it does state explicitly that the Strength and Dexterity requirements of each weapon must be added. Immediately after 5th edition was published this rule was restated in Sorcerer's Apprentice as an addendum to that rule set.

    But if you have no knowledge of T&T before 5th edition, no access to SA or the T&T community you would not know this. So why would you think that you could use two weapons at all? You may certainly want to and would therefore need to make a House Rule. Your house rule for two weapon fighting is that the Strength and Dexterity requirements do not need to be added together. That is fine. But please do not act as though this is the standard rule applied by T&T players. I can assure you speaking as one, that not T&T solo designer expects your character with a 10 ST is running into his/her adventure wielding two scimitars and getting 8 dice in combat.

    You are free to comment more on this Uwarr, but I would appreciate you addressing my comments directly. That is how we can have a constructive discussion. It may be that you do not care if there are logical inconsistencies like the ones I pointed out. That's fine too, but just say so.

    But again, the topic of this post was Wizards in Close Combat. Interestingly I have previously written two posts on two-weapon fighting that did not get this much discussion.

    ReplyDelete