ok, i was just wondering who hit harder between my warrior and my wizard.

my warrior has 20 str, 10 sword skills, ironmight and the 6-16 mavin

my wizard had 24 str, 12 pole staff, ironmight and a 6-14 staff that i forgot the real name

could my wizard realy be hitting harder than my warrior? if yes then thats wierd :S

With the way that characters take on new roles, that should sound likely. Since wizards furthermore often carry lighter equipment, a wizard can in fact be a far better fighter.

[img]redface.gif[/img] , thats crazy [img]tongue.gif[/img] , well, its a good thing anyways cuz my wizard is my favorite character, she has paralize on her staff too wich adds a little extra spice to the equasion [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Stop me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen any advantage to training weapon skills past maybe Lvl 4 or 5. They don't seem to add any damage, and they don't help out the Hit stat any that I've seen ...

I'd probably have to vote for the fighter, though, since he's probably got a lot of other things that add to damage (Gallantry, Fury, &tc.), Strength aside.

@bsftcs: Congrats on the graduation from Quintesson hell! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Thank you. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I really cannot remember if it made any difference when I maxed out my characters' skills, but I am sure Radek has some figures for us on that matter. :D

well, all that i know is that my wizard is stronger and seems to hit more often than when she was at level 4-5, maybe it dosent raise the hit stat but it must have some effect.

and no, by warrior i meant fighter not barbarian, maybe he can get more skills after the last two quests of the warriors guild but right now all he has is ironmight and my wizard has it too so that equals it out.

You mean vanilla Wizard and Warrior? I thought you were saying fighter-that-was-a-Warrior and caster-that-was-a-Wizard ...

In that case, definitely the Wizard: Warriors suck, they just usually pick up useful traits/skills as they ascend through the "warrior-type" roles.

(Guess there was some guild hopping going on there to get the Wizard Ironmight ... :D )

Don't warriors go up and up in number of attacks per round as they ascend? and wizards don't? or at east not nearly as much?

Assuming they're the same race.... your wizard is stronger and has a higher weapon skill. The weapons are roughly comparable. So I'd expect the wizard to hit harder for those reasons. As for hitting more often... well, I'm not sure how well the THAC0-type numbers were implemented for different classes. And depending on what level you are, they may just be close to automatic hits.

???????????????????????????????????? (?)

hmm... i never considered the races... the fighter is a male gourk and the wizard is female human.

and what do you mean by "vanilla Wizard and Warrior" aleph?

oh, and i checked my manual and i meant warrior not righter but im a simple man, to me its exactly the same and it should be the same.

and no the warrior dosent suck, i have a party of 1 warrior, 1 wizard, 1 priest and 1 rogue (thats the order that i placed them in because of hp, ac and str) and so far hes more that id ever need

Sorry, jsalsb. THAC-0 comes from D&D terminology, and it's short for "To-Hit, Armor Class - 0" (zero). Basically, it's a measure of what roll you'd need to hit an AC of zero. Fighters have lower rolls than wizards do, and that's where you'd see a different based on class. However, at sufficiently high levels, both fighters and mages will find themselves needing a 2 (on a 20-sided die) to hit AC 0. A 1, in D&D terms, always means that something... interesting... is about to happen :D

Sorry; the expression comes from the default flavor of ice cream in the U.S. I mean you actually meant Wizard and not some elite casting role that started as a Wizard.

Nevermind, I'll actually read what people say now instead of assuming things [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

lol, its ok, dont worry... it is a wierd expression though [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Riiiiiiight! It's been close to 20 years since I last rolled an AD&D d20! But, still, I've never heard that expression. It's a very useful concept, though! I seem to remember that we used to talk about hit capabilities in terms of roll needed to hit a 3 hit-dice monster, or something like that.

What I can't remember, an is more germane to our subject, is did you get multiple hits per round in AD&D - back in the classic 3-book era that is; I'm sure they eventually came up with rules for everything and anything.

Boy... I've got an old basic rules book around here somewhere, but I don't remember if they got into multiple attacks. I know that in second edition they did... fighter types went from one attack per round to three per two rounds, and then two a round. Mages stayed at a weasely one per forever... :(

And "vanilla" is a term also used in programming. A "vanilla" program is one that is in its original format, and has never been modified. Its counterpart is a custom program...

has Radek, or someone, done a breakdown of what classes at what levele improve their hit/round ratio?

arent we all playing vanilla wizards & warriors then? (exept those who patched)

well, vanilla with a cherry on top [img]smile.gif[/img]

lolz