And this is where you are wrong. A fully upgraded daedric bow would not do 80+24 damage - it would do 150+24. Add in smith gear and it will do 300+24... add in archery enchantments and it will do 1000+ per shot... and that without even abusing the alchemy/enchantment loop...

That would be sweet to have a meteor spell that lobbed up in an arc like a mini-nuke and then exploded when it hit something or the ground. I'm gonna have to mod that in. And give it to the NPCs as well.

I remember back in Arena I made a 10000 point Shield spell to use before I fought Jagar Tharn. Guess who won that fight? Hint: it wasn't the bad guy.
-Loth

Because we like traditional roles? Because we like unleashing arcane destruction on our foes without things as plebeian as steel?

Gandalf wasn't a spellcaster. He's a celestial being. Morgoth raised the Misty Mountains; no-one's calling him a wizard, are they?

And you're crazy if you think this is close to PnP mages. PnP wizards are the closest things to walking gods in DnD. Clerics, Druids and Wizards are single-handedly the most powerful classes in the game.

Also, mage armor affords less protection than regular armor (Dragonhide only lasts for 30s and eats mana by the ton). Wards and cloaks aren't worth the mana cost (HURR HURR 8 DAMAGE AND MAGICKA DRAIN). A pure destruction mage is a mage that uses Destruction -and only Destruction - to deal damage instead of melee or archery. I'm seeing the differences at level 28 on Adept, where emptying my magicka bar at least twice ended up with both my frost atronachs dead, my armor spells getting laughed at and running like crazy from that Draugr boss in the Potema quest.

You're ignoring Destruction's additional effects, fire damage, ice depleting stamina, lightning depleting magika ect.

All of which are negligible. Fire DoT barely does anything, I honestly don't see any difference in enemys losing stamina, and NPC mages have powerful wards and vast mana pools.

All True... and NPC mages aren't gimped in Destro like we are -- their spells scale! It's actually different sets of spells assigned by level that look and act like normal spells, but do much more damage, e.g., a Master necromancer can pwn you quickly with his "Frostbite" spell... get magic resist as soon as you can on higher difficulty settings.

-Loth

"Traditional" roles do NOT restrict mages to a single school. My mage hasn't touched a weapon other than bound weapons.

Gandalf's role is arguable. He WAS a wizard, thus a spell-caster, though Tolkien did cast the Istari in a more mystical role, their "earth forms" were of wizards (probably going back to the druidic kind of demi-god status of Merlin). In his form in middle-earth, Gandalf was, inarguably, mortal (killed by the Balrog, brought back by Galadriel) and wileded magic. YOU might not think of Gandalf as a traditional mage, but DnD as developed by Gygax and Arneson CLEARLY used Gandalf/Merlin characters as archetypes. Even Tolkien ascribes "wizard" to Gandalf. Although, originally, Gandalf was quite a different character (more like a dwarf, but still a wizard).

Clearly, you have not played 1st ed. DnD or AD&D, talking pre-Unearthed Arcana even. Pit an equal level mage against an equal level fighter and the end result is nowhere near a foregone conclusion. BTDT. I haven't PnPed in many years, but more than a decade of PnP experience, probably 2 decades, tells me you haven't PnPed much if you think a mage is any more god than the fighter of equal level.

I've had whole crowds of mages attack me with iron daggers because they have no magika left. No stamina means no power attacks, which has proved invaluable to me in my mage play through. Plus it slows their movment speed considerably. Fire damage is negligable on one enemy, but when a fireball hits a crowd of 4 or 5 and they all burn, then you notice it.

The majority of your post makes no sense, what in the hell has gandalf got to do with anything?

Were they "Novice Mages"? The lower level NPCs have low magicka stats (of course). Getting an Adept or higher wizard to charge you with a dagger is another thing entirely. At that point, you're fighting their atronachs as well as them.

-Loth

Adept fire and ice mages...and maybe a conjourer.

Hehe... sounds like a fun battle. Did you win?
-Loth

Not the first three times, but eventually, yeah.

LOL I bet it would have helped you a little if your spells scaled like theirs!
-Loth

/Offtopic

Of course, It must be pointed out that Gandalf never used Glamdring in his spellcasting and, as the Grey, was doing things like fending off the Nazgul and creating firestorms; plus he feared using his innate power openly since Sauron would notice. And no, Galadriel did not bring him back; by all accounts he was alive when Gwahir sent him to Lothlorien. Eru Iluvatar sent him back. As for Gary Gygax, he's famous for his "The One Ring is just a Ring of invisibility" comment, so his understanding of the metaphysics of Tolkien's world is under question. Also, fun fact: sorcery in Middle-Earth is the manipulation of the corruption inflicted on Arda by Morgoth.

As for Pnp wizards...

AHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

Oh...wait...you're not joking.

Wizards turn fighters into bloody smears on the ground. Level 20 wizard>Level 20 fighter.

Or Level 20 wizard = Level 20 cleric = Level 20 Druid>Level 20 anything else>Level 20 monk. There's a reason D&D's well knwon for Linear Warrior Quadratic Wizard, even in 2e. Not touching 1e, as it had all sorts of issues with it.

In context, it does. The argument was that Gandalf wielded a sword, but that "pure mages" should use ONLY magic. I originally stated that I couldn't figure out why people insisted on pegging themselve's into their perception of "traditional" roles. I used Gandalf's wielding of a sword as an example. The responding poster emphatically stated that Gandalf was not a mage. Clearly, he was.

Damn, Lord, my friend... that is some serious hardcoe nerding right there. +1 for you, this thread is over.
-Loth


Edit: I'd like to make that body of text into a sig, but it's too long, I think.

As I said initially, mage's CAN wield swords, traditionally.

PnP mages (or any class for that matter) are, by design, crippled for a reason. PnP is, ultimately, meant to be played in groups, requiring multiple PCs in a party. Skill sets, therefore, are needfully different (or at least were, initially, according to class rules) to virtually insure that you "needed" one of each class (at least) for a well-rounded party. In a party based system, this is fine, even great. But in a SP party system? The PC needs to be at least a little more well-rounded in him/her self.

In DnD, mages have limited spells. A warrior's sword swings are inifinite. Better hope you hit those fireballs at full power with no saves or resistances or your little mage is toast.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129672

There goes your entire fighters are better than wizards argument.

P.S. The same thing you were arguing was simulated in an early 3e Dragon magazine. The level 5 wizard against the level 5 fighter? The wizard won.

EDIT: To clarify, it was pointed out that the wizard had access to things far worse than fireball.

Oh, sorry, and yes, Gandalf did die on Zirakzigil. Galdariel didn't bring his spirit back, but his body, since we're talking about mortality anyway.

Sorry, no time for that geek-read. In practice, not theory, no class, IME, has a clear advantage over another. That is, after all, the point, right? I'm not saying equal leveled classes are better than one another, rather that they have equal chance. From what little I read of the thread linked, all of the IF possibilities have been removed for "best case scenario" ones. As I said above, a fighter's sword has inifinte swings. The mage MUST rely on lack of saves/resistances, etc. as much as the fighter must rely on hitting home. Play it out, real rolls, real cases. As I said, BTDT, the results are NOT forgone conclusions.

Destruction is less encumbering than one or more bows. With a drawn bow, you are sluggish and vulnerable. With a ready-to-cast spell, however, your movement is much quicker and you can more easily avoid attacks. Unlike Archery, Destruction requires only one hand, leaving your other hand free for healing spells, and weapons, and shields, and wards, and numerous other offensive and defensive things. Although I have only been on the receiving end of runes, it seems to me that they would grant you tactical opportunities you can't get from bows.

Comparing Destruction's strength to Archery's is pointless if you mean to show how Destruction is underpowered. If Destruction is so weak that it fails to do what it is supposed to do when used properly, or is so weak that is too difficult to accomplish things with it, then it is underpowered. I can't imagine that the ultimate purpose of Destruction is to be on-par with Archery, but the discussion in this thread sure makes it sound that way.

I've linked proof that wizards are superior to fighters. You're just going "real rolls lol".

Fun fact: Fly + range spells. Or gate in a pit fiend. Or bestow curse (which uses the Fighter's weakest save). Or level drain. Or summon an incorporeal wraith and teleport away. Bye-bye fighter.

LOL, yes, because bows are completely unavailable to fighters. Also assume that you have all your optimal spells ready and that you won't be facing a non-fighter ever, a thief's backstab, etc.

Perks negate archery's issues. Destruction is only potent when dual-castingm which svcks up mana, and wards and armor spells are worse than their normal counterparts overall. Runes are effectively useless.