Looking at the Basic D&D pdf, I noticed that the mountain dwarf gets +2 Con and +2 Str; I assume this is a typo since the hill dwarf gets +2 Con and +1 Wis. All other races excepthumans follow the +2 prime ability and +1 secondary ability format. Do we need a V0.11 already?
Mearl said in a tweet recently that "most" of the races follow the +2/+1 pattern not all.
It is stated in two different places once under the race on pg 13 and again on the ability score summary chart on page 8.
I am pretty sure it is not a typo.
Now, why? Good question, the only thing I can think is that the sub races ability of gaining armor proficiency is redundant with most classes that can make good use of their higher strength.
So for fighters and clerics you pick mountain dwarf for the strength, for wizards the armor proficiency. For people who choose race based on things like that, you could always play a mountain dwarf rogue and make little use of either ability if you choose to, because a mountain dwarf rogue sounds good to you.
It's due to the fact that a mountaint dwarf fighter would get very little benifit otherwise.
But, it does make mountain dwarf armored wizards win.
That or mountain dwarf armored monks punching with Str.
I don't think it is a typo either. Dwarven toughness is MUCH better than Dwarven Armor Training insofar as any Strength using class is concerned. I am willing to bet that the +2 to Str is a result of that. Meanwhile, a wizard, who will make more use out of the armor trait that any class that could make use of the Strength, gets no real use from the Strength bonus. It seems balanced to me...
My theory: they gave mountain dwarf an extra point of strength just to screw with the whole "low str + GoOP" idea.
Seriously though, any class that benefits from the Strength is unlikely to benefit from the free medium/light armor proficency. Conversely, any class that benefits from the armor proficency probably doesn't care much about the Strength bonus. So it makes sense to give them an extra ability point.
Poor humans...
Lawolf wrote:
Assuming monsters are still going to suck and not be able to hit most of the time, which has been my experience anyways, the +2 to strength will help out more gooder melee types as they'll get an extra +1 to hit and damage. Again, assuming monsters' AC's still suck, they won't necessarily need the +1 to hit, but +1 to damage is always good; in my unprofessional opinion.
I don't think it's a typo.
In the summary of ability scores you also have racial adjustments and the mountain dwarf gains a +2 bonus to Strength. I doubt they made the same typo twice. Mouahahahaha, I want to play a dwarf fighter now.
mellored wrote:
They removed best feature they had for martial class,bonus to ac while in med and heavy armor. Now they have only proficiencies which are redundant since every martial class gives them and strength bonus is only usefull for melee characters any way. Or you can use this bonus to get 10 str with your armor clad dwarf wizard and use points for other stats :P
Haytam wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Haytam wrote:
Why bother mentioning the human variant if there are no feats in Basic D&D?
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
I agree that this is a typo.
It was clearly supposed to say +20 Con.
I have to agree. Mtn Dwarf is clearly the best wizard. With the +2 str and Strx15 encumberance level, a Mtn Dwarf wizard will NEVER have to worry about encumberance, and +2 Con is gold for any wizard. Assuming there is a feat that gives heavy armor prof (and I deem that likely), the Mtn Dwarf Wizard is beautifully set up for it esp now that MCing looks to be nerfed a bit.
The other thing Mtn Dwarf is awesome at is Druid......
-Polaris
docdoom77 wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Bardic_Dave wrote:
Dwarves:
"Speed: Your base speed is 25 feet. Your speed is not reduced by wearing heavy armor"
Seems you might have been reading it wrong...
Bardic_Dave wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Except that there's no way for mountain dwarf wizards to become proficient in heavy armor in the Basic Rules. Presumably there will be a feat allowing for it in the PHB, but honestly ... I don't see it as being that big of a deal. I foresee there still being plenty of non-mountain dwarf wizards in the future of the game, if for no other reason than that combo won't fit many people's character concepts.
What's all this about mountain dwarves being the "best" wizards? Why aren't high elves and humans still better? High elves and humans get +1 Intelligence. The dwarf doesn't. Plus, the elves still get the dex, and the human gets almost as much strength, and con as the dwarf (plus dex too).
It's the best wizard in terms of surviving long enough to reach higher levels, whereas your average unarmored high elf or human wizard is going to bite it while they're still an apprentice. 
pukunui wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
"and dwarves are the best everything"
Dwarves are not the best Elves!
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Thalion94518 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Even so, Polaris, how many mountain dwarf wizards do you honestly expect to see in actual play?
pukunui wrote:
Polaris wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Polaris wrote:
But you would need to wear at least scale mail all the time to have any benefit other than saving 1 spell slot a day with not casting mage armour.
If you had taken high elf instead you would have had +1 AC from your dex being an elf, and still be able to stealth if invisible,
So Dwarf AC 14 (with splint +Dex) and can't stealth
Elf AC13 (with mage armour +(Dex, which will be 1 higher than the dwarf)) and can stealth and not carry aropund a bunch of heavy armour.
Not seeing the great advantage other than "looking cool" and 1 spell slot a day
grendel111111 wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
kalil wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Because hobs? Is that your reasoning? Only dwarf wizards can possibly survive to see a new day in this terribly world?
Fun fact: Regardless of race, all wizards who make it to 20th-level did so.
And what makes a wizard a "better" wizard, exactly? By your standards. Because an extra HP and 1 higher AC does not make you better at being a wizard. The high elf (and arguably the human) is still the better wizard. At being a wizard. I can't see how that is disputable.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
kalil wrote:
Polaris wrote:
I played a Dwarf Wizard in the campaign I was in in high school. Not from the char-op point of view - I spent a feat on Greataxe proficiency, as I recall - but because I liked the flavor of the dwarf, and one becoming a Wizard in spite of tradition seemed like a fun idea to play with.
Wiping the smirk off the DM's face when their NPC assassin Tumbled through the party to stab my dwarf and finding no, I didn't have less than twenty hit points at fifth level, was a joy.
I've had the odd dwarf caster in games since - I remember running one or two through NWN, for instance. From the mechanical-optimization point of view, I liked the extra hit points but anything else was gravy as far as I was concerned. I did briefly play a Dwarf Warlock in 4e, though - the miners dug too deep and found something, and he made a deal.
Will I play one? Probably! Because it's kind of a tradition of mine. Even if I weren't playing one, though, I'm not sure I'd burn one of my low-level slots on Mage Armor every day - I'd be more likely to play like a 3e Wizard, hide from melee, and save those slots for other reality-warping.
I will say that the armor-proficiency and strength bonus don't seem to both improve any given class - the former's useful for some classes, the latter for others, but what benefits from both?
Skoldorf wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
This entire argument is really pointless. The Mountain Dwarf isn't a better wizard. The Mountain Dwarf is a strong race that is proficient in light and medium armor. Being a good wizard has nothing to do with having armor proficiencies.
People will play a Mountain Dwarf Wizard if they want to play a Mountain Dwarf Wizard. And they can wear armor! Yippee! Good for them! But they miss out on other things that other races get like extra Cantrips or the Lucky trait or a free Feat & Skill or bonus movement and natural hiding or extra Int.
There is more to the game than having a good AC. Also, dumping Dex for Strength and Armor probably gives you Disadvantage on Stealth....and it also means your Dex saves and initiative will be lower.
And most importantly, COMBAT isn't the entirety of the game. Have any of you heard of the Exploration and Interaction teirs of play?
Oh, and the idea that Int is "not that important" for Wizards has absolutely no basis in fact. Intelligence based checks, Intelligence saves, spell save DC, spell attack, prepared spells per day, possible bonus damage (Empowered Evocation).....oh yeah, totally worthless.
While I think the mountain dwarf wizard will be a good pick by players starting at level 1 it won't be as good in the long run as a high elf 16dex 16int fighter/wizard if action surge isn't limited by the multiclass rules.
Being able to throw out 3 spells in the first turn, one of which can be time stop for extra turns buffing yourself after throwng out some AOE, after every short rest by a character that can wear heavy armor and gets magical defencive bonuses will possibly drive many a DM nuts.
No need to worry too much about it right now since we don't know the limitations of multiclassing, but I wouldn't be suprised if they just allow for class features to be picked up as normal.
Warlord666 wrote:
Warlord666 wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
I love that certain people automatically know "why" dwarven wizards became popular in the last couple editions (or even this one, to carry the idea through). They completely miss the concept that a large factor is novelty. Never before was it a thing. Opening the door to playing arcane dwarves meant it was (and is), of course, going to be popular. It was fresh. It was different.
As I said before, one of my first (and favorite) characters in 4e was a dwarven wizard. Not because he was somehow "better", but for roleplaying/non-crunch reasons. He was fun to play because he broke the stereotype. And I'm fairly certain I wasn't alone in doing it for that reason alone.
Looking at a statistic with a preconceived bias, and letting it bring you to the conclusion you wanted, that is fallacious if ever anything was.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
mellored wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
so to wrap up the lessons here:
1. if you are a min/maxer then you MUST play a mtn dwarf wizard or have your MinMax adventurers card taken from you.
2. if you are a normal player who wants to have fun and not exactly worry about "whats the best numbers" you can play any race you damn well please as a wizard and have fun.
"having Fun" is a relaive turn based on the person, and don't let anyone influence you into playing in a way you don't want to.
i can't wait to see this argument when the other caster classes come out.
I think you guys,(Polaris and FFSAA), are going to find out that 5e is NOT 3e or 4e. The things you are claiming about the MD Wizard as being a big deal are actually VERY insignifficant. 5e is not a game for min-maxing and exploiting loop-holes in rules. I think you guys are going to be a little dissaopinted by how much story and role playing trumps the importance of what you're saying in this thread when it comes to having fun. The eeking out of every little advantage just doesn't carry the value that it used to in past editions.
Spykes wrote:
silentdante wrote:
I see we're still arguing nonsense in this thread and ignoring the obvious things. I already pointed out why this whole argument is flawed.
1) Using a spell slot to improve your defenses is not a "waste" of a spell slot. Suggesting otherwise is pretty ridiculous.
2) In my experience actually playtesting D&DNext (which some posters here have previously admitted to not actually doing much of), the Mage doesn't always use Mage Armor. They're fine with a lower AC. If they wanted a higher AC, they probably wouldn't have played a Wizard.
3) Dexterity helps you for more things than just AC. Dumping DEX in favor of Heavy Armor means you sacrifice everything else that's tied to Dexterity (saves, skills, initiative, ranged attacks, finesse attacks, etc.).
4) Mountain Dwarves are NOT proficient in Heavy Armor. How is this Wizard supposed to acquire Heavy Armor proficiency anyway? Sure, maybe via a Feat, but that requires spending a very limited resource.
5) Is Heavy Armor worth spending a feat on it? Maybe. You're probably BETTER off getting a boost to Intelligence since that helps you be a Wizard in every way possible. After that, you're probably better off getting a Caster-related feat like more spells/day. Because if you got Arcane Initiate (from the Playtest), you would not only gain more Cantrips, but you would also get a "free" slot to use for Mage Armor. You come out ahead and you don't have to rely on equipment or sacrifice your stealth/speed/dex stats to do it.
Ramzour wrote:
kalil wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
abanathie wrote:
kalil wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Polaris wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Ok, thanks for the lively debate and pointing out it wasn't a typo.
As for the Elf vs Dwarf wiz/better AC rants, I think it will come down to how good of a minmaxer the player is and what magical goodies will available as the game progresses, making all this vitriol moot.
Lastly, for the anti magic using dwarf crowd, read up on the Thundering here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/archfr/20001018 . And if any one picks on my brother Fyalfamir for using spells, I'll give them a talkin'-to with my axe! May Moradin's blessing be upon you.
I think the fact that the dwarf will only get 16 INT or higher by rolled abilities is worth considering. The race produces wizards with strong defence: more HP and easily achieved high AC. The spells will be used for offence.
The high elves, however, bring more offensive power to the class: DEX is more easily used for offence than the dwarf's STR, and +1 INT pushes the score to 16 (array or point-buy). This wizard might consider using some magic for defence so compensate for the poor defence brought by race.
The dwarf will be more able to take a beating.
The elf will be a better shot (array or point-buy) with spells and weapons alike.
Whether or not this is balanced will depend on circumstances. I cannot say which race will be more powerful overall. It seems alright to me.
To be fair to the elves, there's probably going to be a medium armor feat. So they can play armored casters too.
Also dex is good for saves (though so is Con), and initivie.
Spykes wrote:
Polaris wrote:
First, wizards don't have any armor proficency, not even light. So their max AC is 15.
Second, by level 8 you should upgrade to scale, giving dwarfs 16 AC. Later they can upgrade to 17.
In addition, they can put into Con.
Dwarf Wis: 20 Con/ 14 Dex / 20 Int / 17 AC + 2 Str.
Elf Wis: 16 Con / 20 Dex / 20 Int / 15 AC + the worst cantrip.
The only reason you'd be an elf wizard is for the speed (or flavor), in which case, you want wood elf.
FFSAA wrote:
mellored wrote:
Karnos wrote:
I have a feeling they will makes some changes to casting in armour.
Ramzour wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
mellored wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Some very good arguments in this thread. I suppose the only mechanical reason to be a high elf wizard is the +1 INT, which in itself, is not really enough is it? Polaris' point that the extra cantrip will be the "worst" may be elitist, but he is not wrong. High elves will all be slightly wizardly, which is pretty cool IMO, but the dedicated wizards will get very little extra...
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
So lets expand this. What are the 3 races for the other 3 classes?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Polaris wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
It's nice to see the minmax arguements in this thread over 1 or 2 points of AC, considering in Pathfinder the difference between a newbie making a rogue and a optimizer's paladin is probably the paladin doing 3x the damage, having double the hp and twice the AC.
Personally I'd probably go mountain dwarf for wizard in organized play. You don't know if you're going to have a defensive fighter and you don't know if you're going to have a healer. So the medium armor is really going to be nice. But in a well ran table group the wizard shouldn't be getting hit against his AC all that much so it's a lot less important.
The level 1 slot being burned for mage armor is really just a low level problem. By the time you hit level 10-ish level 1 slots are useless for anything other than utility anyway.
But these are pretty small min/max considerations compared to 3.x type problems. If this is as bad as it gets 5e is in really good shape.
All I can say is that I am very thankful for my current group of players...
Orethalion wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Polaris wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Polaris wrote:
One advantage to 20 dex elf is that you can cast haste on yourself.
Which let's you cast a spell, and fire an arrow.
I would still make it a wood elf though.
Or halfling.
Ramzour wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Maybe that +2 on Strength is their way of saying:
"Hey look here... we're giving away SO much Str bonus... please make some Str-based fighters. Wait, no, why are you all still making Dex-based fighters? Hello, Str-based fighter anyone? Hey, come back here with that Dex-based fighter, why don't you use a Str-based one instead? Hello? Is anyone still out there? Hello?"
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Karnos wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
The INT bonus is neglible in the best of circumstances given the bonus spell slot you'd get is going to be wasted on Mage Armor. later on, it's moot since the Dwarf catches up to the Elf by the 2nd, or 3rd at latest, stat up, and that's if the Elf neglects his CON and DEX which tanks his survivability, something the Dwarf Wizard doesn't need to worry about.
The cantrips as well aren't going to be that big a bonus since you can only use one a turn anyways(unless you use Haste on yourself which is still an option for the Dwarf), and chances are you already took the ones you wanted with the Wizard's initial choices.
The extra speed can be nice, but since Wizards typically fight at range anyways, it's not that big a deal. Plus the Dwarf's extra tankiness means he fairs better should something manage to get into melee with him. Trance isn't that much of an advantage because lacking it doesn't mean players can't do night shifts.
If you're boosting DEX to make ranged useful, then you're not boosting your INT(ie, your main Wizard stat). Plus I thought that's what the attack cantrips were for?
Being able to be a smug jerk to the party isn't exactly something I'd call a bonus when it makes it more likely you'll be left for bait when things get hairy so the rest of the party can escape.
Your houserule is noted, but as feats are stated to be optional, I'm going with stat ups only.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Considering you're putting a 16 in DEX instead of int, it means you're actual casting abiltiy(aka, the whole point of the Wizard) is suffering. meanwhile, the Dwarf is free to start 14 in DEX for max Medium Armor bonus while putting the 16 in INT and putting points into it every stat up.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Im still used to being able to put a 16 in my main stat from 4e/Pathfinder at character creation.
it still doesn't change all that much tbh. As I said earlier, the Elf is one INT ahead of the Dwarf, but suffers a lot more for putting all his points into INT, whereas a Dwarf gives up nothing for it. He has more HP from the CON bonus, is fine putting a 14 into DEX and never touching it again since +2 is the max DEX bonus for medium armor anyways, and the Elf Wizard needs to have Mage Armor up to have matching AC. The INT bonus from the Elf only gives it the edge until around the 2nd ability score boost, 3rd if the Elf tanked his survivability by dumping all his boosts into INT.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Going by the standard array given in the basic rules (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8), let's say...(base score--->post racial score(+mod)). The follow explanation also assumes, again, that neither the Dwarf or Wizard will be taking feats and will only take stat improvements.
STR-----8-->10(+0)
CON---13->15(+2)
DEX---14-->14(+2)
INT----15--->15(+2)
WIS----12--->12(+1)
CHA---10--->10(+0)
I can dump STR since Wizards don't really need it, though the +2 from Mountain Dwarf helps me carry that heavier medium armor I guess.
My CON should be fine until I max my INT out and can dump more points into it if I really need to.
My DEX is set for life since +2 is the max bonus from the current Medium Armors.
INT is started high as possible and every improvement will be put there to reach 20 asap.
WIS should be fine until I can put points into it after INT is maxed.
CHA is there.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
OK so same assumptions
EnglishLanguage wrote:
For me the main problem is not so much Dwarven wizards but Dwarven warriors
If Str and Con are both valued for the class then it is very powerful.
So a Human Barbarian or Fighter "Conan" might have:
Str 16 Con 15 Dex 14 Int 11 Wis 9 Cha 13
Whilst a Mountain Dwarf Barabarian or Fighter "Gotrec" could have
Str 17 Con 15 Dex 14 Int 10 Wis 8 Cha 12 and Darkrvision + Resistance + Stone cunning etc
The Dwarf also benefits more from the first Stat increase and gain Str 18 and Con 16 rather than just a Str18.
The effect is even greater if a point buy system is used as if Str/Con are to be increased passed 13 the cost is double whilst the extra bonus Str/Con is not halved. So in effect you can get +6 stats compared with +6 to stats (if two are Str and Con) + extra stuff.
So a point buy MIn/Maxed Conan might be
Str 16 Con 16 Dex 14 Int 10 Wis 9 Cha 12
Whilst Gotrek might be
Str16 Con 16 Dex 14 Int 10 Wis 8 Cha 12 + Darkvision + Poison Resistance which again seems just better?
If we create a human Paladin "Roland"then we might have stats:
Str 16 Con 14 Dex 9 Int 11 Wis 13 Cha 15
And our Mountain Dwarf Paladin "Valgar"
Str 16 Con 14 Dex 8 Int 10 Wis 13 Cha 15 +Dark vision + Poison Resistance+ Stone Cunning etc
Also if we roll for our albilities scores you get about a 55% chance of an 18 Strength rather than a 30% chance for a Human.
So while it is at least up for debate whether or not Mountain Dwarves are better wizards I don't see that it is really debatable that they are better warriors, as they have almost exactly the same statistics + other stuff?
I think that it would be better to reduce the +2 Strength to +1 and make Dwarven Armour training be expanded to say if you already have both Light and Medium armour then you gain Heavy armour proficiency and if you have already have all armour proficiences you gain +1 to AC or some such
It is also problematic to me for world building for the Dwarven subraces to be so disparate, a +2 difference in Strength is the equivalent of the diffence between Dwarves and nimble Elves for Dexterity!
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Unless he really needed a Dex save 
Whole lot of theory crafting there Polaris. How many games of 5th ed have you played with the recently released rules? Or how, as the DM of a 5th edition game, are you going to change the rules to deal with the problems that you perceive?
i don't expect to suddenly see my players declare that all wizards must be mountain dwarves, so I don't have a problem with it. Have YOUR games actually been affected by this?
Slyck314 wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
I was thinking of the elf going for 20 Dex. And it was really just an off hand comment, but it does remind me that I don't like the add 2 to one stat option. I wish it was just 1 to two stats. Anyways, way off topic.
Polaris wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Simply from their history they usually have some kinda stealth ability which may be better then having a higher AC.
I did a comparison between the Mountain Dwarf and the High Elf. Instead of just making data up like other people here have been doing, I showed all my work. I'll present the conclusions first.
CONCLUSIONS
- Mountain Dwarf is better if you want a bit more HP and AC, and better Con saves
- High Elf is better if you want more cantrips known, spells prepared per day, higher spell DC, higher Spell Attack bonus, no Stealth penalty, no Speed penalty, and better Dex saves
- If you measure the effectiveness of a Wizard by their survivability, then the Mountain Dwarf wins.
- If you measure the effectiveness of a Wizard by their ability to be a Wizard, then the High Elf wins.
ASSUMPTIONS:
* Standard Array: 15,14,13,12,10,08
* 1st Priority: INT
* 2nd Priority: the best DEX/AC possible
* 3rd Priority: CON
* Basic Rules RAW (i.e. no Feats)
* Base HP: +4 hp/level
COMPARISON: Who is better in which category?
Level 1 Mountain Dwarf vs High Elf
- MD +2 hp
- MD +2 AC....or HE +1 AC (if HE using Mage Armor)
- HE +1 cantrip
- HE +1 spell prepared
- HE +1 spell DC
- HE +1 Spell Attack
- HE no stealth Disadv
- HE 30-ft speed vs MD 25-ft
- HE +2 Dex saves
Level 5 Mountain Dwarf vs High Elf
- MD +10 hp
- MD +4 AC....or MD +1 AC (if HE using Mage Armor)
- HE +1 cantrip
- HE +1 spell prepared
- HE +1 spell DC
- HE +1 Spell Attack
- HE no stealth Disadv
- HE 30-ft speed vs MD 25-ft
- HE +1 Dex saves
Level 10 Mountain Dwarf vs High Elf
- MD +20 hp
- MD +4 AC....or MD +1 AC (if HE using Mage Armor)
- HE +1 cantrip
- HE +1 spell prepared
- HE +1 spell DC
- HE +1 Spell Attack
- HE no stealth Disadv
- HE 30-ft speed vs MD 25-ft
- HE +1 Dex saves
Data:
Mountain Dwarf Wizard 1
STR 12
DEX 13
CON 16
INT 15
WIS 12
CHA 08
HP 9
AC 15 (Scale)
Prof +2
Stealth Disadvantage
Speed 25
Spell DC 12
Spell Attack +4
Cantrips: 3
Spell Slots: 3
Polaris wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Polaris wrote:
I think it's pretty clear from your responses to my post that you are grasping at straws here. The conclusions I made were clearly stated and based upon actual RAW Characters. Depending on your race choice, you'll either get better survivabiliity or better Wizarding. Neither is inherently better or worse. It depends upon your playstyle.
I presented a very fair comparison between the Dwarf and Elf. I did not skew anything in favor of the Elf. You keep accusing me of doing so, but you're wrong. The data speaks for itself. You can continue to shout "Mountain Dwarves are the best Wizard race" all you want, but that doesn't make you correct in an objective sense. You are intentionally trying to dismiss and ignore several of the comparison points and it makes you look extremely foolish.
I have clearly proven that Mountain Dwarves are not always the superior Wizard race. I showed that they are better in some ways, but worse in others. If you prefer the survivability playstyle, then by all means play the Dwarf. That's YOUR choice. But that doesn't make them objectively better than Elves.
You have failed to show that Mountain Dwarves were objectively better, whereas I showed the truth. It's a tradeoff. Since you have failed to prove your claim, this debate is now over. Thanks for playing.
Is this a problem for you Polaris? If so how are you going to deal with it at your table?
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
kalil wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Ramzour: If you feel that going into combat with 13 AC and 7 HP is a feasible option then I think you and Polaris might be discussing this from wildly differing backgrounds. That might be why you will never see eye to eye on this. Just saying.
JohnLynch wrote:
Thanks for that Polaris. I found that much more illuminating than pages of arguing over theory crafting. Does anyone else think they'll institute similar rules? I personally won't be as I doubt my players will look at the options and decide they'll only make dwarven wizards.
kalil wrote:
Polaris wrote:
When you look at the concentration rules, the mountain dwarf comes out ahead.
Karnos wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
So, for those of you that do consider the MD armor proficiency overpowered on a mage; what do you think about the following house rule?
If you have no armor proficiency you gain proficiency with light armor. If you have light armor proficiency you gain medium armor proficiency. If you have medium armor proficiency you gain heavy armor proficiency. If you have heavy armor prtoficiency you gain a +1 bonus to AC while wearing heavy armor.
Polaris wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Lets look at this from the other side. Whether or not Mountain Dwarfs make the best wizards, wizards certainly make the best mountain dwarfs.
Their primary characteristic is completely useless for fighters and clerics who are already have light and medium proficiencies. It's also fairly useless for rogues who will generally want their full dex bonus.
Polaris wrote:
kalil wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
I was curious as to what an elf wizard having +1 Int bonus would mean at level 11, so....
6th level slot chain lightning hitting 4 targets. 65% base hit rate for elf and 60% on dwarf:
20 Int elf
50*.65 + 50*.35*.5 = 32.5 + 8.75 = 41.25 * 4 = 165
19 Int dwarf
49*.60 + 49*.40*.5 = 29.4 + 9.8 = 39.2 * 4 = 156.8
Polaris wrote:
aw4e wrote:
kalil wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
Ramzour wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
If you have alot of people to tank for you, like 2 clerics and 2 fighters, then you probably don't need the AC as much.
abanathie wrote:
abanathie wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Page 44 has rules for donning and doffing (funny word...) armor. But I can't find rules on sleeping in armor.. I assume it's bad, but I can't find the evidence.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
abanathie wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
If a monster doesn't recognize the threat of a wizard and want it dead first, it's not intelligent.
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Steerpike84 wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Geek the Mage first isn't always going to be true in 5e. If you have a single big target foe, the fighter and rogue are going to be doing the most damage to it. The rogue is also really well suited for taking damage from a single source too(uncanny dodge). The fighter will even out burst the mage due to action surges.
Against packs the evoker is king because of sculpting and AE damage. They also defend pretty well against packs because shield gets more of a benefit the more enemies you have swinging at you.
Though if your DM is Polaris all you need to do is have your cleric cast warding bond on the wizard and giggle as he tanks the big bad. Of course the MD gets props here for doing that in real armor instead of a dress- er robe.
But I'm really liking the way 5e is shaping up. It seems like the game has a lot of tactical depth and more than one way of doing things.
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Polaris wrote:
aw4e wrote:
aw4e wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
abanathie wrote:
aw4e wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
abanathie wrote:
You are an average challenge 1/4 NPC bandit. You see an armored character in plate mail with a shield and longsword up front, a shorter armored character with a light crossbow, and two cloaked figures holding long bows.
Quick, identify the wizard!
Orethalion wrote:
Just want to point out, my experience with the internet is that when someone is arguing in a topic and the topic is... oh... 9 pages now or so, no one is going to convince the other side of their position. It's pretty much diminishing returns at this point. Anyway, just wanted to say that, continue about your day!
Karnos wrote:
Evenglarexi wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Most NPC's will judge who is the wizard by looking at the armor, so if you win initiative then shoot the guy not wearing any armor. You are more likely to hit and take one of the opposing side down, and smart money he is a spell caster. That is another point in favor of mountain dwarf wizards. Once spells start flying around, then attack whoever is doing that. Also in a world with magical healing the guy with the holy symbol is a primary target aswell.
Paraxis wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
I think the look of classes is going to be a lot more variable in 5e than other editions. The stealthy halfling in the chain shirt dual wielding daggers could be my finesse based luck cleric who went Wis/Dex and took daggers because they're the simple finesse weapons that are available to him.
Dual wielding is open to everyone. Dex is a viable melee damage stat. Light/med/heavy armor choices are a lot more open. The Dex fighter might start in scale and end up in studded leather as they level up. Shields are also really good even without feats.
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
aw4e wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
I've removed content from this thread because Batting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
man, reading this thread it's easy to tell who had min/max hard DM's and who had storyteller DM's and which camp they feel they must play in now to survive as a mage.
i am not sure if it's even possible for some of you to have fun when you play, but hey, sure is fun on the forums
I think, for the vast majority of cases, people are going to continue playing what they feel like playing, regardless of whatever math equations or appeals to verisimilitude get regurgitated here. That "what they feel like playing" will vary from person to person. It's working as intended, and it is working well. None of the options present a commanding or broken advantage in play, they just speak to different preferences (meta and otherwise).
Place a high emphasis on extra durability, especially early on? Great! Play a dwarf!
Place a high emphasis on INT and squeezing out a little more damage? Great! Play an elf!
Place a high emphasis on staying true to a concept? Great! Play whatever that concept is!
Want a cheeseburger? Great! So do I. But it's late here, and all the decent burger joints are not open!
Polaris wrote:
Gnomes look to have +2 to Int.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Party lineup: Fighter, Paladin, Wizard (me). All level 2.
3 combats:
1) 5 insects of some sort
2) a large cat (flavoured as a leopard)
3) 3 Human Rogues
To be perfectly honest I don't even know if the character had Mage armour.
Gank the Wizard first is actually a *really* bad strategy given the new spellcasting system, if that wizard has Shield availible and Mage Armor up, as they will probably be the highest AC character in the group as long as they have slots avilible to cast Shield.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Arguments that proclaim "all monsters will do this" or "all DMs will do that" are inherently flawed. I think some people here forget that D&D is a roleplaying game played by humans in real life and that the goal of the game is to have FUN and not "win" against the Players.
There is no "best way" to assign ability scores. There is no best race for a certain class. There are no best cantrips. Monsters have no ultimate, preprogrammed kill order against the party. Why don't you guys actually go play the game and see what REALLY happens around the table with REAL people?
silentdante wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
aw4e wrote:
kalil wrote:
aw4e wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Polaris wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Polaris, have you actually read through the Starter Set adventure or are you just theorizing what COULD happen? I mean, all you've proven with 4 paragraphs of text is that a monster might hit you during an ambush. You didn't need to explain that. AaronofBarbaria already said that with his 4 bullet points. And he was not wrong either. All of those things DO need to happen in order for a PC to get hit.
But the bigger point was that not all Bugbears are going to automatically insta-kill one of the PCs. This ONLY OCCURS if the DM sets up an ambush, no one in the party notices the hidden monsters, the monsters target the squishy PC, the monsters HIT the squishy PC, and then the monster rolls high enough damage to drop them to 0 hp. None of these things are automatic. There are at least two DM decisions and at least 3 dice rolls involved before the PC drops. That's no where near automatic.
Ramzour wrote:
Bugbears have high intelligence and military knowledge now? I think you're thinking about Hobgoblins.
The rules are not going to stop you, as a DM, from making bad decisions. If you choose to ignore common sense and good judgement, you cannot complain about the results of your decisions.
Polaris wrote:
Hahaha, great stuff AaronOfBarbaria. It's amazing how much more sense things make when you use actual game numbers instead of made-up numbers and ill-informed assumptions!
But wait, using the REAL numbers doesn't help the sky-is-falling arguments! I guess that's why certain posters like cherry-picking data and using ridiculous made-up situations....because if you make stuff up, then you can prove whatever point you want.
Me? I'll stick with facts and logic.
Polaris wrote:
I'm just waiting for the feat that gives you light and medium armor.
Orethalion wrote:
I still hold to the idea that a monster shouldn't be able to tell exactly what a characer is wearing. A breastplate could easily be covered by a cloak, leather armor could be worn under baggy clothing or a robe, a chainmail shirt could be worn under a tunic.
Pretty much only heavy armor should be immediatly identifiable, anything else can and typically will be disguised.
Is that guy wearing a fur robe, or is it actually hide armor? Is that noble-looking fellow wearing shiny leather armor, or simply a pair of fashionable leather pants and a leather jacket? Is that cloaked figure a begger in rags, or is he hiding a steel breastplate?
The only thing that is hard to conceal really is a shield, but there are enough 2-hander or duel-wield using fighters and ranged characters who can't use a shield that it isn't really a sure indication. And even if a wizard can't proficiently use a shield, he could certainly carry one while marching, just to confuse would-be assassins (or bugbears).
Personally I think enemies using high precision extreme military tactics is the farthest thing from reality you can get. It's like watching the movie Heat and thinking all bank robberies are dudes with M-16's with complex getaway plans. Most people are pretty dumb and combat isn't exactly going to make them any smarter.
I usually have my mobs go for the closest and when they don't I'll randomize the results. The wizard cast a sleep spell and take out 3 of the 6 goblins? Well, I'll roll a 1d6 and on high roll the rest of the goblins are too dumb to go after the wizard who's waving his hands and chanting. I just think that's more realistic. People, monsters and animals are going to act in very unpredictable ways.
It's fine if the PCs don't, but they're basically the stars of the show.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
What gets me is that it is expected, rather it is DEMANDED, that the monster damage be much much lower than any sort of equivilent player damage. Yet when it comes to tactics and strategy, the monsters are supposed to be top-notch experts.
If the monsters were really that smart, they would learn a few wizard spells and hit the party with a 3d6 damage burning hands instead of these piddly damage weapon attacks.
Dracones wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Polaris wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Polaris wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
That, and any setting where Wizards exist and the existence of magic is common knowledge, assuming no intelligent monster has no idea what a wizard is or looks like is silly.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
I made a mountain dwarf wizard, and while it was kind of neat, I wouldn't say it's the best choice for a wizard. Medium armor isn't the huge advantage it's made out to be, and if you spend a feat for heavy armor, you're just falling further behind the non-dwarven wizard in Int. A starting wizard is probably only going to be able to afford hide armor, which is worse than mage armor. Even once you can afford better armor, it's only giving you an advantage of a couple of points. Besides, with 14 dex you can potentially get a 17 AC with half plate, so taking a feat just to get 1 more AC is a waste IMO. Plus, then your dex won't suck, which is important since there are so many dex saves and for initiative. Even with spells like Invisibility you still need dex to hide. You may not need to invest as much into Dex as other wizards (if they even care about maxing their AC), but this is also balanced by the fact that the +2 strength bonus is useless, and dumping dex isn't really a very good idea.
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Looking at the armor list I'd think a huge range of armors even some in the heavy category could be hidden under clothes, so when the enemy just sees a bunch of people in cloaks and normal clothing who is the wizard? Personally I think the elf being proficient in perception will help a wizard survive more than the dwarf getting armor proficiencies, but maybe I just play too much shadowrun and other games where noticing the ambush is important.
Ahglock wrote:
If you are not proficient in a weapon, then you don't know how to use it, carry it, and take care of it {at least I wouldn't assume this}. That would quickly be evident to an observant person that was proficient with said weapon [which brings us back to Cha based bluff/disquise checks].
-Polaris
Polaris wrote:
Some of the arguments and assumptions people are making in this thread are beyond ridiculous. So now every class has to conform to some preconceived stereotype and carry certain weapons and dress a certain way? There is so little logic in that way of thinking that I'm convinced these posters are doing nothing but intentionally trolling in this thread.
Bottom Line: Players will play the characters they WANT to play. Not everyone wants to min/max some theoretically ideal build because some players enjoy roleplaying. And before you go shouting "stormwind fallacy", I never said that you cannot roleplay an armored wizard. I'm saying that there is more than one viable build in D&D for each class and claiming otherwise is ignorant.
Orethalion wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
XunVulDor wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
Polaris wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Even if you don't know which one is the wizard, you can, and likely should, target the guy with the least amount of armor.
Who cares if he's a bard, sorcerer, rogue, barbarian, or ranger. They are easier to hit then the guy in plate with a shield.
Monks are the only ones that spoil this stragegy. Since they can get top AC without armor, yet still be hard to hit.
Polaris wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Polaris wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
mellored wrote:
Karnos wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
It's too situational a standard to apply across the board. Maybe the orcs would rather prove themselves against the dwarf cleaving their brethren in half with an axe. Maybe the kobolds are too stupid to realize that strange song the old man is singing is a spell being cast. Maybe the assassin did his research and knows to drop the old wizard before he can utter a single syllable.
Regardless, mage armor is not, strictly speaking, a requirement. It might be a very, very, VERY wise investment, but it is not a requirement. Just like picking a greatsword over a greataxe is not a requirement. I think the crux of your argument is basically that the Wizard who takes mage armor (or the Mountain Dwarf racial armor training) is going to be harder to hit than the Wizard who relies on neither. And you are correct.
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
mellored wrote:
Polaris wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion
Lacking any other information other than "That guy has light armour, that lady has heavy armour, that guy has no armour, and in the world I live in people with no armour are the most likely ones to be able to throw fire and lightning and rains of poison toads" - and assuming "I slink quietly away and become a baker" is not an option - which one do you fire your bow at first?
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Still really doesn't answer the question.
All other things being equal (and your not a rust monster), what do you attack first, no armor, light armor, medium armor, or heavy armor?
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
"According to Polaris, that's not the case. The people most likely to throw fire and lightning will be mountain dwarves in armor. "
My apologies Orethalion if I was unclear. My question was self contained and does not reference anything about Polaris's beliefs.
To repeat, "Lacking any other information other than "That guy has light armour, that lady has heavy armour, that guy has no armour, and in the world I live in people with no armour are the most likely ones to be able to throw fire and lightning and rains of poison toads" - who's the priority target?
Polaris wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Go to a museum and actually look at real period armor, and tell me that it's easy to hide.
-Polaris
Followup question.
Imagine you were in a game, playing an archer PC, attacked by a group of NPC's, with no knowledgge of what their classes or capabilities are other than what I stated above.
Who would you have your character shoot at, knowing what you know about the D&D world?
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
mellored wrote:
Karnos wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Karnos wrote:
"I'd likely assume the other NPC are just lower level minions, and it would make sense to kill them quickly first, since the powerful wizard probably has lots of hit points and magical defenses."
Leaving aside the fact that the question I asked specifically states that you DON'T know the capabilities of the NPCs, that's an interesting conclusion. With exactly the same information I would attack the wizard first, because if he's THAT powerful he's going to kill all of you if you don't take him out as quickly as possible.
I think the essence of the disagreement here is, how likely you assume it is in the fantasy world you play in that an unarmoured person in the company of armoured people is a dangerous spellcaster, rather than a noble or an interpereter or a guide. (The question of whether you can spot the unarmoured person, while interesting, is not really gemane.)
I base it on the behaviour of the player characters. If they assume the unarmoured figure is the most dangerous and prioritize ganking them first, I assume intelligent humanoid monsters will do the same thing. The cost of NOT shooting the wizard first is too high; it's worth paying the possible "price" of wasting your opening salvo on Bibi the interpereter by accident.
Polaris wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
I find it very amusing to see the lengths some will go to try to avoid the obvious:
A wizard needs mage armor in the same way a heavy fighter needs his chainmail (at first level) or a rogue needs his studded leather. Any wizard that doesn't do this is a 'regret to inform you' letter waiting to happen. That's back to the point and is the bottom line.
The exception: Mountain Dwarf and that's entirely the point.
-Polaris
FallingIcicle wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Do PCs in all of your games not make a concentrated effort to kill the enemy casters first?
Am I really the only person who finds that happening consistently?
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Polaris wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
"When the odds of it being a wizard are miniscule..."
And that's where the disagreement lies. You assess those odds as being miniscule. Most PCs assess it as being somewhere in the neighborhood of "100% certainty".
It's not unreasonable for intelligent humanoids to assess it in the range of "better safe than sorry".
Orethalion wrote:
See, now I'm going to have to play a MD wizard who doesn't wear armor. If I play any other race, I'll be killed for being a wizard for no other reason that I'm not in armor. If I wear armor, I'll be killed because I'm a MD in armor, so there's a good chance I'm a wizard. If I'm a mountain dwarf with no armor, I'll fool everyone! Muahahahahahahaha!
Polaris wrote:
I'm curious, Orethalion, in the games you have run/played in, do the PCs - in situations where they have initiative - attempt to discern who the enemy spellcasters are BEFORE the enemy cast spells, visually? And are they always unsuccessful in doing so?
Orethalion wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Hiding armor would require a disguise kit vs passive perception.
Otherwise, it's obvious.
mellored wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
kalil wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
So, is anyone actually trying to explore the topics here, or is this now just the "prove Polaris wrong about everything he says at any cost" thread?
Karnos wrote:
I know in Pathfinder being a cleric healbot was sub-optimal. I'm curious to see whether or not that holds true in 5e. Spells like Bless are really a lot more powerful than a Cure, but in 5e clerics are limited by concentration slots. Prayer of healing makes out of combat healing very good, but combos like beacon of hope + mass cure might be solid too.
Karnos wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Healing word is for combat.
Cure wounds is for out of combat.
You don't want to use healing word unless it's an emergency. Save the spell slot for out of combat if possible.
Yeah, but healing word still costs a spell slot. Compare using that slot for 1d4+Wis mod healing on 1 target vs everyone getting to roll +1d4 for to-hit rolls and saving throws and it's no contest that Bless is better. Or if the wizard is always getting smashed down to 0, Warding Bond is also going to be a lot better than a Cure. Cures and Words should be thrown out to keep people up, but it's going to be more optimal to buff to keep people up and heal after the fight(prayer of healing rocks for this).
Exceptions are going to be for fights were you just can't do that, too much damage coming in and in situations where you have a big fight so you drop a Beacon down so second winds and healing potions are going off for max. When that's down Cures are also going to be doing real well.
Karnos wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Oddly, I agree with all of Polaris points except his main one, that a wizard should always take Mage Armour.
I think a valid case can be made that having another Sleep or Charm or Burning Hands will pay off more often than the enemies will succeed in ganking you, at the lower levels. Once you get up to 4th or 5th that may change, but at 1st and 2nd it's genuinely not an easy choice. Sure, if you get taken out early your spell slots aren't helping anyone, and I agree the monsters may very well try hard to do just that; but if the lack of a critical spell causes the party to get rolled, you are just as dead.
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
At one point Mearls tweeted that they would look into making mage armor a ritual spell. I think that is the best solution, all wizards then have rougly the same AC as a MD one, and they don't waste a spellslot at level 1.
Ritual use should be applied to a lot more spells than it is in my mind.
Paraxis wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
"I would like to hear more about Bibi."
Bibi Bombadier was an extraordinarily effeminate elf (not that there's anything wrong with that) NPC with a magic belt pouch that allowed him to produce a tray of hot cocoa and biscuits twice a day. He was the only person who could decipher the wall murals of the ancient lost city we had to explore, so keeping him alive was essential. (I don't remember why we didn't have access to "Comprehend Languages", but we didn't.)
He was also utterly useless in combat and had to be protected; and (appropo to this thread) since he was the only unarmoured character in the group he kept getting attacked ALL .THE .TIME. Soaked up healing like a sponge. Mind you he did decipher the murals and keep us alive for the three days we were lost without rations.
We were kind of sick of cocoa by the time we reached the surface.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Polaris wrote:
So how about this as somethign to help Wizard's AC?
1. Mage Armor as a spell is gone.
2. Mage Armor is instead made a Wizard class feature.
3. Mage Armor uses the Wizard's INT mod instead of his DEX mod.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
I was going less for "Wizards need AC" and more "pretty much every class has some way of gaining AC at little cost except the Wizard."
For the record, I don't consider using up half/third of your spell slots early on "little cost".
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Read the new concentration rules. There is plenty of reason to focus fire on a caster, and the wizard is the easiest to affect because of his AC issues.
-Polaris
DemoMonkey wrote:
I just wanted to point out that a PC's armor is not always easy to spot. For instance, my character could wear Hide Armor and no enemy will ever see it because it's hidden.
Polaris wrote:
All the talk of "focus fire on the arcane caster" does not jive with my considerable experiences playing fantasy games. I always thought "drop the cleric first" was the popular tactic. SInce forever. After all, if you can bring the cleric down, he can't keep the others up and going.
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
mellored wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Can no one see, when they are obviously being, genuinely, professionally, under-the-bridge-dwelled?
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Considering people in D&D are exactly as effective at 1 HP as they are at full HP, there's really no reason NOT to focus fire. Spreading your damage out doesn't hinder the enemy force at all, while dropping one with focus fire does.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
abanathie wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Karnos wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
abanathie wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Polaris wrote:
The problem with extra cantrip and casting choices is for the wizard it means having vs not having the fourth best cantrip (at first level, fifth best at 4th level, or sixth best at 10th) depending on how you rate cantrips. It's not nothing but it's like the 1e fighter starting out with 4 weapon proficiences prior to the days of weapon specialization. That was nice, but the fighter only really needed to use one or two (typically one chosen melee....usually longsword because it was the best one-handed weapon, and one chosen ranged...typically longbow as the best ranged weapon). That meant the other two weapon prof slots were pretty much dead weight.
I see the same thing with the cantrips. How many attack cantrips does a wizard really need? [Given that you can use them at-will.] It was the same issue in 4e as to how much an extra at-will was really worth [and it turned out less than people including the devs really though which hurt 4e humans].
Now going back into the mists of time, remember what happened when weapon specialization became official with Unearthed Arcana in 1985? Fighters were on it like overweight guys on twinkies. The only thing they were losing were two weapon prof slots they usually didn't use anyway.
That's my problem with extra cantrip as it stands.
-Polaris
I don't think cantrips are consistent enough under RAW to quantify as a power. So, the HE might be powerful due to an extra cantrip; it might be completely worthless. That worth isn't necessarily tied to the player; it is tied to the DM. That is one reason I'm not a fan of the cantrip power. It might or might not give flexibility to the HE that armor proficiency indrectly gives the MD due to the game's inherent mechanics. That's a design concern of mine. However, in a campaign that is "friendly" to cantrips; I can see at least four being consistently useful. It would depend on the character concept, but more cantrips in an "ideal" campaign can be relevant than weapon choices were in 2e.
Polaris wrote:
Karnos,
Once again you are using edge cases. In your carefully concocted scenario, all the enemies are essentially minions (one-shot/one-kill) and I (and others) have already stated that this is the one edge case there focus fire isn't the best solution.
Try again but give your monsters 24 hit points[edit: but keep everything else the same]. See if that changes a few things. That sort of thing is far more typical in DND to what you're doing.
-Polaris
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
It would seem so. I am talking about DND where adventurers are assumed to have a minimal competance. I am talking about DND where you generally can't rely on dropping a creature with one blow [and both monsters and players know this]. With a few exceptions (like DND minion), one-shot/one-kill enemies are not the usual case.
I would also say that intelligent monsters would know this. Just because they think they'll win doesn't mean they expect to drop their enemies with a single blow [nice if that happens but I don't think they'd expect that].
-Polaris
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
If I am using organized troop type monsters they still do not focus fire to the extent some people are indicating.
There is a reason there are generals and commanders in these kind of forces. They need to stand back and look at the big picture. Even if ordered to take out the weedy ones first it takes a lot of restraint not to shoot the crazy one with the big axe who is running directly at you. If there is a commander co-ordinating the attack then it is a different story and they would be clearly giving orders to the minions and instructing them what to do (even if they then panic and self preservation kicks in and attack the closest thing).
Once combat starts creature become quite tunnel visioned and do not have a top down veiw of the battle field most of the time. That is why they need someone standing back with a clear head co-ordinating the attack. I have seen several games where for no logical reason a creature will run around a fighter and take a attack of Oppertunity to get to a mage they couldn't see or would have no way of knowing was there. I think this is why people want marking and those kind of abilities to over ride DM's doing this kind of behaviour. Which if they were playing to the creatures intelligence and with out a clear commander giving orders, fights would not be going down like this.
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
DLfan wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Polaris wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Polaris wrote:
FFSAA,
This is still an edge case and I think you know this. Basically by having AOEs be able to take out the creatures with two applications or less, you've stacked the deck. This is also why in 4e AoEs were the best way to clear minions.
However (and this was a very common topic at Char-Op and the verdict backs what I've been saying), overall if you don't have very weak enemies (and that's not a good assumption to make), you are better off focus firing because it's more efficient at removing enemies faster.
-Polaris
Edit PS: I think it's also worth noting that the Playtest monsers were so pathethically weak that many were little more than 4e type minions which probably has skewed your experience here. If the new monsters from the starter set are any indications (like the CR1 Bugbear starting with 27 hit points), then those days are over. "CR appropriate" monsters [I even said that without laughing...do I get a bennie?] will generally NOT go down in one or even two attacks, AoE or otherwise.
-Polaris
FFSAA wrote:
Polaris wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
abanathie wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
kalil wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Haytam wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Illusionist subclass would be really amazing in Polaris games, I think. Just stay invisible, and create an Illusion of a Wizard far in the back of the party.
Watch as the enemies frantically try to run over and kill your illusion, while the rest of your party has a superfun murdertime on the distracted monsters.
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
I sense a general bitterness from some parties that 5th Ed is in no way a 4.5.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Well, what I am driving at is that if the "optimal strategy" of focus fire the wizard is so easily manipulated to the parties advantage, maybe it isn't really the optimal strategy?
Especially if, as you mention, intelligent humanoids and casters use illusions as well.
After losing a major battle because of sending his troops to fight an illusionary mage, maybe the hobgoblin commander will learn that it's not wise to put all your eggs in one basket.
Polaris wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I have a very simple way of making it so the DM can't target the wizard.
Its called Dexterity (stealth).
This entire conversation is very silly. The mage-armor discussion is really only a thing at low levels, and low levels of fighting could be anything. Context matters! Sometimes, a mage armor spell is a necessity for a battle. Sometimes, not.
Given how quickly we'll run through the first few levels (about a session each), we'll quickly reach a point where we can easily afford to spend a level 1 spell slot on mage armor, and not impact our overall day. After that? We start running mirror images, invisibilities, haste, fly, whatever. Enchanter and Illusionist also had defensive options at their 2nd level benefit.
When you take all the battles a wizard might encounter over the course of their adventure career, then yes, its a necessity. When you take into account what a wizard may encounter over the course of two sessions and he breaks out of apprentice levels? That's far smaller of a concern, and much more flexible. At level 3, you have 4 level 1 slots, 2 level 2 slots, and can regain 2 levels worth of spells during a short rest. That's a respectable amount of magic to have that "wasting" a slot on mage armor isn't an issue anymore. Especially not when you have cantrips to cast for your main source of damage over the day.
At level 3, can afford it having mirror image, invisibility (really negating the chance of targeting the wizard), or another level 2 defensive spell up to negate the need for mage armor. The defenses only get better as time goes on. It becomes a stylistic choice from here on out.
And so, it only really matters for levels 1-2. The enemies you face during those two sessions are going to be appropriately leveled so that, yes, you stand a chance of surviving even without mage armor, or even high dexterity. You can get away with disguises and stealthy and being sneaky for survival this early on.
Eventually, yes, you will run into the point you need defensive magics. The problem? "Eventually" is not the same as the first two sessions.
TL;DR - two sessions in, long before you could even apply for your first feat (and the dwarf wizard gets his heavy armor!) the argument is pointless.
There is no mirror image spell at least in the playtest, and invis, haste, fly, and blur all require concentration and have fairly short durations (Invis is the longest with an hour) which means you'll only have one up. Sure you can avoid obvious detection with invis...well mostly (see blindsight and other special senses) but you are worthless to your party because the moment you do any attacking, get hit (even with an AoE), or cast any spell at all, you lose the invisibility.
What you suggest DOES work in 3.X which is one reason why Wizards were as survivable as they were in 3.X [along with the ability to wear simple armor with only a modest risk of their powers], but that simply doesn't apply in 5e.
Edit: This along with the fact that Mage armor lasts a flat 8 hours and is not a concentration spell makes it essential for most (non MD) wizards and the devs clearly expect you to take and use it.
-Polaris
No, the Mirror Image spell was in the playtest, but not the basic rule set. Slight difference there, nor is it a surprise, really, considering that we only have the Evoker subclass - the basic set focuses on supporting only that kind of wizard. Meanwhile, elves tend towards more rogue-like behavor, using charms and illusions mainly for their kind of magic. They're primarily known for old school Illusion school, fey pact warlock, elven bards, and the like. It creates an entirely different dynamic of play than the evoker and their standard spells. What a lot of people have been suggesting has been akin to that style of play, and does work.
As well... so what if Invisibility drops when you attack? By the time you've dropped it, you've already gotten into ideal position to begin the offensive, and control the shape of the battlefield. Alternatively, you've chosen to bypass the fight altogether, or drop poison in their food.
See, in the end, that's really what defines a wizard's role in party tactics - how well you can control the battlefield. If its done through explosions or guile is immaterial in a game.
Mephi1234 wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
However, perhaps some of us still remember the old days of 0, 1st and 2nd ed., when Dwarves simply couldn't become Wizards, if I'm not wrong, for some inner racial resistance to magic! Now they're probably going to be the toughest Wizards around! Yes, Times have changed, .... and so Dwarves!!!!
Happy Life and Happy gaming to everybody!
F.G.
Polaris wrote:
havent kept up with this thread at all because... yeah
but is the thought that hill dwarf is the best wizard still valid or is there a better race combo now? is the varient rules for human making it better since you can take heavy armour immediatly and still get 16 in INT/CHA etc.?
silentdante wrote: