Looking through the basic rules I saw it is possible to play a Mountain Dwarf Mage that can wear medium armour. So in Scalemail with Dex 15 gives a 1st level wizard AC 16. This seems a little too powerful for a mage as they is no drawback to casting in armor. Why is this the case?
It is the case because being able to cast in armor, and being a wizard that actually wears armor, is not actually something which alters the power level of a wizard character to a significant degree.
Armored wizards seem nice, but I don't think it breaks anything. You still don't much want to be caught in melee when you've got a concentration spell going.
As for drawbacks, well, the str stat bump is pretty useless... You miss out on Int boost and an extra cantrip from elf, or good luck and stealth from halflings, or a yummy feat from human (assuming you take that alternative). Seems to me dwarf wizards are effective and have their own style, but I wouldn't put them way above the other races.
The idea that wizards casting in armor is a bad thing stems from older editions of the game where balance was artificially created and has no other reason to exist. A wizard having an AC of 16 isn't that powerful, since with the same DEX of 15, they could easily cast "Mage Armor" and end up with an AC of 15 and have the advantage of better Stealth and faster movement.
Some old ideas need to die. There's no reason to believe that a mage should be unprotected simply because "it's always been that way."
Armored wizards don't break a thing. They really don't.
I have been looking at this particular build, and I don't think it is particularly broken.
Lets assume a standard array, as random stats make it impossible to compare apples to apples.
A mountain dwarf wizard will put his 15 in Int, and I think his 14 in Con, which will be modified up to 16. Dex will be at best a 13, a +1. Scale mail may or may not be available to a wiazrd at character generation, depending on money roll, but its not very much, so if not at the first adventure a mountain dwarf wizard would have it early in his career. Its an AC of 15 after dex. The real strength of this build is not the ac, its the hit points. The dwarf starts with 9 hit points and gains 7 per level if he chooses not to roll.
Lets compare a high elf wizard. With a standard array he takes a 15 int and a 14 dex, both modified to 16, a +3. Con might be his third stat, a 13 for +1. He has a default AC of 13, and if he uses a mage armor spell he goes to 16 AC for 8 hours. He starts with 7 HP and gains 5 per level. He also starts with one more cantrip, can prepare one more spell, has +1 on casting checks and a higher saving throw difficultly for his spells compared to the Dwarf. The dwarf will eventually catch up with the Int modifier, but not til level 12 if each wizard is maxing their Int as their stats increase.
So, dwarf is a little tougher, elf is a little better strictly as a caster until level 12. I would be willing to call it approximately balanced,
Maybe I am overreacting, I am a bit "traditionally" minded, fortunately none of my group decided to use this particular build so it's not something I now have to be worried about. Thanks for all the advice, and comments.
16 AC is not so significantly more than the 15 AC a mage can easily have with Mage Armor. So having medium armor proficiency gets you an additional 1st level spell slot. The AC will grow as they get access to better armor, which is cool I guess, but I don't think it will amount to much (odd that Mage armor doesn't boost with higher level spell slots when armor boosts with more gold).
ProphetSword wrote:
If you want to use your armor to its maximum potential, you wouldn't be playing a wizard anyways. A single hit breaks concentration, your spells are still less effective and you have no reason to actually go play meatshield, instead of letting the fighter do what he's good at. It will probably come in handy one time per encounter or so. Strong, but not strong enough to be broken.
The strongest at level 1 is a hill dwarf cleric.
At level 2, lightfoot halfing or wood elf rogues are the best.
Level 5, it's a 2-handed mountain dwarf fighter.
Level 14 belongs to the evoker.
But yes, mountain dwarf wizard is the best wizard. However they are only a little bit better then everyone else.
And likely there will be a feat to get medium armor at some point.
WhiteHarness wrote:
For those who don't like it, just use the optional encumberance rules. Suddenly strenght matters a lot, and is a crap stat for mages. Dwarves don't ignore penalties for encumberance, just armors. You'll have mages light or, worse, heavy encumbered pretty much always.
Jimjams wrote:
I think the real benefit isent the armor so much as not feeling the need to memorize or use a spell slot on casting mage armor. with the sever reduction in spells per day compared to previous editions spending one on that got more costly, on the other hand with bound accuracy mage armor and or actualy armor is much more effective even into higher levels. During the last playtest one of the feats required medium armor prof and granted heavy armor training as well as allowing you to reduce all damage from blunt, peircing and slashing attacks by your con mod. if that feat makes an appearance in the PHB you may see dex 8 dwarves in full plate casting spells.
is it super broken no not as much so as taking sheild as your spell mastery spell at 18.
.... The only reason wizards couldn't wear armor in the past was only due to a balancing restriction, artificially created to prohibit them from wearing it. It was thought that wizards would be too powerful if they could cast all those spells and wear armor too (and they were probably right, given that things stacked freely in older editions). ....
Mountain dwarf wizards usually don't jive well with my worlds. So statistically they might be better at taking a hit, why the hell am I worried about taking hits that much? What are my other party members doing that they are letting me get hit, or at least attacked, with the chance of breaking my concentration. Also encumbrance. All in all I'll stick to my high elf wizard 
. But as always play what you like! But remember the game isn't only about numbers, it's about characters, stories, and roleplaying. So if your mountain dwarf wizard actually has a great story, then GO for it! But play what you want to play!
I think there's some space for Dwarven rune-scribers or geomancers in some D&D campaigns, so I'm glad the option for a Mountain Dwarf wizard exists.
However, I don't see the proficiency as being inherently game-breaking. They certainly allow one to build in a specific direction, but I don't feel that they are must-haves.
As previously mentioned, an Elf Wizard with Mage Armor will have 13 + Dex (+1 from racial Dexterity), which is functionally the same as scale armor's 14 + Dex. The Elf has less weight to carry and does not suffer from disadvantage on Stealth checks, the Dwarf has one extra spell slot. However, High Elves can get a +1 to Int, somewhat offsetting the spell issue.
Once the Dwarf wears half-plate, it gains a slightly higher AC, but is capped at 17 for the most part due to the Dex limit on medium armors. The Elf can choose to increase Dex to match the Dwarf, if it becomes an issue.
That being said, the Dwarven ability increase granting +1 HP/level and +1 on Concentration saves (as well as all Con saves and checks) seems pretty good for a Wizard. Con has always been pretty important and was always the second stat for my wizards, in 3e I typically bought 18 Int / 14 Con and dumped the rest.
Personally I'd like that in the DMG the developers brought back some rules variants for casting spells in armor, taken from the eralier editions, just like:
- You simply can't cast spells in armor, unless perhaps you're an elf wearing a rare elfin chain mail, as it was in the 2nd ed.
- A failure percentage, if you cast spells in armor, as it was in the 3.X days, or an Int Check, with penalties based on the protection bonus of the armor worn and/or the level of the spells which the wizard wants to cast.
In this manner, any player could choose her own favourite version of "spell casting in armor".
Happy Life and Gaming,
F.G.
axwielder wrote:
Oulak wrote:
axwielder wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
The Mountain Dwarf benefit is probably the best benefit a wizard can get from any race right now, even possibly outstripping the +1 int from certain races. (It *definitely* outstrips the +1 int at high levels; it's only really in question at lower levels when it makes the difference betwen 15-16, 17-18, or 19-20.) That said, the armor only makes the character marginally more powerful on the whole; it's not such a significant power increase that it's 'overpowered'.
For any set of non-identical options, there's always going to be a 'strongest'. Doesn't mean the strongest has to get taken down. As long as there's *some* legitimate reason people would want to play other races of wizard (and I feel there are), nothing's OP about the dwarf.
I think this whole thing about mountain dwarfs will be resoved when we get to the PHB and we have the gnome race that is likely to have a +2 int mod, which will be much better for wizards then armor and a useless +2 str. Especially rock gnomes with +1 con (much more useful then str for squishy wizards), and clockwork devices for distracting enemies. And Tieflings which I think are going to be +2 int/+1 cha (can you imagine dropping a fireball in which your own party cant be hit because your invoker trait and you use infernal wrath so all enemies suffer a disavantage to save vs the spell.)
Chimerasame wrote:
obsid wrote:
Even ignoring the fact that it uses up a spell slot, Mage Armor lasts only one hour. Every short rest, you have to recast it. (Edit: Never mind, this is wrong!)
Anyway, I'm not really trying to argue it's objectively best; at least, not in the sense people on these forums usually seem to mean it. (I.e. entirely mechanically overshadows with no conceivable benefit to the other.) There are plenty of reasons one might want to use *any* race as a wizard.
Chimerasame wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Chimerasame wrote:
Its true that dwarfs get +2 con, and that is nice for a wizard given thier low hp values. But Str is a dump stat for most wizards, they would be putting a 8 in that and call it a day, so the +2 str is practicly useless. The medium armor proficency is nice, but in addition to mage armor, consider this:
If AC is really importnat to you, just multiclass fighter for one level (go for full-Plate assuming you have 15 str which is required to multi into fighter, a shield for +2 ac, and fighting style defense for +1 AC a total of 21 AC), or multiclass into cleric going for half-plate and a shield (17+dex max 2) and the nice thing about that is you dont actually lose any spell casting ability as a wizard as there is a single spell casting pool, and you can learn scaling healing spells like Healing Word or Cure Wounds that you can cast with higher level slots for the rest of your characters life. You will get a much better AC going either of these routes then with a mountain dwarf becuase of the shield (not to mention the fighting style/healing spells the savings throw proficences which is great, the extra skills, cool weapons for when you are out of spells for the day). Yes you lose a level of wizard doing it, but you do get bonuses to offset that. You also need to have a fairly high str/wis to do this (the other option would be to start as a cleric/fighter and the multi-class into wizard at lvl2 and then keep wizard your primary and stop leveing up the other one, then you could have a much lower wis/str score and still keep the same proficences and armor). Going multi-class cleric is great becuase you keep a very high spell casting ability (almsot as if you had never multi-classed), but it doent give as much AC as going fighter for one level.
So imagine your gnome with +2 int/+1 con, going cleric level 1, getting a good medium armor, shields and healing spells, with very low str, medium dex/wis, and high int, and then multi-classing into wizard at lvl2 (and leveling up wizard from there on), thats going to be WAY better then anything the dwarf gets.
First: Wizards cannot cast spells in studded leather armor. Even Mountain Dwarf wizards cannot, because technically they have "medium armor" proficiency, not "light armor."
This may change in light of multi-classing rules, of which I am currently not familiar (and may change in the PHB from playtest material). I would not advise multi-class dipping for primary casters, because it delays the power breakpoints of new spell levels.
Based on the Basic Rules sections on the Cleric and Wizard class, spell preparation is indeed based on your Cleric or Wizard class level, not your total character level. I assume spell slots are also dependent on the class that granted them, not a shared pool for all classes. (I could be wrong, but this is how it worked in previous editions.)
However, I would say a Mountain Dwarf Wizard 20 would be a more effective character than any Wizard 19/Cleric 1, especially if the Cleric level came first. This is not to say that Elves, Gnomes (?), et al. cannot be equally as effective, just that I don't believe taking a 1-level detour as a Wizard is usually beneficial. Maybe after level 17, but at that point, you won't be getting a lot of use out of those features, and you'll be losing a capstone ability.
I removed the part about studded leather my mistake (but mountain dwarfs also do get light armor prof as well...)
You are right that preperation is based on your wizard class level (not total level), but the spells per day is based on "total pure spell casting class levels" (or half of your partial spell casting levels like ranger/paladin) or at least it was in the playtest (subject to change), a few of the class features would be late (Arcane Tradition Cantrip and Empowered Evocation would be at lvl7/11 rather then 6/10 and spell mastery would be at 19 rather then 18 and signature spells would be at 21 rather then 20), none of these are that powerful that waiting an extra level would be that meaningful. Some of your spells for a given level to prepare would come a level latter (so you couldnt perpare a fireball at 5th lvl you would have to wait till 6th). But once you do get the spell, you can cast it just as effectivly (and can always use lower ranked spells in higher ranked spell slots for extra power). For half the levels you gain no new rank of spells in wizard at that level, for those levels the 1 cleric/ X Wizard is just as good (if not better) then the pure wizard in almost every way (and gets a bunch of extra healing to get people that are unconscious up off the ground).
I stand corrected on the Dwarven armor proficiencies.
Also, about the multi-classing. We'll have to see how it shakes out in the PHB, but it would be a more elegant mechanic if multi-class casters only had to track one set of spell slots, especially since "caster level" doesn't really exist anymore.
The big problem is still getting those higher-level spells ASAP. Yeah level 6 may rock for a cleric/wizard who can heal and haste and shoot a fireball, but level 5 may be rough if the game is balanced around a 5th level party having access to those spells.
I don't think it's a death sentence, but it would make things harder at some of the breakpoint levels.
True some levels would be harder to do the same DPS, for instance if you dont have a fireball at lvl5 to do 8d6 AOE, you can use a thunderwave in a 3rd lvl slot to do 4d8 AOE and push, or a higher lvl flaming sphere (for a tottally diffrent effect).
But DPS isnt everything you get the added bonus of being able to do a super powered healing word as a bonus action to get people up that are bleeding out (or just use your lvl1 slots on heaing word to get them standing again and use the high lvl slots for dmg effects). Hard to say for sure that doesnt balance out to at least equal even for those levels.
It's not the damage dice as much as the area of effect and range when it comes to fireball. Fireball is perhaps not the best example, anyway. There are spells like haste, fly, protection from energy, revivify (for clerics) that make a big impact on a party's capabilities. Anyway, I'll stop now cause this is tangential at best.
Those concentration spells seem nice, but just one point of damage to the wizard and they are gone (have fun falling from whatever distance you were flying at). (yes revivify rocks of course but it isnt a wizard spell...)
There have always been excpetions where mages could cast spells in armor.
2E - Elven Fighter/Mages could cast spells wearing chainmail (PHB, p62). In 1E/2E there was no such thing as arcane spell failure. You simply couldn't cast spells in armor period.
2E Players Option - It has been ~15 years since I looked at this, but IIRC there were options allowing characters to cast spells while wearing armor.
3E - Introduced the concept of Spell Failure. Due to their paranoia surrounding armored mages, WotC was slow to introduce armored mages to the game, starting with the Spellsword from S&F.
3.5 - Wizards released multiple variants of the Spellsword idea - from Elven Bladesingers (a nod to 2E Fighter-mages), to Duskblades (base class), and everything in between.
4E - Arcane spell failure was removed. You could cast spells in armor if you were proficient (either via feat, MC, or hybrid classing). End story.
5E - Simplified this concept further. If you are proficient, no worries.
While initially paranoid, and believing that armor would overpower wizards - toward the end of 3.5 Wizards came to the realization that armor by itself was not as large an issue as they first believed, given the fact that wizards have fewer HP, have concentration issues when injured, and either provoke opportunity attacks when casting (or suffering disadvantage on ranged attack rolls within 5ft).
In 5E investeing in armor is a tradeoff between a 1st level spell slot, and GP REsources plus one of the following: Mountain Dwarf (race), Multiclassing (class levels), or Armor Proficiency (feats). Are you seriously worried that spending 2 resources to gain armored spellcasting is that game-breaking.
As far as anocdotal evidence is concerned - I played a Mountain Dwarf Enchanter in our playtest, and during Encounters, and memorized Shield each day. This was the most abusive use of the armored mage concept available in the playtest (I chose this option specifically for that reason, in order to determine whether it was OP or balanced). Despite frequently mixing it up in melee, the fact that I imposed disadvantage on all melee attacks against me was a huge deterrent to being attacked at all, instead focusing the majority of their melee attacks against my other melee allies (which they would have done anyway, had I been in the back row). In fact, I suffered most of my damage as a result of ranged attacks made against me (which my Enchanter ability afforded no benefit). Due to my mixing it up in melee, I tailored my spellcasting to use less concentration-based spells, and to only use those spells when I was outside of melee range. Also, I found I favored the use of my battle axe over my cantrip spells due to my equal STR and INT scores (resulting in slightly higher damage as a result).
This compared with an elven Evoker who spent the majority of their time in the back row. As such, said Evoker was rarely engaged in melee combat due to our party actively preventing enemies from bypassing the front lines, meaning that the Elf wizard suffered about as many "successful" melee attacks as my Dwarven Enchanter did. Having cast Mage Armor, his AC was only slightly worse against ranged attacks (AC15 vs AC16), but having greater dexterity - his Reflex score was slightly superior (+2). Both of us had access to the Shield spell making that advantage null, save that I had 1 more spell slot with which to spend it on. The Elf however, had 1 more spell known, and slightly better Spell DC/Attack score (+1).
All in all, despite deliberately abusing the mechanic (which appears stupidly powerful on paper), the end result when compared against other mages was about the same. It only felt different, and played differently. This was playtested extensively by our group for several months and in actual gameplay, came out roughly equivalent.
Yes, I took less attacks than other "melee" characters and some may cry foul but lets also consider that mages are designed to take less melee attacks than say a Fighter or Cleric. The armored Enchanter works as intended in that respect. Also, keep in mind that my Strength score was higher than normal but despite that - my melee allies were still +2 to Attack and +3-4 damage with their melee attacks (I used my battle axe 2H), while my melee attack was only dealing +2 damage over my Fire Bolt Cantrip - but was dealing equivalent damage to the Evoker (thanks to their +1 accuracy).
I thought this build looked neat as well, but right now there's not a lot of spells that give you a lot of benefit for being in melee.
I do like it though, as it allows you to focus your early level spells on RP and utility. It's not a stereotypical gandalf build, and that's a good thing.
Ironically, the biggest class imbalance we encountered during our playtest was not my Mountain Dwarf Enchanter - it was our party War Cleric. The irony here was that for the first tier (1-4th level), the War Cleric outclassed the Fighter's DPR thanks to their domain ability. The fighter in our party recovered partially at 3rd level, at which point they gained access to their Expertise Dice (Battle Master), and did not overtake the Clerics melee prowess until 5th level and gaining Extra Attack.
This was somewhat problematic as it made our fighter feel like the Cleric was outclassing him at his shtick. What's worse, while the first few levels flew by rather quickly, the Fighter seriously felt the XP gap between 4th and 5th level. Had the tradeoff in power come sooner (say at 3rd or even 4th level), this would have been less of an issue due to the ease with which the first few levels are obtained, but it took more than 3 months for our fighter to reach 5th level (at a pricey 6500 XP) and start feeling "powerful" rather than outclassed by the Cleric.
I should state for the record however, that when compared with the party Paladin, the Fighter felt equivalent (yet different), and had no issue - it was solely an issue with the War Cleric having too much power too soon (had the ability been restricted to 1/day at low levels, and later increased to CHA mod per day at 5th level and above, this would have been a non-issue). I doubt we were alone in this observation, and hope that this adjustment was made during the time since the playtest ended (if not, I will simply houserule the above change myself).
Admittedly, this may have also been due to the fact we were playing encounters and rarely had more than 1-2 battles during any given session, which was frequently followed by a long rest due to campaign pacing. As such, this issue might be due to the 5minute workday syndrome and might not play as large a role if more than 2 encounters were fought during a session.