D&D 5E Wizards Do Suck;)

[ECMO3]

If he wants to waste his time and double up, sure. Why bother when you already have an expert?

I have as much "right" to be that guy as the other character. Why is he wasting his time and doubling up.

He's not. He didn't pick awesome fighting stuff to bully you out of your theme.

But if my theme is awesome Arcana (on a Battlemaster chassis). That is my theme, he needs to find his own theme and if he decides to have the same theme as me, but does not execute it as well, then he can't blame me for stepping on him.

You are still conflating high numbers with a theme. High numbers are not a theme.

High numbers are the mechanical execution of the theme in this case.

If you're on a soccer team and all you do is field your best man, you lose. You are a team, so ALL of you get to go out and use all of your skills, not just the best guy.

No you don't. A lot of players ONLY ride the bench and never or barely ever play, and while I am not advocating that in d&d, the premise is the same.

Just out of curiosity. If the king was known to be partial to wizards and who knows you have a wizard in your group, would you send the paladin with his +12 or the wizard with his +2.

It depends, but you have the classes mixed up here. The Paladin is the one with a +3 who wants to go, while the Rogue/Bard has a +12. I guess the Wizard has a +2 if you say.

Moreover though I would probably try to pass the Rogue off as a Wizard getting the best of both worlds, as the Wizarrd is not likely wearing a sign that says "I am a Wizard" and probably has nothing specific distinguishing him as a Wizard for an audience with the king. It could backfire of course, if the King asks for a display of magic, but on the other hand it could also be to my benefit, getting both the +12 and the benefit of my Rogue being a "Wizard" as far as the king is concerned.

Right, because 1d4+4 or 1d6+0(wizards tend not to be strong) is going to be soooo much better than 2d6+2(re-rolling 1s and 2s).

You are disregarding the actual rules and the math.

First off peak damage among Wizards at 1st level using weapons they are proficient in would be 1d8 +4 (staff versatile), not 1d6 or 1d4, but why would they restrict themselves to weapons they are proficient in, when as you note the +2 "is not going to be noticable in combat".

RAW there are no rules that restrict Wizards to d4, d6 or d8 weapons. ANY Wizard can use ANY weapon and at 1st level the difference in ability score covers the loss of proficiency bonus on the attack roll. A 1st level Wizard can use a Greatsword (without proficiency) and with an 18 strength she has the exact same +4 attack bonus as a fighter using the same Greatsword with a 14 strength and proficiency.

A fighter with a 14 strength is doing 2d6+2 and rerolling 1s and 2s and is doing on average 10.4 damage per hit. A Wizard with an 18 strength wielding the exact same Greatsword Gandalf style is doing 2d6+4 or 11 damage per hit, which is more damage!

This comparison holds true regardless of which weapons or fighting styles you pick. Give a wizard an 18 and a fighter a 14 in the same ability and the Wizard will keep up with or outrun the fighter at level 1.

The little extra to hit is not going to be noticeable in combat.

It is not extra to hit, it is extra to damage with the exact same to hit.

The fighter will fight better, because he's going to be hitting very nearly an identical number of time for a LOT more damage.

Less damage actually as shown above.

And he can take a hit. Your wizard goes down very quickly with a low AC and low hit points, with the exception of a Bladesinger,

You can't be a bladesinger at 1st level, but the shield spell covers a lot of the ground regarding durability. I think it is fair to say with 4 hps more (6 per day if you consider short rests) the fighter's better ability to take a hit is not very relevant.

And note this is a Wizard without proficiency in any additional weapons. Give her a good race and she would outrun the lower strength fighter by quite a bit.

Here is the example you left off of the above definition.

"the theme of the sermon was reverence"

Note how the theme is reverence. That means that picking poop and inserting it into the sermon would be.....................out of theme.

No it wouldn't and more specifically to your point there are actually religions which advocate either eating feces or searching through feces for signs from the lord.

This is the whole premise! You are dismissing the idea that poop can be thematically connected to a sermon out of hand when it very easily could be and in fact IS in the very example you cite.

When the them is knowledge and learning(sage), stealth is out of theme no matter why you pick it.

Here's the second definition

Theme: an idea that recurs in or pervades a work of art or literature.

The second definition is not relevant to D&D becuase it is neither art nor literature. It is a game and the character is the "subject" or "topic" as referenced in the first defimnition.

"love and honor are the pivotal themes of the Hornblower books"

Again, note how the theme is specific. If you insert humor into the book, that is out of theme.

And while it isn't being used as a verb here, the verb example also shows the same, well, THEME!

"the amusement park will be themed as a Caribbean pirate stronghold"

My Battlemaster is themed as a fighter who is an expert of the Arcane.

Get it?

 

[Maxperson]

I have as much "right" to be that guy as the other character. Why is he wasting his time and doubling up.


But if my theme is awesome Arcana (on a Battlemaster chassis). That is my theme, he needs to find his own theme and if he decides to have the same theme as me, but does not execute it as well, then he can't blame me for stepping on him.

If two of you have competing character concepts, you should roll for it rather than invalidate the other guy. Invalidation of a PC isn't cool to do at the table.

No you don't. A lot of players ONLY ride the bench and never or barely ever play, and while I am not advocating that in d&d, the premise is the same.

False Equivalences will always be false. The PCs are the A team, not the benched players.

It depends, but you have the classes mixed up here. The Paladin is the one with a +3 who wants to go, while the Rogue/Bard has a +12. I guess the Wizard has a +2 if you say.

I can get to +12 on a paladin if I want to use the feats for it. Look at my example, not the irrelevant other stuff. The point remains unanswered.

Moreover though I would probably try to pass the Rogue off as a Wizard getting the best of both worlds, as the Wizarrd is not likely wearing a sign that says "I am a Wizard" and probably has nothing specific distinguishing him as a Wizard for an audience with the king. It could backfire of course, if the King asks for a display of magic, but on the other hand it could also be to my benefit, getting both the +12 and the benefit of my Rogue being a "Wizard" as far as the king is concerned.

Oh, that will go over well if you get caught. Let's risk everyone getting tossed into the dungeon because the king's vizier can tell what real magic looks like. That's doubly risky since I already said the king was aware of your party make-up. You think he or someone else there wouldn't be aware of who's who?

First off peak damage among Wizards at 1st level using weapons they are proficient in would be 1d8 +4 (staff versatile), not 1d6 or 1d4, but why would they restrict themselves to weapons they are proficient in, when as you note the +2 "is not going to be noticable in combat".

RAW there are no rules that restrict Wizards to d4, d6 or d8 weapons. ANY Wizard can use ANY weapon and at 1st level the difference in ability score covers the loss of proficiency bonus on the attack roll. A 1st level Wizard can use a Greatsword (without proficiency) and with an 18 strength she has the exact same +4 attack bonus as a fighter using the same Greatsword with a 14 strength and proficiency.

A fighter with a 14 strength is doing 2d6+2 and rerolling 1s and 2s and is doing on average 10.4 damage per hit. A Wizard with an 18 strength wielding the exact same Greatsword Gandalf style is doing 2d6+4 or 11 damage per hit, which is more damage!

This comparison holds true regardless of which weapons or fighting styles you pick. Give a wizard an 18 and a fighter a 14 in the same ability and the Wizard will keep up with or outrun the fighter at level 1.

White rooms are white. No wizard is going to have an 18 strength outside of that white room. The reality is that wizards tank strength, so you're looking at -1 to maaaaaaaaybe +1, but probably +0 at best to hit and damage.

It is not extra to hit, it is extra to damage with the exact same to hit.

No it's not. I function in the real world and not white rooms where wizards are running around all over the place with 18 strengths.

You can't be a bladesinger at 1st level, but the shield spell covers a lot of the ground regarding durability. I think it is fair to say with 4 hps more (6 per day if you consider short rests) the fighter's better ability to take a hit is not very relevant.

Does it? Does it really? At 1st level you can use it for 2 out of the 4 rounds of ONE of the six to eight encounters. That's 2 rounds out of 24-32 rounds of combat. That shield spell is doing a bunch of nothing as far as durability goes. Especially since at 1st level your AC is going to be low enough that you will sometimes be hit anyway, so even those 2 rounds might not be effective.

No it wouldn't and more specifically to your point there are actually religions which advocate either eating feces or searching through feces for signs from the lord.

This is the whole premise! You are dismissing the idea that poop can be thematically connected to a sermon out of hand when it very easily could be and in fact IS in the very example you cite.

You've literally just declared that nothing can ever be a theme, since according to you everything fits the theme if you want it to. If literally everything is in theme, themes don't exist.

The second definition is not relevant to D&D becuase it is neither art nor literature. It is a game and the character is the "subject" or "topic" as referenced in the first defimnition.

You miss the point, which is surprising since I spelled it out clearly multiple times there.

My Battlemaster is themed as a fighter who is an expert of the Arcane.

That's not a theme. That's a character concept.

Get it?

I do, but then I understand what a theme is and am not conflating a bunch of stuff as a bunch of other stuff in order to make quite literally everything in the universe in-theme.

 

[ECMO3]

If two of you have competing character concepts, you should roll for it rather than invalidate the other guy. Invalidation of a PC isn't cool to do at the table.

No we shouldn't. Play what you want, I will play what I want. There is no rule that youn need one martial, one healer, one sosh etc.
Moreover, HE is invalidating ME as much as I am invalidating HIM.

False Equivalences will always be false. The PCs are the A team, not the benched players.

Sure, just like on a football team where you have two wide receivers on the field at the same time, but one of them is better than the other and as a result gets more balls thrown his way.

I can get to +12 on a paladin if I want to use the feats for it.

Feats or a multiclass. If that is what you want to play then do it and don't worry about the rest of the party whining because you didn't take GWM. They can play that role if they need to.

Look at my example, not the irrelevant other stuff. The point remains unanswered.

Oh, that will go over well if you get caught. Let's risk everyone getting tossed into the dungeon because the king's vizier can tell what real magic looks like. That's doubly risky since I already said the king was aware of your party make-up. You think he or someone else there wouldn't be aware of who's who?

It's situational and one that is easily reversable - what if the king is an ex member of the Thieves Guild?

White rooms are white. No wizard is going to have an 18 strength outside of that white room.

The reality is that wizards tank strength, so you're looking at -1 to maaaaaaaaybe +1, but probably +0 at best to hit and damage.

I have personally played a Mountain Dwarf Wizard that started with an 18 Strength, 14 Dexterity and 10 Intelligence. She wielded a Maul from level 1, although she did have proficiency in it through race. It is one of the only characters that I played through level 10 without multiclassing (the others are coincidentally all also Wizards). In medium armor, with the shield spell and a crapton of temp hit points, she would mop the floor with most fighters.

I have also seen several players play Tortle Wizards with a high strength and low dexterity and all kinds of Wizard characters with a high strength if they intended to multiclass later (which at 1st level means you would be a single classed Wizard)

Just because you don't play those kinds of characters, doesn't mean no one else does.

Does it? Does it really? At 1st level you can use it for 2 out of the 4 rounds of ONE of the six to eight encounters.

Actually 3 rounds out of 6-8 enocounters in a day, and that is 3 hits the shield spell will cancel. That will more than make up for the hit point difference between a 1st level fighter and a 1st level Wizard.

That shield spell is doing a bunch of nothing as far as durability goes.

And at 1st level, niether will the extra 6 hit points a day the fighter has (including hit die).

 

[Maxperson]

No we shouldn't. Play what you want, I will play what I want. There is no rule that youn need one martial, one healer, one sosh etc.
Moreover, HE is invalidating ME as much as I am invalidating HIM.

There is a rule. It's called the social contract where people are cool to one another.

Sure, just like on a football team where you have two wide receivers on the field at the same time, but one of them is better than the other and as a result gets more balls thrown his way.

Call me when we are playing D&D competitively for money. Until then everyone should get equal play time.

It's situational and one that is easily reversable - what if the king is an ex member of the Thieves Guild?

Then he would be asking for the rogue and not the wizard, AND he'd see through your attempt to trick him and be pissed.

I have personally played a Mountain Dwarf Wizard that started with an 18 Strength, 14 Dexterity and 10 Intelligence. She wielded a Maul from level 1, although she did have proficiency in it through race. It is one of the only characters that I played through level 10 without multiclassing (the others are coincidentally all also Wizards). In medium armor, with the shield spell and a crapton of temp hit points, she would mop the floor with most fighters.

Cool. That's an aberration. Extreme outliers are meaningless here.

Actually 3 rounds out of 6-8 enocounters in a day, and that is 3 hits the shield spell will cancel. That will more than make up for the hit point difference between a 1st level fighter and a 1st level Wizard.

3 rounds out of 24-32 rounds is meaningless and does not make up for the difference in hit points, especially since the the shield spell can and will sometimes fail. The fighter is not only going to have more hit points, he will consistently have a higher AC.

And at 1st level, niether will the extra 6 hit points a day the fighter has (including hit die).

Yes it will. Wizard is far more likely to be hit. Wizard is far more likely to go down with a single hit. Wizard gets fewer hit points back from resting. Fighter gets hit points back from second wind. Fighter can reliably do more damage over the course of the day, so is the target of healing spells before the wizard is.

 

[ECMO3]

There is a rule. It's called the social contract where people are cool to one another.

Sure, but that is true regardless of whether my Rogue has a higher Charisma than you or not.

Unless your social contract is such that each class has a defined role then it is irrelevant whether my Rogue is the face or your Paladin is. And I have never played at a 5E table where roles were decided based on class. That was true to a degree in 1E, due to very restrictive class mechanics, but not 5E.

Cool. That's an aberration. Extreme outliers are meaningless here.

"Extreme outliers" or more accurately non-stereotype builds are the whole point here!

I never said "most" Wizards don't have a low strength or a high Aracana. I said some Wizards don't.

Outliers are the point. If they exist at all, you are as a point of fact wrong.

3 rounds out of 24-32 rounds is meaningless and does not make up for the difference in hit points,

To start with 1st level characters will not survive 6 medium combats in a day getting attacked every round. I know that is the "standard day", but mathematically that will usually result in a TPK at 1st level if you follow this forumla unless you go with single monsters (in which case you are not usually getting attacked). Further based on the XPs, the party will hit 2nd level before 6 combats unless those first 6 combats are all medium and easy. That presumes you get no out of combat XP over that time as well.

That said, mathematically it 3 shields absolutely worth more. The difference in hit points is 4. The difference in hit points including the hit dice you roll with a short rest is on average 6. Causing 3 misses with shield (even if it only causes 1 miss each time) is going to average more than 6 hit points at 1st level.

Also if this 6 hit points is really that relevant (which it isn't), keep in mind the Wizard has 3 spell slots. She can just cast false life before 3 of those fights and then she has a whopping 17 more total hps as the fighter or more than twice as many. If the difference in hit points were really that important .... which it isn't.

especially since the the shield spell can and will sometimes fail.

Rarely, and I would say a single casting stops 2+ hits more often than it stops zero hit.

The fighter is not only going to have more hit points, he will consistently have a higher AC.

That depends entirely on Dexterity and what Armor the fighter is wearing. Typically he will have a higher AC (at 1st level). I will agree with that. I do not agree that it will typically be more effective than the shield spell in protecting him from going down at 1st level.

Earlier when you inclorrectly assumed the Wizard should use weapons he was proficient in you said "The little extra to hit is not going to be noticeable in combat. +2 is 2 extra hits out of 20 swings." Now all of a sudden that extra 2 points or 3 points on the enemies attacks is huge?

If you were talking about a Sword and Board you would have a point, you would be quite a bit more survivable in combat, but you threw out the Greatsword as your fighter's weapon and if we reevaluated this with a Sword and Board and a 1d8, the fighter would be way behind in damage.

Yes it will. Wizard is far more likely to be hit. Wizard is far more likely to go down with a single hit.

No "far more" likely. He has 4 fewer hit points (or on average 3.5 more if he cast false life before the combat)

Wizard gets fewer hit points back from resting.

On average he gets back 2 less hit points per day from short resting. That is an average and it can vary in both directions.