1st Level Wizard Defenses

[Silvarion]

Martial Expertise, I think it's called. You gain a +1 bonus to all weapon attacks, and can use a minor action to stow a weapon and then draw a different weapon.

I think you mean the Master at Arms feat

 

[cavalier973]

I think you mean the Master at Arms feat

Yes I do. I was just seeing if you would catch it.

 

[Unwise]

What is the motivation to have very high defenses? How much are you willing to give up to do so? Why not just let the Warden shine at being the tough guy? It's an interesting experiment, but not really that practical. As others stated, as Swordmage Hybrid is a good way to go. If you do that though, you are really fundamentally changing the character to be a defender, which seems pointless as you have one in the group.

The warden is there to protect you and you should probably take advantage of that. The alternative is to kind of step on his toes and make him feel his roll is kind of redundant if you have defenses as good as his. If he played a cat burglar would you go out of your way to buy up theivery as high as you could get it?

I know from experiece that in my group the defender rerolled as a striker because the people he was apparently protecting had roughly the same AC and HP. It makes the role seem rather pointless. What the group should have done is spend their feats and stats to fully take advantage of the fact that they had a willing meatshield.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I know from experiece that in my group the defender rerolled as a striker because the people he was apparently protecting had roughly the same AC and HP. It makes the role seem rather pointless. What the group should have done is spend their feats and stats to fully take advantage of the fact that they had a willing meatshield.

Its not about hit points and AC, its about being sticky and penalizing the enemy badly for trying to ignore you. Its perfectly reasonable for a wizard to want to have a 20 AC. There's ZERO chance he's going to have more than 1/2 the hit points of a Warden anyway, maybe 2/3 that of a modest fighter. Defender isn't the only PC that wants to be able to stand near the enemy, a good staff wizard can be a front-line controller, and any melee striker could use (but maybe won't get) a high AC as well. I don't know exactly what the OP's concept is about, but staff expertise plus high AC is a coherent concept.

I'd also say that the beauty of wizard hybrids is they are STILL full controllers, you control with powers not with class features. Its one of the things about wizards and one of the issues with the hybrid system.

 

[Unwise]

Its not about hit points and AC, its about being sticky and penalizing the enemy badly for trying to ignore you...

I agree that that is what seperates a defender from others, the issue my group finds though is that in some group make ups, there is just not much point getting them to attack the defender, rather than another class that has equally high defenses. My players would find themselves saying "why do I want him to hit me again?" when, after the first couple of hits, other people could weather it just as well as them.

Now in another group I DM for, there is an Battlemind who has 18 healing surges, which each one being worth 35HP, who has the ability to spend five surges per fight just from himself. In his case, there is no shadow of a doubt that he is the one you want the enemy beating on. Low level defenders of non-Con based classes don't always have the same certainty.

I agree that a close burst/blast specialist is a coherent concept that would warrant some significant expenditure in defensive feats. I was just wondering if that is what the OP is after and how deeply he wants to invest in it and why. One of my players runs a Dragon Sorcerer, almost everything he uses is a close blast attack. It was well worth him buying leather armor and some defensive items, even though he is paired with an exceptional defender. The investment is matter of degree I think.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I wonder if Staff Expertise isn't almost a better investment, since you can then throw around area and ranged attacks without provoking opportunity attacks. Not being attacked at all is better than a high defense.

Of course, you will look for the long run, and look what other feats you can stack up.
But at low levels, you have less options and combat is still a bit more swingy. 2 or 3 lucky hits by the enemy can make your AC completely meaningless and render you into deep trouble - better to give them less chances to make attacks in the first place.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree that that is what seperates a defender from others, the issue my group finds though is that in some group make ups, there is just not much point getting them to attack the defender, rather than another class that has equally high defenses. My players would find themselves saying "why do I want him to hit me again?" when, after the first couple of hits, other people could weather it just as well as them.

Now in another group I DM for, there is an Battlemind who has 18 healing surges, which each one being worth 35HP, who has the ability to spend five surges per fight just from himself. In his case, there is no shadow of a doubt that he is the one you want the enemy beating on. Low level defenders of non-Con based classes don't always have the same certainty.

I agree that a close burst/blast specialist is a coherent concept that would warrant some significant expenditure in defensive feats. I was just wondering if that is what the OP is after and how deeply he wants to invest in it and why. One of my players runs a Dragon Sorcerer, almost everything he uses is a close blast attack. It was well worth him buying leather armor and some defensive items, even though he is paired with an exceptional defender. The investment is matter of degree I think.

I think the problem is with people's perceptions of what a defender should be. In AD&D it was insane for a rogue or wizard to ever risk a hit at all, meaning the fighter was by default a sort of 'tank'. Then WoW came along and made PURE tanks as the only kind of 'defense' and just solidified the idea in everyone's minds apparently.

It is NOT the job of the defender to suck up all the hits. Defenders are (usually) designed to suck up more than a wizard or most strikers, but their real job is CONTROL, to seize the enemy's ability to choose targets and make that decision for them. The ideal result is that each party member takes damage in proportion to their toughness. At the end of the day your example battlemind should be pretty much tapped out, and so should the wizard, the cleric, the rogue, and the ranger. If the rogue is flanking and he can take a hit then the battlemind should let him take it. Now, I admit, this particular battlemind, or many warden builds, are pretty close to being tanks. Because they have such high surge values healing them adds back a lot more hit points to the party, so it can make sense to use (particularly surgeless) healing on these characters and so they will want to take even MORE of the hits. That's OK, but its far from the only valid type of defender.

Think of a sword-n-board dex fighter. His job is shoving around enemy creatures, knocking them down, pulling them off an ally when they threaten to down your buddy, impose a bunch of -2 to-hits on the enemy, and dish out extra damage. He's NOT going to want to attract a lot of extra hits to himself. He's fairly tough, and his AC should probably be around 2 points higher than the other PCs, but this is a character that should often be saying "OK, that goblin is one more than I want swinging at me, I'll just mark him and shove him over by the rogue and the ranger. They can afford to take a hit or two."

I like this whole aspect of 4e. Each combat role has a certain amount of thought involved. You really can't play even the simplest fighter or barbarian without any tactical consideration and get full effectiveness.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I wonder if Staff Expertise isn't almost a better investment, since you can then throw around area and ranged attacks without provoking opportunity attacks. Not being attacked at all is better than a high defense.

Of course, you will look for the long run, and look what other feats you can stack up.
But at low levels, you have less options and combat is still a bit more swingy. 2 or 3 lucky hits by the enemy can make your AC completely meaningless and render you into deep trouble - better to give them less chances to make attacks in the first place.

Yeah, its definitely an option. OTOH it only prevents OAs, it offers no help against the monster's normal attacks. You might not GET that many OAs either, you're going to use T-Wave or other area attacks a lot presumably. I think the choice might depend on your tactics, some players might get more use out of one or the other. In any case Staff Expertise will be high on any staff wizard's list just for the attack bonus already, so it certainly has a lot going for it. You can always pick up Shield at level 2 anyway, which will certainly be a nice boon and helps obviate the need for so much armor.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yeah, its definitely an option. OTOH it only prevents OAs, it offers no help against the monster's normal attacks. You might not GET that many OAs either, you're going to use T-Wave or other area attacks a lot presumably. I think the choice might depend on your tactics, some players might get more use out of one or the other. In any case Staff Expertise will be high on any staff wizard's list just for the attack bonus already, so it certainly has a lot going for it. You can always pick up Shield at level 2 anyway, which will certainly be a nice boon and helps obviate the need for so much armor.

Staff Expertise prevents OAs from using ranged or area attacks with the implement. It doesn't help you moving away from danger, but you can at least attack - and sometimes this allows you to make attacks that would otherwise be impractical.