D&D 5E So it looks as if the mountain dwarf will still make the best overall wizard.

[Mistwell]

I think he is talking about the leaked alpha-playtest, which differs somewhat from the last official playtest.

I know. I accurately quoted what is in that document. It says twice your level.

 

[The Black Ranger]

Coddling? Because it's not always the most tactically sound decision to attack the back-row unarmored guy?

In most cases, the monsters' first priority should be self-preservation, not murder. It is not normal to go after weak-looking targets who are behind cover and have not shown themselves to be a credible threat when there are closer, uncovered, stronger-looking guys who are waving weapons.

Furthermore, at level 1, a wizard with Dex 14, mage armor and half cover has an effective AC of 17. He's not actually any easier to hit than a great weapon fighter in splint mail on the front row. So the "monsters like easy targets" rationale is a little bit flimsy. (And I guess so is the perception that wizards need more AC.)

If a foolish wizard stands out in the open, sparks a-flying, then yes. By all means, focus fire on him. But it's not coddling to have most monsters focus on the more obvious threat when players use a smarter formation.

ALSO ... there's the situation where the party is up against a single big monster (or maybe two of them). There's no way that thing's getting past the front line to eat the wizard -- another situation where the wizard's resources are better used in areas other than AC. Not every battle is a skirmish between small armies.

With regards to Mage Armour: One of the advantages of the mountain dwarf was that he doesn't have to cast that spell because he is already wearing armour, which then gives the dwarf an available slot. Now people who disagree are saying their non dwarf doesn't need to cast Mage Armour because their DM doesn't or should not target them. This is the worst thing I have ever heard to be honest because it's relying too much on DM fiat to lessen the use of AC thereby trying to lessen the dwarf build. Nobody is talking about focus fire on the wizard, nor is anyone talking about running past anyone in order to get at the wizard. I am talking about a normal encounter that involves melee and ranged attacks. Melee guys will square off with other melee and ranged will attack those at a distance.

This is the part about the coddling. If your DM doesn't attack you when he has a perfect opportunity just because you have low defenses and low HP is coddling.


NPCs and monsters are not there to just line up and let you use your powers to kill them. There is nothing written that gives DMs advice in the form of having the encounters make decisions it wouldn't normally make just for the sake of allowing the PCs to win. Also, you can't pretend to know the attitudes and reactions of the DM's encounters. If arrows are flying and swords are swinging then it becomes obvious they aren't there to subdue. Unless magic is super super rare, then common will have heard of magic and wizards, especially if the world is full of supernatural baddies. You can't implant ignorance into a DM's encounter just because you didn't want to cast Mage Armour and up your defense.

 

[Jack99]

I know. I accurately quoted what is in that document. It says twice your level.

My bad. I assumed that since he stated something else than what was in the official playtest, he was quoting the alpha, which I haven't read.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

This is the part about the coddling. If your DM doesn't attack you when he has a perfect opportunity just because you have low defenses and low HP is coddling.

What is a perfect opportunity? They are somewhere on the battlefield and you have a ranged weapon? I don't think anyone has ever said "Wizards should never be attacked", just that on average they are attacked less often which means their AC is less important. I find the same thing is true of Archers of all classes and anyone who stays out of melee.

There aren't very many ranged enemies. When they are in a battle, they are often being forced to melee. Even when they aren't forced to melee, a melee enemies is normally rapidly approaching them...which makes that person a primary target to make sure they never get into melee.

NPCs and monsters are not there to just line up and let you use your powers to kill them. There is nothing written that gives DMs advice in the form of having the encounters make decisions it wouldn't normally make just for the sake of allowing the PCs to win. Also, you can't pretend to know the attitudes and reactions of the DM's encounters. If arrows are flying and swords are swinging then it becomes obvious they aren't there to subdue. Unless magic is super super rare, then common will have heard of magic and wizards, especially if the world is full of supernatural baddies. You can't implant ignorance into a DM's encounter just because you didn't want to cast Mage Armour and up your defense.

Magic doesn't need to be SUPER SUPER rare just to have the enemies not know everything about magic. It's likely people know "There are Wizards, they cast weird magical spells that do some wondrous things." They might even know that casting spells is hard in armor so Wizards often don't wear any. Some might be familiar with a couple of spells they've experienced in the past.

Other than that, I assume most people know nothing about Wizards. What can the Wizard do? No idea. Are his spells more dangerous than a sword? Don't know. Is he easier to kill? Not sure. Maybe they have magical force fields that stop you from hurting them.

Instead, I treat them exactly as I do any other combatant in a battle. Are they the closest to me? Have they done anything to directly threaten me? Have they demonstrated any ability that appears to be extremely powerful? Is there a more pressing threat that if not dealt with quickly could mean my death? Then I weigh all of those things and choose a target accordingly.

This means that, especially in 5e, the Wizard is the guy standing in the back barely doing any damage and missing more often than the rest of his allies. He gets targeted last.

 

[Joe Liker]

With regards to Mage Armour: One of the advantages of the mountain dwarf was that he doesn't have to cast that spell because he is already wearing armour, which then gives the dwarf an available slot.

Dwarves, not having an Int bonus, do not net an additional spell slot for not using mage armor until very high levels when every wizard can be assumed to have an Int of 20.

By that point, you have so many spells that an extra one is not that big a deal. The elf's extra cantrip and sleep/charm resistance more than balance it out.

Another point worth making is that very few encounters should leave the wizard with no opportunity to get behind cover. Unless your campaign takes place in a featureless desert, there should be something to hide behind most of the time, granting full cover. With the relaxed movement rules in 5e, this means a smart wizard can easily make sure he's almost never a target of ranged attacks. Enemies with initiative might ready actions hoping he'll poke his head out, but if they do that, the wizard can decide not to oblige them (and the enemy attack is effectively nullified for the round, taking some of the heat off of the front line).

 

[Quartz]

Wizard in my campaign has 102 hit points at level 10.

That's pretty near maximum: CON 20 + 10d6 gives a maximum of 110 HP.

Edit: I see you're using a playtest feat which seems completely overpowered. Still that's pretty near maximum for CON 16.

 

[Shiroiken]

Getting in the way would only provide a bonus to AC, it doesn't "draw the fire".

You would have to get past the enemy melee in order to get their ranged into melee.

You don't always have terrain and other obstacles to hide behind.

Providing Cover is just as good. Also, if you do get them into melee, it causes Disadvantage.

There are not always Melee Enemies, or enough ranged enemies. Terrain matters for this too.

There is not always the situation of ranged enemies either.

If you play on a flat grid with no features, then yea AC is super important. If you have the ability to use the terrain to your advantage, you can minimize the risks quite effectively. If you minimize your risks, you can spend the resources you spent on AC somewhere more useful. That is why the MD is a good Wizard, but not universally the best wizard.

 

[Shiroiken]

This is the crux of the matter. WotC for decades has been designing adventurers and PC abilities so that it is easy for some PCs to have low AC (or other low defenses) and not be as much in harm's way.

Smart NPCs should have extremely good defensive locations. Barricades, high points for missile attacks, all types of defenses. It's their home turf. Instead, the vast majority of WotC adventure sites are "open door, kill monsters, open next door, kill monsters".

Why are these monsters so stupid? One thing they could do is open up every single door in the place. They could have choke points where one guard is designated to run back and get EVERYONE else while the guards at the main entrance slow up the PCs.

AC should be near the top of every player's list in importance because intelligent NPCs should be run intelligently.

The starter set adventure took some baby steps in this direction, but not quite enough (there are still two significant "open door, kill monsters, open next door, kill monsters" adventure site designs in it).

Smart NPCs SHOULD be played intelligently, but not-smart NPCs shouldn't. There are usually more of the latter than the former, especially among monsters.

As to adventure design... don't think along the lines of Encounters. If you open the door and make enough noise for the nearby monsters to hear, they SHOULD come running if it makes sense for them to do so. For example, in Against the Giants (1E), if you make noise during combat in the children's room, the adults overlook it because they assume it's just the kids playing, but if you make noise in the chief's bedroom, they'll come a running. A lot of earlier adventures (TSR) assumed the DM would determine how much noise was made and adjust events accordingly. WotC has focused too much (IMO) on "Encounter Design" for game balance, which can easily throw realism out the window.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Yeah. Not gonna change his character based on the alpha. Will just wait for the PHB. With that said, the permanent aura of disadvantage vis-a-vis melee attacks is a much bigger problem for me as a DM. Mostly because I use monsters that suit the "story", not because they can bypass annoying PC-abilities.

yeah its not the hp, which are plentiful in 5e (although I would not be giving out max hp), its the disad aura that is the problem.

 

[Mistwell]

That's pretty near maximum: CON 20 + 10d6 gives a maximum of 110 HP.

Edit: I see you're using a playtest feat which seems completely overpowered. Still that's pretty near maximum for CON 16.

+2 HP/lev is now considered "completely overpowered"? There was widespread agreement that +1 HP/lev was "completely underpowered" so is this really that sensitive a number that .5 in either direction is "completely out of line"?