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

[Dausuul]

If you're a caster, every monster in the game can force a Con save on a hit if you're maintaining a spell.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't understand your analysis on this comparing to Dex.

Simple. Some players do not want to waste time boosting Con since it mainly helps for hit points. So instead of boosting Con, they boost Dex and get a much bigger bang for their buck.

For example, the 12 Con wizard in my example above who eventually gets the same number of hit points by taking Tough and instead of boosting Con 4 times, he boosts Dex 4 times. He has the same number of hit points eventually, a lot more hit points at lower levels starting at level 4, +1 to AC/Init/Dex/Dex saves/Stealth at level 12, +2 to AC/Init/Dex/Dex saves/Stealth at level 19, and it cost him 7 levels of his Int being 1 less, and 8 levels where his Con saves/checks were 1 less, and 5 levels where his Con saves/checks were 2 less (assuming an even starting Con, that's about 1% of all hits on him where the Con difference matters).

AC is attacked all of the time (about 3% where the Dex boost matters for AC alone, not including Init, Stealth, Dex saves, etc.). Having more hit points at level 4 onwards and more AC at levels 12 and 19 might be very worth it.

So the tradeoff is +1 to Con Saves and +1 to Con checks and +1 to hit points, vs +0 to Con saves and +0 to Con checks and +2 to hit points. Seems like a fair trade to me. Definitely not a no-brainer, and also not comparable to +4 to an ability.

Appearances can be deceiving.

As per my example above where the Wizard goes from 17 hit points at level 3 to 30 hit points at level 4.

8 bonus hit points in a single level and eventually 40 hit points, a total of 17 levels where he gains significantly, vs. losing +1 to two other ability score mods for 7 levels (the other 10 levels do not matter since a 19 ability score is no different than an 18 ability score, etc.).

Or say he waits until level 12. Then he gets bonus hit points (starting at 24) for 9 levels vs. losing +1 mod to two other ability scores for 3 levels.


Or say it is a human doing it at level one. Bonus hit points for 20 levels plus a skill vs. losing +1 to four other ability scores for either 7 or 10 levels depending on if they are even or odd. Here, his main ability score does not even get touched.


The more I think about it, +1 per level is not enough. But +2 per level, although not a no brainer, is a very strong candidate for a feat for nearly any class/race. Hill Dwarf fighters can go nuts with this and have 284 hit points at level 20 (60 more hit points than other fighters who do not take this feat, that's >25% more damage he can handle due to this feat and his racial ability). It would take the 16 HD dragon in the Starter Set about 27 rounds to take down this dwarf, it would take the dwarf about 3 rounds if that to take out the dragon, a 20HD dragon might take upwards of 5 rounds. High level fighters are nasty in 5E.

 

[KarinsDad]

If you're a caster, every monster in the game can force a Con save on a hit if you're maintaining a spell.

Sure. A +1 is a 5% difference times 50% of the time casters are actually concentrating in an encounter (it's probably lower than this over the lifetime of a wizard, especially at mid to lower levels) times one round in four where the caster actually gets hit (if he is getting hit more than this, he's a dead or unconscious wizard a lot) which is 1 time in 160 or <1% of the time this matters.

Let's be generous and say that the wizard gets hit 3 rounds out of 4, but he has a dedicated team of clerics with him. It's still 2% of the time where it matters. What's more important is that he is getting hit 3 rounds out of 4, so he needs that Tough feat and the Dex boost, screw bumping up Con.

 

[Mistwell]

Simple. Some players do not want to waste time boosting Con since it mainly helps for hit points. So instead of boosting Con, they boost Dex and get a much bigger bang for their buck.

No, I understand why people want Dex. What I don't understand is why you want to mix the issues inherent with the Dex argument (that it is too powerful in 5e in general, compared to a whole host of things) with this issue. It's nonsense. You're conflating "Dex is overpowered" with "this feat is underpowered because in an alternate universe you might have instead chosen Dex which is overpowered."

So let's focus on the issue at hand, not the Dex issue. It's a canard. The obvious comparison is to increased Con. If you want to talk about the Dex problem with the game, do it in some thread about that topic. Because you could compare the Dex problem to anything in the game. It's entirely non-unique to this feat topic.

The more I think about it, +1 per level is not enough. But +2 per level, although not a no brainer, is a very strong candidate for a feat for nearly any class/race.

So we're again back to you arguing that a 0.5 difference is obviously overpowered.

 

[The Black Ranger]

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).

Let's look at the dwarf a moment. He gets a Con bonus so he gets more HP and a better Concentration check. He doesn't need Dex because he doesn't have to worry about Mage Armour do to his armour and I would say Initiative isn't that important. The strength bonus gives him morr carrying capacity. He also doesn't have to use up a spell slot everyday for Mage Armour so he is free to use it for something else. The dwarf gets to spend the rest of his levels focusing on Int and or Con.

Now lets take the High Elf for example. He must decide which stats he is going to improve: Con to get more HP and Concentration, Dex to increase his AC since he doesn't wear armour, or Int to better his apellcasting. He can work on all three but he won't have much at higher levels.

One thing people aren't mentioning is the fact that the melee guys are not going to be standing around in the same place the whole time, nor are they just going to stand there and act as your cover. They are going to move around, run up, or get into position to help the rogue and other melee PCs. There is no reason not to target the wizard or anyone else in the party for that matter. Having this attitude will see you dead.

 

[Prism]

Now lets take the High Elf for example. He must decide which stats he is going to improve: Con to get more HP and Concentration, Dex to increase his AC since he doesn't wear armour, or Int to better his apellcasting. He can work on all three but he won't have much at higher levels.

What the high elf may do is spend the couple of feats to get them to medium armour over the course of the first 12 levels. Those two feats may also net them a +2 to Dex so they could get to 14 with a starting roll of 10. What we don't know is if this also grants shield proficiency. If it does then they could be easily reach AC 19. Of course at the same time the dwarf could be pushing Int

However I don't imagine many players will want their wizards wearing armour (dwarves excepted) and I don't think many will be that bothered by the lower AC. We can't assume anything about magic items but I imagine bracers of defence will appear at some point

 

[The Black Ranger]

What the high elf may do is spend the couple of feats to get them to medium armour over the course of the first 12 levels. Those two feats may also net them a +2 to Dex so they could get to 14 with a starting roll of 10. What we don't know is if this also grants shield proficiency. If it does then they could be easily reach AC 19. Of course at the same time the dwarf could be pushing Int

However I don't imagine many players will want their wizards wearing armour (dwarves excepted) and I don't think many will be that bothered by the lower AC. We can't assume anything about magic items but I imagine bracers of defence will appear at some point

I just think it's a mistake to write off AC, HP, and Concentration like some people have been doing. This is not the heroic edition where you have higher amounts of HP and spell casting has returned to being fragile. We also don't have all these immediate interrupts like 4th edition had so we are looking at a more dangerous edition.

Yes the elf would need to spend two feats on medium armour proficiency and then need to decide if he wants Int or Dex or take a hit to go up in both. The dwarf's medium armour proficiency is roughly the equivalent of two feats and he gets the bonus to Con. He essentially gets what he needs just from his race alone. The high elf gets none of those so he is having to spend all his non racial resources on what he needs.

 

[Prism]

The more I think about it, +1 per level is not enough. But +2 per level, although not a no brainer, is a very strong candidate for a feat for nearly any class/race.

I agree its a strong candidate, especially for wizards who are of course low on hit points to start with and also have probably less competition for feats (which are seemingly more melee focused). Here are some things you could do with that first feat/stat gain

Intelligence +2 gaining net +1 to lots skills, save DCs, to hit
Toughness +2 hit points per level
Light armour proficiency to get +2 AC
Resilient feat to become proficient in CON saves
War Caster to help with concentration checks
Elemental Adept probably to boost damage

All these are good options I would say. I'm not convinced toughness stands out especially but I'm sure will be chosen eventually regardless due to lack of other options. I would probably choose it 3rd or 4th for one of my wizards

 

[Prism]

Yes the elf would need to spend two feats on medium armour proficiency and then need to decide if he wants Int or Dex or take a hit to go up in both. The dwarf's medium armour proficiency is roughly the equivalent of two feats and he gets the bonus to Con. He essentially gets what he needs just from his race alone. The high elf gets none of those so he is having to spend all his non racial resources on what he needs.

I would actually equate the medium armour proficiency to one feat if we believe things are the same as the alpha - or more accurately two half feats if both also grant +1 Dex. And we can't ignore the elf Dex bonus too. If we took an 8th level wizard and compared dwarf and elf I would think the dwarf could have higher CON and INT, whereas the elf could have a higher DEX and AC. The thing the elf can choose to do with armour is possibly neglect AC to some degree knowing that a 10 could easily become 14

I'm not trying to argue that a mountain dwarf wizard isn't great. I very pleased that this combination becomes decent for I think the first time. I just think that all the other traditionally strong wizards such as high elf, human (variant) and gnome are still as strong in different ways

 

[KarinsDad]

No, I understand why people want Dex. What I don't understand is why you want to mix the issues inherent with the Dex argument (that it is too powerful in 5e in general, compared to a whole host of things) with this issue. It's nonsense. You're conflating "Dex is overpowered" with "this feat is underpowered because in an alternate universe you might have instead chosen Dex which is overpowered."

So let's focus on the issue at hand, not the Dex issue. It's a canard. The obvious comparison is to increased Con. If you want to talk about the Dex problem with the game, do it in some thread about that topic. Because you could compare the Dex problem to anything in the game. It's entirely non-unique to this feat topic.

The Dex issue is not nonsense, you just do not understand it. I've explained it to you twice, you still do not get it.

Re-read what I wrote carefully. The wizard who takes tough can get both extra hit points and extra Dex, the two things many players of wizards really really want (as opposed to one of them), at a minor cost. And he gets the extra 2 hit points per level at level 4 instead of +1 at level 8 and +2 at level 16. Those extra hit points will save the wizard's bacon a LOT.

PS. I also compared to Con in my table up above which you seem to have ignored. If you want that analysis, look there.

So we're again back to you arguing that a 0.5 difference is obviously overpowered.

I think that 1.0 is just a hair underpowered but virtually nobody would take the feat. 2.0 is very strong where many people will take the feat. Given the choice between the two and after analysis, I now think that 2.0 is the only option that works. Course, compare 40 hit points in 20 levels in 5E with 10 hit points in 20 levels in 4E, but feats are more rare and valuable in 5E.

I never talked about a 0.5 difference. Maybe you could explain what you mean by that.