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

[Prism]

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

I think your table would be a more accurate comparison if rather than comparing +1 INT, +1 CON with toughness at level 4 you compare +2 CON with toughness, and then progress the +1, +1 route from there. This gives both characters the same INT and it becomes easier to see the differences between the two. For example at level 8 the toughness guy has 8 extra hit points, the CON guy has +1 on CON checks. Its hard to use your table for much when it ignores the extra INT for a third of the levels

I actually don't see many wizards doing either with their first feat. More likely something that boosts INT.

 

[Quartz]

+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"?

It's overpowered for a mage; it seems more reasonable for a fighter. A mage gets 57% more HP; a fighter gets 36%. Indeed, a mage with this feat has the same average HP as a fighter. That can't be right.

 

[KarinsDad]

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

Third or Fourth? You would give up that many Improved Ability Scores?

I think that several of these are not quite as good as they sound.

For example, Resilient. It helps about 3% of the time max for a casters who do a lot of concentration spells (50% of encounters which is very generous, most wizards cannot cast or keep up that many concentration spells until real high level) and 0.15% of the time for other classes at the cost of +1 to the main ability mod. +1 to the main ability mod is 5% increase in chance to hit / saves for at least 4 levels (or 1% to 2% plus other benefits like number of spells and boosts to skills / one type of save). Con saves for concentration is also a last level of defense type of thing. A high Dex high AC wizard with Shield will rarely get hit and have better init, hence, more rarely have to save for concentration or other nasty Con effects, lowering this 3%. Boosting Int is about just as good as this.

Warcaster without Resilient also helps about 3% of the time for wizards for concentration saves. Again, boosting Int is about just as good. For clerics or multiclass wizards who melee a lot, it helps more, maybe 6% of the time (since they are in melee more, they will probably get hit twice as often).

Light armor is about 2.5% for a wizard (10% boost assuming the wizard gets attacked 1 round in 4).

Toughness is a 30% (or higher) increase in hit points for most wizard allowing him to face adversity 30% longer (and hence counterattack 30% longer), situation depending. One's stats and feats do not matter if one is unconscious on the ground. A wizard who took Tough boosting Dex and Int does not need to worry about Con saves or boosting Con ever again (since Dex is improving his AC and his init, he gets hit less often and hits earlier which by default means that he will not get hit by con save attacks as often). He might have to worry about Wis saves.


In some campaigns, Ritual Caster might be a good feat (since it frees up spells known per day to non-ritual spells, increasing versatility).

Edit: fixed error.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's overpowered for a mage; it seems more reasonable for a fighter. A mage gets 57% more HP; a fighter gets 36%. Indeed, a mage with this feat has the same average HP as a fighter. That can't be right.

Most wizards would have at least a 12 Con, so the percentage improvement at level 4 is 36% and at level 20, 39%. These percentages lower for higher Con wizards and some races.

Most fighters would have at least a 14 Con, so the percentage improvement at level 4 is 22% and at level 20, 24%. These percentages lower for higher Con fighters and some races.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think your table would be a more accurate comparison if rather than comparing +1 INT, +1 CON with toughness at level 4 you compare +2 CON with toughness, and then progress the +1, +1 route from there. This gives both characters the same INT and it becomes easier to see the differences between the two. For example at level 8 the toughness guy has 8 extra hit points, the CON guy has +1 on CON checks. Its hard to use your table for much when it ignores the extra INT for a third of the levels

If you need or want more detail, please post your own table.

 

[Prism]

Third or Fourth? You would give up that many Improved Ability Scores?

Sorry I wasn't being very clear. I meant I would probably choose it after two ability score boosts. It would probably be my first or second feat only really due to lack of choice. I could see the variant human taking this first however unless they fancied the light armour route. I do think resilient could be good for wizards who like their concentration spells and the elemental feat could be good for evokers.

I do agree that many wizards will eventually take toughness but only really due to a lack choice of caster feats overall. I really don't think its over powered

 

[Prism]

If you need or want more detail, please post your own table.

I don't really need a table to describe it. Both PCs have exactly the same stats. At 4th level PC1 adds +2 to CON and PC2 takes toughness. For the rest of their progression they take identical feats or stat gains. The only difference is that PC1 gets a slightly better CON save and PC2 gets 1 extra hp per level compared to PC1 .

I rate the importance of the CON save higher than you seem to. Maybe that's because our big fights are often against enemy casters who love to take out the opposing party wizard. I can also see the advantage of a few extra hp although also rarely find that to be the deciding factor for a wizard. I rate these things about equal so I'm pretty happy

As I have said, I would probably ignore both until I was happy with INT and AC (via DEX or armour)

 

[KarinsDad]

Sorry I wasn't being very clear. I meant I would probably choose it after two ability score boosts. It would probably be my first or second feat only really due to lack of choice. I could see the variant human taking this first however unless they fancied the light armour route. I do think resilient could be good for wizards who like their concentration spells and the elemental feat could be good for evokers.

I do agree that many wizards will eventually take toughness but only really due to a lack choice of caster feats overall. I really don't think its over powered

It's hard to say. I'm pretty sure that most of my players will want that 20 main ability score. For most PCs, that's 2 of the 5 Ability Score Improvements since they start with a 16 stat.

I really like this system. 30 seconds after reading about feats in 3E, I was of the opinion that WotC opened the feat Pandora's Box and it would never be closed again. I think that this system slams the door on feats quite well. Sure, you can have them, but it'll cost you bumping up stats that improve saves and such.

 

[Dausuul]

Feats like Resilient are what you take when you have odd-numbered ability scores. If you have Con 11 or Con 13 for whatever reason (because you rolled for stats, or because you used point buy and ended up with one left over), then Resilient offers the benefit of putting a stat boost in Con and proficiency in Con saves. If you've got even-numbered Con, taking Resilient is dumb.

And I agree with Prism and Mistwell: The comparison here is between the Toughness feat and +2 Con. Bringing Dex into it is just complicating the issue for no reason. Feat choices are independent of each other. Your feat choice at 4th level doesn't restrict your feat choice at 8th level*.

[size=-2]*Unless you're looking at a feat with prerequisites, which Toughness presumably is not.[/size]

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't really need a table to describe it. Both PCs have exactly the same stats. At 4th level PC1 adds +2 to CON and PC2 takes toughness. For the rest of their progression they take identical feats or stat gains. The only difference is that PC1 gets a slightly better CON save and PC2 gets 1 extra hp per level compared to PC1 .

I rate the importance of the CON save higher than you seem to. Maybe that's because our big fights are often against enemy casters who love to take out the opposing party wizard. I can also see the advantage of a few extra hp although also rarely find that to be the deciding factor for a wizard. I rate these things about equal so I'm pretty happy

If you play with a DM who rarely targets the wizard like several posters have posted recently, then yeah, +2 Con is better since the wizard rarely runs out of hit points. My experience is not like that. It's not that wizards get attacked a lot because they are casting spells in my game, its that everyone gets attacked.

The concept of hanging back will help more in 5E because of move, fire/cast, move. Room 1 has two PC spellcasters/archers in it. Room 2 has the other 3 members of the party fighting NPCs. The spellcasters/archers move to the doorway, fire off their spell or arrow, and then move back into total cover. Fine. The spellcasters/archers are safe.

The other PCs get attacked 40% more often, fall quicker, and if the NPCs are winning, then they move into room 1 after killing off the PCs in room 2.

Alternatively, one smart NPC moves past the group, shuts the door and stands in front of it. Oops. 40% of the PCs are temporarily out of the fight (until that NPC goes down or the spellcasters/archers attacks can blow away the door).

As I have said, I would probably ignore both until I was happy with INT and AC (via DEX or armour)

Agreed.