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

[KarinsDad]

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.

There is a very good reason.

The comparison is really between the +4 Con and the Tough feat. The first costs two ASI slots. The second costs one ASI slot, but does not give the +2 to Con saves/checks. The second option loses the +2 to Con saves/checks in order to get either another feat, or another +2 to another ability score.

+2 to another ability score is heads and shoulders above a +2 to Cons saves and checks.


That is the reason I brought Dex into the picture.

Tough < +4 Con - +2 Con saves/checks for one less ASI slot.

Tough + +2 Dex > +4 Con - +2 Con saves/checks for the same ASI slot cost. This is not only better, it's a lot better for PCs that get targeted in combat a lot (maybe their DM targets casters), especially ones in light or no armor.

Alternatively, Tough + Lightly Armor > +4 Con - +2 Con saves/checks for the same ASI slot cost. Again, much better for a PC in no armor that might get attacked frequently. For the same slot cost, the one PC gets the same hit points and +2 for AC and +1 to Dex. The other PC gets the same hit points and +2 Con saves/checks.


The same could be said for a different ability score, but Dex is the big elephant in the room because it helps AC, Init, and Stealth.


There are four levels of defense in order for nasty Con attacks and/or for concentration.

1) Get total cover. If the PC cannot be attacked, then he will not get hit.
2) Improve AC with ASIs and/or with cover and/or with spells. If the PC is hit less, then he will need to make fewer Con saves.
3) Get Warcaster to protect against concentration saves. For casters who use a lot of concentration spells, these will fail more than Con saves due to nasty monster attacks since the situation will occur more frequently
4) Improve Con

Improving Con is the least of these because it's the last line of defense, and hence, helps infrequently. Bumping up the other defenses helps more.


Comparing +4 Con to Tough plus another ASI is a much closer and accurate comparison. The PCs have the same number of hit points in those cases, so going down because of hit points alone is not a factor.

Comparing +2 Con to Tough is a logical fallacy. It tries to keep the same number of ASIs whereas the important thing is to keep the same number of hit points in order to reduce other variables.


For a player who wants 2 more hit points per level (the purpose of Tough), Tough plus another ASI (feat or ability scores) is much better than +4 Con. Considerably better.


If a player does not need or want 2 more hit points per level, then +2 Con is the obvious choice and Tough is out of the question. Comparing these two is idiotic. It's only when the player wants 2 more hit points per level that a comparison makes sense.

 

[Dausuul]

There is a very good reason.

The comparison is really between the +4 Con and the Tough feat. The first costs two ASI slots. The second costs one ASI slot, but does not give the +2 to Con saves/checks. The second option loses the +2 to Con saves/checks in order to get either another feat, or another +2 to another ability score.

You're starting from the presumption that the player is determined to get +2 hit points per level ASAP. That leads you to create a false dilemma--that the only options are "+4 Con" or "Toughness and +2 Dex." You are ignoring the fact that "+2 Con and +2 Dex" is also an option.

If a player does not need or want 2 more hit points per level, then +2 Con is the obvious choice and Tough is out of the question. Comparing these two is idiotic. It's only when the player wants 2 more hit points per level that a comparison makes sense.

This is another way of stating the same false dilemma. You're assuming +2 hit points per level is either all-important or worthless, that a player must be either 100% committed to it or not interested at all. The reality is that +2 hit points per level is valuable, but other things are also valuable. Whether I pursue +2 hit points/level or +1 hit point/level or +0 hit points/level will depend on the opportunity cost. What do I have to give up?

 

[KarinsDad]

You're starting from the presumption that the player is determined to get +2 hit points per level ASAP. That leads you to create a false dilemma--that the only options are "+4 Con" or "Toughness and +2 Dex." You are ignoring the fact that "+2 Con and +2 Dex" is also an option.

How exactly does a PC get +2 Con and +2 Dex ASAP?

And no, that is not my presumption at all.

This is another way of stating the same false dilemma. You're assuming +2 hit points per level is either all-important or worthless, that a player must be either 100% committed to it or not interested at all. The reality is that +2 hit points per level is valuable, but other things are also valuable. Whether I pursue +2 hit points/level or +1 hit point/level or +0 hit points/level will depend on the opportunity cost. What do I have to give up?

Nope.

I am assuming that the player either wants/needs +1 hit points per level, or wants/needs +2 hit points per level if he is even thinking about more hit points. The only reason to even consider Tough is because the player wants more hit points, so that is the assumption I am starting with when talking about comparing Tough to other options.


If he only wants +1 hit points per level, then +2 Con is a fairly obvious choice. If he thinks that 2 hit points per level is a bit of a waste, then +2 Con is a better choice than Tough. Another possible choice is a feat that gives +1 to Con (like Resilience) and taking +1 to Con another time, but that costs an additional 0.5 ASI.


But if he wants +2 hit points per level, the main options are to either take +4 to Con (which takes 2 ASI) or take Tough (which takes 1 ASI).

If that is what the player wants, these are his options. I'm merely stating that if he wants +2 hits per level, Tough plus another ASI is often a considerably better choice than +4 Con (because it takes one fewer ASI and it gets him his hit points immediately vs. losing +2 to Cons saves eventually). He often gets more bang for his buck.


It all depends on what the player wants. He has one better choice for 1 hit point per level (+2 Con) and he has one (typically) better choice for 2 hit points per level (Tough).


For a player who does not want or need more hit points, Tough is a terrible decision and +2 or +4 to Con is not much better. In this case where he does not want/need more hit points but wants/needs a Con save boost, he could take Resilience and be much better off.


Tough and Resilience combined is also usually better for players worried about Con saves and hit points than a +4 Con boost since it pits eventual +2 to Cons checks against +1 Con and -1 to +4 Con saves (level and feat order dependent), the rest being equal. +4 to Con in this case is just an inferior choice unless the DM throws a bunch of Con checks at the party.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

3 archers are in the back along with an enemy spellcaster. Two of the archers fire at the wizard while the other archer and the spellcaster fire at the cleric.

How exactly are your fellow party members supposed to protect you?

Don´t have enemy archers in your back?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Allies provided cover in 4E.

Allies in 5E also provide cover to the enemies that the wizard is targeting. Sure, he can move first, but then he gets out from behind his own cover (or at least makes it easier for ranged NPCs to move a little and target him).

Cover was only a benefit in 4E, now it's a two edged sword.

Move 15 ft.. cast your spell, move 15 ft.

The enemies can then ready to fire at you, but usually that should work well enough. Or you use fireball or any other saving throw spell or magic missile.

 

[Xodis]

I hope Tough ends up being

+1 CON

+1 HP/level

Advantage on Save vs Death rolls.

Then Resilience would work well with Tough while both being exclusive enough that you dont need to take them together.

 

[KarinsDad]

Move 15 ft.. cast your spell, move 15 ft.

The enemies can then ready to fire at you, but usually that should work well enough. Or you use fireball or any other saving throw spell or magic missile.

Yup. Which is a major reason why I do not like option #1 in my Cover thread.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ndling-Cover&p=6341523&viewfull=1#post6341523


There should be situations where moving 15 feet is not enough to avoid the NPC cover and a PC cannot just come out of cover (or total cover) fire without the enemies having cover, and then move back into his own cover.

 

[Dausuul]

How exactly does a PC get +2 Con and +2 Dex ASAP?

Same way you get to +4 Con ASAP, or Toughness and +2 Dex ASAP: By spending one feat slot, and then another feat slot.

For a player who does not want or need more hit points...

This is the crux of the issue: There is no such player. Or at least, there are very few such players, and they consist mostly of people who rolled crappy stats and want to get their characters killed so they can make new ones.

Everybody wants more hit points. There is no down side to having more hit points. The question is, what do you have to give up to get them? If the cost to get +2 hit points/level were "spend 5 gp," you'd be crazy to say no. If the cost were "give up all your class abilities for 10 levels," you'd be crazy to say yes.

In the case of Toughness, the cost is "give up a feat/stat boost." To determine if Toughness is balanced, we need to know if that's a fair trade. So we pick a feat/stat boost that we agree is balanced, and do the comparison. If we all agree that +2 Con is balanced, then it's the logical choice for comparison, since the difference between the two is relatively small.

You could also ask whether the combination "Toughness and +2 Dex" is balanced. In that case, the cost is "give up two feats/stat boosts." However, it's silly to do it that way. If you determine that "Toughness and +2 Dex is overpowered," you don't know if it's because Toughness is overpowered or because +2 Dex is overpowered or both. Feat choices are independent, so there's no reason not to evaluate Toughness on its own.

 

[Joe Liker]

The enemies can then ready to fire at you, but usually that should work well enough. Or you use fireball or any other saving throw spell or magic missile.

Cover provides an equal bonus to both AC and Dex saves.

But taking a broader view here, it seems like everyone is arguing from a viewpoint that only accounts for their own specific idea of what a "normal" combat encounter looks like, hence the widely varied ideas of how much attention the back row party members can/will/should draw.

The truth is, sometimes AC and HP will be helpful to a wizard; other times they will be useless. That's why I feel like it's totally foolish to say one build is flat-out superior. It may be superior for your play style in your group, but there are sure to be many other groups and play styles that would not fit well with your build at all.

I think that just goes to show the balance in character building is actually quite good in 5e, at least in the basic wizard.

 

[Xodis]

Cover provides an equal bonus to both AC and Dex saves.

But taking a broader view here, it seems like everyone is arguing from a viewpoint that only accounts for their own specific idea of what a "normal" combat encounter looks like, hence the widely varied ideas of how much attention the back row party members can/will/should draw.

The truth is, sometimes AC and HP will be helpful to a wizard; other times they will be useless. That's why I feel like it's totally foolish to say one build is flat-out superior. It may be superior for your play style in your group, but there are sure to be many other groups and play styles that would not fit well with your build at all.

I think that just goes to show the balance in character building is actually quite good in 5e, at least in the basic wizard.

Truth!