D&D 5E Mage Armor: A (nearly) must have?

[ThirdWizard]

I think once you've reached the point where you can spare a first level spell slot, it would be foolish not to use it for Mage Armor. Unless there's a better option.

Which I'm hard pressed to come up with.

It's not really about the 1st level spell slot, its about the prepared slots that it will take. Even a 15th level wizard with 20 Int can only prepare 20 spells for the day. It seems like a lot, but that's all his spell levels combined up to 8th level. That's only two spells per level. You have to give up something for that prepared slot on mage armor, for one cast per day. As you go up in levels, acquiring more spells, and having to make harder decisions, it actually becomes more difficult to spare one for mage armor, even if it is a pretty good spell. Then, if you're talking about sorcerers and spells known, it gets even worse.

 

[jrowland]

Personally, I use "shield" and call it a day. It's reactive to when I truly do need it, but I don't have to burn it if I don't want and can risk using up that last slot on another spell if the narrative calls for it (Magic missile hail mary at the BBEG running away, eg)

 

[Rick Moscatello]

Thing is, about Shield, is if you get attacked twice a day, you're better off with Mage Armor...and Shield stacks with Mage Armor. If you honestly think you need Shield, then you may as well have a better Shield while you're at it.

So Shield only makes sense if you figure you'll be attacked exactly 1 time a day, which is a tough campaign to imagine. Any argument for Shield ("I might get attacked") defaults to you need Mage Armor.

That's an interesting point about a 15th level wizard, I guess it's possible at some point that you decide if you want even more awesome to go with your awesome. So many spells scale, though 20 spells still strikes me as a lot, with plenty of room to pick at least 2 spells for each spell level, even with not accounting for scaling. Hmm, guess I'll have to try some loadouts and see if it can make sense, not much experience with that high level.

 

[77IM]

Thing is, about Shield, is if you get attacked twice a day, you're better off with Mage Armor...

Well, shield is +5 AC, while mage armor is only +3. So if you get attacked twice a day (two rounds per day, really, since it lasts until the start of your turn) you're burning more slots on shield but it also helps your AC more (and it negates magic missile, too).

This is mostly relevant to sorcerers who might not want to burn Spells Known slots on mage armor and may have more spell slots available to burn on shield due to Flexible Casting. Especially draconic sorcerers, who already have a permanent 13+Dex AC.

At higher levels you may also have other defensive options, like mirror image or using animate dead to make a portable wall of zombie-cover. At low levels, false life is surprisingly useful.

...

All that said, I would never make a wizard character without mage armor. It's just too darn useful, and with a duration of 8 hours and costing only a 1st-level spell slot, it's just too tempting for me.

 

[jrowland]

Thing is, about Shield, is if you get attacked twice a day, you're better off with Mage Armor...and Shield stacks with Mage Armor. If you honestly think you need Shield, then you may as well have a better Shield while you're at it.

I don't think that. I think I'll get attacked NEVER, and if I do get attacked, I could play my wizard better. For most attacks, I'll suck up the hit and fry the bastard that hurt me or run away. BUT, by fate/luck/dice I get hit with a BIG DAMAGE attack I can use shield to deny that it and then run away.

expeditious retreat>mage armor, lol! ranged caster, hello...

 

[procproc]

This is mostly relevant to sorcerers who might not want to burn Spells Known slots on mage armor and may have more spell slots available to burn on shield due to Flexible Casting. Especially draconic sorcerers, who already have a permanent 13+Dex AC.

Mage Armor literally does nothing for draconic sorcerers, since it also provides a 13+Dex AC.

I do agree that (effectively) trading a first level spell slot each day for light armor (i.e., a 13 base AC) is a good tradeoff for most casters. But there are a reasonable number of exceptions, such as casters that get armor proficiency from another source, have access to bracers of armor, or whatnot.

 

[DaveDash]

When you find Elven Chain, mage armour becomes redundant.

I'm pretty sure Dwarves also cant cast spells in heavy armour because they're not proficient with them. They just get the movement penalty cancelled. I don't have my books here though so I could be wrong.

I guess if you're really careful you could get away without the spell, but I've seen a Sorcerer (Wild Mage) who didn't prepare it, and he is VERY squishy.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

I don't think that. I think I'll get attacked NEVER, and if I do get attacked, I could play my wizard better. For most attacks, I'll suck up the hit and fry the bastard that hurt me or run away. BUT, by fate/luck/dice I get hit with a BIG DAMAGE attack I can use shield to deny that it and then run away.

expeditious retreat>mage armor, lol! ranged caster, hello...

Sounds like your GM could use a few pointers. He's obviously not nearly evil enough.

 

[Rick Moscatello]

Indeed. I've had parties of 8 and still the mages get attacked pretty regularly. Even if not in melee, ranged attacks are still quite possible.

 

[EroGaki]

Yeah, I could never get behind the "if your mage is being attacked, you're doing it wrong mentality." In every game I've played in, smart enemies will target spellcasters if they cause trouble, especially if they are running around in robes.

Yes, player tactics are important, but sometimes, the wizard is going to be attacked, whether it be in melee or ranged, or by another caster.