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

As noted before though the mountain dwarf wizard really isn't a viable build. The armored wizard build is extremely viable, but the mountain dwarf is not the race to choose for that build. With his feat the human wizard gets a 2 point better armor class than the dwarf (because the human can use a shield with his feat and the dwarf can't) and with his int bonus the human is also a better spell caster.

Yeah, but he's just not as cool as an armored dwarf in the front line, swinging his battleaxe two handed while periodically blasting off a spell, then bringing up a shield when hit.

Humans: better at everything, except style.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I feel like this debate is being driven by fighter players. For the typical wizard, AC is a secondary consideration. It's worth something, but it sure isn't worth sacrificing two feats for! Remember, not only do you have to spend one feat to get heavy armor proficiency, you lose another one making up the missing point of Int.

The mountain dwarf wizard is certainly viable, as a gishy type who can stand in the front lines with a battle-axe when necessary. But it certainly doesn't outshine humans and high elves.
I've been playing straight wizards since 1st edition so this isn't coming from a fighter player.

This edition is setup differently than the others. You are allowed to hold one buff that requires concentration and that can be broken rather easily. Not sure why your wizards of editions past didn't worry about AC because mine sure as hell did. In 3rd edition, I had Shield and Mage Armour up ASAP and along with a decent dex made sure I didn't become a pin cushion, or just another dead adventurer who got hit from behind. Also, monsters hit really hard in this edition so there is reason not to have a good AC. One more point of INT or one more spell is nothing when you are dead.
 

As noted before though the mountain dwarf wizard really isn't a viable build. The armored wizard build is extremely viable, but the mountain dwarf is not the race to choose for that build. With his feat the human wizard gets a 2 point better armor class than the dwarf (because the human can use a shield with his feat and the dwarf can't) and with his int bonus the human is also a better spell caster.

A shield comes with armour proficiency and a human woukd have to spend two feats in order to get medium armour proficiency.
 

I've been playing straight wizards since 1st edition so this isn't coming from a fighter player.

This edition is setup differently than the others. You are allowed to hold one buff that requires concentration and that can be broken rather easily. Not sure why your wizards of editions past didn't worry about AC because mine sure as hell did. In 3rd edition, I had Shield and Mage Armour up ASAP and along with a decent dex made sure I didn't become a pin cushion, or just another dead adventurer who got hit from behind. Also, monsters hit really hard in this edition so there is reason not to have a good AC. One more point of INT or one more spell is nothing when you are dead.
I didn't say I never worried about AC; just that it was a secondary consideration. It's a question of opportunity cost. What are you giving up to buy 3-4 points of AC?

I prepare mage armor as a wizard, because a single 1st-level spell slot to buy +3 AC is usually a worthwhile trade. But two feats? Heck no. I could spend those feats boosting my Dex instead, and get +2 AC, +2 Stealth, +2 Acrobatics, +2 Initiative, and +2 Dexterity saves. (Remember, not everything you fight is swinging a sword at you. When the dragon cuts loose with its breath weapon, fancy armor's not gonna help.)
 

Let's play devil's advocate here. OP you claim mountain dwarves make the best overall wizard, as indicated in your title. So is it completely worthless to play any other type of wizard? If no, explain why not. If yes, then explain and reason why you think anyone would want to play a wizard of another race. I'm curious to hear your answer.
 

That sucks. I'd spill my coke on that dude and his stuff. Repeatedly. :D That's bullxxxx.

Not to say that the Wizard should be protected by the DM, but that's just asking for it.
He..actually, THEY since there were 3 or 4 DMs with that attitude in our group(our group had 12 people in it, 8 of which were DMs, we voted on which game to play each week) felt that it was tactically the best idea for enemies. After all, if you could make ONE attack and remove someone from the battle who could possible fireball your entire 20 Orc army and kill them all, it seemed a much better idea than wasting an attack on a heavily armored fighter that you were likely to miss and even if you did hit wouldn't reduce their HP to 0, so they'd keep fighting you.

Any attempt to argue against it would be met with the same reasoning: Sorry, you needed to die, you were the biggest threat while simultaneously being the easiest to kill. And there are no rules about what happens when the enemies run past your allies, your allies can't stop them from getting past them and nothing bad happens to the enemies...so why wouldn't they just run past them to kill you? (obviously, this was a 2e game, so no AOOs) *I* didn't kill you, the monsters did. I was just role playing them correctly.

Which led to a bunch of people who said "Alright, that reasoning is sound...they would legitimately want to kill me first. But it isn't fun to die all of the time. So maybe it's good to best to sometimes purposefully run the enemies in a non-optimal way to make the game more fun. Rule number one, don't attack the wizard....it's not fun."

That's not my experience in 4E (earlier editions, sure, a surrounded wizard was toast unless he could go invisible or something). The 4E first level Iron Mage was one of the first ideas talked about.
My wizard in 4e went the first...4 or 5 adventures without having a single attack aimed at him. They were all Living Forgotten Realms adventures, so about 3 battles per adventure. Most battles, enemies attacked the nearest person to them or were marked by the defenders and attacked them. The first time enemies really targeted him was when we fought some Leaping Spiders(or whatever they are called) that were able to shift 10 or something, so they used that to get past the front line and attack me. If it wasn't for my Eladrin teleport I might have died that combat. As soon as I teleported away, they focused on the PCs closer to them and I wasn't attacked again.

As for not being surrounded, that's a result of the segregated room concept that many modules have. DMs are trained to run and design adventures that are so linear (i.e. the kobolds in room 3 do not attack because they do not hear anything in room 2, err, what?).
Yes, this is exactly why we don't get surrounded.
 

Not sure why your wizards of editions past didn't worry about AC because mine sure as hell did. In 3rd edition, I had Shield and Mage Armour up ASAP and along with a decent dex made sure I didn't become a pin cushion, or just another dead adventurer who got hit from behind.

And don't forget high CON, Improved Invisibility, and Mirror Image.

Mirror Image was cool. :cool:
 

Your intelligent monsters need to report back to boot camp for retraining. Tactic #2 is "Kill the wizard first!"

At low levels, the other characters actually protect the wizard. The monsters if smart may try to get past them but a good team will prevent that. This whole scenario is less likely at higher levels but still applies some.
 

i don´t know if someone said it, but with charge out of the game and allies providing cover, attacking the wizard in the back is not that easy. opportunity attack rules allow for run around tactics RAW, but as a dm i am willing to bend the rules a bit.
 

I'm not entirely sure that I understand your post. Are you saying that the moderately armored feat requires proficiency in light armor as a prerequisite? So far I'm going by the little feat information that I've seen leaked which did not mention that. If that's true, then would change things.

A shield comes with armour proficiency and a human woukd have to spend two feats in order to get medium armour proficiency.
 

Remove ads

Top