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

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I really do not have a problem with the concept, but I doubt we are going to see a bunch of Wizards running around in Plate at L1. (and if one did, it would be a good time for swarms of Rust Monsters to come out for their once a decade mating extravaganza).

This makes me want to lobby for "Rust Monster Swarm" to be a new 5E monster ...

 

[tomBitonti]

Depending on the context, an un-armored person might be a commoner, or a craftsman, or a merchant, or a courtier, or a noble, all traveling with a bodyguard.

Or might be a wizard, or shaman, or a charlatan posing as either of the proceeding.

Whether they would be a priority target would depend a lot on the setting assumptions, and the sensibility of the attackers.

I would hesitate to play the attackers as making the best tactical decisions. Although, the game seems to be drawn to this mode, with both sides having much more knowledge than they really ought to have.

On the other hand, canny attackers would eye up their foes, and use good judgement based on their perceptions.

As well, creatures of animal intelligence would use different judgements then trained soldiers (or experienced adventurers), and perhaps would tend to less well armored foes (smell of metal == hurty and hard to bite). I imagine a crocodile wouldn't even think that much, going for the first foe to get close to the shore ...

Thx!

TomB

 

[Wolfskin]

I see a guy in armour amd I see a guy in the back not wearing armour. Wizard or not, he looks to be the most vulnerable. Whether or not he is is not the point.

What if the guy on the rear is wearing a magical force armor around him and can manifest a force shield to deflect attacks whenever you hit him? This will waste some of his resources, but at least he can throw a cantrip back at you. Another thing to bear in mind is: while the smart thing as a bowman would be hitting the Wizard, if the Fighter (or whoever else is on the front) gets within 5 feet of you, you have disadvantage on all ranged attack rolls, plus a hulking guy in armor attacking you.

Again, this doesn't mean the Mountain Dwarf Wizard is not a viable build. It just means it's not the one true build for optimizing a Wizard. I do think it's an interesting choice, story-wise.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Again, this doesn't mean the Mountain Dwarf Wizard is not a viable build. It just means it's not the one true build for optimizing a Wizard. I do think it's an interesting choice, story-wise.

That seems to be the real take-away from this discussion. I certainly hope the 5E rules don't end up with a One True Build(TM) for one or more classes.

 

[Kobold Stew]

There is no shield proficiency on that last so I am going to assume it's a part of armour proficiency.

Could be -- you're still behind for at least 12 levels. It's a cool build (no one is questioning that), but by no means optimal or game breaking.

 

[KarinsDad]

It happens a lot less at higher levels, but back when 0 was death and Wizards had 1d4 hitpoints, most sword hits killed them in one blow. Wizards often had AC 10 and it was really easy for monsters to hit them. So choosing to attack them meant you were choosing to kill them.

Well, at really low level, sure. Some players learned to keep their wizards around corners and such in many situations though.

We also coveted items like Cloak and Boots of Elvenkind (not usually targeted unless found), Rings of Regeneration (couldn't rely on the Cleric to cure you, they have few spells too), the Invisibility spell, etc.

Obviously some people played with optional rules about not dying at 0 that helped to mitigate that, and it became the standard rule later. But when I started, the DM choosing to make an attack roll against the Wizard meant you were purposefully choosing to kill off that wizard.

Yes, I'm sure that we used that rule too. I don't remember it, but we probably did.

We had a couple of DMs who were bastards who would have enemies purposefully kill off Wizards since "They are wizards, wouldn't you target the guy with the fireballs first?"

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

Not to say that the Wizard should be protected by the DM, but that's just asking for it.

Since people were so sensitive about it, it became a thing that unless the enemies had no other choice, they would attack the non-wizards first.

Different experiences.

It happens, though fairly rarely in the games I've been part of. Most combats involve the PCs coming across enemies rather than enemies hunting them, so the enemies rarely have the time or opportunity to surround them.

Though, when these incidents happen they are considered to be some of the more deadly encounters...specifically because the DM will often say "well...these ones at the back see the Wizard first, so they attack the nearest target". Which often involves the Wizard dying...or at least dropping.

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.

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?).


Now that I think of it, I did lose a high level Wizard in 3.5. The DM had an idea that certain spells could get past an anti-magic shell, so before my PC's init even came up, he had his NPCs blast the stuffing out of him.

I also had a 9th level or so dual class wizard cleric mystic theurge buy the farm as well in Pathfinder. He had saved the party's bacon on a lot of occasions (due to how many spells he had, he could afford to burn them when necessary), so the DM pulled out all of the stops in Strahd's castle and again, it was two powerful back to back damaging spells before my PC could react to the first one.

 

[Xodis]

That seems to be the real take-away from this discussion. I certainly hope the 5E rules don't end up with a One True Build(TM) for one or more classes.

Agreed, having any "One true build" to beat all other builds defeats the purpose of this edition. I think we can all agree that this type of crunch is exactly what the designers were trying to get away from.

That being said, I think the Dwarven Battle-Caster is an excellent concept and thankfully works quite well with the crunch.

 

[The Black Ranger]

What if the guy on the rear is wearing a magical force armor around him and can manifest a force shield to deflect attacks whenever you hit him? This will waste some of his resources, but at least he can throw a cantrip back at you. Another thing to bear in mind is: while the smart thing as a bowman would be hitting the Wizard, if the Fighter (or whoever else is on the front) gets within 5 feet of you, you have disadvantage on all ranged attack rolls, plus a hulking guy in armor attacking you.

Again, this doesn't mean the Mountain Dwarf Wizard is not a viable build. It just means it's not the one true build for optimizing a Wizard. I do think it's an interesting choice, story-wise.

If the guy in the back is wearing Force Armour then he is wearing Force Armour. That wasn't really the point. S9me people were saying AC is a waste because their wizard wouldn't be a target and thats just bad advice.

 

[Dausuul]

Looks to me like the mountain dwarf will still come out being the best overall wizard. Looks like taking heavy armour proficiency will enable a mountain dwarf the chance to wear full plate early on in the game, not to mention the extra con bonuses, plus the combat type caster feat. All this will allow the dwarf to focus on boosting his intelligence, while keeping his spell slots for other spells besides Mage Armour and shield. Add a shield in there and you have a wizard who should never have problems passing his concentration checks while having a great AC and fantastic HP.

Win win I say.

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 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.

As for enemies targeting the guy in robes, if that's a problem for you, don't wear freakin' robes. Nobody says you have to walk around with a big neon sign on your head saying "WIZARD."

 

[FadedC]

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.