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

[KarinsDad]

I understand it completely. You're not addressing my response. At all. You've entirely ignored the argument, so I will repeat it:

There is a problem in the game, IN GENERAL, with Dexterity. FOR ALL CLASSES. It impacts too many things. It's the primary saving throw for spells. It's the primary booster for AC, in a game where AC has precious few ways of boosting. It's the primary booster for initiative. It's the primary booster for some of the best skills in the game. It's a primary ability for hitting things with both ranged attacks and many melee attacks. Overall, Dexterity appears to be a bit overpowered in this game.

So when you compare ANYTHING in the game to it, it's likely that thing being compared will come out behind. Because you're comparing it to one of the most overpowered issues with the game so far.

That is my point. Is that clear now? Address that point.

I did already. I stated that Dex was the big elephant in the room. I also no longer compared to it.

And although I do understand your concern about it, I'm not too concerned. To me, most classes need Main AS, Dex, Con, and to a lesser extent, Wis (perception is important as is Wis saves). One or more of Str, Int, and Cha (class dependent) can be a bit of dumb stats (although have 10s in them should be somewhat common). But with at most 2 ASs increasing with an ASI and there are 3 to 4 that most players want for their PC, having only 4 ASs that the player has to be concerned with is ok. Sure, a lot of people will focus on Dex, but then they get hit with poison or mind control. Pros and Cons.

So you friggen agree with me? What exactly are you still arguing about then?

I'm not arguing with you. My most recent discussion was on comparing Tough and a different ASI vs. +4 Con (as opposed to Tough vs. +2 Con). Dex is dropped from my comparison.

You agreed +1 was too little, but said +2 was too much. The logical conclusion was you were arguing for an average of +1.5. And therefore I concluded you were dickering over a +0.5 difference.

Nope. 1.5 is nonsensical.

 

[Joe Liker]

Who gets attacked is not a playstyle. If a DM doesn't attack the wizard then it's player coddling plain and simple.

In previous editions, wizards had specific spells that would protect him from harm and could buff himself right up, not in this edition. In typical, normal, everyday encounters, everyone gets attacked. AC and HP are never useless to a Wizard and it's false for even saying that. Maybe you got by with an encounter to where you didn't even get hit or even attacked, sure it happens but not enough that you will want to dismiss the notion that you won't need them. Playstyle has absolutely "0" to do with this nor does balance.

Now if you want to introduce player tactics into the mix then yes, certain groups do use different tactics. Thing is though, I seriously doubt your group is going to stay huddled together because that opens them up to AoEs.

I am starting to get the impression that you have not yet played 5e, at least not on the player side of the screen. I'm not convinced you really understand how far out of his way the DM would have to go to kill the wizard first. In the sessions I've played, if I had gone down as easily as you imagine, it would not have been a matter of "not coddling," it would have been more about "poor tactical choices" and "a sick vendetta" on the DM's part.

 

[The Black Ranger]

I am starting to get the impression that you have not yet played 5e, at least not on the player side of the screen. I'm not convinced you really understand how far out of his way the DM would have to go to kill the wizard first. In the sessions I've played, if I had gone down as easily as you imagine, it would not have been a matter of "not coddling," it would have been more about "poor tactical choices" and "a sick vendetta" on the DM's part.

I have played the game and it's not all that different from 2nd edition as in combat. There is nothing stopping me from attacking you with ranged attackers. Now if melee guys are in my ranged attackers faces then that's different. Also, edition doesn't really come into play either if you want to be honest unless we are talking about 4th edition with it's many many immediate interrupts.

 

[Joe Liker]

I have played the game and it's not all that different from 2nd edition as in combat. There is nothing stopping me from attacking you with ranged attackers. Now if melee guys are in my ranged attackers faces then that's different. Also, edition doesn't really come into play either if you want to be honest unless we are talking about 4th edition with it's many many immediate interrupts.

I can see that you won't be convinced. I'm sure you'll have fun with your dwarven wizard. It's not a bad build, and it will even be kind of a roleplaying hoot if he acts all smug about his armor around the other wizards.

 

[MasterTrancer]

Though I'm not yet familiar with 5E, for me this build translates to "Armor-Clad Tank Wizard": not the optimal, but fun nonetheless (and yes, usually I'm attracted to high elves in wizardry...)

 

[jimmyjimjam]

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.

I'm one of those players. I don't care if my PC has more hit points or not.