D&D 5E so, mountain dwarf wizards...

[Sacrosanct]

There's been a lot of gnashing of teeth about the dwarven wizard, but has anyone ever experienced it being game breaking in the actual game, compared to high elves with mage armor, or any other wizard combo?

Speculation is nice, but like they say, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."

 

[evilbob]

There's been a lot of gnashing of teeth about the dwarven wizard

Really? Are people complaining that it's too powerful? Because that seems weird to me. But cool, at least this is something people think could be good!

 

[Lidgar]

Based on my very limited play, I don't see an armed and armored wizard having some big advantage. With at-will cantrips, most melee/ranged weapons seem a bit pointless - my elf wizard with a longbow and longsword never touched them. And armor - if you plan to be getting into the fray, OK, but why when you can stand back and blaze away?

 

[Dausuul]

Really? Are people complaining that it's too powerful? Because that seems weird to me. But cool, at least this is something people think could be good!

At some point during the playtest, somebody spotted that you could combine dwarf armor proficiency and the Heavy Armor Master feat and went OMG WIZARDS IN HEAVY ARMOR BROKEN! There was a minor kerfluffle over it.

Over several editions, D&D's elaborate restrictions on wizard armor have trained us to think of that restriction as a crucial balancing element. But the truth is, it's really not a big deal. Sure, AC is worth something to the wizard, but not nearly enough to justify the pixels spilled on wizards in armor.

 

[Dausuul]

I've been thinking about this dwarven 'spell axe'. Not that it's mechanically superior, but just that it sounds fun, and won't completely suck.

I'm thinking 17 Str and 14 Int. I know that sounds crazy but you are only +1 modifier off from a 16 int. You lose one prepared spell and +1 to your spell DCs and attack rolls. Not horrible, and you can choose spells like Magic Missile and Shield to avoid that. Plus you can swing your battle axe with the same bonus as a fighter, you just don't do as much damage.

I can see some problems with it and it may irritate the 'play your class!' types, but I think that it's workable at all is pretty fun.

I think it could work pretty well. Start each combat with a Concentration buff spell, then stand in the back in half plate and shield, casting battlefield control and utility spells. If you need to dish out some damage, lob throwing axes. If the enemy gets too close, or if the front-liners are struggling, or if you just don't feel like sitting in the back any more, unsling your battle-axe and go to town. Your high AC and beefy Con will make it substantially harder for opponents to disrupt your concentration, and as long as you steer clear of spells that grant saving throws, your Int won't hurt you too much. (Though your versatility will suffer; prepared spells are a precious, precious resource.)

I sorta want to make this guy now.

 

[Sadrik]

15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

STR 13+2(15)
DEX 8
CON 14+2(16)
INT 15
WIS 12
CHA 10

Then take heavy armor at 4th. Then +1/+1 STR/INT at 8th. Then +2 INT at 12th and +2 INT at 16th, and 1 feat to spare at 19th.

 

[doctorhook]

Honestly I think this is the greatest thing about the new 5e. You just proved how some crazy concept will work an work well. No youre not as powerful as the full Fighter or Wizard, but without even multi-classing you are something that has an amazing concept and not THAT gimped in combat.

Certainly you're not as "powerful" a fighter as an actual fighter--you're a pure wizard. But not as "powerful" a wizard as a wizard? No, again you are a wizard. In 5E, being good at your class comes automatically from being a member of that class; picking a good race/class combo is no longer required.

There's been a lot of gnashing of teeth about the dwarven wizard, but has anyone ever experienced it being game breaking in the actual game, compared to high elves with mage armor, or any other wizard combo?

Speculation is nice, but like they say, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."

I think it's just cognitive dissonance driving the anti-dwarf-wizard sentiment. D&D has a history of saying chocolate and peanut butter don't mix, so now that Reese's have come along, folks are having trouble squaring it all up.

 

[Mouseferatu]

15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

STR 13+2(15)
DEX 8
CON 14+2(16)
INT 15
WIS 12
CHA 10

Then take heavy armor at 4th. Then +1/+1 STR/INT at 8th. Then +2 INT at 12th and +2 INT at 16th, and 1 feat to spare at 19th.

Sure, that absolutely works, but... During that same period, the human or elf is reaching max Int faster, and then working on (perhaps) Dex, which adds to not only AC but "Reflex" saves (I know, they're Dex saves now) and to Initiative--which can be a big deal for a wizard. Once their Dex is up, either mage armor or a feat granting them light armor proficiency puts them on par with the dwarf in heavy armor.

Again, my point isn't that the mountain dwarf wizard isn't cool; it very much is. There's just no overall long-term advantage.

 

[doctorhook]

Dwarf wizardry is a problem of flavour and spin, nothing more. I think it's great that any race/class combo can be optimal in 5E, but the hidden weakness of this approach is that 5E doesn't do enough (that we know so far) to encourage archetypical characters.

I've got no objections to dwarves being competent wizards, but I'd love to see a mechanical way to match up with one or both of two facts from D&D:

1. Dwarven wizardry has historically been uncommon or nonexistent (for any of several reasons); AND/OR
2. Dwarves practice their own specific or unique types of wizardry (runes, magic item creation, earth magic, etc.).

4E's take on runecasting was connected to the divine power source, but what if 5E offered a runecaster wizard subclass (a.k.a.: arcane tradition)? Maybe it could combine earth magic and ancestor worship with arcane study.

OH! Great idea here: 5E will need artificers with Eberron. Thematically, artificer would make a great subclass/tradition of wizard, with the added benefit of being the missing thematic link between dwarven item creation and scientific study of magic. Bonus points for precedent, because dwarves were always well-represented among artificers.

 

[andreww]

Based on my very limited play, I don't see an armed and armored wizard having some big advantage. With at-will cantrips, most melee/ranged weapons seem a bit pointless - my elf wizard with a longbow and longsword never touched them. And armor - if you plan to be getting into the fray, OK, but why when you can stand back and blaze away?

Ranged weapons exist. Also from what we have seen 5e lacks much of the movement control abilities and options which 4e handed out to the defender classes making it hard to screen your ranged characters from melee if the enemy chooses to target them.

Given how common a trope "gank the mage" is I wouldn't rely on being able to sit at the back and blaze away. Given that you can also only have 1 buff spell up at a time and that many of the battlefield control spells are also Concentration spells you also cannot necessarily rely on avoiding melee through things like greater invisibility or flying.

Monster damage in 5e looks like it is high. In my recent test the level 6 wizard was dropped in a single round of attacks by some flying enemies. Defences are going to be important and you cant really patch them with spells.