D&D 5E Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards 5e

[fireinthedust]

Edit: okay, having read through the article, my main takeaway is that you overvalue dwarves as overpowered at 53 mp, undervalue variant humans as underpowered at 36 mp, and undervalue svirfneblin darkvision as being worth only 4 mp. In practice dwarves are pretty average no matter what your mp guesstimate says, and 120' darkvision, because it's greater than almost everybody else's darkvision, suffices to grant you advantage on attacks against almost everybody at ranges of 61' to 120'. That's easily worth as much as Drow Magic, which you've counted as 12 mp.

I agree with you. What I'm trying to say is that I believe these are the values WOTC is using when designing the races.

I think, at the end of the day, WOTC has a secret point value chart they use that is similar to how Mutants and Masterminds has their superhero point buy. While the end result of the values may vary in terms of balance (which is why they pre-package them for us), the cost of each element in the package is what I'm claiming it is BASED ON what I'm seeing from the feats. Assuming the feats are the key to breaking down the game system; what Mearls said was modularity.

I think 120 darkvision is broken in game, for players. I also agree with you 100% that svirfneblin should have daylight weakness: it must be oversight.

And the Mountain Dwarves have massive overcompensation in terms of the points they get, according to my GUESSES based on the values in the feats, compared to Hill dwarves, and compared to other subraces. They're the ones at 53, while other major demihuman races have 42mp.

But you're bang on in your points on the races. I might be wrong about the exact values, but I think WOTC assumes that 60ft darkvision is worth 2 points, so they also just added another 60ft for 2mp. The result doesn't matter to the cost, so long as the points used equal out IF YOU'RE USING POINT BUY like in M&M.


Font: Yeah, sorry: it's a wordpress template, and I can't figure out how to change it without paying them money.

That said: I have a website I need to link to that has the article on it; I'll link there (it also has my art, and should have links to my published adventures )

http://www.fireinthedust.com/fireinthedust-productions/

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I agree with you. What I'm trying to say is that I believe these are the values WOTC is using when designing the races. *snip* Font: Yeah, sorry: it's a wordpress template, and I can't figure out how to change it without paying them money.

That said: I have a website I need to link to that has the article on it; I'll link there (it also has my art, and should have links to my published adventures )

http://www.fireinthedust.com/fireinthedust-productions/

Hmmm, so you believe WotC has a methodology, but that they violate their methodology occasionally in the case of variant humans and dwarves and Svirfneblins. I suppose that could be true, and the DMG outright says almost as much when it is giving advice on race construction (pick abilities that are about as good as existing races and then tweak for synergies and anti-synergies). I guess I'm not the target audience for the article then because I can't make out what to do with the reconstructed point values, given that you're intended to ignore them at the end of the day and just eyeball whether the end result is fair or not, according to the DMG.

I like your web site--it's a big improvement over the Wordpress font.

 

[CapnZapp]

I believe going down this route leads to insanity.

Counter-claim:

WotC do not have a points system that is inherently but intentionally unbalanced.

 

[saintstardust]

Any chance for a SCAG update, TM?

 

[Fractal Rabbit]

Treantmonk,

I used to read your guides back in "that other system", as you call it. Always enlightening and entertaining.

You have a very clear, funny style. Even when I disagree, I am enjoying myself.

 

[Minsc]

Any chance for a SCAG update, TM?

X2!

I'm dying to see what you think of the Bladesinger!!

On edit: I'm pretty sure the new Arcana domain is favorable for a Cleric 1/Wizard X!

 

[Minsc]

Treantmonk,

I used to read your guides back in "that other system", as you call it. Always enlightening and entertaining.

You have a very clear, funny style. Even when I disagree, I am enjoying myself.

Definitely. I love the attitude!

 

[Huntsman57]

Something to think about regarding mirror image vs blur. While blur does require concentration, and I would say at lower levels mirror image may be a hands down winner, the trouble with it is that the AC isn't your AC, but 10+ your dex. So at higher levels when you have a much stronger AC but facing opponents with much higher attack bonuses, oftentimes you will have attacks that go after an image and eliminate it, but with an attack roll that would have missed you anyway, so the image did nothing really.

I disagree with the blue rating for mirror image. It's a good low level spell that doesn't scale well and becomes quite situational at higher levels. Blur on the other hand, if you're rocking War caster and are proficient in Con saves, this spell will more reliably save your hide.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Here is my evaluation of the Bladesinger and the Cantrips from SCAG:

[url]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1THbYJ1Qb3pnAKB4K-Rx3Bsxx2vH4pm_NosDlTQ8vQRE/edit[/URL]

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Whoops - had the doc set to private. Now everyone should be able to access through link