Bladesinger with 1 lvl dip in Barbarian?

[FartHeartMaGart]

Am I missing something, or is playing a bladesinger with 1 level into barbarian for their Unarmored Defense not amazing?? Youre 1 level behind as a caster and a potential +5 AC.
I made an eladrin bladesinger with incredible rolls, 18s for Int, Dex, and Con, 14 Str
Hes a 4th level caster with melee options and broken armor class of
10+ 4(dex)+ 4(con)+ 4(Int)+ 3(mage armor) = 25 AC!
Oh, and lop Shield on for another +5

[GlenSmash!]

As far as I know this works just fine since bladesong adds the Int bonus to AC and does not recalculate AC it does not interfere with unarmoured defense.

[RickAllison]

Am I missing something, or is playing a bladesinger with 1 level into barbarian for their Unarmored Defense not amazing?? Youre 1 level behind as a caster and a potential +5 AC.
I made an eladrin bladesinger with incredible rolls, 18s for Int, Dex, and Con, 14 Str
Hes a 4th level caster with melee options and broken armor class of
10+ 4(dex)+ 4(con)+ 4(Int)+ 3(mage armor) = 25 AC!
Oh, and lop Shield on for another +5

It's a great possibility if you have the stats for it, but let's put it in terms of point-buy so it is more appicable to normal games. Let's say gnome so you get +2 Int and +1 Dex. With 15s in Con, Int, and Dex, you end up with 16 Dex, 15 Con, and 17 Int. 1.5 ASI to get 20 Int, 2 to get 20 Dex, leaving a Con of 18. You can't use a shield and get the benefits of Bladesong, so you end up with a character with an AC just over what's possible with Mage Armor and you sacrifice your 20th level feature to do it. You do get Rage, but you have to sacrifice on your three AC scores to make use of it. The build is far too MAD for it to be as good as you hope when you don't roll your borderline impossible scores.

Basically, it's great for you because of your rolls. It is far, far less useful for normal scores. It can seem great to dip into many odd combinations of classes, but many of those have varying abilities that make he build not function as intended.

[Sigreid]

Yes, it would work. But the key with all M/C is the question of is what you are trading worth what you are getting. In this case i don't think the moderate potential increase in AC, even if you rolled awesome, is worth a level of casting and delaying your bladesinger special powers.

[RickAllison]

Yes, it would work. But the key with all M/C is the question of is what you are trading worth what you are getting. In this case i don't think the moderate potential increase in AC, even if you rolled awesome, is worth a level of casting and delaying your bladesinger special powers.

An alternate option could be a level of Monk. Same bonus to AC, but you also get a bonus action attack that at least synergizes with Song of Victory and that doesn't require you to give up concentration and the ability to cast spells to take advantage of it.

[Sigreid]

An alternate option could be a level of Monk. Same bonus to AC, but you also get a bonus action attack that at least synergizes with Song of Victory and that doesn't require you to give up concentration and the ability to cast spells to take advantage of it.

IMO Monk would be a better synergy, yes. I personally still wouldn't do it. IMO caster primary characters suffer more from multi-classing than primary martial classes.

[Noble_berserker]

Did they change the wording in mage armor? If they did not, mage armor would not work with unarmored defence.

[RickAllison]

Did they change the wording in mage armor? If they did not, mage armor would not work with unarmored defence.

They didn't, Mage Armor and UD are incompatible.

EDIT: Good catch, I didn't even notice that he had done that. For some reason, I had thought he was talking after ASIs so +5+5+5 (Con+Dex+Int)

[FartHeartMaGart]

An alternate option could be a level of Monk. Same bonus to AC, but you also get a bonus action attack that at least synergizes with Song of Victory and that doesn't require you to give up concentration and the ability to cast spells to take advantage of it.

That is actually a very good alternative, great idea.

[FartHeartMaGart]

IMO Monk would be a better synergy, yes. I personally still wouldn't do it. IMO caster primary characters suffer more from multi-classing than primary martial classes.

Id agree, but the character I rolled has great stats and its hard not to see if I can squeeze some unkillable-ness out of a wizard

[Sigreid]

Id agree, but the character I rolled has great stats and its hard not to see if I can squeeze some unkillable-ness out of a wizard

Well, bladesinger gets light armor proficiency. Get some magic armor and you'll top what you swing with barbarian but without waste.

I understand the temptation. I have a wizard with great stats myself. Decided no multi was worth it still. Can't really go too wrong though.

[Noble_berserker]

If college of swords bard is allowed you could get extra AC through bardic inspiration without losing slots. http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/04_UA_Classics_Revisited.pdf

[Sigreid]

If college of swords bard is allowed you could get extra AC through bardic inspiration without losing slots. http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/04_UA_Classics_Revisited.pdf

Unfortunately that puts you at least 3 levels behind the wizard spell curve. Even the best kinetic adventuring wizard has most of his power in his spell list.

[RickAllison]

Well, bladesinger gets light armor proficiency. Get some magic armor and you'll top what you swing with barbarian but without waste.

I understand the temptation. I have a wizard with great stats myself. Decided no multi was worth it still. Can't really go too wrong though.

Well, technically he can only match the 20 Dex/20 Wis AC if he gets +3 Studded Leather, which is Legendary rarity and he has to fight with Rogues, Druids, and other light armor users for.

[Noble_berserker]

3 levels of bard gives you six spells known and normal spell slot progression. Just make sure you get a wizard level in time for fireball. Bardic spells are not that bad. 3 levels of wizard would give you 6 spells as well(if we exclude the first)

[RickAllison]

3 levels of bard gives you six spells known and normal spell slot progression. Just make sure you get a wizard level in time for fireball. Bardic spells are not that bad. 3 levels of wizard would give you 6 spells as well(if we exclude the first)

Yes, but that means that every other feature is delayed by three levels. The super-fun 9th level spells, which are hard enough to get to at level 17 or 18, now only became available at 20. Basically, you sacrifice long-term relative power for short term gains.

[Noble_berserker]

Yes, but that means that every other feature is delayed by three levels. The super-fun 9th level spells, which are hard enough to get to at level 17 or 18, now only became available at 20. Basically, you sacrifice long-term relative power for short term gains.

That's not true, when you multiclass your spell slots' level adds up. You use the multiclass slot table. Nothing stops you from learning 9th level spells at Character level 17.

[RickAllison]

That's not true, when you multiclass your spell slots level adds up. You use the multiclass slot table. Nothing stops you from learning 9th level spells at Character level 17.

You select and prepare spells as a single-classed adventurer. You get 9th level slots but no 9th level spells. It's in the PHB, on the same page that has the proficiencies gained when MCing.

[Noble_berserker]

You select and prepare spells as a single-classed adventurer. You get 9th level slots but no 9th level spells. It's in the PHB, on the same page that has the proficiencies gained when MCing.

Edit: Nevermind, I did some research, you are correct.

[RickAllison]

It clearly states on the wizard page that the wizard can prepare spells of a level for which he has spell slots (114 phb)
Even if you view each class individually you have spell slots therefore you can learn and prepare spells for that level. In the MCing example the wizard has only access to level 2 spells because of the ranger's progression.

And we have this argument again because some people refuse/are too lazy to read the damn text. EDIT: I'm glad you did some reading.


You determine
what spells you know and can prepare for each class
individually, as if you were a single-classed member of
that class....

If you have more than one spellcasting class, this table
might give you spell slots o f a level that is higher than
the spells you know or can prepare. You can use those
slots, but only to cast your lower-level spells. If a lowerlevel
spell that you cast, like burning hands, has an
enhanced effect when cast using a higher-level slot, you
can use the enhanced effect, even though you don’t have
any spells o f that higher level.

For example, if you are the aforementioned ranger 4/
wizard 3, you count as a 5th-level character when
determining your spell slots: you have four 1st-level
slots, three 2nd-level slots, and two 3rd-level slots.
However, you don’t know any 3rd-level spells, nor do you
know any 2nd-level ranger spells. You can use the spell
slots o f those levels to cast the spells you do know—and
potentially enhance their effects.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that when they use Wizard as a specific example of how it limits the spells known to the levels when single-classed, it is RAW and RAI. If you are Wizard 14/Bard 3, you can know and prepare spells as a 14th level Wizard (who only has slots up to 7th level), not as a 17th level spellcaster.

[soldersbushwack]

You can't stack Mage Armor with the Barbarian defense thing. Also you might want to use Haste and the Dual Wielder feat.

So that's 13(Mage Armor) + 4(Dex) + 4(Int) + 1(Dual Wielder) + 2(Haste) + 5(Shield) = 29 AC versus
10 + 4(Con) + 4(Dex) + 4(Int) + 1(Dual Wielder) +2(Haste) + 5(Shield) = 30 AC which isn't that much of a difference.

[Foxhound438]

Oh, and lop Shield on for another +5

costs spells. Not great, but good. Honestly what makes you broken is rolled stats.

in point buy you could have two +3's and a +2, or if you're a half-elf you can dump 3 stats and have 3 +3's. So 19 with song.

[Foxhound438]

An alternate option could be a level of Monk. Same bonus to AC, but you also get a bonus action attack that at least synergizes with Song of Victory and that doesn't require you to give up concentration and the ability to cast spells to take advantage of it.

not really as good, bacause then you need dex, con for hp+concentration, wis for ac and int for casting. Barb 1 you only require dex, con, and int.

[RickAllison]

not really as good, bacause then you need dex, con for hp+concentration, wis for ac and int for casting. Barb 1 you only require dex, con, and int.

He has the scores that he can actually take being MAD. The issue with Barbarian is that while Unarmored Defense is still great. nothing else from the class works well with a Bladesinger. The entire idea behind the sub-class is the nature of being a spellcasting swords(wo)man and trying to take advantage of the primary benefit of Barbarian precludes that. In contrast, Monk gives a consistent bonus action attack that gives an excellent damage boost early on while still permitting spell-casting (as unlike TWF, you can always keep a free hand) and it remains relevant later on when he gets the level 14 ability that then boosts his Martial Arts attack even more.

Barbarian gives more survivability, Monk gives more damage and versatility. If he wants to Attack action, Monk 1 gives him a 7.5 DPR boost that rises to 12.5 DPR at level 15. If he wants to use the SCAG cantrips or has some other consistent use for his bonus action, then Barbarian might be a better option. The issue is not nearly so cut-and-dried as you think it to be.

This isn't even taking into account skills. The significant boost to his Perception and Insight checks could be what saves him from needing to use the extra HP from Barbarian because he is able to perceive threats before they occur. It also offers up more options for Magic Initiate as he can then raid the Druid and Cleric spell-lists.

[ravenkith]

Actually, the OP is right.

A Barbarian dip is fantastic (assuming you have the stats), especially if you are playing from level 1 and moving into Bladesinger.

A key point is that, if you take your first level in barbarian, you get the full HD of a barbarian.

You get light & medium armor, shields, and all martial and simple weapons.

You get proficiency in CON saves.

You also get the ability to rage. Rage is pretty damn nice for those situations where you are just flat out of spells, as it allows you to take half damage from all mundane weapon attacks. That would be considered beefy on a tank, but possibly a real life saver on a wizard's squishy hit dice. Raging can be considered as effectively doubling your hit points, if you do it right. On top of that, it adds to weapon damage.

At low levels especially, this enhances your odds of survival by an incredible amount, as you are effectively getting up to 4 times as many base hit points as you would otherwise have. (12 vs 6, doubled, not counting con mod).

Once you add the first ability of bladesinger to this mix, depending on stats, you are in a position to hit 10 +5 CON +5 DEX + 5 INT (25) AC, without using spells. Adding shield to the mix can get you to hit 30 on an as needed basis, but by far the best defensive spell to use with this combo is actually mirror image. On the other hand, if your stats aren't maxed out, then when you find an awesome magic light or medium armor, there are no class features that stop you from taking full advantage of it (unlike Monk).

Between your AC and your mirror images, you are effectively impervious to harm from weapons and target-based spells, as anything that rolls to hit you is looking at some tough DCs. Only save-based spells and area of effects remain as truly credible threats - and with your CON save proficiency, as well as your high DEX, you should be in a good situation to deal with pretty much anything except will saves.

Taking Mage Slayer for the advantage on saves vs spells cast within 5 feet of you and Lucky for the emergency rerolls enhances how hard it is to tag you further, and then of course, there's still resilient for Will and Reflex saves, if you must.

Keep in mind that mirror image isn't even concentration here, so you also have your pick of buffs as you level.

[PoeticDwarf]

Am I missing something, or is playing a bladesinger with 1 level into barbarian for their Unarmored Defense not amazing?? Youre 1 level behind as a caster and a potential +5 AC.
I made an eladrin bladesinger with incredible rolls, 18s for Int, Dex, and Con, 14 Str
Hes a 4th level caster with melee options and broken armor class of
10+ 4(dex)+ 4(con)+ 4(Int)+ 3(mage armor) = 25 AC!
Oh, and lop Shield on for another +5

Mage armor and unarmored defense do not work together. It gives you 3 slots and 1AC with good stats basicly

[wunderkid]

It is an amazing combo if you get those 3 18s which as I've mentioned in another thread is a 0.01% chance, or in other words 1 character out of every 10,000 rolled will be able to make use of this particular combo.

Everyone else just sticks with mage armor.

[ravenkith]

It is an amazing combo if you get those 3 18s which as I've mentioned in another thread is a 0.01% chance, or in other words 1 character out of every 10,000 rolled will be able to make use of this particular combo.

Everyone else just sticks with mage armor.

It physically pains me to think of anyone actually using mage armor as their primary AC source.

AC, more than ever, is your primary line of defense. Neglecting it is, in my opinion, extremely bad policy.

Mage armor as primary ac source is not just neglecting it, but crippling it. It's bad, bad, bad.

Not only does it cap out at 18 (with a 20 dex, mind, most likely you'll probably cap out at 18 or 16 dex as it's not your primary), it also uses 1st level spells for very little benefit. (Note: at 1st level, you're using half your spells to give you the light armor feat, or something you get for free with literally every other class except monk and sorceror).

If it were a cantrip, then yes, it would be a no-brainer, but as things stand, it's a really bad option.

Keep in mind that at this point, mage armor is fixed and static. While proficiency bonuses and stat modifiers increase over the course of 20 levels, and weapons gain bonuses to hit, Mage armor doesn't improve not one bit. Let's say you've got a 16 dex: that's a 16 AC.

Meanwhile, the enemy builds up a +6 Proficiency + 5 stat mod (primary), + 3 magic item bonus = + 14 to hit. A properly built hitter will hit your AC on a 3 or better, or put another way, 85% of the time (An 18 AC only improves that ratio to 75%).

You're WAY better off taking a one level dip to get access to heavy armor and shields, as those cap out at 20 AC without magic items, and 26 with (meaning the theoretical beatstick needs to roll a 13 to get you). These AC numbers mean that your opponent will miss you more often than not.

Note that the CR 1 Animals tend to get roughly a +5 to hit: versus a 16 AC he will only need an 11 on the dice to hit you. CR1! It only gets worse from there.

I know that people will cry about capstone abilities or slowed spell casting progression - in preemptive response to that, I say this:

1. Capstone abilities and the time you spend being able to use them is a tiny fraction of your adventuring career that most people never see anyway.

2. One level's delay in getting access to spells is negligible. (Please don't argue: delayed spell access doesn't actually affect your saves anymore: it just changes which spells you have access TO - your level 2 spells will be saved against at the exact same rate as your level 3 spells, unlike in 3.5, and the benefits, in many cases, can outweigh the costs).

3. It doesn't matter if you get level 3 spells at level 5 or level 6 if you don't make it out of level 1.

[wunderkid]

Sooo. What about rogues? Their AC will generally be around the 16 mark.

Even taking armor you're at 16 with chainmail. Vs 16 with mage armor.

When you reach plate. Which may not even be by level 5/6 armour starts to edge ahead.

But unless you're planning on having everyone sword and board and ignoring all character flavour you use the tools your class gives you.

The lesser AC is mitigated by being a caster who is ranged. And has spells like shield for the rare time the enemy slips past your front line.

Dropping a caster level is a big deal when its your primary source of everything you do.

Personally I almost always dip 2 into fighter for armour and action surge. But I'm simply arguing the point it's not necessary.

[RickAllison]

I've actually been mulling over this question of AC for a wizard grappler (minotaur artificer). A level of fighter or cleric gives great armor that allows for a lesser dexterity, but he needed Expertise to be better for grappling. I am thinking I will instead have him grab a level of Rogue and take Moderately Armored. With 14 Dex, that gives him an AC of 18 or 19 before any magic items (and as an artificer, he could himself get that up to 23 for a heavy cost).

[ravenkith]

Sooo. What about rogues? Their AC will generally be around the 16 mark.

Even taking armor you're at 16 with chainmail. Vs 16 with mage armor.

When you reach plate. Which may not even be by level 5/6 armour starts to edge ahead.

But unless you're planning on having everyone sword and board and ignoring all character flavour you use the tools your class gives you.

The lesser AC is mitigated by being a caster who is ranged. And has spells like shield for the rare time the enemy slips past your front line.

Dropping a caster level is a big deal when its your primary source of everything you do.

Personally I almost always dip 2 into fighter for armour and action surge. But I'm simply arguing the point it's not necessary.

Taking your points one at a time:

On rogues:
Yes, rogues get light armor; but any rogue worth his salt is going to a) max dex (18 or 20) and b) get magic armor ASAP. This means that, with basic armor, he's already capping out at 17 or 18 at level one, and can improve with magic items up to 23. That's assuming he doesn't grab a shield ASAP, which would be good for a +2 to +5 swing, here. Rogues also have class features that don't play well with medium and heavy armors (stealth, specifically), so the benefits of going heavy are reduced. They also get slightly bigger hit dice. Rogues are one of the few classes for whom the toughness feat can actually be a good investment, but this is only because stealth doesn't work in medium or heavy armor. If planning a rogue, instead of heavy and shield, I recommend shadow monk in order to get this edition s version of HIPs: then you hide as a part of your defensive strategy. If they can't see you, and can't guess which square you ar ein, it's going to be pretty tough to hurt you without blanketing an area with AOEs.

On the benefits of mage armor vs Heavy Armor:
While the early numbers are the same, here, the philosophies are completely different: with mage armor, you are forced to have at least two good stats: 1 in your primary casting stat, the other in DEX. You are absolutely locked in if you want to get to a reasonable AC number. With heavy armor, you can ignore dex completely and instead dump that 2nd best stat into CON: this means that you are shoring up two points of weakness on any arcane caster (armor class AND hp) as opposed to just one (armor class). In addition, as long as your strength is high enough, as soon as you get your hands on 1500gp, you can bump the starting number from 16 to 18 without a shield, and 20 with. Strictly speaking, from a mechanical standpoint, this is the superior technique.

On sword and board vs flavor:
The original point was that mage armor as your primary source of AC was a bad investment; to illustrate that, I compared it to the best defensive option, heavy armor and shield, to highlight how far behind mage armor is as a concept. If you know that and decide you don't care about the math and still want to do something different, that's on you as the player to make that choice and then live with it.

I wasn't in any way advocating that all classes should always take sword and board, in fact I never said anything about swords at all (keeping an open hand for casting is key for any arcanist). All I was saying was that mage armor is a lousy use of your resources, especially at low level, and doesn't scale at all.

On Spellcaster's ranged nature mitigating importance of AC:
We could go around and around on this, but unless your party is all dungeon crawl, all the time, this is a false paradigm: As an arcane caster, your presence on the battlefield will ALWAYS make you a priority target against even half-intelligent characters.

It is common knowledge that casters are extremely dangerous, and yet relatively easy to kill (low HP/low AC). If your DM is at all realistic, combat'd be like the militia versus the redcoats in the revolutionary war: The wizard (officer) gets targeted FIRST, and with MAXIMUM PREJUDICE (i.e. overkill), as he can't cast fireball (organize return fire) if he's pushing up daisies. The enemy CAN and SHOULD be targeting the squishy wizard with ranged weapons. They CAN and SHOULD bypass tanks in order to get at wizards (and to a lesser degree, clerics) if they are at all capable of tactical thought.

If your DM is NOT doing this, then he is being either very silly or very nice.

On using reactive spells to temporarily boost AC:

So let me get this straight. First you want to cast mage armor to set your abysmally low AC to a slightly better number, then you want to hold your other spell in reserve in order to cast shield (once) in case you get physically attacked by something (you will, a lot).

Are you really arguing in favor of using all your early level spell slots on defense?

I mean, sure, shield gives you +5 ac (pushing you to 21 AC with our hypothetical 16 AC example), but that is for an extremely limited time and amount of attacks. It is a spell that is really only useful under the right circumstances, and is actually dramatically better the higher your base AC is.

For example: Using Heavy armor and shield, you can get 18 AC just walking around at first level, and 20 AC once you get hold of 1500 gp, and have it all the time.

Then, if you really want to, you can cast shield on top of a 20 AC, pushing to 25 AC total.

25 is a much better proposition than just pushing to 21, as pretty much any CR 1 critter with a +5 to hit is going to have to roll a 20 on the dice (5% chance) to even think about hitting you, as opposed to needing just a 16 on the dice (25% chance) at the lower number of 21.

Not to mention that you've now burned two of your spells known on spells that aren't very versatile and don't scale at all. While less of a problem for wizards, this is a potential nightmare scenario for sorcerors.

Mage armor and shield spells just seem like terrible planning and resource usage to me.

On dropping a caster level:
In previous editions, 3.5 especially, dropping a caster level was one of the big sins of character optimization, and I think a lot of that emphasis (correct as it was at the time) has been incorrectly carried over to 5e, much like bard hate. In 3.5, it was said that if you dropped a caster level, you really needed to be getting something truly awesome in return - a really big benefit. People still did it, because there were benefits that were worth it, and that was in a system where casters had additional failure penalties for spells while wearing armor and saving throw DCs were tied to caster level and spell level.

This is no longer the case, at all: spell failure percentages are gone the way of the dodo and save DCs are only affected by your casting mod and your proficiency bonus.

This means the only thing that changes when you drop a caster level in this edition is spell access.

While there are definitely spells at higher levels that are significantly more powerful than your initial starting spells, and you want to get access to those as quickly as possible, there are still benefits to be had that are worth slowing down that access for.

That said, in most cases, more than a 1 level dip is just NOT justified,and I would almost never go higher than 3, unless you need that extra attack for some reason.

You can get an awful lot of good stuff (including heavy armor and shields) for arcanists from front loaded classes like Cleric (War domain for heavy armor, cure spells/guiding bolt in wizard slots, cleric cantrips like guidance, spare the dying, sacred flame), Fighter (d10 HD, action surge at level 2), Barbarian (d12 hd, con save proficiency, last ditch rage for resistance when out of spells), Paladin (Use your wizard slots to smite while booming blading when the enemy is close) and even, to some extent, Rogue (Expertise can make some skills just ridiculous).

Obviously stat distribution and a cost-to-benefit analysis comes into play with every decision to multi-class, but in some cases, the benefits DEFINITELY outweigh the costs.

On multiclassing as an arcanist not being necessary:

I disagree. Arcanists, especially at low levels, are squishy, soft things that die very easily. Even at higher levels, 1 mistake and they go down easy. Compare if you will, two characters with maximum hitpoints (no con):

Wizard, 5th level: 30, 10th level: 60, 15th: 90 20th: 120

Fighter, 5th level: 50, 10th: 100, 15th: 150, 20th: 200

In combats where monsters are dishing out damage meant to be threatening to Fighters, those monsters are going to be more than capable of eliminating the wizard early (usually in one round).

You almost HAVE to hide those crappy HP behind something other than mage armor, or you're going down early and often.

In my most recent campaign, my friend the wild mage jokes about outlawing crossbows because squads of farmers -turned-crossbowmen would habitually eliminate him in round 1 levels 1-5, despite having mage armor and mirror image up and running, in some cases.

While theoretically getting hit 50% of the time doesn't sound too bad, in play, it can turn disastrous very quickly, as each roll is essentially a coin flip.

Tl:DR mage armor and shield as your primary means of generating AC is a terrible choice.

[wunderkid]

Right apologies in advance I'm in class atm so this isn't laid out brilliantly.

Rogues: the only way to judge this is using the point array of 15,14,13,12,10,8, rolling stats obscure builds too much. at level 1 you'll have 15 in dex, 16 if playing variant human and 17 if playing a dex class. This won't change up to 18 until level 4 and your first asi. studded leather is 12+Dex. This puts your AC to 15 at start of game.

The wizard with his modest 14 in dex will start the game at AC 15 or 14 if he chooses to dump his secondary into con. Vs the fighters 16, that's a whole 10% difference. Which won't change for at least the first 5 or so levels bar finding a fortune.

You can't choose to 'get' magic armour. There is no magic shop or way of choosing what you get, it comes down to pure luck. You may not find a single piece of suitable armour throughout your entire campaign.

On the benefits of mage armor vs Heavy Armour. Heavy armour is unequivocally better I'm not arguing that point. That's why you have to actually dip to get it. But by the time the fighter is getting heavy you're getting blur and mirror image and then haste. Mirror image is vastly better in my opinion, and getting it and more slots to use it faster isn't a bad thing. (as i said I personally like the dip and in full agreement with you on it being a good idea it doesn't use those spell slots and is generally just a good plan, I'm just playing devils advocate and arguing the other side of the fence). Also noted that you are forced into multiple good stats in order to actually achieve the multi class. The fighter requires a str or dex of 13. So already that's taking one of your better stats.

Mage armour on its own isn't as good, but coupled with blur, mirror image, haste, illusions, other spell effects, misty step, invisiblity you can keep the flack off you pretty reliably, more slots = more tricks to keep you alive.


On Spellcaster's ranged nature mitigating importance of AC

As you pointed out casters ALWAYS being the priority is exactly what we bank on as a group. Free attacks of opporunity, sentinel to make them pay for that and gain nothing, followed by aiming for the caster only to find out its an illusion or mirror image or shield and miss wasting an entire round of attacks on nothing. We get a whole round of attacks for free all for the cost of an illusion or low level spell. Them wanting to target the caster is a buff not a nerf. It makes them predictable and therefore counterable.

Taking your example the militia versus the redcoats in the revolutionary war: "The wizard (officer) gets targeted FIRST, and with MAXIMUM PREJUDICE (i.e. overkill), as he can't cast fireball (organize return fire) if he's pushing up daisies" however this causes the entire side who tried to overkill the illusion the wizard set up to miss every shot and garner 0 casualties, the other side then return fire with their full forces.

A wizard standing out in the open going 'im a wizard hagrid!' Is a dead wizard. Agreed. But that happens with or without heavy armour.

All of this is almost just as good with heavy armour. Like I said I fully support the idea of the dip and take advantage of it on most casters I make. But it costs you a level of slots and progression unless you can squeeze cleric as your dip then it's just spell progression.

The multi class into fighter will net you a whole 4 extra hp, it's not much really but could make the difference, but so could the extra spell slot

-On using reactive spells to temporarily boost AC.

The beauty of shield is you can cast it after you are HIT. And lasts the turn. So thanks to bounded accuracy the roll of the dice is a lot more important. Ac 15 vs ac18 is the wizard being hit on 15% more dice rolls. So out of 20 attacks using shield on 3 of them gives you the same % of attacks avoided as a heavy armour wearer. And as one spell slot could last over 3 attacks that one level ahead the mage is can be largely compensated for.

The same issue with bounded accuracy is as you mentioned, hobos with handaxes become a very real threat. But against such a thing the mage should just go invisible, teleport away, behind cover or use one of his many tricks to handle the situation, one that doesn't involve them actually making attacks rolls against him in the first place. He doesn't need to try and tank it. Nothing can be done about the wizards abysmal hp. If you want to play a full caster or even a dipped caster that's the sacrifice you make. Let the tanks stand and fight, use their hit points to draw aggro and focus.

Basically what I'm trying to say is yes going heavy armour is completely viable. It gives you permanently better AC from a sustainable generic on paper stand point it's the best route to go if you dont mind being a level behind in spell progression. But if you play your wizard right you shouldn't have many attacks launched your way, and if they do then your group should punish them for it. If you don't have a group that works cohesively then yeah go plate you will need it. But give your gm a few rounds of chasing shadows trying to find that mage but either hitting a mirror image or attacking illusions and he will soon start focusing on the immediate threat being the raging barbarian who is repeatedly headbutting his bbeg.

Tldr I agree that heavy armour is better, but it's only very slightly better. Not so much that dip is necessary.

[ravenkith]

...Stuff....


On using the stat array (15,14,13,12,10,8):
Ok, great, so take all ability to customize your stats away, and lock everybody into the same set of starting stats. Yeah, if everybody has the exact same starting stats, and you don't just opt to use point buy instead, you're going to have a bad time trying to put a statistically good character together. But with the array as given, it's actually harder to make a SAD character <shrug>.

If you don't want to 'obscure things too much', let's compare apples to apples, and stick to the question of whether or not to multi-class wizard:

Progression 1: Fighter 1/Wizard (X) 4
Standard Human
STR 14 (15) DEX 10 (11) CON 13 (14) INT 15 (16) WIS 12 (13) CHA 8 (9)
HP: (MAX) 12 @ LVL 1, 60 @ LVL 5 - Edit: math is my only weakness: the numbers here are 44 with max and 36 with AVG.
HP (AVG) 12 @ LVL 1, 44 @LVL 5
Armor Proficiencies: Light, Medium, Heavy, Shield
ASI: +2 INT (18)
AC Calculation @ Lvl 1 Chain Mail (16) + Shield (2) + Defensive Fighting Style (1) = 19 (24 with shield spell)
AC Calculation @ Lvl 3 Splint Mail (17) + Shield (2) + Defensive Fighting Style (1) = 20 (25 with shield)
AC Calculation @ Lvl 5 Plate Mail (18) + Shield (2) + Defensive Fighting Style (1) = 21 (26 with shield)
(In addition, you also get second wind, which is effectively 2-10 bonus HP per short rest)

Progression 2: Wizard (X) 5
STR 8 (9) DEX 14 (15) CON 13 (14) INT 15 (16) WIS 12 (13) CHA 10 (11)
HP (MAX) 8 @LVL 1, 40 @LVL 5
HP (AVG) 8 @ LVL 1, 32 @LVL 5
Armor Proficiencies: None
ASI: +2 INT (18)
AC Calculation @ Lvl 1 Mage Armor (13) + DEX (2) = 15 (20 w/shield)
Ac Calculation @ Lvl 3 Mage Armor (13) + DEX (2) = 15 (20 w/shield)
AC Calculation @ Lvl 5 Mage Armor (13) + DEX (2) = 15 (20 w/shield)

Note that both builds can use mirror image to make it even harder to hit them, if need be, but the spell is absolutely necessary for the single class wizard, while the multiclass wizard makes it optional (something nice to have, but not needed).

By level 5, both casters have 18s in their casting stat, but their armor classes and hit points are significantly different.

It will be MUCH harder to kill the multi-class wizard - and it's a benefit he gets 24 hours a day, one which frees up all of his spell slots and spells known to be used for things other than just protecting him from sharp, pointy things.

On magic armor:


You can't choose to 'get' magic armour. There is no magic shop or way of choosing what you get, it comes down to pure luck. You may not find a single piece of suitable armour throughout your entire campaign.

If that's the way your DM plays things, then I feel very sorry for you. Not having a market for magic items is just dumb, and is one of the things I hate about the defaults in the current edition, especially as it tends to make gold pretty much useless after a certain point.

However, the DMG does have rules for buying and selling magic items, so at least it's an option for most people.

In addition, if your DM is just rolling random drops and letting loot stand as is (that no-one in your group is ever going to use) as opposed to tailoring loot to suit your characters, that's pretty much just a **** move on his part, especially since you can't sell it in his game, apparently.

Don't forget that the DMG also has rules on magic item creation, and you are, of course, a wizard, so in theory at least, if you get enough downtime and/or followers, you might be able to make something you want/need.

That armor and shield can take on up to 6 extra points of AC, which can push you to 27 AC just walking around (32 with shield), which is pretty damn beefy, as, IIRC, PC bonuses to hit max out around 14 without magic items or 17 with at level 20, meaning an 18 or a 15 on the dice minimum as opposed to a 6 or a 3.

On Spell usage:
Note that BOTH the multi-classed wizard and single classed wizard will have exactly the same access to spells, just one level apart. This means that at every even level of wizard, the multi-class wizard is going to be far superior to the single class wizard in all respects, because it has a better underlying chassis, and spell access is exactly the same at those levels.

On odd levels, the single class wizard will have access to the next level of spells, while the multi-class has to wait one level to catch up. The value of this access depends on the spells you take, and what use you put them to.

If you are forced to select your spells with a premium placed on protecting yourself, you aren't going to have a lot of choice in spells known/prepared. Also, whatever advantage you have in spell slots will be reduced as well, because you will always be using some of them to defend yourself.

Furthermore, whenever you go into combat, you will most likely be required to use an action to cast at least one defensive spell, and then, on top of that, the more potent defensive spells also take up your concentration, which prevents you from possibly using it to maintain other spells. For the record, this is probably not a good strategy.

On using spells to get 'free attacks' because attacking the caster is a 'buff':

Sorry, I have to call BS on that whole line of argument.

You aren't going to be walking around all day with all of those spells active. You CAN'T, because the durations are pretty short, and you'll never have enough spell slots. That means that most likely, you are casting a defensive spell on your first round in combat, in which case you'd better hope for no surprise round and winning initiative, or your caster is going to be chock full of holes quicker than you can say "Ambush!".

As far as sentinel is concerned: each character only ever gets ONE opportunity attack per round, as it uses your reaction. The 0 movement clause on the feat only triggers when you hit with the opportunity attack generated by the feat, so each sentinel using character can stop the movement of exactly one guy. Multiple enemies - even mooks - are going to give your guys fits, here.

Also: ever hear of dispel magic? Counterspell? Can't dispel armor, pal.



A wizard standing out in the open going 'im a wizard hagrid!' Is a dead wizard. Agreed. But that happens with or without heavy armour.


This is a really funny line - but it isn't true.

For starters, what your character is wearing can be a HUGE tip off to the enemy as to who the wizard is. If you are wearing absolutely no armor and are prancing around a dungeon, chances are very good that you are some kind of arcane caster. Even a goblin is smart enough to figure that much out.

If you are wearing heavy armor and carrying a shield, with a longsword on your hip, they can't tell if you're a fighter or a wizard or a cleric or what.

Second, a wizard with heavy armor/shield and mirror image running is basically looking at only taking damage on nat 20s, which is only 5% of the time. If you're clever enough to take lucky with an ASI at some point (possibly go variant human for the extra feat?), you can totally dodge that bullet three times a long rest as well.

Then all you have to worry about is offensive spells and AOEs, which can be at least partially mitigated thru taking the shield mastery feat.



The same issue with bounded accuracy is as you mentioned, hobos with handaxes become a very real threat. But against such a thing the mage should just go invisible, teleport away, behind cover or use one of his many tricks to handle the situation, one that doesn't involve them actually making attacks rolls against him in the first place. He doesn't need to try and tank it. Nothing can be done about the wizards abysmal hp. If you want to play a full caster or even a dipped caster that's the sacrifice you make. Let the tanks stand and fight, use their hit points to draw aggro and focus.


You know what helps having ****ty HP: making it difficult for people to hit you by having a high AC.

In D&D, running away is RARELY a viable strategy, usually because of environment and time pressures.

Using your spells to hide instead of kill things does nothing for you in the long run, because sooner or later, you'll have to come back and fight them anyway, except now you're down a spell.

Of course, that's all assuming that you have any spells left to be able to cast any happy little tricks in the first place.



...give your gm a few rounds of chasing shadows trying to find that mage but either hitting a mirror image or attacking illusions and he will soon start focusing on the immediate threat being the raging barbarian who is repeatedly headbutting his bbeg.

Your DM is strangely nice to you in some ways (poor tactical thought, allowing you to get away with the same tricks multiple times, allowing you to run away without reinforcing his bad guys) and strangely horrible to you in others (no magic item economy, random bull**** loot).

Eventually you should run into people with dispel and counterspell. You should run into people with blindsight, see invisibility, and truesight equivalents. Hell, Faerie fire can really **** up your day. Your strategies to protect the wizard will not always keep him out of trouble, and they all use spell slots - and probably a lot of them. Playing a wizard the way you describe will prevent him from being able to solve other, more important problems with his magic - which basically makes him an NPC hireling xp sponge and good for little more than comic relief as he runs around the battlefield like some reject from the old scooby doo cartoons.

[wunderkid]

On using the stat array (15,14,13,12,10,8):
the with the comparison you linked the unarmoured mage gets hit 15% more often at early levels, with bounded accuracy things are more often in the hands of the dice gods, yes that 15% will save you from 1.5 attacks out of 10, but honestly that’s not a great deal. and im honestly not sure how on earth youre getting +12 hitpoints from a 1 level dip. try wizard gets 6+con - 8 fighter gets 10+con 12. a whopping 4 difference putting it at
LvL1 fighter 12hp
Lvl1fig wiz 4 – 36
Lvl5 wiz - 32
that’s basically ever so slightly better than mitigating a single attack/two attacks. Which is good, but hardly ground-breaking. For most of the game your AC flatlines at 22 that’s assuming you’re lucky enough to find a suit of magical armour.

Not to mention youre taking a hit to your saves too which are effectively your ‘other’ AC. just to be able to wear that without moving slowly. True actual AC is more valuable than saves but both have their uses.

On magic armor:
Its funny there was another post on here just the other day where a GM had given their player a +3bow and +3 arrows, and was now realising exactly why its random loot. because it completely imbalanced the game. Same goes for you planning on getting +3 armour and a +3 shield. If it ever happens then you can faceroll most encounters. But almost every response in that thread followed along the lines of ‘why on earth would you give a character those things?’ I have no doubt there are plenty of broken combinations if given free reign over all the magical items.

you say about the GM being strangely nice when from the sounds of it yours is the one handing you cookies and magical treats left right and centre but thats his prerogative it is an optional rule after all. The rules, without using optional ones to mollify the characters are that loot is random. Getting away with the same tricks is understandable? Unless youre fighting the same person over and over new people will have no clue what your tricks are, there’s no poor tactical thought there either, when they know theres a wizard about they target it, exactly what you said in a previous post they all should be doing, the fact its just an illusion doesn’t mean it’s a poor tactical decision. From the sounds of it your GM metagames the heck out of things if every baddie has omniscient powers of deduction to know what happened in previous encounters. Sure the BBEG may have done his research but he would have done that on you too and brought a load of save or suck effects to the table. Either way your GM shouldn’t be shutting you down for playing smart.

you also seem to be saying that by taking fighter you will get access to magical armor but the pure wizard will never be able to move past mage armor? Don’t get me wrong im definitely not arguing sticking with mage armour 1-20. Just until something better comes along, if it comes along, this will keep the numbers a lot closer than youre suggesting.

On Spell usage:
True come plate the distinction gets greater. 6 difference is 30% chance. However at that level the wizard has access to two level 3 spell slots above your fighter, so the animate dead, fireballs, haste. any one of these. Hell given a few days prep you can walk around in a zombie bubble and make it impossible for anyone to hit you with a melle attack without getting past your zombies, and still have as many spell slots as your fighter. Or with a little disguising make yourself appear as a zombie. Hell haste on its own is a game changer of a spell. cast it on the guy who is actually going to be taking damage and getting in their face now his AC is even higher and he is getting free attacks so he becomes far more threatening than the wizard. Sure they may still focus you, but its going to cost them dearly.

Basically with taking that dip you will always be a slot behind and also for a third of the entire game an entire level of spells behind.

On using spells to get 'free attacks' because attacking the caster is a 'buff':

You cant counterspell an active effect iirc. And if they want to waste a turn dispelling mage armour then brilliant.

why would you walk around with them active? It can be done using the minor illusion cantrip. So no spells wasted you just have to get creative. An illusionary wall or dense bush blocks line of sight perfectly until they interact with it. offers a great place to hide (see below), and has many other good interactions.

crack on with the surprise round, because for your exact point what you’re wearing gives away a lot of information but you dont have to look like a wizard for the exact same reason you can wear heavy armour and cast spells, as the wizard I can have a sword and shield, light armour, component pouch just out of sight and look like a poor mercenary or merchant who has hired body guards. And as a rule of thumb not many things will go for the 'merchant' or even really the rogue, over the hulking half orc body guards for the same reasons you’ve given many times in this discussion you go for the threats first. So until you cast a spell you’re pretty golden, bar random attacks, by your very own argument, doubly so if you have a cleric or paladin because they usually walk around with holy symbols covering their stuff screaming I am the full caster. However with heavy armour you’re automatically saying to anyone who sees you 'I am combat proficient, I am definitely a threat as ive been trained in the top level of armour' so calling for even a few extra attacks to come your way completely mitigates any buff you get from your armour thanks to bounded accuracy. Also ill gladly take the use of stealth without disadvantage, and generally have proficiency in it, for +5 at level 5, assuming an average roll most people wont even see me. Mooks especially, so that whole multiple enemy thing you mentioned earlier? Well that’s you filled full of holes like a pin cushion and me hiding in the bushes, or back of the kart, or behind a minor illusion which I can cast every single turn if I felt like it, or generally out of sight sniggering all without using a single resource.

You know whats better than high AC? not having anyone test your AC because they cant see you or if they do see you not considering you a threat. Remember very very few people in the world are magical, its far more likely that the goblins who will respect strength, or bandits will judge someone by their equipment, or most things (bar mindless beast) will see you as the least well equipped sword wielder in the group.

Yes you will run into people with truesight and all those other effects, you know what else they often have? Save or suck effects, which are almost never strength based, so the same time truesight becomes an issue so does dumping your save stats.

So in a stand up face to face fight yeah the warmage rocking the armor is amazing. Ive already said several times im in total agreement it’s a great build path, and is in my opinion the better way to build a caster. Im simply saying its not much better. Both have their merits, both have their disadvantages.

Bar your GM metagaming and the bad guys shouldn’t realise youre a mage until you start casting spells because unlike 3.5 not wearing armour or wearing armour has no effect on casting so youll see a lot of armoured mages for the reasons youre giving. If your GM does throw you +3 armour and +3 shield, well then enjoy playing the game with god mode enabled. But the fact that level of AC is possible you can bet your ass that those + defence items are going to be the rarest things in existence because kings will pay, well a kings ransom for that kind of thing and there isnt going to be anyone willing to part ways with theirs unless you dead mans shoes (plate?) that, but then if you try that good luck hitting them :D.

[ravenkith]

im honestly not sure how on earth youre getting +12 hitpoints from a 1 level dip.


It's because I was in a hurry and used all d10s for the multiclass instead of d10s and d6s: dumb mistake. I actually edited that when I caught it, but evidently you'd started to respond before I edited. Just bad math on my part.

However, 12 hp vs 8 hp is a big difference at first level: you have 33% more hit points, and mathematically, 12 is a number most weapons will have difficulty reaching without a crit (d8s, d6s and d4s with a +3 mod cannot kill you one one blow, which is a survival advantage). On top of that, you have second wind as a bonus action, which can be used in a pinch to help insure yyour PC stays upright a little longer. As you level up, this does become less meaningful, but when playing from level 1, it's solid gold.



the with the comparison you linked the unarmoured mage gets hit 15% more often at early levels, with bounded accuracy things are more often in the hands of the dice gods, yes that 15% will save you from 1.5 attacks out of 10, but honestly that’s not a great deal.

For most of the game your AC flatlines at 22 that’s assuming you’re lucky enough to find a suit of magical armour.


Ok, your math is a little off, here. It's actually a 20% increase in armor value, not 15%, and it's not 1.5 attacks out of 10.

At lower levels most monsters seem to range between a +2 and a +5 to hit. I'm just going to use the +5 as it's an easier number to work with, here.

Monster to hit: +5
vs AC 15 needs a 10 (50% chance for monster to hit you)
vs AC 19 needs a 14 (30% chance for monster to hit you)
VS AC 20 needs a 15 (25% chance)
vs AC 21 needs a 16 (20% chance)

This literally means that, at 15 AC, a CR1 critter is highly likely to hit you with 1 attack on every two tries.
At 19AC, a CR 1 monster will have to roll 3 attacks to hit you once.
At 20 AC, a CR1 will have to roll 4 attacks to tag you once.
At 21, a CR1 will have to roll 5 attacks to tag you once.

This means that, after level 5, pretty much anything with an attack bonus of +5 or less just stops being a realistic threat to the multi-class wizard, because statistically they are very unlikely to be able to touch him. On the other hand, a single class wizard will be hit easily by mobs with a +5 to hit for his entire career.



you also seem to be saying that by taking fighter you will get access to magical armor but the pure wizard will never be able to move past mage armor? Don’t get me wrong im definitely not arguing sticking with mage armour 1-20. Just until something better comes along, if it comes along, this will keep the numbers a lot closer than youre suggesting.


As a character able to use armor, you should, at some point in your 20 level career, be able to find (or build) magical armor that you can and want to use. While your DM should definitely not hand these out like candy as treasure, he also should not hand your party stuff that is utterly unusable.

Even in a campaign world where a magic item economy exists, the availability of +3 items of any kind should be pretty low. You shouldn't be able to just buy both of them off the shelf at your local store, by any, means. You may have to go on a quest to get it, or perhaps get caught up in a crazy bidding war at an auction and pay 5 times the listed cost, or something. Could be fun RPing out either of those scenarios.

That said, the DM also should not prevent you from upgrading or manufacturing your armor to get the specs you want, unless you are playing in a campaign that allows for literally no downtime.

AT SOME POINT, over the course of 20 levels, you ought to have some kind of chance at putting the overall package together.

Now, I haven't checked every spell, but I'm not aware of any upgrades that are available for mage armor, period. It's static, that's why I say it sucks. There is no replacement for mage armor, it just is. You end up having to cast multiple spells just to cover for your abysmal AC, which is a loss of resources that can be ill afforded.

In your example of the +3 bow and arrows, what level were they handed out at?



you say about the GM being strangely nice when from the sounds of it yours is the one handing you cookies and magical treats left right and centre but thats his prerogative it is an optional rule after all. The rules, without using optional ones to mollify the characters are that loot is random.


What I meant was that your DM is strangely nice to you in some ways while being kind of a **** in others, in my opinion. I won't elaborate, as it seems you took that personally, and it is not my intent to offend.

It's my own personal philosophy as a DM I'm describing here. In actual fact, my current GM is just using a campaign book and doesn't give out any loot if it's not in the book. I'm playing a druid-monk and I've only ever had a few potions on my character, as nothing he can use has dropped: it's all gone to other players who can make better use of it. I have seen items drop (like a magic boomerang) that make no damn sense to any of the characters, and so it just sits in someone's pack, as extra weight to carry around, because, hey, no one wants to use it, but you can't sell it, and still and all, it's magic, so you can't just leave it behind. It's just silly.

You're also assuming a lot and twisting my words here. While yes, I hate the idea that a magic item economy wouldn't naturally create itself and consider it bad world-building to hand wave it and say "it just doesn't exist", by no means should each and every item be available on every street corner.




Getting away with the same tricks is understandable? Unless youre fighting the same person over and over new people will have no clue what your tricks are, there’s no poor tactical thought there either, when they know theres a wizard about they target it, exactly what you said in a previous post they all should be doing, the fact its just an illusion doesn’t mean it’s a poor tactical decision. From the sounds of it your GM metagames the heck out of things if every baddie has omniscient powers of deduction to know what happened in previous encounters. Sure the BBEG may have done his research but he would have done that on you too and brought a load of save or suck effects to the table. Either way your GM shouldn’t be shutting you down for playing smart.


For the record, as you level up, you get more and more famous. At low levels, it's really hard to find stuff out about you. As you progress, though, more and more people start encountering you and actually surviving. You get people who run from the combat, or who aren't quite dead yet when you leave the scene, and they go and tell the story of this crazy group of murder-hobos that are wandering the countryside, killing people for fun and profit.

It gets to a point where a BBEG finds it trivial to learn about you and your tactics, and he wouldn't be much of a BBEG if he didn't account for your known modus operandi when briefing his minions, now would he?

As to targeting the multiclass wizard, yeah the BBEG knows one of the guys in armor is a wizard, but if they're all wearing armor......

Of course, where we are currently playing, we're basically just in one huge big dungeon that's all tied together, so it's not much of a stretch to say that the bad guys know your tactics....

The poor tactical thought comes from not just dispelling your illusion after the first miss, or else switching to AOEs that cover the entire party, or else using see invisibilty or faerie fire, etc. Note, I said tactics here - that's in-battle adjustments to the plan to compensate on the fly. From your descriptions, it sounds like your DM runs his monsters and bad guys as utter morons who don't adjust their plans in the face of new data. Sorry if that's not actually the case.



On Spell usage:
True come plate the distinction gets greater. 6 difference is 30% chance. However at that level the wizard has access to two level 3 spell slots above your fighter, so the animate dead, fireballs, haste. any one of these. Hell given a few days prep you can walk around in a zombie bubble and make it impossible for anyone to hit you with a melle attack without getting past your zombies, and still have as many spell slots as your fighter. Or with a little disguising make yourself appear as a zombie. Hell haste on its own is a game changer of a spell. cast it on the guy who is actually going to be taking damage and getting in their face now his AC is even higher and he is getting free attacks so he becomes far more threatening than the wizard. Sure they may still focus you, but its going to cost them dearly.

Basically with taking that dip you will always be a slot behind and also for a third of the entire game an entire level of spells behind.

At level 5, yes, he has two level 3 slots while the multiclass does not. at level 6, there is no spell slot advantage.

It's not a third of the game: you ALWAYS catch up precisely one level later, and are even for that level.

Any spell your wizard can use, my wizard can use too, except mine is wearing armor for when the ****, inevitably, hits the fan.




On using spells to get 'free attacks' because attacking the caster is a 'buff':

You cant counterspell an active effect iirc. And if they want to waste a turn dispelling mage armour then brilliant.

why would you walk around with them active? It can be done using the minor illusion cantrip. So no spells wasted you just have to get creative. An illusionary wall or dense bush blocks line of sight perfectly until they interact with it. offers a great place to hide (see below), and has many other good interactions.


1) No, you can't counter an active effect: this is why I said counter or dispel.
2) I would never dispel mage armor, I was referring to invisibility/illusions/other effects
3)Minor illusion cantrip is fixed in space and occupies a five foot cube and cannot move, generate sound. Using minor illusion to make a 'wizard' would result in the image hopping from point to point every six seconds. Not very believable or useful. It literally cannot be used in this manner.
4) Minor illusion cantrip used to create a five foot wall is laughable: at best it forces the archers to reposition, at worst, encourages use of grenade-type weapons on your position (like fireball), and the first time an arrow goes through it, it's usefulness is at an end. Use in active combat is terribad, as all observers get to roll to ID the spell, and since it's a cantrip, that's pretty easily done. Knowing it's an illusion, they'll just shoot right through it....



crack on with the surprise round,


Pretty much everything you said after this was basically flavor text and had no crunch to it.

All I can say is, if you have proficiency/good scores in stealth, performance and other skills you want to use in a defensive fashion, you most certainly can do that. However, all of these things require investment at character creation. In addition, as a straight wizard, unless you pick certain backgrounds, you DON'T have access to the skills in question.

Of COURSE you can go the skulking rogue route, but remember that without HIPs, you need something to hide behind, and as soon as you pop off a spell, you're probably giving away your position, which then makes you priority one.

With a high enough AC, you will very rarely be pincushioned, as most attacks will miss, so you don't care if they target you...it's kinda the whole point of my build. You want to shoot at me? Go ahead, good luck hitting!



You know whats better than high AC? not having anyone test your AC because they cant see you or if they do see you not considering you a threat.

This is accurate. It is better, but making that work reliably in 5e is hard, though, and can be very situational. You can't pose as a merchant believably in areas that merchants never go (dungeons for instance).



Not to mention youre taking a hit to your saves too which are effectively your ‘other’ AC. just to be able to wear that without moving slowly. True actual AC is more valuable than saves but both have their uses.

Yes you will run into people with truesight and all those other effects, you know what else they often have? Save or suck effects, which are almost never strength based, so the same time truesight becomes an issue so does dumping your save stats.

Meh. You are trading proficiency in WILL for Proficiency in CON. The only save you are 'dumping' is dex, and as stated, shield mastery can help make up for that.



Im simply saying its not much better. Both have their merits, both have their disadvantages.


False. It is way better, because literally everything has a way to attack your AC. All weapons and many spells target AC. Other defensive stats are attacked a lot less often. Therefore AC should be your highest priority defensive stat. Beefing it up yields the best results.

[wunderkid]

Apologies my maths was a little off there, I wasn't counting the fighting style into the level 1 AC. But that's still only 1 in 5, as even with those extra 4 hit points you're unlikely to survive more than an extra hit at level one. Assuming in an encounter 6 attacks are launched at you, 3 would hit the unarmoured wizard, 2 of them will hit the armoured one too. Good/bad rolls on either side will swing that encounter. You are a little safer that is a fact but not a great deal.

Full agreement once you hit plate the difference becomes both noticeable and groovy, but you can shore up other shortcommings by then too. You also have the bonus of even without any armour or shield you're just as survivable. Take away your armour (like going to sleep at night or in a city or party or location where you're unable to go in fully armed) and suddenly you're more squishy, you also make yourself susceptible to the 2nd level heat metal spell which is 2d8 damage each turn and disadvantage on all attack rolls and ability checks with no save. Personally my favourite way of dealing with a plate wearer.

There are robes for mages, there are also many other magical armours that don't give the flat +3 for the gm to give you without breaking the game. there are common or uncommon items that will give you advantage on stealth rolls (can't remember what rarity but considerably lower than +3), with those you're going to be hidden more often than not against the vast majority of things. Taking that a step further another completely viable dip is for the rogue or bard, this gives you double proficiency on stealth, so at level 5 you'll be on +8 before rolling, and if you're lucky enough to find the right common/uncommon (cant remember which) you'll do that with advantage. You'll basically almost never be the target of a round 1 attack in that situation. bard has the added advantage of being a full caster class so no loss of spell slots.

A side note on the topic of there being no item economy, that could simply be because items are so scarce there can't be an economy for it. The group find them because they are legends in a story being told. And it wouldn't fit with a story if you went on a quest to find something magical to find that Bob looted it last week and it's now for sale for £9.95. You find these things because you're the leading roles in a story, not because they exist everywhere. (this is purely speculation and fluff it's not a point I'm arguing as it's purely down to the setting you play and your beliefs, it's simply my two cents on how I believe the creators viewed magic items in terms of not being able to buy/sell them).

As far as your tactics being learnt, if there are stories being told it's quite likely going to involve distinguishing features, style of armour, most look different unless they were made to look identical or by the same artisan, you will also likely have your component pouch visible because you're not wearing cloth to cover it, and if you wearing something to cover it then it's another distinguishing feature. They will also know about how hard it is to hit you and plan accordingly in the same way they will do for me, again heat metal is quite a good starting point and a second enemy person using it too can try to force you to drop your shield too (but you at least get a save to keep hold of it) but it's a viable counter tactic nonetheless as it neuters any spell that requires an attack roll while hurting you.

The exact same argument on using AOEs works against you. The moment they realise they can't hit you they will start forcing dex saves with aoes (which is both the most common save and one of your worst and while shield master is good you need to actually make the save to get any mitigation as only adds the bonus vs single target dex saves it's still a nice feat of course but you're also having to drop an asi into it). But between my being in stealth and your high ac neither of us are being hit by attacks bar aoe of which I'll avoid more often. You also take a small hit to cha saves but that's not a huge factor.

At level 6 I have 3 second level slots you have 2 so I still have spell slot advantage. At levels 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15 and 17 I will be ahead of you in spell slots and spell level.
At every other level I will be at least one spell slot ahead. You will never completely match the full caster.

In fact I was wrong earlier it's not a third you will only be even in terms of spell level for half of the game and always behind in slots.

At 1, I'm a level ahead. At two we are equal, at three I'm ahead, at 4 equal, at 5 I'm ahead. That dip puts you behind until levels 19 and 20 where you catch up

1) ah either are groovy as far as I'm concerned, they waste a turn or a slot to get rid of something low level, and because of the balance in 5e wizards are not much more threatening than the other classes.
2) I can't be sure on this but don't you need to be able to see/know the location for dispel magic? In regards to dispelling invis, same for fairy fire.
3) the illusion is used to provide cover while stealthing around. There is no save tied to it until they interact with it or use their action to make an investigation check. Yes it blinking into existence may throw up warning flags to an observer, but your stealth should do the trick anyway, and you can use it to make it look like you're stealthing in another area and use natural cover to move around it's not a necessary thing but when the situation it right it's awesome.
4) all observers do not get to roll automatically. They have to use their action to do so. I'm also not on about using it as cover for attacks (although it does give you full obscurement vs the first attack). But more as a way to stay out of sight. Unless they know you're hiding behind it they have no reason to shoot at it. And you could as easily make it into a cube so repositioning isn't an issue. And archers are also unlikely to fire an arrow at a wall that for all they know is real and solid and a complete waste of a shot when there are other viable targets to shoot. Unless they have some inkling it's an illusion there's no reason they'd waste shots.

I don't really consider it flavour text, It's them responding to what's happening. They see you as a clear and obvious threat, they don't see me as one, I look physically weaker and less well equipped and trained, they'll target you over me for the same reason they'll target a mage over a fighter in your examples, you target the threat. Or I'm hidden and they don't even have to think before targeting you.

the increase to ac becomes less of a bonus for every attack you take that the one in stealth doesn't. no matter how high your ac is there's a 5% chance of them hitting you. There's a 0% chance of them hitting the one they can't see.

If you're not taking the dip into fighter for the ac you need some way of shoring up your defences. The criminal background gives you all you need. Or any background that will 'double up' on a proficiency you have already as that lets you pick any other skill to be proficient in getting stealth is not at all difficult.

The something to hide behind can be easily created with minor illusion assuming there's nothing else around naturally to hide behind (iirc following some sage advice you could use an ally to hide behind but that could be hogwash so I won't use that as a proper example).

And that's not explicitly true. I had an entire campaign before where a rich merchant hired us to take him dungeon crawling for gold. Most wouldn't go down there, but he didn't trust us not to steal loot from him. Granted it's not a super common thing But if not a merchant then you can still make yourself look like less of a threat than someone in full plate as mentioned earlier(it is after all pretty intimidating).

You can switch your dex and con in the example (giving you 14 Dex, 15 con instead) pick up resilient giving you proficiency in con saving throws and more hitpoints overall past level 4 while losing nothing that's if I'm following a similar theme to you taking shield master to shore up shortcomings but overall it gives much more survival vs effects that care not for AC. Or take lucky instead which is an insanely op feat.

If you really wanted to and this is one of my preferences if I'm not going for the fighter dip (like I said I make use of every point you're making with most casters because it is awesome) but if you're playing a caster who wants to avoid being hit you could dip a second level into rogue, akin to dipping for action surge. If this is the case then being able to cast + hide as a bonus action each turn ups your survivability a massive amount but the trade off is you lose being a full caster. It is however another build path that puts you on very high survivability.

Even assuming you get your +6 epic magical items by level 20 no matter how high your AC they can still hit you 5% of the time. At end game even if I only opt to dip into bard/rogue for levels 19/20 so I keep full spell level progression until then (which I'd often do as I don't like the wizard capstone) you're rocking out potentially (if you never raise dex past starting) +14 with advantage on stealth rolls there's an insanely small chance you're getting targeted in the first place and even if they see you they then roll against your ac. And can pick a couple of equally awesome magical items to improve you in other ways but even without any item support you're an awesome magical ninja.

[ravenkith]

@ Wunderkid

ARMOR MATH:
Your math is still a little off regarding how much benefit you are actually getting from having a higher armor class.

For simplicity's sake: Assume level 3, a base 20 AC vs a base 15 AC, and 24 vs 20 HP. All spell slots have been spent (no one gets spells).

Assume a Brown bear as the opponent monster. +5 to hit, two attacks as part of a multi attack per round, one for 1d8+4 (8) and one for 2d6+4 (11). Assume average damage is dealt on each successful attack.

TO HIT AC 15 = 10 on the dice (50% chance or 1 every two).
TO HIT AC 20 = 15 on the dice (25% chance or 1 every four).

To clarify: this means that, statistically, the armored mage is actually likely get hit 50% less than the armor-less mage from round to round, and not 20% less as you earlier stated.

Furthermore, the armor-less mage is likely to die after 2-3 successful hits from the bear (8x24 = 16 or 11+11 =22), which means his best expected lifespan is going to be 3 rounds, and that's if he gets lucky, and only the 8 point damage attacks land.

The armored mage, on the other hand, can survive a minimum of three hits, regardless of whether the damage dealt is 11 or 8, and it will, statistically, take the bear 12 rounds to achieve the hits necessary.

The situation actually becomes worse if both characters have full spell slots:

The armor-less mage could theoretically use all of his spell slots for shield if he wishes to (6-1 for mage armor = 5). Using the spell effectively sets his AC to 20 until the start of the character's next turn. Note that the spell doesn't guarantee the bear will miss: there is still a 25% chance that the bear could roll high enough to make the use of the shield spell pointless. If the bear rolls high enough three times in a row that shield is useless, the armor-less wizard is just dead. That said, to be generous, lets assume that each use of the spell buys an additional round of survival for our armor-less wizard, protecting him against both attacks for each of the five rounds he can keep casting shield. In this best-case scenario, the armor-less wizard still survives only 8 rounds, or roughly 2/3 as long as the armored wizard did without expending any spells.

If the armored wizard opts to use his 3 castings of shield, each time he does so, the bear's chances to hit him actually drop from the 25% previously mentioned to the measly 5% chance of actually rolling a critical, or 1 in 20 attacks. Granted, the attack will automatically deal double damage if it hits at all, but neither 16 nor 22 are enough to drop the armored wizard, so expected life span becomes a grandiose 40 rounds, or 5 times as long as the armor-less wizard.

Of course, shield is actually not the best use of spells for the armor-less wizard at this point. Mirror image provides for protection as well. In it's best-case scenario, each casting of mirror image will nullify three hits. Your armor-less mage can cast mirror image twice, and shield three times. This means that a total of 9 hits could theoretically be blocked. Assuming only one attack will hit per round: 9+3 =12 rounds.

So the best an unarmored mage can do, in terms of survival, is 12 rounds at level 3, if he uses all his spells on defense and on the best defensive abilities he can use the on at that level. Which is exactly the same as what an armored mage can expect, but WITHOUT using spell slots.

KEY POINT: Don't forget that +5 to hit isn't where monster bonuses to hit end. Keep in mind that they scale up as the CR goes up. Just as one example: the 5e CR 20 pit fiend has a +14 bonus to hit. This means that even if a pit fiend rolls a one, unless you are using fumble rules, the pit fiend will hit AC 15, every single time.

With a 19 showing on the dice, the pit fiend can hit up to a 33 AC.

A maxed out armored mage, with his 10 (base) +11 (+3 Plate) +5 (+3 Shield) +1 (Defensive Style) and +5 (Shield spell), can push his AC to 32, meaning that he makes a CR 20 critter have to roll an 18, 19 or 20 (15% chance, or 1 in 8). 1 in 8 is a hell out a lot better than taking damage every time.

As a side note, keep in mind that a Heavy armor using Cleric (war/tempest/whatever) base would actually be better here, as you could also drop shield of faith for an additional +2 to AC, which would set your AC to 34, making even CR 20 Pit fiends have only a 5% (1 in 20) chance to hit. Alternatively, Protection from evil can be dropped in order to force disadvantage, which has a net effect of +3 to AC. Plus you'd have cure spells that you could cast, adding to your survival capabilities.

AOEs:
First off, yes, with my build, you are making dex saves at a +0 for the first 5 levels of your career. At level 6, however, you get your first set of third level spells.

With 3rd level spells, you can cast protection from energy. Now you get resistance to specific types of energy damage - or, basically, resistance to AOEs, since most AOEs (especially those that target dex) deal energy damage. From this point on, with Shield Mastery and Protection from energy, you are making saves for none, and taking half on a failed save.

But that's not all: With level 6 spells, Primordial ward and Investiture spells become available. Now you can actually get resistance to all energy types at once, or IMMUNITY to specific types, one at a time.

So, with a 1 level dip, after 6th level you take half damage, after 12th you take none.

To put it another way: the armored wizard is opting to be vulnerable for 5 levels to the second most common type of attack in the game as opposed to choosing to be vulnerable for 20 levels to the most common types of attacks in the game.

The heavy armor route is just mechanically better, all around.

REMOVING ARMOR:
In 5e there are NO rules about sleeping in armor giving you penalties, so you never have to take armor off.

HEAT METAL:
Yep, heat metal. A spell that only druids and bards actually get.

Also a spell which is concentration, with a limited range (60ft).
If someone actually hits you with this, you can either:
1) move outside the range, the spell terminates.
or
2) hit the caster hard, whereupon the spell terminates.

Yes, you WILL suffer 2d8, if a facing a druid or a bard who has this spell prepared. Of course, making the enemy use a 2nd level spell to do the same amount of damage a cantrip would've is probably good in the long run.

Either way, it won't be enough to one shot you, and you can then kick in your second wind as a bonus action (if you're a fighter dip) to recover some of the damage, while casting terrible things at the offender in reply.

As an armor-less wizard, most enemies are going to look at you and (rightly) conclude that a nice big fat 2nd level scorching ray (three rays at 2d6 each, +7 (3 prof, 4 mod) to hit) would probably put a real crimp in your day.

[RickAllison]

HEAT METAL:
Yep, heat metal. A spell that only druids and bards actually get.

Also a spell which is concentration, with a limited range (60ft).
If someone actually hits you with this, you can either:
1) move outside the range, the spell terminates.
or
2) hit the caster hard, whereupon the spell terminates.

Yes, you WILL suffer 2d8, if a facing a druid or a bard who has this spell prepared. Of course, making the enemy use a 2nd level spell to do the same amount of damage a cantrip would've is probably good in the long run.

Either way, it won't be enough to one shot you, and you can then kick in your second wind as a bonus action (if you're a fighter dip) to recover some of the damage, while casting terrible things at the offender in reply.

As an armor-less wizard, most enemies are going to look at you and (rightly) conclude that a nice big fat 2nd level scorching ray (three rays at 2d6 each, +7 (3 prof, 4 mod) to hit) would probably put a real crimp in your day.

Ummmm, actually only (2) is viable. It has been clarified in Sage Advice that you only need to be in range to cast the spell, not to maintain it. That's why Witch Bolt specifically states that the spell ends if the target is out of range, because otherwise the caster could run far away and keep bolting you from across a mountain (if he was that fast). A moon druid with Heat Metal, for example, could cast it on you, bonus action to go Giant Eagle, then move 80 feet away in the air while you burn. Still not much for damage, but more so than you originally claimed because it can become far harder to break the druid's concentration.

[ravenkith]

.... It has been clarified in Sage Advice ....

I tend not to pay too much attention to sage advice because it's run by 3 different people, and the opinions they hand down tend to contradict each other all the time (and often don't even need to be written by different people in order to achieve this feat).

They are really, really bad at keeping track of who's said what and being consistent.

That said, even with this rule in effect, it doesn't change the fact that druid boy in your tentative example, is going to be level 8, minimum in order to wildshape into a flying form, so lets say we are too.

That means there are about 12 different ways to smack the crap out of him from range or else mitigate/prevent the dame, or else just stop the spell.

[RickAllison]

I tend not to pay too much attention to sage advice because it's run by 3 different people, and the opinions they hand down tend to contradict each other all the time (and often don't even need to be written by different people in order to achieve this feat).

They are really, really bad at keeping track of who's said what and being consistent.

That said, even with this rule in effect, it doesn't change the fact that druid boy in your tentative example, is going to be level 8, minimum in order to wildshape into a flying form, so lets say we are too.

That means there are about 12 different ways to smack the crap out of him from range or else mitigate/prevent the dame, or else just stop the spell.

The point still stands, it was just reinforcing a rule that was already in the PHB. They didn't change anything, they just confirmed what already existed. By RAW, the druid can turn a corner into a maze and still keep using Heat Metal while an armor-user bakes.

And as for the flight form, that was just one example. Female Steeder form lets it travel at 90 ft per round with bite attacks, Dire Wolf gives him 50' for the first and 100' for the next rounds, and those are available at level 3 when Heat Metal is first available.

I'm not saying getting heavier armor is a bad thing (it's fantastic!), but it still has drawbacks. Honestly, I wasn't even critiquing most of your post, I was just correcting the rule misconception. Other than that, you were spot-on.

[wunderkid]

Actually your maths while not being incorrect isn't looking at the right figures. I was comparing ac15 to ac 19 too which is why I had 20%. But between 15 and 20 for simplicitys sake that's a 25%.

When a dice is rolled each face is 5%. The odds of rolling a 1 is 5%. The odds of rolling a 11 or higher is 50%, 16 or higher 75% . So regardless of their to hit. As long as they can hit both ACs the chance of them rolling and hitting ac15 is X% the chance of them rolling and hitting ac20 is X+25%. Of course if they can't hit both ACs or auto hit at one end of the scale or the other then it becomes a flat 5% hit or miss.

You're inclusion of somethings to hit and then taking those results to give you a small bit of sample data and then looking at the results to that rather than the actual roll in question is where your 50% comes from.

For example something with +10 to hit will hit ac15 so 75% of the time. 3/4
Vs ac20 50% of the time. 2/4

Notice how that 50% or me being hit twice as often no longer fits? It's he gets hit by 25% more attacks.

So you have to look at when the dice is rolled, that's the bit that really matters, the armoured mage will be hit on a 15+ 25%. The unarmoured on a 10+ 50%. The difference between is how much more often I'd be hit over you and that's 25% or 1 in 4 attacks.

Now in your example you're completely neglecting the measures taken on the part of the non mage.

with my +6 to hide 65% of the time I won't be suffering any attacks. And be attacking with advantage. Even if not hidden I'll act first 10% more often than you. Basically I will more often than not dictate the first turn. If I get surprise and the initiative I will get a 'bonus' round. You will 50% of the time have the first round dictated to you due to poor initiative and being out in the open.

On that first turn if I am hidden there is a 50% chance you're take 8-11 damage. Dropping your hitpoints to considerably lower than the unarmoured mage. Taking the overall 65% of taking nothing in the first turn means 35% of the time I'm visible. taking a hit from that 35% there is then a 75% chance of being hit. This drops the odds of me being hit in round 1 to being a 26% chance overall. Assuming I take my two rogue dip that chance then becomes consistent round to round.

In that first round two good rolls from the bear could drop you a lot.

for the first round of combat the unarmoured mage is twice as surivable with a 65% chance of having advantage and a suprise free round, and a 60% chance of acting first. And with the added bonus of being able to go 'oh snap a flipping bear time to sneak away'. Picking your battles is the first step to winning them.

Taking your CR20 pit fiend. At that level I'll have a hide of +14 without adding any ASIs to dex. It has a passive perception of 14. Even without me rolling I'm hidden from him. As you can't fumble on skill checks and only on attack rolls there's no risk there either.

So that's you taking damage 1/8 turns (while blowing spells something that's very bad in all your examples) vs me taking damage basically never (with no resource usage). Taking damage never is much better than 1/8.

On AOEs.

Those spells you also get on the full caster. Only a level earlier. Plus how many times have you pointed out dispel magic? And hide is still saving your ass from a lot of situations.

Mechanically you're choosing to be vulnerable to being a target for 20 levels of your career.

Yes you're right there's no rules on having to take off your armour, the rules also don't actually say you've got to sleep and there are no negative effects for not sleeping (you can correct me if I'm wrong but I can't see it with my cursory glance at the rules). But I can't imagine any gm who would allow you to wear full plate armour 24/7 with no detrimental effects. Yes the rules don't say anything about it but logic says holding that much weight for that long you'd soon start feeling exhausted, chafing, and suffering many other not so fun effects from the limited movement capabilities along side smelling like a latrine your social side would be shot. If all encounters take place in a dungeon or this side of role-playing is ignored then this is a completely mute point. But I'd call it relevant because most games and GMs I've known have always had elements of sneaking or being in a location without equipment. It's still a scenario that could occur.

As far as heat metal goes it's 60ft casting. You don't need to stay in range to maintain concentration. "Once a spell is cast its effects aren't limited by its range" p203.

Hit the caster hard* despite suffering disadvantage and so more likely missing.

2d8* per turn, potential for 10 turns. 20d8 for a second level slot is nothing to scoff at. And can be cast using higher level slots for more pain. And doesn't limit them casting other spells each turn. All with no save. It's 100% not a waste of a second level slot. It is infact one of the best spells in the game in my opinion. But that is just an opinion (one shared by a few from what I've read though)

And casting your terrible things that require attack rolls at disadvantage*

You're right though, they will look at me (if they can see me) and see someone easily dealt with. And because of that they will ignore me for you. You made the point very clearly that people will target the threat. The poorly equipped untrained dude isn't the threat when standing next to the full plate wearing warrior. They can deal with me after the threats been dealt with.

[ravenkith]

@ wunderkid

Maths (last time, then agree to disagree):

Let me see if I can try to explain this one more time.

I can see where you are going wrong now. You're confusing a couple of different numbers. It's an easy mistake to make.

First of all, on a d20, each number has a 5% chance of being rolled on any one roll.

Second, there is a 5 point difference between a 20 AC and a 15 AC.

Third, (and this is where you are making your mistake) you are taking the five point difference in AC and multiplying that number by the 5% chance for each number being rolled, to get 25%.

I see where you got this number, but this number is of no use in calculating relative advantage.

In order to calculate relative advantage, you can either compare one number to the other directly, or you can compare each number to yet a third item to see how they differ/fare against it.

A direct heads up comparison of the two static numbers (which is less accurate, by the way), yields the following: The numerical benefit of being an armored mage with a 20AC represents a 33% improvement over the 15 AC of a non-armored mage, as the +5 is one third of the base 15 AC. Alternatively, you can say that the armored wizard has 133% of the protection that the non-armored wizard has, in that he has the base 15 AC, but then has 1/3 again that number on top, for a total of 20 AC.

In using the bear as an example, I was attempting the second method of comparison - trying to show in real terms how much of a difference that 5 point change in armor class made to a character's chances of survival in a one-on-one combat with a bear, when both characters were at level 3.

It was pretty clear that the bear was most likely going to hit the non-armored wizard twice as much as the armored wizard in that example, without spell usage, and nearly four times as often when spells are included.

Just flipping through the book, the first monster I find with a +10 to hit (totally random here) is the Horned Devil. It's a CR 11, FYI.

Against the non-armored mage's AC 15, the Horned Devil will hit on a roll of 5 or more. 3/4 (6/8 to get to common denominator).

Against the armored mage's AC 20, the Horned Devil will hit on a roll of 10 or more. 1/2 (4/8 to get to common denominator).

Looking at the numerators in these fractions, you can easily see that the armor-less wizard is still 50% more likely to be hit than the armored version (the difference between the two numerator is 2, which is exactly half of the armored wizard's numerator.)

In any case, don't forget that by level 11, the armored wizard will have improved his AC further, while the armor-less wizard cannot: without any magic equipment, he'd still have a 21 AC. With the DMG recommended equipment of a very rare (+3 armor) and a rare (+2 shield) item (p135), it's easily conceivable that the Armored mage would have a 26 AC - a number that the Horned devil would have to roll a 16 in order to hit.

Regarding Hiding:
If you can't wear armor, hiding is an ok stop-gap, but it's worse than armor because of a couple of reasons:
1) You need something to hide behind. As you move from locale to locale, you will not always have something to hide behind. Illusions don't count, at higher levels especially (Hey that guy just created a 5' wall out of nothing and now I can't see him. I wonder where he went?/blindsight/Trueseeing).
2) You cannot go into stealth when observed. Like when combat just started and you weren't stealthed yet and are now surrounded by hostiles.
3) Perception is a key stat. Even Brown bears have a passive perception of 13 (+3 on a roll)and advantage on that roll (net +6). Unless you get expertise in stealth, people actively looking for you will likely have at least as much of a bonus as you do (and that doesn't count those who have expertise in perception). This means that You are, under normal circumstances, only going to be able to hide from about 50% of your enemies, on average.
4) Using mage armor, you glow in the dark.

On dipping 2 rogue:
Now you want to dip 2 rogue? Weren't you the one gung-ho about spell slots before?

On The bear hurting the armored mage:
Only way the bear hits the armored mage in the first three rounds is if he rolls a 20, period, and even then, only cos it's a crit.

On surprise rounds and running away:
You aren't going to get a lot of XP running away from every battle.

Also, in order to get a surprise round, you would have to be sneaking up on the bear. In a random encounter, you'd have to be doing your overland travel in stealth to pull that off, which would slow down your travel speed significantly.

On hiding from a pit fiend:
If you expertise stealth (minimum 1 level rogue dip) and If the pit fiend is not actively looking for you and If you don't provoke it into actively looking for you, yes, the pit fiend will maybe pass you by, if he doesn't have his at will detect magic up and if you make your DC 21 will save not to run shrieking in horror.

That's a lot of ifs.

On taking damage never:

Not going to happen. At some point you'll roll badly, stealth will fail you, and then you're toast, because you have no AC to speak of. In the pit fiend example, with your 122 HP and AC 15, if he spots you and goes for an all out attack, he'll hit you every time and will deal, on AVERAGE, 116 damage. If he rolls even slightly above average, that's pretty much insta-death.


On hitting a caster hard to break concentration:
You would force a save here, not make an attack roll.

While the spell is potentially good, in practice, it's never getting that second round of damage off.

It's one of the better 2nd level spells in the game.



You're right though, they will look at me (if they can see me) and see someone easily dealt with. And because of that they will ignore me for you. You made the point very clearly that people will target the threat. The poorly equipped untrained dude isn't the threat when standing next to the full plate wearing warrior. They can deal with me after the threats been dealt with.

Stealth, at most levels, is a 50-50 proposition. Technically worse than that, because everyone gets to roll, and only one of the bad guys has to actually see you in order to point you out to the others, but whatever, let's call it 50-50.Somebody out there is going to be just as good at spotting as you are at hiding, and then, bam, it's down to the dice roll. Just too hit or miss (pun intended) to rely solely on it.

If they do see you, though, and you're surrounded by tanky guys and you aren't holding a lamp and loaded down like a pack mule, it's going to be target city: population you. You might as well be wearing a sign saying 'arcane caster' around your neck at that point, and you clearly won't be hard to hit or tough to kill.

We could go around and around about this, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, as it is my firm belief that a Heavily armored mage is superior to one trying to use mage armor or just stealth to provide defense.

[wunderkid]

Also on the magic item front.

Robe of the archmagi. Sets your ac to 15+Dex(while unarmoured), and bracers of defence(+2 ac while unarmoured). Gives you 19 ac total which is respectable, it's no 27, but it's good enough. And that's still less rarity than the two legendary items you're rocking with a single legendary (robe) and a rare (bracers). Doesn't impede stealth, adds 2 to your spells to hit and DC, and gain advantage vs all spells and other magical effects.

Could easily pump it to 21 by shunting a couple of ASIs into dex. Which also gives you rocking initiative, rocking stealth, rocking saves a staggering +16 stealth before rolling and a more than decent enough AC for most things. All you're missing out on is strength which is unfortunately a pretty naff stat for most things.

If you're rocking the bladesinger at this point of the game you're on 26ac while dancing and 31 using shield (15+4dex+2bracers+5int+5shield). In your above example you hit 32ac. the versatility of the build makes you far more survivable. And better at the spell side while still being great even naked.

[Malifice]

Am I missing something, or is playing a bladesinger with 1 level into barbarian for their Unarmored Defense not amazing?? Youre 1 level behind as a caster and a potential +5 AC.
I made an eladrin bladesinger with incredible rolls, 18s for Int, Dex, and Con, 14 Str
Hes a 4th level caster with melee options and broken armor class of
10+ 4(dex)+ 4(con)+ 4(Int)+ 3(mage armor) = 25 AC!
Oh, and lop Shield on for another +5

You're adding mage armor to unarmored defence. They dont stack.

But yeah, rolling 3 stats of 18 help anyone.

Heck; a barbarian 1 wearing a man-kini and a shield has an AC of 20 with those rolls.

[wunderkid]

Lets ignore the +to hit completely, or say youre at AC25 im at AC20 vs the same +5 to hit.
On a d20 roll, you are going to be hit 5% of the time, 1/20. I will be hit 25% of the time 5/20. Same common denominator. However looking at it this way im now 500% more likely to be hit because you are taking the hit only and comparing it rather than the dice roll itself. This almost feels like its the same as saying I flip a coin and it comes up heads, if I then flip it again it should come up tails because it’s a 50/50 chance, two flips one of each result would be expected right? In actuality the second flip has just as much chance of being a heads as being a tails.

Basically what im trying to say is all that matters is at the moment the dice is picked up, what are the chances of a 10+ being rolled and what are the chances of a 15+ being rolled. Although I am being hit 50% of the time, half of those hits are also hitting you. There is only a 25% window on that dice roll where an attack will hit me, but miss you.

I actually think we are arguing similar things but from different sides of the fence. Youre comparing numerator to numerator to get that 50%, im comparing numerator relative to denominator. (by which I mean that 2/8 difference in your example is 25% of the 8 but 50% of the armour wizs 4)

+3 armour is legendary by the way, and im pretty sure the +2 shield is very rare but I haven’t checked that one

Regarding Hiding
1Unless youre playing in a box, or have a GM who for some reason hates rogues, there should nearly always be things to hide behind, if there is a rogue in the team most of his combat lifespan should be spend hiding, failing that there are plenty of spells like fog cloud that will give you enough obscurement to hide, and even failing that the trusty smoke bomb works a treat. Truesight will only effect illusions not mundane hiding, and blindsight often has a pretty small range to it, it is a counter to stealth yes, but no more so than other special abilities which targets a save is a counter to your build nothing is perfect and fortunately blindsight is pretty rare.
2 you can assuming you can become obscured. Which is pretty easily achieved with 5e.
3 if someone spends their action on the perception roll there is nothing stopping me moving and hiding again so long as there is obscurement. At which point it becomes a big game of cat and mouse. But unless they are playing a class who both benefits from WIS, and gets access to expertise (there are none) then youre unlikely to come across someone like that, unless they have been specifically built to counter you, but even assuming all things equal and they have expertise in perception, equal wisdom to dex etc they would have a passive of 10+6+2 (18) at level 5, I would have d20+6+2, Basically a 50/50 chance. however a single uncommon magical item (cloak of elvenkind) will give them -5 to their passive and me advantage. Meaning id need to roll a 5+ with advantage to sneak past them. At the end of the day im not a full rogue with this build, im not going to sneak past a full notice bunny easily, but by the same token youre going to get messed up by the caster who only throws out save spells with no AC targeting. Something far more common than a specifically tailored notice bunny.
4 Nowhere in the spells description does it even hint at it glowing. No idea where you pulled that from.
On Dipping rogue
Im not against dips at all, as ive said maaaany times I fully agree with youre entire argument of rocking the mega AC being better and that I fully support the dips, we just disagree on how much better the dip for fighter actually is.

On surprise rounds and running away
You should be moving stealthy all the time anyway regardless? I find it quite shocking if your standard MO is waking into creature ambushes every time you go somewhere. Maybe its just my group but even the plate wearers travel with caution, and if I cant stealth then ill make damn sure im not the primary target. Either standing in between the plate wearers, or on a cart or something so as that im not the first one attacked. Plus you lose 1mile per hour which really isn’t a lot for the sake of avoiding ambushes.

Also you get XP for defeating an encounter, this can be achieved through non-combat, walking into a fight you’re going to lose is, unless you’ve got a nice GM who lets you live, likely going to end with a PK. You get less XP when youre dead.

On hiding from a pit fiend:
Or bard dip, (in fact the next character I will be running is going to be a rogue 2/3 bard 17/18 because of how awesome the synergy is) both are perfectly viable, and as the 20 capstone for wizards is pretty naff is something I would always do so personally for me its not an IF. Personally I love the 2dip into rogue, it makes for an incredibly fun playing experience and ill be using that for my examples (as seen in my post above). IF he is actively looking for me he is rolling a D20+4. VS my D20+16. And most likely with me having advantage and him having disadvantage AND this takes his action. unless im trying to solo it I doubt it will even try to use its action on searching while being punched repeatedly in the face. even if I am going 1v1 that’s it using its action just to try and look for me, and using its action to throw attack you, I know which I think is better. Detect magic is both 30ft range, and requires a visible creature to actually determine its location, otherwise you can just sense that there is magic within 30ft. Not really all that scary really, and its fear aura is 20ft. Basically, don’t cuddle the pit lord, something youll have a much harder time achieving than me as it can see you and will be trying to cuddle you.
Im basically not seeing many IFs there, I would take the dip at the cost of the wizard capstone any day. He is welcome to actively look for me, the only IF is if I roll terribly and he rolls high. As long as ive made an average hide roll (with advantage) its impossible for him to spot me. And the detect magic and aura only come into play when close. No more IFs than IF it hits you (more likely than it spotting me and even if it does spot me its already used its action so wont be attacking me) and IF you don’t fail your fear check. All much more likely than it spotting me.
On taking damage never
I did post again on the AC id reach using the same parameters you’ve given yours. His chance of missing drops off from hitting all the time to just hitting most of the time, its not ideal no and he will hurt if given the chance, he is a CR20 creature after all. Also following the entry its 99 damage if each of his abilities hit and then a CON save for the poison taking it to 120 damage. Which is incredibly nasty. The never was more a figure of speech, basically due to the fact its impossible to botch hide I will never be seen by the passive perceptions of most things in the game, this means in a combat situation with cunning action I can happily throw a spell, cunning action and hide. Unless they then sacrifice a turn to look for me I’m hidden, no matter how high your AC there is always the 5% chance. So no its not never, but it’s a lot less than 5%.

On hitting a caster hard to break concentration:
I don’t know about your experiences but taking damage has rarely broken my concentration. Sure it happens every now and then, but ive wasted a second level slot, you’ve burnt out a high one to do enough damage to break concentration.



"Stealth, at most levels, is a 50-50 proposition. Technically worse than that, because everyone gets to roll, and only one of the bad guys has to actually see you in order to point you out to the others, but whatever, let's call it 50-50.Somebody out there is going to be just as good at spotting as you are at hiding, and then, bam, it's down to the dice roll. Just too hit or miss (pun intended) to rely solely on it.

If they do see you, though, and you're surrounded by tanky guys and you aren't holding a lamp and loaded down like a pack mule, it's going to be target city: population you. You might as well be wearing a sign saying 'arcane caster' around your neck at that point, and you clearly won't be hard to hit or tough to kill."

This is just flat out wrong. First of all NOBODY gets to roll unless they declare their action is to actively look for people. Otherwise that’s what passive perception is for. Which is 10+Wis+Prof.

With expertise, even from level 5 im at +8 before rolling. Passive perception will be at maximum 18, this is the one time its at 50/50 which isn’t that bad on its own as you still have your moderate AC even if they do see you, the stealth is simply an added layer and thats me being not even a great rogue vs someone who is perfect for spotting a stealther.

When you consider that uncommon items are 1st or higher, and worth about 1/15 to 1/3 the cost of plate by level 5 you should have gotten a few. Hopefully you’ll be lucky and get the uncommon item (cloak of elvenkind), and if playing with a GM like yourself where there is a magic item economy it will be your first purchase. that will also give me advantage, and them disadvantage (-5 to their passive perception). Putting it to me D20+8 with advantage. Them 13. As long as I roll 5+ (with advantage) I can sneak even past the cleric. And this only gets better with level, come level 20, the maximum passive perception is 10+6+5. 21 (down to 16 with disadvantage). My stealth is 12+2+D20. Basically even against them with my modest stealth I need 7+ (2+ with their disadvantage) and ill damn sure have advantage by then. If I bump my dex up a bit, which I would as it covers AC, stealth and init along with saves then it just gets easier.
However a full specifically tailored notice bunny can hit as high as 10+12(expertise)+5(wis)+5(alert feat) = 32. Maximum the rogue can hit is 17+D20, with no magical items, advantage/disadvantage on the rogues side then you will have a very hard time sneaking past them. But at that point its basically the GM building something specifically to mess you up, and he could do exactly the same to your build. Most passive perceptions however will be around 10+Wis (say +2). Or even with proficiency 18. You should be able to sneak past most things.

Almost everything comes down to the dice roll, that’s basically the point of the game. And im sure everyones first thought when they see someone skulking around is that they are a caster... First thought would be that they are a rogue, or someone who really doesn’t want to fight because they are not any good at it. A coward basically. A caster certainly wouldn’t be the first thing to pop into my head.
The paradigm that casters don’t wear armour cant exist in 5e because of how easy and how worthwhile it is. In 3.5 youre right not wearing armour was a big give away, in 5e the world itself now exists in a way that most casters would find a way to wear armour because of all the reasons youre giving. In fact even more so because of the reasons youre giving, mages are rare for a start, in fact when coming across most people in the world the odds of them being a mage is slim, so when there is a mage, and they do have a huge bullseye on their head, you can bet most would be trained to wear armour (as it doesn’t detriment their casting abilities with arcane spell failure) so armour wearing casters would in fact become possibly even more common than non-armour wearing ones.

So no they have no reason to see you and think ‘im going to target the one who doesn’t look like any more like a caster than anyone else, looks like he is worse in combat than the rest, could very easily be a squire or non-combat friend given his shabby gear and lack of armour’. That would be bottom of the pecking order.

It does appear this has started to become quite circular, I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion though, and also I do agree with you that heavily armoured is as a rule of thumb better, our only disagreement is on exactly how much better it is.

However I will say if the two characters we have theory crafted here were to go mono et mono though my money would quite likely be on mine coming out on top, however as this is a team based game 1v1s don’t prove much.

[ravenkith]

Yes, I enjoyed our conversation immensely as well.

However, the 1vs1 thing would definitely depend on a couple of things:

1. The level at which the challenge took place (Level 1 vs level 5 makes a big difference, as does even level vs. odd)
2. Availability of magical items
3. Spell selection - this is going to be the big one.

In a straight up fight, it's going to come down to who has what spells prepared, and then, who gets initiative.

I've actually had some thoughts, based on our conversation, about the best/most advantageous/most likely to survive character, check it out here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?483023-Most-likely-to-survive&p=20598516#post20598516).

[Aldarin]

Am I missing something, or is playing a bladesinger with 1 level into barbarian for their Unarmored Defense not amazing?? Youre 1 level behind as a caster and a potential +5 AC.
I made an eladrin bladesinger with incredible rolls, 18s for Int, Dex, and Con, 14 Str
Hes a 4th level caster with melee options and broken armor class of
10+ 4(dex)+ 4(con)+ 4(Int)+ 3(mage armor) = 25 AC!
Oh, and lop Shield on for another +5

This doesn't work. The Bladesinger says 'when unarmored, your AC is your INT modifier added to your DEX modifier. barbarian does CON +DEX. There's been a Sage Advice about this, it specified you can only take one or the other.

[RickAllison]

This doesn't work. The Bladesinger says 'when unarmored, your AC is your INT modifier added to your DEX modifier. barbarian does CON +DEX. There's been a Sage Advice about this, it specified you can only take one or the other.

Citation!!!

Actually, don't bother, you are straight wrong. Not a little, not half, just totally wrong. You didn't even quote the dang book for Bladesinger!!! Fortunately, I will:


You gain a bonus to your AC equal to your Intelligence
modifier (minimum of+ 1).

Note that this not only stacks with Unarmored Defense, that is the intended function of the darn thing. Bladesingers get light armor proficiency by entering the tradition because the idea is they will wear the light armor and get the bonus on top of it. Bladesong is meant to be a bonus on top of your armor, not a recalculation.

[Aldarin]

Citation!!!

Actually, don't bother, you are straight wrong. Not a little, not half, just totally wrong. You didn't even quote the dang book for Bladesinger!!! Fortunately, I will:



Note that this not only stacks with Unarmored Defense, that is the intended function of the darn thing. Bladesingers get light armor proficiency by entering the tradition because the idea is they will wear the light armor and get the bonus on top of it. Bladesong is meant to be a bonus on top of your armor, not a recalculation.

I was looking at the wrong pdf...
I'm such an idiot...
It was a pdf for an earlier homebrew subclass. Sorry, my bad, it works.

[RickAllison]

I was looking at the wrong pdf...
I'm such an idiot...
It was a pdf for an earlier homebrew subclass. Sorry, my bad, it works.

You're good. Of the four class features that boost AC (Bladesong, Draconic sorcerer thing, and the two Unarmored Defenses), Bladesong is the only one that works as a bonus and not a recalculation, so it is an easy mistake to make.