Which subclasses of Wizard for Heavy Armor Wizards?

[Citadel97501]

Hello all, I was wondering how you all feel about the different sub-classes of Wizard wearing Heavy Armor? Lets just call it Plate Mail for the full 18 ac, before other bonuses?

I was thinking that this works best with an Abjuration specialist, or a War-Mage but I wanted to get your opinions on it first?

[NecroDancer]

I’d say either abjuration or transmutation (flavor it as you transmuting your clothes into armor).

[Eldamar]

Abjuration. With a 1 Fighter/8 Wizard I function as the party tank for a campaign. Grab Warcaster and Heavy Armor Master and you're pretty set.

[Cynthaer]

Are you asking (A) which Wizard subclasses you should give heavy armor proficiency to as a houserule, (B) which Wizard subclasses mechanically work best on a character who already has heavy armor proficiency (like with one level of Fighter), or (C) which Wizard subclasses are most thematically appropriate for a character who already has heavy armor proficiency?

If (A), the answer is it depends on what else you're houseruling.

If (B) or (C), you're correct that it's Abjurers and War Mages, as those are the two subclasses that offer the defensive tools you would want for a frontliner. Plus their features synergize with heavy armor, rather than being redundant.

[Unoriginal]

Wizards don't get subclasses with access to heavy armor for a very good reason. Namely, full casters shouldn't have AC so high for free, and wizards in particular are meant to be glass cannons.

If you want one, multiclassing is a reasonable price to pay for it.

[MaxWilson]

Hello all, I was wondering how you all feel about the different sub-classes of Wizard wearing Heavy Armor? Lets just call it Plate Mail for the full 18 ac, before other bonuses?

I was thinking that this works best with an Abjuration specialist, or a War-Mage but I wanted to get your opinions on it first?

Enchanter is really fun because of Instinctive Charm.

Necromancer + heavy armor makes a fantastic tank (you can spend your actions on Dodge while shrieking to your skeletons, "Kill them! Kill them all!" with your bonus action).

War Wizard and Abjuration are also more than fine.

Really, you can't go wrong with any of them except Bladesinger. I just rolled up a Forge Cleric/Transmuter today (4d6k3 in order, Str 14 Dex 10 Con 8 Int 14 Wis 13 Cha 9, Mobile human, Booming Blade). Not "optimal" but still plenty fun.

[djreynolds]

I like the idea of an evocation wizard in melee dropping fireballs with sculpt spell, I guess any archetype but bladesinger is worth it.

But you need the strength and you need at least a 15, it might mean dexterity gets dumped, which is okay with absorb elements

If you grab dwarf, you're behind the power curve beginning with a 15 in intelligence.

Fighter or cleric are valid choices for heavy armor, I like fighter for con saves but cleric is nice for wisdom saves.

I had a melee wizard, I used shocking grasp as my melee attack replacement.

[Misterwhisper]

Abjuration. With a 1 Fighter/8 Wizard I function as the party tank for a campaign. Grab Warcaster and Heavy Armor Master and you're pretty set.

I would take one level of Warlock of any kind, Armor Of Agathys is very nice if you plan to be the armored wizard.

I was fiddling around with the idea of how to get Aid, and Armor Of Agathys on an Abjurer without wasting so many multiclasses.

Normal HP
High Level Armor of Agathys
Arcane Ward HP (which are not THP)
And Aid HP (Also, not THP)

They have to beat through the ward and the Aid HP AND all the Armor of Agathys Points just to get to your HP, and they take the retributive AoA points every time until they get through the first 3 levels

THen again with that set up, you probably do not want to use the high AC.

[MaxWilson]

I would take one level of Warlock of any kind, Armor Of Agathys is very nice if you plan to be the armored wizard.

I was fiddling around with the idea of how to get Aid, and Armor Of Agathys on an Abjurer without wasting so many multiclasses.

Normal HP
High Level Armor of Agathys
Arcane Ward HP (which are not THP)
And Aid HP (Also, not THP)

They have to beat through the ward and the Aid HP AND all the Armor of Agathys Points just to get to your HP, and they take the retributive AoA points every time until they get through the first 3 levels

THen again with that set up, you probably do not want to use the high AC.

Might as well go Warlock 2 in that case for at-will Mage Armor to recharge your Arcane Ward. Also, more spell slots for Shield.

[Trustypeaches]

Wizards don't get subclasses with access to heavy armor for a very good reason. Namely, full casters shouldn't have AC so high for free...*Laughs in cleric*

[Foxhound438]

*Laughs in cleric*

^agreed

Abjuration and war both have benefits for a wizard that starts in fighter for heavy armor- abj has extra HP for when they do get hit, often being enough to nullify 1 or 2 hits, while war gives a further booster AC to just get hit less in the first place. For low level, abjuration is probably the better of the two, since the AC stacking of the war wizard isn't super impactful, and Abj can take shield anyways to overtake or match it. Past level 10 war gets another +2 for concentrating, so you have a potential edge there. Nothing else really particularly works great here, save maybe divination to portent away hits for mediocre rolls that might miss a decent AC.

[Unoriginal]

*Laughs in cleric*

Clerics don't have heavy armor for free.

[Mimersbrønd]

Wizards don't get subclasses with access to heavy armor for a very good reason. Namely, full casters shouldn't have AC so high for free, and wizards in particular are meant to be glass cannons.

If you want one, multiclassing is a reasonable price to pay for it.

I don't think WotC choice to not give Wizard's heavy armor proficiency is cause of balance. Wizards traditionally didn't have it, so its more tradition than balance.

Having a high AC cause of heavy armor is not game breaking on a wizard, cause if your wizard end up taking it, they would have to sacrifice and probably dump Dex. meaning dex saves are strong against them instead of attack rolls.

The Wizard is safe from the goblins arrows, but not from the dragons breath weapon.

To OP, The way i got heavy armor proficiency on my abjuration wizard was by taking the heavy armor proficiency feat on my Mountain Dwarf Wizard.
I named his order for runesmiths and his spellbook was made of stone tablets tied together with leather straps. Was awesome to play :)

[Unoriginal]

I don't think WotC choice to not give Wizard's heavy armor proficiency is cause of balance. Wizards traditionally didn't have it, so its more tradition than balance.

Having a high AC cause of heavy armor is not game breaking on a wizard, cause if your wizard end up taking it, they would have to sacrifice and probably dump Dex. meaning dex saves are strong against them instead of attack rolls.

The Wizard is safe from the goblins arrows, but not from the dragons breath weapon.


It's not balance-disrupting if they have a price to pay for it. The 5e designers have learned their lesson, they know you shouldn't give high AOE damage bursts AND high versatility AND high armor.

Given how limited the options to get an AC higher than 16 are for Wizards, it can't be just tradition. They could have had Greater Mage Armor or other spells like that.

Sure, DEX saves can be nasty, but there are a lot more things that target AC, like all the non-special attacks, so "being safe from the goblins' arrow" is a big deal. Especially because wizards aren't that great at DEX saves even with a decent DEX. A wizard will have to worry more often about mooks' arrows than dragon's breath or a trap's dart.

Personally I'm satisfied with the options to make an armored wizard, in any case. Dwarf + Abjurer seems to be popular, but did anyone ever see a Mountain Dwarf War Mage in action?

[Nifft]

Clerics don't have heavy armor for free.

Tempest, Nature, Life, War... yes they do.

And from a Wizard's perspective, a one-level dip into Cleric is the a very easy one-stop shop for Heavy Armor, with some bonus spells known.

[hymer]

Clerics don't have heavy armor for free.

Tempest, Nature, Life, War... yes they do.
I think Unoriginal is saying that getting it as part of your domain package means it's been paid for.

[Unoriginal]

Tempest, Nature, Life, War... yes they do.

That's not free. Domains which don't have heavy armor get other benefits. They trade something for something else.



And from a Wizard's perspective, a one-level dip into Cleric is the a very easy one-stop shop for Heavy Armor, with some bonus spells known.

Never denied that. But multiclassing into Cleric has requirements, and is a cost.

[BobZan]

Fighter 1 with Heavy Armor Master or Cleric 1 with Warcaster then Wizard, War or Abjuration, do a very good tank with cool abilities.

[Trustypeaches]

Clerics don't have heavy armor for free.
True, but they get medium armor profiency for free and Scale Mail is part of their starting equipment, which matches Chain Mail with 16 AC with 14 Dex.

The best Medium Armor, Half-Plate, only lags 1 AC behind the best Heavy Armor, Plate, and requires less of a stat investment to achieve.

They may not get Heavy Armor for free, but they get high AC basically for free.

[Unoriginal]

True, but they get medium armor profiency for free and Scale Mail is part of their starting equipment, which matches Chain Mail with 16 AC with 14 Dex.

The best Medium Armor, Half-Plate, only lags 1 AC behind the best Heavy Armor, Plate, and requires less of a stat investment to achieve.

They may not get Heavy Armor for free, but they get high AC basically for free.

14 in DEX isn't "basically for free" for Clerics, as WIS, CON and STR take priority over DEX for them most of the time, as they can't make the most out of DEX in general. It's a significant investment, when Heavy Armor Clerics don't have this issue at all.

Also note that the differences between Wizard and Cleric spell lists takes into account the mid-to-high AC of the Cleric.

[Trustypeaches]

14 in DEX isn't "basically for free" for Clerics, as WIS, CON and STR take priority over DEX for them most of the time, as they can't make the most out of DEX in general. It's a significant investment, when Heavy Armor Clerics don't have this issue at all.

Also note that the differences between Wizard and Cleric spell lists takes into account the mid-to-high AC of the Cleric.If you're investing in Dex, you're not investing in Strength, typically. You'd be replacing STR with DEX in the stat priority, not trying to do both.

But if you're not using a 2H weapon (and why would you?) or PAM + Quarterstaff then I'm not sure why you would prioritize Strength over Dexterity on any cleric. Maybe if you really wanted to use Melee decently on a Life, Forge, or Order Cleric, as they're the only "melee" clerics (i.e. Divine Strike over Potent Cantrip) that get heavy armor proficiency but don’t get martial weapons proficiency to use Rapiers / Hand Crossbows (besides Nature, which gets Shillelagh to use Wisdom).

[Cynthaer]

14 in DEX isn't "basically for free" for Clerics, as WIS, CON and STR take priority over DEX for them most of the time, as they can't make the most out of DEX in general. It's a significant investment, when Heavy Armor Clerics don't have this issue at all.

Also note that the differences between Wizard and Cleric spell lists takes into account the mid-to-high AC of the Cleric.

If you're investing in Dex, you're not investing in Strength, typically. You'd be replacing STR with DEX in the stat priority, not trying to do both.

But if you're not using a 2H weapon (and why would you?) or PAM + Quarterstaff then I'm not sure why you would prioritize Strength over Dexterity on any cleric. Maybe if you really wanted to use Melee decently on a Life, Forge, or Order Cleric, as they're the only "melee" clerics (i.e. Divine Strike over Potent Cantrip) that get heavy armor proficiency but don’t get martial weapons proficiency to use Rapiers / Hand Crossbows (besides Nature, which gets Shillelagh to use Wisdom).

I'm with Unoriginal here, but I think there might be some confusion as to exactly what we're talking about when we're saying "tradeoffs" and "for free".

I think we're all in agreement that (A) Clerics can be built to prioritize any of Str, Wis, or Dex, and (B) all Clerics are likely to have higher AC than Wizards because they're all proficient with at least light/medium armor and shields.

So, when we're talking about tradeoffs between Cleric domains and Str vs Dex, they're the same tradeoffs that Fighters and Paladins have. Strength lets you access the highest AC in the game and use the weapons that deal the most damage; Dexterity gives more utility. I don't really want to focus on this part, because it's not really unique to Clerics—your argument for why Dexterity is better applies to any Fighter or Paladin that isn't using 2H weapons just as well, and I think it's pretty well settled that Dexterity isn't just universally a superior build.

(EDIT: Yes, Fighters and Paladins have access to fighting styles, but there are fighting styles for every weapon loadout so it doesn't affect the Str vs Dex argument.)

The issue that's more relevant to this thread is whether Clerics in general get higher AC than Wizards "for free". And I think Unoriginal is correct that the answer is a resounding "no", because you can't just say "they're both 'full casters'" and call it a day. You have to consider the context of what these full casters are actually casting.

To get some sense of what these spell lists look like, I've done a quick analysis of low-level core spells for the two classes. This isn't the ultimate perfect categorization, since some spells are multi-purpose and boundaries are fuzzy, but I think it accurately captures the general shape of what each class has access to.




Cleric
Wizard


Cantrips (7)
- Adventuring Utility (2)
- Buff Others [Combat] (1)
- Buff Others [Utility/Movement] (1)
- Healing/Restoration (1)
- Ranged Damage (1)
- Social Utility (1)
Cantrips (16)
- Ranged Damage (5)
- Adventuring Utility (4)
- Social Utility (4)
- Buff Self (2)
- Melee Damage (1)


Level 1 (15)
- Adventuring Utility (5)
- Buff Others [Combat] (4)
- Healing/Restoration (2)
- Debuff/Control (2)
- Ranged Damage (1)
- Melee Damage (1)
Level 1 (30)
- Adventuring Utility (6)
- Ranged Damage (6)
- Social Utility (5)
- Debuff/Control (4)
- Buff Self (4)
- Buff Others [Utility/Movement] (2)
- Buff Others [Combat] (1)
- Minions (1)
- Melee Damage (1)


Level 2 (17)
- Adventuring Utility (5)
- Healing/Restoration (3)
- Debuff/Control (3)
- Buff Others [Combat] (2)
- Social Utility (2)
- Buff Others [Utility/Movement] (1)
- Ranged Damage (1)
Level 2 (35)
- Debuff/Control (10)
- Adventuring Utility (6)
- Ranged Damage (5)
- Social Utility (5)
- Buff Self (3)
- Buff Others [Utility/Movement] (3)
- Buff Others [Combat] (2)
- Teleport Self (1)


Level 3 (20)
- Adventuring Utility (7)
- Social Utility (4)
- Healing/Restoration (3)
- Buff Others [Combat] (2)
- Buff Others [Utility/Movement] (1)
- Minions (1)
- Debuff/Control (1)
- Melee Damage (1)
Level 3 (29)
- Debuff/Control (6)
- Adventuring Utility (5)
- Social Utility (5)
- Ranged Damage (3)
- Buff Others [Utility/Movement] (3)
- Buff Others [Combat] (2)
- Minions (2)
- Melee Damage (1)
- Buff Self (1)
- Healing/Restoration (1)



So what's the conclusion? Pretty much what you would intuitively expect.


Both casters have a bunch of general utility spells, with the specific spells being thematically appropriate to the type of caster. This isn't relevant to the question at hand (why do clerics get better armor), so we'll not worry about the distinctions.

Clerics have tons of healing and restoration spells, and a bunch of combat buffs that affect other people. There are no buffs that only affect the caster.

Wizard buffs tend to buff the caster, especially defensive ones. Buffs for other characters are mostly utility- or movement-oriented. The only healing or HP buffs affect the caster, like False Life and Vampiric Touch.

Clerics have only a few debuff/control spells and almost no ranged damage spells. Wizards are masters of both, with many options to choose from.

Overall, it's pretty clear why Clerics get armor and weapon proficiencies while Wizards do not.

In combat, Wizards have the tools to control the battlefield and dish out damage (especially area damage) from a safe distance, where a high AC is not necessary, and they can turn spell slots into personal defense through staples like Mage Armor and Shield as needed.

Clerics, by contrast, have the tools to defensively and offensively buff the people around them, to heal them when they go down, and to deal focused or short-range damage. All of these things work best with a higher AC—buffs are useless if you can't maintain concentration, healing is useless if the healer goes down first, and damage spells are useless if you can't risk getting close enough to cast them.

All of which is to say: If Clerics had access to the Wizard spell list, with its ranged damage, battlefield control, and defensive self-buffs, then I would agree that they get their medium-and-sometimes-heavy armor proficiency "for free". Conversely, if Wizards only had the Cleric spell list, I would say they were drastically underpowered.

The term "full caster" is useful for identifying the progression of spell levels and available slots, but other than that it tells you very little about what any given class can actually do.

[Unoriginal]

Very well put, Cynthaer. Better than I could have.

Also damn, I'd actually never seen the compared numbers of spells those two classes have. Really show the contrast.

[Trustypeaches]

Agreed, thanks for the thorough analysis.

[Silkensword]

Wizards don't get subclasses with access to heavy armor for a very good reason. Namely, full casters shouldn't have AC so high for free, and wizards in particular are meant to be glass cannons.

If you want one, multiclassing is a reasonable price to pay for it.

*smiles in bladesinger*

honestly if you want a high AC go bladesinger, no heavy armor needed.

[Cynthaer]

Very well put, Cynthaer. Better than I could have.

Also damn, I'd actually never seen the compared numbers of spells those two classes have. Really show the contrast.

Agreed, thanks for the thorough analysis.
Holy hell, I wrote an 800-word post and managed to actually help resolve an argument instead of spawning three more based on isolated paragraphs?

I feel like a god. :biggrin:

Also, I've been pondering doing a mega-analysis of all the spell lists, because it's very helpful to me as well to see it all laid out. I'd probably keep it at about this level of depth—the first few spell levels are all you really need to (A) understand broadly what the class is about, and (B) put some numbers to the general sense that "sorcerers and wizards have a lot in common", or "bards are good at social stuff", or "paladins sure have a lot of self-damage buffs".

[Cynthaer]

*smiles in bladesinger*

honestly if you want a high AC go bladesinger, no heavy armor needed.
Of course, that comes with its own tradeoffs—mostly in the form of whatever you're not getting from some other Wizard subclass.

(And it's limited to 2 bladesongs per short rest, but in most campaigns I wouldn't expect that to come up much.)

[Unoriginal]

*smiles in bladesinger*

honestly if you want a high AC go bladesinger, no heavy armor needed.

Bladesingers' AC is based on limited ressources. Most of the time they have barely better than a regular squishy wizard.

Also like said above, bladesinging is your subclass power, you have to choose between this and all the others, and it limits your playstyle quite a bit.

[Deathtongue]

Bladesingers' AC is based on limited ressources. Most of the time they have barely better than a regular squishy wizard.Eh? In 5E D&D's realm of bounded accuracy, 'barely better' is a huge deal. You wouldn't wipe your butt with +4-5 to AC for one of three subclass features in 3E D&D, but it's a huge deal in 5E D&D. The difference between an AC-devoted, shield-carrying heavy armor paladin and a two-handed weapon medium armor cleric is +4.


Also like said above, bladesinging is your subclass power, you have to choose between this and all the others, and it limits your playstyle quite a bit.Being able to engage in melee makes a lot of spells regular wizards overlook (Blur, Fog Cloud, Investiture of Stone, self-Polymorph) much more viable for Bladesinger. Bladesinger options up more tactical options for your spells than, say, Abjurer or Conjurer at the very least.

[Misterwhisper]

Eh? In 5E D&D's realm of bounded accuracy, 'barely better' is a huge deal. You wouldn't wipe your butt with +4-5 to AC for one of three subclass features in 3E D&D, but it's a huge deal in 5E D&D. The difference between an AC-devoted, shield-carrying heavy armor paladin and a two-handed weapon medium armor cleric is +4.

Being able to engage in melee makes a lot of spells regular wizards overlook (Blur, Fog Cloud, Investiture of Stone, self-Polymorph) much more viable for Bladesinger. Bladesinger options up more tactical options for your spells than, say, Abjurer or Conjurer at the very least.

Nothing about being a blade singer says you have to fight in melee.

Just sit back with your great ac, faster movement, and 2 stats to add to concentration checks and cast as normal.

Adding 2 stats to your ac on top of being able to wear armor is kind of insulting to classes like monk.

[Unoriginal]

Eh? In 5E D&D's realm of bounded accuracy, 'barely better' is a huge deal. You wouldn't wipe your butt with +4-5 to AC for one of three subclass features in 3E D&D, but it's a huge deal in 5E D&D. The difference between an AC-devoted, shield-carrying heavy armor paladin and a two-handed weapon medium armor cleric is +4.

Yes, I know, but what's your point? A Bladesinger's AC is at max 2 points above the one of a regular wizard, assuming the same DEX, unless the Bladesinger uses their limited-use class feature. It saves the Bladesinger from relying on Mage Armor, but that's it.



Being able to engage in melee makes a lot of spells regular wizards overlook (Blur, Fog Cloud, Investiture of Stone, self-Polymorph) much more viable for Bladesinger. Bladesinger options up more tactical options for your spells than, say, Abjurer or Conjurer at the very least.

Never said the Bladesinger wasn't viable or interesting to play. It's just much more fragile than people give it credit for.

[Cynthaer]

To bring this back around to something closer to the actual topic, I don't think it really matters whether Bladesingers are good, or how squishy they are. The real question is whether the existence of the Bladesinger subclass means Wizards don't care about heavy armor.

I think the answer there is a pretty obvious "no", because (A) it's unique to [half-]elves, and (B) if you're a Bladesinger, then you're not whatever other subclass you would be. So clearly being a Bladesinger is no substitute for being an Abjurer in heavy armor, sharing your Arcane Ward with the party and shutting down enemy casters with consistent Counterspells.

(Side note: The Bladesinger gets two 1-minute uses of Bladesong per short rest. It seems to me that in either a theoretical 6-8 encounter day with 2 short rests, or a more realistic 2-4 encounter day with 1-2 short rests, you can reasonably assume that you'll have Bladesong available in most encounters. It doesn't really affect the question of whether it's a substitute for heavy armor proficiency, though.)

[Deathtongue]

Yes, I know, but what's your point? A Bladesinger's AC is at max 2 points above the one of a regular wizard, assuming the same DEX, unless the Bladesinger uses their limited-use class feature.Whuh? It's a twice-per-short rest resource. I've played three Bladesingers in AL, one to level 9, one to level 14, and another to level 8 and a bunch of them for home games and the number of times I've been caught in a situation where I had no more Bladesong AND I needed it because I was facing a medium+-difficulty encounter I can count on one hand. I've seriously had more adventures where I couldn't use Bladesong because I was doing some weird thing like being transformed into a Yuan-Ti or mind-swapped with a party member than because I ran out.


Never said the Bladesinger wasn't viable or interesting to play. It's just much more fragile than people give it credit for.It is, but not because they don't get Bladesong pretty much whenever they want.

[Deathtongue]

It seems to me that in either a theoretical 6-8 encounter day with 2 short rests, or a more realistic 2-4 encounter day with 1-2 short rests,Even with your modifiers of 'theoretical' and 'realistic', I think you're being way too lenient. Try 'like 5% of actual workdays, tops' for the former and 'more realistic 1-3 encounter day' for the latter.

[Cynthaer]

Even with your modifiers of 'theoretical' and 'realistic', I think you're being way too lenient. Try 'like 5% of actual workdays, tops' for the former and 'more realistic 1-3 encounter day' for the latter.
If you like. Either way, you're unlikely to have more than 2 encounters between rests where you would actually want Bladesong, by my estimation. Past that, the numbers don't really matter.

[MaxWilson]

It is, but not because they don't get Bladesong pretty much whenever they want.

I think people get confused because of the similarity to barbarian Rage, which does run out (including during combat if you fail to make attacks). Bladesingers are fragile when:

(1) They are incapacitated (ends Bladesong),
(2) They are surprised (haven't yet initiated Bladesong), or
(3) The combat runs long (due to e.g. hit-and-run tactics from a dragon, etc.).

But Bladesingers get more Bladesong than barbarians get Rages, and Bladesong is easier to keep up, so usually they aren't fragile.

Forge Cleric 1/Wizard X is still (usually) better from a durability perspective though, unless you roll crazy-high stats like multiple 18s.

[Nifft]

But Bladesingers get more Bladesong than barbarians get Rages, and Bladesong is easier to keep up, so usually they aren't fragile.

Additionally, the basic Wizard often has sufficient spell options to (briefly) become well-defended.

Barbarian has no Shield, no Mirror Image, no Misty Step, no Polymorph.

[Silkensword]

Bladesingers' AC is based on limited ressources. Most of the time they have barely better than a regular squishy wizard.

Also like said above, bladesinging is your subclass power, you have to choose between this and all the others, and it limits your playstyle quite a bit.

I disagree with your assessment in multiple ways.

First, it is true that bladesong is a limited resource, however it recharges on a short rest, and you have 20 rounds total if you end up being in a long form fight- after a fight like that, you are fairly likely to get a short rest.

Second; it doesn't limit your playstyle in the slightest; you can play your wizard like a regular wizard, simply with the ability to block off access to squishier casters in the group. You don't get shoehorned into building a melee wizard as a bladesinger unless you shoehorn yourself.

Additionally; Wizards get to attune to a number of magic items that will increase your AC even further. As a bladesinger, you are able to use bracers of protection, which a player character using armor of any sort will be unable to do. At higher levels, you're also able to attune to staves of power, or robes of the archmagi, putting your AC into truly unhittable-lest-critted territory.

If you want a spellcaster that has resource-independent ac, your best bet is likely the cleric. If you want a high AC wizard, bladesinger's the place to go.

[Citadel97501]

Are you asking (A) which Wizard subclasses you should give heavy armor proficiency to as a houserule, (B) which Wizard subclasses mechanically work best on a character who already has heavy armor proficiency (like with one level of Fighter), or (C) which Wizard subclasses are most thematically appropriate for a character who already has heavy armor proficiency?

If (A), the answer is it depends on what else you're houseruling.

If (B) or (C), you're correct that it's Abjurers and War Mages, as those are the two subclasses that offer the defensive tools you would want for a frontliner. Plus their features synergize with heavy armor, rather than being redundant.

Hello all, I do like the direction this thread went as there is a lot of useful information especially about the cleric 1 multi-class. Although mainly I was wondering about existing Wizard sub-classes, IE B & or C.

[Citan]

Hi all :)


14 in DEX isn't "basically for free" for Clerics, as WIS, CON and STR take priority over DEX for them most of the time, as they can't make the most out of DEX in general. It's a significant investment, when Heavy Armor Clerics don't have this issue at all.

Also note that the differences between Wizard and Cleric spell lists takes into account the mid-to-high AC of the Cleric.
There is no reason why Clerics should invest anything more than 10 STR and 14 DEX really, unless they want to get some specific niche trick like Tempest's maximized Booming Blade or grappling people / getting Sentinel OA against them inside Spirit Guardians.

Otherwise, you can either pick Shillelagh with a dip or feat (which also means maximizing WIS earlier) or just go with Sacred Flame.
There is no decent reason to invest anything in weapon attacks.

And DEX is better overall for the "utility" aspect (avoiding traps, having better Initiative to buff allies early).

STR is really a trap option for most classic Clerics, even those with heavy armor proficiency.


1. Bladesingers' AC is based on limited ressources. 2. Most of the time they have barely better than a regular squishy wizard.

Also like said above, bladesinging is your subclass power, you have to choose between this and all the others, and 2. it limits your playstyle quite a bit.
That's also wrong on all accounts.

1. First, Wizard is the one that gets...
- access to Rope Trick.
- access to Catnap.
- access to Water Breathing (ritual).
- access to Leomund's Tiny Hut (ritual).
And a once per day, short-rest restoration of some spell slots meaning he can at least get another use of Rope Trick for the remaining hours.

IF, with all those options available, someone is not able to get a minimum of 2 "short-rests benefits" in any standard situation (read: the majority of adventuring days party will live), he simply does not have the required skills to play a Wizard.
Even in the most time-pressured situations, Catnap is still usually manageable provided of course you're not alone because it's only 10mn.

In any way, that you can safely count on having a Bladesong at least 4 times in a day, which is usually more than enough.

2. Thanks to the extra concentration and extra AC gained from while Bladesinging, the Bladesinger spared probably one or two 1st level slots that others would have spent on Shield over those encounters. Maybe even he didn't bother with extra layer like Mirror Image or Greater Invisibility.
At level 10, he also gets more survivability against the unexpected by consuming slots to reduce damage. It's indeed a very costly feature, but when it makes difference between living and dying, or keeping the concentration or dropping it, it's worth.

3. It does not limit at all your playstyle. If you want to play melee, go dual-wielding with Haste or Greater Invisibility or Shadow Blade and have fun. But nobody is putting a gun on your head to make you do that.
You could also simply use the Bladesong as an extra insurance that your Fear/Slow/Hypnotic Pattern will stay up.
At higher level, you can also use Tenser's Transformation to reliably attack from range.
Conversely, if Bladesinging was "drawing you into a specific style", then what to say about Illusionist, Enchanger, Conjurer, Necromancer?
All benefits of these schools are 100% about enhancing related school spells.

Yet no Wizard has been complaining that he's been criticized when dropping a Fireball or a Polymorph although he's a Transmuter, or a Minor Illusion although he's a Diviner.
Having options does not mean is being forced to use them systematically (or even regularly), after all, that's what Wizard supposedly is: having an access to wide array of options to pick the one most suited to a given situation.

Bladesong is actually more versatile than others: it gives you two general benefits (Bladesong, Song of Defense) that are great whatever kind of spell you use and whatever kind of role you fill, and two "oriented" benefits (melee attacks) that you may push away, use situationally or build upon, no strings attached.

[Unoriginal]

I like how people assume that "limit your playstyle" means "make you a melee character."


No, I've never even implied that it's what happen. Being a Bladesinger doesn't limit your playstyle by making you a melee caster, it limits your playstyle by making you a Bladesinger.


A Bladesinger doesn't have the Evoker's damage perks, or the Abjurer's defense perks, or any of the other subclasses' advantages. It has its own advantages, most notably for this discussion a decent AC.

A Bladesinger is not played like an Abjurer. Which means both subclasses limit your playstyle in their own way.

This wouldn't happen if the Abjurer had the same kind of AC as the Bladesinger on top of its own perks, but at this point it'd be too powerful. Which is why if you want high AC as an Abjurer, you need to invest in either multiclassing or feats.

Honestly, given the Bladesinger still only has Wizard HPs, using their capacities in melee is rather risky. I usually give the advice that if you're a Bladesinger, you're a Wizard first and with some melee capacities, not a melee combatant which can cast spells (this being more the EK's domain).

[Misterwhisper]

I like how people assume that "limit your playstyle" means "make you a melee character."


No, I've never even implied that it's what happen. Being a Bladesinger doesn't limit your playstyle by making you a melee caster, it limits your playstyle by making you a Bladesinger.


A Bladesinger doesn't have the Evoker's damage perks, or the Abjurer's defense perks, or any of the other subclasses' advantages. It has its own advantages, most notably for this discussion a decent AC.

A Bladesinger is not played like an Abjurer. Which means both subclasses limit your playstyle in their own way.

This wouldn't happen if the Abjurer had the same kind of AC as the Bladesinger on top of its own perks, but at this point it'd be too powerful. Which is why if you want high AC as an Abjurer, you need to invest in either multiclassing or feats.

Honestly, given the Bladesinger still only has Wizard HPs, using their capacities in melee is rather risky. I usually give the advice that if you're a Bladesinger, you're a Wizard first and with some melee capacities, not a melee combatant which can cast spells (this being more the EK's domain).

I would say their biggest perk is the huge bump in concentration checks.

[Citan]

No, I've never even implied that it's what happen. Being a Bladesinger doesn't limit your playstyle by making you a melee caster, it limits your playstyle by making you a Bladesinger.


A Bladesinger doesn't have the Evoker's damage perks, or the Abjurer's defense perks, or any of the other subclasses' advantages. It has its own advantages, most notably for this discussion a decent AC.

A Bladesinger is not played like an Abjurer. Which means both subclasses limit your playstyle in their own way.

Then I reckon we have a very very different meaning tacked behind the expression "limit your playstyle".
Because you are basically giving as examples the two archetypes (possibly three if you count Diviner's Portent as applying on any spell, although the other features are clearly shoehorned on Divination)...
That provide bonus applying equally well, again, to *whatever kind of spell you cast*.

Evoker is kinda expected to blast. Illusionist is kinda expected to use spells like Phantasmal Force or Major Image.
Abjurer? Bladesinger? You can use buff spells, control spell, AOE spells, utility spells... The defensive benefits provided by the archetype work exactly the same.
The only ties Abjurer features have with abjuration spells are Arcane Ward recharge (which works with Shield, which is a spell EVERY Wizard uses) and Dispel Magic + Counterspell (which are spells EVERY Wizard uses).
The only ties Bladesong features have with... Wait, there are no ties at all with any kind of school.

How is that "limiting"?

If you really had anything to put against those, it would be actually that they are a bit bland for that reason precisely.

[Unoriginal]

If someone asked "I want to play a wizard blaster", would you suggest Bladesing? Would you suggest it if they said "I want a wizard who's good at manipulating others" or "at buffing others" or "who can have useful minions"?

Perhaps, but I'd doubt the Bladesinger is anyone's first choice in those matters.

I admit I could have used a better wording, but it doesn't change the fact the Bladesinger is more of a jack of all trade, master of none when it comes to spell capacities, while other subclasses are more potent in one trade. In other words, the limit is not in term of how wide their ability scope is, but how deep they can go into each.

Adding to that, the Bladesinger is probably among the Wizards which can do the most with self-buff, so they kinda are encouraged to go a certain way.

[Galactkaktus]

I've never been envious of other classes heavy armor proficency with my wizard.

1. I prefer Dex to Str on casters since initiative can be quite good to have with the right spell.
2. I already have a +1 studded leather armor(Mage armor)
3. Shield is a great spell when you can afford using your reaction for it.

What i have been envious of though is medium armor proficency a regular breastplate would mean that i could omit preparing mage armor and save some castings of said spell.And i don't need to sacrifice initiative or movement speed for it. And if we introduce magic armors there are absolutly benifits to having medium armor proficency. But most of all i've been envious of shield proficency that would just be straight up 2 extra AC for my character. And i think multclassing is a fair price for that.

[xroads]

Hello all, I do like the direction this thread went as there is a lot of useful information especially about the cleric 1 multi-class. Although mainly I was wondering about existing Wizard sub-classes, IE B & or C.

Thematically, I can see an argument for a divination specialist wearing heavy armor. After all, if my divinations started predicting that I was going to be stabbed at on a semi-regular basis, I might invest some time in learning how to wear armor!! :smallbiggrin:

[Deathtongue]

Forge Cleric 1/Wizard X is still (usually) better from a durability perspective though, unless you roll crazy-high stats like multiple 18s.Eh. I've found armored (abjuration) wizards to be wanting. The durability is definitely comparable and even in certain cases superior to the Bladesinger, but they are strictly only to be played as armored backline wizards. And even then, being a spell level behind just straight-up hurts as a wizard. I'm playing a Hexblade 1 / Evoker Wizard 12+ in AL and while slapping a Hexblade's Curse onto a Overchanneled Scorching Ray + Contingencied Overchanneled Melf's Minute Meteors + Staff of the Magi Fireballs is fun being behind a spellcasting level just hurts more and more. Even though my preferred group is pretty small and I'd be long dead if I didn't have a good AC back in the day.

[Asmotherion]

Best way I know for a good AC Wizard is Multiclass. A 1-2 Level dip into Hexblade Warlock, Fighter or Cleric and then Abjurer makes a decent Gish build. A bit more MAD than usual, but highly functional. Personally, I'm a biger fun of the Hexblade build, since it does give you Armor of Agathys along the Way.

Otherwise, you're better off relying on Mage Armor, Shield and a High Dex than taking a Feat Chain just to eventually get to wear something that is the equivalent benefit of 1 level.

As for Tenser's Transformation, I highly suggest watching Treantmonk's analysis on it and why nobody should ever rely on that spell to wear Armor unless it's homeruled to work against RAW.

[Cynthaer]

Hello all, I do like the direction this thread went as there is a lot of useful information especially about the cleric 1 multi-class. Although mainly I was wondering about existing Wizard sub-classes, IE B & or C.

Then yeah, Abjurer and War Mage. If we start with the assumption that you have a character who (A) has heavy armor proficiency, (B) is going to take Wizard levels, and (C) wants to feel like they're really using that heavy armor proficiency, then they're really the only subclasses that interact with that fun high AC.

Abjurers get bonus HP from Arcane Ward, and that HP is worth more if you have a higher AC. That leaves more HP to use with Projected Ward, and at 14th level Spell Resistance kicks in for a nicely rounded set of passive defenses against just about everything.

War Mages get defensive bonuses to AC and saves that basically assume you're going to be getting hit. And if you're going to be getting hit, you might as well start with a super high AC from heavy armor, right?

Necromancers get life drain, and (just like the Abjurer) that extra HP you regain is worth more if you have a higher AC. They also get necrotic damage resistance and immunity to max HP reduction, so that's nice. Necromancy is a much more specific archetype than either Abjuration or War Magic, though.

To go through the other schools quickly:
- Conjurers have no particular synergy with high AC. Hell, they already get a feature so they don't lose concentration if hit.
- Diviners get features that are just doing something else entirely.
- Enchanters get a deflection ability. No particular synergy.
- Evokers are all about damage. The vast majority of blaster spells have quite a long range, but I guess you could cast more Burning Hands at close range if you had better AC than the average wizard.
- Illusionists get a 1/SR guaranteed dodge. No particular synergy.
- Transmuters get a little defense from their stone feature. It's not...not synergy?
- Bladesingers specifically can't use their features if wearing heavy armor. Out of the question.

So yeah. Obviously any wizard other than a Bladesinger would love to have extra AC, so you can't exactly go wrong. You can throw fireballs or summon beasts just fine with heavy armor, and it's better than not having heavy armor. But if you want to make the most of it, it's Abjurer, War Mage, or maybe Necromancer.

[Son of A Lich!]

Alright, which of y'all cast Animate Objects, because these goal posts are moving.

First of all, AC is not typically a concern for a wizard. A Wizard with Plate and a shield is not going to break the game. They shouldn't be getting hit in the first place, because it's their Hit Points that keep them away from the front lines, NOT their Armor.

This isn't 3.5, where AC has to scale higher and higher with each level. Anything that can hit the sword and board paladin can hit a wizard just as easily. Anyone that can drop half of the Paladin's hit points can drop the Wizard entirely just as easily.

This is like saying that Tortles are broken because they have a natural armor of 17 and, therefore, the wizard can cast shield and never be hit and don't have to multiclass into Fighter or Cleric to get it access to it.

Wizards are more versatile, but when it comes to spell casting, that's irrelevant. You aren't going to cast spells you don't want to use, and your selection is never limited to a point that you are unplayable. This is true of Wizards, Clerics, Bards, Warlocks and Druids.

Hell, Algernon only has Fog Cloud and it is always useful Because I'm always looking for a time to drop it effectively. Algernon took an arrow to the throat, but even if I had Mage Armor up, it wouldn't have saved me. If I had Shield instead, it still wouldn't have saved me. But that's what happens when you are level 1, and you don't have HP to keep standing. That's why I plan on taking Magic Initiate at level 4 and using it for a daily Mage Armor.

A wizard is always going to be useful as long as they are alive and slinging spells, and I bet if we had a separate game of D&D 5E where wizards got full plate off the back, the only difference we would see is that Mage Armor was only useful for very specific parties where it was better then a Monk's (or the ilk) unarmored Bonus. Wizards would still prepare Shield (Just in case), and they would still be just as effective blasters, charmers or diviners or what have you.

There will always be pros and cons to every choice in character creation. Taking any concrete choice and pointing out the cons is NOT the same as proving a "Tax" that is meant to keep wizards down.

[sithlordnergal]

I like the idea of an evocation wizard in melee dropping fireballs with sculpt spell, I guess any archetype but bladesinger is worth it.

But you need the strength and you need at least a 15, it might mean dexterity gets dumped, which is okay with absorb elements

If you grab dwarf, you're behind the power curve beginning with a 15 in intelligence.

Fighter or cleric are valid choices for heavy armor, I like fighter for con saves but cleric is nice for wisdom saves.

I had a melee wizard, I used shocking grasp as my melee attack replacement.

Actually, about the strength requirements. As long as you have a way to deal with being encumbered, which is a rule DMs can opt out of using, you don't really need a 15 strength. The only thing that happens is you lose 10 feet of movement. Not exactly a big deal for the guy who wants to stay out of the front line, and who's spells typically have a range of 60ft or more.

[Citan]

If someone asked "I want to play a wizard blaster", would you suggest Bladesing? Would you suggest it if they said "I want a wizard who's good at manipulating others" or "at buffing others" or "who can have useful minions"?

Perhaps, but I'd doubt the Bladesinger is anyone's first choice in those matters.

I admit I could have used a better wording, but it doesn't change the fact the Bladesinger is more of a jack of all trade, master of none when it comes to spell capacities, while other subclasses are more potent in one trade. In other words, the limit is not in term of how wide their ability scope is, but how deep they can go into each.

Adding to that, the Bladesinger is probably among the Wizards which can do the most with self-buff, so they kinda are encouraged to go a certain way.
That I 100% agree with. :)
I also understand why you or others could see it as something regrettable, but I personally see how it can be a strength too. :)

I'd daresay whichever is true depends mainly on your party. For being the only caster of a group, I'd really appreciate having better concentration on whatever spell a situation may need.
If I can afford to specialize, I'll definitely pick another school than Abjurer or Bladesinger (unless of course I'd want to specialize in self-buffed martial prowess).