Weakest Level 1 Class?

[Yakmala]

I just started a new campaign where we were all Level 1 from the start. It's been a while. Most games I've been in start off around Level 3, to allow everyone access to their sub-classes, or at least Level 2, to cut down on the number of one-shot crit deaths.

Anyway, I was playing a Level 1 Rogue, and I've never had a character feel more naked and vulnerable than a 10 HP, 14 AC Rogue without access to Cunning Action! It made me think about which character classes are the most vulnerable at Level 1, the ones where Level 2 just can't come fast enough! My mind immediately went to Wizard, but at least they have access to Sleep and could end a low level goblin/kobold encounter with a single spell.

What are your thoughts on the matter? What Level 1 class most desperately needs to get to level 2 as fast as possible?

[LudicSavant]

Ranger's level 1 is particularly awful. They have no combat abilities save basic proficiencies, and their noncombat abilities are less potent than those of, say, a Rogue or Wizard.

[Kyutaru]

Monk. It's like rogue only more naked and less damage.

[Yakk]

Ranger; they have zero level 1 combat features, except martial weapons, medium armor and d10 HD.

[Fnissalot]

Ranger; they have zero level 1 combat features, except martial weapons, medium armor and d10 HD.

Even if they have only level 1 ribbons, they can either dual wield or have a great sword or have a shield and have better AC than a monk. If you can roll 2 stats to +4 modifier, monks would likely be better, but otherwise, rangers are likely better with stronger proficiencies and higher hit die.

Edit: it is a close call
Standard array stout halfling ranger medium armor
10 16 16 8 13 12
1d6+3 & 1d6 damage, 13 hp, 16 AC + ribbons
Or with a shield
10 16 16 8 13 12
1d8+3, 13 hp, 18 AC + ribbons

Standard array wood elf monk
8 16 13 10 16 12
1d8 + 3 & 1d4 + 3, 9 hp, 16AC

[LudicSavant]

I just started a new campaign where we were all Level 1 from the start. It's been a while. Most games I've been in start off around Level 3, to allow everyone access to their sub-classes, or at least Level 2, to cut down on the number of one-shot crit deaths.

Anyway, I was playing a Level 1 Rogue, and I've never had a character feel more naked and vulnerable than a 10 HP, 14 AC Rogue without access to Cunning Action! It made me think about which character classes are the most vulnerable at Level 1, the ones where Level 2 just can't come fast enough! My mind immediately went to Wizard, but at least they have access to Sleep and could end a low level goblin/kobold encounter with a single spell.

What are your thoughts on the matter? What Level 1 class most desperately needs to get to level 2 as fast as possible?

So I've already given my vote to Ranger, so I figured I'd talk about the classes you mention.

You're right about Rogues, they are pretty vulnerable at 1 unless you take VHuman / Moderately Armored or something.

Wizards on the other hand are actually one of the stronger classes at level 1 if the player knows their @#$%. 3 spell slots a day (vs a Cleric, Druid, or Sorcerer's 2). Excellent spell list. Low level bonfire combos are a thing. And rituals! Even an owl familiar alone is worth aerial scouting, an 18 Passive Perception (with Keen Senses), and Flyby Help every round (which is actually a pretty significant contributor to DPR at this level). They're not even bad at using weapons compared to others at this level. Heck, you can even have your Familiar yo-yo someone (including yourself) with a 25gp healing potion without using your actions. Or have an Unseen Servant dropping Ball Bearings for you. And so forth.

Every time I play as a level 1 Sorcerer it always strikes me as such a contrast contrast to the power I have at my disposal as a level 1 Wizard. You have only 2/3rds the spells per day, 1/2 the spells prepared (and no ability to swap them out day to day), are more hampered by being caught in melee since you can't learn Toll the Dead, no rituals at all (let alone a familiar), and a subclass ability that doesn't make up that difference (for example, Dragon Sorcerer basically saves a slot on Mage Armor, and Shadow Sorcerer gets a 1/day death gate that has a good chance of doing nothing at all).

[tKUUNK]

funny enough, just doing a quick mental review of classes before reading the OP, rogue came to mind.

[stoutstien]

I'd have to say monks and rangers as well. At least rogues get expertise that can be used to good effect

[Foxhound438]

Monk. It's like rogue only more naked and less damage.

monk damage at level 1 is more than rogue.

[daremetoidareyo]

At level 1 in the xampaign I'm in, I was rogue, and boy howdy, I diplomanced every combat I could. Wolf-wasps attack to pull the dog sized caterpillars from the caravan, I just gave them the caterpillars and intimidated them to back off.

Land pirates attack us on the plains? Roll initiative and Call for parlay, negating initiative.

Cunning action does make it much better.

[Rara1212]

Wizards on the other hand are actually one of the stronger classes at level 1 if the player knows their @#$%. 3 spell slots a day (vs a Cleric, Druid, or Sorcerer's 2).
All full spellcasters get 2 spellsots per day at lvl 1.

EDIT:
Ah, right, their Arcane recovery

[stoutstien]

All full spellcasters get 2 spellsots per day at lvl 1

Arcane recovery is the added slot.

[Kyutaru]

monk damage at level 1 is more than rogue.
Costing a bonus action for an extra d4 with weak weapons VS sneak attacking for an extra d6 with a longsword for free.

[Fnissalot]

Costing a bonus action for an extra d4 with weak weapons VS sneak attacking for an extra d6 with a longsword for free.
You don't have much else to do with a bonus action at level 1. And the damage equals out if the rogue dual wields which they should.

As I posted earlier
Standard array wood elf monk
8 16 13 10 16 12
1d8 + 3 & 1d4 + 3(avg 13 over 2 hits), 9 hp, 16AC
Vs AC 13: 7.15 damage a turn

Standard array stout halfling rogue dualwield
8 16 16 10 13 12
1d6 + 3 & 1d6 and +1d6 on sneak attack(avg 13.5 over 2 hits), 11 hp, 14 AC + expertise and more proficiencies
Vs AC 13: 8.29 damage a turn if you can get sneak attack, 5.5 if you cannot.


The difference in damage increases as you account for the chance to hit. As long as you can get the conditions for sneak attack, it is even higher damage, since you get two chances to get your sneak attack each turn.

Edit: Rogues can deal more damage than a monk under semi-regular conditions and get better skills but will take more damage. Rangers will deal less damage 2d6+3 (dual wield or greatsword) or 1d8+3 (longsword or rapier + shield) is less, but gets ribbons, more Health and can have higher AC with medium armor and shield. Monks get nothing else at level one than some extra combat efficiency that puts them around a medium armor and martial weapon proficiency but gets nothing outside of combat. All three choices are bad in their own way, but I would pick either of rogues expertise or rangers AC (with medium armor and a shield) over the monk.

[Emongnome777]

Druids have to be somewhere near the top. Spellcasting as their only non-ribbon ability and their 1st level spell list is fairly lackluster. Good healing spells, faerie fire, thunderwave, and not much else to me. Only 2 cantrips means you can't take druidcraft (nice fluff for a druid), guidance, and an attack cantrip. I'm sure there'll be some love for druids, but their 1st level is rough IMHO.

[Amechra]

Costing a bonus action for an extra d4 with weak weapons VS sneak attacking for an extra d6 with a longsword for free.

There are a few issues with this:

1) What other features do you have that use your bonus action at 1st level? No, seriously - the best races for Monks stat-wise rarely hand out abilities that cost you your bonus action.
2) The Rogue doesn't get "an extra d6 with a longsword" - you can only sneak attack with a ranged weapon or a finesse weapon, and a longsword is neither. The best you can do is a rapier for 1d8.
3) Even if the Rogue did get sneak attack with that longsword, that's conditional damage. You don't generally get the features that make it so that you have a consistent source of advantage until 2nd level.
4) Monks are generally going to have higher AC than a 1st-level Rogue, unless they absolutely dumped Wis. A starting Wis of 14-16 will give you AC 12+Dex/13+Dex, which beats out the Rogue's AC 11+Dex - and having a Wisdom that high will not prevent you from having a Dex of 16 as well.

The one big difference is that Rogues can spare the points to bump Con, while Monks basically have to treat it like a tertiary stat... but that's probably, what, a whole 1 HP of difference at 1st level?

EDIT: Well, that was me forgetting to reload before posting on a thread I opened earlier today...

EDIT EDIT: No (lack of love) for the Warlock? Specifically, a non-Hexblade Warlock?

You have HP comparable to a Rogue, AC that's probably worse, a ranged option that's almost always going to be worse than a longbow (Eldritch Blast doesn't hit its stride until 2nd level), and a single spell slot per short rest.

[Luccan]

Druids have to be somewhere near the top. Spellcasting as their only non-ribbon ability and their 1st level spell list is fairly lackluster. Good healing spells, faerie fire, thunderwave, and not much else to me. Only 2 cantrips means you can't take druidcraft (nice fluff for a druid), guidance, and an attack cantrip. I'm sure there'll be some love for druids, but their 1st level is rough IMHO.

I don't think you can honestly say any of the full casters are the weakest. Druids and Clerics especially, with their full spells list access, d8 hit die, armor and weapon access can do way more than anyone else. Guidance is a fantastic cantrip that lets you make checks like you have proficiency or better at level 1. Yeah, Druidcraft isn't your best option, but if you want combat and a little utility Produce Flame is both offensive and a light spell.

Entangle is a good control spell, you have some survival based options if you need them, and the best level 1 charm spell Animal Friendship. It's a decent list, especially compared to those who have to pick a few options for the whole level. You'll almost never be unable to contribute.

Compare to Ranger, which is only more of a boon than anyone else in very specific circumstances. Or Monk, who has decent abilities but they're only combat related.



EDIT EDIT: No (lack of love) for the Warlock? Specifically, a non-Hexblade Warlock?

You have HP comparable to a Rogue, AC that's probably worse, a ranged option that's almost always going to be worse than a longbow (Eldritch Blast doesn't hit its stride until 2nd level), and a single spell slot per short rest.

You do also get your patron feature. It'll vary, but there are other good 1st level patron features.

[Yakk]

monk damage at level 1 is more than rogue.

AC 15 foe. Double-SS rogue, QS monk. Both have 16 dex (+5 to hit).

Monk hits 55% crits 5% for 1d8+1d4+6 = 7.5 DPR
Rogue hits 55% crits 5% for 2d6+3 (6 DPR), and hits 80% crits 7% for 1d6 (3.045) = 9.045 DPR.

If you just add up 3d6+3 and 1d8+1d4+6 you get 13.5 vs 14, but that doesn't account for the fact that you can get 2 chances to land that sneak attack d6. Rogues do 20% more damage than monks do at level 1.

[JNAProductions]

AC 15 foe. Double-SS rogue, QS monk. Both have 16 dex (+5 to hit).

Monk hits 55% crits 5% for 1d8+1d4+6 = 7.5 DPR
Rogue hits 55% crits 5% for 2d6+3 (6 DPR), and hits 80% crits 7% for 1d6 (3.045) = 9.045 DPR.

If you just add up 3d6+3 and 1d8+1d4+6 you get 13.5 vs 14, but that doesn't account for the fact that you can get 2 chances to land that sneak attack d6. Rogues do 20% more damage than monks do at level 1.

And Monks have a better AC by 1-2 points, as well as being guaranteed to get their bonus 1d4+3 attack, whereas Rogues have a conditional extra 1d6. It's an easy conditional, true, but not guaranteed.

[Unoriginal]

Costing a bonus action for an extra d4 with weak weapons VS sneak attacking for an extra d6 with a longsword for free.

You can't Sneak Attack with a longsword.

[Edea]

Probably monk or ranger.

Rogue's also on the lower end if your DM's not cooperative with 5e's very abstract skill system.

No full caster's down there, 5e's take on cantrips makes sure of that (though it's tempting to call out the sorcerer). This is also why a bard gets away with so much at level 1 despite being almost as skill-focused as a rogue; if the DM's being a pain with skills, just use friends and minor illusion, instead.

Fighter, barbarian and paladin are surprisingly effective at 1st level.

[Luccan]

Probably monk or ranger.

Rogue's also on the lower end if your DM's not cooperative with 5e's very abstract skill system.

No full caster's down there, 5e's take on cantrips makes sure of that (though it's tempting to call out the sorcerer). This is also why a bard gets away with so much at level 1 despite being almost as skill-focused as a rogue; if the DM's being a pain with skills, just use friends and minor illusion, instead.

Fighter, barbarian and paladin are surprisingly effective at 1st level.

I'd argue Sorcerer's abundance of Cantrips is pretty much only relevant at level 1, so if anything it's doing fine with 4 options. Particularly if your DM likes to use monsters with resistances even at low levels, you're playing the one class that can afford to branch out on damaging cantrips. It's not the best, mind you, I think Clerics, Druids, and Wizards are all doing better, but it's not nothing

[KorvinStarmast]

You can't Sneak Attack with a longsword.
You may be able to with a rapier, though.

Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor
Weapons: Simple weapons, hand crossbows, longswords, rapiers, shortswords

[Luccan]

You may be able to with a rapier, though.

Can't dual wield that way at level 1, though, which cuts into your damage potential.

[thereaper]

EDIT EDIT: No (lack of love) for the Warlock? Specifically, a non-Hexblade Warlock?

You have HP comparable to a Rogue, AC that's probably worse, a ranged option that's almost always going to be worse than a longbow (Eldritch Blast doesn't hit its stride until 2nd level), and a single spell slot per short rest.

That still translates to 3 1st level slots a day. More importantly, Warlocks can take Minor Illusion.

[JackPhoenix]

Can't dual wield that way at level 1, though, which cuts into your damage potential.

You can if you're vuman with Dual Wielder.

[Luccan]

You can if you're vuman with Dual Wielder.

True, but that's not about the class

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'm not going to say Paladin is as bad as rogue or monk largely because of superior HP +5 bonus when needed, but it's not good. Reality is there is an expectation that you will be standing between the monsters and most of the rest of the party too, which could likely get you dead. Now that I think of it the last character we had die in our campaign was exactly this, a 1st level Paladin who valiantly checked out an attic and donated a lot of his blood to a bunch of stirges.

[thereaper]

You can if you're vuman with Dual Wielder.

But is that worth giving up darkvision?


I'm not going to say Paladin is as bad as rogue or monk largely because of superior HP +5 bonus when needed, but it's not good. Reality is there is an expectation that you will be standing between the monsters and most of the rest of the party too, which could likely get you dead. Now that I think of it the last character we had die in our campaign was exactly this, a 1st level Paladin who valiantly checked out an attic and donated a lot of his blood to a bunch of stirges.

Proficiencies and d10 HD alone prevent the Paladin from being low on the list. Lay on Hands is really more for out of combat healing. It's weaker than Second Wind, yes, but it can be distributed to whoever needs it. Then there's divine sense on top of that.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Lets see.
Monk and rogues have the best level 1 damage.

Wizards have access to strong level 1 spells and an extra slot.

Clerics have healing so they can stay back, and ready healing word before the front like turn. They are not strong alone at level 1.

Warlock and sorcerer have less spell then a Level 1 wizard, both have level 1 subclass feature that may help. Warlock have the potential of more spell slots then the wizard.

Druid have little combat magic and no wildshape but he can throw stones (magic stone which was my druid favourite level 1 strategy because it is funny to see a respectable old man try to explain youger people why it is important to throw stones).

Fighter have healing spirit and that's it. Paladin is the same but with lay of hands.
Barbarian have rage so like fighter, all they get is extra HP.


Ranger is a ranger.


This was by the order of effectiveness IMO.

[Dork_Forge]

Lets see.
Monk and rogues have the best level 1 damage.

Wizards have access to strong level 1 spells and an extra slot.

Clerics have healing so they can stay back, and ready healing word before the front like turn. They are not strong alone at level 1.

Warlock and sorcerer have less spell then a Level 1 wizard, both have level 1 subclass feature that may help. Warlock have the potential of more spell slots then the wizard.

Druid have little combat magic and no wildshape but he can throw stones (magic stone which was my druid favourite level 1 strategy because it is funny to see a respectable old man try to explain youger people why it is important to throw stones).

Fighter have healing spirit and that's it. Paladin is the same but with lay of hands.
Barbarian have rage so like fighter, all they get is extra HP.


Ranger is a ranger.


This was by the order of effectiveness IMO.

You're underselling Fighter here, they're the only martial to get a Fighting Style at 1st level allowing them to choose being up with the best for damage or AC.

Going to have to agree with everyone saying Ranger, they just don't get enough at 1st level to be up there unless it's a very explroation heavy game.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

You're underselling Fighter here, they're the only martial to get a Fighting Style at 1st level allowing them to choose being up with the best for damage or AC.

Going to have to agree with everyone saying Ranger, they just don't get enough at 1st level to be up there unless it's a very explroation heavy game.

I agree, I should have put it like that:
Fighter
Barbarian
Paladin

[Yakk]

15 AC enemy, L1 fighter, 16 attack stat.
GWF: 2d6+3 (11.33) = 6.6 DPR
TWF: 2d6+6 (13) = 7.5 DPR (same as monk)
Duel: 1d8+5 (9.5) = 5.5 DPR

Duel+PAM VHuman Fighter: 1d6+1d4+10 = 9.1 DPR
DW+TWF VHuman Fighter: 2d8+6 = 8.7 DPR

DW VHuman Rogue: 2d8+3 + 1d6 sneak = 10.1 DPR (king)

Brawler VHuman Monk: 1d8+1d6+6 = 8.1 DPR

Hex Initiate Monk: 1d8+1d6+3 R1, 1d8+3d6+6 after (6.5 R1, 12.3 R2+)

[Unoriginal]

Brawler VHuman Monk: 1d8+1d6+6 = 8.1 DPR


Uhm, do you mean Tavern Brawler? 'cause it doesn't increase the Monk's unarmed damage.

[Dork_Forge]

DW+TWF VHuman Fighter: 2d8+6 = 8.7 DPR

DW VHuman Rogue: 2d8+3 + 1d6 sneak = 10.1 DPR (king)


How is the DPR variance 1.4 here? They have the same to hit and the actual difference (mod of 3 vs d6 average of 3.5) is .5 (not to mention Sneak Attack being conditional at a level with fewer ways to obtain it).

[Chronos]

Sorcerer vs. wizard at level 1 isn't actually that unbalanced. Yes, the wizard can use Arcane Recovery to get three slots per day, but the sorcerer can also use sorcery points to get three slots per day, if they choose. Or if they don't choose to do that, then they can use those slots for metamagic. Each use of Twin, for instance, is worth approximately as much as another slot (you're restricted on how you can target the spells, which is a downside, but you also only need one action to cast twice, which is a big upside).

And at level 1, the wizard's ability to swap out spells and their ritual casting are neither nearly as big a deal as they will be later, because your spellbook is still pretty sparse. Though I'll grant that a familiar makes a huge difference.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Sorcerer vs. wizard at level 1 isn't actually that unbalanced. Yes, the wizard can use Arcane Recovery to get three slots per day, but the sorcerer can also use sorcery points to get three slots per day, if they choose. Or if they don't choose to do that, then they can use those slots for metamagic. Each use of Twin, for instance, is worth approximately as much as another slot (you're restricted on how you can target the spells, which is a downside, but you also only need one action to cast twice, which is a big upside).

And at level 1, the wizard's ability to swap out spells and their ritual casting are neither nearly as big a deal as they will be later, because your spellbook is still pretty sparse. Though I'll grant that a familiar makes a huge difference.

Font of Magic (sorcery points) is a level 2 feature. Metamagic is level 3.

[Hytheter]

Font of Magic (sorcery points) is a level 2 feature.

Even if it was a level 1 feature, you need 2 sorcery points for a level 1 slot so it'd be impossible to create new slots since SP=level. And even if it was only 1 point per slot, you'd only be able to create 1 slot, not three. So I have absolutely no clue what he was on about. Perhaps he though it was a level 1 feature AND level 1 slots cost 1 SP AND SP restores on a short rest? But all three are wrong...


How is the DPR variance 1.4 here? They have the same to hit and the actual difference (mod of 3 vs d6 average of 3.5) is .5 (not to mention Sneak Attack being conditional at a level with fewer ways to obtain it).

I assume he's accounting for crits, which slightly favour the rogue's sneak attack. But I'm failing to verify the results he's written down, even with the erroneous assumption that crits will always have sneak attack (unlikely if your crit is the second hit of the round). By my calculations the Fighter gets 8.7 and the rogue gets 9.15. edit: post below raises a point I didn't consider, TWF raises the chance of SA landing at all. Yields 10.02 overall by my calculation. But that's still with the faulty sneak attack assumption.

A safer assumption would be that the rogue always uses sneak attack on the first hit of the round, since trying to fish for crits on the second attack would waste your sneak attack altogether more often than it helps you. I don't know how to account for that in the calculation, though.

[Bobthewizard]

How is the DPR variance 1.4 here? They have the same to hit and the actual difference (mod of 3 vs d6 average of 3.5) is .5 (not to mention Sneak Attack being conditional at a level with fewer ways to obtain it).

I think it's because the fighter has two balanced attacks. If one of them misses they lose half of their damage. If the rogue hits with only one attack, they still get to add their sneak attack, and will do more than half of their total damage.

[noob]

Bard is not even listed in the potential candidates because charisma skills + magic on top of that is just too good?

[Eldariel]

How is the DPR variance 1.4 here? They have the same to hit and the actual difference (mod of 3 vs d6 average of 3.5) is .5 (not to mention Sneak Attack being conditional at a level with fewer ways to obtain it).

Sneak Attack has a 1 - (.5 * .5) = 75% chance of getting applied, while other attacks only have 50% chance of getting applied. Add to that crit (of course the crit math gets a bit complex since you only multiply SA if your first hit is a crit giving you 4 different scenarios far as SA being crit goes; if first attack crits SA crits, or if first attack misses and second attack crits SA crits) and it's worth a bit more than ordinary attack.


Bard is not even listed in the potential candidates because charisma skills + magic on top of that is just too good?

It's hard to argue that any class capable of casting Sleep and Minor Illusion would be weak on level 1.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Proficiencies and d10 HD alone prevent the Paladin from being low on the list. Lay on Hands is really more for out of combat healing. It's weaker than Second Wind, yes, but it can be distributed to whoever needs it. Then there's divine sense on top of that.

d10 is more than balanced by this character's role in the party. The rogue for example still has expertise and will likely be able to sneak into an advantageous position and get bonus damage. Comparing Lay on Hands to Second Wind at this level shows how bad it is. It's a long rest option, while Second Wind at 3 rests per day would be worth about 24 hp. Roughly the top 1/2 is Fighter and anything with 2 spells.

Outside of Ranger, which seems to be last on most people's list, Paladin is definitely in the running for next weakest.

[Keravath]

I'd probably say a non-dragon sorcerer.

Basically, level 1 characters have 3 areas of concern - low AC, low hit points, low damage. Being low in all three makes the character more vulnerable at level 1. The safest characters will avoid being hit, can take a hit and will kill opponents faster so that they don't have to risk taking hits.

A rogue has medium hit points (d8), low AC (no shield) but above average damage with both sneak attack and dual wielding possible ... so it is far from the worst.

A level 1 sorcerer (non-dragon) on the other hand, has low AC (no armor proficiency - have to spend a spell slot on mage armor for AC13+dex, dex is s secondary stat to charisma), low hit points (d6), low damage - they only have 2 spell slots for the day and their best cantrip (firebolt) will only do d10 damage without a stat bonus - averages 5.5 which is less than a crossbow with 14 dex (6.5 damage).

Wizard is slightly better off if they can pick up toll the dead which averages 6.5 damage but otherwise they are pretty equivalent.

Every class with d8 or d10 or d12 hit points has more hit points (for same con). Most of these classes also have armor or shield proficiency - ranger is far from the worst with medium armor+shield for defence or dual wielding if they choose offense - and good options for both melee and ranged.

A sorcerer has to fall back on a dagger or shocking grasp if forced into melee.

The dragon sorcerer is slightly better off with AC base 13 and the equivalent of d8 hit points.

---

So .. in my opinion :) ... the worst off level 1 character is a non-dragon sorcerer.

[Yakk]

How is the DPR variance 1.4 here? They have the same to hit and the actual difference (mod of 3 vs d6 average of 3.5) is .5 (not to mention Sneak Attack being conditional at a level with fewer ways to obtain it).

I picked AC 15. With 16 stat and +2 prof, this is hit on a 10+ and crit on a 20.

So the fighter's damage dice get multiplied by 0.6, and static damage by 0.55.

For the rogue, they first attack for 1d8+3. If it hits (0.55) or crits (0.05) they apply 1d6 sneak attack.
Then they attack for 1d8 (0.6 multiplier). If the first one missed, the second one hits or crits (0.45 * (0.55 + 0.05))

The result is that sneak attack dice on a TWF rogue hits really often. On average you roll 0.87 sneak attack dice (including crits) (1d6), while you roll 0.6 weapon damage dice (2d8), and 0.55 static bonus (3).

For the fighter, it has 2d8 at 0.6 and +6 at 0.55.

Subtracting, the fighter gets 3 at 0.55 while the rogue gets 1d6 at 0.87: difference of 1.395.

[Dork_Forge]

Sneak Attack has a 1 - (.5 * .5) = 75% chance of getting applied, while other attacks only have 50% chance of getting applied. Add to that crit (of course the crit math gets a bit complex since you only multiply SA if your first hit is a crit giving you 4 different scenarios far as SA being crit goes; if first attack crits SA crits, or if first attack misses and second attack crits SA crits) and it's worth a bit more than ordinary attack.



It's hard to argue that any class capable of casting Sleep and Minor Illusion would be weak on level 1.

Okay, that still seems a bit high to me? For one Sneak Attack is conditional, so assumptions of damage should not only be a bit more complex than the Fighter, but the difference shouldn't be so high: The Fighter's damage doesn't change based on not meeting additional conditions, like being the only one in melee etc. Not to mention that if they both miss the first hit the gap drops considerably (I think you were talking about this with the 4 scenarios part?).

The Rogue obviously has a higher potential damage, I'm just not understanding how when accounting for to hit, the gap is larger than it actually could be in real play when it's possible the Rogues damage can drop off a cliff depending on the layout of the battle.


I picked AC 15. With 16 stat and +2 prof, this is hit on a 10+ and crit on a 20.

So the fighter's damage dice get multiplied by 0.6, and static damage by 0.55.

For the rogue, they first attack for 1d8+3. If it hits (0.55) or crits (0.05) they apply 1d6 sneak attack.
Then they attack for 1d8 (0.6 multiplier). If the first one missed, the second one hits or crits (0.45 * (0.55 + 0.05))

The result is that sneak attack dice on a TWF rogue hits really often.


So the difference is a result of just assuming that the Rogue is always eligible for Sneak Attack?

Even if you're assuming that (which shouldn't be the case, especially at first level without subclass features or Cunning Action), are you not taking into consideration the relative value of SA dropping if the Rogue misses their first hit and gets the second one in?

Just seems that when assuming to hit as part of damage calculations some assumptions are being made that favour the Rogue when if anything the Fighter should have the more consistent DPR.

[Eldariel]

Okay, that still seems a bit high to me? For one Sneak Attack is conditional, so assumptions of damage should not only be a bit more complex than the Fighter, but the difference shouldn't be so high: The Fighter's damage doesn't change based on not meeting additional conditions, like being the only one in melee etc. Not to mention that if they both miss the first hit the gap drops considerably (I think you were talking about this with the 4 scenarios part?).

The Rogue obviously has a higher potential damage, I'm just not understanding how when accounting for to hit, the gap is larger than it actually could be in real play when it's possible the Rogues damage can drop off a cliff depending on the layout of the battle.

Okay, the math looks like this vs. AC 16 (original was against AC 15 but I did the math against AC 16 so you get this instead -_o.o_-):

50% chance to hit, 5% chance to crit for each attack (so 45% normal hit, 5% crit, 50% miss). Therefore, average DPR:
Fighter: 2x (1d8 + 3) * 0,45 + (2d8 + 3) * 0,05 = 2x (7,5 * 0,45 + 12 * 0,05) = 2x 3,975 = 7,95.

Rogue:
Main: (1d8 + 3) * 0,45 + (2d8 + 3) * 0,05 = 3,975
Off-hand: (1d8) * 0,45 + (2d8) * 0,05 = 2,475
Sneak Attack: This gets a bit complex. So if either attack hits, Sneak Attack gets applied (provided they both qualify so enemy is adjacent to an ally as is assumed). Therefore we get 0,75 * 1d6. However, the chance of critting is a bit harder to calculate. Sneak Attack crits if the first attack crits or if the first attack misses and the second attack crits. Therefore the probability is 0,05 + 0,5 * 0,05 = 0,075. So the chance of a normal hit is 0,75 - 0,075 = 0,675 and the chance of a crit is 0,075. Therefore we get total SA damage: 3,5 * 0,675 + 7 * 0,075 = 3,15

Total Rogue average damage is therefore 3,975 + 2,475 + 3,15 = 9,6


So we can observe that the main reason the Rogue average damage is so much higher is because the Sneak Attack damage gets applied with such reliability (you get two chances at applying it and at critting it). Both have similar damage assuming everything hits but since SA can be applied twice it gets a hit rate of 75% instead of the 50% of any individual attack.

[AdAstra]

To be fair, the rogue's reliability of Sneak Attack damage is amplified by the fairly low chance to hit in this scenario. Guards and Animated Armor are the only creatures I can think of with at least 16 AC that you would expect to see in that level range. Most creatures will have far worse.

In addition, our Dual Wielder vHuman rogue here is not really an optimal build when taking into account higher levels. Something like Crossbow Expert I could understand, but Dual Wielder?

If we're doing stuff like that, we might as well throw a Polearm Master fighter into the mix. If we give them a spear, shield, and the Dueling fighting style, they're dealing (if they hit of course) 1d6+5 with their action, 1d4+5 with their bonus action, and if the enemy closes in to melee, 1d6+5 with their reaction. Couple that with 18 AC and you have a very powerful character, which will remain quite powerful even as you get on in levels.

EDIT: Okay, crunched the numbers. Assuming 16 AC, a PAM Fighter with Dueling and Spear/Shield will deal 8.3 DPR without the reaction attack, 12.725 with it.

[Yakk]

So the difference is a result of just assuming that the Rogue is always eligible for Sneak Attack?
Yes, having a single ally in melee range of the foe isn't that hard to arrange.

Even if you're assuming that (which shouldn't be the case, especially at first level without subclass features or Cunning Action), are you not taking into consideration the relative value of SA dropping if the Rogue misses their first hit and gets the second one in?
I assume you are unable to understand the math, as the math answers this question.

The average number of weapon damage dice you deal is your hit chance, plus your crit chance, times the number of weapon damage dice you roll.

For sneak attack, the chance of landing it is 1 minus the chance of missing twice. This is a much higher chance. Your chance of criting is a big higher as well; the chance you miss on your first attack, times the crit on the second, plus the crit on the first.

This results in each sneak attack die being rolled an average of 0.87 times per attack, while each weapon damage die rolls 0.6 times per attack, and static damage being applied 0.55 times per attack.

For the rogue to deal fighter damage, you'd need X * 0.87 * 3.5 = 0.55 * 3, or only be able to sneak attack 54% of the time.

[AdAstra]

Okay, so actually, forgot about half-orcs. If you were to make a half-orc fighter with PAM, then you could actually nearly equal rogue dpr even without the reaction attack, and blow it out of the water with it, in addition to having more AC, HP, and having Second Wind for more HP. And this build is hardly "out-there" in terms of concept.

(8.5)*0.45+(15.5)*0.05=4.6
(7.5)*0.45+(12.5)*0.05=4

[Yakk]

Okay, so actually, forgot about half-orcs. If you were to make a half-orc fighter with PAM, then you could actually nearly equal rogue dpr even without the reaction attack, and blow it out of the water with it, in addition to having more AC, HP, and having Second Wind for more HP. And this build is hardly "out-there" in terms of concept.

(8.5)*0.45+(15.5)*0.05=4.6
(7.5)*0.45+(12.5)*0.05=4
A level 1 half orc fighter cannot get PAM. PAM is a feat. Level 1 half-orcs don't get feats.

...

I did neglect the reaction attack on the PAM human duelist. If that goes off half the time, then the spear+shield PAM fighter against AC 15 does

(1d6+5)*1.5 * .55 + (1d4+5) * 1 * .55 + .05 * (1d6*1.5+1d4)
7.0125 + 4.125 + 0.3875
= 11.525
beating the Rogue.

But this is tengental. We are looking for the weakest level 1 class, not the most damaging one.

[AdAstra]

A level 1 half orc fighter cannot get PAM. PAM is a feat. Level 1 half-orcs don't get feats.

...

I did neglect the reaction attack on the PAM human duelist. If that goes off half the time, then the spear+shield PAM fighter against AC 15 does

(1d6+5)*1.5 * .55 + (1d4+5) * 1 * .55 + .05 * (1d6*1.5+1d4)
7.0125 + 4.125 + 0.3875
= 11.525
beating the Rogue.

But this is tengental. We are looking for the weakest level 1 class, not the most damaging one.

Right right. Then I think I have to go with non-hexblade Warlocks (probably GOO or Fae) or Rangers. Not-great defenses with little way to augment them through spells (armor of agathys is terrible at this point) and really only Eldritch Blast and Hex to work with on the offensive front (or longbow/TWF for rangers). You can do alright in the social sphere, but basically every other arcane caster will be better at it. Rangers are just notably worse Fighters.

[Dork_Forge]

The average number of weapon damage dice you deal is your hit chance, plus your crit chance, times the number of weapon damage dice you roll.

For sneak attack, the chance of landing it is 1 minus the chance of missing twice. This is a much higher chance. Your chance of criting is a big higher as well; the chance you miss on your first attack, times the crit on the second, plus the crit on the first.

This results in each sneak attack die being rolled an average of 0.87 times per attack, while each weapon damage die rolls 0.6 times per attack, and static damage being applied 0.55 times per attack.

For the rogue to deal fighter damage, you'd need X * 0.87 * 3.5 = 0.55 * 3, or only be able to sneak attack 54% of the time.

Thank you for explaining your math.


Yes, having a single ally in melee range of the foe isn't that hard to arrange.

We won't agree on this, some things to consider:

-If the Rogue wins initiative... then what?

-What if there's just no melee characters in the party? An archer and a bunch of casters, leaving the Rogue the only one wanting to close the distance?

-The Rogue is at disadvantage for any reason whatsoever

Sneak Attack can be very easy to ensure at higher levels, since Cunning Action and subclass abilities are in play, but at level 1, not so much. Heck I've seen Rogues not qualify sometimes even after getting those things.

Doing a DPR calculation that takes into account the chance of hitting, then just assuming a variable defeats the point to some degree of trying to establish probability, since you're handwaving something pretty significant.

If the to hit is the same imo you'd be better off just calculating average damage without to hit, with a disclaimer that you assume SA is in play.

[Fnissalot]

Okay, that still seems a bit high to me? For one Sneak Attack is conditional, so assumptions of damage should not only be a bit more complex than the Fighter, but the difference shouldn't be so high: The Fighter's damage doesn't change based on not meeting additional conditions, like being the only one in melee etc. Not to mention that if they both miss the first hit the gap drops considerably (I think you were talking about this with the 4 scenarios part?).

The Rogue obviously has a higher potential damage, I'm just not understanding how when accounting for to hit, the gap is larger than it actually could be in real play when it's possible the Rogues damage can drop off a cliff depending on the layout of the battle.




So the difference is a result of just assuming that the Rogue is always eligible for Sneak Attack?

Even if you're assuming that (which shouldn't be the case, especially at first level without subclass features or Cunning Action), are you not taking into consideration the relative value of SA dropping if the Rogue misses their first hit and gets the second one in?

Just seems that when assuming to hit as part of damage calculations some assumptions are being made that favour the Rogue when if anything the Fighter should have the more consistent DPR.

The designers have stated multiple times that the intent is that rogues should get their sneak attack once per turn and the game(and rogues overall) is balanced around it. If you prevent your rogues from getting it on a regular basis, you are nerfing them a lot. The condition is technically only there for flavor. So for doing damage comparisons you should assume the conditions always are meet. From a balance point of you, you could allow your rogue to ignore the conditions and just add flavor to the description of how they are sneaky.

[Ertwin]

Are you calculating the fighter's damage with the same conditions that would allow sneak attack (advantage)?

If not you should.

[Eldariel]

Are you calculating the fighter's damage with the same conditions that would allow sneak attack (advantage)?

If not you should.

SA doesn't require Advantage, just an adjacent ally.

[Hytheter]

If the to hit is the same imo you'd be better off just calculating average damage without to hit, with a disclaimer that you assume SA is in play.

In precise comparisons, to hit is still relevant because of crits. Crits favour certain builds over others, and the proportion of crits vs regular hits can impact the relative dpr.

That said, the difference is generally fairly minor so you'd get close enough by ignoring that.

[Dork_Forge]

The designers have stated multiple times that the intent is that rogues should get their sneak attack once per turn and the game(and rogues overall) is balanced around it. If you prevent your rogues from getting it on a regular basis, you are nerfing them a lot. The condition is technically only there for flavor. So for doing damage comparisons you should assume the conditions always are meet. From a balance point of you, you could allow your rogue to ignore the conditions and just add flavor to the description of how they are sneaky.

None of the conditions I mentioned are DMs denying their Rogue players Sneak Attack. The intent may be that they get it once per turn, but the rules very clearly make them meet conditions and part of their sublcass design space is devoted to making it easier for them to fulfill those conditions. Should you wish to allow your players to ignore those conditions then all the power to you, but it isn't the rules and it makes a lot of their abilities defunct if not at least less valuable.

With the conditions in place it is more than feasible that the Rogue won't get Sneak Attack all of the time, especially at 1st level where they are absent of those abilities. DPR calcs like this should be as general as possible unless the context dictates something like handwaving the conditions.


In precise comparisons, to hit is still relevant because of crits. Crits favour certain builds over others, and the proportion of crits vs regular hits can impact the relative dpr.

That said, the difference is generally fairly minor so you'd get close enough by ignoring that.

Oh crits should certainly be factored in for build where it matters, though unless you have an expanded crit range or other factors just saying 'and 5% of the time..." "or if you crit it would be x" would suffice imo, though I'm a bit biased against these kind of calculations as the end up giving unrealistic numbers sometimes.

[Fnissalot]

In precise comparisons, to hit is still relevant because of crits. Crits favour certain builds over others, and the proportion of crits vs regular hits can impact the relative dpr.

That said, the difference is generally fairly minor so you'd get close enough by ignoring that.

Using To hit also gives a much more correct weight to once per turn damage than just max damage does.

[Waazraath]

What are your thoughts on the matter? What Level 1 class most desperately needs to get to level 2 as fast as possible?

I'm amazed by some of the replies here. BloodSnake'sCha takes the biscuit (there's so much I don't agree on I don't know where to start, but I guess my analysis below shows why I don't). But there are more statements that amaze me.

To answer this question, we need to look at what features are good at level one, and how playing at level 1 looks. Pretty darn basic, I know, but somehow I don't think everybody did.

First, there is hardly any buffer. One unlucky damage roll can get you down to 0 hp, and one unlucky crit might kill you if you have a low HP class. This makes HD, armor proficiency and shield proficiency the most important features at level 1.

Second, nothing in the rules, or in campaigsn that I've seen, suggests that you have fewer encounters at low levels. That means: assume 6-8 enounters. Which means: full casters that rely on ther spell slots for offense and defense are terrible at this level.

Which means for level 1:
- Barbarians rule. Decent AC (lets say 15 with a 2handed weapon), rage is a great feature, and they most likely start with 15 hp.
- Fighters are great as well: heavy armor + fighting style + second wind means damage + survivability. Clerics rule as well. They have their spell slots, and when those are gone, they can move into melee. They also have a domain feature, some quite good, and cantrips (for e.g. ranged damage when low on hp)
- Paladins and Rangers are good (heavy/med armor + shield), even though respectivly LoH and 1 skill aren't that stellar other features. Same for Druids, with some armor and a shield and a decent dex, they aren't squishy, and can fire some cantrips or use shillelag and enter melee when out of spell slots.
- the problems are there for the rest of the classes, who have the combination of low AC and low HP, and often sub par offense after a few encounters. Monks are the best of the rest, with 2 attacks and an AC of 16. All the others won't get above 15, and wizards and sorcerers needing to spend a slot on Mage Armor not to be a total liability. Cantrips, not even EB, won't add ability modifier to damage. Minor illusion is situational and DM-dependend.

Furthermore (loose points and some things I've seen mentioned):
- no, it is not logical to assume a rogue always gets sneak attack. I don't know what the designers intentions were, but who cares if it doesn't play out that way in real games?
- no, having Sleep on your list doesn't make you good at level 1. Seriously, you have 2 (3 for a wizard, but that needs mage armor to compensate for a truely abyssmal AC) slots. That's 1/3rd of your encounters, if you're lucky. And sleep only ends an encounter when 1) the opposition isn't that strong to begin with 2) is nicely clustered in a formation* 3) the wizard wins initiative and 4) doesn't mess up his roll. Honestly, in all my years of DnD (including earlier editions), I've never seen sleep end an encounter, not even on level 1, while almost all my campaigns started on level 1. Ymmv, but for all I've seen its an urban leged. It's a decent spell though: usually costs enemies a few turns (sleeping or others waking the sleepers), but that's it.
- I assume above that classes with light armor will be able to get studded leather, but following the standard equipment you only get leather as a light armor user, which kicks rogues, bards and warlocks deeper into the mud.
- yes a familiar is really good and this speaks for the wizard, but at level 1, it's not a given you'll find either the components or have the cash to get a new one.
- sorcerer is a bit odd since it gets it subclass at lvl 1, which can make a big difference in survivablity (draconic). I ignored it here because most subclasses don't give this features.
- edit I forgot about the artificer but with medium armor + shield + spells known from lvl 1 onward (better than ranger or paladin) it is pretty damn nice as well at lvl 1 I think.

[Hytheter]

Oh crits should certainly be factored in for build where it matters, though unless you have an expanded crit range or other factors just saying 'and 5% of the time..." "or if you crit it would be x" would suffice imo

But then the figure stated before the "and" would be misleading and not actually representative of the average. You can't just say the average is X except when Y happens, because Y is part of the dataset. You might as well say "the average of a d6 is 3, but 1/6 of the time it'll be 6."


though I'm a bit biased against these kind of calculations as the end up giving unrealistic numbers sometimes.

I don't see how computing for crits could make the results unrealistic.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'm amazed by some of the replies here. BloodSnake'sCha takes the biscuit (there's so much I don't agree on I don't know where to start, but I guess my analysis below shows why I don't). But there are more statements that amaze me.

To answer this question, we need to look at what features are good at level one, and how playing at level 1 looks. Pretty darn basic, I know, but somehow I don't think everybody did.

First, there is hardly any buffer. One unlucky damage roll can get you down to 0 hp, and one unlucky crit might kill you if you have a low HP class. This makes HD, armor proficiency and shield proficiency the most important features at level 1.

Second, nothing in the rules, or in campaigsn that I've seen, suggests that you have fewer encounters at low levels. That means: assume 6-8 enounters. Which means: full casters that rely on ther spell slots for offense and defense are terrible at this level.

Which means for level 1:
- Barbarians rule. Decent AC (lets say 15 with a 2handed weapon), rage is a great feature, and they most likely start with 15 hp.
- Fighters are great as well: heavy armor + fighting style + second wind means damage + survivability. Clerics rule as well. They have their spell slots, and when those are gone, they can move into melee. They also have a domain feature, some quite good, and cantrips (for e.g. ranged damage when low on hp)
- Paladins and Rangers are good (heavy/med armor + shield), even though respectivly LoH and 1 skill aren't that stellar other features. Same for Druids, with some armor and a shield and a decent dex, they aren't squishy, and can fire some cantrips or use shillelag and enter melee when out of spell slots.
- the problems are there for the rest of the classes, who have the combination of low AC and low HP, and often sub par offense after a few encounters. Monks are the best of the rest, with 2 attacks and an AC of 16. All the others won't get above 15, and wizards and sorcerers needing to spend a slot on Mage Armor not to be a total liability. Cantrips, not even EB, won't add ability modifier to damage. Minor illusion is situational and DM-dependend.

Furthermore (loose points and some things I've seen mentioned):
- no, it is not logical to assume a rogue always gets sneak attack. I don't know what the designers intentions were, but who cares if it doesn't play out that way in real games?
- no, having Sleep on your list doesn't make you good at level 1. Seriously, you have 2 (3 for a wizard, but that needs mage armor to compensate for a truely abyssmal AC) slots. That's 1/3rd of your encounters, if you're lucky. And sleep only ends an encounter when 1) the opposition isn't that strong to begin with 2) is nicely clustered in a formation* 3) the wizard wins initiative and 4) doesn't mess up his roll. Honestly, in all my years of DnD (including earlier editions), I've never seen sleep end an encounter, not even on level 1, while almost all my campaigns started on level 1. Ymmv, but for all I've seen its an urban leged. It's a decent spell though: usually costs enemies a few turns (sleeping or others waking the sleepers), but that's it.
- I assume above that classes with light armor will be able to get studded leather, but following the standard equipment you only get leather as a light armor user, which kicks rogues, bards and warlocks deeper into the mud.
- yes a familiar is really good and this speaks for the wizard, but at level 1, it's not a given you'll find either the components or have the cash to get a new one.
- sorcerer is a bit odd since it gets it subclass at lvl 1, which can make a big difference in survivablity (draconic). I ignored it here because most subclasses don't give this features.
- edit I forgot about the artificer but with medium armor + shield + spells known from lvl 1 onward (better than ranger or paladin) it is pretty damn nice as well at lvl 1 I think.
Some good arguments here. In fact in my experience we have more encounters at low level; at high level combat just takes longer and exploration can often be overcome by 1 spell so tends to be sidelined.
That said, I think role in the party needs to be given some consideration. Front line characters are going to be in the front line and some of them are just not ready to do it yet, particularly the 1/2 casters (Ranger and Paladin) that are supposed to be gishes using spells to shore up fighting. Without spells they are toothless, especially compared to Barbs and especially Fighters, who effectively have an extra 20-30 hp. Full casters have every right to stay in the back and cast cantrips when they run out of spells, which are at least moderately effective against most encounters. Mage Hand by itself probably saved us a handful of times when going through the 'Haunted House' in Saltmarsh by avoiding traps and locating monsters before we were too close.

[Dork_Forge]

But then the figure stated before the "and" would be misleading and not actually representative of the average. You can't just say the average is X except when Y happens, because Y is part of the dataset. You might as well say "the average of a d6 is 3, but 1/6 of the time it'll be 6."

Your example is not the same though, one is dealing with a die and the other is dealing with a special condition that happens 5% of the time for most characters (and can certainly happen less, given disadvantages and other factors). And since for most characters it will be a minute difference anyway, like you said previously, it doesn't really hurt to just leave it out or add it as a side note.



I don't see how computing for crits could make the results unrealistic.

I didn't mean accounting for crits, I meant accounting for things like to hit, that can leave you with a decimalised number that can end up less than the actual minimum damage the character could do if they hit (I've seen this a few times in various calcs around the forum).

[Satori01]

SA doesn't require Advantage, just an adjacent ally.

People seem to be focusing on DPR, instead of what truly is important at 1st level:
Living to reach 2nd level.

I see the following practical issues for a Rogue wielding a case of rapiers:

-Unless you use the Starting Gold/Purchase Equipment option, a rogue is unable to start with a case of rapiers at 1st level, through Starting Equipment alone.

-The AC 15, 10 HP Rogue has no Damage Mitigation at 1st level, unlike a Paladin through Lay on Hands or a Fighter through Second Wind.

Due to this, any damage a 1st level Rogue takes is a much greater threat to their own and the PC group's survival then letting the Barbarian Rage Tank.

-Adventures for 1st level characters, based off WotC own products, can include CR2 monsters. A 1st level Rogue, with AC 15 and 10 HP, choosing to go toe to toe with an ogre or a manticore,(even when using a case of rapiers ), strikes me as the actions of a Star Trek Red Shirt.....odds of living to the next 'episode' are slim.


-Against ubiquitous goblins, the prospects for our Red Shirt still looks dim.
An 'average' goblin will die with one hit, a 'strong' goblin might have more HP then a 10 HP 1st level Rogue. The Rogue only needs to take 2 hits to be knocked unconscious. I will point out that being unconscious in melee range of enemies at 1st level is likely to result in a PC death.

Play like a Red Shirt, die like a Red Shirt.

The Rogue that uses ranged attacks, while doing less DPR, likely lives to 2nd level.

Math is the easier part of science, Experimental Design is what distinguishes good science from bad.

[Eldariel]

I'm amazed by some of the replies here. BloodSnake'sCha takes the biscuit (there's so much I don't agree on I don't know where to start, but I guess my analysis below shows why I don't). But there are more statements that amaze me.

To answer this question, we need to look at what features are good at level one, and how playing at level 1 looks. Pretty darn basic, I know, but somehow I don't think everybody did.

First, there is hardly any buffer. One unlucky damage roll can get you down to 0 hp, and one unlucky crit might kill you if you have a low HP class. This makes HD, armor proficiency and shield proficiency the most important features at level 1.

Second, nothing in the rules, or in campaigsn that I've seen, suggests that you have fewer encounters at low levels. That means: assume 6-8 enounters. Which means: full casters that rely on ther spell slots for offense and defense are terrible at this level.

Which means for level 1:
- Barbarians rule. Decent AC (lets say 15 with a 2handed weapon), rage is a great feature, and they most likely start with 15 hp.
- Fighters are great as well: heavy armor + fighting style + second wind means damage + survivability. Clerics rule as well. They have their spell slots, and when those are gone, they can move into melee. They also have a domain feature, some quite good, and cantrips (for e.g. ranged damage when low on hp)
- Paladins and Rangers are good (heavy/med armor + shield), even though respectivly LoH and 1 skill aren't that stellar other features. Same for Druids, with some armor and a shield and a decent dex, they aren't squishy, and can fire some cantrips or use shillelag and enter melee when out of spell slots.
- the problems are there for the rest of the classes, who have the combination of low AC and low HP, and often sub par offense after a few encounters. Monks are the best of the rest, with 2 attacks and an AC of 16. All the others won't get above 15, and wizards and sorcerers needing to spend a slot on Mage Armor not to be a total liability. Cantrips, not even EB, won't add ability modifier to damage. Minor illusion is situational and DM-dependend.

I don't see what's so great about armor. Mage armor + 16 Dex is the same AC as Heavy Armor on this level and light armor + 16 Dex is one point less. The only real AC variable is whether or not you can use a Shield and have the Defensive Fighting STyle.


Furthermore (loose points and some things I've seen mentioned):
- no, it is not logical to assume a rogue always gets sneak attack. I don't know what the designers intentions were, but who cares if it doesn't play out that way in real games?
- no, having Sleep on your list doesn't make you good at level 1. Seriously, you have 2 (3 for a wizard, but that needs mage armor to compensate for a truely abyssmal AC) slots. That's 1/3rd of your encounters, if you're lucky. And sleep only ends an encounter when 1) the opposition isn't that strong to begin with 2) is nicely clustered in a formation* 3) the wizard wins initiative and 4) doesn't mess up his roll. Honestly, in all my years of DnD (including earlier editions), I've never seen sleep end an encounter, not even on level 1, while almost all my campaigns started on level 1. Ymmv, but for all I've seen its an urban leged. It's a decent spell though: usually costs enemies a few turns (sleeping or others waking the sleepers), but that's it.

It's an autohit attack that downs multiple enemies. If you can't make use of it, that's on you, not the spell. If it costs enemies a few turns, holy **** it turned a party slaughter into a cake walk. Like, just take the first encounter of Lost Mine of Phandelver: there are precisely two kinds of parties. Those with Sleep (preferably on an Alert caster with a familiar) and those without. Those with Sleep will be able to hit two Goblins, hidden or visible, and then kill the Goblins on the other side essentially halving the brutal encounter difficulty. Cast two Sleeps and you autowin the encounter. Then in the Goblin Den you can avoid a lot of alarms and what-not via use of magic.

I think people just haven't actually seen good use made of these spells when they comment on them. Just the fact that there's no save makes Sleep insane: if the spell could fail that's one thing but rolling that low on 5d8 is extremely rare giving it over 90% reliability, something basically no other spell or attack in the game boasts. Where Fighter is missing half their attacks the Wizard is autohitting and multiple targets. Instead of about 50% contribution from a single attack you're getting a ~200% contribution if you hit two enemies (though you can get even better). That's just massive.

If you want to see how great it is, just imagine Wizard vs. 2 Orcs. Wizard readies an action to cast Sleep after the first Orc acts. The first Orc goes in and throws their Javelin. If they don't kill the Wizard, the Wizard Sleeps the second Orc and then the first one and then burrows them with Mold Earth or disarms and puts inside Minor Illusion and shoots them dead or whatever. A single level 1 Wizard can, burning their both spell slots, reasonably defeat a CR1 encounter with like a 60%+ success rate. That's how good the spell is. No class without Sleep can come even close.

Yeah, you might not be able to cast it every encounter but you can cast it every encounter that matters since on level 1, the encounters have to be so easy that most of them are practically speaking trivial and your Dextrip Light Crossbow + Familiar more than suffices to deal with them.


- yes a familiar is really good and this speaks for the wizard, but at level 1, it's not a given you'll find either the components or have the cash to get a new one.

You'll get cash to get a new one from the enemies you killed with it (it's rare enough to not get 10gp worth of loot) and you can generally afford to summon it once or twice. Never have I ever been unable to summon a familiar due to not having the funds.

[Chronos]

My mistake about sorcerers was due to not being very familiar with them (I've never played one), and not bothering to look them up to double-check. Yeah, without sorcery points, they ain't much.

And yes, a wizard can only use Sleep a couple of times a day at level one, but still, when she does, she basically completely solos that encounter. Just by casting it twice, she's already contributing her share to the party (winning over a quarter of the daily encounters), and that's completely ignoring that even without spell slots, she's still contributing with cantrips or a ranged weapon (bow if an elf or crossbow otherwise).

Satori01, what's "a case of rapiers"? You only wield one. They're not like throwing knives or something.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't see what's so great about armor. Mage armor + 16 Dex is the same AC as Heavy Armor on this level and light armor + 16 Dex is one point less. The only real AC variable is whether or not you can use a Shield and have the Defensive Fighting STyle.

That Mage Armor is 1/2 to 1/3 of your spell slot budget for the day.


It's an autohit attack that downs multiple enemies. If you can't make use of it, that's on you, not the spell. If it costs enemies a few turns, holy **** it turned a party slaughter into a cake walk. Like, just take the first encounter of Lost Mine of Phandelver: there are precisely two kinds of parties. Those with Sleep (preferably on an Alert caster with a familiar) and those without. Those with Sleep will be able to hit two Goblins, hidden or visible, and then kill the Goblins on the other side essentially halving the brutal encounter difficulty. Cast two Sleeps and you autowin the encounter. Then in the Goblin Den you can avoid a lot of alarms and what-not via use of magic.

What magic? You've used all your spell slots to deal with the ambush. Now you're down to cantrips. And that's assuming you've hit those goblins in the first place.... if they are hidden, you're targetting blindly, full cover blocks Sleep, and the goblins don't have to be so close to reliably hit two of them with each cast.


If you want to see how great it is, just imagine Wizard vs. 2 Orcs. Wizard readies an action to cast Sleep after the first Orc acts. The first Orc goes in and throws their Javelin. If they don't kill the Wizard, the Wizard Sleeps the second Orc and then the first one and then burrows them with Mold Earth or disarms and puts inside Minor Illusion and shoots them dead or whatever. A single level 1 Wizard can, burning their both spell slots, reasonably defeat a CR1 encounter with like a 60%+ success rate. That's how good the spell is. No class without Sleep can come even close.

Or the wizard loses initiative and both orcs gets to attack him before he gets a chance to cast anything. Or the wizard loses concentration when he gets hit by the orc's greataxe (why would the orc be using a javelin?). Or the not-sleeping orc wakes the sleeping one instead of attacking the wizard, meaning the wizard exchanged his action and one spell slot for the orc's action and prone condition on the other one.


Yeah, you might not be able to cast it every encounter but you can cast it every encounter that matters since on level 1, the encounters have to be so easy that most of them are practically speaking trivial and your Dextrip Light Crossbow + Familiar more than suffices to deal with them.

[citation needed] on "encounters have to be so easy that most of them are practically speaking trivial". 2 orcs are a half of daily XP budget for a lonely wizard. If he somehow manages to survive the first pair using all his resources, what will he do about the other pair? Or two pairs of goblins? Or 6 kobolds?

If you'll get a group with yoy, you'll also have to deal with more and/or stronger enemies. Good thing they are there to save your spell-slot-less behind.


You'll get cash to get a new one from the enemies you killed with it (it's rare enough to not get 10gp worth of loot) and you can generally afford to summon it once or twice. Never have I ever been unable to summon a familiar due to not having the funds.

That's great, but to summon a familiar, you don't need 10 gp worth of "loot". You need "10 gp worth of charcoal, incense, and herbs". You can't eat gold, and you can't summon a familiar with it, you'll have to hit a shop, but to do that, you'll have to survive the rest of the adventuring day first.

[LudicSavant]

For perspective on the Wizard, even if we lowball by assuming a 'muscle wizard' who only ever uses Mage Armor and Shieldx2 (plus resourceless stuff), Wizards actually come out pretty well at level 1.


An owl familiar is a flying scout with 120 foot darkvision and 18 passive perception; equivalent to a 16 Wisdom VHuman character with the Observant feat! That's... really good. Like, if you get Surprised at level 1, that's a good way for someone to die outright. And it's something that's just not gonna happen with a familiar in play.
Since Shield can't be 'wasted' it means a spell slot that gets used on shield is guaranteed to be worth at least the full damage of an attack (and might negate multiple attacks). And 21 burst AC is quite formidable at this level.
16 AC and 2x Shield makes for surprisingly decent effective durability even with just a d6 HD. It's definitely less than the Barbarian and Fighter, but it's actually comparable to a Paladin using a two-handed weapon (who the Wizard outdamages because of their advantage generation, etc).
Flyby Advantage + weapon attack is actually more DPR than many of the martials at this level. Even moreso if they're using GFB or BB. Even dual-wielding is a viable option for a Wizard at this point, if they really want to (high elves like to do it sometimes with twin shortswords).
A familiar or unseen servant can carry a light source remotely, allowing you to light up the enemy without lighting up PCs.
A familiar or unseen servant can use ball bearings, oil, an emergency potion, or the like without taking up your Action.
Create Bonfire has all its usual tricks that make it good at level 1 in a clever player's hands.
Minor Illusion, Shape Water, Mold Earth, and Control Flames all lack verbal components, and thus can be used from stealth (which you're better at than anyone in Medium or Heavy armor. If you're not using stealth, you should be).
If your familiar is dying easily, then you're probably not taking proper advantage of Flyby. You can take the Help action then fly away, you don't need to stand there. Fly out of reach, or behind cover. Either the enemy should be unable to hit you, or it should be expensive for them to attempt to do so (in which case, your Familiar's getting their money's worth just from the attacks they're diverting from the PCs). An Owl in 3/4s cover (which should be easy to come by for an owl) has 16 AC. And they should almost never be in position to be hit by an AoE, unless that AoE is also hitting nobody else in the party.

Of course, we don't have to be a muscle wizard and can adapt to our situation. Which means we might, say, use Burning Hands to immediately turn 5 goblins into 1 goblin. Even if you just do that sort of thing in one encounter of several, it's a big swing.

The fear some people in this thread seem to have is that the Wizard will get one-shot by a lucky crit, but this is not as likely as you might think. In order for this to happen, the enemy must get in range of the Wizard (who as we've established is unusually difficult to catch off-guard and has good control abilities, even without using spell slots), then they have to crit, then they have to do at least 18 damage (which is more than many low level monsters can do even with max rolls on a crit). It's a risk, sure, but a manageable and low-probability one.

[Eldariel]

What magic? You've used all your spell slots to deal with the ambush. Now you're down to cantrips. And that's assuming you've hit those goblins in the first place.... if they are hidden, you're targetting blindly, full cover blocks Sleep, and the goblins don't have to be so close to reliably hit two of them with each cast.

It's a forest terrain, there's no full cover and they can't move far enough to avoid the AOE.


Or the wizard loses initiative and both orcs gets to attack him before he gets a chance to cast anything. Or the wizard loses concentration when he gets hit by the orc's greataxe (why would the orc be using a javelin?). Or the not-sleeping orc wakes the sleeping one instead of attacking the wizard, meaning the wizard exchanged his action and one spell slot for the orc's action and prone condition on the other one.

The Orc has to use Javelin because the Wizard can move and thus isn't within attack range. This was for an Alert Wizard specifically so the losing Initiative is highly unlikely, doubly so since you have out-of-combat Minor Illusion and Mold Earth to have a bit of an edge if you do get jumped on. But yeah, Orcs can get lucky. Sleep is not a Concentration spell though so the Wizard can't lose Concentration (though the Wizard just sleeps them one after another; due to the way the Ready works if you get hit you get hit before they fall to Sleep so it doesn't even matter).


[citation needed] on "encounters have to be so easy that most of them are practically speaking trivial". 2 orcs are a half of daily XP budget for a lonely wizard. If he somehow manages to survive the first pair using all his resources, what will he do about the other pair? Or two pairs of goblins? Or 6 kobolds?

2 Orcs are a full day's XP budget for a single Wizard. But with cantrips and familiar he doesn't have that bad a chance against e.g. two Goblins. It depends on the environment. Kobolds are another matter. But even there, the Wizard is most likely better equipped to win than any other class. If the environment is open, Expeditious Retreat is the most economic means of one-sidedly killling enemies.


If you'll get a group with yoy, you'll also have to deal with more and/or stronger enemies. Good thing they are there to save your spell-slot-less behind.

Yeah, luckily AOE gets better the more enemies you have. And cantrips are pretty massive on this level; blocked LoS, mobile cover, etc.


That's great, but to summon a familiar, you don't need 10 gp worth of "loot". You need "10 gp worth of charcoal, incense, and herbs". You can't eat gold, and you can't summon a familiar with it, you'll have to hit a shop, but to do that, you'll have to survive the rest of the adventuring day first.

You should be able to buy 10 gp worth of charcoal, incense and herbs pretty effortlessly. And you should just carry extra set or two with you.


Overall, I dunno what you're trying to say. That Wizards are actually just broken OP instead of just the best class in the game?

[JackPhoenix]

It's a forest terrain, there's no full cover and they can't move far enough to avoid the AOE.

Trees are potential full cover for small creatures, and they don't have to start within the AoE range in the first place.


The Orc has to use Javelin because the Wizard can move and thus isn't within attack range. This was for an Alert Wizard specifically so the losing Initiative is highly unlikely, doubly so since you have out-of-combat Minor Illusion and Mold Earth to have a bit of an edge if you do get jumped on. But yeah, Orcs can get lucky. Sleep is not a Concentration spell though so the Wizard can't lose Concentration (though the Wizard just sleeps them one after another; due to the way the Ready works if you get hit you get hit before they fall to Sleep so it doesn't even matter).


Due to how Ready works, it takes concentration to use it. And if you fail that concentration check, they won't fall asleep and you've merely wasted a slot. And, surprise, the orcs can move too. They can move faster than the wizard, even.


2 Orcs are a full day's XP budget for a single Wizard. But with cantrips and familiar he doesn't have that bad a chance against e.g. two Goblins. It depends on the environment. Kobolds are another matter. But even there, the Wizard is most likely better equipped to win than any other class. If the environment is open, Expeditious Retreat is the most economic means of one-sidedly killling enemies.

My mistake, I've been calculating with a single orc, though I've multiplied his XP value as if there were two of them.... no idea how that happened.

And you can't do everything at once. You've already used Mage Armor, and possibly Sleep.... where's that Expeditious Retreat coming from?


Yeah, luckily AOE gets better the more enemies you have. And cantrips are pretty massive on this level; blocked LoS, mobile cover, etc.

Sleep doesn't get better with more enemies. Minor Illusion is decent, but far from infallible, and Mold Earth (assuming you mean that for a mobile cover, because there's no other spell can do that) isn't exactly mobile.


You should be able to buy 10 gp worth of charcoal, incense and herbs pretty effortlessly. And you should just carry extra set or two with you.

You likely can't afford that extra set or two at 1st level, and you can't buy anything in the middle of a forest, or a goblin cave, or whatever.


Overall, I dunno what you're trying to say. That Wizards are actually just broken OP instead of just the best class in the game?

No, that what works in your ideal white room scenario doesn't necessarily work in an actual game.

[JNAProductions]

JackPhoenix, Arcane Recovery can get you two slots after a short rest, giving you sever hours of adventuring time after casting Mage Armor. Otherwise, I agree.

[Hytheter]

Your example is not the same though, one is dealing with a die and the other is dealing with a special condition that happens 5% of the time for most characters

Both are extreme results that happens a particular percentage of the time, and both should be accounted for if you want to know what the average result is.


I didn't mean accounting for crits, I meant accounting for things like to hit, that can leave you with a decimalised number that can end up less than the actual minimum damage the character could do if they hit (I've seen this a few times in various calcs around the forum).

That's not unrealistic. That's just what an average is. If your hit rate is very low than your average DPR will be very low because most of your attacks do zero damage. Obviously you will do more damage when you actually hit, but on average the damage you do per turn will be low.

[Satori01]

Satori01, what's "a case of rapiers"? You only wield one. They're not like throwing knives or something.

There is an Italian sword fighting style that uses two rapiers.
Historically the rapier handles and guards were altered to fit into a single scabbard or case...hence the rarely used term:
Case of Rapiers.

The Dual Wielder feat allows someone to wield two one handed weapons. The a Rogue that was described was using twin rapiers.

[Eldariel]

Due to how Ready works, it takes concentration to use it. And if you fail that concentration check, they won't fall asleep and you've merely wasted a slot. And, surprise, the orcs can move too. They can move faster than the wizard, even.

Of course they can move but chances are you don't just drop next to them.


My mistake, I've been calculating with a single orc, though I've multiplied his XP value as if there were two of them.... no idea how that happened.

And you can't do everything at once. You've already used Mage Armor, and possibly Sleep.... where's that Expeditious Retreat coming from?

It's an alternative choice where you try to stay out of range and kill them with Crossbow either.


Sleep doesn't get better with more enemies. Minor Illusion is decent, but far from infallible, and Mold Earth (assuming you mean that for a mobile cover, because there's no other spell can do that) isn't exactly mobile.

You can just move 5' a turn and keep recasting it to use it as a siege tower of sorts if you're e.g. entering cramped quarters.


You likely can't afford that extra set or two at 1st level, and you can't buy anything in the middle of a forest, or a goblin cave, or whatever.

Be a Criminal and you start with 25gp for instance. That's two sets. At the very latest after you've had a single encounter, next time you can go buy anything you can get it.


No, that what works in your ideal white room scenario doesn't necessarily work in an actual game.

And this works much better in real game than in ideal white room. Take it from someone who actually plays the game.

[Fnissalot]

Trees are potential full cover for small creatures, and they don't have to start within the AoE range in the first place.


Sleep does not require any line of sight to them, just to a point within 20ft of them. So the goblins can stand behind all the trees they want.

They will likely be within 40 ft of each other and if they are not, you can always back up, let them follow which might make them group up more. I have a hard time seeing that you wouldn't be able to get 2 goblins sleepy.

[Waazraath]

That said, I think role in the party needs to be given some consideration.

Fair point. Problem is that it is highly dependend on the DM (as arbiter on how smart enemies fight), the adventure that is run, party setup (is there a frontliner to begin with) and playstyle of the other characters if 'staying at the back' is much good. Ymmv here, but in my experience a place in the back is no guarantee for not getting hit, or focused fire on. Besides, the rogue builds I've seen here use 2wf so are melee, so there's that.


snip.

- on armor: what makes it good is that you have it the entire day, and doesn't cost a limited resource. Great, a sorcerer can have an AC of 16 with mage armor. Now he only has 1 spell slot left for the entire day, and still has only an average AC. Furthermore, mage armor only works 8 hours/day, if you get a suprise encounter outside that, you either are naked or spend both your slots on AC. That's terrible.

- on sleep: that's a bit presumptious and condesending what you type here. Yes, I know what sleep can do in theory and in what situations it's potentially good, thank you very much - but its not really rocket science. My experience is that its effects in actual games are highly exagerated, since it's conditional in at least 4 ways, which I already described. Fine if it worked in your game experience, but a comment like "Take it from someone who actually plays the game"... please. In 5e, I've seen a wizard, bard and sorcerer who all took it at 1, tried to get the most out of it, but were mostly dissapointed in how often it could be used. Your 2 orcs example is a wonderful illustration. The wizard goes first. The 2 orcs are conveniently close together so they can get targeted by the same spell, but at the same time so conveniently far away that they can't move into melee even though they can move their speed as a bonus action The wizard appearently has alert (how convenient once more), and the wizard rolls high enough on its 5d8. This totally isn't a white room encounter designed for and stacked in favour of the wizard. What's ironic: if this was a discussion about a martial class, by now at least 3 people would have mentioned that it probably isn't that good a class to begin with, if it needs so much DM-mercy and favoritism to work...

- on the familiar: what JackPhoenix said. You need specific components. There are plenty of environments where you can't buy specific components, also in the official adventures as sold in hardcovers. And (also in reply to LudicSavant): if the familiar works well, and its a threat, it will have a javelin or crossbow aimed at it at some point. You can't assume it will find cover always. Its good, but like sleep, not something to be exaggerated. If it functions too well, it will get targeted and the question of the components gets relevant real soon. Btw, funny how its automatically assumed that the familiar that is chosen is that 1 type that gets flyby, isn't it?


snip

1x mage armor and 2x shield means the wizard ran emty after 1 or 2 combats. It contributes nothing in damage or control, plings weak cantrips and is a waste of space compared to every other class. It's not 'surprisingly durable' cause a large part of adventure it's ac 16 (or with bad luck, ac 13) and the weakes hp around. Stealth is nice, but its not a solo game. Do we assume the entire party is stealthy? Or is the wizard scouting ahead? Talking about survivability... and "A familiar or unseen servant can carry a light source remotely, allowing you to light up the enemy without lighting up PCs"... how? there's this long tunnel (or whatever), a bunch of bandits are guarding it... and a rat that gives light comes into view... they kill it? Or they sound the alarm and alert the entire dungeon? And they see it long before they are in range visual of the light source, so you won't even know what killed it...?

I get the impression people play really different games then I do, including uses of 'being creative with spells' which don't fly at my tables - which is fine of course, to each their own. But my experience stays the same: so far I've seen (at the low levels, including but not alone level 1) a number of classes go down all the time, or getting down and not getting up. Those are rogue, bard and wizard. Warlocks and sorcerers I've played with were saved several times at low levels by virtue of their Draconic and Hexblade background only. Partly played by relative new players, but partly by veterans with decades of gaming experience, who know very well how to play.

[Unoriginal]

I don't see what's so great about armor. Mage armor + 16 Dex is the same AC as Heavy Armor on this level and light armor + 16 Dex is one point less.

16 DEX is a significant investment, and so is a spell slot.

[Dork_Forge]

Both are extreme results that happens a particular percentage of the time, and both should be accounted for if you want to know what the average result is.




That's not unrealistic. That's just what an average is. If your hit rate is very low than your average DPR will be very low because most of your attacks do zero damage. Obviously you will do more damage when you actually hit, but on average the damage you do per turn will be low.

When the number you get is below the minimum damage you can actually do on a hit, that number has very little value (in my opinion), how often do people actually playing think in terms of averages? Take the time to average out their performance? When looking for DPR is what they actually want an abstract number that doesn't meet the reality of round by round damage?

[Hytheter]

how often do people actually playing think in terms of averages? Take the time to average out their performance?

They don't. But that's beside the point. We're calculating DPR - mathematical analysis for the sake of objective comparison - not game feel.


When looking for DPR is what they actually want an abstract number that doesn't meet the reality of round by round damage?

The average is the reality of round by round damage in the long run. If you do 50 damage in one round but zero in the other 49 rounds then the reality is that you only did 1 damage per round overall. It is useless to say that a build does X damage if it only actually does that damage a small percentage of the time.

[MrStabby]

When the number you get is below the minimum damage you can actually do on a hit, that number has very little value (in my opinion), how often do people actually playing think in terms of averages? Take the time to average out their performance? When looking for DPR is what they actually want an abstract number that doesn't meet the reality of round by round damage?

I mean I don't know about this. Getting the right answer seems tobe a feature rather than a bug.

If it is not the expected answer,then its even better as its both rightand informative.





Personally I think the worst is the sorcerer, though I get it depends on campaign and DM.

With a DM that places a pretty tight rein on the things that diplomacy can do, charisma is a good, but not amazing stat for out of combat. D6 HD sucks balls. Sorcerers get native constitution save proficiency, which is nice but at +2 at first level is a weak boon. The spells known is what really sucks though.

Limited spell slots and two spells known.

For all that there are great 1st level spells what will you pick? Sleep - as has been suggested? Can you really afford for fully half of your spells to be worthless if fighting zombies or skeletons or other undead? Or to be useless against animated objects or other charm immune enemies? I mean sleep is good - its great at this level, but its a bit "win more" - if you are outclassed it doesn't turn a defeat into a win or even into an escape, but rather does nothing.

And defence? Are you going to use one of your spells known on magearmour? On shield? Absolutely vital at higher levels... but you know two spells. Which oneof these is worth 50% of your splls known and 50% of your spell slots?

Sorcerer gets better, but level 1 leaves you either nearly defenceless or without any powerful proactive abilities and relying on cantrips.


Then there is context - some things like AC and HP matter less at higher levels when you are not at risk of instant death, there there is healing to stabalise the fallen and where there are abilities to stop enemies reaching the back lines.

[LudicSavant]

It contributes nothing in damage or control, plings weak cantrips and is a waste of space compared to every other class.

If you're seeing someone 'pling weak cantrips and contribute nothing in damage or control' then they're doing something wrong.

The DPR of a plain old elf Wizard firing a crossbow with Flyby advantage (7.02 DPR vs AC13) is on its own better damage output than a non-VHuman Fighter with the Archery Style firing a Heavy Crossbow (6.65 DPR vs AC13), and that's not even one of the nicer things a Wizard can do, it's just one of the more easily quantifiable ones. It's not accounting for the potential of bonfire combos, Unseen Servants dropping oil or ball bearings, remote lighting, mobile cover, any of that stuff. Let alone if we're really going to optimize and start picking out synergistic team combos, which is a place they really stand out. For example, that familiar doesn't need to be giving Advantage to the Wizard, they could be granting it to a GWMer or a Rogue or a Hexblade using HBC/Booming Blade or whatever else they want.


Talking about survivability... and "A familiar or unseen servant can carry a light source remotely, allowing you to light up the enemy without lighting up PCs"... how? there's this long tunnel (or whatever), a bunch of bandits are guarding it... and a rat that gives light comes into view... they kill it? Or they sound the alarm and alert the entire dungeon? And they see it long before they are in range visual of the light source, so you won't even know what killed it...?

This is definitely not how you should be doing it.

First, your owl has 120 foot Darkvision and 18 Passive Perception, they can use that for scouting, they don't need a lantern for that. Heck, they meaningfully increase the party's detection range and information capabilities even if they never leave the Wizard's shoulder. The main reason you care about remote lighting is for combat, not for just noticing the enemy exists.

Second of all, I don't think you appreciate just how big an area a Wizard can illuminate. With Control Flames (one of our favorite cantrips) they can illuminate 120 feet with a Hooded Lantern, and 240 feet with a bullseye lantern. That's a very, very large dungeon room indeed.

Third of all, if they can sound the alarm from seeing your Unseen Servant holding a light, how is that any different from them being able to sound the alarm if they see you? The Unseen Servant doesn't need to walk ahead of you, they can just be the party's lantern-bearer, right next to them, using a Bullseye Lantern that illuminates none of their allies. The point is that your party would be in the dark, while the enemy would not. You know, basically the primary reason that Treantmonk made an entire video about Dancing Lights, except without actually needing to use Dancing Lights.


Do we assume the entire party is stealthy? Nope.


Stealth is nice, but its not a solo game.

The problem here is that you seem to think that it needs to be a solo game or an all-Stealth party for Stealth to matter.

A successful Stealth roll for just you can increase your round 1 damage, improve your positioning, and prevent enemies who won initiative from closing on you. The fact that they can hear the clanking Paladin doesn't change that.

Having an entire party able to Stealth, of course, makes it even better. But it is by no means required; you should be using Stealth with or without a stealthy party.


1x mage armor and 2x shield means the wizard ran emty after 1 or 2 combats.

Which doesn't actually affect the point being made.

Yes, shield is finite, but so is the extra hit points a Paladin gets at level 1. With the "muscle Wizard" setup we're basically using different resources to accomplish the same thing: In this case, sustained DPR and total "effective hit points."

The reason we're pointing to this 'muscle Wizard' setup even though it's obviously not the strongest way to use the Wizard is because it's easier to objectively quantify, and we can already see that it's able to beat a greatsword-wielding Paladin's DPR and have at least comparable survivability while doing it. That's just math.


I get the impression people play really different games then I do, including uses of 'being creative with spells' which don't fly at my tables - which is fine of course, to each their own.

I've been assuming a full roster of encounters per day, intelligent foes, and RAW-only spell functions.

[Unoriginal]

Seems that the only way to determine this is to take the lvl 1 from-the-start-to-the-lvl-up part of a WotC module, have the various classes go through it, and then determine who did the worst performance.


EDIT:

For the curious, I would DM such a challenge.

[Fnissalot]

Seems that the only way to determine this is to take the lvl 1 from-the-start-to-the-lvl-up part of a WotC module, have the various classes go through it, and then determine who did the worst performance.
THUNDERDOME! Thirteen classes enter; one class leaves!

[Kyutaru]

THUNDERDOME! Thirteen classes enter; one class leaves!

The Rogue would be the last one standing. He'd just wait till the other 12 had killed themselves and sneak attack the last one.

[Eldariel]

16 DEX is a significant investment, and so is a spell slot.

16 Dex is great anyways though. Initiative, Stealth, Dextrip power. I'd take 16 Dex even if it didn't give me AC.


- on armor: what makes it good is that you have it the entire day, and doesn't cost a limited resource. Great, a sorcerer can have an AC of 16 with mage armor. Now he only has 1 spell slot left for the entire day, and still has only an average AC. Furthermore, mage armor only works 8 hours/day, if you get a suprise encounter outside that, you either are naked or spend both your slots on AC. That's terrible.

*shrug* My experience is that superior offense is generally the safest way to survive level 1 and AC is unreliable enough (due to the fact that they can always roll high) without a means to mitigate the streaks of bad luck that it isn't really that big of a deal.


- on sleep: that's a bit presumptious and condesending what you type here. Yes, I know what sleep can do in theory and in what situations it's potentially good, thank you very much - but its not really rocket science. My experience is that its effects in actual games are highly exagerated, since it's conditional in at least 4 ways, which I already described. Fine if it worked in your game experience, but a comment like "Take it from someone who actually plays the game"... please. In 5e, I've seen a wizard, bard and sorcerer who all took it at 1, tried to get the most out of it, but were mostly dissapointed in how often it could be used. Your 2 orcs example is a wonderful illustration. The wizard goes first. The 2 orcs are conveniently close together so they can get targeted by the same spell, but at the same time so conveniently far away that they can't move into melee even though they can move their speed as a bonus action The wizard appearently has alert (how convenient once more), and the wizard rolls high enough on its 5d8. This totally isn't a white room encounter designed for and stacked in favour of the wizard. What's ironic: if this was a discussion about a martial class, by now at least 3 people would have mentioned that it probably isn't that good a class to begin with, if it needs so much DM-mercy and favoritism to work...

You don't need to hit two orcs with one sleep. You're casting two sleeps, one at each Orc. If you get both with one, great, but you will win if you get even one. All you need is to start at 35' plus range or with something where your Unseen Servant or familiar can somehow block the LoS/LoE.


- on the familiar: what JackPhoenix said. You need specific components. There are plenty of environments where you can't buy specific components, also in the official adventures as sold in hardcovers. And (also in reply to LudicSavant): if the familiar works well, and its a threat, it will have a javelin or crossbow aimed at it at some point. You can't assume it will find cover always. Its good, but like sleep, not something to be exaggerated. If it functions too well, it will get targeted and the question of the components gets relevant real soon. Btw, funny how its automatically assumed that the familiar that is chosen is that 1 type that gets flyby, isn't it?

If an enemy spends an attack that could kill a PC on a familiar, that's a win for the PCs.


1x mage armor and 2x shield means the wizard ran emty after 1 or 2 combats. It contributes nothing in damage or control, plings weak cantrips and is a waste of space compared to every other class. It's not 'surprisingly durable' cause a large part of adventure it's ac 16 (or with bad luck, ac 13) and the weakes hp around. Stealth is nice, but its not a solo game. Do we assume the entire party is stealthy? Or is the wizard scouting ahead? Talking about survivability... and "A familiar or unseen servant can carry a light source remotely, allowing you to light up the enemy without lighting up PCs"... how? there's this long tunnel (or whatever), a bunch of bandits are guarding it... and a rat that gives light comes into view... they kill it? Or they sound the alarm and alert the entire dungeon? And they see it long before they are in range visual of the light source, so you won't even know what killed it...?

Just use your Light Crossbow, Minor Illusion, Mold Earth and like Shape Water or Create Bonfire. None of those are weak. Hell, your attack is better than a Fighter's with Fighting Style and your at-will Servants can do a lot of good stuff for you. Minor Illusion and Mold Earth are obviously gamechanging but of course harder to quantify since again, they don't really do things in white room (which is why a Wizard in actual play is always better than a white room Wizard).

[JNAProductions]

You do know that Orcs can move twice as fast as your Wizard can (assuming a 30' move speed) and still attack, right?

[Eldariel]

You do know that Orcs can move twice as fast as your Wizard can (assuming a 30' move speed) and still attack, right?

Yes. They can move 60'. If you're 65'+ away you're fine. If you start over 35' away you can move 30' away on your turn and ready your action. It's actually enough to just be able to move 65'+ away from the one who acts first though you probably can't know that so optimally you wanna be away from both.

[Unoriginal]

Yes. They can move 60'. If you're 65'+ away you're fine. If you start over 35' away you can move 30' away on your turn and ready your action. It's actually enough to just be able to move 65'+ away from the one who acts first though you probably can't know that so optimally you wanna be away from both.

Orcs have ranged weapons.

[Eldariel]

Orcs have ranged weapons.

Yes, which you want them to use because then they have much lower effective damage.

[AdAstra]

Yes, which you want them to use because then they have much lower effective damage.

Doesn't really matter for taking down the familiar, though, which brings down your damage output considerably. Add in cover and obstructions and a ranged Wizard will need to be careful to prevail.

Depending on the situation, it may be better for the Orcs to just Dash up to the Wizard, who doesn't really have any way of bypassing opportunity attacks at this level except for Shocking Grasp, which even if it hits, only stops the one Orc and does less damage than other options.

[Eldariel]

Doesn't really matter for taking down the familiar, though, which brings down your damage output considerably. Add in cover and obstructions and a ranged Wizard will need to be careful to prevail.

Depending on the situation, it may be better for the Orcs to just Dash up to the Wizard, who doesn't really have any way of bypassing opportunity attacks at this level except for Shocking Grasp, which even if it hits, only stops the one Orc and does less damage than other options.

Sleep luckily doesn't care about adjacent enemies or anything of the sort.

[AdAstra]

Sleep luckily doesn't care about adjacent enemies or anything of the sort.

Very true, though against Orcs, Sleep is only going to reliably take out one.

[Eldariel]

Very true, though against Orcs, Sleep is only going to reliably take out one.

Yup. Against two Orcs alone it's worth it to use two slots. I've run the numbers and the Wizard is about ~70-80% to win, which is insane all things considered (the only positive win rate from a single level 1 character against two Orcs I could find), and this is only a numeric estimate which ignores things like pre-affected battlefield with Minor Illusion or Mold Earth, actions from Unseen Servant and even the familiar. Of course, if you're able you're better off kiting and using your Light Crossbow or whatever with Expeditious Retreat but that requires a lot of space so it's not always possible.

[JackPhoenix]

Be a Criminal and you start with 25gp for instance. That's two sets. At the very latest after you've had a single encounter, next time you can go buy anything you can get it.

Criminal starts with 15 gp. Enough for a single familiar, but not for a replacement.
And, of course, having an encounter does not guarantee you'll get any money, much less enough money to afford the components.


When the number you get is below the minimum damage you can actually do on a hit, that number has very little value (in my opinion), how often do people actually playing think in terms of averages? Take the time to average out their performance? When looking for DPR is what they actually want an abstract number that doesn't meet the reality of round by round damage?

Even without doing the math, most people do pay attention to their hit chance. It's the most obvious, though not exclusive, when using GWM/SS for the -5/+10 thing.


Sleep does not require any line of sight to them, just to a point within 20ft of them. So the goblins can stand behind all the trees they want.

They will likely be within 40 ft of each other and if they are not, you can always back up, let them follow which might make them group up more. I have a hard time seeing that you wouldn't be able to get 2 goblins sleepy.

It requires no full cover between the caster and the point of origin, and then no full cover between the point of origin and the goblins.

In other news, screw you, memory, for making me think Sleep only has 10' radius. That's what the disadvantage on Int checks from the level of exhaustion gets you.


You don't need to hit two orcs with one sleep. You're casting two sleeps, one at each Orc. If you get both with one, great, but you will win if you get even one. All you need is to start at 35' plus range or with something where your Unseen Servant or familiar can somehow block the LoS/LoE.

Unless you get both with one Sleep, you lose. You, at best, stall for time, but you can't exploit that time gained. You'll live for two extra rounds. Maybe. Any plan based on enemies attacking you while you hold concentration is a bad plan.


If an enemy spends an attack that could kill a PC on a familiar, that's a win for the PCs.

If the enemy can kill a PC, he'll kill a PC. If the enemy can't kill a PC, he'll kill a familiar. Either way, it's a loss for the PC.

[Eldariel]

Unless you get both with one Sleep, you lose. You, at best, stall for time, but you can't exploit that time gained. You'll live for two extra rounds. Maybe. Any plan based on enemies attacking you while you hold concentration is a bad plan.

Your first sleep will be cast after the Orc moves. The second one will be cast on your turn. This way you cast both Sleeps between the Orcs acting essentially so they have one action to kill you.


If the enemy can kill a PC, he'll kill a PC. If the enemy can't kill a PC, he'll kill a familiar. Either way, it's a loss for the PC.

The enemy will thus always prefer PC over the familiar and thus the familiar can do whatever at zero risk. There'll always be a PC to attack. If the enemy ever takes the action to attack the familiar instead, PCs win.

[JackPhoenix]

Your first sleep will be cast after the Orc moves. The second one will be cast on your turn. This way you cast both Sleeps between the Orcs acting essentially so they have one action to kill you.

Per the original post:
If you want to see how great it is, just imagine Wizard vs. 2 Orcs. Wizard readies an action to cast Sleep after the first Orc acts. The first Orc goes in and throws their Javelin. If they don't kill the Wizard, the Wizard Sleeps the second Orc and then the first one and then burrows them with Mold Earth or disarms and puts inside Minor Illusion and shoots them dead or whatever. A single level 1 Wizard can, burning their both spell slots, reasonably defeat a CR1 encounter with like a 60%+ success rate. That's how good the spell is. No class without Sleep can come even close.

Wizard has to win initiative. Good chance, with Alert, but still not guaranteed. Assumption 1
Wizard readies to Sleep the first orc that acts.
Orc 1 throws a javelin at wizard (Assumption 2: the orcs are far enough from the wizard that they can't move into melee). Assumption 3: the attack won't kill the wizard. Assumption 4: the attack won't interrupt the wizard's concentration.
Wizard puts the orc to sleep. Assumption 5: the wizard rolls high enough for sleep. Likely, but not guaranteed.
Orc 2 wakes orc 1.
Wizard acts, and realizes he's screwed as he's now down to 1 slot, and there are still two awake orcs (though one of them is prone. Yay!)


The enemy will thus always prefer PC over the familiar and thus the familiar can do whatever at zero risk. There'll always be a PC to attack. If the enemy ever takes the action to attack the familiar instead, PCs win.

Nope. Assuming optimal decision making, the enemy will do whatever is most advantageous for them. Sometimes, that's killing a PC. Sometimes, that's killing the PC's familiar. There's no "always". If the enemy takes the action to attack the familiar, it means attacking the familiar is the best, or the only possible, action the enemy can take.

[Unoriginal]

Is being able to defeat one CR1 encounter 60% of the time when using all your ressources, with a risk of dying, meant to be impressive?

According to Kobold Fight Club a lvl 1 PC should be able to handle three encounters against 2 orcs, per the XP budget. Although it does classify such an encounter as Deadly.

Honestly I would bet on the Barbarian to succeed that more than on the Wizard.

[Eldariel]

Per the original post:

Wizard has to win initiative. Good chance, with Alert, but still not guaranteed. Assumption 1
Wizard readies to Sleep the first orc that acts.
Orc 1 throws a javelin at wizard (Assumption 2: the orcs are far enough from the wizard that they can't move into melee). Assumption 3: the attack won't kill the wizard. Assumption 4: the attack won't interrupt the wizard's concentration.
Wizard puts the orc to sleep. Assumption 5: the wizard rolls high enough for sleep. Likely, but not guaranteed.
Orc 2 wakes orc 1.
Wizard acts, and realizes he's screwed as he's now down to 1 slot, and there are still two awake orcs (though one of them is prone. Yay!)

Wizard casts Sleep on Orc 2 after Orc 1 acted. Then Wizard gets to act before Orc 1 and Sleeps it. Nobody is waking anything up.


Is being able to defeat one CR1 encounter 60% of the time when using all your ressources, with a risk of dying, meant to be impressive?

According to Kobold Fight Club a lvl 1 PC should be able to handle three encounters against 2 orcs, per the XP budget. Although it does classify such an encounter as Deadly.

Honestly I would bet on the Barbarian to succeed that more than on the Wizard.

Nah, Fighter and Barbarian both have horrible odds. I've run the numbers.

[JNAProductions]

Wizard casts Sleep on Orc 2 after Orc 1 acted. Then Wizard gets to act before Orc 1 and Sleeps it. Nobody is waking anything up.

So what is your readied action? What are you readying for?

And how are you planning on killing the Orcs without giving them a chance to act? A Firebolt does 1d10 damage. Auto-crit on a sleeping target raises that to 2d10, or average of 11. Against 15 HP. That's about a 1/5 chance of dropping them to 0.

[Unoriginal]

Nah, Fighter and Barbarian both have horrible odds. I've run the numbers.

I would like to see those numbers, if you don't mind.

Or I could run the encounter against the builds of the people who are interested to test out, too.

[rlc]

I've never played a ranger, so I just looked up what they get at level 1, and they look like they're basically a weaker fighter, but kinda good at exploring.

[Yakk]

So what is your readied action? What are you readying for?
"When an orc makes an attack, or runs up and is adjacent to me, cast sleep on the other orc (ideally with the first orc in the radius)" isn't a bad choice.

Finishing them off is quite hard.

[Eldariel]

Okay, for the interested, Fighter/Barb numbers. PAM Duelist Spear/Shield Fighter:

1d6+5/1d4+5 damage at +5 attacks and 18 AC
13 HP + 1d10+1 from Second Wind

vs. two Orcs at AC 13, 15 HP, +5/1d12+3 damage


Fighter's DPS:
8,5 * 0,6 + 12 * 0,05 = 5,7
+
7,5 * 0,6 + 10 * 0,05 = 5

Total of 10,7 damage per turn.


Orcs hit on a 13 for 1d12+3 so 0,4 * 9,5 + 0,05 * 16 = 4,125


Now, obviously this is quite swingy based on who gets to act first and so on, but in general the Fighter will drop one Orc and then go down (of course, there's huge variance with in particular Second Wind - if enemy hits well you'll never get to use it and on the other hand if you wait long enough it can be a huge turning point).

Fighter needs 3 turns to drop the Orcs. The Orcs need 2 turns to drop the Fighter, or potentially 3 depending on Second Wind. Overall this favours the Orcs though the Fighter has a shot.


Barb doesn't really play out that differently. PAM Barb has +5 to hit at 1d6+5/1d4+5, 30 EHP, 17ish AC.

Orcs hit on a 13 for 1d12+3 so 0,4 * 9,5 + 0,05 * 16 = 4,6 so they need 3 turns to drop the Barb. The Barb needs 3 turns to drop them. The big problem is if the Barb loses Initiative and takes hits before Raging, it's basically game over (unlike the Wizard, the Barb is unlikely to try and maintain range and thus at risk of getting hit within 60' of the Orc on the first round). It's a close fight overall but slightly favourable to the Orcs in most cases.


So what is your readied action? What are you readying for?

And how are you planning on killing the Orcs without giving them a chance to act? A Firebolt does 1d10 damage. Auto-crit on a sleeping target raises that to 2d10, or average of 11. Against 15 HP. That's about a 1/5 chance of dropping them to 0.

Ready: "Sleep on the second Orc after the first Orc has acted."

Finishing them off: well, remove their weapons and put them in Minor Illusion and then shoot them with the autocrit from Light Crossbow. That's the worse option. The better option is to just dig a hole with Mold Earth, dump the bod(ies), fill it in, and wait for them to suffocate.

[Unoriginal]

"When an orc makes an attack, or runs up and is adjacent to me, cast sleep on the other orc (ideally with the first orc in the radius)" isn't a bad choice.

I thought you could only select one trigger for the Ready action.

[JNAProductions]

Finishing them off: well, remove their weapons and put them in Minor Illusion and then shoot them with the autocrit from Light Crossbow. That's the worse option. The better option is to just dig a hole with Mold Earth, dump the bod(ies), fill it in, and wait for them to suffocate.

Removing their weapons is good.

Minor Illusion won't hold them, though-they'll just move out of it.
You only get autocrits when adjacent-do you really want to be adjacent to an Orc that can punch you for near half your HP?
And Sleep lasts one minute. Assuming you can dig a hole fast enough, the first filling in would wake them, and then you've got Orcs in loose earth. Hardly going to contain them-I'd count it as very difficult terrain (1/4th movement, instead of half, until they get out) but it's still not gonna kill them.

Edit: Overall, though, why are we talking about solo PCs?

Shouldn't we talk about their role in a party?

And for that, no, Wizards are definitely NOT the weakest. They've got good support and BFC, even at level one, which helps the frontliners out. They're squishy, especially in AC, but not by a ton in HP, and a good party will make sure they're protected.

[Unoriginal]

Okay, for the interested, Fighter/Barb numbers. PAM Duelist Spear/Shield Fighter:

1d6+5/1d4+5 damage at +5 attacks and 18 AC
13 HP + 1d10+1 from Second Wind

vs. two Orcs at AC 13, 15 HP, +5/1d12+3 damage


Fighter's DPS:
8,5 * 0,6 + 12 * 0,05 = 5,7
+
7,5 * 0,6 + 10 * 0,05 = 5

Total of 10,7 damage per turn.


Orcs hit on a 13 for 1d12+3 so 0,4 * 9,5 + 0,05 * 16 = 4,125


Now, obviously this is quite swingy based on who gets to act first and so on, but in general the Fighter will drop one Orc and then go down (of course, there's huge variance with in particular Second Wind - if enemy hits well you'll never get to use it and on the other hand if you wait long enough it can be a huge turning point).

Fighter needs 3 turns to drop the Orcs. The Orcs need 2 turns to drop the Fighter, or potentially 3 depending on Second Wind. Overall this favours the Orcs though the Fighter has a shot.


Barb doesn't really play out that differently. PAM Barb has +5 to hit at 1d6+5/1d4+5, 30 EHP, 17ish AC.

Orcs hit on a 13 for 1d12+3 so 0,4 * 9,5 + 0,05 * 16 = 4,6 so they need 3 turns to drop the Barb. The Barb needs 3 turns to drop them. The big problem is if the Barb loses Initiative and takes hits before Raging, it's basically game over (unlike the Wizard, the Barb is unlikely to try and maintain range and thus at risk of getting hit within 60' of the Orc on the first round). It's a close fight overall but slightly favourable to the Orcs in most cases.

Hold on, I thought the Orcs started 65ft+ away from the PC. Shouldn't that give the PC the advantage here?

[Eldariel]

Removing their weapons is good.

Minor Illusion won't hold them, though-they'll just move out of it.

It won't hold them but they will lack line of sight and effect to you and think they're inside a wooden box when they wake up. It's a rather high Investigation plus action to figure out what it is; otherwise the action to get out seems pretty unlikely.


You only get autocrits when adjacent-do you really want to be adjacent to an Orc that can punch you for near half your HP?

Of course. You're outside the Illusion so they can't see you and you obviously want to minimise the resources it takes to kill them.


And Sleep lasts one minute. Assuming you can dig a hole fast enough, the first filling in would wake them, and then you've got Orcs in loose earth. Hardly going to contain them-I'd count it as very difficult terrain (1/4th movement, instead of half, until they get out) but it's still not gonna kill them.

Mold Earth takes 1 action to dig a 5' hole. That's plenty. Nobody can dig through 5' of dirt barehanded let alone while lying on their back with no leverage. Just make a hole underneath them then another action on top of them. They might wake up at this point or they might not but they'll be underneath 5' of dirt in a hole blind, deaf, alone. They will die before they get to move. This takes you 2 rounds of actions. If you wanna make extra sure just dig a 10' hole instead. Depends on the exact position where they sleep whether that's practical.



Hold on, I thought the Orcs started 65ft+ away from the PC. Shouldn't that give the PC the advantage here?

In the case of the Wizard I was expecting that they'd start at least 35' away but of course I never made any actual expectations on that front: just that familiar scouting probably means the Wizard won't be entirely surprised. Sure, if you want, they can start 65' away too. That's not really that important. Optimally you'd probably want to do the math for both options.

[MaxWilson]

Is being able to defeat one CR1 encounter 60% of the time when using all your ressources, with a risk of dying, meant to be impressive?

According to Kobold Fight Club a lvl 1 PC should be able to handle three encounters against 2 orcs, per the XP budget. Although it does classify such an encounter as Deadly.

Honestly I would bet on the Barbarian to succeed that more than on the Wizard.

I get different numbers out of Kobold Fight Club than you do. For me, it says that 2 orcs (400 adjusted XP) is already over the daily budget for 1 first-level PC (300 XP daily budget) as well as being quadruple-Deadly (Deadly = 100 XP).

That's for one fight against two orcs. Three fights against two orcs would be four times the daily budget. IME PCs can't handle those kinds of force disparities in Tier 1. Even with good gameplay you're probably still looking at a TPK by the second or third encounter.

[JNAProductions]

It won't hold them but they will lack line of sight and effect to you and think they're inside a wooden box when they wake up. It's a rather high Investigation plus action to figure out what it is; otherwise the action to get out seems pretty unlikely.

Of course. You're outside the Illusion so they can't see you and you obviously want to minimise the resources it takes to kill them.

Mold Earth takes 1 action to dig a 5' hole. That's plenty. Nobody can dig through 5' of dirt barehanded let alone while lying on their back with no leverage. Just make a hole underneath them then another action on top of them. They might wake up at this point or they might not but they'll be underneath 5' of dirt in a hole blind, deaf, alone. They will die before they get to move. This takes you 2 rounds of actions. If you wanna make extra sure just dig a 10' hole instead. Depends on the exact position where they sleep whether that's practical.

In the case of the Wizard I was expecting that they'd start at least 35' away but of course I never made any actual expectations on that front: just that familiar scouting probably means the Wizard won't be entirely surprised. Sure, if you want, they can start 65' away too. That's not really that important. Optimally you'd probably want to do the math for both options.

Except that Orcs are tall. You've got a 5' cube to work with-how exactly are you positioning them so they're fully contained in the box, and no part is sticking out?
Any interaction with the box would reveal it to be an illusion.

They can hear you. They know exactly where you are-so you've got at most one shot before they'd realize that "Hey, he shot through the box-maybe it's not real," even assuming you can fit them both within without any issues.

Mold Earth digs through LOOSE EARTH. How deep is the loose earth in your average forest? There's roots, rocks, just simple gravity packing in the dirt to no longer make it loose...

You're making a lot of assumptions in your favor. And you're still expending two slots to deal with one encounter. On an unrealistic build, to boot.

[AdAstra]

Okay, for the interested, Fighter/Barb numbers. PAM Duelist Spear/Shield Fighter:

1d6+5/1d4+5 damage at +5 attacks and 18 AC
13 HP + 1d10+1 from Second Wind

vs. two Orcs at AC 13, 15 HP, +5/1d12+3 damage


Fighter's DPS:
8,5 * 0,6 + 12 * 0,05 = 5,7
+
7,5 * 0,6 + 10 * 0,05 = 5

Total of 10,7 damage per turn.


Orcs hit on a 13 for 1d12+3 so 0,4 * 9,5 + 0,05 * 16 = 4,125


Now, obviously this is quite swingy based on who gets to act first and so on, but in general the Fighter will drop one Orc and then go down (of course, there's huge variance with in particular Second Wind - if enemy hits well you'll never get to use it and on the other hand if you wait long enough it can be a huge turning point).

Fighter needs 3 turns to drop the Orcs. The Orcs need 2 turns to drop the Fighter, or potentially 3 depending on Second Wind. Overall this favours the Orcs though the Fighter has a shot.


Barb doesn't really play out that differently. PAM Barb has +5 to hit at 1d6+5/1d4+5, 30 EHP, 17ish AC.

Orcs hit on a 13 for 1d12+3 so 0,4 * 9,5 + 0,05 * 16 = 4,6 so they need 3 turns to drop the Barb. The Barb needs 3 turns to drop them. The big problem is if the Barb loses Initiative and takes hits before Raging, it's basically game over (unlike the Wizard, the Barb is unlikely to try and maintain range and thus at risk of getting hit within 60' of the Orc on the first round). It's a close fight overall but slightly favourable to the Orcs in most cases.



Ready: "Sleep on the second Orc after the first Orc has acted."

Finishing them off: well, remove their weapons and put them in Minor Illusion and then shoot them with the autocrit from Light Crossbow. That's the worse option. The better option is to just dig a hole with Mold Earth, dump the bod(ies), fill it in, and wait for them to suffocate.

The reaction attack adds a lot to the damage, and against two opponents, even if the fighter goes first, they can position themselves so that the other Orc has to trigger it in order to close to melee. Going purely by averages, the Fighter can drop one Orc in the first round if the Orc goes first and closes to melee.

[Eldariel]

Except that Orcs are tall. You've got a 5' cube to work with-how exactly are you positioning them so they're fully contained in the box, and no part is sticking out?
Any interaction with the box would reveal it to be an illusion.

They can hear you. They know exactly where you are-so you've got at most one shot before they'd realize that "Hey, he shot through the box-maybe it's not real," even assuming you can fit them both within without any issues.

Mold Earth digs through LOOSE EARTH. How deep is the loose earth in your average forest? There's roots, rocks, just simple gravity packing in the dirt to no longer make it loose...

You're making a lot of assumptions in your favor. And you're still expending two slots to deal with one encounter. On an unrealistic build, to boot.

The build is superrealistic: literally the best Wizard you can play is a Vuman Alert Wizard with 16 Dex, 15 Con, 16 Int. Yeah, that's why I didn't say you use Mold Earth necessarily: it depends on the terrain. As for the Minor Illusion, you can get their upper body in it which is more than enough: you can easily make holes in the box for their legs or whatever. You wake them up one at a time of course and shoot them in the face. Obviously they don't know about their allies or anything. Overall it's generally pretty easy to deal with Sleep'd enemies.

[JNAProductions]

The build is superrealistic: literally the best Wizard you can play is a Vuman Alert Wizard with 16 Dex, 15 Con, 16 Int. Yeah, that's why I didn't say you use Mold Earth necessarily: it depends on the terrain. As for the Minor Illusion, you can get their upper body in it which is more than enough: you can easily make holes in the box for their legs or whatever. You wake them up one at a time of course and shoot them in the face. Obviously they don't know about their allies or anything. Overall it's generally pretty easy to deal with Sleep'd enemies.

You said 9 HP earlier. That's 16 Con.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

This thread is reminding me of why I'm strongly considering not starting our next campaign at first level next time: the game really isn't that well balanced at this point. And I'm not talking about monsters v. players. The issue is damage output v. hp. This is particularly exagerated on the player's side if v.humans are allowed, as feats like PAM and SS allow players to do more damage than their HP in a single round.
On the monster's side I'll reference our Paladin's death v. some Stirges. Now in fairness he was roleplaying a headstrong character who stuck his head somewhere it shouldn't have gone. However a half a dozen 1/8 CR monsters (2 hp each) who get surprise in this situation do an average of 5 hp of damage and then another 5 automatically the next round are really lethal. Anything you can't win initiative and knock out before their next turn are doing 5* their HP. Basically once the stirges rolled well on initiative there was nothing the party could do.
So, yeah, there are characters that are better than others at level 1, but until characters hit level 2-3, HP have a little buffer, and basic abilities are online the game is tricky to play and DM.

[Unoriginal]

I just want to say again that if people are curious I'm perfectly willing to DM that two-orcs encounter against the build of your choice. Several times, even.

It honestly sounds pretty fun.


I get different numbers out of Kobold Fight Club than you do. For me, it says that 2 orcs (400 adjusted XP) is already over the daily budget for 1 first-level PC (300 XP daily budget) as well as being quadruple-Deadly (Deadly = 100 XP).

That's for one fight against two orcs. Three fights against two orcs would be four times the daily budget. IME PCs can't handle those kinds of force disparities in Tier 1. Even with good gameplay you're probably still looking at a TPK by the second or third encounter.

It seems I've misread something the first time around, I've checked and you're correct.

[AdAstra]

I just want to say again that if people are curious I'm perfectly willing to DM that two-orcs encounter against the build of your choice. Several times, even.

It honestly sounds pretty fun.



It seems I've misread something the first time around, I've checked and you're correct.

Sure, why not. What sort of tactical scenario were you thinking?

[Hytheter]

So, yeah, there are characters that are better than others at level 1, but until characters hit level 2-3, HP have a little buffer, and basic abilities are online the game is tricky to play and DM.

Yeah, level 1 is just crap in general. I recently played in a game that began at level 1, and once initiative was rolled it just wasn't fun. You hardly have any options and one roll can change the whole course of the battle. Hit level 2 and suddenly I have cunning action, the Warlock has a second spell slot and invocations, the barbarian has reckless attack and everybody is having a lot more fun in combat.

[JackPhoenix]

It won't hold them but they will lack line of sight and effect to you and think they're inside a wooden box when they wake up. It's a rather high Investigation plus action to figure out what it is; otherwise the action to get out seems pretty unlikely.

Or it's no action to attempt to touch the box and invoke the physical interaction clause that breaks the illusion.

[Eldariel]

Or it's no action to attempt to touch the box and invoke the physical interaction clause that breaks the illusion.

That's possible if they think to do it but given the state of affairs I'd consider it far from a guarantee.

[JNAProductions]

That's possible if they think to do it but given the state of affairs I'd consider it far from a guarantee.

When you wake up, do you sit absolutely stock still, not moving at all? Or do you roll around a bit, maybe stretch your arms in a yawn?

[Unoriginal]

Sure, why not. What sort of tactical scenario were you thinking?

I'm thinking about this:

Bandits have captured the local sheriff, and left him under the guard of two orcs, Gurak and Karug, in one of their hideouts, while the rest of the band is answering an urgent summon from their Mysterious Benefactor.

The hideout consists in a roughly 70ft deep to 30ft wide cave in a hill, with a 10ft entrance and an 5x5ft alcove with a door on the wall furthest from the entrance, recently repurposed in the sheriff's cell via the addition of a wooden wall maintained against the egress by a couple of piled up large rocks. The sheriff is unconscious.

Gurak and Karug are keeping loose attention to their guard duty, sitting at a table pressed against the cell's wooden "door", drinking bad wine with the moderation of those who only have a bottle-and-half to last all day, and playing rounds after rounds of Baldur's Bones, as they share a passion for it and other dice games. The only light source in the cave is a hooded lantern placed on the table , although the opening is big enough to let the sun illuminate the first 10 ft normally, and the next 20ft with dim light, during the day.

The villagers of Steambrook have asked the PC for help, as the only one they can turn to presently. It is now midday and although the PC does not know about it the bandits will come back in 13h to take the sheriff to the Mysterious Benefactor. Thankfully, the villagers' advised to check the cave first, and the PC arrived to it without incident.


Good for you folks?

[Kyutaru]

The issue is damage output v. hp.
I mean that's always been the issue with 5e yeah? At least the identified one since even as far back as the beta testing. When you normalize accuracy through the bounded rolls you effectively make averages more important. As anyone who's played a war game that has lots of dice rolling knows, averages will make or break a unit with a degree of reliability. If you were to promote even more rolling to the point that the game is just averages then you can easily calculate the math in terms of flat numbers, of which HP becomes the most important one given the limited scaling from non-stacking. Which is why D&D combat is less about the numbers and more about imposing the conditions that lend your side the beneficial advantages. Controlling the percentages had a high impact on the numbers themselves.

[JackPhoenix]

That's possible if they think to do it but given the state of affairs I'd consider it far from a guarantee.

I don't know about you, but if I found myself in a box, the first thing I would do would be to try how solid the box is. I suspect that applies to orcs too.


I'm thinking about this:

Snip

Pretty good, but IMO you should've waited for the potential players to present their characters, so they don't build characters for that specific scenario. Or offer more scenarios with different obstacles... being good in a single specific situation doesn't mean anything.

A goblin/kobold/bandit ambush. Exploring tomb filled with undead and/or traps. Hunting a dangerous beast. That sort of thing.

[Unoriginal]

Pretty good, but IMO you should've waited for the potential players to present their characters, so they don't build characters for that specific scenario.

True, it would be a better methodology. I guess I got caught up in answering the question.


For those interested in testing it out: please ignore the above scenario, the situation will be a surprise.


All you know is that you will be facing Garuk and Karug, who are represented by two standard Orc statblocks from the MM. AND that it will be a scenario that is plausible for a lvl 1 PC to be in.

[Unoriginal]

Thread where to post your builds (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?617880-Garuk-and-Kurag-Kill-Everyone-5e-1-lvl-1-PC-vs-2-orcs-OOC&p=24678900#post24678900) made, if you want to test them.

[Eldariel]

When you wake up, do you sit absolutely stock still, not moving at all? Or do you roll around a bit, maybe stretch your arms in a yawn?

Can't say I've ever woken up after being magically sleeped and then shot to the face with a crossbow. Chances are I might be in a state of shock of some kind at that point though, especially if I wake up in what seems to be e.g. a solid wooden box for instance.


Thread where to post your builds (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?617880-Garuk-and-Kurag-Kill-Everyone-5e-1-lvl-1-PC-vs-2-orcs-OOC&p=24678900#post24678900) made, if you want to test them.

I wonder if someone could play the Wizard. It's really pretty simple: I don't really have the time at this point but here's approximately what I had in mind.

Cantrips:
Mold Earth
Minor Illusion
Whatever (maybe Create Bonfire - though Shape Water, Control Flames and Toll are all interesting too; generally I pick up Toll at 4)

Spells:
Sleep
Mage Armor
Expeditious Retreat
Shield
Unseen Servant
Find Familiar

(Prepared Shield, Mage Armor, Expeditious Retreat, Sleep)


Equipment:
Light Crossbow
Ball Bearings
Familiar

Stats:
8 Str
16 Dex
15 Con
16 Int
8 Wis
8 Cha

Owl familiar

Vuman
Alert

Knowledges, Investigation, Stealth as skills (maybe no History as it's not that useful for recognizing creatures anyways)

[Unoriginal]

Most people will reflexively hit/push the wood to see if it gives or if they're stuck, though.

[Eldariel]

Most people will reflexively hit/push the wood to see if it gives or if they're stuck, though.

*shrug* Might be. I'll leave that up to the DM in this particular case. All you need is one round of respite in any case; you can just shoot them twice and that'll be the end of them in all likelihood and you get Advantage from Familiar on the second shot if need be (this gives you very solid 83% chance of hitting the second shot and it's very likely that two shots be lethal). Be 35' away and the Orc will have to burn half their movement on getting up anyways.

[Chronos]

Listen, I love Minor Illusion as much as the next guy, but there's no way that one would work. He doesn't wake up in "what seems like a solid wooden box". He wakes up in a place that seems dark. At that point, there's no way he isn't going to try reaching out or rolling over or moving around in some other way that would break the illusion. You might be able to pull it off by putting the illusion over you: He might not realize, when he wakes up, that that arrow came from inside of the boulder he's next to.

[AdAstra]

*shrug* Might be. I'll leave that up to the DM in this particular case. All you need is one round of respite in any case; you can just shoot them twice and that'll be the end of them in all likelihood and you get Advantage from Familiar on the second shot if need be (this gives you very solid 83% chance of hitting the second shot and it's very likely that two shots be lethal). Be 35' away and the Orc will have to burn half their movement on getting up anyways.

Note that if you’re using a ranged weapon, there’s no way to attack the unconscious Orc with advantage. Because the Orc is prone, there’s always some source of disadvantage to cancel out any advantage you could gain. If you wanted to take advantage of advantage and automatic crits you would need to use a melee weapon. Also the chances of you downing the Orc in two hits is greater than 50%, but not much greater. And if the encounter takes place at night the Wizard has another issue, that being having no effective light source for this situation.

None of these things are dealbreakers, but a whole lot has to go right for the Wizard to prevail.

[Kyutaru]

And if the encounter takes place at night the Wizard has another issue, that being having no effective light source for this situation.
Is Dancing Lights no longer a cantrip?

[Eldariel]

Note that if you’re using a ranged weapon, there’s no way to attack the unconscious Orc with advantage. Because the Orc is prone, there’s always some source of disadvantage to cancel out any advantage you could gain. If you wanted to take advantage of advantage and automatic crits you would need to use a melee weapon. Also the chances of you downing the Orc in two hits is greater than 50%, but not much greater. And if the encounter takes place at night the Wizard has another issue, that being having no effective light source for this situation.

None of these things are dealbreakers, but a whole lot has to go right for the Wizard to prevail.

"When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated."

The creature is incapacitated so you can attack with advantage from 5' away for an autocrit just fine.


Is Dancing Lights no longer a cantrip?

I didn't pick it: relying on familiar for area information. Can light a torch or something after the Sleeps have been cast.

[Hael]

From anecdotal experience, the worse class in lvl 1 is the sorcerer.

The d6 hp is just murderous at that lvl, a single crit can kill and you have 50% fewer options than the wizard.

The monk is almost as bad, simply bc you have to get in melee range, but also functionally useless..

Those were the two classes where I had character death. Lvl 1 is ridiculous and always has been in DnD.

[JackPhoenix]

Equipment:
Light Crossbow
Ball Bearings
Familiar


Neither crossbow nor ball bearings are in wizard's starting equipment. Noble background can get you 25 gp, enough for a light crossbow, but not enough for a familiar or ammo.

[Eldariel]

Neither crossbow nor ball bearings are in wizard's starting equipment. Noble background can get you 25 gp, enough for a light crossbow, but not enough for a familiar or ammo.

You pick Scholar's Pack and can sell it for 20gp.

[Tanarii]

Weakest is definitely Bard. AC 13 and your only ranged weapon is a dagger has killed more level 1 Bard PCs than I can count.

Next is rogue. AC 13 and trying to get all melee sneak attack-y = dead rogue.

Next two are wizard and Sorc. All it takes it one enemy getting up to melee range and they're down. And they run out of primary resources very quickly. Honorable mention to warlock.

Strongest are the Heavy Armor classes, Fighter, Paladin, Cleric.

[JackPhoenix]

Weakest is definitely Bard. AC 13 and your only ranged weapon is a dagger has killed more level 1 Bard PCs than I can count.

Bard can get any simple weapon as a part of starting equipment, that includes light crossbow and shortbow, though you'll need to buy ammo with your background money.

[stoutstien]

Bard can get any simple weapon as a part of starting equipment, that includes light crossbow and shortbow, though you'll need to buy ammo with your background money.

The humble sling is a good option if you don't want to dump your limited wealth on arrows or bolts which also need a quiver/bolt case as well.

[AdAstra]

"When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated."

The creature is incapacitated so you can attack with advantage from 5' away for an autocrit just fine.



I didn't pick it: relying on familiar for area information. Can light a torch or something after the Sleeps have been cast.

Wait, but then how do you get far enough away that the Orc doesn't get a chance to clobber you on its turn? While the autocrit can one-shot, it's not going to be the most reliable. The Minor Illusion box isn't going to work unless the DM rules the Orc just stays stock still and doesn't even try to move. A scenario which is rather unlikely given that the stereotypical thing everyone does when trapped by something is to put their hands up against it.

[Dork_Forge]

You pick Scholar's Pack and can sell it for 20gp.

So assuming you go Noble for the cash and manage to sell your pack, you'll end up with 45GP.

Light Crossbow 25GP
Crossbow Bolts (20) 1GP
Bolt Case 1GP
Bag of Ball Bearings 1GP
Herbs for Find Familiar 10GP

Total: 38GP

This assumes that you can sell your pack for half value before the adventure simulation and that you only purchase one lot of bolts and bag of ball bearings. You currently have no way of dealing with the dark whatsoever and you don't have enough gold to buy herbs etc. for a back up familiar. Seeing how squishy familiars are and how heavily a lot of Wizard builds are assumed to use them here, it'd be fairly likely that it wouldn't make it through an adventuring day. So you'd start off somewhat okay, and then as your magical and mundane resources are depleted you end up as a particularly frail martial with next to no actual adventuring supplies.



Weakest is definitely Bard. AC 13 and your only ranged weapon is a dagger has killed more level 1 Bard PCs than I can count.

Next is rogue. AC 13 and trying to get all melee sneak attack-y = dead rogue.

Strongest are the Heavy Armor classes, Fighter, Paladin, Cleric.

There's no real reason why the Rogue and Bard should be at 14AC (+3 Dex).

Barbarian also does pretty well at first level, besides the high Con, D12 and Rage, they also have synergy with more durable races like Half Orcs and Goliaths (as do Str based Fighters and Paladins).

[Eldariel]

Wait, but then how do you get far enough away that the Orc doesn't get a chance to clobber you on its turn? While the autocrit can one-shot, it's not going to be the most reliable. The Minor Illusion box isn't going to work unless the DM rules the Orc just stays stock still and doesn't even try to move. A scenario which is rather unlikely given that the stereotypical thing everyone does when trapped by something is to put their hands up against it.

You can't. But it's worth it. You want to guarantee that the Orc dies in two turns; you could Mold Earth its square to slow it a bit but ultimately you'll have to accept that it might get to attack you.


So assuming you go Noble for the cash and manage to sell your pack, you'll end up with 45GP.

Light Crossbow 25GP
Crossbow Bolts (20) 1GP
Bolt Case 1GP
Bag of Ball Bearings 1GP
Herbs for Find Familiar 10GP

Total: 38GP

This assumes that you can sell your pack for half value before the adventure simulation and that you only purchase one lot of bolts and bag of ball bearings. You currently have no way of dealing with the dark whatsoever and you don't have enough gold to buy herbs etc. for a back up familiar. Seeing how squishy familiars are and how heavily a lot of Wizard builds are assumed to use them here, it'd be fairly likely that it wouldn't make it through an adventuring day. So you'd start off somewhat okay, and then as your magical and mundane resources are depleted you end up as a particularly frail martial with next to no actual adventuring supplies.

I generally go criminal. You can get more money somewhat easily and generally replacements will be available soon enough. Like I said earlier, enemies can't really afford to target the familiar so it dying is generally a net positive for the party. That's approximately how I'd go about it though. You might have to sell some stuff to afford the rest of your nonsense of course. But you can always steal or loan or borrow before the start of the adventure to get what you need.

[AdAstra]

Honestly I find starting equipment to mostly be a minor inconvenience if not actively detrimental to balance. Except in campaigns where resource scarcity is an important element, I've generally been of the opinion that it causes more problems than it solves. I've also never seen a DM that didn't allow for reasonable substitutions (as in the things you want to substitute have to be in a somewhat similar price range), so that kinda affects my judgement.

[Dork_Forge]

I generally go criminal. You can get more money somewhat easily and generally replacements will be available soon enough*. Like I said earlier, enemies can't really afford to target the familiar so it dying is generally a net positive for the party. That's approximately how I'd go about it though. You might have to sell some stuff to afford the rest of your nonsense of course. But you can always steal or loan or borrow before the start of the adventure to get what you need.

So... you can't afford anything but the one familiar and a crossbow with no bolts then.

If an Owl is routinely flying into the creature's face, being annoying and making it easier for these adventurer's to hit it, it's perfectly naturally to shoot the thing down. Depending on how early in the combat/day that happen's the Wizards offense and general utility drop off a cliff since so many eggs get shoved in the basket around the Owl's neck.

What you're basically saying is money has no real meaning because you can handwave it, which of all classes, benefits the Wizard the most (Familiars, scribing, scrolls, other costly spells). If you actually use the rules, the viability of this character as an adventurer is nowhere near as high as you seem to think.

*As others have mentioned, just because you can loot gold off those Orcs in the forest doesn't mean you're going to be able to actually buy the components you need any time soon.

[Darc_Vader]

Something to think about in the Sleep scenario here is that readying a spell takes concentration even if the spell itself doesn’t. If you’re readying it until after the first orc attacks to prevent them from using actions to wake each other up, then you’d need to take into account the chance of outright losing the spell before you even cast it, especially since if you need the second slot to Sleep the other orc after, you can’t afford to Shield.

[Eldariel]

So... you can't afford anything but the one familiar and a crossbow with no bolts then.

If an Owl is routinely flying into the creature's face, being annoying and making it easier for these adventurer's to hit it, it's perfectly naturally to shoot the thing down. Depending on how early in the combat/day that happen's the Wizards offense and general utility drop off a cliff since so many apples get shoved in the basket around the Owl's neck.

What you're basically saying is money has no real meaning because you can handwave it, which of all classes, benefits the Wizard the most (Familiars, scribing, scrolls, other costly spells). If you actually use the rules, the viability of this character as an adventurer is no where near as high as you seem to think.

*As others have mentioned, just because you can loot gold off those Orcs in the forest doesn't mean you're going to be able to actually buy the components you need any time soon.

You can get the Bolts by selling the Crowbar. It's generally fine. Again, the Owl might die, it might not but that's an attack that could've killed a PC so it's a total win if enemies ever kill it. And they might even still miss.


Something to think about in the Sleep scenario here is that readying a spell takes concentration even if the spell itself doesn’t. If you’re readying it until after the first orc attacks to prevent them from using actions to wake each other up, then you’d need to take into account the chance of outright losing the spell before you even cast it, especially since if you need the second slot to Sleep the other orc after, you can’t afford to Shield.

Yeah, luckily the chance of getting hit isn't too high.

[Dork_Forge]

You can get the Bolts by selling the Crowbar. It's generally fine. Again, the Owl might die, it might not but that's an attack that could've killed a PC so it's a total win if enemies ever kill it. And they might even still miss.


So now you have 19 bolts... what tucked into your pants? You still can't afford the bolt case, the ball bearings or anything else inlcuding something to see in the dark or y'know, generally adventure (backpack, food, bedroll...). Unless you ignore money as a real factor, you just can't afford to play a Wizard and act like a budget martial in combat at level 1. Generally fine just seems like your table either doesn't play at 1st level, or doesn't pay much attention to starting gold/equipment.


An Orc (as used so far in this example) has a 70% chance to hit (and by extension, instakill) the Owl.Yes it's possilbe the Orc could miss, it's also possible the Orc ignores the Owl, moves 60ft toward the Wizard and crits on a Javelin rolling enough to instakill the Wizard. Is it likely? No not really, but it's possible, like the Owl surviving right?

That's not even to mention that it may not even matter if the Orcs lose an attack to kill it, they may just end up killing you a round later, your damage output is still too low to kill them anywhere near quickly.

I understand the want/desire our favourite class (The Artificer for myself), but it's important to not overlook possible shortcomings of the class.

[Eldariel]

So now you have 19 bolts... what tucked into your pants? You still can't afford the bolt case, the ball bearings or anything else inlcuding something to see in the dark or y'know, generally adventure (backpack, food, bedroll...). Unless you ignore money as a real factor, you just can't afford to play a Wizard and act like a budget martial in combat at level 1. Generally fine just seems like your table either doesn't play at 1st level, or doesn't pay much attention to starting gold/equipment.

You should try it in practice, it's much more feasible than it might look. All the white room theorycrafting in the world isn't gonna change that.

[Dork_Forge]

You should try it in practice, it's much more feasible than it might look. All the white room theorycrafting in the world isn't gonna change that.

If your DM allows you a more flexible/generous start great, but that'd be a table rule and not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Come to think of it, I know exactly how you could leverage this crossbow/familiar business, be a Fighter. A V. Human Fighter (Ritual Caster) with the Noble background can afford two Familiars worth or herbs, ball bearings etc. without cannibalising their own starting equipment. They can use a Heavy Crossbow for more damage, with Archery to be more accurate and have a better chance of making it through encounters due to their vastly superior hp and Second Wind.

In practice, you can't afford to play the character you want to play, the way you want to play them. That's not white room theory crafting, that's the game as written.

[Eldariel]

If your DM allows you a more flexible/generous start great, but that'd be a table rule and not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Come to think of it, I know exactly how you could leverage this crossbow/familiar business, be a Fighter. A V. Human Fighter (Ritual Caster) with the Noble background can afford two Familiars worth or herbs, ball bearings etc. without cannibalising their own starting equipment. They can use a Heavy Crossbow for more damage, with Archery to be more accurate and have a better chance of making it through encounters due to their vastly superior hp and Second Wind.

In practice, you can't afford to play the character you want to play, the way you want to play them. That's not white room theory crafting, that's the game as written.

But you just said you have enough gold. So what's the problem? It's bare bones but that's all you need.

[Dork_Forge]

But you just said you have enough gold. So what's the problem? It's bare bones but that's all you need.

If you go Noble, you can swing it and still have an awkward lack of actual adventuring equipment.

You said you'd go criminal, so no you can't really, even though you're selling everything but the shirt on your back to attempt to.

[Eldariel]

If you go Noble, you can swing it and still have an awkward lack of actual adventuring equipment.

You said you'd go criminal, so no you can't really, even though you're selling everything but the shirt on your back to attempt to.

Well, if you're solo you'll probably just do some quick quest in the town to get some gold and continue from there; that way you don't really have to worry about ratios or such.

[MaxWilson]

Well, if you're solo you'll probably just do some quick quest in the town to get some gold and continue from there; that way you don't really have to worry about ratios or such.

I wonder if this is a playstyle difference. Some people seem to assume that Level 1 means "you're suddenly fighting two orcs with just your starting equipment." Other seem to think that there's a whole gameworld to explore and that "fighting two orcs" is just something that happens sometime before you hit Level 2. I can see how these differing assumptions would lead people to differ in their conclusions.

[Unoriginal]

I wonder if this is a playstyle difference. Some people seem to assume that Level 1 means "you're suddenly fighting two orcs with just your starting equipment." Other seem to think that there's a whole gameworld to explore and that "fighting two orcs" is just something that happens sometime before you hit Level 2. I can see how these differing assumptions would lead people to differ in their conclusions.

I mean, "fighting two orcs" is something that can happen at any time in any level, provided that two orcs exist in the same area as the PC and that they are hostile.

[Waazraath]

I wonder if this is a playstyle difference. Some people seem to assume that Level 1 means "you're suddenly fighting two orcs with just your starting equipment." Other seem to think that there's a whole gameworld to explore and that "fighting two orcs" is just something that happens sometime before you hit Level 2. I can see how these differing assumptions would lead people to differ in their conclusions.

I agree with the assessment that there is a playstyle difference. The way I see it though, in some games familiars aren't targeted even when they are obviously contributing to the fight and are easy to take out; orcs that are suddenly boxed in aren't going to check if they can break out (let alone if there's something illusional); cantrips are doing stuff that isn't explicitly in the rules and this is interpreted in the way most convenient for the caster (what happens when somebody is covered in loose earth is nowhere to be found of course - and all this even though we're talking about cantrips of which it is pretty obvious that they aren't meant to do damage or be dangerous unless specificly stated); and players get to deicide on how an encounter looks, so they are never inconveniently surprised at night (or lets say, after their 8h mage armor runs out), and that they can start an encounter at exactly 65 feat (even though we 5e is theatre of the mind and you can't creally count 5ft squares), and money and spell components are handwaived. And there are games where there isn't blatant favoritism and bias for wizards/casters.

I mean, to each his or her own. Personally, I've gotten to seriously dislike it when players want to get 'creative' with spells (the same goes for other class abilities, but it are mostly spells), cause mostly it means that creativity is used to artificially inflate the power of spells (and through that, characters) beyond what is both RAW and RAI, and leads to discussions and rules lawyering, and if a DM gives in to this kind of stuff it can disrupt the balance. I love creativity in my games, but when using roleplay, using the environment and the like./rant

I mean, seriously. This is about survivability and power at level 1. We have this bunch of classes with no AC and a lousy HD, of whom some only have 2 or 3 serious combat options that refresh on a long rest, for 18-24 rounds of combat (6-8 * 3 rounds). Of course these classes suck at level 1. How can even a short question like this devolve into people claiming wizard superiority?

[Unoriginal]

How can even a short question like this devolve into people claiming wizard superiority?

Is there anything that can't be devolved into a claim of wizard superiority?

Aside from something starting as a claim of superiority, I mean.

[MaxWilson]

I mean, "fighting two orcs" is something that can happen at any time in any level, provided that two orcs exist in the same area as the PC and that they are hostile.

Sure. The surprising part (to me) is the other viewpoint that apparently assumes that nothing else has happened in the game besides fighting two orcs.

I get that that makes white room analysis easier, but still... Eldariel's argument that you can probably scrounge up ammunition during play before fighting the two orcs seems very plausible. It wouldn't shock me if that were true 75%+ of the time at a given non-AL table. (For AL, I have no idea.)

[Unoriginal]

Sure. The surprising part (to me) is the other viewpoint that apparently assumes that nothing else has happened in the game besides fighting two orcs.

I get that that makes white room analysis easier, but still... Eldariel's argument that you can probably scrounge up ammunition during play before fighting the two orcs seems very plausible. It wouldn't shock me if that were true 75%+ of the time at a given non-AL table. (For AL, I have no idea.)

While certainly plausible, I think is that the point is we can all certainly think of many plausible factors in a game world that can advantage one class and pile them up, to the point the argument become less about the class and more about the circumstances & events leading to the confrontation.


Also we should all be honest and admit that relying on perks from race and background to make A build capable of succeeding the challenge isn't an indicator of power for the class itself. And more to the point that classes don't exist in a vacuum and a character is a whole, making calculating a class's power impossible outside of the controlled environment of the featureless white room, and outside of math divorced from an actual game session.

[Tanarii]

Bard can get any simple weapon as a part of starting equipment, that includes light crossbow and shortbow, though you'll need to buy ammo with your background money.
You're assuming background money can be spent before the first adventure. Not a totally unreasonable assumption, but just pointing out it is one.

More importantly, a shocking number of players don't think about it.



There's no real reason why the Rogue and Bard should be at 14AC (+3 Dex).

Barbarian also does pretty well at first level, besides the high Con, D12 and Rage, they also have synergy with more durable races like Half Orcs and Goliaths (as do Str based Fighters and Paladins).
That requires a Dex race or human. Admittedly there are a lot of those so call it AC 14 I dunno about 75% of the time. Still getting clobbered time. I frequently saw Rock Gnome, Hill Dwarf and Tiefling Rogues IMC but you're point is very valid

Totally agree on Barbarian I overlooked it, but if you have Rage up you're good to go.


I wonder if this is a playstyle difference. Some people seem to assume that Level 1 means "you're suddenly fighting two orcs with just your starting equipment." Other seem to think that there's a whole gameworld to explore and that "fighting two orcs" is just something that happens sometime before you hit Level 2. I can see how these differing assumptions would lead people to differ in their conclusions.Hitting level 2 takes less than a session. Unless you're returning to town half way through your first outing, it's very reasonable to assume level 1 means "starting equipment plus maybe you found something in your first few encounters that's useful".

[MaxWilson]

You're assuming background money can be spent before the first adventure. Not a totally unreasonable assumption, but just pointing out it is one.

Spending gold before play begins is also explicitly permitted by the Starting Equipment rules, if you pick the gold option instead of the class items + background items option.

When you create your character, you receive equipment based on a combination of your class and background. Alternatively, you can start with a number of gold pieces based on your class and spend them on items from the lists in this section. See the Starting Wealth by Class table to determine how much gold you have to spend.

Source: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/equipment


Hitting level 2 takes less than a session. Unless you're returning to town half way through your first outing, it's very reasonable to assume level 1 means "starting equipment plus maybe you found something in your first few encounters that's useful".

Based on my observations of real life and Internet discussions, I think it is relatively rare for campaigns to start in medias res in the middle of a solo fight against two orcs, as opposed to in town in a tavern or or a shipwreck or something, so you can meet the other PCs. That means you can potentially borrow ammunition from other players, or even buy stuff before you leave town in the first place.

There's nothing wrong with starting in medias res, but from the way people seem surprised by the possibility when it's mentioned, I think it is relatively rare, perhaps because it involves a degree of DM control over PCs' prior actions. ("And it came to pass that Rupert found himself fighting for his life against two orcs working for someone to whom he owed money" is a hard frame which implies that Rupert's player doesn't get to choose a different way to deal with these orcs.)

[Kyutaru]

Spending gold before play begins is also explicitly permitted by the Starting Equipment rules, if you pick the gold option instead of the class items + background items option.
The pedants will insist on the wording specificity pertaining to class and not background wealth. The line immediately following the ones you quoted even states: "See the Starting Wealth by Class table to determine how much gold you have to spend." From a purely RAW reading, that implies twice that the class wealth is all you can spend.

[MaxWilson]

The pedants will insist on the wording specificity pertaining to class and not background wealth. The line immediately following the ones you quoted even states: "See the Starting Wealth by Class table to determine how much gold you have to spend." From a purely RAW reading, that implies twice that the class wealth is all you can spend.

We are in agreement. Emphasis mine:

"Spending gold before play begins is also explicitly permitted by the Starting Equipment rules, if you pick the gold option instead of the class items + background items option."

Ergo, bards are not restricted to starting with only a dagger, they can buy a crossbow if they want to, just by picking the gold option. QED.

[LudicSavant]

Obviously there are more factors involved in this, but we can at least get a sort of baseline comparison here.

Assumptions:
- You can actually use your starting wealth.
- We have a 'standard adventuring day' with 2 short rests.

Paladin:
Effective HP: 10 (HD) + 2 (Tertiary Con) + 5 (LoH) + 1d10+2 (short rest HD) = 24.5 hp
AC: 16 or 18 (shield)
Attack: 1d8+3 (5.1 vs AC13) or 2d6+3 (6.85 vs AC13).

Less damage than a Fighter or Barbarian, and less total healing/mitigation too. The one thing the Paladin has going for them (that isn't represented in these numbers) is that their healing can be given to OTHER people, and that it can be used to pick someone up off the 0hp death gate up to 5 times. So that's nice.

Barbarian:
Effective HP: 12 (HD) + 3 (Secondary Con) + 1d12+3 (short rest HD) +2 rages (we have to guestimate how much these will be worth in practice, and we can't just say it's a doubling since sane enemies tend to want to redirect their attacks when someone's raging, or even try to interrupt the rage. Or just use non-physical damage. Let's say 10 hp / rage, which I think is fairly generous since it's 2/3rds of a doubling) = 44.5 hp
AC: 16 or 18 (shield)
Attack: 1d8+3 (5.1 vs AC13) or 2d6+3 (6.85 vs AC13).
Attack (Rage 2/day): 1d8+5 (6.4 vs AC13) 2d6+5 (8.15 vs AC13) or dual-wielding 2d6+7 (9.45 vs AC13)

Note that the dual-wielding numbers can only come on rounds 2+ of the Rage (since Rage takes a bonus action to start), but also that a Barbarian doesn't need to worry about taking the Two Weapon Fighting style in order to do it, so they can just use dual-wielding when it's convenient for them then drop it later (whereas the Fighter probably wants to avoid the dual-wielding style because they don't want to suck later).

They also have other things going for them, like the fact that they get Advantage on grapple checks while raging. That's good. Overall I think I'll hand this one to the Barbarian over the Fighter, though not by a lot.

Fighter
Effective HP: 10 (HD) + 3 (Secondary Con) + 1d10+3 (short rest HD) + 3d10+3 (Second Wind x3 in a 'standard adventuring day') = 41 hp
AC: Anywhere from 16-19 depending on shield and whether they took Defense style.
Attack: 1d8+5 (6.4 vs AC13), 2d6+3+reroll 1s&2s (7.7833...), +2 to hit @1d10+3 (6.65 vs AC 13), or dual-wielding 2d6+6 (8.8 vs AC 13)

The Fighter's healing listing here is a bit generous, because it assumes that he can always get the full value of it, despite its limitations (can't be given to an ally, needs you to be able to take actions after being hit, etc). But still, it's a solid showing. You get more consistent damage than the Barbarian thanks to Fighting Style, or a higher AC. But you have less bursts of power.

And yes, dual-wielding is actually a decent option at level 1. The issue is that its scaling is worse.

Warlock (Hexblade)
Effective HP: 8 (HD) + 3 (secondary Con) + 1d8+3 (short rest HD) + 12 (Hexblade's Curse healing x3) = 30.5 hp + (up to 3 Shields, worth 28.5 hp if they're negating just one orc hit each) = 59 hp. Alternatively, Armor of Agathys (mitigating 5 damage directly, and possibly more indirectly because of it retribution damage shortening enemy life) = 45.5 hp
AC 18 with a shield (which they have no reason not to use)
Attack: 1d8+3 (5.1 vs AC13), (b]8.025[/b] with Booming Blade rider, 7.05 with Green-Flame Blade rider
Attack (Hexblade's Curse): 1d8+5 and 19-20 critrate (6.625 vs AC13), 10.85 with Booming Blade rider, 8.575 with GFB rider
Attack (Hex): 1d8+1d6+3 (7.55 vs AC13), 10.475 with Booming Blade rider, 9.5 with Green-Flame Blade rider
Attack (Hex + Hexblade's Curse) 1d6+1d8+5 and 19-20 critrate (9.25 vs AC 13), 13.475 with BB rider, 11.2 with GFB rider

It should surprise absolutely no one that Hexblade is a wild beast at level 1. It's hard to pin down exact numbers here since there's a lot more variables/choices involved than the simpler martials, but their spells are strong and action-efficient (and they get 3 slots in an 'average' adventuring day), and their baseline melee capabilities with Hexblade's Curse and BB/GFB are strong. They can do bonfire combos too (though not as well as Wizards).

Wizard
Okay, so obviously Wizard is gonna be tough to quantify since their best features aren't their sustained damage and health. But to get a really lowball idea of a Wizard's potential, we can take a Wizard that invests their stats and slots into just using weaponry, Mage Armor, and Shield. Essentially a Wizard that is simulating being a martial.

Effective HP 6 (HD) + 3 (secondary Con) + 1d6+3 (short rest HD) + Shield x2 (Each shield is worth a minimum of one successful hit. Even if this only blocks 2 CR1/2 orc hits, it's worth 19 effective hp) = 34.5 hp
AC 16 w/ Mage Armor
Attack: 1d8+3 w/ Flyby Advantage (7.02 DPR vs AC 13), or 9.90625 with Green-Flame Blade rider, or 10.96875 with Booming Blade rider, or 8.495 with a high elf dual-wielding shortswords.

And you can tack on something like an Unseen Servant scattering ball bearings and the like on top of this, adding additional survivability.

Of course, this is lowballing the Wizard; realistically they have better options than just using melee and defensive spells, and they can give the familiar advantage to whoever in the party would get the most benefit from it (like the Hexblade), and things like familiar detection range (18 passive perception and 120 darkvision, and all the survivability advantages that come with that) are just left out.

And yet they're still beating the DPR of a Paladin with a two-handed weapon (or even the DPR of a Fighter with the Archery style), just because Flyby Advantage is that good. And they aren't doing that bad at effective HP while they're at it. Of course, Shield won't stop a lucky crit, but all sources of mitigation have a case where they have reduced efficiency (for example, Second Wind can lose efficiency to overhealing or just not getting damaged on a schedule that lines up with your short rests).

On the killing of familiars
Familiars aren't particularly easy targets when used properly. Their size makes it easy for them to find 3/4 or full cover, and Flyby allows them to repeatedly retreat to it (or just an out of reach position for melee foes) while still contributing.

Even if they do get killed, that's not necessarily a bad thing for the Wizard as long as they aren't given up for free by bad play. Any actions the enemy takes to successfully target the familiar are actions that aren't spent on PCs, and thus counts as extra "effective hit points," at the cost of lowering DPR for the remainder of the adventuring day. If the bad guys wanna take opportunity attacks in order to chase down the hit'n'run familiars, even better.

And it should not be difficult to afford at least 2 familiars, even if you're just heading out into the world with nothing but starting gear. You get an average of 100gp to start with as a Wizard, after all.

[Dork_Forge]

That requires a Dex race or human. Admittedly there are a lot of those so call it AC 14 I dunno about 75% of the time. Still getting clobbered time. I frequently saw Rock Gnome, Hill Dwarf and Tiefling Rogues IMC but you're point is very valid

For the Bard I guess, but it's not much of a stretch to assume that since a Rogue is Dex SAD, they'd be looking to start at a 16, especially since the sheer number of options for it makes it so easy (there's also Tiefling options that provide Dex). For the Bard, Half Elf is always a popular and powerful race.



Hitting level 2 takes less than a session. Unless you're returning to town half way through your first outing, it's very reasonable to assume level 1 means "starting equipment plus maybe you found something in your first few encounters that's useful".

Agree, when people refer to level 1 on this forum, my personal though isn't 'you're level 1, but you've been adventuring a little,' since level 1 often lasts a session (ime), it usually means, you're starting the game and have your starting equipment.

[LudicSavant]

If people want to start arguing about starting wealth by class, here's the average of what we get from the "just take gold" table (note: this is not an optional/variant rule, it's just something a player can choose to do by default)

Just for handy reference.

Artificer: 125gp
Barbarian: 50gp
Bard: 125gp
Cleric: 125gp
Druid: 50gp
Fighter: 125gp
Monk: 12.5gp
Paladin: 125gp
Ranger: 125gp
Rogue: 100gp
Sorcerer: 75gp
Warlock: 100gp
Wizard: 100gp

[MaxWilson]

If people want to start arguing about starting wealth by class, here's the average of what we get from the "just take gold" table (note: this is not an optional/variant rule, it's just something a player can choose to do by default)

Just for handy reference.

Artificer: 125gp
Barbarian: 50gp
Bard: 125gp
Cleric: 125gp
Druid: 50gp
Fighter: 125gp
Monk: 12.5gp
Paladin: 125gp
Ranger: 125gp
Rogue: 100gp
Sorcerer: 75gp
Warlock: 100gp
Wizard: 100gp

Important note: if you're playing a wizard, don't forget to spend 50 gp on a spellbook! :)

[Unoriginal]

Effective HP 6 (HD) + 3 (secondary Con) + 1d6+3 (short rest HD) + Shield x2 (Each shield is worth a minimum of one successful hit. Even if this only blocks 2 CR1/2 orc hits, it's worth 19 effective hp) = 34.5 hp


Shield can block one or several attacks, true, but it is inaccurate to say it's "worth 19 effective HPs" just because it blocks two orc greataxe strikes.

It'd block just as many attacks as if it was two Commoners trying to punch the wizard for 1 damage per attack.




Just for handy reference.

Artificer: 125gp
Barbarian: 50gp
Bard: 125gp
Cleric: 125gp
Druid: 50gp
Fighter: 125gp
Monk: 12.5gp
Paladin: 125gp
Ranger: 125gp
Rogue: 100gp
Sorcerer: 75gp
Warlock: 100gp
Wizard: 100gp

Man, monks are poor.

[MaxWilson]

Shield can block one or several attacks, true, but it is inaccurate to say it's "worth 19 effective HPs" just because it blocks two orc greataxe strikes.

It'd block just as many attacks as if it was two Commoners trying to punch the wizard for 1 damage per attack.

Why wouldn't you just choose to absorb those 1 HP punches instead of Shielding against them?

[LudicSavant]

Shield can block one or several attacks, true, but it is inaccurate to say it's "worth 19 effective HPs" just because it blocks two orc greataxe strikes.

If I was going by the data I gathered from actual play, it'd be worth more than 19hp, not less.


It'd block just as many attacks as if it was two Commoners trying to punch the wizard for 1 damage per attack.

If Commoners were trying to punch the Wizard for 1 damage per attack, they are unlikely to use Shield.

[Kyutaru]

Stoneskin used to blanket negate attacks in older editions and it was considered one of the most powerful spells. Denying damage is self-scaling with the threats you're facing, especially in an edition where +1 is powerful and +5 is godly.

[JackPhoenix]

Well, if you're solo you'll probably just do some quick quest in the town to get some gold and continue from there; that way you don't really have to worry about ratios or such.

Sure, and you may also find you need even more money for food, gate tolls, taxes, and what not.


Sure. The surprising part (to me) is the other viewpoint that apparently assumes that nothing else has happened in the game besides fighting two orcs.

I get that that makes white room analysis easier, but still... Eldariel's argument that you can probably scrounge up ammunition during play before fighting the two orcs seems very plausible. It wouldn't shock me if that were true 75%+ of the time at a given non-AL table. (For AL, I have no idea.)

Sure, but at that point, I can argue that as a noble, I've turned back right after leaving the castle to grab few hundreds gold pieces for expenses from my father's treasury, and ordered a retinue of warriors to accompany me. After all, that's a plausible thing to do when you're a noble going on a dangerous trip.


If people want to start arguing about starting wealth by class, here's the average of what we get from the "just take gold" table (note: this is not an optional/variant rule, it's just something a player can choose to do by default)

Just for handy reference.

Wizard: 100gp

Effectively, it's 50 gp for a wizard, as that's the price of a spellbook he doesn't get if he picks mony (despite being a class feature, a spellbok is listed as a part of the starting equipment for a wizard)


Why wouldn't you just choose to absorb those 1 HP punches instead of Shielding against them?

Because until you get hit, you have no way of knowing if those are really commoners with 1 hp punches, or monks with 1d10+5 punches.

[LudicSavant]

Effectively, it's 50 gp for a wizard, as that's the price of a spellbook he doesn't get if he picks mony (despite being a class feature, a spellbok is listed as a part of the starting equipment for a wizard)

That's correct.

Other classes tend to eat up a large chunk of their starting wealth with their armor, too.

[Unoriginal]

Why wouldn't you just choose to absorb those 1 HP punches instead of Shielding against them?

Not the point. The Wizard could just be showing off, or winning a bet that they can beat two Commoners without weapon or attack spells.


Point is, it also applies to the more plausible example of goblins with clubs, or kobolds with slings, or the like.

Shield boosts the AC, it should be counted in the AC overview, not as in a bonus to effective HPs proportional to the damage the enemy risks to do.

Otherwise the +2 of a physical shield should also be counted in the effective HPs total, since it also help prevents hits.


Stoneskin used to blanket negate attacks in older editions and it was considered one of the most powerful spells. Denying damage is self-scaling with the threats you're facing, especially in an edition where +1 is powerful and +5 is godly.

So having a +2 to AC from a regular shield should also be counted in the effective HPs increase.


If I was going by the data I gathered from actual play, it'd be worth more than 19hp, not less.

The Wizard is fighting two goblins armed with clubs. I guess that they only have +4 effective HPs, in that case.



If Commoners were trying to punch the Wizard for 1 damage per attack, they are unlikely to use Shield.

Please, we both are better than that.

[LudicSavant]

The Wizard is fighting two goblins armed with clubs. I guess that they only have +4 effective HPs, in that case.

As opposed to the weaponry a goblin normally uses, in which case it would be worth a minimum of 11 hp (more if both goblins are targeting the Wizard, since a single shield has a fair chance of negating multiple attacks). Nearly 3 times your estimate.

Moreover, 2 goblins with their normal weaponry (rather than your nerfed versions) are only an Easy encounter for 4 level 1 PCs. With your nerfs, they'd be Trivial.

Surely there are better opportunities over the course of the day to use Shield. Either that or you are playing a very tame game that is not testing the limits of classes at all.

If you want to argue 'well, maybe there are no opportunities to use shield where it has any value, even with 6 encounters.' But that argument would be meaningless, because they could just use something else which is even more efficient in such a situation, like using an AoE to turn 5 goblins into 1 goblin. If a Wizard encounters an absolute worst case scenario for using a given spell, they just use something else.

You're acting like there's some obligation to use shield when you are dealing with a Trivial encounter. There isn't.


So having a +2 to AC from a regular shield should also be counted in the effective HPs increase. Of course.

The reason it's listed separately is because it's variable. A Wizard, Greatsword Paladin, and Archery Fighter would all have the same sustained AC, so you can just compare those directly as is.

[Edea]

...are...are we actually having an argument for wizard being the weakest class at level 1?

なに?

[LudicSavant]

...are...are we actually having an argument for wizard being the weakest class at level 1?

なに?

I know, right?

[Dork_Forge]

Important note: if you're playing a wizard, don't forget to spend 50 gp on a spellbook! :)

And a focus or pouch... Taking the starting gold option instead of starting equipment is far worse for a Wizard almost every single time.

[MaxWilson]

Not the point. The Wizard could just be showing off, or winning a bet that they can beat two Commoners without weapon or attack spells.


Point is, it also applies to the more plausible example of goblins with clubs, or kobolds with slings, or the like.

Shield boosts the AC, it should be counted in the AC overview, not as in a bonus to effective HPs proportional to the damage the enemy risks to do.

Otherwise the +2 of a physical shield should also be counted in the effective HPs total, since it also help prevents hits.

Okay, now I understand what your point was. Thanks for clarifying.

[Nagog]

Ranger's level 1 is particularly awful. They have no combat abilities save basic proficiencies, and their noncombat abilities are less potent than those of, say, a Rogue or Wizard.


Ranger; they have zero level 1 combat features, except martial weapons, medium armor and d10 HD.

Variant Ranger has come a long way for that, to the point that a Ranger dip on my Wisdom based builds is about as tempting to me as a Hexblade dip is for those who don't detest that. Concentration-free Hunter's Mark a few times a day and your choice of an Expertise, a Short Rest Only feature, or multiple types of movement speed. All of which are great for different things, but also just great in general.

Personally I'd say Rogue or Artificer. Rogue was popped up a few times here already, but I feel Artificer is also in the running for it. They have very few skill proficiencies, very little spellcasting at early levels, and no other features that would bring a half caster (even a spellcasting focused half caster) up to par with other spellcasters. High level Artificers are extremely powerful (using a TSAR to launch 4 or 5 Fireballs with a bonus action is the pinnacle of Blaster after all), but at their meager beginnings they are about as meager as you can get.

[LudicSavant]

Assuming a "standard" adventuring day (e.g. 2 short rests) and good tactics, I'd probably put it as something roughly like...

Strong
Warlock
Cleric
Barbarian
Wizard
Fighter

Medium
Artificer (Good defenses and utility, but low offense. Guidance, Create Bonfire, no need for Mage Armor, can pick up downed allies, 3 extra tool proficiencies)
Paladin (Less effective HP and damage than Strong tier martials, but at least can rescue teammates from the death gate up to 5 times with LoH)
Druid (Goodberries, Guidance, and Create Bonfire along with no need for Mage Armor makes this solid. Could even be Strong if the campaign structure permits a 'goodberry hedging' strategy, since nothing else can bring that kind of healing to the table)

Weak
Sorcerer
Bard
Rogue (needs party synergy and consistent sneak attack in order to work, and Guidance is a bigger bonus than Expertise at this level, and their defenses are meh)
Monk (actually has DPR comparable to a Dual-Wielding style Fighter, but everything else about them is bad. Tertiary Con means they might as well have a d6 HD, and unlike the other d6 HD classes they need to stick to melee to get meaningful damage. And zero utility)

Weakest
Ranger (the worst of the classes that get medium armor + shield. And the classes that don't have a shield can stay at range, going from cover to cover like it's XCOM, and at least have some sort of utility or offense niche better than the Ranger. The Ranger, on the other hand, is just a worse version of other people doing the same thing).

Additional references:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24680540&postcount=160
https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24677263&postcount=67


Variant Ranger has come a long way for that, to the point that a Ranger dip on my Wisdom based builds is about as tempting to me as a Hexblade dip is for those who don't detest that. Concentration-free Hunter's Mark a few times a day and your choice of an Expertise, a Short Rest Only feature, or multiple types of movement speed. All of which are great for different things, but also just great in general.

Personally I'd say Rogue or Artificer. Rogue was popped up a few times here already, but I feel Artificer is also in the running for it. They have very few skill proficiencies, very little spellcasting at early levels, and no other features that would bring a half caster (even a spellcasting focused half caster) up to par with other spellcasters. High level Artificers are extremely powerful (using a TSAR to launch 4 or 5 Fireballs with a bonus action is the pinnacle of Blaster after all), but at their meager beginnings they are about as meager as you can get.

Hmm, why do you feel Artificer is bad at 1? I don't understand the "few proficiencies" comment. Unless I've somehow missed something, Artificers get an above-average number of proficiencies, and Guidance on top of it. And they arguably get more spellcasting than a Sorcerer because their armor is taken care of without a need for slots, and they have more spells prepared.

As for variant Ranger, my ratings do not take into account UA.

[Edea]

<ze list>

I think the only thing on there I find even remotely surprising position-wise is the Bard. I would've said medium for them, but the Font of Inspiration dip-protection 'feature' really does screw them pre-5th level.

[Yakk]

At level 1, they have the best L 1 cantrip (mockery), 3 uses of inspiration per day (which isn't bad), 2 spell slots (including healing word and dissonant whispers, some of the best level 1 spells in the game), and light armor.

Mockery is at-will crowd control, and enemies that swing twice at level 1 are bosses. So "save or suck" for a round is strong.

Dissonant whispers on a party with 2 or more melee is "save or die" on L 1 foes. Healing word is top notch "save ally when down".

The inspiration is just icing on the cake. Sure, you get 3 per day, but look at the level 1 XP daily budget -- it is tiny. And even without it you have a solid kit.

[LudicSavant]

It's funny you guys say that, since Bard is one of the ratings I was most on the fence about (Divine Soul, too).

[Edea]

Divine Soul would be able to use choice cleric cantrips...yeah, that's quite a bump for 1st level.

Ugh, the sorcerer...I want to re-do that class so badly...

[Eldariel]

It's funny you guys say that, since Bard is one of the ratings I was most on the fence about (Divine Soul, too).

I'd definitely put Bard at Medium simply because:
- They can still cast Sleep
- They can still cast Minor Illusion
- They generally operate at range which in a party setup (not solo, of course) gives them decent defensive options
- They still operate just fine with Light Crossbow at range

If the class were more melee oriented or if it had a worse spell list I'd think differently but as it stands I don't think it's right to put any Sleep caster in the bottom tier regardless of their other features. That spell just wins a couple of encounters per day single-handedly and if you have 6-8 encounters, one character basically autowinning 2 of them is pretty huge in a party of 4 (4 such characters autowin 8 encounters per day, for reference).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'd definitely put Bard at Medium simply because:
- They can still cast Sleep
- They can still cast Minor Illusion
- They generally operate at range which in a party setup (not solo, of course) gives them decent defensive options
- They still operate just fine with Light Crossbow at range

If the class were more melee oriented or if it had a worse spell list I'd think differently but as it stands I don't think it's right to put any Sleep caster in the bottom tier regardless of their other features. That spell just wins a couple of encounters per day single-handedly and if you have 6-8 encounters, one character basically autowinning 2 of them is pretty huge in a party of 4 (4 such characters autowin 8 encounters per day, for reference).

I'm having a tough time seeing any character with 2 spells as weak: got to be medium or strong. That includes the Sorcerer, which is trickier to rate as it does depend on Subclass. Dragon basically gets a free spell with the natural armor. Others have commented on Divine, but they all get something.
Not sure why Paladin is getting a free pass here, maybe because it is generally excellent at higher level. Heavy armor is no better than Med at this point. They don't have a fighting style. There is very little separating them from Rangers; if the updated ranger was used with the +2 damage bonus to an enemy that was moderately common I'd rate that as better than 5 hp of healing, and Paladin would be last. At best it's in the weak group.

[Tanarii]

Heavy armor is no better than Med at this point.
The only two classes that start with Scale are Cleric and Ranger. Most rangers are Dex and Stealth and want to seriously consider if they want to use Scale or not. Clerics need a Dex of 14 to match heavy armor. Common but not automatic, it's an investment to get a 14 ability score.

[MrStabby]

I'd definitely put Bard at Medium simply because:
- They can still cast Sleep
- They can still cast Minor Illusion
- They generally operate at range which in a party setup (not solo, of course) gives them decent defensive options
- They still operate just fine with Light Crossbow at range

If the class were more melee oriented or if it had a worse spell list I'd think differently but as it stands I don't think it's right to put any Sleep caster in the bottom tier regardless of their other features. That spell just wins a couple of encounters per day single-handedly and if you have 6-8 encounters, one character basically autowinning 2 of them is pretty huge in a party of 4 (4 such characters autowin 8 encounters per day, for reference).

Sleep is OK, but its only really good if you have enough spells known to be able to cover off enemies not covered by sleep (like undead) with other spells. Sleep on Bard is great, sleep on a sorcerer is... often a bit of a trap depending on the campaign.

I also don't think that being melee focussed is bad. Being able to pin down an enemy and protect your back line is really valuable, and is even more valuable at 1st level where your back line won't last long if anything gets to it. The ability to protect gets more important the greater the need for it is.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

The only two classes that start with Scale are Cleric and Ranger. Most rangers are Dex and Stealth and want to seriously consider if they want to use Scale or not. Clerics need a Dex of 14 to match heavy armor. Common but not automatic, it's an investment to get a 14 ability score.
Re: the Ranger, That doesn't make Heavy better. Rangers just have the option of reducing their AC by 1 point in order to get a perceived benefit that would in theory compensate for the loss. They still have the option of putting on the scale.
Re: the Cleric, OK, not automatic, but Dex is widely considered to be one of if not the top ability. It's less of an investment than the 15 Str (a bottom stat) Heavy Armor users likely invest so that they can put on the splint or plate that will be coming soon. I've not played with a Med Armor Cleric that doesn't have a 14 Dex minimum, though we use point buy, so I suppose if you rolled it's possible.
I'm sticking with Heavy being no better than Med at 1st level. Given the stealth option you mentioned and stat investments I'd probably give Med an edge at second thought.

[Waazraath]

Obviously there are more factors involved in this, but we can at least get a sort of baseline comparison here.

Assumptions:
- You can actually use your starting wealth.
- We have a 'standard adventuring day' with 2 short rests.

Paladin:
Effective HP: 10 (HD) + 2 (Tertiary Con) + 5 (LoH) + 1d10+2 (short rest HD) = 24.5 hp
AC: 16 or 18 (shield)
Attack: 1d8+3 (5.1 vs AC13) or 2d6+3 (6.85 vs AC13).

Less damage than a Fighter or Barbarian, and less total healing/mitigation too. The one thing the Paladin has going for them (that isn't represented in these numbers) is that their healing can be given to OTHER people, and that it can be used to pick someone up off the 0hp death gate up to 5 times. So that's nice.

Barbarian:
Effective HP: 12 (HD) + 3 (Secondary Con) + 1d12+3 (short rest HD) +2 rages (we have to guestimate how much these will be worth in practice, and we can't just say it's a doubling since sane enemies tend to want to redirect their attacks when someone's raging, or even try to interrupt the rage. Or just use non-physical damage. Let's say 10 hp / rage, which I think is fairly generous since it's 2/3rds of a doubling) = 44.5 hp
AC: 16 or 18 (shield)
Attack: 1d8+3 (5.1 vs AC13) or 2d6+3 (6.85 vs AC13).
Attack (Rage 2/day): 1d8+5 (6.4 vs AC13) 2d6+5 (8.15 vs AC13) or dual-wielding 2d6+7 (9.45 vs AC13)

Note that the dual-wielding numbers can only come on rounds 2+ of the Rage (since Rage takes a bonus action to start), but also that a Barbarian doesn't need to worry about taking the Two Weapon Fighting style in order to do it, so they can just use dual-wielding when it's convenient for them then drop it later (whereas the Fighter probably wants to avoid the dual-wielding style because they don't want to suck later).

They also have other things going for them, like the fact that they get Advantage on grapple checks while raging. That's good. Overall I think I'll hand this one to the Barbarian over the Fighter, though not by a lot.

Fighter
Effective HP: 10 (HD) + 3 (Secondary Con) + 1d10+3 (short rest HD) + 3d10+3 (Second Wind x3 in a 'standard adventuring day') = 41 hp
AC: Anywhere from 16-19 depending on shield and whether they took Defense style.
Attack: 1d8+5 (6.4 vs AC13), 2d6+3+reroll 1s&2s (7.7833...), +2 to hit @1d10+3 (6.65 vs AC 13), or dual-wielding 2d6+6 (8.8 vs AC 13)

The Fighter's healing listing here is a bit generous, because it assumes that he can always get the full value of it, despite its limitations (can't be given to an ally, needs you to be able to take actions after being hit, etc). But still, it's a solid showing. You get more consistent damage than the Barbarian thanks to Fighting Style, or a higher AC. But you have less bursts of power.

And yes, dual-wielding is actually a decent option at level 1. The issue is that its scaling is worse.

Warlock (Hexblade)
Effective HP: 8 (HD) + 3 (secondary Con) + 1d8+3 (short rest HD) + 12 (Hexblade's Curse healing x3) = 30.5 hp + (up to 3 Shields, worth 28.5 hp if they're negating just one orc hit each) = 59 hp. Alternatively, Armor of Agathys (mitigating 5 damage directly, and possibly more indirectly because of it retribution damage shortening enemy life) = 45.5 hp
AC 18 with a shield (which they have no reason not to use)
Attack: 1d8+3 (5.1 vs AC13), (b]8.025[/b] with Booming Blade rider, 7.05 with Green-Flame Blade rider
Attack (Hexblade's Curse): 1d8+5 and 19-20 critrate (6.625 vs AC13), 10.85 with Booming Blade rider, 8.575 with GFB rider
Attack (Hex): 1d8+1d6+3 (7.55 vs AC13), 10.475 with Booming Blade rider, 9.5 with Green-Flame Blade rider
Attack (Hex + Hexblade's Curse) 1d6+1d8+5 and 19-20 critrate (9.25 vs AC 13), 13.475 with BB rider, 11.2 with GFB rider

It should surprise absolutely no one that Hexblade is a wild beast at level 1. It's hard to pin down exact numbers here since there's a lot more variables/choices involved than the simpler martials, but their spells are strong and action-efficient (and they get 3 slots in an 'average' adventuring day), and their baseline melee capabilities with Hexblade's Curse and BB/GFB are strong. They can do bonfire combos too (though not as well as Wizards).

Wizard
Okay, so obviously Wizard is gonna be tough to quantify since their best features aren't their sustained damage and health. But to get a really lowball idea of a Wizard's potential, we can take a Wizard that invests their stats and slots into just using weaponry, Mage Armor, and Shield. Essentially a Wizard that is simulating being a martial.

Effective HP 6 (HD) + 3 (secondary Con) + 1d6+3 (short rest HD) + Shield x2 (Each shield is worth a minimum of one successful hit. Even if this only blocks 2 CR1/2 orc hits, it's worth 19 effective hp) = 34.5 hp
AC 16 w/ Mage Armor
Attack: 1d8+3 w/ Flyby Advantage (7.02 DPR vs AC 13), or 9.90625 with Green-Flame Blade rider, or 10.96875 with Booming Blade rider, or 8.495 with a high elf dual-wielding shortswords.

And you can tack on something like an Unseen Servant scattering ball bearings and the like on top of this, adding additional survivability.

Of course, this is lowballing the Wizard; realistically they have better options than just using melee and defensive spells, and they can give the familiar advantage to whoever in the party would get the most benefit from it (like the Hexblade), and things like familiar detection range (18 passive perception and 120 darkvision, and all the survivability advantages that come with that) are just left out.

And yet they're still beating the DPR of a Paladin with a two-handed weapon (or even the DPR of a Fighter with the Archery style), just because Flyby Advantage is that good. And they aren't doing that bad at effective HP while they're at it. Of course, Shield won't stop a lucky crit, but all sources of mitigation have a case where they have reduced efficiency (for example, Second Wind can lose efficiency to overhealing or just not getting damaged on a schedule that lines up with your short rests).

On the killing of familiars
Familiars aren't particularly easy targets when used properly. Their size makes it easy for them to find 3/4 or full cover, and Flyby allows them to repeatedly retreat to it (or just an out of reach position for melee foes) while still contributing.

Even if they do get killed, that's not necessarily a bad thing for the Wizard as long as they aren't given up for free by bad play. Any actions the enemy takes to successfully target the familiar are actions that aren't spent on PCs, and thus counts as extra "effective hit points," at the cost of lowering DPR for the remainder of the adventuring day. If the bad guys wanna take opportunity attacks in order to chase down the hit'n'run familiars, even better.

And it should not be difficult to afford at least 2 familiars, even if you're just heading out into the world with nothing but starting gear. You get an average of 100gp to start with as a Wizard, after all.

Some things on the math and assumptions. (used spoiler tages when using examples from official modules).

- as a prelude: somehow we assume a normal adventuring day with 2 short rest (fair, I'd say), but on the other hand, we're still using for some calculations a '2 orc encounter'. Though this of course is a possiblity at level 1, there are far more possibilities of course. From the campaigns I played in 5e (including some official adventure books, for example recently played the Sunless Citadel with a group) I'd say its more common to encounter more creatures of a lower CR. Ymmv, but this skews some of the math.
- same goes for: what opposition are you up against. In my experience (but again ymmv) many opponents at lvl 1 have 4 hp; that one of the things that makes monks so good (as does a duel wielding fighter), since each hit auto kills: the die isn't important, the +stat is.
- As the example above shows: just looking at averages/means, and adding up all potential hp together, is too simple a way to look at the math. Other example of this is mainly the way hp works as a buffer: a character with a lot won't go down when a character with a few will; which means it gets an action and does damage the next turn (and the downed one doesn't), while the downed one may take party rescources and actions to help it back up and prevent it from dying.

Paladin:
- though con is tertiary, they can get a 16 with point buy, if they want to. (the wizard has 16 in both tertiary and secondary stat).
- fair point about the healing, because in my experience, that's exactly what happens: you use LoH on party members that go down. Do note though that if you would calculate this in the same way as you calculate the benefit of shield, you would account for a number of 'orc hits' in damage. Party member goes doen, is at 0hp, gets up with 1 hp, takes 9.5 damage, goes down again at 0, etc. I don't think it should be calculated this way, but to illustrate how good this is. (given that it is a team game, this also leads to extra damage that a party member could do of course - not wanting to count it, but to illustrate the relativety of this kind of math).

Barbarian & fighter: no remarks.

Warlock:
- using hexblade gives a very unrealistic idea of the class, given how front loaded it is. Its relative overpoweredness has been discussed often enough. An Archfey or GOO warlock, with 14 AC, con as tertiary stat, and without a shield and med armor is in a very, very different possition at lvl 1.
- as for negating 'orc hits' with shield, this deserves some attention by itself below. A sword & board warlock isn't going to cast it though, due to the somatic component.

Wizard:
- shield is discussed below;
- AC 16: only 8 hours in a 24 hour day. Ymmv, but in many games that's AC 13 in some of the encounters.
- familiar: the owl has 1 hp. If it is annoying in a fight, I'd indeed calculate it as 'extra hp'; maybe 2 rounds of giving advantage, after that it's a target (and good for probably 1 attack). But to be honest, I think it is been take too much for granted anyway that it can give advantage, scout, etc. In a world where casters are common, and familiars, I think any guard worth her salt is shooting a bolt through any solitair rat, bat, snake and owl snooping around. As for components, likewise. I'm playing in OoTA atm, and we had no options to buy anything up to level 5. Plenty of homebrew campaigns don't start in a city where you can buy anything, but in a dungeon, a cel right before the start of the gladiator match, or the godforsaken middle of nowhere. These are playstyle and worldbuilidng issues, so obviously ymmv, but I hope this explains my perspective.
- how does a duel wielding wizard cast shield (somatic component)?
- why has the wizard a 16 in both secondary and tertiary (dex and con) and a paladin only a 14 in its tertiary?

The "shield" spell, regarding "Each shield is worth a minimum of one successful hit. Even if this only blocks 2 CR1/2 orc hits, it's worth 19 effective hp":
- incorrect, since it does not block a number of hits: for the wizard, with AC 16, you are still hit when the orc rolls a 16 or higher. Not only does shield does nothing, but an average roll will down the wizard immediately (9 hp vs 9.5 average orc damage). A natural 20, and not only will shield be useless, and the wizard will most likely go down, and even has a small (but not that small) chance of being insta-killed. Bottom line: shield may prevent 0 damage as well, and be worth 0 effective hp in these situations.
- the former point is important when comparing classes. This wizard with shield will block a number of hits by an orc, but if the orc rolls high, the wizard will go down more often than not (7/12th of the times, only keep standing on 1-5 on the d12 dam roll). The paladin, will go down less often (only on a 9 or higher, 1/4th of the times it gets hit by an orc). The raging barbarian has 0% chance to go down against that orc, and a non-raging barbarian only 1/12th. This is very important: cause it shows being a wizard is much higher liability. Like all AC, the shield spell only works in a number of cases, and if it doesn't it does nothing and it's just down to hp. If somebody goes down, it means less damage (from that character), but potentially also wasting another characters action to put the fallen character back up its feat, or to stabalize it. This is less of a problem for a warlock (with d8, potentially temp hp and con as secondary stat), but a big one for the wizard.
- I don't think you can assume it protects you against 9.5 damage per hit, see my prelude. Against more and weaker attacks, it will prevent far less (as others have at least implicitly stated).
- shield does nothing against against e.g. pit traps, falling of a cliff, etc., so assuming it is a number of hit points is less than accurate. And those are reasonable things to expect at lvl 1 in my experience.

[LudicSavant]

A sword & board warlock isn't going to cast it though, due to the somatic component.

There are ways around that. But if you don't want to use those, use the Armor of Agathys figures. That's why they're there...


*snip* Shield *snip*

We are making a rough estimate of the value of a spell slot that actually gets used. Therefore, a spell slot spent on Shield will never be worth zero damage, as you claim. This is because if an orc rolls a 16 or higher, the Wizard will not use the spell slot.

If you instead shift to the scenario of "lots of little creatures with 4 hp doing 2 damage each" or something, then the Wizard doesn't cast Shield, they use Burning Hands or Sleep or something, which may well end the encounter outright and be worth even more effective hit points.

A Wizard is not obligated to cast Shield at some arbitrary time, they use it if and when it would be reasonable for a Wizard to cast it.


- shield does nothing against against e.g. pit traps, falling of a cliff, etc., so assuming it is a number of hit points is less than accurate. And those are reasonable things to expect at lvl 1 in my experience.

Indeed, every form of mitigation has circumstances where it doesn't work, or works at reduced capacity. For example, Rage will do little if enemies only use elemental attacks on you. Or if they interrupt your rage. Or if they just don't target you after you use it. This is why the post you quoted already says that there are more variables involved here, and even specifically gives an example where Shield would get no value.

Incidentally, Wizards are pretty resilient against traps in my experience, thanks to their high Investigation and their familiar's high Perception, plus the fact that they make Unseen Servants open or operate things when they can, or use Detect Magic, or march piles of dirt over pressure plates with Mold Earth, or the like.

You have an entire toolbox available. Saying that a hammer is not very good against screws is not a particularly good argument against the toolbox, especially when that toolbox includes a screwdriver.


- fair point about the healing, because in my experience, that's exactly what happens: you use LoH on party members that go down. Do note though that if you would calculate this in the same way as you calculate the benefit of shield, you would account for a number of 'orc hits' in damage. Party member goes doen, is at 0hp, gets up with 1 hp, takes 9.5 damage, goes down again at 0, etc. I don't think it should be calculated this way, but to illustrate how good this is. (given that it is a team game, this also leads to extra damage that a party member could do of course - not wanting to count it, but to illustrate the relativety of this kind of math).

I think that Paladin is worth more than shown for this reason, which is why I pointed it out. However, it can't be measured quite the same way that Shield can, because of a few factors... the most important being that it takes an Action to use (which means the enemy lives longer), doesn't take effect immediately (so an ally could miss a turn), and the revived ally is prone. All of this means that it doesn't actually negate the full value of a hit, the way that Shield does.

[Unoriginal]

We are making a rough estimate of the value of a spell slot that actually gets used. Therefore, a spell slot spent on Shield will never be worth zero damage, as you claim. This is because if an orc rolls a 16 or higher, the Wizard will not use the spell slot.

That is only if the DM is the kind to tell you what number the attack got instead of just telling the player "your Wizard's AC is X, right? You're hit, do you want to use Shield or another reaction?"

[LudicSavant]

That is only if the DM is the kind to tell you what number the attack got instead of just telling the player "your Wizard's AC is X, right? You're hit, do you want to use Shield or another reaction?"

That's true. It would be different if you did not know the value of the roll.

[Tanarii]

Re: the Ranger, That doesn't make Heavy better. Rangers just have the option of reducing their AC by 1 point in order to get a perceived benefit that would in theory compensate for the loss. They still have the option of putting on the scale.Rangers choose between medium and light, so it's 2-3 points lower to use Stealth. And IMx the vast majority of Rangers go with the lower AC. Unless they're doing a SRanger.


Re: the Cleric, OK, not automatic, but Dex is widely considered to be one of if not the top ability. It's less of an investment than the 15 Str (a bottom stat) Heavy Armor users likely invest so that they can put on the splint or plate that will be coming soon. I've not played with a Med Armor Cleric that doesn't have a 14 Dex minimum, though we use point buy, so I suppose if you rolled it's possible.I've seen many players put their 14 in Con instead of Dex on a medium armor caster-oriented character. They figure their PC isn't intended to be front line so AC 14-15 is sufficient, and hit points are better because they cover magic damage as well as physical. But yes, Dex 14 isn't uncommon.


I'm sticking with Heavy being no better than Med at 1st level. Given the stealth option you mentioned and stat investments I'd probably give Med an edge at second thought.I guess my real point was: it's heavy vs light/none that matters. Medium is extremely niche at level 1. So I mean fair enough, you're really talking about 5/9 of one class and a fraction of another. Then sure, you're basically right.

It's pretty universally Heavy and Medium armor proficiency that are the strongest and is pretty much universally the 6 light/none that are the weaker. At level 1.

Weakest to strongest at level 1:
Bard
Rogue
Sorcerer
Wizard
Monk
Ranger (Dex)
Warlock
Druid
Barbarian (no rage)
Ranger (Str)
Paladin
Cleric
Fighter
Barbarian (rage)

[Waazraath]

We are making a rough estimate of the value of a spell slot that actually gets used. Therefore, a spell slot spent on Shield will never be worth zero damage, as you claim. This is because if an orc rolls a 16 or higher, the Wizard will not use the spell slot.

I beg to differ. You translate the spell slots used on shield to HP, I presume to show that the class has some resilience at level 1 (correct me if I'm wrong). But this calculation is flawed. I mean, you wrote: "Each shield is worth a minimum of one successful hit. Even if this only blocks 2 CR1/2 orc hits, it's worth 19 effective hp".
- many players don't know how dangerous a creature is (and if much damage is to be expected or not)
- in many games, you don't know if shield will help to avoid the hit (as Unoriginal mentioned)
- the HP's of a wizard are that low, that it in danger to go down to even a moderately low damage hit, like from an orc javelin. It's 1d6+3, average 6.5. If you get targeted by one, will you use shield? If not, there's 1/6 chance that you go down, waste an action, waste party healing and action resources. Use shield? You prevented only 6.5 average.
- and of course, it goes for all classes that they can't use features when they are knocked out. But some classes go out a lot earlier, which impacts what you can (also mathematically) to do. That's why a ranger, though its level 1 features are bloody poor, is still to be preferred in a party compared to a rogue (at lvl 1). This is a point on its own, and not per se related to the shield spell, but it is an extra agument why you really can't say "each casting of shield = 9.5 hp". That wizard in the fight with 2 orcs, who had an unlucky crit at the first attack, and died, got to cast 0 shields that added 0 hp. Other classes have a (much) smaller chance that this will happen to them, up to 0 for a barbarian.

And yeah, I understand it's far to tedious to calculate all this, and then you need to calculate a lot of other stuff as well if you want to be fair... but I think it is still safe to say this is an advantage for the wizard and overestimating shield.

So, while you state in your earlier post that you are 'lowballing' the wizard, given all points above I think you are not: you are artificially inflating its (staying) power above what is realistic, through the disputable choices you make in your calculations. On shield, as I argue here, but also through the familiar (always gives advantage and always available) and mage armor (always on).

As for the Paladin, I agree with you, but I think a number of at least as strong objections could be made against calculating shield the way you do (see above for that).

Finally, I'm still curious why the paladin can only have 14 in a tertiary stat and a wizard can get a 16 in a tertiarty stat?

[JNAProductions]

Finally, I'm still curious why the paladin can only have 14 in a tertiary stat and a wizard can get a 16 in a tertiarty stat?

Especially since Half-Elves offer +2 to the Paladin's secondary, and +1 to two other stats. Meaning that they (along with other Charisma classes) are the easiest to get three 16s in.

[MaxWilson]

The only two classes that start with Scale are Cleric and Ranger. Most rangers are Dex and Stealth and want to seriously consider if they want to use Scale or not. Clerics need a Dex of 14 to match heavy armor. Common but not automatic, it's an investment to get a 14 ability score.

Any class except the Monk can start with scale armor as sharing equipment.

[Unoriginal]

Finally, I'm still curious why the paladin can only have 14 in a tertiary stat and a wizard can get a 16 in a tertiarty stat?

LudicSavant listed the Wizard's CON as a secondary stat.

I get the principle (some optimizers prefer high DEX for the casters, but not all), but I don't think I've ever seen any optimizer prioritize a Paladin's CHA over their CON unless they were preparing a multiclass in Sorcerer (or Warlock).

[MaxWilson]

LudicSavant listed the Wizard's CON as a secondary stat.

I get the principle (some optimizers prefer high DEX for the casters, but not all), but I don't think I've ever seen any optimizer prioritize a Paladin's CHA over their CON unless they were preparing a multiclass in Sorcerer (or Warlock).

That implies that *every* optimized paladin makes Cha the highest priority. :)

I can't imagine ever planning not to multiclass eventually. Paladin 6 or 9 is as far as I would normally go.

[Waazraath]

LudicSavant listed the Wizard's CON as a secondary stat.

Yes, which makes dex tertiary, and given that the wizards AC is 16 with mage armor implies a 16 dex as well, unless I'm missing something.


(besides, I alwyas priortitize cha over con when making a pally; and multiclassing a paladin is highly overrated, but we can do that disucssion another time ;-))

[LudicSavant]

But this calculation is flawed. I mean, you wrote: "Each shield is worth a minimum of one successful hit. Even if this only blocks 2 CR1/2 orc hits, it's worth 19 effective hp".

That calculation is correct. If it blocks 2 hits from orcs, then it's worth 19 effective hit points. That's true for any game where seeing the roll allows you to determine if it'd be a hit or miss after Shield (which, in my experience is the overwhelming majority of them, both in those I've participated in and those I've even heard about on the internet. YMMV, of course).

If you want to argue about whether or not you think that's a reasonable average, then we can do that. But if you want to say the calculation is wrong, then that'd just be mathematically incorrect.


in many games, you don't know if shield will help to avoid the hit
And in many games, you do.

If you're playing in a game with a different ruling, that doesn't mean that calculation is flawed, it means it's answering a different question than the one you're asking.


the HP's of a wizard are that low, that it in danger to go down to even a moderately low damage hit, like from an orc javelin. It's 1d6+3, average 6.5. If you get targeted by one, will you use shield? If not, there's 1/6 chance that you go down, waste an action, waste party healing and action resources. Use shield? You prevented only 6.5 average.

You prevented 6.5 average against a 1d6+3 attack (or 13 across 2 shields). The question is whether a 1d6+3 attack represents an average (rather than a minimum) of the kinds of attacks you might spend your Shield on, which I don't think would be a good estimate for an optimizer who is skillfully managing their resources.

You could just as easily say that if it was a hit from an Awakened Tree, it would be 14.5, or from an Ogre, it'd be 13, or from a Hobgoblin, it'd be 12.5, or from a Ghoul, it'd be 9, or 7+Paralysis, or from a Giant Hyena, it'd be 10, or from a Hippogriff, it'd be 10+another attack, or from a Maw Demon, it'd be 11, or from a Quickling, it'd be 8+2 more attacks, or from an Azer, it'd be 12, or from a...

And so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on. And you could potentially multiply any of those by 2 shields.

Indeed, if I wasn't lowballing, I'd be giving numbers reflective of what I've actually spent my spell slots on in high-op games, in which case all my examples would be from Hard or Deadly encounters... but you think a single hit from a CR 1/2 monster is an unrealistic use of Shield? LOL. I mean, if you think a 1d6+3 javelin is that scary I wonder what you'd think of a game where you have to fight Quicklings at level 1...

Even if you did somehow decide that 1d6+3 was an average mitigation, rather than a minimum (really? Who uses Shield on things that do less damage than that?), then that'd still make the 2x Shields worth 13hp.

[Dessunri]

Costing a bonus action for an extra d4 with weak weapons VS sneak attacking for an extra d6 with a longsword for free.

Most level 1s don't have a lot to do with their bonus action so may as well get an extra d4 damage out of it. Not to mention that you won't have sneak attack 100% of the time as a rogue.

[Waazraath]

That calculation is correct. If it blocks 2 hits from orcs, then it's worth 19 effective hit points. That's true for any game where seeing the roll allows you to determine if it'd be a hit or miss after Shield (which, in my experience is the overwhelming majority of them, both in those I've participated in and those I've even heard about on the internet. YMMV, of course).

If you want to argue about whether or not you think that's a reasonable average, then we can do that. But if you want to say the calculation is wrong, then that'd just be mathematically incorrect.

My point isn't that 2 * 9.5 isn't 19. My point is that you can't just transform an AC bonus to HP, because there are a lot of other variables that will effect if you can really do this. In this sense I think you math is off not because your calculation is wrong, but because your using the wrong model, if that makes sense.



You prevented 6.5 average against a 1d6+3 attack (or 13 across 2 shields). The question is whether a 1d6+3 attack represents an average (rather than a minimum) of the kinds of attacks you might spend your Shield on, which I don't think would be a good estimate for an optimizer who is skillfully managing their resources.

You could just as easily say that if it was a hit from an Awakened Tree, it would be 14.5, or from an Ogre, it'd be 13, or from a Hobgoblin, it'd be 12.5, or from a Ghoul, it'd be 9, or 7+Paralysis, or from a Giant Hyena, it'd be 10, or from a Hippogriff, it'd be 10+another attack, or from a Maw Demon, it'd be 11, or from a Quickling, it'd be 8+2 more attacks, or from an Azer, it'd be 12, or from a...

And so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on. And you could potentially multiply any of those by 2 shields.

Indeed, if I wasn't lowballing, I'd be giving numbers reflective of what I've actually spent my spell slots on in high-op games, in which case all my examples would be from Hard or Deadly encounters... but you think a single hit from a CR 1/2 monster is an unrealistic use of Shield? LOL. I mean, if you think a 1d6+3 javelin is that scary I wonder what you'd think of a game where you have to fight Quicklings at level 1...

Even if you did somehow decide that 1d6+3 was an average mitigation, rather than a minimum (really? Who uses Shield on things that do less damage than that?), then that'd still make the 2x Shields worth 13hp.

But you do realize that the bigger monster you pick, and the higher damage you pick, the worse place a level 1 wizard is in? Cause a reasonable chance remains that he gets hit with an attack which shield cannot prevent - and the ones that do serious damage can insta-kill the wizard even without critting (and have a very high chance of insta-kill if they do crit). Against lots of small critters: shield is useless. Against 1 very big critter: the consequenses can be very severe if shield is not enough. Both mean that you can't just pick an average amount of damage, multiply it by 2 and say "this is hp".

Same with the example of the javelin. It does 6.5 damage on average, great nothing to worry about with 9 hp. But in reality, it will never do 6.5 damage, and 1 in 6 times it will do 9, and take the 9hp wizard straight out of the fight, reducing its damage contribution by lots.


Ergo: the wizard isn't in a very comfortable place at level 1.

[Eldariel]

My point isn't that 2 * 9.5 isn't 19. My point is that you can't just transform an AC bonus to HP, because there are a lot of other variables that will effect if you can really do this. In this sense I think you math is off not because your calculation is wrong, but because your using the wrong model, if that makes sense.




But you do realize that the bigger monster you pick, and the higher damage you pick, the worse place a level 1 wizard is in? Cause a reasonable chance remains that he gets hit with an attack which shield cannot prevent - and the ones that do serious damage can insta-kill the wizard even without critting (and have a very high chance of insta-kill if they do crit). Against lots of small critters: shield is useless. Against 1 very big critter: the consequenses can be very severe if shield is not enough. Both mean that you can't just pick an average amount of damage, multiply it by 2 and say "this is hp".

Same with the example of the javelin. It does 6.5 damage on average, great nothing to worry about with 9 hp. But in reality, it will never do 6.5 damage, and 1 in 6 times it will do 9, and take the 9hp wizard straight out of the fight, reducing its damage contribution by lots.


Ergo: the wizard isn't in a very comfortable place at level 1.

Actually against a lot of small creatures Shield is very good since the AC bonus persists. You can almost make them critfish; if you have 16 AC and cast Shield, +4 attackers are looking at 17+ or 20% odds of hitting.

[Waazraath]

Actually against a lot of small creatures Shield is very good since the AC bonus persists. You can almost make them critfish; if you have 16 AC and cast Shield, +4 attackers are looking at 17+ or 20% odds of hitting.

You have a point... but lets say you have 4 kobolds with slings. If all attack a different party member, this doesn't fly. And if a large number of creatures is attacking, and see that the first fews attempts is ineffective (because of lets say, stones that should have hit get deflected by an invisible barrier), the latter monsters might target someone else. Ymmv here though, because some DM's prefer to pick targets and roll all dice at the same time.

[LudicSavant]

My point is that you can't just transform an AC bonus to HP, because there are a lot of other variables that will effect if you can really do this.

I already mentioned this myself in the very post that you believe you are making a point about. I very specifically addressed crit risk, too.


But you do realize that the bigger monster you pick, and the higher damage you pick, the worse place a level 1 wizard is in?

It's not so simple or one-sided as that.

For every single variable you've said is being left out that would disadvantage the Wizard (even though... they're things I actually mentioned before you did...), there's several more that helps their survivability that were also left out, which you seem conspicuously unconcerned about.

- The fact that they're at range and have every ability to play like it's XCOM, always staying behind cover (even creating it themselves). This provides a frequent AC benefit.
- The fact that they can be dropping ball bearings and the like from Unseen Servant or Familiar, or using various tactics involving spells or cantrips, making it difficult to reach them in the first place.
- The fact that they can bring quick ends to particularly dangerous foes (for example, Quicklings, which can down *and* finish off a Barbarian before they can act. Or taking care of multiple enemies in an otherwise troublesomely fortified position (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDkAL65tSQ0). Or plenty of other examples).
- The fact that they give the whole party a lot of Surprise resistance. Getting Surprised is often deadly at level 1, whether you have medium armor or not. Even Barbarians can go down before they can rage in such circumstances.
- The fact that they're very good at removing traps.
- The fact that they can block chokepoints with bonfire combos, and can use a 'bonfire marching' strategy that makes dungeoneering a lot safer for everyone.
- And so on.

Nobody's ignoring the risk that a Wizard can get crit down; I'm fully aware that with an AC 16 and nothing else at all being used, there's an 8.3% risk in your example. But Wizards and Fighters are bringing different things to the party, and are strong (and weak) against different things.

[Waazraath]

I already mentioned this myself in the very post that you believe you are making a point about. I mentioned crit risk, too.

As far as I can see you haven't brought up a single thing that I haven't addressed already.



For every single variable you claim is being left out that would disadvantage the Wizard (even though... they're things I actually mentioned before you did...), there's several more that helps their survivability that were also left out.

- The fact that they're at range and have every ability to play like it's XCOM, always staying behind cover (even creating it themselves).
- The fact that they can bring quick ends to particularly dangerous foes (for example, Quicklings, which can down *and* finish off a Barbarian before they can act. Or taking care of enemies in an otherwise troublesomely fortified position (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDkAL65tSQ0). Or plenty of other examples).
- The fact that they give the whole party a lot of Surprise resistance. Getting Surprised is often deadly at level 1, whether you have medium armor or not.
- The fact that they're very good at removing traps.
- The fact that they can block chokepoints with bonfire combos, and can use a 'bonfire marching' strategy that makes dungeoneering a lot safer for everyone.
- And so on.

Nobody's ignoring the risk that a Wizard can get crit down. But Wizards and Fighters are bringing different things to the party. I'd much rather have a Wizard and a Fighter than 2 Fighters at level 1, if I was going into a real meat grinder campaign.


Well, among others I'm still really curious why a wizard can start with 16/16/16 in prim/sec/tert stat, and a pally only with 16/16/14 - especially as already has been said that the pally has it easier with half-elf to actually get there.

And yes, you mentioned crit risk, and then waive it away against a few points of overhealing a second wind might do. The latter is inconvenient, the former means character death. If you can't see the difference, I don't know what. And you ignore the fact that "being taken out of the fight", which really happens earlier for a low ac/low hp class, negatively influences damage (not part of the calculations). For me, I still see a biased picture, combining the way you calculate familiars, shield, and mentioned ability scores, the fact that familiairs don't seem to get targeted, that components for them are freely available, etc. Part of this is probably just the way the game is played at your table, fair enough, good luck have fun. But I still object against the way some of these things are translated to your numbers, cause how stuff is played out at my tables: it simply doesn't work this way, and thus the numbers really don't add up the way you do. Given the different points of reference, I don't think there's much sense in continuing the discussion.

[LudicSavant]

Well, among others I'm still really curious why a wizard can start with 16/16/16 in prim/sec/tert stat

Yes, which makes dex tertiary, and given that the wizards AC is 16 with mage armor implies a 16 dex as well, unless I'm missing something.

It's not 16/16/16.


Okay, so obviously Wizard is gonna be tough to quantify since their best features aren't their sustained damage and health. But to get a really lowball idea of a Wizard's potential, we can take a Wizard that invests their stats and slots into just using weaponry, Mage Armor, and Shield. Essentially a Wizard that is simulating being a martial.

As mentioned, it's a Wizard investing their resources into just using weaponry, as opposed to what I'd normally have them do.

Anyways, even if we replace the assumptions with 14 Con and only a 6.5 for Shield (which looks much more like a minimum use case than an average to me), it still ends up with more effective HP vs attack rolls than a 16 AC Paladin, at 26.5.

In practice I would expect a skilled Wizard to both deal and mitigate a good deal more damage than this by utilizing spells / cantrips / rituals / tactics appropriate to the situation. And to take good advantage of range, cover, etc. Same goes for the Paladin to some extent too -- Lay on Hands is worth a bit more than its raw value due to being able to yo-yo.

[Waazraath]

(edit: deleted one earlier post above where things were threathening to become less than friendly)

Ah, that's what you meant with "muscle wizard". I assumed it for granted, even with max dex and con. Fair enough this. But I still think we better end this discussion.

You think your calculation on page 6 is an accepteble baseline (acknowledging it doesn't account for everything) - if I summarize your possition here correctly. I think it you can't make such a baseline in way that it really represents hp/durability, the stuff you can't account for being too important (and "better no calculation than a flawed calculation" is a pet peeve of mine, I'm aware of that). I don't think we're gonna find each other there. And there's no need either - lets just agree to disagree, and any reader of this thread can weigh the arguments and make up his or her own mind.

[LudicSavant]

cause how stuff is played out at my tables: it simply doesn't work this way, and thus the numbers really don't add up the way you do.

It is quite common for different groups to get extremely different results for Wizards, because differences in strategy make a massive difference to the results you'll get. And our strategies seem quite dissimilar (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24678049&postcount=80), specifically in ways that I would fully expect to result in differing effectiveness for Wizards.

Also you keep mentioning your hypothesis that familiars just must not be getting targeted. The thing is, I expect to be able to get my money's worth from a familiar even if the DM is specifically making enemies prioritize killing them. If anything, that's a circumstance I can play to my advantage.


And there's no need either - lets just agree to disagree, and any reader of this thread can weigh the arguments and make up his or her own mind.

Works for me.