Is it rare for your group's wizard to get attacked more than 4 rounds per long rest?

[Unoriginal]

A few comments in another thread have left me pretty puzzled, so I gotta ask:

Is it rare for your group's wizard to get attacked (including actual attacks and damaging save effects) more than 4 rounds per long rest?

I know that ideally a wizard would not get attacked at all... but that's not something any adventuring party I'm able to imagine can actually guarantee.

As in, yes, if what usually happens between long rests is only one fight against a solo boss or if the PCs managed to make all their fights happen in 10ft-wide hallways against only-melee enemies, I can get it, but in any fight where the number of enemies is equal or superior to the number of PCs, or if there is space for the foes to move around the PC, or if there are ranged weapons involved, or even if there is more than one fight against a solo boss, I don't see how the Wizard can only risk getting damaged four times per long rest.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Ignoring our gish wizards that pop up in our parties - No, it's not entirely uncommon for our Wizard (or Sorcerer) to be attacked at least that many times per rest. The deciding factor is whether those attacks result in anything, as in most cases a party member (my Redemption Paladin) takes the damage in their stead or they cast shield and take no damage.

But no, they do get attacked, fairly regularly. There's just a lot of effort put into mitigating the downsides of that.

[Unoriginal]

Ignoring our gish wizards that pop up in our parties - No, it's not entirely uncommon for our Wizard (or Sorcerer) to be attacked at least that many times per rest. The deciding factor is whether those attacks result in anything, as in most cases a party member (my Redemption Paladin) takes the damage in their stead or they cast shield and take no damage.

But no, they do get attacked, fairly regularly. There's just a lot of effort put into mitigating the downsides of that.

If you don't mind me asking, would you say they get attacked/threatened as often as other classes, even with the efforts to mitigate the downsides?

[Dimers]

Not rare at all for the one 5e game I'm in.


If you don't mind me asking, would you say they get attacked/threatened as often as other classes, even with the efforts to mitigate the downsides?

In our case, the wizard tends to draw attention in non-mechanics ways (a real troublemaker IC) and doesn't even have shield as a spell known. Pretty sure he would've died a couple times by now if the DM weren't in the habit of randomizing which target an enemy attacks.

[ProsecutorGodot]

If you don't mind me asking, would you say they get attacked/threatened as often as other classes, even with the efforts to mitigate the downsides?

It's either they become hard focused as a recognized threat (meaning they were attacked more than others that rest) or ignored because our defenses can't be overcome without suicidal maneuvers.

Hard to say, probably.

[TaiLiu]

Not at all. In the current campaign I’m in, spellcasters get attacked quite a bit, mostly because they can cast spells. The NPCs know to gang up on them. 😛

[MaxWilson]

A few comments in another thread have left me pretty puzzled, so I gotta ask:

Is it rare for your group's wizard to get attacked (including actual attacks and damaging save effects) more than 4 rounds per long rest?

I know that ideally a wizard would not get attacked at all... but that's not something any adventuring party I'm able to imagine can actually guarantee.

Hmm. It sort of depends on the party, whether the wizard is a tank, how many summons there are, the player's personal risk tolerance, and how big the battles are, but I'm fairly confident that it's as common for wizards to get attacked as fighters. (Sometimes those wizards are Polymorphed into giant angry apes at the time, but still, even then they're frequently in melee and they're being attacked, whereas the fighters are typically providing covering fire from 10-50+ yards away.)

Arguably this is stupid on the wizards' parts, and arguably they ought to be more cagey and summons-reliant and less tanky, but I guess everybody likes to be a little bit stupid sometimes. What fun is heavy armor if you're not going to wade into melee with it and Instinctive Charm some monsters into hitting each other while you Dodge? (Opportunity attacks yay!)

On the other hand, the answer to "how often do wizards get attacked while at half HP or less" is "quite rarely, probably not more than once every five or six Deadly+ fights," because injured wizards start being more prudent, and wizards have lots of tools to break contact when injured. When it does happen it's likely because they're already Paralyzed or Stunned or something from a prior attack/effect.

[Dork_Forge]

Not at all, not getting attacked would be pretty boring.

In my experience (both sides of the screen) full casters that aren't in melee by choice tend to get targeted less initially then targeted for more heavily once they start garnering attention with their casting. On average I'd probably say targeted about the same, more if the combats run longer.

[Unoriginal]

Not at all, not getting attacked would be pretty boring.

That is my feeling as well.

[Dork_Forge]

That is my feeling as well.

As a DM it's very entertaining watching the players reactions as some of the enemies spend turn one just dashing to get into the face of the casters.

[Lord Ruby34]

I'd say so t depends on the caution of the wizard. I once played a Wizard with 12 Con and rolled HP. I didn't get attacked much, usually because I wasn't in line of sight during the enemies' turns.

There's another wizard who gets attacked a great deal, because he likes to dramatically cast AoEs in the open.

[ad_hoc]

Not at all.

Enemy creatures have a very easy time of moving around and attacking PCs. Many have special movement abilities and most of the time creatures can just move past defensive PCs.

It's a weird thing that I encounter now and then on message boards where people just assume if a character doesn't want to be attacked they won't be.

If you are able to dictate which character gets attacked then your game just isn't very difficult. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that discussions of 'optimization' are going to be off as there is no appreciable challenge being experienced.

[Kvess]

I'd say so t depends on the caution of the wizard. I once played a Wizard with 12 Con and rolled HP. I didn't get attacked much, usually because I wasn't in line of sight during the enemies' turns.

There's another wizard who gets attacked a great deal, because he likes to dramatically cast AoEs in the open.

Yeah, my vote is: “It depends on the Wizard.”

If you aren’t using doors and hallways in dungeons to your advantage, you’re fair game. Intelligent enemies will target the bearded old man in robes and a pointy hat first, which is why you always hire the village drunk to hold your torch and insist on supplying the uniform.

[Keltest]

The wizard in my party likes to fly. The DM (me) likes to give the enemies archers. Accordingly, the wizard has obtained a healthy respect for locating cover and line of sight blockers.

[MaxWilson]

Not at all.

Enemy creatures have a very easy time of moving around and attacking PCs. Many have special movement abilities and most of the time creatures can just move past defensive PCs.

It's a weird thing that I encounter now and then on message boards where people just assume if a character doesn't want to be attacked they won't be.

If you are able to dictate which character gets attacked then your game just isn't very difficult. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that discussions of 'optimization' are going to be off as there is no appreciable challenge being experienced.

Unless the optimization lies in exactly the things that let you control/influence who's being attacked.

I'd love to see specifics of encounter construction here, to understand why certain people think it's infeasible for PCs to mostly avoid being attacked. (As opposed to deliberately not avoiding being attacked, because curbstomping the enemy isn't fun once you already know you can do it.)

Maybe it's just my DMing style but it's hard to think of a time when a prepared wizard wouldn't have been able to hide in a Rope Trick or turn invisible and hide or Dimension Door away if they really wanted to. Even in deliberately unfair Combat As Sport encounters like "suddenly you all fall through an extradimensional trap door and are now stuck fighting a Beholder and a Hydra to the death, at which point the pocket dimension will spit you out"--even in those extreme situations I can still think of ways the wizard (or even a hypothetical whole party of wizards) could have pretty well cooperately controlled which of them got attacked and died first. It just isn't that complicated to be less vulnerable than the guy who isn't trying to be less vulnerable than you.

Is my mistake that I'm assuming player cooperation? It is true that PCs who fail to cooperate effectively can make combat situations much more... chaotic, but I view that as a player issue, not a DM (encounter design) issue.

[heavyfuel]

I assume you asked about 4 times specifically because that's how many Shield spells one has, right?

While it's not rare, I think that's kinda of a false premise. You only need to use Shield if the attack hits you, so often you don't even need it. Plus, Arcane Recovery can be used to great effect recovering your 1st level slots. Sure, another big-ticket concentration spell is nice, but by level 5 you can already have 5 big-ticket concentration spell (though you probably have like 4 or 3) which is plenty.

Also, you won't waste a Shield if an attack goes through at like Round 4, because by Round 4 the combat is almost over anyway, so losing your concentration isn't a big deal.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Depends. If they're fighting enemies with at least an 8 in Intelligence (the 'minimum' for PCs, so I consider that smart enough to use basic tactics) and they're throwing around fireballs and hypnotic patterns, then no, it's not rare that they get attacked more than 4 times between long rests. Heck, they might get attacked four times in a round.

If they're standing in the back plinking away with cantrips? Then the enemies will probably assume that they're no threat and deal with the characters who are actually a problem. Basic threat evaluation isn't rocket science.

Now, if we're dealing with someone with, say, 12 Intelligence, they've going to target the spellcasters and the healers regardless of their presumed effectiveness.

I mean, you want ultimate cosmic power, you've got to pay the price. Game recognizes game.

[stoutstien]

A few comments in another thread have left me pretty puzzled, so I gotta ask:

Is it rare for your group's wizard to get attacked (including actual attacks and damaging save effects) more than 4 rounds per long rest?

I know that ideally a wizard would not get attacked at all... but that's not something any adventuring party I'm able to imagine can actually guarantee.

As in, yes, if what usually happens between long rests is only one fight against a solo boss or if the PCs managed to make all their fights happen in 10ft-wide hallways against only-melee enemies, I can get it, but in any fight where the number of enemies is equal or superior to the number of PCs, or if there is space for the foes to move around the PC, or if there are ranged weapons involved, or even if there is more than one fight against a solo boss, I don't see how the Wizard can only risk getting damaged four times per long rest.

I don't think they get attacked more or less than anyone else but they are pretty good at reducing the number of actual incoming hits from landing. So the illusion of being very fragile or being nearly invincible fall on the individual wizard's timing and decision making.

If I recall the original conversation was about the value of the shield/AE spell combined with a longer rest/recover system so spell slots are inherently more valuable. Sort of the extreme other end from the 5 minute adventuring day. Don't think it matters a heck of a lot because everyone's resources are also stretched out when trying to ascertain a slot's value.

[Rukelnikov]

In my experience it depends on the player. If the caster decides to not get attacked, and spends most of his actions on that, then yeah, its extremely rare they will be getting attacked more than 4 rounds per long rest. If they decide to play for fun and play "fair" then, no, its not rare at all.

Caveat: We usually have around 12 -15 rounds of combat per long rest (one extemely deadly fight)

[f5anor]

A few comments in another thread have left me pretty puzzled, so I gotta ask:

Is it rare for your group's wizard to get attacked (including actual attacks and damaging save effects) more than 4 rounds per long rest?

I know that ideally a wizard would not get attacked at all... but that's not something any adventuring party I'm able to imagine can actually guarantee.

I find your question interesting, as I am also often puzzled by assertions that a "squishy" character, typically a wizard, would be able to avoid being hit while constantly lobbing spells at the enemy.

As a DM I believe that in a world where magic is as common as in D&D, practically all creatures (that are intelligent enough) will have some perception of the power of magic and the potential danger it poses. A magic user of fairly low level can impose catastrophic conditions, control the battlefield very effectively, not to mention blast enemy creatures far more effectively than martials can.

Faced with a situation where the enemy tank is attempting to keep you from damaging the most dangerous combatant of the other side, my expectation is that all creatures with sufficient tactical ability would devise ways to avoid the tank and kill the magic user first. Typically this means focusing on ranged attacks against the magic user, rather than pointless melee attacks on the tank.

This may result in a situation where the "squishy" characters attract more ranged attacks (and damage) than the tanks, assuming that they have demonstrated significant magical abilities.

[KorvinStarmast]

A few comments in another thread have left me pretty puzzled, so I gotta ask:

Is it rare for your group's wizard to get attacked (including actual attacks and damaging save effects) more than 4 rounds per long rest? No, not rare at all, even at level 9. The shield spell is good all game long as far as we can tell.

I know that ideally a wizard would not get attacked at all... but that's not something any adventuring party I'm able to imagine can actually guarantee. The enemy gets a vote, especially if they have archers or creatures like orcs or gnolls who have that bonus move.

"because injured wizards start being more prudent, and wizards have lots of tools to break contact when injured." When it does happen it's likely because they're already Paralyzed or Stunned or something from a prior attack/effect. And the death spiral at that point is rapid. Mirror Image can only mitigate a few hits.

Heck, they might get attacked four times in a round. Which is where shield shines as a spell if it's cast against the first attack.

This may result in a situation where the "squishy" characters attract more ranged attacks (and damage) than the tanks, assuming that they have demonstrated significant magical abilities. See again the virtues of shield, for a whole round of incoming fire.

[Chronos]

If this is about the Shield spell, remember that you don't use Shield when you're attacked, only when you're hit (and not even always then). Enemy attacks you and just rolls low? No need for Shield. Enemy hits you, but it's a weak enemy and you're close to full HP? You can choose not to bother. Enemy rolls really well, enough so that they'd probably hit you anyway even with +5 AC (depending on how much you know about such things at your table)? Again, save the spell slot. And then, if you do use it, it's good for the rest of the round, so you can use one casting for a creature multiattacking you, or a bunch of archers all trying to focus-fire you, or whatever.

[Hael]

I've been in a few parties where there was the lack of a controller type and where the wizard/bard/sorcerer was more focused on being a 'blaster', but even then I would say proper party tactics makes it very hard for that caster to get surrounded, short of specific encounter designs or surprise rounds where it's forced. But if its happening on round 2 or 3, I would say there's almost assuredly a lack of party tactics, even in the case where the geometry is very cramped.

If the party knows whats coming, then even the most astute DMs are going to struggle on this point. Spells like phantom steed, various teleports, plant growth or rope tricks can make it very difficult for enemies to effectively engage.

[Cicciograna]

I generally keep my Wizard pretty far from the main battlefield, and the other players are not particularly tactics-savvy, so their sole and only reaction when there are opponents is "I rush forward and attack everything". This means that there's always one to three allies between me and the baddies, and since also the DM is somewhat inexperienced, he just hurls our enemies towards them. This allows me to stay behind to sling spells, slow down additional attackers, debuff and generally be a pain in the butt for the enemies.

To be honest, being a battlefield controller, sometimes it's annoying that my allies just rush forward, because I can't unload my controlling spells on the enemies, having to "sort things out" a posteriori. I picked a couple of damage spells beyond cantrips for dire situations. The DM has yet to realize that the Diviner with Lucky and 20 years of gaming experience is among the most formidable oppponents he has, even if the Diviner's damage output is not the highest. I expect that when he will realize that, I will see more baddies coming my way.

[Xervous]

If the party knows whats coming, then even the most astute DMs are going to struggle on this point. Spells like phantom steed, various teleports, plant growth or rope tricks can make it very difficult for enemies to effectively engage.

Melee only, no noteworthy forms of special movement, wouldn’t be in danger staring down a pit at a bunch of them? There were good lessons in the failings of 3.5e monsters but it sounds like nobody was paying attention at WotC.

[Waazraath]

A few comments in another thread have left me pretty puzzled, so I gotta ask:

Is it rare for your group's wizard to get attacked (including actual attacks and damaging save effects) more than 4 rounds per long rest?

I know that ideally a wizard would not get attacked at all... but that's not something any adventuring party I'm able to imagine can actually guarantee.

As in, yes, if what usually happens between long rests is only one fight against a solo boss or if the PCs managed to make all their fights happen in 10ft-wide hallways against only-melee enemies, I can get it, but in any fight where the number of enemies is equal or superior to the number of PCs, or if there is space for the foes to move around the PC, or if there are ranged weapons involved, or even if there is more than one fight against a solo boss, I don't see how the Wizard can only risk getting damaged four times per long rest.

Yeah, definitely more than 4 times per long rest. Less than average, cause most of our parties take effort to protect the backline. Current party has a sorcerer (not a wizard, but close enough) that has AC 15, while the others have 21 and higher, and more hp as well. Not protecting the Sorcerer would be not tactical, and from a RP I'd say it makes sense as well. Furthermore, the sorcerer often casts a twin haste, and at that point it's absolute imperative to protect her, by keeping him out of sight, block access to her (sentinal fighter helps) and reduce the effectivity of attacks if they take place (with fighting style or steel defender). But still, there are more than 4 per long rest made against that character, for sure.

[Willie the Duck]

I know that ideally a wizard would not get attacked at all... but that's not something any adventuring party I'm able to imagine can actually guarantee.

As in, yes, if what usually happens between long rests is only one fight against a solo boss or if the PCs managed to make all their fights happen in 10ft-wide hallways against only-melee enemies, I can get it, but in any fight where the number of enemies is equal or superior to the number of PCs, or if there is space for the foes to move around the PC, or if there are ranged weapons involved, or even if there is more than one fight against a solo boss, I don't see how the Wizard can only risk getting damaged four times per long rest.

When not in the 10' corridors, I've found that wizards start being significantly more cautious, spending more rounds casting Mirror Image and area-control spells like Grease, Web, Wall of ____, etc., and fewer rounds casting specifically offensive spells. Likewise, if the front-liners don't have things like Sentinel, or the DM plays with encounter spaces such that what they have (along with the wizards crowd control) isn't enough, then wizards tend to pick up a level of fighter/forge cleric, start out as a hobgoblin/mountain dwarf/githyanki, or spend a lot of time as giant apes.

[nickl_2000]

We have a party of 4. 1 Wizard, 1 Rogue/Wizard, 1 Warlock, 1 Sorcidin.

The Sorcidin is INCREDIBLY tanky. I mean to the point that he is difficult to hit at most times, and we as a party do everything we can to put him in between all the rest of us and the bad guys. He regularly gets enlarge cast on him to make a better blocker. The Rogue/Wizard will step up to keep people off the pure Wizard, and the Warlock (who has medium armor prof) will also get in the way.

So, that being said, the Wizard really doesn't get attackd more than 4 times per long rest. However, the rest of the party puts a fair amount of resources into making sure that he doesn't (because he can make things go boom really, really well), and we have a lot of people who can control open battlefields effectively to make choke points that the tank can hold.

[Tanarii]

Depends mostly on the adventuring site terrain and the enemies capabilities and numbers. That's before getting into good or bad tactics on either side and enemy intelligence.

If the terrain is especially compact, or especially wide open, then arcane full casters (wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, squishy bards) tend to be "behind the line" and get attacked less. If the enemy doesn't have decent movement or ranged options, that becomes even more the case. Less than 4 rounds getting attacked in a LR is entirely possible in the right adventuring site with the right enemies. And it's not that contrived, any dungeon and many non-equipment-using enemies combination can be enough to make it happen in lower tiers.

OTOH sometimes all it takes is one Minotaur with Charge and suddenly you've got a broken front line and an unconscious wizard. :smallwink: Trample, javelins or slings, grapples pulling front-liners that didn't take Athletics or Acrobatics out of position, and of course any number of special AoE or ranged attacks. Being outnumbered 2-to-1 or even 3-to-1 in a moderately spacious but not too open battlefield will lower the feasibility of position blocking and kiting.

[Mjolnirbear]

Really depends on the bad guy. Owlbear? Goes for the closest meat sack without annoying tinfoil. Wolves? The weakest in the herd, not the massive barbarian or the rogue gliding from tree to tree but a flabbier bard or sorcerer or maybe a cleric until they discover the 'stone skin'. But something intelligent? They recognize casters are a serious threat.

Not knowing classes, the first round they might go after the tank as the strongest fighter is the most important defense to overcome. The first time someone casts a healing spell, that immediately becomes top priority. If some else casts a flashy spell everyone can see, that's top after healers. Casters with subtler spells, like charm person or other enchantment effects, are probably last priority simply by virtue of going unnoticed.

[Sigreid]

It depends. Opponents will certainly attack the wizard if they get the chance and know he's a wizard (I don't assume the wizard has a floating tool tip over his head that says "wizard"). Generally speaking, the party does it's best to keep the wizard from being in a position where he can be attacked. But both the wizard and the enemy get a vote. I mean, I've played a wizard that his defined personality was "hold my beer".

[Darth Credence]

The wizard in my campaign gets attacked all the time. I think that he is sometimes annoyed that it seems like I am targeting him specifically. I am, but it's because he wears a hat with stars and moons and "WIZZARD" on it, so it's a bit of a tip off to enemies. Some smarter enemies have ignored him assuming that it is a ruse, until he casts a spell and then they realize he just has a blind spot about the hat tipping people off.
I honestly think he's forgotten he has the hat. It's listed on his character sheet as equipped and attuned, and it is his spell casting focus. I even made him a physical version of it that is at his seat at the table. But he still wonders sometimes why the goblins focus on taking him out.

[Keravath]

A few comments in another thread have left me pretty puzzled, so I gotta ask:

Is it rare for your group's wizard to get attacked (including actual attacks and damaging save effects) more than 4 rounds per long rest?

I know that ideally a wizard would not get attacked at all... but that's not something any adventuring party I'm able to imagine can actually guarantee.

As in, yes, if what usually happens between long rests is only one fight against a solo boss or if the PCs managed to make all their fights happen in 10ft-wide hallways against only-melee enemies, I can get it, but in any fight where the number of enemies is equal or superior to the number of PCs, or if there is space for the foes to move around the PC, or if there are ranged weapons involved, or even if there is more than one fight against a solo boss, I don't see how the Wizard can only risk getting damaged four times per long rest.

In the games I have been in, casters tend to be priority targets for intelligent creatures and NPCs. The NPCs/creatures recognize the threat and, especially if the caster is concentrating on an important spell, they become a primary target if at all possible.

There are occasions when the party has terrain that prevents the opponents from effectively engaging the spellcaster. Or it may be that the opponents have limited ranged capability to engage the spellcaster at the back behind other characters without a significant risk that the NPCs may decide isn't worthwhile but most of the time, the spellcaster has to be considered at risk and will likely be attacked more than 4 times between long rests - except perhaps on days where there is only one significant encounter.

P.S. In terms of adventuring day, I try to make sure that there is no "usual" day. A day could be one encounter or eight, it could be all social, all exploration, all combat or any combination in between depending on the day and the adventure. If there is a "usual" day then the players may make decisions based on that expectation and I prefer to avoid that.

[Unoriginal]

The wizard in my campaign gets attacked all the time. I think that he is sometimes annoyed that it seems like I am targeting him specifically. I am, but it's because he wears a hat with stars and moons and "WIZZARD" on it, so it's a bit of a tip off to enemies. Some smarter enemies have ignored him assuming that it is a ruse, until he casts a spell and then they realize he just has a blind spot about the hat tipping people off.
I honestly think he's forgotten he has the hat. It's listed on his character sheet as equipped and attuned, and it is his spell casting focus. I even made him a physical version of it that is at his seat at the table. But he still wonders sometimes why the goblins focus on taking him out.

The Reverse Rincewind?

Just to know, is the hat a Hat of Wizardry?



P.S. In terms of adventuring day, I try to make sure that there is no "usual" day. A day could be one encounter or eight, it could be all social, all exploration, all combat or any combination in between depending on the day and the adventure. If there is a "usual" day then the players may make decisions based on that expectation and I prefer to avoid that.

That is wise.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I had a group act surprised when a "by the book" (literally, most of his statements were of the form "the book says ...") NPC gave orders to "kill the casters first" while they were in a mock combat/training scenario.

And I love having monsters chase down people who try to run. Teleporting or other "unexpected" movement modes are tons of fun. But most of those "coward" characters have been of the sniper type.

[DigoDragon]

There's a reason why one of the important rules of engagement in Shadowrun is "Geek the mage first". :3

My experience mostly echoes many others here; the party wizard will get attacked pretty often if they're exposed to the enemy, and/or the enemy is smart enough to understand the wizard is a threat.

[Tanarii]

Adding that my person experience is yes, squishiness is a real problem for full casters through Tier 2. Both in AL and my campaign. Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, non-Valor/swords bards are usually at real risk. Druids usually do okay because of Wild Shape free hit points, and Clerics get good armor.

But there's a reason I don't buy into the idea that Martials are weak. Armor Class and hit points are powerful and necessary for all classes. And there's also a reason that Multiclassing in general and in particular medium or heavy armor dips for casters are very popular in AL.

[Darth Credence]

The Reverse Rincewind?

Just to know, is the hat a Hat of Wizardry?


It is indeed a hat of wizardry. The WIZZARD is a nod to Rincewind, and I spelled it out with rhinestones on a blue felt wizards hat with moons and stars I got from a costume shop right after Halloween.

[Unoriginal]

It is indeed a hat of wizardry. The WIZZARD is a nod to Rincewind, and I spelled it out with rhinestones on a blue felt wizards hat with moons and stars I got from a costume shop right after Halloween.

Sounds pretty fun. Do non-hostile NPCs ever point the hat out/call the PC a wizard without knowing anything else about them?

Personally, I love how the Hat of Wizardry is described as "old fashioned".

[Dork_Forge]

Unless the optimization lies in exactly the things that let you control/influence who's being attacked.

I'd love to see specifics of encounter construction here, to understand why certain people think it's infeasible for PCs to mostly avoid being attacked. (As opposed to deliberately not avoiding being attacked, because curbstomping the enemy isn't fun once you already know you can do it.)

Maybe it's just my DMing style but it's hard to think of a time when a prepared wizard wouldn't have been able to hide in a Rope Trick or turn invisible and hide or Dimension Door away if they really wanted to. Even in deliberately unfair Combat As Sport encounters like "suddenly you all fall through an extradimensional trap door and are now stuck fighting a Beholder and a Hydra to the death, at which point the pocket dimension will spit you out"--even in those extreme situations I can still think of ways the wizard (or even a hypothetical whole party of wizards) could have pretty well cooperately controlled which of them got attacked and died first. It just isn't that complicated to be less vulnerable than the guy who isn't trying to be less vulnerable than you.

Is my mistake that I'm assuming player cooperation? It is true that PCs who fail to cooperate effectively can make combat situations much more... chaotic, but I view that as a player issue, not a DM (encounter design) issue.

I think this is a combination of things:

-The examples you mention are more like escaping rather than just not getting targeted. Both Rope Trick and DDoor require actions and significant slot expenditure, and remove you from the field of play effectively. The implication here was more, the Wizard is present in combat, but can just not get attacked purely through positioning presumably

-I think your assumption of cooperation is above the norm, my personal experience is a lot of loose plans, some buffs, but largely PCs doing what they're good at in combat rather than top down cohesive cooperation as a unit.

By and large my ethos as a DM runs something like: If the caster is having a meaningful impact on the outcome of the battle, they will be involved in said battle, even if the monsters are dashing to achieve it. There's no reason even below average int creatures would just let themselves get murdered whilst the glowing guy stands at the back hindering or hurting them, whilst looking more vulnerable than the others.

[Darth Credence]

Sounds pretty fun. Do non-hostile NPCs ever point the hat out/call the PC a wizard without knowing anything else about them?

Personally, I love how the Hat of Wizardry is described as "old fashioned".

No one has specifically mentioned the hat, but they absolutely do recognize him as a wizard and call him that. He has asked once, four or five months ago, how they knew he was a wizard, because a group had asked for his help with a minor problem that could be solved by magic. I pointed to the hat sitting next to him, and said, "because you're wearing that." Everyone at the table, including him, laughed, and then I think he promptly forgot again.

[Chronos]

I've heard of parties where the monk wears a robe and pointy hat and the wizard wears a gi and a tied cloth belt, just to screw with enemy targeting priorities.

[Rukelnikov]

I've heard of parties where the monk wears a robe and pointy hat and the wizard wears a gi and a tied cloth belt, just to screw with enemy targeting priorities.

I like to play in those kind of parties lol.

[nickl_2000]

I've heard of parties where the monk wears a robe and pointy hat and the wizard wears a gi and a tied cloth belt, just to screw with enemy targeting priorities.

Then it gets really confusing when it's a 4 elements Monk and a Muscle Wizard.

[LibraryOgre]

Not at all. In the current campaign I’m in, spellcasters get attacked quite a bit, mostly because they can cast spells. The NPCs know to gang up on them. 😛

"Geek the wizard first" came about for a reason.

[Tanarii]

I've heard of parties where the monk wears a robe and pointy hat and the wizard wears a gi and a tied cloth belt, just to screw with enemy targeting priorities.
In a non-D&D world, where Dex rogues aren't almost as good as armor at higher levels, and martial artists weren't almost magical, and barbarians didn't just soak damage, it'd be determined by how much armor they're wearing. Because that would be the top measure of how vulnerable they really are.

And 5e Multiclassing dips throws even that out the window.

[MaxWilson]

I've heard of parties where the monk wears a robe and pointy hat and the wizard wears a gi and a tied cloth belt, just to screw with enemy targeting priorities.

This is why Disguise Self and Seeming are great spells, and why all wizards should carry greatswords even if they aren't proficient in them.


In a non-D&D world, where Dex rogues aren't almost as good as armor at higher levels, and martial artists weren't almost magical, and barbarians didn't just soak damage, it'd be determined by how much armor they're wearing. Because that would be the top measure of how vulnerable they really are.

And 5e Multiclassing dips throws even that out the window.

Targeting priorities aren't entirely about vulnerability though--someone who is vulnerable but also ineffective is a low priority, which is why wizards should carry greatswords and not longbows. You want to look like someone who isn't likely to do anything effective this round.

[Tanarii]

Targeting priorities aren't entirely about vulnerability though--someone who is vulnerable but also ineffective is a low priority, which is why wizards should carry greatswords and not longbows. You want to look like someone who isn't likely to do anything effective this round.
In a 5e with feats world, you do NOT want to let someone with a greatsword get into range of you

[MaxWilson]

In a 5e with feats world, you do NOT want to let someone with a greatsword get into range of you

Yes, but if they're 35' away you don't want to come any closer, and they're less of a priority than someone with a longbow.

[TaiLiu]

"Geek the wizard first" came about for a reason.
It's just a good idea! :smallbiggrin:

[Doug Lampert]

The wizard in my party likes to fly. The DM (me) likes to give the enemies archers. Accordingly, the wizard has obtained a healthy respect for locating cover and line of sight blockers.

Possibly relevant reference:
https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2011-05-28

[Sigreid]

"Geek the wizard first" came about for a reason.

I don't know, fights are a lot shorter if you murder the holy men first.

[LudicSavant]

A few comments in another thread have left me pretty puzzled, so I gotta ask:

Is it rare for your group's wizard to get attacked (including actual attacks and damaging save effects) more than 4 rounds per long rest?

I know that ideally a wizard would not get attacked at all... but that's not something any adventuring party I'm able to imagine can actually guarantee.

As in, yes, if what usually happens between long rests is only one fight against a solo boss or if the PCs managed to make all their fights happen in 10ft-wide hallways against only-melee enemies, I can get it, but in any fight where the number of enemies is equal or superior to the number of PCs, or if there is space for the foes to move around the PC, or if there are ranged weapons involved, or even if there is more than one fight against a solo boss, I don't see how the Wizard can only risk getting damaged four times per long rest.

I'm accustomed to 6 or so encounters in a day being pretty common. Highest I've seen is 14 encounters in a day.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

It is common in my party,

Smart enemies will target him a lot, stupid enemies will target closest.

The wizard do try to stay out of targeting range and put of sight most of the time but it doesn't always works.

Lucky for the corrant wizard we have he is a blade singer so most attacks don't hit him and we got him a periapt of proof against poison.
So most attack miss.

Me, as the sorcerer tank make sure to DD him out of danger when needed.
(We are level 11)

[LibraryOgre]

I don't know, fights are a lot shorter if you murder the holy men first.

In the system it comes from, the holy men are, effectively, wizards, and the wizards can heal, too.

[Unoriginal]

I'm accustomed to 6 or so encounters in a day being pretty common. Highest I've seen is 14 encounters in a day.

During those encounters, do casters usually get targeted as much as the other classes, if you don't mind me asking?

[Eldariel]

Well, it really depends on the party. One party I'm DMing for, for instance:

Battlemaster/War Cleric
Abjurer
Lore Bard
Gloomstalker

This party is tactically extremely competent (players all long-time RTS/TBS/strategy boardgame players with lots of RPG history). The Abjurer is the other tank (alongside the War Cleric Battlemaster). He gets attacked a lot. He also has base 19 AC, tons of HP (base Con of 17 with Res: Con so 18 Con plus Ward). He gets missed a lot. When he gets focused, Shield gets insane value. However, usually savvy enemies focus not the Abjurer but the Lore Bard because he's the only truly squishy in the party (not to mention, Cutting Words makes hitting the Abjurer and the Battlemaster all the more difficult). The Battlemaster also has Shield Master and Interception which makes hitting the Abjurer even more futile. Of course, he's tough to hit himself and has Riposte to punish anyone trying. In other words, both the Abjurer and the Battlemaster/Cleric are more than fine with being targeted - indeed they actively look to make enemies hit them. The Abjurer has once or twice run out of level 1 Shields but that hasn't stopped him from tanking - he's still a terrible target to hit most of the time (I think level 2 Shield has been cast a few times too and Arcane Recovery often recovers a bunch of level 1 slots - Shield gets a bit of extra value thanks to regenerating the Ward for 2 points or more from higher level slot).


Another party I'm DMing for:
Moon Druid
"Wolf" Druid (modifier Moon Druid that can only turn into Wolves and summon Wolves but in exchange gets Moon Druid-rate improving Dire Wolf-shape and improvements to Wolf summons)
Glamour Bard
Whispers Bard
Diviner
Hexbladelock


This party is tactically not very competent. All the players are fairly new and they don't really have a grasp of how powerful they are; their first instinct is often to run and they fight in a disjointed, poorly coordinated fashion. Smart enemies they've fought (Goblins, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Humans, Wererats, Dragons) have made an effort to make life hard for the backline. Of course, the Bards get hit more than the Diviner since they're easier targets (neither has invested in Moderately Armored) and very annoying to most enemies, but the Diviner is getting her fair share of attention too. However, I don't recall her running out of Shields yet; the simple fact of the matter is that there are 6 characters which means that the same character is rarely in a position to get focused in each fight. They do random stuff like once in a goblin fortress, the Glamour Bard got stuck outside and had to take on 4 Goblins including a Goblin Cleric 1 alone. She took 3 of them with her but was downed, but the Diviner Misty Stepped out of a window and managed to save her as the fight inside concluded.

The Diviner is fairly unassuming and careful which has lead to her not really being focused; often she doesn't really do much in combat and enemies don't really consider her a threat. Of course, recently this party has fought a lot of less intelligent enemies (some golems, lots of beasts, some uncontrolled undead), which has further lead to the relative safety of the Diviner. I'd say they average 3-4 encounters per LR but, again, due to the number of characters it's simultaneously somewhat deadly (the party has a steady rate of character death per 3-4 sessions - last time we ended in a cliffhanger where a White Dragon burst out from underneath a character, grabbed the Warlock [the only one who failed their Stealth check] in their mouth and blasted with their breath weapon so there's likely another dead character next week as Dragon snack with the Dragon escaping unless they get SoDded) and not very taxing.



For myself, I'm playing one Wizard right now and generally I've found that in dungeons and terrain alike, I can find enough cover even without spell slots to be fine but in the worst case scenario, I'm not above using a spell to get to a place where I'm safe. Much of the time I'm found positioning and proneness to be enough to make me a hard target though. This group is like 5-6 fights per LR but the fights tend to average Deadly-Deadly x3 so it's still quite challenging. When I take hits it's a conscious choice to use my HP as a resource to relieve the burden on the frontline and I have had Shield available in all but one case (that was a desperate fight where we had to engage a ton of specters inside a ship and there was nowhere to hide and our primary frontline, Cleric and Blade, were taking enough punishment that putting any more stress on them would've quite potentially been the end of us, especially since the Cleric had gotten Spirit Guardians down which would basically tend to the encounter on its own if they just didn't get downed or lose Concentration).

[Sigreid]

In the system it comes from, the holy men are, effectively, wizards, and the wizards can heal, too.

I thought we were talking D&D where wizards have never been able to heal...except that one UA.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I thought we were talking D&D where wizards have never been able to heal...except that one UA.

I mean... through feats or especially now, Mark of Healing Halflings from Eberron, Wizards can heal too?

And if you want, I'm sure that I could dig up a half dozen prestige classes from 3.5E (that advance wizard casting, I'm not going to cheat) that let a wizard cast healing spells.

So 'never' is a strong word, and one that I don't believe is applicable here.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I tend to play tanky wizards, and definitely get attacked a lot. This is by design, though.

When I'm DMing, wizards are one of my favorite foods, second only to dedicated healers. Animals and unintelligent monsters will target them because they have a tendency to go after unarmored frail targets over obvious physical threats encased in metal. Intelligent creatures either know or quickly recognize the threat represented by a wizard, how easy they are to drop, and will take the first opportunity to kill them.

My tanks are tasked with preventing this with clever positioning and roleplaying. They learn very quickly that I play the enemy as competent and interested in winning.

[strangebloke]

I'm accustomed to 6 or so encounters in a day being pretty common. Highest I've seen is 14 encounters in a day.

Same.

Not every adventuring day, but most.

As for how often the wizard gets targeted, well. It depends on a lot of things. But wizards tend not to be armored, which means most opponents see them as easy prey since armored guards are much more common than monks or super dextrous rogues or people with mage armor. If the opponents are smarter, they'll obviously prioritize the caster even more unless there's some sort of active magical effect like shield or AoA in the way. Gotta force concentration checks.

Of course it goes without saying that the party doesn't want the caster to drop whatever spell they're concentrating on, and so they take tactical steps to avoid letting the wizard get targeted. But they're not going to be 100% successful, and given the number of encounters I run... yeah. Wizards tend to get attacked a lot.

[Tanarii]

I thought we were talking D&D where wizards have never been able to heal...except that one UA.
We're talking about D&D, where holy men (clerics) are effectively wizards (wielders of magic) that can heal.

[Sigreid]

We're talking about D&D, where holy men (clerics) are effectively wizards (wielders of magic) that can heal.

Yes, but I think this was about targeting the glass cannon.

[LudicSavant]

During those encounters, do casters usually get targeted as much as the other classes, if you don't mind me asking?

It is difficult to generalize about a category as broad as 'casters' since that describes a wide variety of archetypes and playstyles in 5e. But generally speaking, enemies go for the target they believe would be most beneficial for them to target, with a lean towards the monsters knowing roughly who they should be attacking (that 8 Int orc is still a trained warrior from a culture hardened by generations of warfare, they might well employ better tactics than a "smart" untrained civilian).

Characters that are especially dangerous, or put themselves in a vulnerable position, are preferentially targeted.

[Rukelnikov]

It is difficult to generalize about a category as broad as 'casters' since that describes a wide variety of archetypes and playstyles in 5e. But generally speaking, enemies go for the target they believe would be most beneficial for them to target, with a lean towards the monsters knowing roughly who they should be attacking (that 8 Int orc is still a trained warrior from a culture hardened by generations of warfare, they might well employ better tactics than a "smart" untrained civilian).

Characters that are especially dangerous, or put themselves in a vulnerable position, are preferentially targeted.

I think thats the point here. If that were the case they should rarely be attacking the backlines, since the frontline should be putting themselves in a vulnerable position to attract aggro, meaning the backline would be relatively safe.

I think the question here is will they forego the exposed target and try to go for the controller?

[strangebloke]

I think thats the point here. If that were the case they should rarely be attacking the backlines, since the frontline should be putting themselves in a vulnerable position to attract aggro, meaning the backline would be relatively safe.

I think the question here is will they forego the exposed target and try to go for the controller?

That's WoW logic, but it doesn't apply here because there's no 'aggro' mechanic. The nearest analogue is the Opportunity Attack... but the limitations inherent to that mechanic mean that you can't reliably use it to do much of anything as far as controlling the battlefield goes.

If you want to mitigate the options of enemies, you're more likely relying on spells like "hypnotic pattern" or class features like "stunning strike." Maybe some grapple-proning or fear effects.

Or to put it another way, if an orc sees an armored guy charging at him there's nothing mechanically stopping him from just charging the wizard instead.

[Rukelnikov]

That's WoW logic, but it doesn't apply here because there's no 'aggro' mechanic. The nearest analogue is the Opportunity Attack... but the limitations inherent to that mechanic mean that you can't reliably use it to do much of anything as far as controlling the battlefield goes.

If you want to mitigate the options of enemies, you're more likely relying on spells like "hypnotic pattern" or class features like "stunning strike." Maybe some grapple-proning or fear effects.

Or to put it another way, if an orc sees an armored guy charging at him there's nothing mechanically stopping him from just charging the wizard instead.

Exactñy, if the enemy attacks the charging orc, the enemy is attacking the exposed target, for the backlines he needs dash, losing the attacks for the round, or if the party is too cramped, take an attack of opportunity. Aggro exists in any tactical game, making yourself the juiciest target is taking aggro.

[strangebloke]

Exactñy, if the enemy attacks the charging orc, the enemy is attacking the exposed target, for the backlines he needs dash, losing the attacks for the round, or if the party is too cramped, take an attack of opportunity. Aggro exists in any tactical game, making yourself the juiciest target is taking aggro.

A 'tank' character running forward doesn't increase the distance between the enemy and the 'backline.' If a monster can get to the wizard they can get there whether or not the 'tank' is in the way. The only way the tank exerts control on the map is through OAs which are generally pretty anemic unless you really play into them.

Like it varies depending on the monster, but especially at higher levels its hard to see the enemies being worried about a single OA that much.

The only way to really tank in 5e is with chokepoints and/or grappling, both of which are at least a little situational.

[Rukelnikov]

A 'tank' character running forward doesn't increase the distance between the enemy and the 'backline.' If a monster can get to the wizard they can get there whether or not the 'tank' is in the way. The only way the tank exerts control on the map is through OAs which are generally pretty anemic unless you really play into them.

Like it varies depending on the monster, but especially at higher levels its hard to see the enemies being worried about a single OA that much.

The only way to really tank in 5e is with chokepoints and/or grappling, both of which are at least a little situational.

The backline should, desirably, be around 35 ft behind the tank, so at least most humanoids can't go from one line to the other and still get an action.

I agree OAs are rarely a detterrent, but making yourself a priority target can be done thru things like reckless attacking, you hit very often and can be hit very often. Dropping a nasty AoE as Spirit Shroud is another way. You incentivize enemies to hit you in order to shut down your spell. If they can attack you this turn, but need to spend a turn to get to the Warlock that casted hypnotic pattern, they may as well at least do some attacks this turn, and maybe shut down a different nasty effect.

[Unoriginal]

I think thats the point here. If that were the case they should rarely be attacking the backlines, since the frontline should be putting themselves in a vulnerable position to attract aggro, meaning the backline would be relatively safe.

I think the question here is will they forego the exposed target and try to go for the controller?

Frontliners aren't in a vulnerable position just because they're on the front line. They're closer to ddanger, sure, but they are made to not be vulnerable in that position.


Furthermore sapient enemies will generally realize that the frontline is protecting a more vulnerable backline. If they care is a different question, but It really doesn't take a lot of tactical acumen for a NPC to go "the one who's putting themselves between me and those other tsrgets is protecting them."

[Rukelnikov]

Frontliners aren't in a vulnerable position just because they're on the front line. They're closer to ddanger, sure, but they are made to not be vulnerable in that position.


Furthermore sapient enemies will generally realize that the frontline is protecting a more vulnerable backline. If they care is a different question, but It really doesn't take a lot of tactical acumen for a NPC to go "the one who's putting themselves between me and those other tsrgets is protecting them."

That's true. But if the backline are not more than a move away from the frontline then there aren't really two lines.

[stoutstien]

Im curious how common the concept of having battle lines or fronts are relevant in encounters. Most parties are small enough that any sizeable opposition will have the advantage of flanking and deciding the number of fronts if the party doesn't have means to prevent it.

[Eldariel]

Frontliners aren't in a vulnerable position just because they're on the front line. They're closer to ddanger, sure, but they are made to not be vulnerable in that position.

Their durability doesn't mean they aren't vulnerable - it just means they can take some punishment but obviously there's no character that's really hard to kill in this game. A Purple Worm/Behir/Remorzah type creature for instance can potentially just eat one up and burrow away - while Athletics/Acrobatics and AC offer a measure of protection there, it's obviously a very real risk that the tank gets swallowed. PCs in general tend towards the squishy end of the spectrum. A tough martial encounter is highly likely to be capable of punching through whatever frontline there is, even if it's a Totem Barb, a Moon Druid, or a Twilight Cleric. Indeed, there would be little threat in the game if they weren't.

The difference between backliner and frontliner is that frontliner wants to make themselves preferred target over backline since they're somewhat better equipped to last longer while the backline is hopefully better equipped to do stuff to the enemy (because why would you lug them around otherwise). But the threat is very real to whomever gets attacked and the winning strategy is to make the enemy not a viable fighting force ASAP.

[Gignere]

I've heard of parties where the monk wears a robe and pointy hat and the wizard wears a gi and a tied cloth belt, just to screw with enemy targeting priorities.

Haha when I played a diviner I had on elven chainmail, a long sword by my side, and even carried a shield on my back unequipped. I don’t think I’ve gotten hit by 4x per long rest the whole time the game lasted.

Went levels without even getting an attack roll and this wasn’t a lack of trying from the DM. We were joking at the table that I had no clue what my hps and AC were.

[Gignere]

Im curious how common the concept of having battle lines or fronts are relevant in encounters. Most parties are small enough that any sizeable opposition will have the advantage of flanking and deciding the number of fronts if the party doesn't have means to prevent it.

I mean literally this is what the wizard’s or whomever is playing the controller’s role should be doing.

Prevent flanking and controlling the battlefield so the enemies has only one bad way of approaching the party. At least that’s my approach to every battle whenever I was playing god style wizard.

[Tanarii]

That's true. But if the backline are not more than a move away from the frontline then there aren't really two lines.
Which is specific to 5e D&D, due to the difficulty in "tanking" combined with small PC squads.

oD&D, BECMI, and AD&D assumed huge PC and retainer/henchmen groups, with lines of fighters guarding everyone else.

AD&D 2e assumed the smaller groups more common today, but used an initiative system and totm that allowed the DM to hand wave aggro issues. Then with combat and tactics, battlemat and the equivalent of oas were introduced. It eventually morphed into 3e, which suffered a few of the same issues as 5e baseline. But yknow, they "patched" that with feats and PrCs fixing it once and for all.

4e did proper tanking wow aggro style, but ... people complained it was too video gamey.

So now we're back to the modern D&D 'problem' ... small squad tactical play and trying to figure out how to defend the squishies without enough bodies to do it, or video game logic to manipulate the enemy.

IMO that's fine. Squishies being squishies is part of the class balance, and players that assume their squishies won't get hit more than a few times a day because "back line" and neglect defenses or tactical thinking get to pay the price.

[Eldariel]

So now we're back to the modern D&D 'problem' ... small squad tactical play and trying to figure out how to defend the squishies without enough bodies to do it, or video game logic to manipulate the enemy.

It's amazing that the simple obvious answer, simultaneous initiative, doesn't seem to occur WotC even though it works extremely well with and without grid and comes from the roots of D&D. I wouldn't go back to turn-based play and I probably will never play in a group that uses it outside conventions. It just does so many things worse and offers no discernable advantages that I've been able to discover.

[Tanarii]

It's amazing that the simple obvious answer, simultaneous initiative, doesn't seem to occur WotC even though it works extremely well with and without grid and comes from the roots of D&D. I wouldn't go back to turn-based play and I probably will never play in a group that uses it outside conventions. It just does so many things worse and offers no discernable advantages that I've been able to discover.
Simultaneous initiative and totm might work. Except it doesn't really in AD&D for small squads. It kinda sorta did in AD&D 2e. But in both cases it was mostly helped by once being in melee, you were stuck in melee. BECMI too. You couldn't advance past the front line, as long as it was reasonably line-like. But again, that made too small a team with not enough fighters an issue.

Which is IMO working as intended. Kinda of is in 5e too. It'd work better if there was no ability to move away from threat except disengage or other special abilities. At least for advancing your position. Or if OAs were far more dangerous at mid to high levels.

[Person_Man]

It can make sense within the logic of the game world. Though when I DM, I usually prioritize fun over logic.

For example, I avoid the “goblin conga line” where intelligent enemies take turns moving next to an enemy, attack, and then move away to make room for their ally to move in and attack. Although it can make perfect sense in a game world where you can move/act/move, enemies are limited to one Reaction, and you want to focus damage against one enemy at a time, it can make the game a lot less fun for some players.

Also, I think there is a difference between dumb enemies, intelligent enemies, and battle hardened rules lawyers.

Dumb enemies (like beasts and many monsters) attack whoever is closest or whoever hits them. Intelligent enemies communicate and use tactics commensurate with their intelligence, but aren’t necessarily experienced in fighting small coordinated powerful parties. For example, most town guards probably use tactics that work well against low level criminals and might avoid deadly force unless its used against them. Most soldiers are trained to fight in formation against other soldiers. Brigands are probably cowards who are used to outnumbering and overwhelming travelers with ranged weapons, and might run at the first sign of real resistance. A Wizard could be a tactical genius on paper and know to take out other spellcasters first, but could be easily confused if every player is wearing some armor and using some kind of magic.

Occasionally the players will fight other parties of optimized NPCs who know how to exploit the rules and do so, but it shouldn’t be the default for most battles, unless there is a plot specific reason, or your players just really enjoy it.

[Witty Username]

That's true. But if the backline are not more than a move away from the frontline then there aren't really two lines.

Kinda, for what you're describing you would need to be more than a move away from the effective reach of the monster.
I like goblins for example, goblins have a 30ft move and a ranged attack with an 80ft range.
In order for this frontline backline concept to work you need 110ft gap in this case.

This also is dictated by the monster movement. Orcs aggressive gives them greater movement when it's towards an enemy. Meaning the can move 60ft if it means charging the backline.

[Rukelnikov]

Kinda, for what you're describing you would need to be more than a move away from the effective reach of the monster.
I like goblins for example, goblins have a 30ft move and a ranged attack with an 80ft range.
In order for this frontline backline concept to work you need 110ft gap in this case.

This also is dictated by the monster movement. Orcs aggressive gives them greater movement when it's towards an enemy. Meaning the can move 60ft if it means charging the backline.

Well yes, there's a lot of creatures with more than 30 ft movement, and the party can't always choose how they engage. But 35 or 40 ft apart takes care of at least a good portion of the enemies. In my current group the last dungeon we explored in this setup Pally & Lock first line, 35 ft, Fighter & Mage, 60 ft Rogue stealthed to be behind possible ambushers (of course he can be ambushed himself but between expertise and cloak of the bat it has yet to happen). And a Moon Druid whose position is not very defined, sometimes near the front, sometimes in the middle.

[Eldariel]

Kinda, for what you're describing you would need to be more than a move away from the effective reach of the monster.
I like goblins for example, goblins have a 30ft move and a ranged attack with an 80ft range.
In order for this frontline backline concept to work you need 110ft gap in this case.

This also is dictated by the monster movement. Orcs aggressive gives them greater movement when it's towards an enemy. Meaning the can move 60ft if it means charging the backline.

Note, Goblins don't have Sharpshooter so you're entitled to cover against them if they have to shoot through creatures or objects. This way, frontline can provide you with cover as long as the Goblins are unable to find a clear shot. At range you can also often safely drop prone. This means you can have +2 AC and disadvantage or better (if there are obstacles you can prone behind that block line of effect entirely or mostly for 3/4 cover) vs. Goblins at range in many cases; in such a case, in spite of the enemy being able to attack you, you're likely a harder target than the frontline they're trying to avoid.

[Witty Username]

Again kinda. Cover and prone tactics work both ways. Generally speaking, if you have cover your target also has cover, and while being prone will protect you but also impart disadvantage limiting your options and reduce your movement. And this assumes terrain that you don't always have (or not always to your advantage).
Overall though, my point is that defending the backline is more complex then be 35 ft away.

I have been trying to use monsters to keep themselves alive from 2 warlocks and 2 wizards (and an Artilerist). So how to stay alive during ranged combat has been on my mind.

[Dork_Forge]

I have been trying to use monsters to keep themselves alive from 2 warlocks and 2 wizards (and an Artilerist). So how to stay alive during ranged combat has been on my mind.

This.

Frontline/backline tactics are exceedinly hard to actually make work in game. Casters in my games frequently separate themselves by 30ft or more from the melee participants, it just means that sometimes monsters dash to get in their faces and the melee aren't well positioned to assist them.

[MaxWilson]

This.

Frontline/backline tactics are exceedinly hard to actually make work in game. Casters in my games frequently separate themselves by 30ft or more from the melee participants, it just means that sometimes monsters dash to get in their faces and the melee aren't well positioned to assist them.

Why doesn't this just lead to a cycle of free opportunity attacks for the melee PCs as everyone Dashes 60' each round? Are the monsters significantly faster than the melee PCs?

[Keltest]

Why doesn't this just lead to a cycle of free opportunity attacks for the melee PCs as everyone Dashes 60' each round? Are the monsters significantly faster than the melee PCs?

Frequently they can be. Plenty of monsters will have more than 30' of movement.

But also, nobody wants to play the game that way. Eventually the DM will get bored of playing benny hill and just start having the monsters slap the fighters they can actually reach rather than the wizard who keeps fleeing.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Why doesn't this just lead to a cycle of free opportunity attacks for the melee PCs as everyone Dashes 60' each round? Are the monsters significantly faster than the melee PCs?

I mean, each PC only gets a single OA per turn. If there's more enemies than there are PCs, or the PCs miss, or they attack the same enemy and it tanks them.... there's a whole host of scenarios where I can absolutely see enemies breaking through the front line to attack the vulnerable back line. That's not even counting the other ways that PCs have to burn their reaction, which shuts that off. An Eldritch Knight casting absorb elements, a Vengeance Paladin following a foe, etc...

That's not even counting terrain or monster abilities - they could fly, or teleport, or maybe they've got an ability to deny the PCs their reactions (like a mind flayer stunning all of the front line PCs and having a group of minions Dashing past).

[Dork_Forge]

Why doesn't this just lead to a cycle of free opportunity attacks for the melee PCs as everyone Dashes 60' each round? Are the monsters significantly faster than the melee PCs?

A variety of things really:

-The entire opposition don't make the dash, only a few do if it's a larger group, or maybe one in a smaller group. The melee still have plenty to fight and be engaged with

-Monsters are very commonly faster than PCs, this obviously varies based on what the PC composition is

-Casters ime don't usually want to run away unless they're in immediate danger of death, they like casting their spells and sometimes misunderstand the danger they're in

-I like to take advantage of PC reactions as opportunities to move about the battlefield freely. This is reliable for some characters that rely on things like Uncanny Dodge, but one party is super susceptible as they have a set of cloaks that allow them to burn hit dice to reduce damage done to each other. That ends up being particularly nasty in a few ways when you look below the surface.

[Xervous]

Why doesn't this just lead to a cycle of free opportunity attacks for the melee PCs as everyone Dashes 60' each round? Are the monsters significantly faster than the melee PCs?

OAs that replace the full turn of attacks they’d get being on top the monsters. If PCs are backpedaling they’re also giving the monsters OAs. Against creatures that don’t have extended attack routines this is a pretty bad trade for things like fighter. You’re also losing the actions of the back row in this case.

[MaxWilson]

Frequently they can be. Plenty of monsters will have more than 30' of movement.

But also, nobody wants to play the game that way. Eventually the DM will get bored of playing benny hill and just start having the monsters slap the fighters they can actually reach rather than the wizard who keeps fleeing.

Right, so front line mission accomplished: the monsters can't ignore them.

BTW if 40' speed monsters are the only thing preventing frontliners from doing their job well, Longstrider is a thing and it upcasts well.


A variety of things really:

(A) -The entire opposition don't make the dash, only a few do if it's a larger group, or maybe one in a smaller group. The melee still have plenty to fight and be engaged with

-Monsters are very commonly faster than PCs, this obviously varies based on what the PC composition is

-Casters ime don't usually want to run away unless they're in immediate danger of death, they like casting their spells and sometimes misunderstand the danger they're in

-I like to take advantage of PC reactions as opportunities to move about the battlefield freely. This is reliable for some characters that rely on things like Uncanny Dodge, but one party is super susceptible as they have a set of cloaks that allow them to burn hit dice to reduce damage done to each other. That ends up being particularly nasty in a few ways when you look below the surface.

Hmmm. Case (A) sounds like the front line is doing their job successfully--reducing the exposure of the back line. They may not be 100% successful but it sounds like they're mostly successful.

Thanks for the explanation.


OAs that replace the full turn of attacks they’d get being on top the monsters. If PCs are backpedaling they’re also giving the monsters OAs.

Only if they were too close to begin with and have no means of breaking contact. (Zephyr Strike, Disengage + Expeditious Retreat, Mobile feat, Misty Step, etc.)

I.e. it's preventable.


You’re also losing the actions of the back row in this case.

If everybody Dashes, you lose the actions of the front line, the back line, and all the monsters, but the front line gets opportunity attacks on the monsters. As Keltest says, in practice this means the monsters will attack the front line instead of Dashing after the back line. This is one of three primary ways front-lining can work in 5E.

1.) (Open terrain, vs. smallish groups of medium-speed monsters) Front liners threaten opportunity attacks to pin enemies in place in lieu of Benny Hill chase.

2.) (Small groups of non-Huge monsters) Grappling to directly control enemy positioning.

3.) (Narrow terrain, non-teleporting/non-insubstantial monsters) Occupy chokepoints, and optionally grapple enemies to take up even more space in or near the chokepoint.

Outside of these three scenarios, you have to skirmish instead of having a front line. But #1-3 cover a ton of common scenarios.

[OvisCaedo]

This frontline/OA discussion reminds me of a post in another thread where someone thought it was RAW to be able to use shoves and grapples in place of the opportunity attack. Acting as a preventative frontline would certainly work MUCH more easily if that was the case. I actually wonder if it "should" be the case... Hm. Maybe it's an unneeded PC buff, as it exists in 5e, just from how often monsters lack athletics proficiency.

[Dork_Forge]

Hmmm. Case (A) sounds like the front line is doing their job successfully--reducing the exposure of the back line. They may not be 100% successful but it sounds like they're mostly successful.

Thanks for the explanation.


No problem, I think the thing is that the expectation from the casters is not getting touched (unrealistic) rather than mitigation.

Also this is partially your fault, your scenario months ago exposed me to the true nastiness of Star Spawn and they have plagued my group many times as a result. One Mangler dashing to the concentrating Bard and unleashing their recharge ability ended Slow very quickly...

So the Bard probably hates you, but I find it hilarious fun so thanks!

[Keltest]

This frontline/OA discussion reminds me of a post in another thread where someone thought it was RAW to be able to use shoves and grapples in place of the opportunity attack. Acting as a preventative frontline would certainly work MUCH more easily if that was the case. I actually wonder if it "should" be the case... Hm. Maybe it's an unneeded PC buff, as it exists in 5e, just from how often monsters lack athletics proficiency.

Isnt there a feat for that? Sentinel, which prevents your target from moving if you hit them with an opportunity attack (among other things).

[Eldariel]

Again kinda. Cover and prone tactics work both ways. Generally speaking, if you have cover your target also has cover, and while being prone will protect you but also impart disadvantage limiting your options and reduce your movement. And this assumes terrain that you don't always have (or not always to your advantage).
Overall though, my point is that defending the backline is more complex then be 35 ft away.

Of course, much befalls on the backline itself. Still, there's a lot of asymmetry between PCs and monsters using prone and cover.

1) Cover doesn't really matter that much for PCs. Archers will have Sharpshooter so they straight-up ignore it. Casters will have AOE spells many of which simply don't care about saves either. It's a hindrance to attack cantrips but that's about it.

2) You can attack before you drop prone. Then you can raise up, take action, and drop prone again. Really, what prone does is trade ½ your movement for disadvantage on ranged enemy attacks, which is frequently a good deal if the melee threat isn't a thing or a very credible thing. The big thing is, dropping prone is a free action and raising up only costs movement so the action cost is incredibly favourable. And of course, it's something enemies should make use of too; but again, it's less useful against PCs (though it is strong against archers) than vs. monsters. At least it does reward PCs for having access to melee tools (like Conjure Animals: that hapless enemy that dropped prone to avoid getting shot is about to have a surprise of a lifetime).

[MaxWilson]

No problem, I think the thing is that the expectation from the casters is not getting touched (unrealistic) rather than mitigation.

Also this is partially your fault, your scenario months ago exposed me to the true nastiness of Star Spawn and they have plagued my group many times as a result. One Mangler dashing to the concentrating Bard and unleashing their recharge ability ended Slow very quickly...

So the Bard probably hates you, but I find it hilarious fun so thanks!

Heh. Thanks for the reminder. [Evil laugh]

It's virtually impossible to frontline against a Mangler. They're fast, they avoid opportunity attacks (including stuff like conjured Constrictor Snake OAs that restrain on hit, normally an excellent frontline ability), they're stealthy, they can climb on walls... they're basically James Cameron's aliens that wiped out the Space Marines and the colony in Aliens. In theory you could grapple one but by the time you do that someone squishy is probably already dead. (I exaggerate slightly.)


Isnt there a feat for that? Sentinel, which prevents your target from moving if you hit them with an opportunity attack (among other things).

Also, Druids wildshaped into Giant Octopuses/Constrictor Snakes/etc.


At least it does reward PCs for having access to melee tools (like Conjure Animals: that hapless enemy that dropped prone to avoid getting shot is about to have a surprise of a lifetime).

I see what you did there. "Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life." -Terry Pratchett

[OvisCaedo]

Isnt there a feat for that? Sentinel, which prevents your target from moving if you hit them with an opportunity attack (among other things).

There certainly is, I just wonder if it would make more sense for there to be a bit stickier of a baseline without needing a feat investment. Maybe sentinel would need more of a benefit if that was the case, though it has some potential advantages over a theoretical OA shove/trip as it is. (No size restriction, deals damage in addition to stopping them, much more compatible with dex melee, and sentinel's two other features). Though it's also often easier to weight an opposed athletics check in your favor than it is an attack roll.

and again, while I might think this makes some 'sense' to make OAs a bit more meaningful even on classes that lack a very threatening singular attack, PCs probably don't really need any buff in general, so I guess it's moot. Maybe for another system.

[MaxWilson]

There certainly is, I just wonder if it would make more sense for there to be a bit stickier of a baseline without needing a feat investment. Maybe sentinel would need more of a benefit if that was the case, though it has some potential advantages over a theoretical OA shove/trip as it is. (No size restriction, deals damage in addition to stopping them, much more compatible with dex melee, and sentinel's two other features).

Also, Sentinel doesn't eat up a free hand, so you don't lose damage or AC while using it. (Neither do monks.)

[Dork_Forge]

Of course, much befalls on the backline itself. Still, there's a lot of asymmetry between PCs and monsters using prone and cover.

1) Cover doesn't really matter that much for PCs. Archers will have Sharpshooter so they straight-up ignore it. Casters will have AOE spells many of which simply don't care about saves either. It's a hindrance to attack cantrips but that's about it.


Those are some sizeable optimisation assumptions


Heh. Thanks for the reminder. [Evil laugh]

It's virtually impossible to frontline against a Mangler. They're fast, they avoid opportunity attacks (including stuff like conjured Constrictor Snake OAs that restrain on hit, normally an excellent frontline ability), they're stealthy, they can climb on walls... they're basically James Cameron's aliens that wiped out the Space Marines and the colony in Aliens. In theory you could grapple one but by the time you do that someone squishy is probably already dead. (I exaggerate slightly.)


Not exaggerating that much, the AC 15 +1 Con Bard didn't have much left in the tank afterwards.+

[noob]

Melee only, no noteworthy forms of special movement, wouldn’t be in danger staring down a pit at a bunch of them? There were good lessons in the failings of 3.5e monsters but it sounds like nobody was paying attention at WotC.

The failings of monsters in 3.5 is that they are either super dangerous or can be skipped easily by 5 to 10 common tactics (from just sneaking around to just running or using flight or just bashing it to death).
Sometimes the monsters enters both categories.

[Eldariel]

Those are some sizeable optimisation assumptions

While that's fair, I don't think it's conductive to do analysis of class abilities assuming poor play or planning. If there is a deficiency in such an analysis, that is probably not indicative of what the class is capable of, but rather what deficiencies there were in the play or build. Such complaints are thus not a flaw in the system but rather that particular player's play or builds. As such, I would consider it good practice to always assume good spell and feat selection for the intended goal when analysing abilities (and since casters have very low opportunity cost on picking AOE spells and they are largely more effective than single target spells anyways, I think it's fair to assume that a well-played caster would always have AOE spells available).

In this case for example, yes, there certainly are archer PCs without Sharpshooter and caster PCs without non-sight based AOE but the fact that those have to deal with more monster-like issues related to cover or obscurement is a choice (made with or without awareness thereof) the players made in character creation/spell preparation, rather than a feature of the system. Mayhap I should amend my statement by saying "PCs can and should, assuming characters built with basic task efficiency in mind, have tools to ignore the mechanics that can be used against monsters in turn".


I see what you did there. "Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life." -Terry Pratchett

That particular quote is one of my personal favourites.

[Merudo]

It depends heavily on the size of the party, its composition, the size of the enemy forces, and the battleground.

I'd point out that Wizards who prepare defensive spells, and can wear a shield or are a Bladesinger, are not in fact squishy at all. They might actually be among the most resilient PCs there is.

Tactically, ranged enemies should definitely target weak & squishy wizards, or non-squishy wizards who have a strong impact on the fight. To avoid getting hit, wizards should be capable and willing to get full cover. Indoor, this means hugging walls and other obstructions. Outdoor, it means hiding behind trees, or digging a hole in the ground with the Mold Earth cantrip.

Melee creatures are typically difficult to block, especially outdoor. "Frontliners" can try to hold the line but unless they have the Sentinel feat, they are not going to stop any dedicated force from rushing at the casters. Even then, a character with Sentinel can only stop at most one creature from disengaging with them - not enough to stop even a moderately sized force.

Under these conditions, a Wizard trying to not get attacked will very often have to dedicate their concentration to that effect. However, if a Wizard spends their concentration purely for defense, their presence on the battlefield is typically not that impactful. The Wizard might end up getting ignored, but that's fine - they are not exactly pulling their weight here.

In all my games, the least attacked character was not a Wizard, but rather my Goblin Shepherd Druid. My hordes of large Elks / Constrictor Snakes would clog hallways and corridors, while I would stay far behind. Reaching me was near impossible, even for an enemy willing to take OAs, because my troops were physically blocking movement and/or grappling enemies, not just threatening OAs. And even if a monster managed to engage my Goblin in melee, I would simply disengage as a bonus action and command my beasts to cover my escape. Outdoor, I would use my trusty warhorse to keep distance, or take full cover from the Mold Earth cantrip. With no satisfying way to target my character, the DM ended up effectively ignoring me outright for a large proportion of the battles.

[Eldariel]

To avoid getting hit, wizards should be capable and willing to get full cover. Indoor, this means hugging walls and other obstructions. Outdoor, it means hiding behind trees, or digging a hole in the ground with the Mold Earth cantrip.

Melee creatures are typically difficult to block, especially outdoor.

Few addendums here:
- Indoors, the "use an object" action can be used to great effect with doors for breaking LoE. To lesser extent, caltrops, ballbearings, etc. can help with 5' corridors.
- Outdoors, there is a lot of different terrain. A mountain pass is very different from a forest or a bog or a riverside grasslands. Elevation can provide cover especially combined with going prone, as can tree trunks (standing and fallen alike), boulders, riverbed, water in general, cliffs, thickets, bogholes, etc.
- The difficulty of blocking melee enemies is entirely dependent on the terrain. Cliffs, mountain paths, thick forests, bogs, bayous, etc. are all quite conductive to it while the same might not apply to grasslands, savannahs, plateaus, etc.

[da newt]

IME the wizards / casters get attacked 100% to 50% as often as the other combatants because they engage in combat.

This is most often due to a combination of 'a Wizard trying to not get attacked will very often have to dedicate their concentration to that effect. However, if a Wizard spends their concentration purely for defense, their presence on the battlefield is typically not that impactful,' tactical decisions (my party is not very tactically savvy and they tend to move to engage the enemy rather than fall back), and the DM's preference for numerous enemies.

I'm sure if the Player's prioritized not being targeted by dedicating their resources to defense and trailing the rest of the party by 45' at all times and remained out of sight of the front lines, the 'squishies' would be attacked less often, but playing hide and run away isn't everyone's favored play style. I don't see much kiting even though it can be very effective.

What sort of a 'God Wizard' are you if you spend the majority of your time fleeing or hugging the ground?

[Tanarii]

I'd point out that Wizards who prepare defensive spells, and can wear a shield or are a Bladesinger, are not in fact squishy at all. They might actually be among the most resilient PCs there is.
Defensive spells cost slots, and those are in short supply for a Wizard (or any LR caster), so a hefty opportunity cost. Wearing a shield requires Multiclassing or feats, so optional rule and investment/opportunity cost. Bladesinger requires SCAG and being an elf or half-elf, and also opportunity cost. (Also you left out Abjurerer btw.)

Wizards are not among the most resilient, even when the spend resources or opportunity costs. They can hang by doing so.


I'm sure if the Player's prioritized not being targeted by dedicating their resources to defense and trailing the rest of the party by 45' at all times and remained out of sight of the front lines, the 'squishies' would be attacked less often, but playing hide and run away isn't everyone's favored play style. I don't see much kiting even though it can be very effective.Indeed. Typically I see squishies dedicate some level of tactical thinking, resources, and build opportunity costs towards defense. But hit points are there to be spent. They just have less of them and lower AC, so they have to take that into account when making decisions to 'spend' them.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Defensive spells cost slots, and those are in short supply for a Wizard (or any LR caster), so a hefty opportunity cost. Wearing a shield requires Multiclassing or feats, so optional rule and investment/opportunity cost. Bladesinger requires SCAG and being an elf or half-elf, and also opportunity cost. (Also you left out Abjurerer btw.)

Bladesingers were reprinted in TCoE with some minor changes, including the buffed Extra Attack and dropping the elf/half elf requirement.

[Tanarii]

Bladesingers were reprinted in TCoE with some minor changes, including the buffed Extra Attack and dropping the elf/half elf requirement.
The first rule of D&D club is we don't discuss The Expansion That Shall Not Be Named

More seriously, that means it's still an optional expansion subclass that the DM has to allow, and from a highly controversial expansion book that isn't necessarily commonly allowed at that. Basically, same as if it comes from SCAG.

[MaxWilson]

Wizards are not among the most resilient, even when the spend resources or opportunity costs.

True, but only because Moon Druids are the resilience kings. Wizards who spend opportunity cost (War Wizard, to bring us back on topic into convergence with the War Wizard thread) and resources (Shield, Blur) are more resilient however than Battlemasters and Barbarians, and competitive with Eldritch Knights and Divine Paladorcs.

It's lovely to see a Bard or Druid Polymorph themself into a T Rex and then see an AC 21ish (+5) Mounted Combatant wizard cast Blur and then hop on the T Rex's back, or skip the Blur and just Dodge. This thread has got me thinking about AC 23 War Wizard/Fighter 2s who do the same trick.

(The same trick also works for protecting a druid's concentration when they're concentrating on e.g. Conjure Animals, and then wildshape into a warhorse or a bear or something.)

The point is, armored wizards are good at this trick because they're highly resilient.

[Tanarii]

Aye, Wildshape in general and Polymorph specifically are huge problems. Which I noted on the latest WotC survey.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Aye, Wildshape in general and Polymorph specifically are huge problems. Which I noted on the latest WotC survey.

Personally, I would like to see the complete gutting of any "swiss-army-knife" spell. Polymorph? You get these listed shapes for each spell level. And there's a separate Baleful Polymorph and regular Polymorph (one targeting unwilling creatures, the other willing). Conjure X? You get these specific creatures. Wish? Gone[1]. Simulacrum? Not a spell or heavily reworked[2]. Shapechange? You choose one shape when you learn the spell, and that's all it can do. Etc. No more MM diving, no more "oh, a new book was published with monsters in it, so now my wizard gains all this power despite nothing changing in universe" metagaming.

Versatility for spell casters should come from having a choice of spells to prepare/learn, not from having versatile individual spells. Each spell should be like a good programming function--it does one thing and does it well. That's the tradeoff for power.

[1] Wish as an arcane spell has never sat well with me, mainly from a fictional standpoint. I'm fine with Divine Intervention--you're pleading for another powerful being to cast a spell on your behalf. Wish? No. That, or it should have a single safe use: undo effects that require wish to undo. Sort of a Greatest Restoration. Any other use gets either monkey paw'd or runs serious risks to the caster.
[2] You could have a ritual effect that takes days and multiple people and doesn't give you full control, or one that produces Naruto-style shadow clones (ie they pop if they take any damage and are basically distractions). But "get a second character you can micromanage"? That's like the bad old days of the Leadership feat. Except only possible for the already-powerful-enough spellcasters.

[Merudo]

Defensive spells cost slots, and those are in short supply for a Wizard (or any LR caster)


At tier2+, that is not really a concern anymore. You get a lot of spell slots, and regain many on a short rest.

If your AC is good, all your really need is Absorb Element, Shield, and an upcasted False Life (or Armor of Agathys if you are lucky), and you are already more resilient than most martials. Only the Totem Barbarian & Moon Druid end up being significantly more defensive.



so a hefty opportunity cost.


Not really - those level 1 slots (and level 2 slots to some extend) end up pretty much being only used for defense and the rare utility.



Wearing a shield requires Multiclassing or feats, so optional rule and investment/opportunity cost. Bladesinger requires SCAG and being an elf or half-elf, and also opportunity cost. (Also you left out Abjurerer btw.)


Bladesinger doesn't require SCAG or Half-Elf, and Half-Elf is an excellent race for Bladesinger anyway.



Wizards are not among the most resilient, even when the spend resources or opportunity costs. They can hang by doing so.


I strongly disagree here. What other classes and subclasses are more resilient than a Wizard using their resources for defense? Not many.

[ad_hoc]

This frontline/OA discussion reminds me of a post in another thread where someone thought it was RAW to be able to use shoves and grapples in place of the opportunity attack. Acting as a preventative frontline would certainly work MUCH more easily if that was the case. I actually wonder if it "should" be the case... Hm. Maybe it's an unneeded PC buff, as it exists in 5e, just from how often monsters lack athletics proficiency.

Or, the ease in which enemy creatures are able to harass and attack spellcasters and ranged weapon users is important to balance them out.

The same people who say that they are overpowered are the ones who say that DMs are unfair if monsters simply attack the weaker characters.

[Tanarii]

At tier2+, that is not really a concern anymore. You get a lot of spell slots, and regain many on a short rest.

If your AC is good, all your really need is Absorb Element, Shield, and an upcasted False Life (or Armor of Agathys if you are lucky), and you are already more resilient than most martials. Only the Totem Barbarian & Moon Druid end up being significantly more defensive.



Not really - those level 1 slots (and level 2 slots to some extend) end up pretty much being only used for defense and the rare utility.
Even at level 10 (top of Tier 2)in a standard adventuring day a LR caster doesn't have 3 slots per combat, of which 1 is a level 1-2 slot per combat. Provided you're a LR caster with the spell, you have a total of four Shield total across the day without blowing a higher level slot, and that's 1/4 of your casting capability to defend for maybe 1/4 of your total rounds of combat throughout that day. If your push more than an adventuring day (which balanced PC parties are fully capable of), that strings out those slots even more

Which ties directly back into the OP. If you get attacked (by some kind of serious threat) only four rounds in an adventuring day, sure, spending your level 1 slots to get AC on par with Half-Plate isn't bad. IMX that's a pretty big assumption though.

[Merudo]

Even at level 10 (top of Tier 2)in a standard adventuring day a LR caster doesn't have 3 slots per combat, of which 1 is a level 1-2 slot per combat. Provided you're a LR caster with the spell, you have a total of four Shield total across the day without blowing a higher level slot, and that's 1/4 of your casting capability to defend for maybe 1/4 of your total rounds of combat throughout that day. If your push more than an adventuring day (which balanced PC parties are fully capable of), that strings out those slots even more

Which ties directly back into the OP. If you get attacked (by some kind of serious threat) only four rounds in an adventuring day, sure, spending your level 1 slots to get AC on par with Half-Plate isn't bad. IMX that's a pretty big assumption though.

As I said before, you can spend level 2 slots for defense, plus there is Arcane Recovery.

A level 10 Wizard can spend 7 + 4 (Arcane Recovery) = 11 level slots for defense. The Wizard also doesn't have to use a spell slot every round - if they have good AC, they will avoid a good number of hits anyway.

[Dork_Forge]

As I said before, you can spend level 2 slots for defense, plus there is Arcane Recovery.

A level 10 Wizard can spend 7 + 4 (Arcane Recovery) = 11 level slots for defense. The Wizard also doesn't have to use a spell slot every round - if they have good AC, they will avoid a good number of hits anyway.

If a Wizard is approaching anywhere near that amount of resource expenditure it highlights a major problem, what you're allocating as defensive fuel is a significant portion of their daily casting.

I think realistically the Wizard is going to end up taking hits and getting healed, like... every other character. The notion that they could adequately protect themselves even by burning that many of their slots to that purpose is uncommon to say the least in play.

And if they have heavily invested in their defense, well they'll still take damage, they've just taken large opportunity costs to reduce it somewhat.

[Townopolis]

I would actually consider burning all your 1s and 2s on defense, including recovered slots, perfectly reasonable. That wizard still has 11 spell slots with a total of 31 spell levels for offense, compared with 11 slots / 16 spell levels spent on defense.

Even if all those 1s and 2s are spent on Shield and the like (as opposed to, say, Hideous Laughter), this wizard is contributing those low level slots to the party's overall defense--essentially offtanking. If the wizard really doesn't think they should be offtanking, that may be a problem, but having to devote a third of your resources (well, a third of your spell levels, in this case) to defense is perfectly reasonable.

I think the difference in perspective here plays into Tanarii's assertion that they don't find casters as OP as other people seem to. If this wizard is able to spend all 47 of their spell levels on offense and troubleshooting, then yeah, that's going to overshadow everyone else*, but 31 spell levels for offense is less incredible and less liable to make the rogues and martials feel like hench.

*unless you have someone really trying to tank and who is comfortable taking (partial) credit for everything the wizard is able to accomplish with the spell levels they "saved" from being spent on defense.

[Tanarii]

Spending 7 slots out of your total of 9-10 (before arcane recovery) on defense at level 5 is ... unlikely for most full casters. Even spending it out of 16 slots at level 10 is a heavy investment in defense. And 3 of those slots are level 2s being used on a level 1 defensive spell. It might seem feasible in Tier 3 play, but in Tier 2 play that's a lot.

And it's only Wizards and Land Druids that get Arcane Recovery. Sorcerers and non-Hexblade Warlocks and Non-Valor/Sword Bards don't. And warlocks / bards don't get Shield on their standard lists.

[Dork_Forge]

Spending 7 slots out of your total of 9-10 (before arcane recovery) on defense at level 5 is ... unlikely for most full casters. Even spending it out of 16 slots at level 10 is a heavy investment in defense. And 3 of those slots are level 2s being used on a level 1 defensive spell. It might seem feasible in Tier 3 play, but in Tier 2 play that's a lot.

And it's only Wizards and Land Druids that get Arcane Recovery. Sorcerers and non-Hexblade Warlocks and Non-Valor/Sword Bards don't. And warlocks / bards don't get Shield on their standard lists.

Worth noting that at least one slot is going to Mage Armor, hopefully sometimes two (I'm not a fan of the type of play where everything happens in a neat 8 hour window that the PCs can predict) and the Wizard basically has no features that aren't 'cast spells.'

If such a huge amount of their daily resource is just... not dying, then they aren't pulling off all the casting shenanigans people also expect of them.

I've never seen a game where the full caster doesn't get whalloped from time to time, regardless of defenses, and a Wizard lacks the ability to bounce back when it happens.

[Merudo]

Worth noting that at least one slot is going to Mage Armor, hopefully sometimes two

Not at all. As previously stated (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25177041&postcount=101), the Wizard I'm talking about can wield a shield or is a Bladesinger. If you can wield a shield, obviously you can equip Medium Armor. I'm confused why you think Mage Armor is necessary for someone in Medium Armor.

As for the Bladesinger, they can equip Studded Leather Armor, so Mage Armor only gives them +1 AC and that's if they have not found a magical armor. It's good, but even without they are likely to get really good AC (a level 4 point-buy Mountain Dwarf Bladesinger can hit AC20 without using any spells).



If such a huge amount of their daily resource is just... not dying


A Wizard with good AC (19+) who uses their spells for defense is not just dying, they are among the most resilient tanks out there.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A Wizard with good AC (19+) who uses their spells for defense is not just dying, they are among the most resilient tanks out there.

At the cost of being mostly neutered offensively and without being sticky at all (mostly being able to just be ignored)...and being really really vulnerable to anything that bypasses those defenses (due to having a small HP pool). At +3 CON, a level 20 wizard has 142 HP. Compared to a +3 CON fighter at 184[1] max HP or a +5[2] CON barbarian at 245 max HP, with resistance to most things[3]. Both of whom likely have higher base ACs and don't lose any damage or stickiness (and can much more effectively use things like Sentinel). And the fighter can be an eldritch knight, gaining the same defensive spells and less opportunity cost to use them. On top of a higher base survivability.

Basically one good round of hits from a high-level creature or a good AoE and the wizard is in Power Word: Kill danger zone, which entirely bypasses all defenses. The fighter needs to lose roughly half his HP, and the barbarian needs to lose basically the entire wizard's hit points twice over (including rage's resistance) before being in danger from that.

[1] not counting the average 25 HP healing as a bonus action every short rest, where the wizard has effectively zero self-healing. Or the fact that a heavy armor fighter has plenty of ASIs to cap his CON at +5, giving him another 20 HP.
[2] counting the capstone, with a base of +3. Although it's not inconceivable[4] that by that point they might have even +7, granting another 40 HP.
[3] the ultra-vast majority of incoming damage in most scenarios is BPS. And if it's a bear(3)-totem barbarian, he's only not resistant to psychic, which is relatively rare.
[4] I think that word means exactly what you think it means, to butcher a phrase.

[MaxWilson]

At the cost of being mostly neutered offensively and without being sticky at all (mostly being able to just be ignored)...

That's the first time I've ever heard anyone disparage a wizard for "not being sticky."

As for "mostly neutered offensively," pffft. We're still talking a hypothetical tenth level wizard with full 3rd, 4th, and 5th level slots available for crowd control, recon, and offense. If he does a good job with offense he won't even come close to using all of his 1st and 2nd level slots on defense either.

Armored wizards are very tanky, unless they get stunned/paralyzed. Then they're a bit brittle.


Basically one good round of hits from a high-level creature or a good AoE and the wizard is in Power Word: Kill danger zone, which entirely bypasses all defenses. The fighter needs to lose roughly half his HP, and the barbarian needs to lose basically the entire wizard's hit points twice over (including rage's resistance) before being in danger from that.


(1) Who optimizes around the assumption that the enemy will have 9th level spell slots and the desire to waste those spell slots on a crummy spell like PWK?

(2) Defenses against PWK include being invisible and Counterspell. Wizards are better than EKs and Barbarians than both. (Death Ward is also an effective defense but that's not relevant to the "tanky wizard" discussion. Revivify is a simple countermeasure, if not a defense, and is one reason why PWK is crummy.)

[Tanarii]

Not at all. As previously stated (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25177041&postcount=101), the Wizard I'm talking about can wield a shield or is a Bladesinger. If you can wield a shield, obviously you can equip Medium Armor. I'm confused why you think Mage Armor is necessary for someone in Medium Armor.Then you're assuming either a multiclass dip or 2 feats. That's not a Wizard in the first case, and it's a significant investment in resources in the second.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's the first time I've ever heard anyone disparage a wizard for "not being sticky."

As for "mostly neutered offensively," pffft. We're still talking a hypothetical tenth level wizard with full 3rd, 4th, and 5th level slots available for crowd control, recon, and offense. If he does a good job with offense he won't even come close to using all of his 1st and 2nd level slots on defense either.

Armored wizards are very tanky, unless they get stunned/paralyzed. Then they're a bit brittle.



(1) Who optimizes around the assumption that the enemy will have 9th level spell slots and the desire to waste those spell slots on a crummy spell like PWK?

(2) Defenses against PWK include being invisible and Counterspell. Wizards are better than EKs and Barbarians than both. (Death Ward is also an effective defense but that's not relevant to the "tanky wizard" discussion. Revivify is a simple countermeasure, if not a defense, and is one reason why PWK is crummy.)

I was looking at level 20. Level 10 is even worse. Remember, every round you cast shield is one you aren't able to cast absorb elements or counterspell. And vice versa. Or OA. Meaning one guy attacks you and the rest walk on by. Or one casts a spell and the rest smack you.

Or the dragon breathes (eating a chunk of your hp even if you succeed and absorb) and then wing buffets you prone and tail attacks with its other legendary. You've now lost a majority of your hp with basically no defense, while the barbarian barely lost any.

And being invisible means you can't protect anyone, and burns your concentration. And it's not just pwk--there are a number of spells that just ignore most defenses and mostly care about HP, which is something you're badly lacking.

That's not all that tanky, that's extremely vulnerable.

[Eldariel]

I was looking at level 20. Level 10 is even worse. Remember, every round you cast shield is one you aren't able to cast absorb elements or counterspell. And vice versa. Or OA. Meaning one guy attacks you and the rest walk on by. Or one casts a spell and the rest smack you.

Okay, be real, how many turns do you get hit by significant elemental damage and significant physical attacks that happen to require Shield in the span of one turn? And how often is that going to result in a critical existence failure? This doesn't sound like something that's going to matter 99% of the time. Indeed, the only times I really remember it being relevant have been fights against multiple enemy Wizards (summons + damage spells). Against less ridiculous opposition, you're largely fine: even without Counterspell, you're as powerful as everyone else.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Okay, be real, how many turns do you get hit by significant elemental damage and significant physical attacks that happen to require Shield in the span of one turn? And how often is that going to result in a critical existence failure? This doesn't sound like something that's going to matter 99% of the time. Indeed, the only times I really remember it being relevant have been fights against multiple enemy Wizards (summons + damage spells). Against less ridiculous opposition, you're largely fine: even without Counterspell, you're as powerful as everyone else.

An adult+ dragon encounter comes to mind as something that you'd want both Absorb Elements and Shield for, but with the way their breath weapon recharges I'd say even then you're unlikely to ever need both in the same turn.

2 or more Young dragons could do it, there's a chance that you become the target of a multiattack and breath in the same turn. A handful of dragons aren't something you typically just "find" though and I'd expect the Wizard to have contingencies (perhaps an actual Contingency) for this sort of thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

An adult+ dragon encounter comes to mind as something that you'd want both Absorb Elements and Shield for, but with the way their breath weapon recharges I'd say even then you're unlikely to ever need both in the same turn.

2 or more Young dragons could do it, there's a chance that you become the target of a multiattack and breath in the same turn. A handful of dragons aren't something you typically just "find" though and I'd expect the Wizard to have contingencies (perhaps an actual Contingency) for this sort of thing.

Legendary actions. Breath + tail/wing (or both if the turn order isn't favorable). An ancient red dragon breaths (doing 45 damage after absorb element's resistance, since you're not making that save without proficiency, which represents something like 1/3 your max HP), then (after the next turn) wing attacks you prone (no, you're not making that save), dealing another 17 damage (~12% of your HP), and then (on the third turn) tail attacks you (dealing another 12% of your HP if it doesn't crit). That's 55% of your max hp on average.

Compare that to a raging totem barbarian--he's much more likely to make the save (higher dex + advantage), so either 45 (failed) or 22 HP (passed, plus resistance) from the breath, much more likely to make the STR save from the wing (and resistant, taking 8 damage), and still has his reaction available. He's taken (worst case) 61 HP from that sequence of attacks, out of a pool of 245+, for about 25%. While burning effectively no resources he wouldn't have already burned (rage).

Or just a spell-caster + minions. Which is a super common thing. Once you've protected yourself against one, you're vulnerable to the other. And your HP pool is tiny, so even resistance doesn't do much for you--half damage is still a decent chunk of your HP pool. A fireball + archers means you're a pincushion. Or you're fried.

Heck, a pack of archers who are smart enough not to be in fireball formation will murder this wizard. Take the CR 1 quaddrone. 4 attacks per round. 10 of those plus a bruiser (a deadly fight at level 10) means 40 arrows per round. And if the DM isn't stacking them all on the same initiative[0], there's a good chance your shield is only going to cover one set.

Not to mention that you're in danger of being wiped out (especially at lower levels) by a single bad crit, which bypasses all of your defenses entirely. At level 10, a frost giant (which you could be fighting several of at a time) deals 45 damage on average with a crit. That's well over half your max HP (at +3 CON, you have 72 HP). And that giant still has another attack, plus the other giants (or their minions). A crit rock is 50 damage (but less DPR because he's missing his other attack). And shield (for an AC of 24) only means he hits on a 14.

MMOs have a rule of thumb that evasion-type abilities (ie those that only take effect sometimes) don't contribute as much to effective HP as either HP or always-on defenses. Because you're still vulnerable to spike damage making you go splat. And all of a "tanky" wizard's defenses are evasion-type. Their effective HP is the lowest of anyone. I did some simulations a while ago (using rogues, not wizards) and found that in general, against the most different scenarios, EKs and totem barbarians were roughly tied and rogues went splat[1]. Wizards can maybe do a bit better than rogues...as long as their resources hold out.

[0] I tend to group things in groups of 5 or so, as a compromise between "everything goes at once" and the pain of having individual initiatives.
[1] Rogues are a bit worse here when dealing with multiple creatures, since their half-damage thing is only against one attack, while shield covers a whole round.

[Dork_Forge]

Not at all. As previously stated (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25177041&postcount=101), the Wizard I'm talking about can wield a shield or is a Bladesinger. If you can wield a shield, obviously you can equip Medium Armor. I'm confused why you think Mage Armor is necessary for someone in Medium Armor.

As for the Bladesinger, they can equip Studded Leather Armor, so Mage Armor only gives them +1 AC and that's if they have not found a magical armor. It's good, but even without they are likely to get really good AC (a level 4 point-buy Mountain Dwarf Bladesinger can hit AC20 without using any spells).



A Wizard with good AC (19+) who uses their spells for defense is not just dying, they are among the most resilient tanks out there.

Ah, I thought you were referring to a Wizard in general, not something with such heavy investment into defenses:

-Either dipped

-Race choice + Feat

-A specific subclass that has worse AC than Mage Armor unless using their limited ability

This doesn't really change what I was saying, but it does clarify things, I still don't see how a character that is entireley dependent on preventative defense can be claimed to be one of the most resilient.




Okay, be real, how many turns do you get hit by significant elemental damage and significant physical attacks that happen to require Shield in the span of one turn? And how often is that going to result in a critical existence failure? This doesn't sound like something that's going to matter 99% of the time. Indeed, the only times I really remember it being relevant have been fights against multiple enemy Wizards (summons + damage spells). Against less ridiculous opposition, you're largely fine: even without Counterspell, you're as powerful as everyone else.

Overall turns in a game? Probably a vast minority, but you're painting it as a very unrealistic thing to expect to happen, when it isn't really. Some examples of encounters used against my parties, some exceedingly recently:

-Two Frost Salamanders, recharging cone breath weapons and five attacks per turn

-Abominable yeti with two regular Yeti, though multiples aren't actually needed since any Yeti can use Chilling Gaze and make multiple attacks

-Pack of Hell Hounds, which I believe is actually an encounter in at least one adventure module

-Two Behir

-Any dragon that has Legendary Actions, Adult Silver specifically in my case

-Fighting a bunch of Hobgoblins that included a Destroyer (?), Fireball + a bunch of weapon attacks

Heck, as a player in a PbP we were recenetly subjected to a bunch of weapon attacks and spells like Fireball and Cone of Cold, so it's not even just liek this is my particular DMing style.

Getting into a place where you can take elemental damage and melee attacks in the same turn is extremely easy, rather than a tortured scenario for discussion.

[MaxWilson]

Snipping opinions, responding to factual assertion :


Or the dragon breathes (eating a chunk of your hp even if you succeed and absorb) and then wing buffets you prone and tail attacks with its other legendary. (A) You've now lost a majority of your hp with basically no defense, while the barbarian barely lost any.

And (2) being invisible means you can't protect anyone, and burns your concentration. And it's not just pwk--there are a number of spells that just ignore most defenses and mostly care about HP, which is something you're badly lacking.

That's not all that tanky, that's extremely vulnerable.

You both lost a similar amount, since you both have resistance to the breath weapon. You've got a higher AC than the Barbarian and the Barbarian is probably Reckless in order to accomplish anything against a dragon, so it's hard to predict which of you will have lost more HP to the tail attack. The total difference in lost average HP is similar either way. It's going to (guesstimate) something on the order of 40-50 HP lost for each of them.

(2) Unless you're invisible e.g. because you cast Invisible V on everybody, not just yourself. And you may have other abilities like Hypnotic Gaze and Instinctive Charm which let you protect others and hurt monsters without breaking invisibility--it depends.

Anyway, I was responding to the claim that there is no defense against PWK. It's not true.

[strangebloke]

regarding defense. Broadly speaking you can split things into active defense and passive defense. Active defenses are things like spells and class features that are generally very strong with the supposed tradeoff of an action economy cost and/or resource cost. Passive defenses are things that require build resources to get ahold of but no action or daily resource economy. Things like AC, saves proficiency, HP, acrobatics and athletics.

Traditionally people expect wizards and other casters to have strong options for active defense (wizard shields party from dragon-breath is a classic thing people expect) while fighters and other 'martials' have better passive defenses (eg, being in armor).

In 5e, this isn't completely the case? Uncanny Dodge for example is an incredibly strong active defense against hp damage, and its a feature for a 'martial' class. Monks have patient defense, barbarians have rage, and everyone can get some abilities like "Lucky." But overall the active options casters and particularly casters with the wizard spell list have are much stronger. Counterspell, shield, mage armor, blur, and absorb elements are all relatively low-level spells that are frequently considered "must-haves" because of how much survivability they add.

"But wait!" I hear you say. "Wizards lack passive defenses! Sure they have the same saves and skill options, but they're missing 2-3 hp a level, and also they don't get armor or shields!"

Well, yeah, except that the cost for raising your passive defenses is very small. If multiclassing is on the table, just grab a level of cleric. Or hexblade. Just cast mage armor and magically have equal or better AC to the rogue until 8th level or so. Just play a Gith or a Hobgoblin and then grab the medium armor feat. Just play a bladesinger and have +4/+5 to your AC whenever you need it. As for HP, how much of a difference is 2 to 3 hp per level really? Healing options are currently very strong and there are a lot of ways to get some kind of HP-replacement buffer. Inspiring leader, aid, AoA...

All of this to say that a wizard can still do 80% of everything they otherwise would while still being extremely hard to kill, and importantly it gets easier for them to use these defensive abilities as they level.

[KorvinStarmast]

The first rule of D&D club is we don't discuss The Expansion That Shall Not Be Named **Cackle**

Personally, I would like to see the complete gutting of any "swiss-army-knife" spell. Polymorph? You get these listed shapes for each spell level. And there's a separate Baleful Polymorph and regular Polymorph (one targeting unwilling creatures, the other willing).
Hard disagree. :smallsmile:
The limitation is already beasts, and the options being open allows for a lot of player creativity. In my brother's game, I have been polymorphed into (by the wizard) a T Rex, a Giant Ape, and a Mammoth. (To carry stuff and most of the party on my back). Beasts are already limited in a lot of ways. And turning someone into a frog is deep fantasy material.


Conjure X? You get these specific creatures. The better way is to work together, as you and I have done, and as my Shepherd druid player has done with me as DM, to make a short list that we'll put into play. We adjust the list occasionally, but we know what's available for a given session. Less DM headaches, but player gets input and isn't being dictated to.

Wish? Gone[1]. What, don't you trust me and my bard? :smallbiggrin:

Simulacrum? Not a spell or heavily reworked[2]. It already takes half of a day to cast, and your current limitations are pretty good ones. (No cheese, expensive, but has benefits).


Shapechange? You choose one shape when you learn the spell, and that's all it can do. Etc. No more MM diving, no more "oh, a new book was published with monsters in it, so now my wizard gains all this power despite nothing changing in universe" metagaming. Over correction. I'd suggest as many forms as levels or as many as proficiency bonus (6) and the player needs to select them in concert with DM. When the process is collaborative, it works better.

Versatility for spell casters should come from having a choice of spells to prepare/learn, not from having versatile individual spells. Hard disagree, again. Here are some very versatile spells:
Minor Illusion; skywrite, magic mouth, thaumaturgy, prestidigitation, major illusion ... I could go on.

The opportunity for player creativity needs to be preserved; I think you are being a bit too mechanistic here.
Each spell should be like a good programming function--it does one thing and does it well. That's the tradeoff for power. It's magic, not BASIC. :smallyuk:


[1] Wish as an arcane spell has never sat well with me, mainly from a fictional standpoint. I'm fine with Divine Intervention--you're pleading for another powerful being to cast a spell on your behalf. Wish? No. That, or it should have a single safe use: undo effects that require wish to undo. Sort of a Greatest Restoration. Any other use gets either monkey paw'd or runs serious risks to the caster. Fun fact: in the original game, wish was only found on rings or some other "placed in universe" means; once Greyhawk supp introduced spells with level 7-9 Limited Wish and then Wish became things. Limited Wish, which survived into AD&D 1e, was a far less difficult "wish" to adjudicate; it wasn't the semi-OP thing Wish has become and it did not need the monkey paw - which was (IME) half of the fun of wish for a lot of tables. "Oh, sorry, you did say..." and then weird crap happened.

I realize that this is a matter of taste, but that element - monkey paw - leads to 'be careful of what you wish for' which forces the players to put some thought/effort into their wish. It predated the video game generation and the computer coder generation of gamers and was well received for a long time. But something in the player base's expectations has changed. Wish as 'a button to be pushed' seems to me to miss the point of the spell. (And FWIW, 9th level spells as a class are at power levels that some campaigns don't fit with very well). The longer rant on "did WoTC really include all of the tools for Tier 4 play in the DMG?" will not be raised yet again.

[2] You could have a ritual effect that takes days and multiple people and doesn't give you full control, or one that produces Naruto-style shadow clones (ie they pop if they take any damage and are basically distractions). But "get a second character you can micromanage"? That's like the bad old days of the Leadership feat. Except only possible for the already-powerful-enough spellcasters. Some of us old school players have no problem running hirelings and henchmen, or side kicks; we don't eat table time. Plus, I have a few other ideas for SimDil, still working through them ... :smallbiggrin: ... not to mention that at the level where simulacrum happens, Tier 3, the scope of the campaign ought to be broader than mucking about in 30 . 40 rooms underground. Where the PC has nation and world sized issues to address, having a body double (or a plausible 'but didn't I see them over there?" ) tool is the kind of place where this spell fits beautifully. (Heck, I loved what you did DM side with simulacrum in that dragon graveyard encounter and its approach - nice implementation of the concept for continent / nation level conflict)

2 or more Young dragons could do it, there's a chance that you become the target of a multiattack and breath in the same turn. A handful of dragons aren't something you typically just "find" though and I'd expect the Wizard to have contingencies (perhaps an actual Contingency) for this sort of thing. There is a published adventure in TftYP that has two young white dragons in it as an encounter, and they are both awake. This gave our party of five level 11-12 PCs quite a challenge since we had lost our wizard player. (And my champion had a cursed sword, Vengeance, so my bow attacks were at disadvantage)

[Dork_Forge]

You both lost a similar amount, since you both have resistance to the breath weapon. You've got a higher AC than the Barbarian and the Barbarian is probably Reckless in order to accomplish anything against a dragon, so it's hard to predict which of you will have lost more HP to the tail attack. The total difference in lost average HP is similar either way. It's going to (guesstimate) something on the order of 40-50 HP lost for each of them.


Just a few notes about this one:

- The Barbarian is more likely to save against the breath weapon to begin with, they're good with Con saves and would have advantage on the Dex save depending what the dragon type is.

- There's really no need to assume Reckless Attack unless the Barbarian is explicitly trying to leverage +10 from GWM, using Reckless... Recklessly is just silly in a lot of fights. Sword and Board or TWF Barbarians are less likely to Reckless, annecdotally the Barbarian/Rogue in one of my games has done so maybe a handful of times in a year and half of mostly weekly play.

-I find the balancing out hard to believe, the Barbarian would have to get hit twice as much as the Wizard to balance out resistance, and even if that happens and they equal out, the Wizard has lost a far more significant chunk of their total HP than the Barbarian. Neither can regen their health themselves, but the Barbarian utilises high max hp as a defense, where as the Wizard utilises low hp as a balancing point.


As a sidenote, there's appealing Barbarian racial choices that offer defensive abilities, like Stone's Endurance and Relentless Endurance, whereas I can't think of any standout Wizard race choices that do the same outside of offering armor profs.

[Tanarii]

Sword and Board or TWF Barbarians are less likely to Reckless, annecdotally the Barbarian/Rogue in one of my games has done so maybe a handful of times in a year and half of mostly weekly play.
But sword and board sacrifices offense for defense as well, so if we're comparing apples to apples, we probably shouldn't bring them into the equation.

Net result is Without a martial or cleric dip or significant resource investiture in defense, there is no way squishy full casters can even get on par with non-squishy martials. They really do need special DM assumptions so that they're only getting attacked a few round per adventuring day at most, if they want to consider themselves not at any significant risk.

[MaxWilson]

Just a few notes about this one:

- The Barbarian is more likely to save against the breath weapon to begin with, they're good with Con saves and would have advantage on the Dex save depending what the dragon type is.

Yeah he is, but they're both still likely to fail. E.g. CR 17 Adult Red Dragon, DC 21 Dex save, Barb probably has around +2 to Dex saves, needs a 19+ to save. With advantage, he's got a 19% chance of rolling 19+ and an 81% chance of not, so he'll take about 31 * 0.81 + 15 * 0.19 = ~28 HP of damage from the breath weapon. The wizard will often also have a +2ish to Dex, rolls 19+ only 10% of the time, will take about 31 * 0.9 + 15 * 0.1 = ~29 HP of damage. Not much difference.

The difference may be larger with Con based saves (e.g. Ancient White Dragon), but it depends mostly on whether the wizard took Resilient (Con). Even then it's not a large gap because Absorb Elements has already trimmed the worst-case scenario down to ~35 HP or so.

So in practice, the important difference isn't saving throw proficiencies, it's positioning and action economy. Can the wizard afford to Absorb Elements with his reaction?


- There's really no need to assume Reckless Attack unless the Barbarian is explicitly trying to leverage +10 from GWM, using Reckless... Recklessly is just silly in a lot of fights. Sword and Board or TWF Barbarians are less likely to Reckless, annecdotally the Barbarian/Rogue in one of my games has done so maybe a handful of times in a year and half of mostly weekly play.

I sort of agree, Reckless is often a bad idea, but... what exactly is the Barbarian doing in the dragon fight if he's not Recklessly whaling on the dragon? It's a Bear Totem Barb, not an Ancestor, so it's not like he's contributing anything beyond damage, and with only two attacks that damage is fairly anemic anyway even if you are Reckless. It's a perfect scenario for using Reckless.

I don't want to get too caught up in the specific example here, and I'm certainly not a fan of blindly being Reckless all the time, but I think assuming a Reckless barb in this case is reasonable.


-I find the balancing out hard to believe, the Barbarian would have to get hit twice as much as the Wizard to balance out resistance, and even if that happens and they equal out, the Wizard has lost a far more significant chunk of their total HP than the Barbarian. Neither can regen their health themselves, but the Barbarian utilises high max hp as a defense, where as the Wizard utilises low hp as a balancing point.

As a sidenote, there's appealing Barbarian racial choices that offer defensive abilities, like Stone's Endurance and Relentless Endurance, whereas I can't think of any standout Wizard race choices that do the same outside of offering armor profs.

I think it's impossible to talk much more about this in more detail without discussing specific builds. E.g. does the Barbarian really have high max HP as a defense, or did they focus more on the GWM/PAM offense side of things, maybe with Mobile for extra defense?

As a data point though, RE: balancing out, an Adult Red Dragon's tail attack at +14 for 2d8+8 bludgeoning will do 9.55 HP on average against a tanky wizard with passive AC 21 (e.g. Enchanter 19/Forge Cleric 1). Against a Reckless, Half plate-armored AC 17 Barbearian, it will do 6.63. In the context of a claim that the Barbarian "barely lost any [HP]", 9.55 HP vs. 6.63 HP is what I meant by describing the HP loss as "similar" instead. Neither of these builds (AC 21 or AC 17 Reckless) is extreme--it's possible to reduce damage further, for either of them--but hopefully that at least clarifies what I'm claiming. They're both losing a lot of HP--neither Barbarian or Wizard is invulnerable to the dragon's attack routine.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah he is, but they're both still likely to fail. E.g. CR 17 Adult Red Dragon, DC 21 Dex save, Barb probably has around +2 to Dex saves, needs a 19+ to save. With advantage, he's got a 19% chance of rolling 19+ and an 81% chance of not, so he'll take about 31 * 0.81 + 15 * 0.19 = ~28 HP of damage from the breath weapon. The wizard will often also have a +2ish to Dex, rolls 19+ only 10% of the time, will take about 31 * 0.9 + 15 * 0.1 = ~29 HP of damage. Not much difference.

The difference may be larger with Con based saves (e.g. Ancient White Dragon), but it depends mostly on whether the wizard took Resilient (Con). Even then it's not a large gap because Absorb Elements has already trimmed the worst-case scenario down to ~35 HP or so.

So in practice, the important difference isn't saving throw proficiencies, it's positioning and action economy. Can the wizard afford to Absorb Elements with his reaction?



I sort of agree, Reckless is often a bad idea, but... what exactly is the Barbarian doing in the dragon fight if he's not Recklessly whaling on the dragon? It's a Bear Totem Barb, not an Ancestor, so it's not like he's contributing anything beyond damage, and with only two attacks that damage is fairly anemic anyway even if you are Reckless. It's a perfect scenario for using Reckless.

I don't want to get too caught up in the specific example here, and I'm certainly not a fan of blindly being Reckless all the time, but I think assuming a Reckless barb in this case is reasonable.



I think it's impossible to talk much more about this in more detail without discussing specific builds. E.g. does the Barbarian really have high max HP as a defense, or did they focus more on the GWM/PAM offense side of things, maybe with Mobile for extra defense?

As a data point though, RE: balancing out, an Adult Red Dragon's tail attack at +14 for 2d8+8 bludgeoning will do 9.55 HP on average against a tanky wizard with passive AC 21 (e.g. Enchanter 19/Forge Cleric 1). Against a Reckless, Half plate-armored AC 17 Barbearian, it will do 6.63. In the context of a claim that the Barbarian "barely lost any [HP]", 9.55 HP vs. 6.63 HP is what I meant by describing the HP loss as "similar" instead. Neither of these builds (AC 21 or AC 17 Reckless) is extreme--it's possible to reduce damage further, for either of them--but hopefully that at least clarifies what I'm claiming. They're both losing a lot of HP--neither Barbarian or Wizard is invulnerable to the dragon's attack routine.

Remember, the barbarian (in this hypothetical) also has resistance all the time to all the dragon's damage (being a bear(3)-totem barbarian). So he's taking maximum half damage from everything, on a health pool something like 2x as big. So the barbarian is taking way less overall damage. The wizard has resistance to the elemental damage if he casts absorb elements. And the barbarian likely could have AC 19 base-- +2 DEX and +7 CON[1]. Or higher, depending on feats. 6.6 HP out of 250 vs 9.6 out of 142 is a huge percentage difference: ~3% vs ~7%. The wizard is taking roughly double damage (as a percent of max HP).

The barbarian is taking 1/2 max of the breath weapon, 1/4 if he passes the save. The wizard is either taking all of it (no absorb elements, fail), half of it (absorb elements + fail or no absorb + success), or 1/4 of it (absorb elements + success). The barbarian is much more likely to succeed (their DEX is likely pretty similar and the barbarian has advantage if it's a dex save; if it's a CON save the barbarian is hands-down better) which means the barbarian is more likely to take 1/4 than the wizard is. Again, of a hugely different HP pool.

[1] the example I gave was an ancient red, at level 20

[MaxWilson]

Remember, the barbarian (in this hypothetical) also has resistance all the time to all the dragon's damage (being a bear(3)-totem barbarian). So he's taking maximum half damage from everything, on a health pool something like 2x as big. So the barbarian is taking way less overall damage. The wizard has resistance to the elemental damage if he casts absorb elements. And the barbarian likely could have AC 19 base-- +2 DEX and +7 CON[1]. Or higher, depending on feats. 6.6 HP out of 250 vs 9.6 out of 142 is a huge percentage difference: ~3% vs ~7%. The wizard is taking roughly double damage (as a percent of max HP).

The barbarian is taking 1/2 max of the breath weapon, 1/4 if he passes the save. The wizard is either taking all of it (no absorb elements, fail), half of it (absorb elements + fail or no absorb + success), or 1/4 of it (absorb elements + success). The barbarian is much more likely to succeed (their DEX is likely pretty similar and the barbarian has advantage if it's a dex save; if it's a CON save the barbarian is hands-down better) which means the barbarian is more likely to take 1/4 than the wizard is. Again, of a hugely different HP pool.

[1] the example I gave was an ancient red, at level 20

I think we'd need to examine specific builds to go any deeper. A Barbarian who hypothetically invests in Con 20 as you suggest is very limited in other ways and I'm unwilling to assume that this "hugely different HP pool" you mention really is hugely different in practice.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think we'd need to examine specific builds to go any deeper. A Barbarian who hypothetically invests in Con 20 as you suggest is very limited in other ways and I'm unwilling to assume that this "hugely different HP pool" you mention really is hugely different in practice.

Assuming you only have a +5 CON at barb 20 (16 + capstone), the wizard 20 (with +3 CON) has 142 vs the barbarian 20 with 245. That's 1.72x as much. I'd call "over 100 HP different" a "huge difference".

And I'm being generous by saying the wizard has +3, assuming they're being tanky.

Effectively (and I saw this above), you're assuming that the wizard has optimized for tanky-ness at the expense of offense (enchanter 19/forge cleric 1) and the barbarian has optimized for DPR at the expense of tankiness (PAM/GWM, no shield, burning feats instead of pumping defensive stats). That's so far from being a fair comparison that it's not even funny. Compare like to like; compare tanky wizard builds to tanky barbarian builds and DPR wizard builds to DPR barbarian builds. I'll bet that if you do, the barbarian comes out as way more tanky in both comparisons except against particular niche cases designed to make the wizard look better.

[MaxWilson]

Assuming you only have a +5 CON at barb 20 (16 + capstone), the wizard 20 (with +3 CON) has 142 vs the barbarian 20 with 245. That's 1.72x as much. I'd call "over 100 HP different" a "huge difference".

And I'm being generous by saying the wizard has +3, assuming they're being tanky.

Effectively (and I saw this above), you're assuming that the wizard has optimized for tanky-ness at the expense of offense (enchanter 19/forge cleric 1) and the barbarian has optimized for DPR at the expense of tankiness (PAM/GWM, no shield, burning feats instead of pumping defensive stats). That's so far from being a fair comparison that it's not even funny. Compare like to like; compare tanky wizard builds to tanky barbarian builds and DPR wizard builds to DPR barbarian builds. I'll bet that if you do, the barbarian comes out as way more tanky in both comparisons except against particular niche cases designed to make the wizard look better.

You're going to have to explain to me how Enchanter 19/Forge 1 is sacrificing offense to such an extent that the comparison is unfair.

Also since you feel it's unfair to give the Barbarian PAM/GWM, please explain to me how a Barbarian that doesn't take damage-boosting feats like GWM or PAM remains relevant from levels 6-19, before the capstone comes online. They're barely relevant even with damage-boosting feats.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You're going to have to explain to me how Enchanter 19/Forge 1 is sacrificing offense to such an extent that the comparison is unfair.

Also since you feel it's unfair to give the Barbarian PAM/GWM, please explain to me how a Barbarian that doesn't take damage-boosting feats like GWM or PAM remains relevant from levels 6-19, before the capstone comes online. They're barely relevant even with damage-boosting feats.

Delayed spell access. Having to have WIS 13 (ok, this one's not much of an ask) to multiclass. STR 15 or dwarf (for heavy armor) or 20 DEX (wasting the proficiency from forge cleric). Taking an offensively much weaker wizard sub-class (vs evoker or even bladesinger). Fewer wizard spells prepped. Spending all your 1st and 2nd level spell slots, plus a bunch of your 3rds (counterspell) on defense. If that's not sacrificing offense, I'm not sure what counts.

Compare that to wielding a shield when you're expected to tank and putting points into CON, when your class benefits from that and you're trying to be tanky.

And to say that a barbarian without GWM/PAM isn't relevant (or is only barely relevant without them) is to betray a mindset so far from what is expected by the system as to be pointless to discuss with--you're basically arguing by definition (defining the builds that are relevant and then saying anything else isn't relevant). Your play style is so far outside what the game expects that you really shouldn't be arguing from it at all.

That said, here's a level 20 totem build that gets all of that, being able to switch hit SnB or GWM as needed. And not particularly optimized, either. I'm sure there's lots of room to improve.

Race: Half Orc.
Starting Stats: (27 point buy) 14/14/15/8/12/8, after racials 16/14/16/8/12/8
3rd level subclass choice: Totem (Bear)
4th level ASI: +2 STR (18/14/16/8/12/8)
8th level ASI: PAM
12th level ASI: +2 STR (20/14/16/8/12/8)
16th level ASI: +2 CON (20/14/18/8/12/8)
19th level ASI: +2 CON (20/14/20/8/12/8)
20th level capstone: (24/14/24/8/12/8)

AC: (no magic items) unarmored: 19, +2 with a shield. Likely higher, since +X shields are more common than +X armor. Or might have Bracers of Defense/amulet or cloak of protection, etc. But since those are available to both barbarian and wizard, not going to include that.
HP: 285 (taking max at 1st level then average rounded up after that). Baseline resistant to everything except psychic, so that's really like having nearly 570 effective HP.

Substitute PAM for GWM if you want.

Tradeoffs...you didn't pick up GWM AND PAM. But if you wanted to drop back to only (only!) +5 CON, you could free up 2 ASIs. And you'd still have 103 more HP than the wizard could with +3 CON. Which lets you pick up GWM, PAM, and Sentinel. Which makes you infinitely more sticky than a wizard who is burning all his reactions and likely his concentration, plus most of his spell slots on defense. Which the barbarian gets for free (infinite rage, plus rage doesn't end early).

Oh, and the barbarian is immensely more user-friendly. Because the wizard basically requires perfect play (knowing when to use shield vs absorb elements vs counterspell vs...) to survive, while the barbarian just rages and attacks.

Edit: Not to mention that (based on some simulations I did earlier), a bog-standard EK tank build out-does either one without breaking a sweat.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Devil's Advocate: if we're talking high level play for a defensive wizard, it would be a crime to not bring up Spell Mastery. Their defensive slot expenditure gets way more efficient when they can cast shield or absorb elements at will after 18 wizard levels (if we're talking about the wizard 19/cleric 1 build). Add mirror image and... yeah, Wizards strike again.

[MaxWilson]

Delayed spell access. Having to have WIS 13 (ok, this one's not much of an ask) to multiclass. STR 15 or dwarf (for heavy armor) or 20 DEX (wasting the proficiency from forge cleric). Taking an offensively much weaker wizard sub-class (vs evoker or even bladesinger). Fewer wizard spells prepped. Spending all your 1st and 2nd level spell slots, plus a bunch of your 3rds (counterspell) on defense. If that's not sacrificing offense, I'm not sure what counts.

A level in Forge Cleric is fairly cheap, doesn't put you behind on spell slots, and isn't even a purely defensive investment--it also enhances offense since it lets you give the party Sharpshooter magic weapons early on, cast Bless, etc. He can still Twin Tasha's Hideous Laughter (or Hold Monster), can concentrate on one big spell like Wall of Force while locking down another with Hypnotic Gaze, can Meteor Swarm if he wants to (but more likely Shapechange or True Polymorph), can summon elementals and demons and whatnot... he has all the tricks wizards normally have, plus good AC. The only thing he's given up is Signature Spell, one extra wizard spell prepped, and the stat points needed for Wisdom 13.

You don't need Str 15 or dwarf or Dex 20 at all in order to benefit from heavy armor. Even with Str 8 you won't be much slower than a Dwarf, and you can Longstrider or take Mobile feat to offset the stat penalty if you want. Besides, investing in Dex 14ish or Str 15 (depending on array) doesn't cost you offense. It's not like you would otherwise have had the choice to allocate those stat points to Int 26 to boost your DCs by another +3, would you?


Compare that to wielding a shield when you're expected to tank and putting points into CON, when your class benefits from that and you're trying to be tanky.

The wizard can do his major contributions to combat (depending on level, that might be Hypnotic Pattern/Fear, or Polymorph, or Wall of Force, or Forcecage + Sickening Radiance, or Meteor Swarm) while still being tanky (in the sense of hard to kill + high threat = tanky). What exactly has the wizard sacrificed in terms of offense?

Moving on the other other subject, which seems to be examining "how tanky are Barbarians"?


Race: Half Orc.
Starting Stats: (27 point buy) 14/14/15/8/12/8, after racials 16/14/16/8/12/8
3rd level subclass choice: Totem (Bear)
4th level ASI: +2 STR (18/14/16/8/12/8)
8th level ASI: PAM
12th level ASI: +2 STR (20/14/16/8/12/8)
16th level ASI: +2 CON (20/14/18/8/12/8)
19th level ASI: +2 CON (20/14/20/8/12/8)
20th level capstone: (24/14/24/8/12/8)

AC: (no magic items) unarmored: 19, +2 with a shield. *snip*

HP: 285 (taking max at 1st level then average rounded up after that). Baseline resistant to everything except psychic, so that's really like having nearly 570 effective HP.

Substitute PAM for GWM if you want.

Tradeoffs...you didn't pick up GWM AND PAM. But if you wanted to drop back to only (only!) +5 CON, you could free up 2 ASIs. And you'd still have 103 more HP than the wizard could with +3 CON. Which lets you pick up GWM, PAM, and Sentinel. Which makes you infinitely more sticky than a wizard who is burning all his reactions and likely his concentration, plus most of his spell slots on defense. Which the barbarian gets for free (infinite rage, plus rage doesn't end early).

Assessment (20th level)

Mobility: moderate. 40' movement speed.
Ranged ability: meagre. 2 attacks per round for 1d8+2(6.5) assuming a longbow.
Melee ability: moderate. 2 attacks per round at +13 for 1d10+11(16.5) per hit, bonus attack for 1d4+11(13.5), total 46.5. Slightly better than a Booming Blade cantrip + Mobile feat combination; comparable to a warlock who uses Hex occasionally, but with a worse action economy that hurts DPR especially on round 1.
HP resilience: high, as long as Rage is active (i.e. vulnerable on round 1).
Resilience to control: low. +1 to Wis saves, +2 and advantage to Dex saves, -1 to Int saves, -1 to Cha saves. +13 to Str and Con saves.

This guy isn't going to be relevant in any dragon fights. He's going to fail his save vs. Frightful Presence immediately and spend the whole combat unable to approach the dragon unless someone else helps him out, and since his ranged ability is garbage, the dragon is free to ignore him and his whole pile of HP. Now it's certainly true that Calm Emotions or Heroism or something can help him out (ditto just running away or hiding in a Rope Trick for 1 solid minute until the Frightful Presence wears off), but even then he has no way to force the dragon to melee him, and even if it does he can only expect to do about 30 HP of damage to it per round (about 40ish if he goes Reckless, which again he should--but your original complain was about Reckless so I guess you disagree). That's too many hoops to jump through for only mediocre damage per round.

And it's not just dragon fights. A beholder can frighten him, charm him, turn him to stone, or put him to sleep (ending Rage BTW) based on his weak saves, and his pile of HP won't do a thing to help. A mind flayer will stun him or dominate him, a neogi will enslave him, even a CR 1 Vargouille will stun him and then kiss him, and a few days later his head rips off its body and goes looking for other mortals to kiss.

Does that make him a bad PC? Naw. You could have fun with this guy. But he's completely invested in only one dimension or security. What do they call that? "Fence post security," I think: like putting two hundred-foot-high fenceposts in the desert together and calling it a secure fence, when anyone who sees it will just go around.

Anyway, it's overkill. You know I like to run uber-Deadly combats and even there, a wizard with 140ish HP + temp HP is likely to be pretty okay in a Deadly x3-4ish combat, which means all of the Barbarian's extra HP do exactly nothing. They both get healed back to full HP after combat anyway (or even during combat, if a tactical withdrawal is necessary), so the Barbarian doesn't even have any attrition advantages.

[Dork_Forge]

Yeah he is, but they're both still likely to fail. E.g. CR 17 Adult Red Dragon, DC 21 Dex save, Barb probably has around +2 to Dex saves, needs a 19+ to save. With advantage, he's got a 19% chance of rolling 19+ and an 81% chance of not, so he'll take about 31 * 0.81 + 15 * 0.19 = ~28 HP of damage from the breath weapon. The wizard will often also have a +2ish to Dex, rolls 19+ only 10% of the time, will take about 31 * 0.9 + 15 * 0.1 = ~29 HP of damage. Not much difference.

The difference may be larger with Con based saves (e.g. Ancient White Dragon), but it depends mostly on whether the wizard took Resilient (Con). Even then it's not a large gap because Absorb Elements has already trimmed the worst-case scenario down to ~35 HP or so.

So in practice, the important difference isn't saving throw proficiencies, it's positioning and action economy. Can the wizard afford to Absorb Elements with his reaction?

The calculation may very well make sense mathematically, but is part of my bugbear with this kind of whiterooming. In practice the difference is not 1hp of damage, either they saved or failed at the time that theoretical 1hp difference will never be experienced unless they get breathed on a statistically relevant amount of times.

I think the question would be more appropriately phrased as: can the Wizard afford not to reserve their reaction and resources for Absorb Elements? They don't have the hp buffer (this is basically build agnostic, they just don't) that the Barbarian does and since the given example is a Bear totem, their failure case is so much worse. That's before including other factors such as concentration saves.


I sort of agree, Reckless is often a bad idea, but... what exactly is the Barbarian doing in the dragon fight if he's not Recklessly whaling on the dragon? It's a Bear Totem Barb, not an Ancestor, so it's not like he's contributing anything beyond damage, and with only two attacks that damage is fairly anemic anyway even if you are Reckless. It's a perfect scenario for using Reckless.

I don't want to get too caught up in the specific example here, and I'm certainly not a fan of blindly being Reckless all the time, but I think assuming a Reckless barb in this case is reasonable.

Still hitting..? I'm not entirely sure if we're exclusively talking about 20th level, so I will assume the capstone is not in effect, a 19th level Barbarian is likely looking at a to hit of +11. They don't need to Reckless to hit enough, and that's assuming there's no other facotrs like +x weapons in play.

But tbh they can just be there and get smacked, being a meat shield is a popular tactic for a lot of Barbarians and if looking for a mechanical reason to target them, the 14th level Bear ability.


I think it's impossible to talk much more about this in more detail without discussing specific builds. E.g. does the Barbarian really have high max HP as a defense, or did they focus more on the GWM/PAM offense side of things, maybe with Mobile for extra defense?

I think this is a bit of a disconnect in the dicsussion, I (and I think PhoenixPhyre) see it as the high HP is built into the Barbarian, where as the Wizard has to really work to not have trash HP.

Many people write off hit die size as not important (and I think that's incorrect) but in this particular example the hit die size difference is accounting for 63hp increase over a straight Wizard and 62 over a Cleric dipped one.

That's a huge difference, and that's assuming they have the same Con, which sorry there's absolutely no reason for that to be the case in anything but extreme edge cases. Even if they do both have +3, there's already a gap before accounting for the capstone adding another 40hp to the Barbarian.


As a data point though, RE: balancing out, an Adult Red Dragon's tail attack at +14 for 2d8+8 bludgeoning will do 9.55 HP on average against a tanky wizard with passive AC 21 (e.g. Enchanter 19/Forge Cleric 1). Against a Reckless, Half plate-armored AC 17 Barbearian, it will do 6.63. In the context of a claim that the Barbarian "barely lost any [HP]", 9.55 HP vs. 6.63 HP is what I meant by describing the HP loss as "similar" instead. Neither of these builds (AC 21 or AC 17 Reckless) is extreme--it's possible to reduce damage further, for either of them--but hopefully that at least clarifies what I'm claiming. They're both losing a lot of HP--neither Barbarian or Wizard is invulnerable to the dragon's attack routine.

Even in your own numbers the Wizard is taking roughly 45% more damage than the Barbearian, when taken in the context of their respective hp pools it looks really, really bad.

I wouldn't say anyone was invulnerable to it, but my frame of mind for durability is to focus on being able to take the hit and recover, rather than need to not get hit to begin with. You can never truly escape damage in the game reliably, that's why it's fun and not boring all the time.

This is part of why I favour Fighters over Barbarians, I like Second Wind, or any feature, that allows the recovery of hp. There's many ways to lose those hp to begin with, but getting them back is not always that easy.

Annecdotal reference: The Bearbarian 8/Swash 5 in one of my games is extremely tanky. He has the resistance and the options of Uncanny, Defensive Duelist (bumped to +7 currently) and Stone's Endurance. But once those hp are gone he's screwed, he has no way to regen himself unless potions are available, so if the healer goes down or gets busy things get tense fast.


I think we'd need to examine specific builds to go any deeper. A Barbarian who hypothetically invests in Con 20 as you suggest is very limited in other ways and I'm unwilling to assume that this "hugely different HP pool" you mention really is hugely different in practice.

What would you consider the lowest hp difference to be considered hugely different? As I illustrated above a significant Con difference isn't needed to make that difference happen, so maybe it's about where you draw the line?


You're going to have to explain to me how Enchanter 19/Forge 1 is sacrificing offense to such an extent that the comparison is unfair.

Also since you feel it's unfair to give the Barbarian PAM/GWM, please explain to me how a Barbarian that doesn't take damage-boosting feats like GWM or PAM remains relevant from levels 6-19, before the capstone comes online. They're barely relevant even with damage-boosting feats.

So on the how the Wiz build sacrificed for defense:

1) They dipped, slowing their spell progression down, limiting their Wizard potential and required meeting the prereq

2) They're wearing plate, which means they're giving up Stealth capability and either bumping Str or finding a way (investment) around the speed penalty. They also had to buy plate, which isn't trivial (or at least, shouldn't be).

3) They're using their +1 item on themselves in a defensive manner instead of offensive or giving it to a party member

4) The Wizard school used is defensive more than offensive in comparison with the average school

5) The Cleric subclass is more defensive than most

This isn't just a simple choices, that's a significant and purposeful defensive investment that doesn't even touch on spell preparation and spell slot expenditure.

As for the what do they contribute, 5e doesn't require hyper optimised damage to contribute and the subclass chosen is Bear Totem, so presumably the primary contribution is meant to be tanking.

I'm really confused by the barely relevant with those feats comment though, that suggests a hyper optimised level of damage as the standard if GWM/PAM is just barely getting by. That's not what the system expects, and I don't think it's what the majority of DMs or parties do either.


Edit: Just touching a little on the last post you made Max, you're not accounting for the 14th level Bear ability, yes it's within 5ft but with a +0 Dex vs a +2 w/advantage the Barbarian is much more likely to win initiative and close that gap.

In terms of attrition, sorry if you're referring to your specific style of play I have to disagree, healing back up to max is not normal after a fight based on your healing rules. In RAW 5e I wouldn't even take that as a given unless they're starting at full hit dice and have a very capable healer in the party...

[MaxWilson]

(A) I think the question would be more appropriately phrased as: can the Wizard afford not to reserve their reaction and resources for Absorb Elements? They don't have the hp buffer (this is basically build agnostic, they just don't) that the Barbarian does and since the given example is a Bear totem, their failure case is so much worse. That's before including other factors such as concentration saves.

*SNIP*

(B)

Even in your own numbers the Wizard is taking roughly 45% more damage than the Barbearian, when taken in the context of their respective hp pools it looks really, really bad.

*SNIP*

(C) What would you consider the lowest hp difference to be considered hugely different? As I illustrated above a significant Con difference isn't needed to make that difference happen, so maybe it's about where you draw the line?

(D) So on the how the Wiz build sacrificed for defense:

1) They dipped, slowing their spell progression down, limiting their Wizard potential and required meeting the prereq

2) They're wearing plate, which means they're giving up Stealth capability and either bumping Str or finding a way (investment) around the speed penalty. They also had to buy plate, which isn't trivial (or at least, shouldn't be).

3) They're using their +1 item on themselves in a defensive manner instead of offensive or giving it to a party member

4) The Wizard school used is defensive more than offensive in comparison with the average school

5) The Cleric subclass is more defensive than most

(E) I'm really confused by the barely relevant with those feats comment though, that suggests a hyper optimised level of damage as the standard if GWM/PAM is just barely getting by. That's not what the system expects, and I don't think it's what the majority of DMs or parties do either.

(F) Edit: Just touching a little on the last post you made Max, you're not accounting for the 14th level Bear ability, yes it's within 5ft but with a +0 Dex vs a +2 w/advantage the Barbarian is much more likely to win initiative and close that gap.

(G) In terms of attrition, sorry if you're referring to your specific style of play I have to disagree, healing back up to max is not normal after a fight based on your healing rules. In RAW 5e I wouldn't even take that as a given unless they're starting at full hit dice and have a very capable healer in the party...

Briefly addressing points in order before I go grocery shopping:

(A) Partly it depends on what rules are in play, what the wizard is concentrating on, how long it's been since the dragon lay breathed, and on the wizard's contingencies. Things like Death Ward and Contingency ("Cure Wounds V if I go below 10 HP") can make wizards breathe a lot easier. Generally I would agree that against a RAW vanilla dragon, it is smartest not to Shield against a legendary tail attack just in case he breathes on you next. The only exception would be if it's his first legendary action this round, which means he could hit you twice more and maybe Multiattack too. In that case I'd consider Shielding, depending on the situation.

(B) But in the context of the actual damage, 7 HP vs 10 HP, it's negligible. It's about 15% of the THP a Twilight cleric generates every round, or an Inspiring Leader generates every rest.

This comes back to the key issue of whether this is a fight for survival or a fight for attrition. The mathematics are different for each.

(C) When it materially affects your chances of survival/victory.

(D) #3 isn't necessarily true, and so neither is #5. Having flexibility is nice. Normally I see Forge Clerics boosting the offense of a warrior in the party, just like Ikarou does for Asha, but it's nice to have options for both.

I don't agree with #4. Enchanter, Evoker, Necromancer, Diviner all have some nice offensive stuff. In some ways also Illusionist but only at level 14+. Abjuror, War Wizard, Bladesinger, to some extent Conjuror and Transmuter all have nice defensive stuff, although Twilight Cleric and even Shepherd Druid make the Conjuror 14 cry.

I don't think #2 sacrifices any offense, just money and secondary stats, and #1 is true but irrelevant at level 20 (and at any level below that the Barb looks much worse without the capstone). And you still get slot progression.

(E) It's about breadth and versatility, not DPR per se. A PC whose only niche is DPR is barely relevant when I as a DM am arranging ways for the a party to solve a given problem. (I do this against a notional party, to avoid negating the build choices made by an actual party.) The player might do something clever that isn't based on PC abilities, but so might anyone.

(F) You're right, that helps a bit. At least you'll get an opportunity attack while the dragon pulls back to 10', if you can fly and were able to close in the first place.

(G) I'm not talking about the Evil Oni group. Besides, you guys are still relatively low level. A 20th level group plays out differently--e.g. Ikarou would have Aura of Vitality, it would be easier to access Rope Trick for Healer healing, the group would be more knowledgeable about each other's abilities and more comfortable asking Ikarou for healing, etc. In a RAW campaigns the healing would be even easier and the fights would be less deadly on average, so point (C) survival vs. attrition would be even more tilted towards attrition.

[Frogreaver]

If a Wizard is approaching anywhere near that amount of resource expenditure it highlights a major problem, what you're allocating as defensive fuel is a significant portion of their daily casting.

I think realistically the Wizard is going to end up taking hits and getting healed, like... every other character. The notion that they could adequately protect themselves even by burning that many of their slots to that purpose is uncommon to say the least in play.

And if they have heavily invested in their defense, well they'll still take damage, they've just taken large opportunity costs to reduce it somewhat.

One thing worth noting and I'll use an example to illustrate it.

Let's say your wizard has a 50% chance of being hit. Shield drops that to 25%. Meaning for every shield you are using you also are likely hit. If you use 10 shield spells in an adventuring day that means you were hit about 10 times as well (and not necessarily evenly spaced out between encounters). Of those 10 hits, on average 2 will be crits. Are yall's wizards really living through 8 hits and 2 crits an adventuring day? Are they really being hit that much?

[strangebloke]

This argument doesn't need to be that complicated.

Passive defenses like saves, AC, and hp are relatively easy to come by in 5e. Take AC as an example. Of all the classes that actually have poor AC by default at level 1, some are casters (bards, wizards, sorcerers and warlocks) and some are martials (rogues and monks). Regardless, most classes find it very very easy to have good AC. Tortles and mountain dwarves give 17 for very low investment. One level into cleric or fighter gets you heavy armor. Classes with light armor can grab medium armor as a feat (even a vhuman feat) and instantly have 18-19 AC. Or just play a hexblade or bladesinger. The build resources required to fix an AC problem are not significant.

Saves are equal for most classes until high levels.

So as far as "not needing resources" them we have literally just hp and hit dice as the martial's primary advantage here and even then that only really applies to comparisons between, say fighters and wizards. There are a few other resourceless features like evasion and uncanny dodge, but the vast majority of martial defensive abilities are active and require resources to use. Rage. Patient defense. Second wind. Indomitable. Etc.

All of these abilities scale poorly. Patient defense become affordable eventually but you have to sacrifice half your damage to use it. Rage mitigates less and less damage as a percentage as the game goes on. Second wind is a joke. Uncanny dodge is amazing, but doesn't scale with the increasing number of attacks.

Meanwhile... Shield guards for the whole turn. Blur eats up concentration which sucks, but AA is always good at what it does. Counter spell can always fill its role. We haven't even talked about high level defensive magic like shadow of moil.

This magic is very cheap. What other use does a 9th level wizard have for 1st level slots? The only time there is a significant "resource cost" is when you're a sorcerer with limited spell selection.

[MaxWilson]

One thing worth noting and I'll use an example to illustrate it.

Let's say your wizard has a 50% chance of being hit. Shield drops that to 25%. Meaning for every shield you are using you also are likely hit. If you use 10 shield spells in an adventuring day that means you were hit about 10 times as well (and not necessarily evenly spaced out between encounters). Of those 10 hits, on average 2 will be crits. Are yall's wizards really living through 8 hits and 2 crits an adventuring day? Are they really being hit that much?

No, they're not being critted that much, and armored wizards' base chance of being hit is typically significantly lower than 50%, so Shield is more efficient than you calculate it as. One important factor is that to-hit is expensive in CR terms: a DM can "buy" an awful lot of attacks at +4 for the same adjusted XP it would take to get a couple of attacks at +14. Ergo, swarms are deadlier than solos, ergo if your AC is high enough that swarms of +4s can't hit you much when you Shield (around AC 19-21), you're probably going to be okay. If I build an encounter with an even mix of high-CR solo encounters attacking at +14, and low-to-mid-CR monsters attacking at +4 to +8, the actual quantity of attacks made at +14 may be low (call it eight attacks, needing a 6 or higher to hit and an 11 or higher to hit through a Shield) while the number of attacks made at +4-8ish is an order of magnitude higher (call it a hundred, needing about a 14 to hit and a 19 to beat a Shield). Now add a source of potential disadvantage (like a wizard who's Dodging while concentrating on his Fear spell from last round) and a willingness to take little hits when they aren't worth Shielding, and it would not surprise me if the average (for savvy wizard players) were more like 0.4 big crits and 2 big hits plus 4 little hits per adventure, for a wizard who's front-lining. For a wizard "on the back lines" in whatever sense those hits and crits would go to someone else.

[Dork_Forge]

This argument doesn't need to be that complicated.

Passive defenses like saves, AC, and hp are relatively easy to come by in 5e. Take AC as an example. Of all the classes that actually have poor AC by default at level 1, some are casters (bards, wizards, sorcerers and warlocks) and some are martials (rogues and monks). Regardless, most classes find it very very easy to have good AC. Tortles and mountain dwarves give 17 for very low investment. One level into cleric or fighter gets you heavy armor. Classes with light armor can grab medium armor as a feat (even a vhuman feat) and instantly have 18-19 AC. Or just play a hexblade or bladesinger. The build resources required to fix an AC problem are not significant.

Saves are equal for most classes until high levels.

So as far as "not needing resources" them we have literally just hp and hit dice as the martial's primary advantage here and even then that only really applies to comparisons between, say fighters and wizards. There are a few other resourceless features like evasion and uncanny dodge, but the vast majority of martial defensive abilities are active and require resources to use. Rage. Patient defense. Second wind. Indomitable. Etc.

All of these abilities scale poorly. Patient defense become affordable eventually but you have to sacrifice half your damage to use it. Rage mitigates less and less damage as a percentage as the game goes on. Second wind is a joke. Uncanny dodge is amazing, but doesn't scale with the increasing number of attacks.

Meanwhile... Shield guards for the whole turn. Blur eats up concentration which sucks, but AA is always good at what it does. Counter spell can always fill its role. We haven't even talked about high level defensive magic like shadow of moil.

This magic is very cheap. What other use does a 9th level wizard have for 1st level slots? The only time there is a significant "resource cost" is when you're a sorcerer with limited spell selection.

It's late and I was going to reply to this tomorrow, but I just have to ask:

How is Second Wind bad in any way shape or form?

[Tanarii]

No, they're not being critted that much, and armored wizards' base chance of being hit is typically significantly lower than 50%,
"armored Wizard" is a contradiction in terms

[MaxWilson]

"armored Wizard" is a contradiction in terms

Only for diehards like yourself who ban feats, multiclassing, and presumably all races with armor proficiencies. :)

[Waazraath]

Only for diehards like yourself who ban feats, multiclassing, and presumably all races with armor proficiencies. :)

But the other extreme is of course to assume by default that it is normal that every wizard runs around with a high AC due to multi-class, feats and/or racial choices. It boils a bit down to what level of optimization you expect and what optional rules are included. Yeah, you can make a wizard tanky (though in general I'd agree more that if you have a martial that is build to be tanky, it is more tanky, in the games as we run them with often quite long adventuring days). In build contests etc. I'd also put forward that wizard with armor and shield, and a far higher AC than just "mage armor & dex bonus".

BUT. In the games I really play, at the table, I see the wizards (and sorcerers, and bards, and warlocks, for that matter) almost all the time single class, with a race that is deemed fun or appropriate for the background, and without all this kind of stuff. Are we talking here about a high optimization ceiling, with feats and racial choices and multiclass to compensate for inherent class weaknesses, or an optimization level where people just pick a decent race, and optimization (for a wizard, as example) is "put your highest stats in int and either dex or con, and pick decent spells"? I'd argue that the latter is a far more common way the game is played.

[Merudo]

This is part of why I favour Fighters over Barbarians, I like Second Wind, or any feature, that allows the recovery of hp. There's many ways to lose those hp to begin with, but getting them back is not always that easy.


That makes no sense to me.

Second Wind heals for 5.5HP + 1HP/level.
The Barbarian's d12 hit dice give them +1HP/level compared to the Fighter, plus an additional 1 for starting Barbarian.

So for most purposes the Fighter's Second Wind give them a mere +4.5HP per rest compared to the Barbarian. This comes at a steep price - the Fighter need a bonus action to activate their wind.

It seems insane to me to select your class based on a flat 4.5HP difference that doesn't scale.

Also for the record, any Wizard can cast False Life on themselves, for +5 THP per spell level. It's quite comparable to Cure Wounds, but can also be pre-cast before combat.

[Waazraath]

That makes no sense to me.

Second Wind heals for 5.5HP + 1HP/level.
The Barbarian's d12 hit dice give them +1HP/level compared to the Fighter, plus an additional 1 for starting Barbarian.

So for most purposes the Fighter's Second Wind give them a mere +4.5HP per rest compared to the Barbarian. This comes at a steep price - the Fighter need a bonus action to activate their wind.

It seems insane to me to select your class based on a flat 4.5HP difference that doesn't scale.

Also for the record, any Wizard can cast False Life on themselves, for +5 THP per spell level. It's quite comparable to Cure Wounds, but can also be pre-cast before combat.

Second wind is per short rest, so you'd be expexted to be able to use it a few times/day. The problem with False Life is the 1 hour duration - fine if you know a fight is coming in that period (and you have a lot of slots left, and you think there won't be that many encounters anymore - cause this isn't the most effective use of spell slots I'd say), but useless if you don't know in advance. Worse, if you think a fight is coming and it's not, it's wasted.

[MaxWilson]

That makes no sense to me.

Second Wind heals for 5.5HP + 1HP/level.
The Barbarian's d12 hit dice give them +1HP/level compared to the Fighter, plus an additional 1 for starting Barbarian.

So for most purposes the Fighter's Second Wind give them a mere +4.5HP per rest compared to the Barbarian. This comes at a steep price - the Fighter need a bonus action to activate their wind.

It seems insane to me to select your class based on a flat 4.5HP difference that doesn't scale.

It scales with the number of rests though. With two short rests, the Fighter is getting 3d10+3*Lvl, and the Barb is still only getting 1+(1.5 to 2)*Lvl in net extra HP even counting HD healing.

Instead of a flat +4.5 HP, with two rests it's +14.5+(1 to 1.5)*Lvl HP. It's not huge but it's there.

[qube]

It scales with the number of rests though. With two short rests, the Fighter is getting 3d10+3*Lvl, and the Barb is still only getting 1+(1.5 to 2)*Lvl in net extra HP even counting HD healing.

Instead of a flat +4.5 HP, with two rests it's +14.5+(1 to 1.5)*Lvl HP. It's not huge but it's there.... but not counting rage though.

Leveling up, even with 5 short rests,
a fighter gets 6 (base) + 5.5 (HD) + 5 (5 second winds) = 16.5 hp
a barbarian gets (7 (base) + 5.5 (HD) ) * 2 = 25 effective hp

a fighter's pool increases with short rests (5 second winds is an additional 5d10) but a barbarian easily catches up (5 levels = 5 HD that are affected by resistance).

Lets be honest here - there's a reason why barbarians can survive melee with a lower AC, and even giving enemies advantageous on their attacks.

[Dork_Forge]

That makes no sense to me.

Second Wind heals for 5.5HP + 1HP/level.
The Barbarian's d12 hit dice give them +1HP/level compared to the Fighter, plus an additional 1 for starting Barbarian.

So for most purposes the Fighter's Second Wind give them a mere +4.5HP per rest compared to the Barbarian. This comes at a steep price - the Fighter need a bonus action to activate their wind.

It seems insane to me to select your class based on a flat 4.5HP difference that doesn't scale.

Also for the record, any Wizard can cast False Life on themselves, for +5 THP per spell level. It's quite comparable to Cure Wounds, but can also be pre-cast before combat.

A bonus action on a class that has no inherent use for its bonus action is not a steep cost. The fact it only requires a bonus action is a strength and a reason (along with it recharging on a SR) that it isn't a higher recovery formula.

Context: To me Second Wind is shrugging off a blow or two and pushing on, and the hp formula is perfectly fine for that and scales well.

Yes a Barbarian has a larger hit die, that's to help build their niche of taking a lot of damage and it's needed to help them deal with damage taken outside of Rage, which certainly should be happening. If a Barbarian isn't raging, or is out of uses of rage then all they really have defense wise is their larger hp pool (for the most part).

Fighters generally have a higher AC and Second Wind.

I like having buttons to push and resources to manage and like being able to recover from unexpected blows, so I prefer Fighter over Barbarian. I'm also a fan of taking the Tough feat and have a relatively high Con on my builds. So if I play a Fighter they'll have a lot of HP + Second Wind.

Note at no point did I say Fighters were better or tougher than Barbarians, I stated my play preference.

On False Life: Sure, Wizards could do that and it's something I've done as a Sorcerer and certainly on a Warlock, but I've never seen it even mentioned for a Wizard outside of a 'yeah but they could do this' context. I find it a little hard to believe that a Wizard would spend the slot and prepared spell on it, if they learned it to begin with. Even if they did choose it, no, it is not comparable to Cure Wounds at all.

It's temp hp that lasts an hour, it's not exactly a stretch that it could be partially or entirely wasted. 1d4+4 is simply not as good as 1d8+casting mod, sure it upcasts more reliably, but it is already working to make up a deficit.

This touches on a pet peeve of mine: temp hp isn't real hp, and it isn't healing. It does nothing to help you against things like hp drain/reduction and taking temp hp as a more real hp is a false sense of security. I say this as someone that is a fan of temp hp and that runs a group that has a Glamour Bard in it that has literally been kept alive at times by their temp hp.


... but not counting rage though.

Leveling up, even with 5 short rests,
a fighter gets 6 (base) + 5.5 (HD) + 5 (5 second winds) = 16.5 hp
a barbarian gets (7 (base) + 5.5 (HD) ) * 2 = 25 effective hp

a fighter's pool increases with short rests (5 second winds is an additional 5d10) but a barbarian easily catches up (5 levels = 5 HD that are affected by resistance).

Lets be honest here - there's a reason why barbarians can survive melee with a lower AC, and even giving enemies advantageous on their attacks.

To be honest I have no idea what your math is driving at really, but imo:

Assuming that a Barbarian will always be raging is a sin of optimisation. Traps, and just not going high enough in the initiative order to Rage before being attacked should both be happening.

[Frogreaver]

But the other extreme is of course to assume by default that it is normal that every wizard runs around with a high AC due to multi-class, feats and/or racial choices. It boils a bit down to what level of optimization you expect and what optional rules are included. Yeah, you can make a wizard tanky (though in general I'd agree more that if you have a martial that is build to be tanky, it is more tanky, in the games as we run them with often quite long adventuring days). In build contests etc. I'd also put forward that wizard with armor and shield, and a far higher AC than just "mage armor & dex bonus".

BUT. In the games I really play, at the table, I see the wizards (and sorcerers, and bards, and warlocks, for that matter) almost all the time single class, with a race that is deemed fun or appropriate for the background, and without all this kind of stuff. Are we talking here about a high optimization ceiling, with feats and racial choices and multiclass to compensate for inherent class weaknesses, or an optimization level where people just pick a decent race, and optimization (for a wizard, as example) is "put your highest stats in int and either dex or con, and pick decent spells"? I'd argue that the latter is a far more common way the game is played.

Exactly this. This thread is about Wizards in general not just armored wizards.

The other assumption I see regularly coming up in this thread is that enemies will tend to go after wizards more than any other PC just because they recognize them as a Wizard. While some people play that way, it's not really the norm IME either. To me that's the assumption most likely causing Wizards in their games to get attacked just as much if not more than other PC's.

IMO, there's no way for enemies to tell the apparent power of any PC outside directly observing them. Theoretically, enemies coming up on a random group of adventurers have no clue what the dangerous or priority targets are. From the enemies perspective they don't know anything about any of the PC's capabilities. The Wizard could be level 1 for all they know and the Fighter level 11.


That makes no sense to me.

Second Wind heals for 5.5HP + 1HP/level.
The Barbarian's d12 hit dice give them +1HP/level compared to the Fighter, plus an additional 1 for starting Barbarian.

So for most purposes the Fighter's Second Wind give them a mere +4.5HP per rest compared to the Barbarian. This comes at a steep price - the Fighter need a bonus action to activate their wind.

It seems insane to me to select your class based on a flat 4.5HP difference that doesn't scale.

Also for the record, any Wizard can cast False Life on themselves, for +5 THP per spell level. It's quite comparable to Cure Wounds, but can also be pre-cast before combat.

A level 5 fighter battlemaster using a rapier + shield can have 19 AC, 49 hp, the ability to 2nd wind for 10.5 average hp, and the ability to reduce 8.5 damage per superiority dice (total 4 dice for 34 damage mitigation). In a single encounter he can actually become tougher or at least just as tough to down as a raging barbarian (at least against attacks).

[strangebloke]

It's late and I was going to reply to this tomorrow, but I just have to ask:

How is Second Wind bad in any way shape or form?

Perhaps I shouldn't have said 'bad' outright; obviously you'd rather have it than not. But its outclassed in category. To compare it with other similar resource pools in other classes, you have things like the celestial warlocks 1d6/(level+1)/lr or the Paladin's 5/level/lr or the life cleric's 5/level/lr or the Dream's Duid's 1d6/level/lr and it becomes clear that "martials" don't really have anything particularly special in the healing department, and that in fact healing resources are ludicrously common and effective even if your party doesn't happen to have aura of vitality or a healer or inspiring leader or healing spirit.

Is it a weakness of a wizard that they don't specifically have very strong healing effects? sure! But its not very meaningful because of how ubiquitous healing effects are generally.


But the other extreme is of course to assume by default that it is normal that every wizard runs around with a high AC due to multi-class, feats and/or racial choices. It boils a bit down to what level of optimization you expect and what optional rules are included. Yeah, you can make a wizard tanky (though in general I'd agree more that if you have a martial that is build to be tanky, it is more tanky, in the games as we run them with often quite long adventuring days). In build contests etc. I'd also put forward that wizard with armor and shield, and a far higher AC than just "mage armor & dex bonus".

BUT. In the games I really play, at the table, I see the wizards (and sorcerers, and bards, and warlocks, for that matter) almost all the time single class, with a race that is deemed fun or appropriate for the background, and without all this kind of stuff. Are we talking here about a high optimization ceiling, with feats and racial choices and multiclass to compensate for inherent class weaknesses, or an optimization level where people just pick a decent race, and optimization (for a wizard, as example) is "put your highest stats in int and either dex or con, and pick decent spells"? I'd argue that the latter is a far more common way the game is played.

its still incorrect to say that "armored wizard" is a "contradiction in terms," when making one is as simple as "playing a dwarf."

More to the point, people just overstate how important AC even is. A basic wizard starts with 16 AC, which is as much as most GWF fighters have, and more than most rogues or bards or warlocks. But it doesn't matter, because -1 or +1 AC only matters 1/20 times you get attacks, which. well. That might be a significant proportional percentage of the damage you would otherwise take? If we're being generous, having 17 AC from medium armor over 16 might lead to something like a 20% damage reduction? But that assumes an enemy with a minus 1 modifier.

As the game goes on, the gap between a GWF fighter and a wizard grows to a massive 2 AC, which reduces damage by a stunning 10%, or perhaps as much as 40% if you've hit 5th level and you're still fighting enemies with a minus one modifier.

This is where OP's topic comes in. For 3-4 rounds per long rest, the wizard can reduce damage by close to 100%, for the cost of a resource that is pretty much useless outside of low-level play. This ability is very strong and to my mind represents a very strong bonus to the survivability of wizards. If you're going to argue that martials have more survivability because of something as marginal as +2 AC its seems like Shield is absolutely a relevant point of discussion.\

[qube]

> a fighter gets 6 (base) + 5.5 (HD) + 5 (5 second winds) = 16.5 hp
> a barbarian gets (7 (base) + 5.5 (HD) ) * 2 = 25 effective hp

To be honest I have no idea what your math is driving at really, but imo:
Assuming that a Barbarian will always be raging is a sin of optimisation
My maths indicate that the barbarian blows the fighter out of the water when it comes to hp, because the scaling of resistance significantly trumps the scaling of second wind.

To get equivalent hp, that 8.5 point difference (which acctually should be 14.5 difference* ) - needs to be covered by the 5d10 (27.5) which that's not in the calc (as it remains the same during level up).

As 14.5 < 27.5 ... leveling up 1 level barbarian will not outclass the fighter.
... but 2 levels does.

In terms of hp, a barbarian that's always allowed to rage, surpasses the 5-second wind fighter by level 3 (2 level ups).

FYI: the equalising point is at 17% of hits. If they get equally, and the barbarian only rages in 17% of the hits, him and the fighter get the same amount of hp per level.


... of course, then you once again can argue that the fighter gets protected because of higher AC, and thus get hits less
... and then it's almost as though we have to come to the conclusion that the game is kinda maybe a little bit balanced.

------------------

but the real conclusion is:

This is part of why I favour Fighters over Barbarians, I like Second Wind, or any feature, that allows the recovery of hp. There's many ways to lose those hp to begin with, but getting them back is not always that easy.
~ Dork_Forge

That's because barbarians with a mechanic of 'not losing them in the first place', and thus only looking at recovery capability doesn't create a fair comparison.

[Dork_Forge]

Perhaps I shouldn't have said 'bad' outright; obviously you'd rather have it than not. But its outclassed in category. To compare it with other similar resource pools in other classes, you have things like the celestial warlocks 1d6/(level+1)/lr or the Paladin's 5/level/lr or the life cleric's 5/level/lr or the Dream's Duid's 1d6/level/lr and it becomes clear that "martials" don't really have anything particularly special in the healing department, and that in fact healing resources are ludicrously common and effective even if your party doesn't happen to have aura of vitality or a healer or inspiring leader or healing spirit.

I'm not sure why you're comparing a self heal to general healing abilities, but off the bat:

-You're saying that martials have nothing special healing wise when one of the things you pointed to was a core Paladin feature.

-You're comparing healing subclasses to a core class feature.

That said, I don't understand why you think most of that outclasses Second Wind, to compare SW vs most of those I'm going to just multiple it by 3 and we'll look at 5th level to at least make it interesting:

Second Wind- 3d10+15 = 31.5hp

Celestial Warlock- 6d6= 21hp

Dreams Druid- 5d6=17.5+5temp hp

Paladin- 25

Life Cleric- 75hp

So the only example you gave that actually provides more healing is the Life Cleric, but that has the stipulation that you can only heal a creature up to half of their health, meaning that realistically there will be a lot of wasted potential hp.

Both Lay on Hands and Preserve Life require and action vs the bonus action of Second Wind.

Healing Light and Balm of the Summer Court are entirely dice based, meaning that they're swingy and unreliable.

And this wasn't some magic level where the Fighter wins, it takes another 3 levels for the Paladin to overtake them, and the bonus action heals never do.

So the total amount of healing Second Wind delivers across the day certainly is competitive, it scales in a way that makes it a reliable heal, and it's a bonus action so should never have the top end potential of something like Lay on Hands to begin with.

As for healing effects being 'ludicrously' common, that is incredibly dependent on your party composition and their spell choices and there's a significant gap between some healing, and good healing.


Is it a weakness of a wizard that they don't specifically have very strong healing effects? sure! But its not very meaningful because of how ubiquitous healing effects are generally.

They don't have any healing effects outside of Vampiric Touch and using Wish to replicate a healing spell.

And it's certainly meaningful in the context of the conversation and generally because it means they're entirely reliant on rests and other PCs when their defenses inevitibly fail.


its still incorrect to say that "armored wizard" is a "contradiction in terms," when making one is as simple as "playing a dwarf."

I get what you're driving at, but it's certainly the exception by a significant margin and usually involves some kind of compromise.


More to the point, people just overstate how important AC even is. A basic wizard starts with 16 AC, which is as much as most GWF fighters have, and more than most rogues or bards or warlocks. But it doesn't matter, because -1 or +1 AC only matters 1/20 times you get attacks, which. well. That might be a significant proportional percentage of the damage you would otherwise take? If we're being generous, having 17 AC from medium armor over 16 might lead to something like a 20% damage reduction? But that assumes an enemy with a minus 1 modifier.

As the game goes on, the gap between a GWF fighter and a wizard grows to a massive 2 AC, which reduces damage by a stunning 10%, or perhaps as much as 40% if you've hit 5th level and you're still fighting enemies with a minus one modifier.

Err what?

So the Wizard is of course going to start out with a +3 Dex and Mage Armor, let's just ignore that their AC is dependent on a limited duration spell that eats at least one slot a day.

Everyone else has starting armor?

Are you purposefully looking at level 1 for some reason? Because outside of that your assumptions rapidly begin to fall apart:

There's no reason why a Wizard would have more AC than a Rogue for anything but a fleeting moment, most Rogues will settle around 17 AC with mundane studded leather.

Bards maybe one less than the Wizard using a spell, though Bards have significantly more incentive to have a good Dex than a Wizard and two different subclasses give medium armor.

Warlocks can have an invocation that gives at will Mage Armor, I'd wager that's a pretty popular invocation and dispute the better than most Warlocks claim. Likely the same.

And here's the thing, for a Wizard to be as you describe they need to invest in starting with a +3 Dex, and then there's realistically little upward movement unless they multiclass to get shields and medium armor.

All the comparisons you listed are more likely ot improve their standard AC, and that's considering your primary point of comparison is a GWF Fighter, a bad clunky Fighting style on a build that is making defensive concessions for offense in a way the Wizard is not.


This is where OP's topic comes in. For 3-4 rounds per long rest, the wizard can reduce damage by close to 100%, for the cost of a resource that is pretty much useless outside of low-level play. This ability is very strong and to my mind represents a very strong bonus to the survivability of wizards. If you're going to argue that martials have more survivability because of something as marginal as +2 AC its seems like Shield is absolutely a relevant point of discussion.\

Shield contends with other reaction use and all the baggage being a spell brings to bear, it's not an automatically applied thing and sorry, I don't find 1st level spells being useless outside of low level play a compelling argument.

What's low level here? Is there always time to ritual cast what you want? Did the following spells become useless at some arbitrary level that I was unaware of...?

-Charm Person
-Disguise Self
-Feather Fall
-Long Strider
-...Mage Armor
-Protection from Evil and Good
-Silent Image

All of those spells seem useful, some even gaining more use as levels increase, and none of them are rituals. I even left out things like Grease and Magic Missile, which can certainly have a place.


My maths indicate that the barbarian blows the fighter out of the water when it comes to hp, because the scaling of resistance significantly trumps the scaling of second wind.

To get equivalent hp, that 8.5 point difference (which acctually should be 14.5 difference* ) - needs to be covered by the 5d10 (27.5) which that's not in the calc (as it remains the same during level up).

As 14.5 < 27.5 ... leveling up 1 level barbarian will not outclass the fighter.
... but 2 levels does.

In terms of hp, a barbarian that's always allowed to rage, surpasses the 5-second wind fighter by level 3 (2 level ups).

FYI: the equalising point is at 17% of hits. If they get equally, and the barbarian only rages in 17% of the hits, him and the fighter get the same amount of hp per level.


... of course, then you once again can argue that the fighter gets protected because of higher AC, and thus get hits less
... and then it's almost as though we have to come to the conclusion that the game is kinda maybe a little bit balanced.

------------------

but the real conclusion is:

This is part of why I favour Fighters over Barbarians, I like Second Wind, or any feature, that allows the recovery of hp. There's many ways to lose those hp to begin with, but getting them back is not always that easy.
~ Dork_Forge

That's because barbarians with a mechanic of 'not losing them in the first place', and thus only looking at recovery capability doesn't create a fair comparison.

Comparing them like that is assuming that a Barbarian always has rage (unrealistic), always rages in combat before they get attacked (unrealistic), and that they never, ever take any trap or environmental damage (unrealistic).

Besides that heavily flawed basis, I'm not seeing accounting for non BPS damage. Second Wind heals you regardless what the damage type was, the majority of Barbarians are only resistant to BPS.

They're different, they do different things, but this claim that Barbarians blow Fighers out of the water, well just doesn't hold water sorry.

I look for recovery capability because it's more reliable than hoping to prevent damage to begin with, it's on balance a durbaility thing, not writing Barbarians off because they dont' have a recovery mechanic.

[MaxWilson]

But the other extreme is of course to assume by default that it is normal that every wizard runs around with a high AC due to multi-class, feats and/or racial choices.

You're not wrong, but be careful--it's easy to derail a thread like this into incorrectly believing that unspecified people posting to it are making this hypothetical false assumption. I've already seen people quoting this post of yours as evidence that this mistake is being made, so I just want to point out that this extreme is a fallacy that is not being committed on this thread.

[Frogreaver]

You're not wrong, but be careful--it's easy to derail a thread like this into incorrectly believing that unspecified people posting to it are making this hypothetical false assumption. I've already seen people quoting this post of yours as evidence that this mistake is being made, so I just want to point out that this extreme is a fallacy that is not being committed on this thread.

Since I'm the one that quoted his post I think we need to clear one thing up. I didn't quote his post as evidence of anything. I quoted his post because he already said what I was going to say very well.

While we are clearing things up, it seems you almost always assume an armored wizard. Is this true?

[MaxWilson]

While we are clearing things up, it seems you almost always assume an armored wizard. Is this true?

No.

When I say "armored wizard", it's to distinguish armored wizards from unarmored wizards. Unarmored wizards have different priorities.

[Tanarii]

Only for diehards like yourself who ban feats, multiclassing, and presumably all races with armor proficiencies. :)
If they multiclass, they're no longer a Wizard or Sorcerer. My point stands here.

They have to spend two feats to get Medium armor. And Mountain Dwarf Wizards and Sorcerers get to be armored, yes. Those two cases are definitely outliers when it comes to armored Wizards. But hats a fair cost to pay and a thematically armored caster race. But not worth considering as a standard case.

Discussing armored Wizards isn't helpful to discussing the game. You've got a broken option (1 level multiclass dips) that if DMs allow, that's on their own head. And you've got a balanced and niche options to do it (feats) and a default race that is thematic if chosen.

[strangebloke]

I'm not sure why you're comparing a self heal to general healing abilities, but off the bat:
-You're saying that martials have nothing special healing wise when one of the things you pointed to was a core Paladin feature.
-You're comparing healing subclasses to a core class feature.

That said, I don't understand why you think most of that outclasses Second Wind, to compare SW vs most of those I'm going to just multiple it by 3 and we'll look at 5th level to at least make it interesting:

Second Wind- 3d10+15 = 31.5hp
Celestial Warlock- 6d6= 21hp
Dreams Druid- 5d6=17.5+5temp hp
Paladin- 25
Life Cleric- 75hp

So the only example you gave that actually provides more healing is the Life Cleric, but that has the stipulation that you can only heal a creature up to half of their health, meaning that realistically there will be a lot of wasted potential hp.

Both Lay on Hands and Preserve Life require and action vs the bonus action of Second Wind.

Healing Light and Balm of the Summer Court are entirely dice based, meaning that they're swingy and unreliable.

And this wasn't some magic level where the Fighter wins, it takes another 3 levels for the Paladin to overtake them, and the bonus action heals never do.

So the total amount of healing Second Wind delivers across the day certainly is competitive, it scales in a way that makes it a reliable heal, and it's a bonus action so should never have the top end potential of something like Lay on Hands to begin with.

As for healing effects being 'ludicrously' common, that is incredibly dependent on your party composition and their spell choices and there's a significant gap between some healing, and good healing.

You're ignoring the constraints that are inherent to SW and only fixating on its meager positives. It's a short rest self-heal, meaning

it can't be used to bring someone back from 0, the primary use of in-combat healing.
it can't heal for very much at once, thereby making it less useful as in combat healing compared to the other options here.
you only get real value if multiple short rests are in play, which is not something that can be assumed in "normal play." Sure 5 SR happens at my table sometimes but I don't think a survey of "normal play" would show such a trend.
You only get to heal damage you take. If you take no damage, take a short rest, and then get dropped to zero afterwards, one of your healing uses has been 'wasted.'

I would guess that under the auspices of "normal" play, second wind most frequently gets used 1-2 times between long rests in situations where it may not ultimately matter, whereas abilities like the celestial warlock's heal almost always gets used to full efficiency, sometimes saving an entire encounter by bringing someone back to fighting shape from 0.

And healing features are ubiquitous. Party composition really doesn't matter. Everyone has hit dice, every cleric and druid and bard and ranger and paladin has access to strong healing options. Feats like Inspiring Leader and Healer completely blow SW's damage mitigation out of the water (even in combat, healer can bring someone back from zero while SW can't, and inspiring leader does a better job preventing someone from hitting zero in the first place.)

And that's without even mentioning spells. Healing spirit is a 2nd level spell that almost always creates a full-party total heal.

Second Wind isn't bad in the sense of being useless, but its not a compelling argument for the longterm survivability of the fighter. It's a minor resource that allows them to avoid dropping to zero sometimes.


They don't have any healing effects outside of Vampiric Touch and using Wish to replicate a healing spell.

And it's certainly meaningful in the context of the conversation and generally because it means they're entirely reliant on rests and other PCs when their defenses inevitibly fail.
"inevitably?"

I run very high-attrition games. 5 short rests, 7-8 encounters between long rests. I have run about a thousand cumulative hours of such games online, and something like half that in person. I have seen several wizards over this time. I have have had one wizard die (got isolated from party and talked smack to a dragon while on his own) and one wizard who dropped to zero a lot (the only first level spell she ever cast was witch bolt.) Generally if the wizards made such minor concessions to survivability as "picking mage armor, shield, and Absorb Elements" they were among the more resilient members of the party. 4 rounds of +5 AC, base AC that's around 16 to begin with, and Arcane recovery gets you back 3-4 1st level spells if you actually need it.

And remember: this isn't just 5 attacks you're ignoring, this if 5 rounds, and critically you get to choose. If you get lucky and the warlord's first three attacks miss and the last one would hit, you don't have to spend shield because you know its just one hit. Conversely, if you get unlucky and (would) get hit four times, you cast it on the first one and then block potentially 3-4 of the attacks.

Shield mitigates an absurd amount of damage when used strategically, often as much as 10-20 per casting at high levels.

In my games at least, party members such as clerics, valor bards, rogues, monks, and (especially) sorcerers have struggled a lot more with surviving on average. Wizards do have an advantage here in that they tend to be a lot further from the action.


I get what you're driving at, but it's certainly the exception by a significant margin and usually involves some kind of compromise.
I don't really think a wizard with 18 or more AC is that weird. I've seen it... three times, out of the four wizards I've seen in play. All played by different people!

One guy multiclassed into knowledge cleric. One guy started in fighter. The third guy just rolled well and started with 17 DEX and 15 INT. He picked High elf, then picked EA at level 8.


Err what?

So the Wizard is of course going to start out with a +3 Dex and Mage Armor, let's just ignore that their AC is dependent on a limited duration spell that eats at least one slot a day.

Everyone else has starting armor?

Are you purposefully looking at level 1 for some reason? Because outside of that your assumptions rapidly begin to fall apart:

There's no reason why a Wizard would have more AC than a Rogue for anything but a fleeting moment, most Rogues will settle around 17 AC with mundane studded leather.

Bards maybe one less than the Wizard using a spell, though Bards have significantly more incentive to have a good Dex than a Wizard and two different subclasses give medium armor.

Warlocks can have an invocation that gives at will Mage Armor, I'd wager that's a pretty popular invocation and dispute the better than most Warlocks claim. Likely the same.

And here's the thing, for a Wizard to be as you describe they need to invest in starting with a +3 Dex, and then there's realistically little upward movement unless they multiclass to get shields and medium armor.

All the comparisons you listed are more likely ot improve their standard AC, and that's considering your primary point of comparison is a GWF Fighter, a bad clunky Fighting style on a build that is making defensive concessions for offense in a way the Wizard is not.

Lets go over the size of the AC advantage that each class has over a wizard who makes no investment into defense beyond Mage Armor. We'll do this at 10th level.

+5 Forge Cleric or Paladin/Fighter in full plate with shield and defense style. (has to fight with sword and board without dueling style)
+4 Cleric or fighter in full plate with a shield
+3 Anyone in half-plate with shield (at this level and all levels above this, characters have disadvantage on stealth checks. Still using sword and board)
+2 Monks, Plate wearers with no shield. (eg, any build using bows or polearms or greatswords)
+1 light armor classes who maxed dexterity. Half-plate users without shields. (half plate bros are still giving up disadvantage on stealth checks)
-1 Light armor classes who didn't invest in dexterity or mage armor (EG, bards, warlocks)


So yeah, most classes end up a little better than wizards, or a lot better if they optimize for that one thing. But how much damage mitigation does this translate to? Well a standard CR 10 enemy would typically have a +9 attack mod (maxed offensive stat, +4 proficiency) so that means that they hit a wizard with a 7 to attack, and a forge cleric with a 12 to attack. Or to put it another way, they hit the cleric 45% of the time and the wizard 70% of the time, meaning the forge cleric takes (proportionally) 36% more damage. That's a lot! But what if we step away from comparisons between hyper-optimized defenders and wizards with no defensive investment? What if we look at, say, a fighter in half-plate who uses a bow? Well they get hit by an 8 to attack, or 65% of the time, which means their build gets proportional damage reduction relative to the wizard of... 6.4%. If he picked the defense style or wears plate, he gets 14.3% reduction!!

woooooo!!!! wizards suck!

AC isn't really a big deal in class balance unless you're considering extreme cases like 20 AC defensively-optimized characters or barbarians. (and actually crits skew things against the high AC builds, the above analysis would yield 33.3%, 5.6%, and 13.3% damage reduction respectively)

When combined with HP advantages of say fighters versus wizards, it does add up, but we're still ultimately talking about "taking 20% more hits" which imo isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.


Shield contends with other reaction use and all the baggage being a spell brings to bear, it's not an automatically applied thing and sorry, I don't find 1st level spells being useless outside of low level play a compelling argument.

What's low level here? Is there always time to ritual cast what you want? Did the following spells become useless at some arbitrary level that I was unaware of...?

-Charm Person
-Disguise Self
-Feather Fall
-Long Strider
-...Mage Armor
-Protection from Evil and Good
-Silent Image

All of those spells seem useful, some even gaining more use as levels increase, and none of them are rituals. I even left out things like Grease and Magic Missile, which can certainly have a place.
Yes these are all very good spells! I agree!

But at the same time I don't think its fair to say that using spells on shield to stay alive represents a severe drop in overall power for say, a 9th level wizard.

If they multiclass, they're no longer a Wizard or Sorcerer. My point stands here.

They have to spend two feats to get Medium armor. And Mountain Dwarf Wizards and Sorcerers get to be armored, yes. Those two cases are definitely outliers when it comes to armored Wizards. But hats a fair cost to pay and a thematically armored caster race. But not worth considering as a standard case.

Discussing armored Wizards isn't helpful to discussing the game. You've got a broken option (1 level multiclass dips) that if DMs allow, that's on their own head. And you've got a balanced and niche options to do it (feats) and a default race that is thematic if chosen.

1 level dips are really good, and are arguably broken, which is part of the point I'm trying to outline here. Its very easy for classes to get access to high AC under commonly used rules. Saying "you can avoid this problem by [banning it] so it isn't relevant in discussing balance" seems a... wrong way to discuss class balance in 5e. I ban hexblades, but I'm not going to say that they shouldn't ever discussed. Yes, its a strongly centralizing option, but its surely worth bringing up?

Mountain dwarfs are one thing, but I'd argue githyanki and hobgoblins are more troublesome. At that point its one half-feat for 19 AC without magic, on races that are already very very good for wizards.

[MaxWilson]

If they multiclass, they're no longer a Wizard or Sorcerer. My point stands here.

They have to spend two feats to get Medium armor. And Mountain Dwarf Wizards and Sorcerers get to be armored, yes. Those two cases are definitely outliers when it comes to armored Wizards. But hats a fair cost to pay and a thematically armored caster race. But not worth considering as a standard case.

Discussing armored Wizards isn't helpful to discussing the game. You've got a broken option (1 level multiclass dips) that if DMs allow, that's on their own head. And you've got a balanced and niche options to do it (feats) and a default race that is thematic if chosen.

Man, I thought you were joking around when you originally said <<'armored Wizard' is a contradiction in terms>> but I'm confused where you're going to defend that point for real ("my point stands here") or concede it as an exaggeration ("you've got a balanced and niche options to do it (feats) and a default race that is thematic if chosen").

I agree with you that the level 1 multiclass dip option is too cheap (many people do not agree but I think they are wrong), and actually I like the AD&D way much better where even if you get armor proficiency from somewhere, you still cannot cast wizard spells while armored. But redesigning 5E to be more like AD&D is not what this thread is about. In 5E "armored wizard" is very much a thing, not a contradiction in terms.

[Dork_Forge]

You're ignoring the constraints that are inherent to SW and only fixating on its meager positives. It's a short rest self-heal, meaning

(A)it can't be used to bring someone back from 0, the primary use of in-combat healing.
(B)it can't heal for very much at once, thereby making it less useful as in combat healing compared to the other options here.
(C)you only get real value if multiple short rests are in play, which is not something that can be assumed in "normal play." Sure 5 SR happens at my table sometimes but I don't think a survey of "normal play" would show such a trend.
(D)You only get to heal damage you take. If you take no damage, take a short rest, and then get dropped to zero afterwards, one of your healing uses has been 'wasted.'


Okay, let me be very clear here. I have been talking about Second Wind as a self durability/recovery mechanic because that is what it is and designed to be. You then started mentioning other methods of healing so I assumed you meant self use. It's clear that you're just talking about healing in general now, which is not what was being discussed. It doesn't matter that Second Wind can't heal or bring someone else up, it's a self ability and that's not a valid criticism of what it's meant to be.

I will address your points because I think some need to be addressed, but you took an apple and threw it into an orange orchard.

A) That yoyo style mentality is not how everyone plays, it certainly isn't how I play. It makes no RP sense to let your comrades nearly die and it makes questionable game sense to let them get to that point either. Preventative healing over yoyo-ing all day every day.

B) It heals about enough to shrug off one or two 'hits' which is all it's meant to do, for the record the bonus action heals you mentioned are limited by casting mod and have a much lower floor and higher swingyness than SW. If it healed more hp then it wouldn't be suitable to be a SR resource.

C) You don't need 5 SR a day, that's just hyperbole. You're guaranteed one use and the game expects you to take 2 SR, though if you only get in 1 that's usually fine. If your table doesn't SR often that's a table problem and affects far, far more than just second wind (Monks, Warlocks etc.)

D) I really don't get this criticism. If you don't use all of your Balm of the Summer Court it's wasted! It's a healing resource, if you took no damage at all then no tears will be shed about it 'going to waste' unlike a multipurpose resource like spell slots.


I would guess that under the auspices of "normal" play, second wind most frequently gets used 1-2 times between long rests in situations where it may not ultimately matter, whereas abilities like the celestial warlock's heal almost always gets used to full efficiency, sometimes saving an entire encounter by bringing someone back to fighting shape from 0.

You can certainly not use up all of Healing light, or use it when it may not ultimately matter in the same way, but again apples to oranges.


And healing features are ubiquitous. Party composition really doesn't matter. Everyone has hit dice, every cleric and druid and bard and ranger and paladin has access to strong healing options. Feats like Inspiring Leader and Healer completely blow SW's damage mitigation out of the water (even in combat, healer can bring someone back from zero while SW can't, and inspiring leader does a better job preventing someone from hitting zero in the first place.)

Hit dice healing on a short rest is not a healing feature, it's a basic framework of the game.

There's 6 classes with no inherent access to healing, self or otherwise, of those 3 have subclasses that unlock healing. Just because a class can choose a healing spell, that does not mean the player will, or that they'll invest more than just Healing Word.

I think you're overestimating the amount of healing in the average party, but again this was an apple thrown to the oranges.

For the record though, Inspiring Leader is lvl+Cha, Second Wind is lvl+1d10, they're both used the same amount. Second Wind yields better 'mitigation,' not Inspiring Leader when talking about an individual.


And that's without even mentioning spells. Healing spirit is a 2nd level spell that almost always creates a full-party total heal.

Second Wind isn't bad in the sense of being useless, but its not a compelling argument for the longterm survivability of the fighter. It's a minor resource that allows them to avoid dropping to zero sometimes.

It's not minor by any sense, I hope you revaluate this in a more oranges to oranges fashion.


"inevitably?"

Yes, everyone's defenses fail at some point, everyone takes damage at various times, it's applicable to all classes and builds. The only way to guarantee safety is not play.


I run very high-attrition games. 5 short rests, 7-8 encounters between long rests. I have run about a thousand cumulative hours of such games online, and something like half that in person. I have seen several wizards over this time. I have have had one wizard die (got isolated from party and talked smack to a dragon while on his own) and one wizard who dropped to zero a lot (the only first level spell she ever cast was witch bolt.) Generally if the wizards made such minor concessions to survivability as "picking mage armor, shield, and Absorb Elements" they were among the more resilient members of the party. 4 rounds of +5 AC, base AC that's around 16 to begin with, and Arcane recovery gets you back 3-4 1st level spells if you actually need it.

That's a lot of short rests, like... a lot what's the actual difficulty of the encounters?

'high attrition' is very subjective, and 5 short rests as a regular thing, even 3, does not seem high attrition and would balloon some things out of control. That... includes Second Wind.


And remember: this isn't just 5 attacks you're ignoring, this if 5 rounds, and critically you get to choose. If you get lucky and the warlord's first three attacks miss and the last one would hit, you don't have to spend shield because you know its just one hit. Conversely, if you get unlucky and (would) get hit four times, you cast it on the first one and then block potentially 3-4 of the attacks.

Shield mitigates an absurd amount of damage when used strategically, often as much as 10-20 per casting at high levels.

Shield's a great spell, it's use is not guaranteed and relying on preventing hits in that manner is waiting for the other shoe to drop. The nastiest hits will be crits... which it does nothing against, and it's difficult for to keep up the AC where it would be effective at blocking hits at higher levels.


In my games at least, party members such as clerics, valor bards, rogues, monks, and (especially) sorcerers have struggled a lot more with surviving on average. Wizards do have an advantage here in that they tend to be a lot further from the action.

Err, that's a table quirk, there's no reason why a Wizard would be inherently further away than any of those classes. And there's certainly no reason why a Sorcerer would struggle so much more than a Wizard...


I don't really think a wizard with 18 or more AC is that weird. I've seen it... three times, out of the four wizards I've seen in play. All played by different people!

One guy multiclassed into knowledge cleric. One guy started in fighter. The third guy just rolled well and started with 17 DEX and 15 INT. He picked High elf, then picked EA at level 8.

So all three sacrificed their raw effectiveness as a Wizard, including the guy that rolled really well? Slowed progression, less spells prepared and so on, in exchange for better AC, which cost two of them a significant amount of gold...


Lets go over the size of the AC advantage that each class has over a wizard who makes no investment into defense beyond Mage Armor. We'll do this at 10th level.

+5 Forge Cleric or Paladin/Fighter in full plate with shield and defense style. (has to fight with sword and board without dueling style)
+4 Cleric or fighter in full plate with a shield
+3 Anyone in half-plate with shield (at this level and all levels above this, characters have disadvantage on stealth checks. Still using sword and board)
+2 Monks, Plate wearers with no shield. (eg, any build using bows or polearms or greatswords)
+1 light armor classes who maxed dexterity. Half-plate users without shields. (half plate bros are still giving up disadvantage on stealth checks)
-1 Light armor classes who didn't invest in dexterity or mage armor (EG, bards, warlocks)


So yeah, most classes end up a little better than wizards, or a lot better if they optimize for that one thing. But how much damage mitigation does this translate to? Well a standard CR 10 enemy would typically have a +9 attack mod (maxed offensive stat, +4 proficiency) so that means that they hit a wizard with a 7 to attack, and a forge cleric with a 12 to attack. Or to put it another way, they hit the cleric 45% of the time and the wizard 70% of the time, meaning the forge cleric takes (proportionally) 36% more damage. That's a lot! But what if we step away from comparisons between hyper-optimized defenders and wizards with no defensive investment? What if we look at, say, a fighter in half-plate who uses a bow? Well they get hit by an 8 to attack, or 65% of the time, which means their build gets proportional damage reduction relative to the wizard of... 6.4%. If he picked the defense style or wears plate, he gets 14.3% reduction!!

woooooo!!!! wizards suck!

AC isn't really a big deal in class balance unless you're considering extreme cases like 20 AC defensively-optimized characters or barbarians. (and actually crits skew things against the high AC builds, the above analysis would yield 33.3%, 5.6%, and 13.3% damage reduction respectively)

When combined with HP advantages of say fighters versus wizards, it does add up, but we're still ultimately talking about "taking 20% more hits" which imo isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.

Then we just disagree, I think having to invest resources and having a significantly smaller hp pool matters more than you do, and that's okay.

You did a lot of analysis there which... I don't really feel like addressing in depth, but skimming over it, why would a bow using Fighter use Half Plate and eat disadvantage for no reason?

Wizards have a smaller margin for error than most other classes due to lack of regen options and smaller hp pool, that's my stance and it holds up in my experience *shrug*

Yes these are all very good spells! I agree!


But at the same time I don't think its fair to say that using spells on shield to stay alive represents a severe drop in overall power for say, a 9th level wizard.

Then we disagree, but I will say that it depends on if you're just using as you need to, or if you're just saying no to everything else because you need those slots for Shield/Absorb Elements

[Tanarii]

Man, I thought you were joking around when you originally said <<'armored Wizard' is a contradiction in terms>> but I'm confused where you're going to defend that point for real ("my point stands here") or concede it as an exaggeration ("you've got a balanced and niche options to do it (feats) and a default race that is thematic if chosen").
I wasn't joking. It's a contradiction in terms, at least for D&D.

And one that often gets discarded because internet optimizers assume that they can just one level dip to get armor using an optional and IMO busted rule

But I'm conceding there is a balanced optional rule (in this particular case) in feats, and a nice thematic core rule for Mountain dwarf Wizards.

What? I don't have to be consistent.