Opinion: mage armor or light/medium armor on a sorceror/wizard

[Sindal]

Hi gang

This is more of a preference question since I'm aware both options are viable.

With the rules coming, any mage can pick up the 'lightly armored' feat at lvl1, giving them access to light and medium armor as well as a shield

Mages already have ways of protection in the form of mage armor and the shield spell.

Would nabbing lightly armored on a sorceor or wizard sound like a neat use of your free feat? Or do yoh believe mage armor is a relatively low effort enough resource that other feats are more enticing to you.

I was talking to someone (who doesn't play dnd) who regardless had more of a traditional 'I'd rather just pick something that commits to bring magey'. Another valid point since at the end of thr day it's the rolls that determine how useful your defenses are

Thoughts?

[kingcheesepants]

As of the current rules lightly armored only grants light armor and you have to take moderately armored to pick up medium armor and shields. I wasn't aware of the change to the feat but it does make it a lot stronger.
Right now most wizards and sorcerers use multiclassing if they wish to be armored. Considering how popular Cleric/artificer 1 Wiz x and hexblade 1 sorcerer x builds are, I would imagine that being able to pick up med armor and shields for the cost of one 1st level feat would be a very enticing option to many. This would of course depend on how good the other feats are but it's definitely going to be a contender.

As for mage armor, it really doesn't stack up against med armor and a shield. 13+dex mod means that even if you jack your dex up to 20 you still have worse armor than a guy with half plate and a shield. And when you factor in the ability to get things like +2 shields and adamantine armor the mage armor just looks worse and worse. However if they buff mage armor a bit it would make armor dipping or taking a feat less desirable. Or if they do something like bring back spell failure chance, though if they did that I certainly wouldn't play the game.

[Rukelnikov]

As far as defensive bonus conferred by both, light armor will likely be 1 less point of AC during T1, tie at some point during T2 (+1 armor), and eventually surpass Mage Armor at some point during T3 or T4. So adding Medium Armor and Shields on top of that, makes it clearly the better defensive feature.

However, is it worth a feat? That'll depend on the build, on a vacuum, I'd say generally no, get something else with your feat, and if you really want those proficiencies take a Cleric dip or any other class that grants those. For a really kill-the-fun interpretation, new!Alert is likely to end up preventing more damage than Lightly armored.

[Kurald Galain]

As far as defensive bonus conferred by both, light armor will likely be 1 less point of AC during T1, tie at some point during T2 (+1 armor), and eventually surpass Mage Armor at some point during T3 or T4.
Bear in mind that the feat also saves you one spell prepared, and one spell slot. Especially at low level, this is a big deal.

[Rukelnikov]

Bear in mind that the feat also saves you one spell prepared, and one spell slot. Especially at low level, this is a big deal.

That's true, at lvl 1 its a very good buff, the thing is lvls 1 and 2 usually go by really fast, so I generally evaluate stuff from 3 onwards, and I think by lvl 5 I'd already be having buyers remorse unless I'm a frontliner or for some reason expect to be the target of many attacks.

[Kurald Galain]

That's true, at lvl 1 its a very good buff, the thing is lvls 1 and 2 usually go by really fast, so I generally evaluate stuff from 3 onwards, and I think by lvl 5 I'd already be having buyers remorse unless I'm a frontliner or for some reason expect to be the target of many attacks.

True. Well personally I would spend a feat on better AC and +1 spell prepared and +1 spell slot; this is about the same strength as other common choices for wizard feats.

I would also consider multiclassing over this (as noted above, cleric 1/wizard X and artif 1/wizard X are popular) but of course multiclassing has additional benefits too.

[Pex]

For those who care about such things, a wizard casting Mage Armor isn't wasting a spell slot. It's a spell slot doing its job of being useful. You won't have the AC as the chain mail shield using paladin, but you're not supposed to be. What you should be doing, if your AC is of great concern to you, is take advantage of cover. Half-cover is your "shield". Three-fourths cover is your "plate mail". Full cover is not being targeted. You're not a rogue so aren't hidden, but unless the bad guy can move into a position to see you he's not targeting you to attack even though he knows you're right behind that large pillar. Meanwhile the paladin is in his face doing his job.

Worse comes to worse you're in an area with little to no place to get behind cover, create your own with Minor Illusion. Unless your DM rules illusions to uselessness a bad guy doesn't automatically know that boulder is not real as opposed to you conjured a real one.

[Psyren]

Hi gang

This is more of a preference question since I'm aware both options are viable.

With the rules coming, any mage can pick up the 'lightly armored' feat at lvl1, giving them access to light and medium armor as well as a shield

Mages already have ways of protection in the form of mage armor and the shield spell.

Would nabbing lightly armored on a sorceor or wizard sound like a neat use of your free feat? Or do yoh believe mage armor is a relatively low effort enough resource that other feats are more enticing to you.

I was talking to someone (who doesn't play dnd) who regardless had more of a traditional 'I'd rather just pick something that commits to bring magey'. Another valid point since at the end of thr day it's the rolls that determine how useful your defenses are

Thoughts?

If the UA version of Lightly Armored goes to print, it will be a very strong option for wizards, sorcerers, and even bards and warlocks. But keep in mind there are still hefty tradeoffs, like Alert, Lucky, and Magic Initiate (which will now straight up give you an extra spell prepared rather than a 1/day use of a spell), as well as the other Background feats released via splat. And we don't yet know all the 1st-level feats that will be in the new PHB, much less any that get printed outside of it.

As it stands right now, Lightly Armored is a great choice for a weak AC class, but there are plenty of reasons to pick something else too.

[Sindal]

If the UA version of Lightly Armored goes to print, it will be a very strong option for wizards, sorcerers, and even bards and warlocks. But keep in mind there are still hefty tradeoffs, like Alert, Lucky, and Magic Initiate (which will now straight up give you an extra spell prepared rather than a 1/day use of a spell), as well as the other Background feats released via splat. And we don't yet know all the 1st-level feats that will be in the new PHB, much less any that get printed outside of it.

As it stands right now, Lightly Armored is a great choice for a weak AC class, but there are plenty of reasons to pick something else too.

Yeah. A lot of the feats, or at least the level 1 feats that we've seen thus far, are all universally pretty useful.
I certanily wouldn't pick this feat as a be all end all, but for one of my characters, it seemed like a solid 'investment'

I suppose that's what I was trying to gauge, whether taking a whole 'feat' to get something you can technically already get to, or otherwise 'play smart' towards, was worth it.

But The discussion has helped me realized that pretty much all the new feats have value, if it is something your character lacks. And I suppose it's also sorta comforting to know that people who just want to slap some armor on their mage for reasons both 'in character' or 'mechanical' doesn't have to go through the process of multiclassing to get there.

The character I had in mind is one of my older characters, a divine soul sorceror (Yes I know divine soul isn't part of the new stuff coming and may not be coming at all). But 'remaking' him in the what we have in the new rules, I thought to myself "Huh...it's actually rather thematic that he would go out of his way to learn how to use armor and a shield. He might not be a cleric , because he values the support and utility offered by sorcerors spells/meta magic as well, and that also means he isn't always going to have the luxary of avoiding danger if he wants to help.

It's neat, mechincallly and naratively (for this character)

[Rukelnikov]

Yeah. A lot of the feats, or at least the level 1 feats that we've seen thus far, are all universally pretty useful.
I certanily wouldn't pick this feat as a be all end all, but for one of my characters, it seemed like a solid 'investment'

I suppose that's what I was trying to gauge, whether taking a whole 'feat' to get something you can technically already get to, or otherwise 'play smart' towards, was worth it.

But The discussion has helped me realized that pretty much all the new feats have value, if it is something your character lacks. And I suppose it's also sorta comforting to know that people who just want to slap some armor on their mage for reasons both 'in character' or 'mechanical' doesn't have to go through the process of multiclassing to get there.

The character I had in mind is one of my older characters, a divine soul sorceror (Yes I know divine soul isn't part of the new stuff coming and may not be coming at all). But 'remaking' him in the what we have in the new rules, I thought to myself "Huh...it's actually rather thematic that he would go out of his way to learn how to use armor and a shield. He might not be a cleric , because he values the support and utility offered by sorcerors spells/meta magic as well, and that also means he isn't always going to have the luxary of avoiding danger if he wants to help.

It's neat, mechincallly and naratively (for this character)

That's the relevant part, if it makes you happier with your character, go for it.

[Psyren]

Another interesting consideration would be if they add retraining rules to the new PHB. Say you're going with Bladesinger Wizard or Valor Bard - you could take Lightly Armored for your first two levels, then retrain those to something else once you get the relevant armor and shield training from your subclass.

With that said, even if they allow feat retraining, retraining a feat tagged as [Background] might be a hard sell for some DMs; it's not like you can relive your childhood for example.

[sithlordnergal]

For those who care about such things, a wizard casting Mage Armor isn't wasting a spell slot. It's a spell slot doing its job of being useful. You won't have the AC as the chain mail shield using paladin, but you're not supposed to be. What you should be doing, if your AC is of great concern to you, is take advantage of cover. Half-cover is your "shield". Three-fourths cover is your "plate mail". Full cover is not being targeted. You're not a rogue so aren't hidden, but unless the bad guy can move into a position to see you he's not targeting you to attack even though he knows you're right behind that large pillar. Meanwhile the paladin is in his face doing his job.

Worse comes to worse you're in an area with little to no place to get behind cover, create your own with Minor Illusion. Unless your DM rules illusions to uselessness a bad guy doesn't automatically know that boulder is not real as opposed to you conjured a real one.

...Question, why wouldn't every single enemy target you, the arcane spellcaster, first and foremost. I dunno about your DMs, but every DM I know, including myself, exclusively targets the Arcane Spellcaster first. Then you target the Primary Healer. You do not waste time on the Paladin, Barbarian, Fighter, or whatever Martial is in the party until you have completely disabled the party's arcane caster and healer.

In my games, as a player and DM, its pretty normal for the spell caster to be completely surrounded and dragged away of the party for the NPCs to gank them while the martials are trying to catch up.The only reliable protection you get as a caster is AC. As a fellow DM of mine has said, unless they have Dimension Door, Teleport, or Plane Shift, the Wizard is always in range. Even if you have to spend one turn dashing past the rest of the players, they only get one Attack of Opportunity.

[Rukelnikov]

...Question, why wouldn't every single enemy target you, the arcane spellcaster, first and foremost. I dunno about your DMs, but every DM I know, including myself, exclusively targets the Arcane Spellcaster first. Then you target the Primary Healer. You do not waste time on the Paladin, Barbarian, Fighter, or whatever Martial is in the party until you have completely disabled the party's arcane caster and healer.

In my games, as a player and DM, its pretty normal for the spell caster to be completely surrounded and dragged away of the party for the NPCs to gank them while the martials are trying to catch up.The only reliable protection you get as a caster is AC. As a fellow DM of mine has said, unless they have Dimension Door, Teleport, or Plane Shift, the Wizard is always in range. Even if you have to spend one turn dashing past the rest of the players, they only get one Attack of Opportunity.

If you are playing a wizard and think this, you are doing it wrong.

Expeditious retreat was my go to with my warlock until Shadow of moil pretty much, always a dash ahead of the enemies.

Misty Step, Invisibility, Minor Illusion, the list goes on.

[Sindal]

That's the relevant part, if it makes you happier with your character, go for it.

I know, but it's always nice to back your choices up with some solid mechanical foundation haha. This one being "I'm less likely to die"
Dnd is a game of teamwork after all

[sithlordnergal]

If you are playing a wizard and think this, you are doing it wrong.

Expeditious retreat was my go to with my warlock until Shadow of moil pretty much, always a dash ahead of the enemies.

Misty Step, Invisibility, Minor Illusion, the list goes on.

Expeditious Retreat works...till you start fighting enemies with a base speed of 60, or you have really good bonus actions other than dashing, or you wanna concentrate on a stronger spell, or you deal with stuff that messes with your movement, or you're stuck in close quarters. I can't think of many combat encounters where I gave my players the room needed to just Dash away from an enemy. Same with my own DMs. Even if its an open area, its pretty easy to spread NPCs out in a way to cut off escape routes. **


Not sure why Minor Illusion would stop me from targeting you at all unless you cast it before the encounter starts to provide a single use hiding spot. Same holds true with Major Illusion, Silent Image, and any other illusion spell that you might try to use for cover. This is a world filled with magic. If some weird thing has appeared out of nowhere that hides some wizard, and its not dealing direct damage, then you can ignore it. sure, you can't see through it, but so what? If that wizard is behind it, nothing prevents you from trying to target them anyway. And nothing is lost if you learn "Hey, that really is a Wall of Stone instead of an illusion"


Now, I can absolutely get behind Shadow of Moil and Invisibility. Both force Disadvantage on attack rolls against you, and protect you from being directly targeted by spells. Of course, everyone still knows your exact location due to how the rules work unless you take the Hide Action the next turn, so nothing prevents them from targeting you with melee attacks or grappling. However, disadvantage is best paired with a high AC. I'm not saying its useless, but you're far, far better off forcing Disadvantage when the DM has to roll a 15 to hit you over a 10.


EDIT: **This is probably just a difference in how I and my DMs set up combat. I really can't think of many encounters where running made any difference what so ever, no matter how far I or my players moved. In fact, it usually just helped the NPCs by separating the party, allowing the NPCs to grapple, and then focus fire the wizard till they were either unconcious or close to 0. Hell, I'm currently running a combat encounter for a level 20 party. 3 rounds in and the Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger were unharmed, outside of walking into a Spike Growth I had set up. The Cleric was at 20 HP, the Sorcerer was at 30, and the Wizard was downed. Because I simply focused all of my ranged attacks and spells on them, while Counterspelling the Cleric and wizard to prevent healing.

[Rukelnikov]

Expeditious Retreat works...till you start fighting enemies with a base speed of 60, or you have really good bonus actions other than dashing, or you wanna concentrate on a stronger spell, or you deal with stuff that messes with your movement, or you're stuck in close quarters. I can't think of many combat encounters where I gave my players the room needed to just Dash away from an enemy. Same with my own DMs. Even if its an open area, its pretty easy to spread NPCs out in a way to cut off escape routes. **


Not sure why Minor Illusion would stop me from targeting you at all unless you cast it before the encounter starts to provide a single use hiding spot. Same holds true with Major Illusion, Silent Image, and any other illusion spell that you might try to use for cover. This is a world filled with magic. If some weird thing has appeared out of nowhere that hides some wizard, and its not dealing direct damage, then you can ignore it. sure, you can't see through it, but so what? If that wizard is behind it, nothing prevents you from trying to target them anyway. And nothing is lost if you learn "Hey, that really is a Wall of Stone instead of an illusion"


Now, I can absolutely get behind Shadow of Moil and Invisibility. Both force Disadvantage on attack rolls against you, and protect you from being directly targeted by spells. Of course, everyone still knows your exact location due to how the rules work unless you take the Hide Action the next turn, so nothing prevents them from targeting you with melee attacks or grappling. However, disadvantage is best paired with a high AC. I'm not saying its useless, but you're far, far better off forcing Disadvantage when the DM has to roll a 15 to hit you over a 10.


EDIT: **This is probably just a difference in how I and my DMs set up combat. I really can't think of many encounters where running made any difference what so ever, no matter how far I or my players moved. In fact, it usually just helped the NPCs by separating the party, allowing the NPCs to grapple, and then focus fire the wizard till they were either unconcious or close to 0. Hell, I'm currently running a combat encounter for a level 20 party. 3 rounds in and the Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger were unharmed, outside of walking into a Spike Growth I had set up. The Cleric was at 20 HP, the Sorcerer was at 30, and the Wizard was downed. Because I simply focused all of my ranged attacks and spells on them, while Counterspelling the Cleric and wizard to prevent healing.

Well, I think targeting the casters first is the smart way of fighting, but when I play a caster I'm generally good at surviving because I know that's my priority, if a Dash will help me survive then I don't have a better BA available, and if the enemies are solely gonna focus me, then I'm already ccing them by existing, I don't need to cast anything besides something that will help me survive, im eectively the party's tank, and will play like one. I'll try to avoid enemies, which I can generally do, small room? Go back where you entered, misty step far away, spider climb to the roof, etc.

Avoiding being targeted is much better than improving AC. Which is why I said above that Alert is prolly gonna prevent more damage than Lightly Armored, act first and position yourself, or change with an ally that can solve the encounter.

Of course, you won't be able to avoid attacks forever, but you don't have to, you need to avoid long enough for you party to cripple them.

[sithlordnergal]

Well, I think targeting the casters first is the smart way of fighting, but when I play a caster I'm generally good at surviving because I know that's my priority, if a Dash will help me survive then I don't have a better BA available, and if the enemies are solely gonna focus me, then I'm already ccing them by existing, I don't need to cast anything besides something that will help me survive, im eectively the party's tank, and will play like one. I'll try to avoid enemies, which I can generally do, small room? Go back where you entered, misty step far away, spider climb to the roof, etc.

Avoiding being targeted is much better than improving AC. Which is why I said above that Alert is prolly gonna prevent more damage than Lightly Armored, act first and position yourself, or change with an ally that can solve the encounter.

Of course, you won't be able to avoid attacks forever, but you don't have to, you need to avoid long enough for you party to cripple them.

Problem with just dashing is that it only works if your DM leaves you places to dash to. Which I don't know about your DMs, but I generally try to set up combat encounters in such a way that prevents that sort of strategy. Either by making the encounter area too small to really run in, or by positioning NPCs in such a way that they can almost always reach a corner of the map without dashing before combat starts. And if the NPCs had any prep time what so ever, I also like to lay down traps. Spike Growths that were pre-cast, and require a Perception Check to notice. Bear Traps that were set to stop movement entirely, or caltrops that were spread around the area.

My favorite encounter where I shut down an entire party's movement involved two Gibbering Mouthers that the party hadn't noticed and a single Grease spell. Spell casters kept failing their Strength saves, so their speed was set to 0, and they eventually failed their Dex saves, so they all fell prone. Made them very easy targets.


EDIT: I also got inspired when I played Tomb of Annihilation. At one point a party member tried to run from combat, and decided to run into a room we hadn't cleared yet. Because that was the only real escape route available. The player activated a puzzle trap that killed their character. While I won't use auto-death traps, I use enough traps in my games that my players are wary of every door, chest, room, and hallway in the dungeons I create. Lest they find themselves poisoned for 24 hours.

...I've yet to have a TPK though. Player deaths? Certainly, but never a TPK. Which I'm proud of. My goal is to bring my players to the brink of death, and have a few potentially die if the dice goes against them, but never a TPK.


As for other player experiences...movement stops mattering when you can move 40 feet, and the NPCs your fighting can move 120 and have a range attack to boot. My DMs like to homebrew a lot.

[Rukelnikov]

Problem with just dashing is that it only works if your DM leaves you places to dash to. Which I don't know about your DMs, but I generally try to set up combat encounters in such a way that prevents that sort of strategy. Either by making the encounter area too small to really run in, or by positioning NPCs in such a way that they can almost always reach a corner of the map without dashing before combat starts. And if the NPCs had any prep time what so ever, I also like to lay down traps. Spike Growths that were pre-cast, and require a Perception Check to notice. Bear Traps that were set to stop movement entirely, or caltrops that were spread around the area.

My favorite encounter where I shut down an entire party's movement involved two Gibbering Mouthers that the party hadn't noticed and a single Grease spell. Spell casters kept failing their Strength saves, so their speed was set to 0, and they eventually failed their Dex saves, so they all fell prone. Made them very easy targets.


EDIT: I also got inspired when I played Tomb of Annihilation. At one point a party member tried to run from combat, and decided to run into a room we hadn't cleared yet. Because that was the only real escape route available. The player activated a puzzle trap that killed their character. While I won't use auto-death traps, I use enough traps in my games that my players are wary of every door, chest, room, and hallway in the dungeons I create. Lest they find themselves poisoned for 24 hours.

...I've yet to have a TPK though. Player deaths? Certainly, but never a TPK. Which I'm proud of. My goal is to bring my players to the brink of death, and have a few potentially die if the dice goes against them, but never a TPK.


As for other player experiences...movement stops mattering when you can move 40 feet, and the NPCs your fighting can move 120 and have a range attack to boot. My DMs like to homebrew a lot.

AC is the last line of defense, and you are treating it like the first, that's where I think you are wrong.

[sithlordnergal]

AC is the last line of defense, and you are treating it like the first, that's where I think you are wrong.

Okay, that's where he difference is. I consider AC to be your primary line of defense because its reliable, and can be applied to almost every possible situation. The only way to really bypass AC is by targeting a saving throw. Even if you get targeted by an Ability Check, the NPC has to hit through your AC or there needs to be an outside factor like an environmental hazard to harm you.

Meanwhile the other methods are good, but they're situational. Using cover is great if you have cover, but you need to have cover. Dashing away is great, provided you aren't fighting something that can match your Dash with a single move of their own. Invisibility is awesome, provided you aren't fighting something with Blindsight, Truesight, or Tremorsense.

That's not to say those other methods are worthless, far from it. But they shouldn't be your primary defense. They should be your secondary defense, the things you use to augment your base AC. If you can force your enemies to have disadvantage on all of their attacks, AND the DM needs to roll 15 or higher to hit you, you're golden.

[kingcheesepants]

As for me, I would probably use the new feat. I like playing armored casters but multiclassing for the armor can be a bit annoying, especially at those levels where you should be getting your 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th level spells.

As for the benefits of being an armored caster, some have mentioned that positioning and defensive spells should be the go to for keeping you alive. And I would agree with that. Much better to not be targeted at all. But as others have said, wizards are usually a high priority target, sometimes cover isn't available, or you can't move far enough from the bad guys, you don't have your concentration free, you don't have the time to cast x,y, z defensive spells cause you need to cast an offensive/control spell, etc etc. Armor is good cause it's always on and doesn't cost anything except for the initial investment. And it actually makes your positioning and spells better because it makes it more difficult for bad guys to hit you in the first place. So the defensive bonuses from half cover or blur are even more effective.

[Witty Username]

I tend to do things based on how I think the character looks good,

Mage armor is for casters that I want to look like casters, flowing robes, scholar' caps, stuff like that. Mage armor is handy because it allows for defense in a way that doesn't throw off the look. It also communicates values, a mage that doesn't wear armor adventuring but has a spell to do it temporarily indicates combat as a secondary focus. A Yuan-ti spy enchanter that prefers to blend, Goblin researcher more focused on his notes, the elf who has never left his home for more than a day before becoming an adventurer. stuff like that.

Light armor, I don't much care for, at least in feat form. I will take it if I got it elsewhere looking for other things. Also it is a stepping point if I want moderately armored, which I find much more interesting. Things like bladesinger where light armor comes with the package for my Drow fencing master, or rogue multiclasses for for a something like a changeling trickster illusionist. light armor is something I don't seek out so much as get by happenstance. I wear it if the character would look good in leather, which contrary to popular belief, isn't everyone.

Medium armor is where it is at though, Hobgoblin and Dwarven Battlemages, self sufficient veteran adventures (like the Human Necromancer I have in the game that recently went on hiatus, dip in artificer for armor and parts of his backstory). This is for the characters that combat or danger is not just a thing that they expect but encourage. If I have a mage that feels destined for war, I am figuring out medium armor.

For heavy armor, see medium, its just more build specific.

Fun fact, this has a mild fixation for me in BG3,
Gale, no armor, despite being proficient, why, he is a proper mage with mostly recreational interest. armor and weapons are not in his primary interest by my read.
Wyll, Moderately armored, the Blade stands at the ready, armor, shield, deadly flashing blade.

[Leon]

Which ever fits the character without too much resource expenditure

[KorvinStarmast]

With that said, even if they allow feat retraining, retraining a feat tagged as [Background] might be a hard sell for some DMs;
I agree, but it will vary by DM.

it's not like you can relive your childhood for example. I know some old people who do that now.

[Psyren]

I agree, but it will vary by DM.
I know some old people who do that now.

Ha, point :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

...Question, why wouldn't every single enemy target you, the arcane spellcaster, first and foremost.
Indeed, why wouldn't they? First off, they have to know or discover that you are an arcane spell caster.
Note: I have a couple of parties who go out of their way to target any NPC caster, and in some cases this gets them into trouble, while in other cases it is a great idea.


exclusively targets the Arcane Spellcaster first.
Then you target the Primary Healer.
You do not waste time on the Paladin, Barbarian, Fighter, or whatever Martial is in the party until you have completely disabled the party's arcane caster and healer.
There is a little bit of DM meta gaming going on there, as not all foes will be able to know which party member is the arcane caster or healer right away during an encounter. Mind you, some enemies will.


In my games, as a player and DM, its pretty normal for the spell caster to be completely surrounded and dragged away of the party for the NPCs to gank them while the martials are trying to catch up.
The only reliable protection you get as a caster is AC.
Nope. Misty Step and DD get you out of there in a hurry. And Mirror Image has its uses as well.

Avoiding being targeted is much better than improving AC.
Yes. We have a bard who does that all the time.

Which is why I said above that Alert is prolly gonna prevent more damage than Lightly Armored, act first and position yourself, or change with an ally that can solve the encounter. +1

AC is the last line of defense, and you are treating it like the first, that's where I think you are wrong. Tend to agree.

[Pex]

...Question, why wouldn't every single enemy target you, the arcane spellcaster, first and foremost. I dunno about your DMs, but every DM I know, including myself, exclusively targets the Arcane Spellcaster first. Then you target the Primary Healer. You do not waste time on the Paladin, Barbarian, Fighter, or whatever Martial is in the party until you have completely disabled the party's arcane caster and healer.

In my games, as a player and DM, its pretty normal for the spell caster to be completely surrounded and dragged away of the party for the NPCs to gank them while the martials are trying to catch up.The only reliable protection you get as a caster is AC. As a fellow DM of mine has said, unless they have Dimension Door, Teleport, or Plane Shift, the Wizard is always in range. Even if you have to spend one turn dashing past the rest of the players, they only get one Attack of Opportunity.

1) That's not fair on the player to always be the target of everything fired upon first to be killed. That's DM targetting.
2) The DM is metagaming. How does every monster/bad guy know you're a wizard when you haven't even done anything yet? How do the bad guys know what spells you have? The paladin just smited a monster for 45 damage to his face, but he's going to attack the peon over there who had cast Fire Bolt at him for 7 fire damage.?

Not buying it. Refuse to play with such DMs.

[sithlordnergal]

1) That's not fair on the player to always be the target of everything fired upon first to be killed. That's DM targetting.
2) The DM is metagaming. How does every monster/bad guy know you're a wizard when you haven't even done anything yet? How do the bad guys know what spells you have? The paladin just smited a monster for 45 damage to his face, but he's going to attack the peon over there who had cast Fire Bolt at him for 7 fire damage.?

Not buying it. Refuse to play with such DMs.

1) Its sound strategy in a world with spells. Combat need not be fair. Additionally, why would you target the person who is either too heavily armored to get hurt by you, or the person who isn't getting as hurt as much as they should when you have a guy wearing a robe that you can target instead?

2) If they're sentient, then they can probably make a good, solid guess at what you do when they see you carrying a staff, wand, or a bunch of weird, random items in a bag. Even a common goblin would know "magic exists", "magic doesn't use normal weapons", and "magic is a lot deadlier then swords". They don't have to know what spells you have, they just need to know you threw a ball of fire, and people who do that can also throw really, really big balls of fire that can instantly kill us, or worse. Doesn't matter if you don't know Fireball, its simply a matter of them realizing you might know Fireball, and deciding to deal with that threat first.

Same holds true to a Cleric. Cleric doesn't look like a spellcaster, so they wouldn't be targeted right away. But if the Cleric starts healing people? Uh-oh, better stop the person healing the people we are hurting.

[Witty Username]

2) If they're sentient, then they can probably make a good, solid guess at what you do when they see you carrying a staff, wand, or a bunch of weird, random items in a bag.

Ork 1) Why did yuz waste all ourz arraws on tha stupid humie?
Ork 2) How waz I spost to know dat it was one of dem monk boyz?

Many mages carry weapons and wear armor, further several versions of non-mages have all sorts of weird stuff.

Is that guy in the back a wizard, monk, barbarian with a good wacky stick?

Is that decked out knight in plate armor with a sword and shield a fighter, cleric, or a sorcerer with a paladin dip?


This isn't a one and done problem. Like here is a combat problem, my current party:
Who do you target?
-Centaur in plate armor, no weapons of note but has a holy symbol
-Elephant man, armor (looks like hide) and shield
-Human in half-plate, wielding a flaming sword with a free hand - this one is me
- and well whatever are last person is,
Minotaur with spare crab arms and a mix of insect features, hammer, plate, shield, voice of god

[sithlordnergal]

Ork 1) Why did yuz waste all ourz arraws on tha stupid humie?
Ork 2) How waz I spost to know dat it was one of dem monk boyz?

Many mages carry weapons and wear armor, further several versions of non-mages have all sorts of weird stuff.

Is that guy in the back a wizard, monk, barbarian with a good wacky stick?

Is that decked out knight in plate armor with a sword and shield a fighter, cleric, or a sorcerer with a paladin dip?


This isn't a one and done problem. Like here is a combat problem, my current party:
Who do you target?
-Centaur in plate armor, no weapons of note but has a holy symbol
-Elephant man, armor (looks like hide) and shield
-Human in half-plate, wielding a flaming sword with a free hand - this one is me
- and well whatever are last person is,
Minotaur with spare crab arms and a mix of insect features, hammer, plate, shield, voice of god

Oh yeah, it can be confusing at the very start for monks and wizards...though once one guy starts punishing and the other guy throws a spell, it becomes a bit more obvious. As for the party you mentioned, I'll make a guess:

Human in Half Plate with a flaming sword: Gonna bet you're a caster of some kind because you are specifically not wearing a shield...unless the sword in quest is a two-handed weapon. But I'll assume you'd have mentioned if it was a Greatsword.

Centaur: Either a Cleric or Paladin, either way not the primary target for this particular round. The next round should give more info based on how they fight

Elephant Man: Possibly a Druid, could be a Barbarian. Avoid targeting for now because either one is exceptionally tanky, and not worth the arrows till they're alone...unless you have Disintegrate or Power Word Kill handy. Done that to a Moon Druid before and had it done to me as a Moon Druid before, extremely effective way to remove them.

Minotaur: willing to bet this is a Paladin. No need to worry about them just yet

[SharkForce]

Certainly, mages should use tactics and careful planning as much as possible, and may not *need* the best armour. With that said, being able to make more mistakes and still not die is a definite advantage, and there is a huge difference between how many mistakes you can afford to make with 13 + dex mod as compared to 17 + dex mod(max of 2) or even higher AC with magical armour/shield. I certainly can't say for certain that medium armour plus a shield would be the only option a wizard or sorcerer should ever take, but I do consider it an extremely strong option if it stays.

Spells like expeditious retreat or invisibility don't even enter the equation for me. If I'm a wizard (or other spellcaster), concentration is too precious to be exclusively devoted to protecting myself in every fight. There will absolutely be fights where it is worth it of course, but it can't be my plan A otherwise there isn't much point in being a spellcaster outside of the handful of levels where fireball is king. If my concentration has to be used on expeditious retreat, that might be tolerable at level 1 when I don't have as many strong options to concentrate on, but at level 3+ it means I'm not casting web, hypnotic pattern, fear, etc. Considering my ability to cast spells like that is precisely the reason I might be a priority target, it makes no sense to give up my ability to become a major threat to use a spell that will protect myself that only matters if I am a major threat in the first place.

And I also agree that combat does not need to be fair all the time. The people attacking the party should make reasonable decisions, and their objective is not to give a fair fight. Naturally, that will look different depending on what is attacking you (a giant spider probably won't know what a wizard is, but a hobgoblin probably will) and choosing to target anyone who has less ability to protect themselves while posing a major threat should expect to be a priority target.

[Witty Username]

Human in Half Plate with a flaming sword: Gonna bet you're a caster of some kind because you are specifically not wearing a shield...unless the sword in quest is a two-handed weapon. But I'll assume you'd have mentioned if it was a Greatsword.

You would be correct on caster, it is a long sword (ish, its a long story).
I tend to like opening with an Animate objects or hypnotic pattern depending on how I feel.

Hexblade/swords bard - secondary frontliner



Centaur: Either a Cleric or Paladin, either way not the primary target for this particular round. The next round should give more info based on how they fight


Cleric, homebrew subclass but is essentially a tweeked light cleric. And is the closest character we have to a dedicated blaster.
Answers fireball to every question.



Elephant Man: Possibly a Druid, could be a Barbarian. Avoid targeting for now because either one is exceptionally tanky, and not worth the arrows till they're alone...unless you have Disintegrate or Power Word Kill handy. Done that to a Moon Druid before and had it done to me as a Moon Druid before, extremely effective way to remove them.

Druid - Shepard druid, and I think a cleric dip (doesn't come up often)
Closest we have to a backliner, does support spells and summons



Minotaur: willing to bet this is a Paladin. No need to worry about them just yet

Paladin, although has a sorcerer dip for the shield spell. - primary frontliner

[sithlordnergal]

You would be correct on caster, it is a long sword (ish, its a long story).
I tend to like opening with an Animate objects or hypnotic pattern depending on how I feel.

Hexblade/swords bard - secondary frontliner



Cleric, homebrew subclass but is essentially a tweeked light cleric. And is the closest character we have to a dedicated blaster.
Answers fireball to every question.


Druid - Shepard druid, and I think a cleric dip (doesn't come up often)
Closest we have to a backliner, does support spells and summons



Paladin, although has a sorcerer dip for the shield spell. - primary frontliner

Huh, so I was pretty much correct with my guesses. Way I see it, if I can figure out something like that, the people who live in a world where magic is a normal thing can absolutely figure it out. Especially in a combat situation where its important to know who your primary focus should be.

[Witty Username]

Cept for the arcane caster here has the second best defenses of the party and the most traditional threat is the cleric.

[JellyPooga]

Huh, so I was pretty much correct with my guesses. Way I see it, if I can figure out something like that, the people who live in a world where magic is a normal thing can absolutely figure it out. Especially in a combat situation where its important to know who your primary focus should be.

In a world where a Cleric can be the primary control and blaster with the highest AC, the Rogue has the highest effective HP total/damage sponge whilst wearing little to no armour and the Fighter is ranged DPS that's the highest threat to the NPC leader, "target the spellcaster in robes" doesn't really mean anything and certainly doesn't apply in every situation. I mean, it's all going to depend on the NPC's in question and what their goals/motivations and intelligence are, as well as the specific party. If I was the Wizard player and being targeted just for being the wizard in every fight, I would very much feel persecuted and have legitimate reason for complaint. It's not about "if I can do it, so can they" because not every NPC you, as GM, has your experience or in-game knowledge, let alone metagame knowledge.

A Goblin Warchief might want to target the guy that's currently hacking his way through his horde of minions because if he doesn't, that big scary looking guy with the shiny sword that's twice as long as he is tall might be standing next to him, next. Sod the dude at the back doing the healing, shoot the big one now!

A hungry pack of half-mad, ravenous Ghouls might not be thinking about who's the optimal target, or caring about strategic losses; when their bloodlust is upon them, the nearest target is the only target.

The Lich can see that the Rogue has his phylactery. How!? Why!? Doesn't matter. I can deal with the paltry mage once I have my property back. I shan't risk the thief getting away...Power Word: Kill.

Without the militia, the heroes cannot defend the town from the encroaching horde. Take out the Paladin that's leading the troops and enough of the chaff mooks that follow him and the Outlaw Leader wins the war, even if he loses the battle.

Even setting these kind of situations aside, it depends on appearances; the Arcane Trickster or Light Cleric that casts a Scorching Ray once does not differ from the Wizard that does the same, so how is an enemy to differentiate between them and target appropriately? If you are being fair as GM, you're having to approach each fight individually, with many different factors on play each time. So much so that any general rule such as "target the spellcasters first, then the healers" becomes nonsense. Do you have spotters in every melee watching out for the first time a PC busts out a heal? Commanders giving orders to minions to target specific enemies reactively? If you make your combats living and breathing like this, with vivid characterisation and descriptions that's great, but the way you described it upthread felt a little more like persecuting players that chose one class over another and that, for me, would become frustrating very fast.

[Sindal]

*laughs*

I love how this evolved into a discussion about who would 'logically' be targeted first.

I'm reminded of when I played the original version of this sorcerer, who instead had managed to get a cloak of displacement as his method of self presevation.

The rest of the party was a horny barbarian/cleric (He was a minotaur calm down), an arsonist fireball wizard, gunslinging (fighter I guess) dual pistol fella and 2 artificers who admittedly was still grasping the rules of DND, so 'optimal play' was not going to be happening as much with them as they learnt. But certainly a 'stand further away and shoot' kind of mindset going on.

Being a divine soul and having a more supportive and protective leaning, all of the counterspells and aids in the world couldn't stop people from getting in danger (Especially since counterpsells range actually isn't very generous) so this fella of mine often was atleast 'ajacent' to danger. and with the 'ranged' leaning set up of my party, this fella found himself in the thick of things somewhat often whether he wanted to be or not.

I'll never forget that my Sorceror had to summon the bravery to stand between the party and some monstrocity dragon creature that had shambled out from around the corner, as only me and the barbarian were remotely tanky enough to keep the thing occupied.

For a character like that, 'cutting out the middle man' and taking lightly armored just seemed to make sense, because i would most likely play him the same way, even if he ends up in a party with more melee enthusiastic. And bare in mind I was a sorceror, so having mage armor as a spell was a tax I had to accept for the choice. This way I'd have an extra cure wounds or healing word stored up for an emergency

Why not just play a cleric if thats the kinda gameplay I'm after? Cause I like sorceror and the thematic mix divine soul brings. I LOVE being able to cast haste on that barb and saying "Toro!" (or 'Buckle up and draw!" if cast on the gunslinger). And it's sorta neat that the new potential new rules, power crept as they are, would support that kind of decision making even if 'isn't what sorcerors typically do'

I've been playing melee dudes recently as well. My last 2 have been a barbarian and a monk, so my brain values the hardiness. I'm hoping to play something in the backlines again soon but habits are harder to shake. My brain has been functioning under a 'It is not a possiblity, it is an eventuallyt hat something will test against my AC" kind mindset, and that'll stick to most anything I play now, i think, unless that perrson exclusively avoids danger zones.

But this was fun to read so far. I'm somehow more inspired to play this guy...well, asusming it's at all possible in future, ahha

[Amechra]

Way I see it, if I can figure out something like that, the people who live in a world where magic is a normal thing can absolutely figure it out.

Bear in mind that you literally have access to the objective rules for that world, know almost exactly what magic is capable of, and get to "figure it out" while sitting comfortably in your armchair, with no threat of imminent harm or pain.