On Multiclassing for Wizards (Mini-Guide)

[Skylivedk]

Please don’t act like I am making a recommendation I’m not making.

My suggestion was about comparing an actual barbarian tank to your tank wizard in terms of tankiness. You went out of your way to give the wizard build extra tanking abilities but used a mostly basic barbarian build to compare its tanking to.

Can you be more specific? You did say to use a sword and shield and Toughness right? Why not just ignore this Barbarian? What can he do that is in any way dangerous? 2 x 1d8+MOD+rage in damage with no status effects? Grapple one opponent? It sounds like he isn't worth dealing with really.

At the same time, ironically, you are the one suggesting that Shield and AoA would be used anti-synergistically.

[LudicSavant]

The Steel Wizard is truly dauntingly durable, particularly at high levels. An ancient black dragon's multiattack with +15 to hit would only do... 11.83 DPR using nothing but your Spell Mastery at-wills, and you never got even a single magic item in your entire career. For reference, an AC 19 would take 48.1 DPR from the same thing, and an AC 15 would take 56.8.

That's with no resources at all. And against many weaker foes, the difference is far greater still (as an example, you would take only 2.5 DPR from 100 bandits firing at you, again, just with your at-wills). That's less than your ward regeneration. You can literally just sit in the middle of an army of mooks taking attacks all day.

And you can get that kind of durability at earlier levels, too. You just need to actually use some low level spell resources for it back then.

And it's not just physical attacks. You have the tools to shrug off spells, elemental attacks, mental saves... you have the tools to deal with basically everything.

Importantly, you do it all quite resource-efficiently, and while being able to protect allies and screw over enemies.

And then there's all those hit points you can generate. You can generate an awful lot with your ward, as well as spells like Armor of Agathys (which are extra effective, since they regen your ward too). The 8 extra hp from your racial spells is extra helpful for kickstarting low levels.

[Frogreaver]

Don't think I did. You were suggesting that Toughness would make the Barbarian a better example of a tank Barbarian. I disagree.

Either way, the Barbarian you suggested does not catch up, so I'm not seeing what it's adding to the conversation.

I spelled it out once already...

It gives us a baseline for comparing so we know how many spell slots you need to use to be on equal footing (in terms of tankiness). At level 5 that's approximately 6 low level slots. Essentially leaving you 2 level 2 slots and 2 level 3 slots to cast level 2 offensive spells in. Which at this level makes the raging barbarian with 2 longsword attacks quite a bit more dangerous for equal amounts of tankiness.

I think you over focus on level 20 skews class comparisons as the game is much more about the journey than the final destination.

Can you be more specific? You did say to use a sword and shield and Toughness right? Why not just ignore this Barbarian? What can he do that is in any way dangerous? 2 x 1d8+MOD+rage in damage with no status effects? Grapple one opponent? It sounds like he isn't worth dealing with really.

See explanation above.

At the same time, ironically, you are the one suggesting that Shield and AoA would be used anti-synergistically.

Synergistic abilities enhance each other's effects. Anti-synergistic abilities diminish effects. As clearly seen, the more you boost your AC the more diminished of an effect armor of agathys is likely to have.

If you use armor of agathys it's wasted unless you are hit in the next hour. High AC and the shield spell do a good job keeping you from being hit. Thus, in actual play there is moderate to high probability that you will have wasted whatever temp hp Armor of Agathys provided.

[Skylivedk]

I spelled it out once already...

It gives us a baseline for comparing so we know how many spell slots you need to use to be on equal footing (in terms of tankiness). At level 5 that's approximately 6 low level slots. Essentially leaving you 2 level 2 slots and 2 level 3 slots to cast level 2 offensive spells in. Which at this level makes the raging barbarian with 2 longsword attacks quite a bit more dangerous for equal amounts of tankiness.

I think you over focus on level 20 skews class comparisons as the game is much more about the journey than the final destination.



See explanation above.



Synergistic abilities enhance each other's effects. Anti-synergistic abilities diminish effects. As clearly seen, the more you boost your AC the more diminished of an effect armor of agathys is likely to have.

If you use armor of agathys it's wasted unless you are hit in the next hour. High AC and the shield spell do a good job keeping you from being hit. Thus, in actual play there is moderate to high probability that you will have wasted whatever temp hp Armor of Agathys provided.

TLDR: Frogreaver's Barbarian is a horrible tank and damage dealer, kinda tagging along at level 5 and then left forever behind in the dust doing very little of note.

EDIT: I don't mean to imply in this post that DPR is a good measure of effectiveness. I use it for simplicity. I would say the Forge/Wiz is way better doing a bunch of other things (i.e. Use Web, Unseen Servant, Familiar, Hypnotic Pattern, etc. etc.,). DPR was used in this simple simulation to show that Sword and Shield Barbarian is also pretty useless in terms of DPR. Further: I made a mistake forgetting the extra rage gotten at level 6. Tbh though: it wouldn't change the combat 6 conclusion, since 4 attacks with Rage would still be less than a Fireball with 3 targets leaving the Forge Wizard with 2 shatters and 1 Firebolt round more of free extra damage.

So in melee against many small attacks, you don't use Shield. Against huge attacks and ranged, you might. Anyway, I'll play along with your premise, except I'll go to level 6

Fireball is an average of 27 damage pre save per target.

Young Bobo deals 4,5+4+2 = 10,5 average per attack that hits, or 21 DPR pre miss and crit chance.

With a rough estimation, I'll pretend that saves are about half the time so the average target for a fireball takes 75% damage or 20,25.

With miss and crit included (+4 modifier), Bobo is doing 14,1 DPR while raging (using LudicSavant's DPR calculator). With advantage that's 19,305 (but reckless attack wasn't your thing for this build IIRC).

In total: each target hit by a fireball is worth more than a round of Bobo attacking. I'd say 3-4 targets are pretty standard. 3 targets would be more than Bobo attacking for 4 rounds: standard combat length (actually a bit longer I think... Standard encounter is just about 3).

This is of course before adding in cantrips which would add another 7,7 DPR post miss chance (using Firebolt) and without the DPR from Armour of Agathys.

Anyway, for each of those two encounters where the Wizard has thrown a fireball he has earned post miss damage of 27,45 damage or 54,9 in total. More than 3 more rounds of Bobo attacking.

In the third encounter Bobo swings his pointy stick 4 times (in the third and last encounter with Rage), due to the excess damage from the prior two encounters the Wizard still comes out ahead using only cantrips with 29,3.

Now Bobo is less dangerous. He only deals 11.5 damage per round or 46 over the course of a 4 round combat. Wizard does 30,8 in the same amount of time, so he can just about go through combat 4 and 5 and would only end up behind Bobo with 1.1 damage.

Unfortunately for Bobo, young Wizzie is still spiffy with 2 level 2 slots and 1 level 3 slot and could utterly wreck the last encounter. Each shatter with 3 targets would do 30,375 damage and the fireball would still do 60,75 while 4 rounds of Bobo mania would be 46 - less than half.



If you run the same simulation at level 5, shatter upcast would need to hit 4 targets to do 54 damage (post saves), which would be 3,6 less than 4 rounds of Bobo attacking with rage. The two first combats would hence end with a 39 damage lead for the Wizard. Reduce the targets to 3 each time and you're looking at a lead of 12.

Next two combats the Wizard would do a combined damage of 2 x 53,475 (6 x cantrips + 2 x level 2 shatter) = 106,95 damage post saves, miss and crits.

Bobo would do 14.4 x 4 + 11.5 x 4 = 103.6.

He would hence be 15.35 behind by combat 5.

After combat 5, he'd be .15 behind and he'd end by being 15.05 ahead...

Unless we add a single target more to some of the shatters or any procs from AoA. From level 6 and onwards, there is no competition (if you felt there was one before that is). Bobo is left in the dust both in terms of damage and tankiness. If you adjust the the save percentage to something more realistic like 30-40% of the time, the results are even worse.

[LudicSavant]

As clearly seen, the more you boost your AC the more diminished of an effect armor of agathys is likely to have.

This hasn't been 'clearly seen,' it's been asserted by just you, with others disagreeing.

I can assure you, both from math and extensive in-game experience, that your assumption is not true.

AC has a multiplicative effect on the value of each hit point (temporary or otherwise) that you have. Not a diminishing return, an escalating one, so long as those temp HP actually get used. And I've never had trouble using them, especially in high-op games where I'm expected to fight numerous Deadly threats a day.

In order to 'waste' Armor of Agathys, you need to have all of the following happen. You must choose to cast it in a situation where enemies are unlikely to be able to hit AC 21 or 20 (if you gave your forge bonus to someone else) at all in the next full hour (enough for several encounters in a dungeoneering scenario), and get no benefit from just walking through all their OAs, or punishing target switches, or the like.

And even if all that happens (and that's no small if -- I can't remember the last time it happened to me), you at least get a consolation prize of approx 1/3rd of the value of a (AoA's spell slot) level False Life in ward regeneration hp.

If you find that you are frequently wasting Armor of Agathys, the problem is probably that you are casting it in situations where you should be using a different spell, or that you are failing to exert enough tanking pressure on Team Monster (e.g. punishing them for target switching, walking through their OAs to smash their back line, being a really dangerous caster in general, etc). If you struggle with exerting pressure, I recommend taking Warcaster earlier, because then just your OA alone should be good value.

I think you over focus on level 20 skews class comparisons as the game is much more about the journey than the final destination.

To suggest that I just focus level 20 is... terribly inaccurate. Like, as inaccurate as when you said earlier in the thread that Hexblade's Curse scales with Charisma instead of proficiency and argued for multiple pages about the viability of Hexblade 1 dip vs Dragon Sorcerer 1 dip on that basis.

In actuality, I thoroughly test my builds (including this one) from level 1-20, against a wide array of challenges. I think pretty much anyone who follows my work would know that. And in my post I explained why, in my experience, it is strong at all levels.

[Frogreaver]

TLDR: Frogreaver's Barbarian is a horrible tank and damage dealer, kinda tagging along at level 5 and then left forever behind in the dust doing very little of note.

So in melee against many small attacks, you don't use Shield. Against huge attacks and ranged, you might. Anyway, I'll play along with your premise, except I'll go to level 6

Fireball is an average of 27 damage pre save per target.

Young Bobo deals 4,5+4+2 = 10,5 average per attack that hits, or 21 DPR pre miss and crit chance.

With a rough estimation, I'll pretend that saves are about half the time so the average target for a fireball takes 75% damage or 20,25.

With miss and crit included (+4 modifier), Bobo is doing 14,1 DPR while raging (using LudicSavant's DPR calculator). With advantage that's 19,305 (but reckless attack wasn't your thing for this build IIRC).

In total: each target hit by a fireball is worth more than a round of Bobo attacking. I'd say 3-4 targets are pretty standard. 3 targets would be more than Bobo attacking for 4 rounds: standard combat length (actually a bit longer I think... Standard encounter is just about 3).

This is of course before adding in cantrips which would add another 7,7 DPR post miss chance (using Firebolt) and without the DPR from Armour of Agathys.

Anyway, for each of those two encounters where the Wizard has thrown a fireball he has earned post miss damage of 27,45 damage or 54,9 in total. More than 3 more rounds of Bobo attacking.

In the third encounter Bobo swings his pointy stick 4 times (in the third and last encounter with Rage), due to the excess damage from the prior two encounters the Wizard still comes out ahead using only cantrips with 29,3.

Now Bobo is less dangerous. He only deals 11.5 damage per round or 46 over the course of a 4 round combat. Wizard does 30,8 in the same amount of time, so he can just about go through combat 4 and 5 and would only end up behind Bobo with 1.1 damage.

Unfortunately for Bobo, young Wizzie is still spiffy with 2 level 2 slots and 1 level 3 slot and could utterly wreck the last encounter. Each shatter with 3 targets would do 30,375 damage and the fireball would still do 60,75 while 4 rounds of Bobo mania would be 46 - less than half.



If you run the same simulation at level 5, shatter upcast would need to hit 4 targets to do 54 damage (post saves), which would be 3,6 less than 4 rounds of Bobo attacking with rage. The two first combats would hence end with a 39 damage lead for the Wizard. Reduce the targets to 3 each time and you're looking at a lead of 12.

Next two combats the Wizard would do a combined damage of 2 x 53,475 (6 x cantrips + 2 x level 2 shatter) = 106,95 damage post saves, miss and crits.

Bobo would do 14.4 x 4 + 11.5 x 4 = 103.6.

He would hence be 15.35 behind by combat 5.

After combat 5, he'd be .15 behind and he'd end by being 15.05 ahead...

Unless we add a single target more to some of the shatters or any procs from AoA. From level 6 and onwards, there is no competition (if you felt there was one before that is). Bobo is left in the dust both in terms of damage and tankiness. If you adjust the the save percentage to something more realistic like 30-40% of the time, the results are even worse.

Your not even comparing AOE damage to single target accurately. The best estimate for AOE damage is that each enemy hit after the first results in a 50% discount to the damage that enemy takes. We can go into that why in another thread if you really want - but seems like that would be off topic here?

[Dork_Forge]

Snipped for length

Just for the sake of a more impartial comparison:

-What Barbarian is this? I see a fully developed Wizard primary build, but talk of a generic Barbarian with no stated racial abilties and no obvious subclass abilities in play, clearly putting said Barbarian at a disadvantage
-I'm not sure why there's a damage calc as the central focus of this, but your simulations seem to assume multiple enemies for AOEs and no complications (it's an Abjurer, so party members in melee, enemy casters etc.)
-You said you'd take it one step further to level 6, coincidentally that one step further gives the Wizard Fireball and more slots, leaving the Barbarian with nothing but one additional rage and a subclass feature that seems MiA.
-For builds that seem to be centered around tanking, I haven't really seen that much about actually tanking (be it the durability kind or the mmo kind)

The conversation just seems to be stacked in one direction right now, even if the Barbarian is to lose here, it doesn't look like it should be such a gap.

[Frogreaver]

In actuality, I thoroughly test my builds (including this one) from level 1-20, against a wide array of challenges. I think pretty much anyone who follows my work would know that. And in my post I explained why, in my experience, it is strong at all levels.

Will deal with the rest later. I said it was a nice build. I said nothing bad about your build. I said there were aspects of you were overvaluing and incorrectly comparing. One being a comparison to a generic barbarian that wasn't focused on taking damage. Something I'm not alone in noting. The other being that 1 hour long duration temp hp only have an impact on survivability when you are hit while having them. The point is that there is a trade off - if you are forgoing shield because you have armor of agathys temp hp up then you are forgoing a huge chunk of your builds effective hp. If you are using shield while having armor of agathys temp hp up then you have a greater chance of not benefitting from armor of agathys at all.

In terms of level 1-20, for someone that tests all levels of your builds you spend most of your time talking about the combos you can pull off at level 12+ and comparing to other builds in those level ranges.

[LudicSavant]

The point is that there is a trade off - if you are forgoing shield because you have armor of agathys temp hp up then you are forgoing a huge chunk of your builds effective hp.

A chunk that wasn't even counted in the comparison where they were already far ahead.

You realize I stopped counting effective HP after using only a small fraction of my resources, and not counting the impact of Shield or superior AC or retribution damage or anything, right? Like, this is not a close comparison, here.

One being a comparison to a generic barbarian that wasn't focused on taking damage.

A Half-Orc Bear-barian that takes reasonable ASIs for a tanking Barbarian like Max Str, Sentinel and Res(Wis).

Though a generic example would do just as well when we're establishing a difference in orders of magnitude. And Toughness (which is frankly a less practical choice for a tanking Barbarian than taking something like Res(Wis)) would not catch you up.

[Skylivedk]

Just for the sake of a more impartial comparison:

-What Barbarian is this? I see a fully developed Wizard primary build, but talk of a generic Barbarian with no stated racial abilties and no obvious subclass abilities in play, clearly putting said Barbarian at a disadvantage
-I'm not sure why there's a damage calc as the central focus of this, but your simulations seem to assume multiple enemies for AOEs and no complications (it's an Abjurer, so party members in melee, enemy casters etc.)
-You said you'd take it one step further to level 6, coincidentally that one step further gives the Wizard Fireball and more slots, leaving the Barbarian with nothing but one additional rage and a subclass feature that seems MiA.
-For builds that seem to be centered around tanking, I haven't really seen that much about actually tanking (be it the durability kind or the mmo kind)

The conversation just seems to be stacked in one direction right now, even if the Barbarian is to lose here, it doesn't look like it should be such a gap.

Over 8 combats, I do presume you can hit 3-4 enemies per spell on average. IMX a lot more is possible over an adventuring day... And tbf, I actually also showed the level 5 comparison AND gave team monster a save buff. For most of the rest of your criticisms:

I was running with frogreaver's suggested build for Barbarian and slot allocation for Wizard, so that seems more than fair. Since FR had mentioned tanking, I presumed either AG or Totem. Variant human with Toughness was also FR's choice, not mine.

My entire point was that the choices suggested by FR were weak. In particular in build choices, but as such also the in play suggestions. That probably also contributes to the one-sidedness of my simulation. I thought, and think, one of the two suggestions was a horrible waste of space in a party. I've seen the other even prior to Eberron and AoA being added and know it's tanky as hell (DM'd for a Forge Cleric/Abjurer in Storm King's Thunder... Who was in a party with a Barbarian).

If you went for pure soaking the comparison would probably be better done with something along the lines of AoA upcast in the two level 3 slots. That would most probably also easily outdamage the suggested Barbarian since the retribution damage from one proc alone would be a round of attacking from Bobo and with Abjurer's ward you ought to be able to stretch that to a couple of hits easily.

@Frogreaver: what do you mean discount with 50% discount? Where did you find that methodology? I am comparing the damage accurately just not using whichever methodology you imply and which isn't natural, self-evident or objectively more accurate. If anything, I've been lenient with both saves and effected targets.

[Dork_Forge]

Over 8 combats, I do presume you can hit 3-4 enemies per spell on average. IMX a lot more is possible over an adventuring day... And tbf, I actually also showed the level 5 comparison AND gave team monster a save buff. For most of the rest of your criticisms:

Shatter is a much smaller area than Fireball and targets a usually decent-strong monster save, assuming with any reliability not only that there is that many monsters in play, but that you can also hit them without catching your party in the cross fire seems... a stretch. After all the proposed Wizard has a 0 boost to initiative, giving ample chance for monsters to close on the party or vice versa.

I was running with frogreaver's suggested build for Barbarian and slot allocation for Wizard, so that seems more than fair. Since FR had mentioned tanking, I presumed either AG or Totem. Variant human with toughness was also FR's choice, not mine. My entire point was that the choices suggested by FR were weak. In particular in build choices, but as such also for in play

Weak... how? Weak at taking damage despite a Half Orc Bearbarian being one of the most durable damage takers in the game? Weak in terms of tanking strength even though the AG Barbarian can force disadvantage on attacking the rest of the party? If the Wizard is very difficult to hit, appears to take no damage when hit and injures the monster on a hit, what possible incentive does that monster have for persisting with attacking the Wizard? It only makes the other party members seem like easier, more promising targets. At the proposed level the Wizard isn't able to share their ward, but if they do, then they're tanking by handing over their own durability.

What this is primarily proving is that Wizards using AOE damage spells against encounters of 3+ monsters with no risk or regard to hitting party members do more damage (assuming you're not hitting a monster resistant to fire or whatever your damage of choice is of course). That doesn't seem relevant to 'tanking' unless you're operating on the principle that you have to meet x damage threshold or do the most damage in the party to be considered a threat over your party members. That seems like a flawed principle.

If your goal is to be very hard to take down, Tough gives more oomph for your investment than bumping Con, if the Barbarian is using armour then there's no reason to go Con over Tough if they're just looking for hp.

If you went for pure soaking the comparison would probably be better done with something along the lines of AoA upcast in the two level 3 slots. That would most probably also easily outdamage the suggested Barbarian since the retribution damage from one proc alone would be a round of attacking from Bobo and with Abjurer's ward you ought to be able to stretch that to a couple of hits easily.

I assume you mean soaking damage by what you said? Going with that I don't understand why you're talking about damage again, the aim of the build is not to do damage, it's to tank, AoA + Ward + high AC is nothing but a deterrent to a monster and counter productive to the tanking role unless you're fighting in a 5ft wide tunnel. Why should a monster stay and either keep failing or hurting itself when there's softer targets?

[Frogreaver]

@Frogreaver: what do you mean discount with 50% discount? Where did you find that methodology? I am comparing the damage accurately just not using whichever methodology you imply and which isn't natural, self-evident or objectively more accurate. If anything, I've been lenient with both saves and effected targets.

I started a thread here for that very question. I think my OP there has answered your question but if you want more detail to dig into it I will be happy to provide there.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...-Target-Damage

I assume you mean soaking damage by what you said? Going with that I don't understand why you're talking about damage again, the aim of the build is not to do damage, it's to tank, AoA + Ward + high AC is nothing but a deterrent to a monster and counter productive to the tanking role unless you're fighting in a 5ft wide tunnel. Why should a monster stay and either keep failing or hurting itself when there's softer targets?

In @Skylivedk's defense, I suggested that the proper comparison would be to have the cleric/wizard multiclass use enough resources to equal the barbarian in survivability. When doing so at level 5 I got that it took roughly 5-6 shield spells and that at this level armor of agathys was a worse effective hp buff than just using shield.

The question then becomes which build is better off after reaching that level of survivability. I believe it's pretty clear that at some point the stated cleric/wizard would overtake the barbarian in survivability and offensive power, but level 5 and below doesn't appear to be that point.

I mean it's not particularly hard for a class to out survive a barbarian if you ignore all other metrics. Consider that a life cleric can self heal for 142 hp using just cure wounds while having 20 AC. That's also clearly capable of being more survivable than a raging barbarian.

[Skylivedk]

I started a thread here for that very question. I think my OP there has answered your question but if you want more detail to dig into it I will be happy to provide there.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...-Target-Damage



In @Skylivedk's defense, I suggested that the proper comparison would be to have the cleric/wizard multiclass use enough resources to equal the barbarian in survivability. When doing so at level 5 I got that it took roughly 5-6 shield spells and that at this level armor of agathys was a worse effective hp buff than just using shield.

The question then becomes which build is better off after reaching that level of survivability. I believe it's pretty clear that at some point the stated cleric/wizard would overtake the barbarian in survivability and offensive power, but level 5 and below doesn't appear to be that point.

I mean it's not particularly hard for a class to out survive a barbarian if you ignore all other metrics. Consider that a life cleric can self heal for 142 hp using just cure wounds while having 20 AC. That's also clearly capable of being more survivable than a raging barbarian.

I've seen the other thread and I thank you for taking the time to explain your point. I don't fully agree with it, but that can be it for the other thread. In terms of tanking and control, if we change to using a "remove turns" metric, the Cleric/Wizard will quite often be better off using other spells (Web, Hypnotic Pattern, Slow), but I tried to make the comparison simpler. If you want better AoOs then Warcaster at 4 or 8 is a possibility. IMO, Barbarians are just not that hard to deal with and do way better when they deal a ton of damage, because then they at least require some kind of attention, than when they go Sword and Board where they are just too little of a threat to be worth really focusing on.

I don't see how you reach the conclusion of level 5 not having been that moment either. With Abjurer's ward and upcast AoA plus using control spells/concentration spells (and hence incentivizing team monster to hit him more), I'd much rather have a Forge/Wiz at level 5 as my tank than an S&B Barbarian. I still don't see why Team Monster would bother with the Barbarian at this point. Your argument for the Barbarian being more offensive and/or defensive is yet to be backed up with any kind of numbers, examples or rational arguments. It is just a statement at this point in time. That he also adds less out of combat is completely ignored. The simulation didn't use Help from Familiar, no use of Unseen Servant, no use of control spells and not even a SCAGtrip, and still the Barbarian failed to impress. What is it that I am not seeing?

By the way: I forgot one more Rage for the Barbarian in the level 6 scenario... He would still have been blown out the water, but slightly less so.

[LudicSavant]

When doing so at level 5 I got that it took roughly 5-6 shield spells

I think it'd be helpful for you to show your work so that it can be checked. Especially since each time I've seen you do so in this thread so far there has been some major error -- missing erratas, leaving out proficiency, saying things scale with a stat they don't scale with, etc. You might be overlooking something.

Now naturally, most comparisons require some degree of abstraction and inexactitude in order to be done at all. But Barbarians are often particularly prone to being blown out of proportion by orders of magnitude in oversimplified white room analysis, via the following methods:
1) Ignoring accuracy when calculating damage, especially for GWM builds.
2) Only measuring one kind of defense, while dumping your ability to deal with any other kind of situation (which I call 'building Achilles'). If you're in a game where the enemy isn't just pulling their punches, a defense tends to only be as strong as its weakest link.
3) Leaving out the need to have a presence on the battlefield and defend allies (which I call 'making a turtle rather than a tank')
4) Assuming 100% rage uptime even at low levels. Remember, if you're doing 6+ encounters, you rage for half or less of them. And even in those encounters, Rage isn't up until your turn (this doesn't get solved until level 7 with Feral Instinct, and is subject to interruption (doubly so if one is 'building Achilles').

So if/when you show your work, I would recommend avoiding doing any of the above.

Anyways, all of that said, my expectation would be that Barbarian makes its best showing in Tier 1 and early Tier 2.

[Christew]

The other being that 1 hour long duration temp hp only have an impact on survivability when you are hit while having them. The point is that there is a trade off - if you are forgoing shield because you have armor of agathys temp hp up then you are forgoing a huge chunk of your builds effective hp. If you are using shield while having armor of agathys temp hp up then you have a greater chance of not benefitting from armor of agathys at all.

I don't really understand treating these as mutually exclusive options. AoA costs an action and has an hour duration making it an ideal pre-combat buff. Shield costs a reaction and lasts until your next turn, making it an ideal panic button. They fill completely different situations and don't really step on each other's toes unless you use them in a very specifically unoptimized fashion.

A hypothetical ogre and it's goblin lackeys appear. AoA mitigates hits from the goblins while dealing effective damage to them. If the ogre gets a hit on you, pop shield. A few goblin hits might get blocked for that turn, but that's pretty negligible in the overall combat, let alone the adventuring day.

I mean, even "worst" case scenario, where the monsters decide not to attack you at all ... Great! This is a wizard we are talking about. If there was a concentration free buff that made it so enemies only attack your allies instead of you, it would be the rare wizard not drooling over the prospect.

[Dork_Forge]

I mean, even "worst" case scenario, where the monsters decide not to attack you at all ... Great! This is a wizard we are talking about. If there was a concentration free buff that made it so enemies only attack your allies instead of you, it would be the rare wizard not drooling over the prospect.

I think the important thing here is context, this was not about individual survivability (at least I don't think it was), it was about tanking (with multiple references to why monsters should care about you). The pairing of high AC+Shield+Ward+AoA is great for individual survivability, but it's terrible for tanking. What reason should a monster have for attempting to kill something that it either can't hit, or rarely hits and does no visible damage to whilst also hurting itself? Sure the Wizard is doing stuff, but so are the other (presumably easier targets) party members.

So this would be good for the typical Wizarding role (blasting, control etc.) but not good for someone looking to draw the aggro of the other side.

[Skylivedk]

I think the important thing here is context, this was not about individual survivability (at least I don't think it was), it was about tanking (with multiple references to why monsters should care about you). The pairing of high AC+Shield+Ward+AoA is great for individual survivability, but it's terrible for tanking. What reason should a monster have for attempting to kill something that it either can't hit, or rarely hits and does no visible damage to whilst also hurting itself? Sure the Wizard is doing stuff, but so are the other (presumably easier targets) party members.

So this would be good for the typical Wizarding role (blasting, control etc.) but not good for someone looking to draw the aggro of the other side.

Which is why I went through the trouble of showing that the Wizard is a bigger threat than the Barbarian. Especially if you don't focus on doing damage, but actually do all the other things. Also some strong control spells are way better close (Fear, Counterspell) rather than far away.

[LudicSavant]

I don't really understand treating these as mutually exclusive options. AoA costs an action and has an hour duration making it an ideal pre-combat buff. Shield costs a reaction and lasts until your next turn, making it an ideal panic button. They fill completely different situations and don't really step on each other's toes unless you use them in a very specifically unoptimized fashion.

You have the right of it here. AoA and Shield should not be stepping on each others' toes if used correctly. If anything, the opposite.

[Xetheral]

And all of that is before we even mention Spell Mastery, which just lets you regenerate your ward forever and have infinite Shield/Blur (or whatever other combo you want). Before that, you can convert time into ward hp with Alarm rituals.

Quick question: for using Spell Mastery (Shield) to recharge the ward between battles, are you assuming the DM is permitting the other party members to repeatedly attack you with non-damaging attacks to trigger Shield (e.g. nets, unarmed attacks from 8 STR characters)? If so, that seems like assuming an awfully high tolerance for cheese at the table. And if not, I would expect the actual HP loss from the occasional (and inevitable) hit/crit during the sparing to drastically reduce the survivability value of recharging the ward. (Although it may still be worth it in a pinch--ward points for this character are likely more valuable than HP.)

[Dork_Forge]

Which is why I went through the trouble of showing that the Wizard is a bigger threat than the Barbarian. Especially if you don't focus on doing damage, but actually do all the other things. Also some strong control spells are way better close (Fear, Counterspell) rather than far away.

You're assuming that the monsters will realise you are a threat but not realise that you are the hardest target to actually injure. That is a leap of logic, especially as there is likely martials in melee range, also doing damage and more easily hit. To assume that the monsters would forgo everyone else (closer, easier targets) to attack you for negative pay off (little to no hits and self damage on a hit) is biased logic. If the mosnter pays attention to pain, why shouldn't it reason otherwise? Or what if the monster is intelligent period? The best way to take down a party isn't to drop the hardest target, it's to go for the weakest and work your way up, dropping the action economy acnd creating a death spiral.

I uphold the build is good at survivability but poor at actually tanking in the sense of drawing aggro, unless the monsters operate on a specific and very favourable point of view.

[Skylivedk]

You're assuming that the monsters will realise you are a threat but not realise that you are the hardest target to actually injure. That is a leap of logic, especially as there is likely martials in melee range, also doing damage and more easily hit. To assume that the monsters would forgo everyone else (closer, easier targets) to attack you for negative pay off (little to no hits and self damage on a hit) is biased logic. If the mosnter pays attention to pain, why shouldn't it reason otherwise? Or what if the monster is intelligent period? The best way to take down a party isn't to drop the hardest target, it's to go for the weakest and work your way up, dropping the action economy acnd creating a death spiral.

I uphold the build is good at survivability but poor at actually tanking in the sense of drawing aggro, unless the monsters operate on a specific and very favourable point of view.

If you are in melee (the build is perfectly capable of using SCAG-trips AFAIK) and you are running Fear, Hypnotic Pattern, Web, etc, why on Earth would monsters rather target the Barbarian proposed by Frogreaver, or most Martials for that sake? You've locked down maybe 60-70% of their squad. Wouldn't you be an obvious high priority threat? I don't follow your reasoning in the slightest. Wizards draw aggro, not because they are squishy, but because they're dangerous.

You are a wizard. You are dangerous*. You are super hard to ignore and if they do ignore you, odds are that your team has an easier time winning as you lay down top-tier spells arrive you have, y'know, the best spell list in the game

*Dangerous and squishy is of course tastier.

[Christew]

I uphold the build is good at survivability but poor at actually tanking in the sense of drawing aggro, unless the monsters operate on a specific and very favourable point of view.

I think the distinction between survivability and tanking is worth making, but I also think LudicSavant's build is viable for tanking.

If you are in melee (the build is perfectly capable of using SCAG-trips AFAIK) and you are running Fear, Hypnotic Pattern, Web, etc, why on Earth would monsters rather target the Barbarian proposed by Frogreaver, or most Martials for that sake? You've locked down maybe 60-70% of their squad. Wouldn't you be an obvious high priority threat? I don't follow your reasoning in the slightest. Wizards draw aggro, not because they are squishy, but because they're dangerous.

You are a wizard. You are dangerous*. You are super hard to ignore and if they do ignore you, odds are that your team has an easier time winning as you lay down top-tier spells arrive you have, y'know, the best spell list in the game

*Dangerous and squishy is of course tastier.

This. If we are positing stupid adversaries, they should be attacking the weakest looking combatant or the most immediate threat. If we are positing intelligent adversaries, they should be attacking the most significant threat. The Wizard can check either box.

What exactly would a Barbarian (of whatever subclass and build) be doing that is a comparable threat to a Wizard with a concentration effect, blasting, a familiar, etc? Especially given that a single hit might disrupt the Wizard while it is going to take a whole lot of hits to interrupt the Barbarian. The potency of threat to ease of disruption just doesn't incentivize attacking the barbarian unless absolutely necessary.

Another great build btw, Ludic.

[Dork_Forge]

If you are in melee (the build is perfectly capable of using SCAG-trips AFAIK) and you are running Fear, Hypnotic Pattern, Web, etc, why on Earth would monsters rather target the Barbarian proposed by Frogreaver, or most Martials for that sake? You've locked down maybe 60-70% of their squad. Wouldn't you be an obvious high priority threat? I don't follow your reasoning in the slightest. Wizards draw aggro, not because they are squishy, but because they're dangerous.

You are a wizard. You are dangerous*. You are super hard to ignore and if they do ignore you, odds are that your team has an easier time winning as you lay down top-tier spells arrive you have, y'know, the best spell list in the game

*Dangerous and squishy is of course tastier.

The Wizard in question may draw aggro, but there's no good reason for you to keep the monster's aggro. Afterall, it's very difficult to hit you, hits inflict self daamge and show no visible damage to the Wizard (temp hp and Ward). Meanwhile the Wizard presents nothing but benefit to the monsters in attacking others, an AG (and Cavalier etc.) can inflict disadvantage on attacking other targets, that incentivises to some degree attacking the one person you won't be at disadvantage to.

This also assumes that the Wizard is the biggest threat, this build has to make concessions to be how it is: majorly delayed Int progression and some delayed spell progression means that another single classes full caster (even another Wizard) is likely to pose a bigger threat, like a Cleric with Spirit Guardians up when the proposed build doesn't have 3rd level spells yet (this exists every other level, this is just an obvious example). So that best spell list in the game is behind the curve in two fashions and if the monster ignores you, then actually chances are they're attacking a much softer target. This gets worse with intelligent monsters, not better.

This. If we are positing stupid adversaries, they should be attacking the weakest looking combatant or the most immediate threat. If we are positing intelligent adversaries, they should be attacking the most significant threat. The Wizard can check either box.

What exactly would a Barbarian (of whatever subclass and build) be doing that is a comparable threat to a Wizard with a concentration effect, blasting, a familiar, etc? Especially given that a single hit might disrupt the Wizard while it is going to take a whole lot of hits to interrupt the Barbarian. The potency of threat to ease of disruption just doesn't incentivize attacking the barbarian unless absolutely necessary.

That logic seems a bit flawed, the most intelligent way to take apart a party is just to deprive it of members as quickly as possible, as action economy shifts and there are less targets to divide attacks amongst, the chance of failure increases, it's the whole reason a death spiral is a thing.

If you were to target a specific member for a particular reason with the end goal being to take down the party, would you not be better suited to go for the weakest member or the healer?

For the record I have not evaluated this as these two builds being in the same party, I thought this was meant to be contrasting them, having both this Wizard and an AG in a party would be nothing but a good thing.

[Christew]

That logic seems a bit flawed, the most intelligent way to take apart a party is just to deprive it of members as quickly as possible, as action economy shifts and there are less targets to divide attacks amongst, the chance of failure increases, it's the whole reason a death spiral is a thing.

I would posit that (generally speaking) the most intelligent way to take apart a group of foes would be to start with the most potent threat that is most easily disrupted and work your way down from there.

IF you were to target a specific member for a particular reason with the end goal being to take down the party, would you not be better suited to go for the weakest member or the healer?

Raises an interesting point about foe knowledge. I assume enemies don't usually have foreknowledge of a character's abilities. Steel Wizard dumped strength and has mostly wizard hit dice and so could be termed weakest. Steel Wizard also has access to Healing Word and Cure Wounds and could be termed healer. Really a tough call to make without contextual info (party comp, level, prepared spells, etc).

[Skylivedk]

The Wizard in question may draw aggro, but there's no good reason for you to keep the monster's aggro. Afterall, it's very difficult to hit you, hits inflict self daamge and show no visible damage to the Wizard (temp hp and Ward). Meanwhile the Wizard presents nothing but benefit to the monsters in attacking others, an AG (and Cavalier etc.) can inflict disadvantage on attacking other targets, that incentivises to some degree attacking the one person you won't be at disadvantage to.

This also assumes that the Wizard is the biggest threat, this build has to make concessions to be how it is: majorly delayed Int progression and some delayed spell progression means that another single classes full caster (even another Wizard) is likely to pose a bigger threat, like a Cleric with Spirit Guardians up when the proposed build doesn't have 3rd level spells yet (this exists every other level, this is just an obvious example). So that best spell list in the game is behind the curve in two fashions and if the monster ignores you, then actually chances are they're attacking a much softer target. This gets worse with intelligent monsters, not better.



That logic seems a bit flawed, the most intelligent way to take apart a party is just to deprive it of members as quickly as possible, as action economy shifts and there are less targets to divide attacks amongst, the chance of failure increases, it's the whole reason a death spiral is a thing.

If you were to target a specific member for a particular reason with the end goal being to take down the party, would you not be better suited to go for the weakest member or the healer?

For the record I have not evaluated this as these two builds being in the same party, I thought this was meant to be contrasting them, having both this Wizard and an AG in a party would be nothing but a good thing.

FWIW, I'd probably take Int or Warcaster prior to Res: Con if I were to play the Steel Forge Wizard (with high AC and Con I wouldn't be too afraid of losing concentration and the prof bonus is worth more later).

The Wizard can still inflict disadvantage with web, inflict advantage on hits against monster with a bunch of spells and control movement and areas with another range of spells. I honestly don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that it's not tempting to get rid of the tin can that lights the room on fire (create bonfire/flaming sphere), covers it in grease/web, etc.

The Wizard ought to have enough ways to be a hard to ignore nuisance.

Of course YMMV.

[LudicSavant]

I think the distinction between survivability and tanking is worth making, but I also think LudicSavant's build is viable for tanking.

This. If we are positing stupid adversaries, they should be attacking the weakest looking combatant or the most immediate threat. If we are positing intelligent adversaries, they should be attacking the most significant threat. The Wizard can check either box.

What exactly would a Barbarian (of whatever subclass and build) be doing that is a comparable threat to a Wizard with a concentration effect, blasting, a familiar, etc? Especially given that a single hit might disrupt the Wizard while it is going to take a whole lot of hits to interrupt the Barbarian. The potency of threat to ease of disruption just doesn't incentivize attacking the barbarian unless absolutely necessary.

Another great build btw, Ludic.

Thanks!

I'll add that it's not just a matter of dishing out damage, but control as well. In many circumstances, I don't allow enemies a choice of who to target. Or at least, not any good choices.

The Steel Wizard also has tools to help protect their allies even if they're the ones that end up getting attacked, too. They can project ward, pick up off death gate as a bonus action, counterspell unusually well, transform people into giant apes with 150-odd temp HP, that kind of thing.

You also can shift seamlessly into using all of your would-be defensive resources to offensive or support ones.

[Dork_Forge]

I would posit that (generally speaking) the most intelligent way to take apart a group of foes would be to start with the most potent threat that is most easily disrupted and work your way down from there.

Raises an interesting point about foe knowledge. I assume enemies don't usually have foreknowledge of a character's abilities. Steel Wizard dumped strength and has mostly wizard hit dice and so could be termed weakest. Steel Wizard also has access to Healing Word and Cure Wounds and could be termed healer. Really a tough call to make without contextual info (party comp, level, prepared spells, etc).

The key there is the easily disrupted part, defense is the strongest suit of the build.

Foreknowledge isn't even needed really, the Wizard is wearing plate and carrying a shield, both are signs of being harder to injure and both are things not expected of a Wizard. Whilst they have access to it, I find it hard to believe the Wizard would be using Cure Wounds in combat at all, but I imagine someone is taking on the role of healer more actively (in most parties ime, obviously varies).

I'm sure there's games where the monsters would just continue to try and chew on the Wizard despite reason and pain, but I don't think it's reasonable to rely on that.

FWIW, I'd probably take Int or Warcaster prior to Res: Con if I were to play the Steel Forge Wizard (with high AC and Con I wouldn't be too afraid of losing concentration and the prof bonus is worth more later).

The Wizard can still inflict disadvantage with web, inflict advantage on hits against monster with a bunch of spells and control movement and areas with another range of spells. I honestly don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that it's not tempting to get rid of the tin can that lights the room on fire (create bonfire/flaming sphere), covers it in grease/web, etc.

The Wizard ought to have enough ways to be a hard to ignore nuisance.

Of course YMMV.

I'd agree with that being a better course of action, probably Int for my money, a +3 stat on a prepared caster until level 9 wouldn't be great.

This isn't the same, both of my examples give disadvantage for not attacking the Tank, being at disadvantage from Web equally affects the whole party. Otherwise I'd like some examples because you're just saying 'spells can do these things.'

Again, the Wizard is likely to gain the attention of the monsters, but there's no good reason for the Wizard to keep it, especially against intelligent enemies. The entire party is doing their best to fight the monsters, single classesd casters can be throwing higher level spells with higher bonuses/DCs at them, martials doing damage and conditions etc. The Wizard being so hard to put down is great for survivability, but it actively goes against keeping aggro.

[Skylivedk]

The key there is the easily disrupted part, defense is the strongest suit of the build.

Foreknowledge isn't even needed really, the Wizard is wearing plate and carrying a shield, both are signs of being harder to injure and both are things not expected of a Wizard. Whilst they have access to it, I find it hard to believe the Wizard would be using Cure Wounds in combat at all, but I imagine someone is taking on the role of healer more actively (in most parties ime, obviously varies).

I'm sure there's games where the monsters would just continue to try and chew on the Wizard despite reason and pain, but I don't think it's reasonable to rely on that.




I'd agree with that being a better course of action, probably Int for my money, a +3 stat on a prepared caster until level 9 wouldn't be great.

This isn't the same, both of my examples give disadvantage for not attacking the Tank, being at disadvantage from Web equally affects the whole party. Otherwise I'd like some examples because you're just saying 'spells can do these things.'

Again, the Wizard is likely to gain the attention of the monsters, but there's no good reason for the Wizard to keep it, especially against intelligent enemies. The entire party is doing their best to fight the monsters, single classesd casters can be throwing higher level spells with higher bonuses/DCs at them, martials doing damage and conditions etc. The Wizard being so hard to put down is great for survivability, but it actively goes against keeping aggro.

Disadvantage to hit/advantage to being hit are both granted by both grease and web, depending on function. Protection from Evil and Good can fulfill some of the same and so can Guiding Bolt. Heck, even Bless can make you worth hitting. So can yo-yo healing, your unseen servant spreading environmental hazards, your owl creating advantage with flyby and probably a bunch of other things I don't recall some minutes to midnight.

I don't get how you can say that you don't keep aggro with concentration effects. It's way better than most Martials (AG and Cavalier having good mechanics). Concentration spells are by themselves a way to keep aggro. With the right spell, the opponents are either at a severe disadvantage (small d) or attacking you.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. This also applies to potentially way more targets than AG (only one target!) or Cavalier can target (they have to stay within 5 feet and you only have one reaction, and ranged attackers can just kill your squishies). Tbf, it isn't even close in my eyes.

[Christew]

The key there is the easily disrupted part, defense is the strongest suit of the build.

Foreknowledge isn't even needed really, the Wizard is wearing plate and carrying a shield, both are signs of being harder to injure and both are things not expected of a Wizard. Whilst they have access to it, I find it hard to believe the Wizard would be using Cure Wounds in combat at all, but I imagine someone is taking on the role of healer more actively (in most parties ime, obviously varies).

I'm sure there's games where the monsters would just continue to try and chew on the Wizard despite reason and pain, but I don't think it's reasonable to rely on that.

Defense is a core part of the build, but most of it is generated from spells and abilities. Ostensibly, the Steel Wizard would present as a pretty weak and bookish looking dwarf in armor (armor that almost seems like it would be too heavy for him to wear if not for his inherent dwarfiness). If you look at him and say "that guy looks like he could spike his functional hit dice from a d6 to a d12+ with minimal effort," I'd call that foreknowledge. If just the appearance of wearing armor and a shield means that foes will give you a wide berth, being a dwarf and illusion magic in general become pretty powerful.

As to the rest, too contextual for intelligent comment. Just pointing out that one level of cleric and scalable slots is plenty to make you the healer in some parties.

To the point of aggro, who do you usually go after first in an average combat -- the caster that just dropped a concentration effect or the beefy frontliner?

[LudicSavant]

I was really torn about the ASI order for the Steel Wizard, since I think any order of Int / Warcaster / Res(Con) is a solid choice and would generally decide based on factors like party composition and nature of the campaign.