On Multiclassing for Wizards (Mini-Guide)

[Christew]

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.

Always a conundrum with wizard theorycraft. Personally, I appreciate that you always walk through your thinking for a specific build instead of just saying "take these three in whatever order best fits."

I always find it hard to delay rounding out an odd CON score, but with a build like this that could easily frontline, Warcaster becomes more viable than I usually consider it. I think your description and the variant section were more than adequate.

[Frogreaver]

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.

Yep, you've done a good job talking about the drawing aggro part of tanking. I've focused primarily on the survivability. But you are absolutely right, being too defensive actually hurts tanking capabilities, even if your offensive abilities are a bit higher.

The funniest thing about this is, by some level the cleric/wizard does become more survivable. I've no where disputed that. It's also funny to note that a life cleric is also more survivable than the most survivable barbarian. Not necessarily good at drawing aggro though.

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.

At level 5 the Cleric/Wizard doesn't even have those spells. He has shatter or web. Are you suggesting that a wizard who casts web and follows up with cantrips (not even once per encounter) is a bigger threat than a sword and shield barbarian making 2 attacks?

I think it'd be helpful for you to show your work so that it can be checked. Especially since each time you have done 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.

No bigger errors than you taking the most liberal interpretations of abilities - such as the Wizard's empowered evocation applying more than once to magic missile damage.

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:

An overall principle we can agree with.

1) Ignoring accuracy when calculating damage, especially for GWM builds.

I've never seen anyone do this. The most common inaccuracy I see in GWM damage comparisons is giving the GWM advantage but not the non-GWM alternative build.

I'd say a far more common and more important error is direct comparisons of AOE damage to single target damage.

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.

This one gets pretty abstract pretty fast and has so many factors.

I'll leave it at this, in terms of building Achilles', every character has weaknesses. It's impossible to cover everything - especially from levels 1-10. In terms of survivability the most important features tend to be (in no particular order):

AC
HP
Temp Hp
Damage Resistances
Imposing Disadvantage on attacks against you
Dex and Con saves
Str saves if often in melee
Healing
Damage Reduction

3) Leaving out the need to have a presence on the battlefield (which I call 'making a turtle rather than a tank')

A cleric/wizard using most slots for survivability and having a handful left for offensive spells and using cantrips on 80% of their turns doesn't scream "battlefield presence" to me.

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').

I personally don't play 6+ encounters per day. More like 1-3 on most days. That said we can theory craft around any number. It's just important to remember those encounters are rarely uniform in difficulty. If the Barbarian rages in the hardest but not the easiest that's significantly better than the proposals i've seen to handle that situation.

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.

Maybe that's because Barbarian 7-19 tends to be fairly lackluster. Much more can be gained by multiclassing the Barbarian both in terms of offense and survivability.

[LudicSavant]

No bigger errors than you taking the most liberal interpretations of abilities - such as the Wizard's empowered evocation applying more than once to magic missile damage.

This got old pages ago.

Telling you what Sage Advice says is not an error. Like... at all. If you don't want to interpret it that way, that's up to you, but it is in no way an error.

Spending multiple pages arguing about the Hexblade being 'not that good a dip compared to Sorcerer 1' because 'Hexblade's Curse scales its damage with Charisma, not Proficiency' is a major error. Like there is no possible interpretation of the book, liberal or otherwise, where that's true. And that is far from the only example of this sort of thing.

If you're not going to show your work and you are just going to say 'no you,' then we have nothing more to discuss. You've been doing this since page 1, and I just don't have any more time to spend on it. Have a nice day sir.

[Frogreaver]

This got old pages ago.

Telling you what the books says and what Sage Advice says is not an error. Like... at all. If you don't want to interpret it that way, that's up to you, but it is in no way an error.

Spending multiple pages arguing about the Hexblade being 'not that good a dip' because 'Hexblade's Curse scales its damage with Charisma, not Proficiency' is a major error. Like there is no possible interpretation of the book, liberal or otherwise, where that's true. And that is far from the only example of this sort of thing.

If you're not going to show your work and you are just going to say 'no you,' then we have nothing more to discuss. You've been doing this since page 1, and I just don't have any more time to spend on it. Have a nice day sir.

How many times have you went back to the Hexblade's curse not being cha and me being mixed up on that, to try and silence me on completely unrelated topics?

[LudicSavant]

How many times have you went back to the Hexblade's curse not being cha and me being mixed up on that, to try and silence me on completely unrelated topics?

"I think it'd be helpful for you to show your work so that it can be checked" is not "silencing you." I had literally the exact opposite intention.

[Frogreaver]

"I think it'd be helpful for you to show your work so that it can be checked" is not "silencing you."

I'll be happy to as long as you show yours too.

[Christew]

How many times have you went back to the Hexblade's curse not being cha and me being mixed up on that, to try and silence me on completely unrelated topics?

This is a really disappointing attitude man. She has in no way tried to silence you, and that mistake of yours genuinely derailed this thread for pages. Remember when you said this?

LOL, such a noob mistake!

That changes things considerably!

This quote made me think that you were genuinely contrite about a mistake. That made you seem genuine and still worth listening to (even if I disagree with your base premise).

I'll be happy to as long as you show yours too.

Um, she literally wrote the most effective DPR calculator and is a consistently valuable contributor to this board as a whole. Also, the only times she has neglected to show her work is on topics that she has already written extensively on.

[Frogreaver]

This is a really disappointing attitude man. She has in no way tried to silence you, and that mistake of yours genuinely derailed this thread for pages. Remember when you said this?

I don't know about you but when a past mistake is continually brought up again and again into other topics of conversation... well I'm not sure how else to take that.

This quote made me think that you were genuinely contrite about a mistake. That made you seem genuine and still worth listening to (even if I disagree with your base premise).

Meant every word. Now maybe you can help explain why that is being brought up again and again and again?

Um, she literally wrote the most effective DPR calculator and is a consistently valuable contributor to this board as a whole. Also, the only times she has neglected to show her work is on topics that she has already written extensively on.

That's good to know about the DPR calculator. That's something I will check out at some point.

[Christew]

I don't know about you but when a past mistake is continually brought up again and again into other topics of conversation... well I'm not sure how else to take that.

I totally get that, it is definitely frustrating to have an error repeatedly brought up when you would rather move past it. The issue is that you didn't make a typo or a slip of the tongue; you were arguing (rather vehemently and for quite some time) based on an incorrect understanding of a rule that came out years ago. That becomes a credibility issue when the topic is multiclass optimization. This board is welcoming to D&D enthusiasts of any and all levels of experience, but it also features a considerable number of folks who have studied and dissected 5e theory, mechanics, and optimization from before its formal inception through every new publication, UA, and Crawford tweet. LudicSavant's credentials are pretty much above reproach (I genuinely recommend you do the reading on her contributions here, it is worth the time and effort). Not speaking for her, but just from observation of her discussion style, she seems to welcome discussion and dissection of her builds and theories. That said, you made an egregious error that demonstrated a less than full understanding of the currently published rules. You deserve credit for your (previously quoted) mature and productive response to being called out on a misinformed position, but you also have to own that you made a pretty big gaff and that it is reasonable for people to ask for a higher burden of proof from you as a result.

That's good to know about the DPR calculator. That's something I will check out at some point.

Good on. I genuinely recommend it.

[Frogreaver]

I totally get that, it is definitely frustrating to have an error repeatedly brought up when you would rather move past it. The issue is that you didn't make a typo or a slip of the tongue; you were arguing (rather vehemently and for quite some time) based on an incorrect understanding of a rule that came out years ago.

There's no reason to keep bringing it up though. That's the problem. It's not like anyone's been discussing hexblade for some time. I've moved on. Why aren't you all?

That becomes a credibility issue when the topic is multiclass optimization.

How so? How does 1 misremembered rule that I immediately owned up when it was brought up make for a credibility issue on how solid one's ability to analyze the game and various builds are? Is that really how this board operates, be wrong once and you have no credibility and have to jump through hoops to everyone elses satisfaction?

This board is welcoming to D&D enthusiasts of any and all levels of experience, but it also features a considerable number of folks who have studied and dissected 5e theory, mechanics, and optimization from before its formal inception through every new publication, UA, and Crawford tweet. LudicSavant's credentials are pretty much above reproach (I genuinely recommend you do the reading on her contributions here, it is worth the time and effort). Not speaking for her, but just from observation of her discussion style, she seems to welcome discussion and dissection of her builds and theories.

From an outside perspective, that's not how it comes across.

That said, you made an egregious error that demonstrated a less than full understanding of the currently published rules.

Misremembering 1 thing is not making an egregious error that demonstrates a less than full understanding of the currently published rules. Sorry but we are on different planets there. Overall I like this board, but if that's how such things are going to be treated then I'm not sure this is a place I'm going to be happy.

You deserve credit for your (previously quoted) mature and productive response to being called out on a misinformed position, but you also have to own that you made a pretty big gaff and that it is reasonable for people to ask for a higher burden of proof from you as a result.

In my humble opinion, Having that expectation and that view about misremembering 1 rule is what is unreasonable.

[Christew]

There's no reason to keep bringing it up though. That's the problem. It's not like anyone's been discussing hexblade for some time. I've moved on. Why aren't you all?

First, let's not throw around generalizations, this is the first I've mentioned your mistake or Hexblade at all. Second, as I said before, it is a question of credibility. Your mistake regarding Hexblade made it appear as though you have not done your homework on the nuances of the 5e ruleset. That calls into question your ability to offer informed critique on someone who very much has done their homework. If a doctor spent several days telling me that a particular medication had no detrimental interactions with my condition only to later admit that they had made a mistake, few could blame me for questioning that doctors medical expertise moving forward. No one has brought up Hexblade to shame you, only to ask for the math behind your claims.

How so? How does 1 misremembered rule that I immediately owned up when it was brought up make for a credibility issue on how solid one's ability to analyze the game and various builds are? Is that really how this board operates, be wrong once and you have no credibility and have to jump through hoops to everyone elses satisfaction?

Well, let's be fair -- you didn't "immediately" own up to it. You defended your mistaken claim for pages of discussion (while LudicSavant was very patient with you). Not having a clear understanding of the math behind the rules does limit your credibility on analyzing builds. No one initially shamed you for that mistake. No one is currently shaming you for that mistake. But making such a mistake does entitle others to ask for more detailed support of your claims because it has shown that they cannot take your rules knowledge as a given. Again, please don't jump to broad generalizations. You cannot judge this board off of a single interaction in a single thread. That said, on any given subject there will be those that are learning and those that are teaching (best case scenario people will be both simultaneously). Personally, I think that this thread has largely been a testament to the GitP community. You have people on your side and you have people on the other side. The discussion has been civil and productive.

From an outside perspective, that's not how it comes across.

I'm sorry to hear that. I think you could be a valuable member of this community. You obviously have a passion for the subject and have been very active in the past couple weeks. That said, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that you have come in a little hot on a couple subjects (this is not the only thread where I've seen you butt heads with LudicSavant specifically). Passion is great, unwillingness to listen to the opinions of others is not. The goal here is discussion. That often entails disagreement, but ideally shouldn't entail offense on either side of a given issue.

Misremembering 1 thing is not making an egregious error that demonstrates a less than full understanding of the currently published rules. Sorry but we are on different planets there. Overall I like this board, but if that's how such things are going to be treated then I'm not sure this is a place I'm going to be happy.

I'm sorry that we are so far apart. I can't speak for others, but for me: 1)Hexblade has been one of the most hotly discussed topics in 5e since its publication, 2) you ardently defended a basic misreading of a level 1 Hexblade ability, 3) given 1 and 2, it is not a great leap to ask for evidence that you are not basing your subsequent claims on further possible misreadings. It is not unreasonable for LudicSavant to feel that her time is being wasted engaging in a long form argument with someone that is basing their claims on at least one and possibly more misreadings of the text. You are 100% entitled to post/ask/discuss whatever you want on this board (within the rules of conduct of course). Others are 100% entitled to respond (or decide they no longer see the value in responding) to your posts/etc as they see fit.

In my humble opinion, Having that expectation and that view about misremembering 1 rule is what is unreasonable.

You are getting very hung up on this 1 rule thing. Maybe go back and look at how many times you defended your mistaken interpretation of that 1 rule, what tone you used up until you realized you were wrong, and how people on the board responded. To my eyes your opinions were treated respectfully and with the aim of improving your understanding. It was only when you became standoffish regarding a reasonable reaction to misinformed critique that LudicSavant (reasonably and respectfully) decided this wasn't worth her time. No one is saying you need to have an encyclopedic understanding of the rules.

[Skylivedk]

Yep, you've done a good job talking about the drawing aggro part of tanking. I've focused primarily on the survivability. But you are absolutely right, being too defensive actually hurts tanking capabilities, even if your offensive abilities are a bit higher.

The funniest thing about this is, by some level the cleric/wizard does become more survivable. I've no where disputed that. It's also funny to note that a life cleric is also more survivable than the most survivable barbarian. Not necessarily good at drawing aggro though.

Without acknowledging that there's multiple ways of drawing aggro though. Being a continuous threat IS a way of drawing aggro and the most normal in games with no forced aggro mechanic

At level 5 the Cleric/Wizard doesn't even have those spells. He has shatter or web. Are you suggesting that a wizard who casts web and follows up with cantrips (not even once per encounter) is a bigger threat than a sword and shield barbarian making 2 attacks?

Absolutely. I even showed how the Barbarian is behind in pure damage for most of five combats if the Cleric/Wizard played liked a bot, the monsters saved more than normal and with being a melee character never being an issue. I also said that there was way better ways of playing for the Cleric Wizard (ironically, not really for the Barb though).

In return, you did for your build... Nothing. Showed nothing, crunched nothing. Substantiated no claim.

No bigger errors than you taking the most liberal interpretations of abilities - such as the Wizard's empowered evocation applying more than once to magic missile damage.

That can't be called an error when it's based on what used to be a source on par with She Advice (ie for that year that was still in effect).

I've never seen anyone do this. The most common inaccuracy I see in GWM damage comparisons is giving the GWM advantage but not the non-GWM alternative build.

Good for you. Hang out for a couple of weeks and you will :)

I'd say a far more common and more important error is direct comparisons of AOE damage to single target damage.

And here you also came up with a claim, where I can agree with the premise (there's a difference), but the weight of that difference (every target after the first only counts for half) is completely arbitrary.

Edit: just saw you added something in the other thread. I'll read it. Thanks

AC
HP
Temp Hp
Damage Resistances
Imposing Disadvantage on attacks against you
Dex and Con saves
Str saves if often in melee
Healing
Damage Reduction

So being completely taken out of the combat for failing a Will save is less important than taking damage from a goblin? I can't agree.

A cleric/wizard using most slots for survivability and having a handful left for offensive spells and using cantrips on 80% of their turns doesn't scream "battlefield presence" to me.

Literally no one arguing on behalf of the Forge Cleric Abjurer has suggested this. Actually, quite the opposite. I presume you are not arguing in bad faith, but this is a Strawman. The defenses are flexible. You can use them as necessary.

I personally don't play 6+ encounters per day. More like 1-3 on most days. That said we can theory craft around any number. It's just important to remember those encounters are rarely uniform in difficulty. If the Barbarian rages in the hardest but not the easiest that's significantly better than the proposals i've seen to handle that situation.

How so? Who has said the Barbarian should rage in the easiest encounters? 1-3 combats is also better for Cleric/Wizard. I used 6 combats to favour the Barbarian.

Maybe that's because Barbarian 7-19 tends to be fairly lackluster. Much more can be gained by multiclassing the Barbarian both in terms of offense and survivability.

Agreed. Also quite often by not playing Barbarian.

[MaxWilson]

And here you also came up with a claim, where I can agree with the premise (there's a difference), but the weight of that difference (every target after the first only counts for half) is completely arbitrary.

Edit: just saw you added something in the other thread. I'll read it. Thanks

According to the other thread, it turns out Frogreaver's key assumption is that all of the AoE damage put together isn't enough to kill a single monster, i.e. it's a very weak AoE attack, basically cantrip-level. Emphasis mine:

Upon closer inspection - the first major thing I'm noticing is that you've broken one of the stated premises with your example. The single target damage needs to be applied to a single enemy that can take it. That is, your example isn't in the scope of scenarios that are covered by the stated formula.

If you can kill or at least seriously wound a large number of enemies with one or several AoEs, your efficiency approaches 100%, as measured by the reduction in the total number of attacks your enemy will get to make before they all die. E.g. if the party normally kills 2 Githyanki Warriors per round (~100 HP of damage vs. AC 17), then 12 Githyanki Warriors will get 12 + 10 + 8 + 6 + 4 + 2 attacks before they die (42 total). A hypothetical Fireball for 30 HP of damage to each Githyanki does 12 * 30 = 360 HP of damage, which means each Githyanki only has 19 HP left, and the PCs will kill about 5 Githyankis per round, so they'll get 12 + 7 + 2 = 21 attacks, so the Fireball reduced the Githyanki effectiveness by 21 attacks. But a perfectly-distributed 360 HP of damage would have killed 360/49 = 7.3 Githynaki outright, leaving the others at full health, so they'd get about 5 + 3 + 1 = 15 attacks, which means a 100% efficient damage distribution would remove 34 attacks. So, in this case the hypothetical Fireball removes 21/34 as many attacks as a 100% efficient damage distribution, meaning it's 62% effective by the metric Frogreaver is using, so in some ways it's similar to inflicting 0.62 * 360 = 222 HP in direct damage instead of 360 HP in AoE.

(Before anyone points it out--yes, 30 is an unusually high roll for a Fireball, and against DC 15ish, typically Githyanki will save on a 13 or better (40% of the time), so average damage for Fireball is 8d6 * 0.80 = 22.4, although it will be applied unevenly, so the party can gain back some of the advantages of direct damage by focusing attacks on the most-wounded Githyankis. For the sake of keeping the math simple in the example I just assumed all the Githyankis failed their saves. If you like you can pretend that it's some other effect instead of Fireball, like a Reverse Gravity spell with no save.)

There are other ways to measure effectiveness too, but reduction-in-attacks is apparently the one Frogreaver is using.

[Frogreaver]

According to the other thread, it turns out Frogreaver's key assumption is that all of the AoE damage put together isn't enough to kill a single monster, i.e. it's a very weak AoE attack, basically cantrip-level. Emphasis mine:



If you can kill or at least seriously wound a large number of enemies with one or several AoEs, your efficiency approaches 100%, as measured by the reduction in the total number of attacks your enemy will get to make before they all die. E.g. if the party normally kills 2 Githyanki Warriors per round (~100 HP of damage vs. AC 17), then 12 Githyanki Warriors will get 12 + 10 + 8 + 6 + 4 + 2 attacks before they die (42 total). A hypothetical Fireball for 30 HP of damage to each Githyanki does 12 * 30 = 360 HP of damage, which means each Githyanki only has 19 HP left, and the PCs will kill about 5 Githyankis per round, so they'll get 12 + 7 + 2 = 21 attacks, so the Fireball reduced the Githyanki effectiveness by 21 attacks. But a perfectly-distributed 360 HP of damage would have killed 360/49 = 7.3 Githynaki outright, leaving the others at full health, so they'd get about 5 + 3 + 1 = 15 attacks, which means a 100% efficient damage distribution would remove 34 attacks. So, in this case the hypothetical Fireball removes 21/34 as many attacks as a 100% efficient damage distribution, meaning it's 62% effective by the metric Frogreaver is using, so in some ways it's similar to inflicting 0.62 * 360 = 222 HP in direct damage instead of 360 HP in AoE.

(Before anyone points it out--yes, 30 is an unusually high roll for a Fireball, and against DC 15ish, typically Githyanki will save on a 13 or better (40% of the time), so average damage for Fireball is 8d6 * 0.80 = 22.4, although it will be applied unevenly, so the party can gain back some of the advantages of direct damage by focusing attacks on the most-wounded Githyankis. For the sake of keeping the math simple in the example I just assumed all the Githyankis failed their saves. If you like you can pretend that it's some other effect instead of Fireball, like a Reverse Gravity spell with no save.)

There are other ways to measure effectiveness too, but reduction-in-attacks is apparently the one Frogreaver is using.

Yep. Good job pushing the formula with your examples so we could see where it broke more clearly.

Curious on the other effectiveness measures you have?

Without acknowledging that there's multiple ways of drawing aggro though. Being a continuous threat IS a way of drawing aggro and the most normal in games with no forced aggro mechanic

I think you have a much different definition of continuous threat than me.

Absolutely. I even showed how the Barbarian is behind in pure damage for most of five combats if the Cleric/Wizard played liked a bot, the monsters saved more than normal and with being a melee character never being an issue. I also said that there was way better ways of playing for the Cleric Wizard (ironically, not really for the Barb though).

...using a flawed methodology of counting up aoe damage and comparing it directly to single target damage.

In return, you did for your build... Nothing. Showed nothing, crunched nothing. Substantiated no claim.

I did respond. The focus of my response was and continues to be on your flawed damage comparison.

That can't be called an error when it's based on what used to be a source on par with She Advice (ie for that year that was still in effect).

A slightly different perspective: 5 years later and it's now clearly delineated as "not an official ruling". I'm not sure we should hold that tweet in the same esteem now that we did when it was made. The designer responsible for that tweet had the option to add it to the official rulings and chose not to. One would presume that means something?

That said your right, it's not exactly an error.

Good for you. Hang out for a couple of weeks and you will :)

Maybe. I have a feeling I'll be waiting on this one much longer than 2 weeks though lol.

And here you also came up with a claim, where I can agree with the premise (there's a difference), but the weight of that difference (every target after the first only counts for half) is completely arbitrary.

Edit: just saw you added something in the other thread. I'll read it. Thanks

Sounds good.

So being completely taken out of the combat for failing a Will save is less important than taking damage from a goblin? I can't agree.

For someone all about telling me I'm arbitrarily doing things, you just arbitrarily added a goblin here to make the comparison sound more in your favor. Oh the irony! (Please take this quip in the most light hearted way possible).

Literally no one arguing on behalf of the Forge Cleric Abjurer has suggested this. Actually, quite the opposite. I presume you are not arguing in bad faith, but this is a Strawman. The defenses are flexible. You can use them as necessary.

I call that the have my cake and eat it too defense. Or is it better labeled Schrodinger's PC. He's casting both web and Armor of Agothys out of the same level 2 slot. Kind of hard to do comparisons on what build is more defensive if you are not going to commit to actually being more defensive or at least just as defensive.

How so? Who has said the Barbarian should rage in the easiest encounters? 1-3 combats is also better for Cleric/Wizard. I used 6 combats to favour the Barbarian.

This was referring to treating each encounter as uniform when making the barbarians effective hp calc. Instead the rage encounters will be where most of the attacks/damage you take come from.

Agreed. Also quite often by not playing Barbarian.

Yea. I mean in terms of survivability and damage look what happens for the barbarian by adding 4 levels of fighter. He gets +1 AC, 3d10+12 hp from 2nd wind, Action surge, an additional damage reduction ability in parry and offensive ability in trip attack.

[Skylivedk]

I think you have a much different definition of continuous threat than me.

So what is yours? I thought it was denying turns. At least it seemed an awful lot like it just a minute ago IMX, having Grease, Web, Phantasmal Force, Fear, Hypnotic Pattern, etc. all do that job a lot better than the Barbarian.

...using a flawed methodology of counting up aoe damage and comparing it directly to single target damage.

But also with a bunch of concessions to make the AoE weaker: ie. buffing the enemies, only hitting 3 enemies with a Fireball (if they would be of the toughness you describe, I'd go for more or something else), etc. Again, 3 enemies with a Fireball is very very little. It's close to the bare minimum for using one IMX.

I did respond. The focus of my response was and continues to be on your flawed damage comparison.

So can you respond with how the Barbarian is a threat? That's what I didn't see. I did go with your presumptions and playing the caster almost as badly as I can imagine, and it still didn't look good for the Barbarian.

A slightly different perspective: 5 years later and it's now clearly delineated as "not an official ruling". I'm not sure we should hold that tweet in the same esteem now that we did when it was made. The designer responsible for that tweet had the option to add it to the official rulings and chose not to. One would presume that means something?

That said your right, it's not exactly an error.

Not really. A bunch of the interpretation rulings didn't make it to the compendium, nor have they been revoked. There's a weird kind of pride in WotC where they just won't admit when they screw up, so it's really hard to know if they feel a ruling was wrong when they don't handle it later.

Anyway, don't really care much for that ruling, one way or the other. As mentioned, I haven't played with an Evoker Wizard, so I haven't had to consider how I wanted to rule it.

For someone all about telling me I'm arbitrarily doing things, you just arbitrarily added a goblin here to make the comparison sound more in your favor. Oh the irony! (Please take this quip in the most light hearted way possible).

You can add other non-lethal damage dealers. There's tons. It's just that your hierarchy of defences seem to miss what I consider some of the most dangerous situations. My (near) TPK experiences have all been caused by failed mental saves and they are not even on the list. Damage mitigation is usually a lot easier.

I call that the have my cake and eat it too defense. Or is it better labeled Schrodinger's PC. He's casting both web and Armor of Agothys out of the same level 2 slot. Kind of hard to do comparisons on what build is more defensive if you are not going to commit to actually being more defensive or at least just as defensive.

and this is what I mean with you not substantiating your claim. You say that to be as defensive, all level 1 slots need to be burned. Why? Why not use AoA level 3 to get offense and defence (where each proc is worth a round of raging bobo)? Why not combine that with your area denial spells so you can hold chokepoints? Why not only use Shield against hits that you actually care about?

This was referring to treating each encounter as uniform when making the barbarians effective hp calc. Instead the rage encounters will be where most of the attacks/damage you take come from.

Exact same can be applied to the Forge Cleric Abjurer where you don't seem to find it important.

Yea. I mean in terms of survivability and damage look what happens for the barbarian by adding 4 levels of fighter. He gets +1 AC, 3d10+12 hp from 2nd wind, Action surge, an additional damage reduction ability in parry and offensive ability in trip attack.

Yeah, or Rogue, or Celestial Chain Warlock or... You'll hear no argument from me if you claim that most martials are meek in later levels.

[Frogreaver]

So what is yours? I thought it was denying turns. At least it seemed an awful lot like it just a minute ago IMX, having Grease, Web, Phantasmal Force, Fear, Hypnotic Pattern, etc. all do that job a lot better than the Barbarian.

Denying turns turns everything into a nice common currency that allows us to compare single target damage, aoe damage, and control effects. No doubt 3rd level spells are much better at accomplishing that.

But also with a bunch of concessions to make the AoE weaker: ie. buffing the enemies, only hitting 3 enemies with a Fireball (if they would be of the toughness you describe, I'd go for more or something else), etc. Again, 3 enemies with a Fireball is very very little. It's close to the bare minimum for using one IMX.

Sure.

So can you respond with how the Barbarian is a threat? That's what I didn't see. I did go with your presumptions and playing the caster almost as badly as I can imagine, and it still didn't look good for the Barbarian.

In terms of tanking Barbarian does about the same at will damage as most other martials (other than feat using ones). If he is being ignored he can make himself a much more acceptable target with reckless attack, both by increasing his damage dealt and simultaneously increasing his damage taken. It's not ideal from the survivability angle, but it's one of the best ways to increase aggro.

You can add other non-lethal damage dealers. There's tons. It's just that your hierarchy of defences seem to miss what I consider some of the most dangerous situations. My (near) TPK experiences have all been caused by failed mental saves and they are not even on the list. Damage mitigation is usually a lot easier.

For a tank? A tank is about getting enemies to focus on him and having enough survivability to take the hits. I'm not saying aren't important for him, but the tank is usually the one you are least worried about failing a mental save.

and this is what I mean with you not substantiating your claim. You say that to be as defensive, all level 1 slots need to be burned. Why? Why not use AoA level 3 to get offense and defence (where each proc is worth a round of raging bobo)? Why not combine that with your area denial spells so you can hold chokepoints? Why not only use Shield against hits that you actually care about?

So let's talk through this. I'm going to make 1 assumption. Adventure day is 2 encounters, short rest, 2 encounter, short rest, 2 encounter long rest. There's 1 harder encounter and 1 easier encounter distributed between each short rest.

So you have used 1 level 3 slot on armor of agathys. Granting you 61 "hp+ward" for the first series of encounters. Do you renew your expired armor of agathys for the next series of encounters. If so thats alot of your highest level slots taken for that spell and it's not even clear that this is enough to be more survivable than a barbarian.

The Barbarian in an adventure day would have 110.5 hit points including uses of hit dice. The Cleric/Wizard would have 127 (using 2 level 3 slots on armor of agathys and 1 level 2 slot on it (also including hit dice). The cleric has +2 ac over the barbarian. The barbarian has 3 rages he can use. I would argue that 110 hp with 3 rages is worth more than 127 hp with +2 Ac. That's why I don't suggest using armor of agathys early.

Also of note is that the cleric wizard may have a significant number of daily "hp" go to waste if they ever make it through a short rests worth of encounters without being hit. The barbarian doesn't have that concern.

Exact same can be applied to the Forge Cleric Abjurer where you don't seem to find it important.

Sure, but in those harder fights damage resistance with high hp is more important for survivability than 15 temp hp...

[N7Paladin]

For the record, to anyone saying ludic is above repproach, that's reeeally sweet, but saying ANYONE is above reproach is very dangerous mentality. That includes friends and other users.

I tend to lurk most of the time, but I have NEVER seen ludic be welcoming of anyone who does not readily agree to his/her/their perspective. I have seen PLENTY of people prove ludic wrong, and yet those who dare challenge ludic very often get ganged up on, like they are doing to Frogreaver.

This thread actually reads far more like wizard bias. Most other wizard threads on this board tend to do so.

I've only seen maybe one other user who is actually willing to have his views challenged and possibly changed on wizards, and is open to an educated (not biased) dialog about it (MaxWilson I think his username is).

Now... In terms of the actual build, constantly being behind in spells and Intelligence whilst still just playing like a Wizard doesn't seem like a show stopper. I don't usually feel any build that dumps three stats is particularly tough when those things are challenged. Strength saves are very common on a lot of monsters and Dexterity saves are common period.

It also looks like its a whole lot of text about high levels and shows no regard for just how much gold the build will burn. That doesn't seem like a build intended for realistic play to me.

Okay...
I'm going to say this one more time because it's very important: no one should be above reproach, that is very dangerous thinking.

[LudicSavant]

According to the other thread, it turns out Frogreaver's key assumption is that all of the AoE damage put together isn't enough to kill a single monster, i.e. it's a very weak AoE attack, basically cantrip-level.

*Checks analysis in other thread*

It violates your assumption about max HP being less the total AoE damage.

Like what? Clearly it doesn't apply to heterogenous cases (one boss and a bunch of mooks) because your formula assumes homogeneity. It doesn't apply to large groups unless the AoE is exceptionally weak, because the total damage has to be not enough to kill a single monster in the group. So, that leaves it applying only to situations like a e.g. an Artificer spewing 2d8 flames from his flamethrower at three Orogs for not enough damage to kill any single Orog--but even then it only applies to the first couple rounds of flamethrowing, because by round #3ish 6d8 is no longer less than any particular Orog's remaining HP.

I'm not trying to undermine you or make you lose face, but I do care about truth and accuracy. What I want to avoid is people reading this thread and coming away from it with a rule of thumb that AoE damage is "worth 50% of single-target damage," when it turns out that that claim is based on a very narrow set of assumptions which may not ever apply to the situations where they want to actually USE Fireball. I hope you also want to educate people about the truth, or you wouldn't have spent so much time developing your math in the first place.

As shown in post #50, the efficiency is also close to 100% if an AoE seriously wounds the group, even if it doesn't kill any of them. This is actually a pretty normal scenario for 5E, in scenarios where you'd use Fireball.

Thank you for investigating this so thoroughly! So it seems like the whole 'AoEs are worth 50% of single target damage' discussion frogreaver was having earlier in this thread was based on this model.

I think you've done a great job of outlining why it's not practical to make a general statement of "AoEs are worth 50% of single target damage."

Not only that, but I find the improved model you suggested intriguing and hope you'll keep me updated

[Skylivedk]

Denying turns turns everything into a nice common currency that allows us to compare single target damage, aoe damage, and control effects. No doubt 3rd level spells are much better at accomplishing that.

And yet seemingly you ignore that I listed 3 spells that aren't level 3.

In terms of tanking Barbarian does about the same at will damage as most other martials (other than feat using ones). If he is being ignored he can make himself a much more acceptable target with reckless attack, both by increasing his damage dealt and simultaneously increasing his damage taken. It's not ideal from the survivability angle, but it's one of the best ways to increase aggro.

And why would we exclude using feats when we're using feats? Also, it's just not true. The at-will damage is higher with dueling with close to 26,67% for strength more +3 and 23,52% for more +4. We're still conveniently ignoring that it's easy to deny the Barbarian doing much/any damage. Just move away.

For a tank? A tank is about getting enemies to focus on him and having enough survivability to take the hits. I'm not saying aren't important for him, but the tank is usually the one you are least worried about failing a mental save.

Eh, what?! Why? The tank does nothing in most cases when failing a Will save. Ie the most common is fear IIRC and that's a lot more detrimental to a melee/martial tank (Paladins excluded) than to a caster based tank. Caster tanks have ways of dealing with the condition and can deal with most conditions or function while suffering from them whereas a Barbarian tank can't.

So let's talk through this. I'm going to make 1 assumption. Adventure day is 2 encounters, short rest, 2 encounter, short rest, 2 encounter long rest. There's 1 harder encounter and 1 easier encounter distributed between each short rest.

So you have used 1 level 3 slot on armor of agathys. Granting you 61 "hp+ward" for the first series of encounters. Do you renew your expired armor of agathys for the next series of encounters. If so thats alot of your highest level slots taken for that spell and it's not even clear that this is enough to be more survivable than a barbarian.

And I guess you conveniently picked level 5 again? And conveniently there's no mental saves in the so-called hard encounters? Also I guess the monsters don't melee hit the AoA?
A) seems obvious from your writing
B) would waste the rage and usefulness of the Barbarian completely in most cases
C) would have AoA give more damage per proc than the Barbarian does per round.
D) we have no assumptions about range either. In a fair amount of encounters IMX the Barbarian has a less than optimal first round because of distance.

The Barbarian in an adventure day would have 110.5 hit points including uses of hit dice. The Cleric/Wizard would have 127 (using 2 level 3 slots on armor of agathys and 1 level 2 slot on it (also including hit dice). The cleric has +2 ac over the barbarian. The barbarian has 3 rages he can use. I would argue that 110 hp with 3 rages is worth more than 127 hp with +2 Ac. That's why I don't suggest using armor of agathys early.

Again, it's a rubber band argument to extend the rage to all 110 hp. Barbarians are really, really easy to disable. Again, we seem to ignore that Shield and AoA (Shield more so than AoA, since AoA is probably pre-buff) are selective. Choice matters.

Also of note is that the cleric wizard may have a significant number of daily "hp" go to waste if they ever make it through a short rests worth of encounters without being hit. The barbarian doesn't have that concern.

No? They can just use it next rest. Also by my count, we're ignoring Arcane Recovery for some reason. That's one Web for each hard encounter and 1 bless for each easy one with some change left over. We also seemingly forget that the ward can be charged for free with Alarm.

Sure, but in those harder fights damage resistance with high hp is more important for survivability than 15 temp hp...

Definitely better for physical damage. Worse for all other kinds of damage where it's Absorb Elements that can do the Resistance. Unless we use a bear totem Barbarian who is then even less of a threat/aggro generator. Also, again: the rage is pretty easily cancelled with mental saving throws... Or just a Web.

For the record, to anyone saying ludic is above repproach, that's reeeally sweet, but saying ANYONE is above reproach is very dangerous mentality. That includes friends and other users.

Agreed.

I tend to lurk most of the time, but I have NEVER seen ludic be welcoming of anyone who does not readily agree to his/her/their perspective. I have seen PLENTY of people prove ludic wrong, and yet those who dare challenge ludic very often get ganged up on, like they are doing to Frogreaver.

I tend to disagree, but then again I tend to agree with LudicSavant so that makes sense ;-)

From my perspective, I more often see criticism of LudicSavant's builds that demand a higher burden of proof of LudicSavant than on the person criticizing. I've yet to see actually substantiated claims not be met with the same kind of counter points from LudicSavant's side. Again, I'm biased. I like LudicSavant's thoroughness in math and explanations, just like I appreciated seeing it from Frogreaver and MaxWilson in the other thread (on AoE vs. Single target damage), and just like I disliked the lack of substantiated arguments and math on the martial side in +1000 posts discussion about whether or not Martials are screeed (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...y-that-screwed and
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...hat-screwed-V2).

This thread actually read far more like wizard bias. Most other wizard threads on this board tend to do so.

I have a super strong bias. I definitely find casters a lot better in most tiers. I've made no secret of that either (refer to the threat on are Martials Screwed - I'm in the clear: yes post a certain point, they do).

I've only seen maybe one other user who is actually willing to have his views challenged and possibly changed on wizards, and is open to an educated (not biased) dialog about it (MaxWilson I think his username is).

Then check that post. Without prior bias you can easily reach that conclusion. I personally asked for a refutation of a bunch of base points. The most basic just being choosing two levels of perceived balance and seeing who got more features and the more quantitatively improved features. It didn't turn out great for Martials. I'm still willing to be convinced otherwise, but it's another thread

Now... In terms of the actual build, constantly being behind in spells and Intelligence whilst still just playing like a Wizard doesn't seem like a show stopper. I don't usually feel any build that dumps three stats is particularly tough when those things are challenged. Strength saves are very common on a lot of monsters and Dexterity saves are common period.

So you're behind in spells known level for most of the game. Strength saves and Dec saves are usually damage/minor disables. For Dex a lot of that damage can be mitigated by Absorb Elements.

It's definitely different, and quite often IMO not necessarily in a preferable way, than a wizard. I do think it gets a lot for the price. I tried DMing one which was a pain to deal with. Wizards are great, so being less Wizard hurts. Being a tank Wizard is its own, different kind of, fun.

It also looks like its a whole lot of text about high levels and shows no regard for just how much gold the build will burn. That doesn't seem like a build intended for realistic play to me.

FWIW, I saw it played before Mark of Warding (and hence also before racial changes) in Storm King's Thunder and it did great.

Okay...
I'm going to say this one more time because it's very important: no one should be above reproach, that is very dangerous thinking.

Still agree

[N7Paladin]

*refreshes thread*

*Checks analysis in other thread*
Thank you for investigating this so thoroughly! So it seems like the whole 'AoEs are worth 50% of single target damage' discussion frogreaver was having earlier in this thread was based on this model.

I think you've done a great job of outlining why it's not practical to make a general statement of "AoEs are worth 50% of single target damage."

Not only that, but I find the improved model you suggested intriguing and hope you'll keep me updated

I saw this very post of yours right above mine, and underneath Frogreaver's. Is it common in this forum for people to delete then repost the same exact thing, just to get ahead of a single post than they were before?

I hope you acknowledge this bc I'm super curious why anyone would do this and it feels very unsportsmanlike.

And I guess you conveniently picked level 5 again? And conveniently there's no mental saves in the so-called hard encounters? Also I guess the monsters don't melee hit the AoA?

Choosing level 5 covers more than half of the levels most people actually play and marks a change in tiers. There may be bias behind it, but then again so is choosing a level that favors the lagging behind Wizard.

Definitely better for physical damage. Worse for all other kinds of damage where it's Absorb Elements that can do the Resistance. Unless we use a bear totem Barbarian who is then even less of a threat/aggro generator. Also, again: the rage is pretty easily cancelled with mental saving throws... Or just a Web.

How common are mental saving throws for half the game or how common is Web (or similar) on NPCs.

From my perspective, I more often see criticism of LudicSavant's builds that demand a higher burden of proof of LudicSavant than on the person criticizing. I've yet to see actually substantiated claims not be met with the same kind of counter points from LudicSavant's side. Again, I'm biased. I like LudicSavant's thoroughness in math and explanations, just like I appreciated seeing it from Frogreaver and MaxWilson in the other thread (on AoE vs. Single target damage), and just like I disliked the lack of substantiated arguments and math on the martial side in +1000 posts discussion about whether or not Martials are screeed (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...y-that-screwed and
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...hat-screwed-V2).

The burden of proof is on the person posting the build and making the claims.

So you're behind in spells known level for most of the game. Strength saves and Dec saves are usually damage/minor disables. For Dex a lot of that damage can be mitigated by Absorb Elements.

Knocking prone is a common example of a Strength based save and can very quickly result in the burning of spell slots on Shield and so on, unnecessarily. Absorb Elements doesn't help against a lot of traps, if it is an uncovered damage type or if you simply don't have your reaction available.

Thank you so much for admitting your multiple forms of significant bias in this matter.

[Skylivedk]

*refreshes thread*



I saw this very post of yours right above mine, and underneath Frogreaver's. Is it common in this forum for people to delete then repost the same exact thing, just to get ahead of a single post than they were before?

I hope you acknowledge this bc I'm super curious why anyone would do this and it feels very unsportsmanlike.



Choosing level 5 covers more than half of the levels most people actually play and marks a change in tiers. There may be bias behind it, but then again so is choosing a level that favors the lagging behind Wizard.



How common are mental saving throws for half the game or how common is Web (or similar) on NPCs.




The burden of proof is on the person posting the build and making the claims.




Knocking prone is a common example of a Strength based save and can very quickly result in the burning of spell slots on Shield and so on, unnecessarily. Absorb Elements doesn't help against a lot of traps, if it is an uncovered damage type or if you simply don't have your reaction available.

Thank you so much for admitting your multiple forms of significant bias in this matter.

A)
We all have biases. It's pretty much inevitable as humans since your experience inevitably colour your impressions, associations and by consequence your train of thought. Part of developing rationality of to figure out your biases and develop strategies for seeing beyond them. In my case, I've gone quite far to see the point in Martials at higher tiers. They haven't impressed.

B)
It's part of the reason why I keep insisting on seeing something that should make the Barbarian dangerous. He pretty much isn't as far as I can tell. Puny damage, almost no control and useless at range. At level 5, the difference in damage and survivability is circumstantial at best. From there on, each level will favour the caster.

C)
I find it weird that you presume something to be done for nefarious reasons rather than a series of other explanations (ie formatting, forum interface updating in a weird manner etc).

D)
If the burden of proof is on the one posting the build, why don't you hold the Barbarian build to the same standard?

E)
As far as I can tell, strength saves are more on easy to Fireball mobs and wisdom on tpk threats: https://www.enworld.org/threads/on-s...alysis.548068/

Again: where the FC Abjurer has flexibility in both offense and defense, the Barbarian does not. If it doesn't deal hp damage or is in range of pointy stick, you might resort to throwing a less efficient (but weirdly not less pointy) stick. The Barbarian isn't good against that trap either.. Matter of fact, might easily be worse since he will have no Misty Step/Levitate/Rope Trick to deal with it (later Fly, Dimension Door etc) and probably a lower perception than the owl with which to spot said trap.

[Dork_Forge]

B)
It's part of the reason why I keep insisting on seeing something that should make the Barbarian dangerous. He pretty much isn't as far as I can tell. Puny damage, almost no control and useless at range. At level 5, the difference in damage and survivability is circumstantial at best. From there on, each level will favour the caster.


E)
As far as I can tell, strength saves are more on easy to Fireball mobs and wisdom on tpk threats: https://www.enworld.org/threads/on-s...alysis.548068/

Again: where the FC Abjurer has flexibility in both offense and defense, the Barbarian does not. If it doesn't deal hp damage or is in range of pointy stick, you might resort to throwing a less efficient (but weirdly not less pointy) stick. The Barbarian isn't good against that trap either.. Matter of fact, might easily be worse since he will have no Misty Step/Levitate/Rope Trick to deal with it (later Fly, Dimension Door etc) and probably a lower perception than the owl with which to spot said trap.

I like that you are labelling your points, but I think it may be more useful if you edit in the label to the quote, it would be more intuitive to follow.

B) The vastly depends on the Barbarian in question, some are damage focused, a couple have control based options and one can be focused on damage absorption. In terms of survivability I don't think circumstantial is fair, the Barbarian's hp lead will continue to expand and the number of rages will continue to increase, part of the proposed build's durability comes from a prebuff, combats without said prebuff are inevitable

E) Just because a type of save is more common on mobs doesn't mean Fireball, or any aoe, is an applicable answer. Slots may not be available, an adequate aoe may not yet be learned or you may choose to not blast your friends out of courtesy. The proposed build has a 0 initiative modifier and isn't an Evoker, there's no reason to assume reliable use of aoe in anything resembling optimum positioning. The moment you damage allies is the moment you've failed as a tank. Wisdom saves are a more common threat at higher levels, at which point an ASI can be thrown at Res:Wis if desired. Your own link shows Strength as being a save on par with Wisdom by the way.

I don't understand why you'd think a Barbarian wouldn't be good against a trap? They're commonly Dex based, not only is the Barbarian likely to have a +2 Dex, they'll also have Danger Sense, giving them a much better chance at saving against the trap and a large hp pool to absorb unexpected damage (worth noting here that allies can heal hp, an Abjurer's ward is their own responsibility).

As for the Owl thing, I'll admit this is a rather large pet peeve of mine. Familiars are credited with so much and it's hailed as a Wizard centric ability, since so many Wizard builds have dips and feats... why wouldn't it be assumed that any old character would just pick up a familiar? Magic Initiate would add utility cantrips for out of combat and a familiar for the apparent holy grail of Wizard utility.

Ranged is a fair disadvantage to level at a Barbarian, assuming that the enemy is flying or is greater than 40 ft away (5th onwards) or for some reason the Barbarian doens't want to use a javelin. That is a lot of ifs though.

A thought occurred to me and I'm genuinely curious as to the thoughts on the matter, how would this Wizard deal with a Beholder? Assuming say, level 10.

[LudicSavant]

I saw this very post of yours right above mine, and underneath Frogreaver's. Is it common in this forum for people to delete then repost the same exact thing, just to get ahead of a single post than they were before?

I hope you acknowledge this

It's because I added an additional ~80 words and an extra quote to my original reply to MaxWilson, and at some point in that process hit the 'delete' button instead of the 'edit' button. I do this occasionally. Why wouldn't I acknowledge this?

Edit:

A thought occurred to me and I'm genuinely curious as to the thoughts on the matter, how would this Wizard deal with a Beholder? Assuming say, level 10.

Are we still talking about my Steel Wizard here? Hmm. Maybe Fog Cloud or a similar vision blocker. The Beholder can Antimagic Field it, but that only suppresses it, it pops back up when the AMF gets moved or turned off. And the Beholder can't use its eye rays on targets it can't see, nor on targets within its antimagic field. At which point the Beholder doesn't have a whole lot it can do all by its lonesome.

Things get more interesting when a beholder has friends.

[Skylivedk]

I like that you are labelling your points, but I think it may be more useful if you edit in the label to the quote, it would be more intuitive to follow.

Agreed.
I usually answer when I take breaks from work so when I'm away from my computer... And quotes on the phone are a pain

B) The vastly depends on the Barbarian in question, some are damage focused, a couple have control based options and one can be focused on damage absorption. In terms of survivability I don't think circumstantial is fair, the Barbarian's hp lead will continue to expand and the number of rages will continue to increase, part of the proposed build's durability comes from a prebuff, combats without said prebuff are inevitable

The amount of rages very very slowly especially compared to spell slots. If the tank is good at soaking non physical, it's weak at control and vice versa. Even the control based options are not strong. Only one target AFAIK on AG. Combats without the pre-buffs are indeed inevitable. They're not frequent, but sure, granted. Luckily Shield and Absorb Elements are both there (and you'd probably have room for stuff like Invisibility and/or Misty Step).

E) Just because a type of save is more common on mobs doesn't mean Fireball, or any aoe, is an applicable answer. Slots may not be available, an adequate aoe may not yet be learned or you may choose to not blast your friends out of courtesy. The proposed build has a 0 initiative modifier and isn't an Evoker, there's no reason to assume reliable use of aoe in anything resembling optimum positioning. The moment you damage allies is the moment you've failed as a tank. Wisdom saves are a more common threat at higher levels, at which point an ASI can be thrown at Res:Wis if desired. Your own link shows Strength as being a save on par with Wisdom by the way.

Only in frequency. What I said about strength saves having minor annoyance effects holds true to a very large extent. It's also true a huge part of those saving throws are on mobs that just aren't that dangerous later in the game.

I don't understand why you'd think a Barbarian wouldn't be good against a trap? They're commonly Dex based, not only is the Barbarian likely to have a +2 Dex, they'll also have Danger Sense, giving them a much better chance at saving against the trap and a large hp pool to absorb unexpected damage (worth noting here that allies can heal hp, an Abjurer's ward is their own responsibility).

Compared to the tool box of spells? I took traps to also include falling down pits with monsters, ambushes etc. The Barbarian doesn't have many buttons. A Wizard does.

As for the Owl thing, I'll admit this is a rather large pet peeve of mine. Familiars are credited with so much and it's hailed as a Wizard centric ability, since so many Wizard builds have dips and feats... why wouldn't it be assumed that any old character would just pick up a familiar? Magic Initiate would add utility cantrips for out of combat and a familiar for the apparent holy grail of Wizard utility.

Yup, but by that time the Barbarian in question is at least level 8 and both the familiar and the cantrips might seem a bit expensive. It can work though. I haven't said all Barbarian builds are completely useless, just that the one with Toughness struck me as not doing enough to warrant being hit. The extra hp and survivability didn't matter from my P.O.V. In most of my games that Barbarian would simply be ignored.

Ranged is a fair disadvantage to level at a Barbarian, assuming that the enemy is flying or is greater than 40 ft away (5th onwards) or for some reason the Barbarian doens't want to use a javelin. That is a lot of ifs though.

A thought occurred to me and I'm genuinely curious as to the thoughts on the matter, how would this Wizard deal with a Beholder? Assuming say, level 10.

Not really, but YMMV. Being degraded to javelins is already a major nerf to Bobo and flying becomes a lot more common later on. So does higher movement speed, enemy casters as mental saving throws IMX. If you only/for the vast majority have physical damage AND the DM is kind enough to target the Barbarian because he is screaming very loudly, then yes, I can see the Barbarian work.

In my campaigns, he'd mostly be a big, hunk of physical damage resisting non-threat. Little damage, very little control, obvious and glaring weaknesses. He'd be easily circumvented and/or ignored. I don't get the point of the sword and board, no reckless attack, Toughness taking Barbarian. It's weak and I mean that with no offense intended. I'd actively warn players not to play that character at my table.

[Christew]

For the record, to anyone saying ludic is above repproach, that's reeeally sweet, but saying ANYONE is above reproach is very dangerous mentality.
*Snip*
I'm going to say this one more time because it's very important: no one should be above reproach, that is very dangerous thinking.

Instead of making vague alarmist claims, you can just quote what I actually said. It tends to prevent the kind of out of context misinterpretation at play here.
Here is what I actually said (emphasis added):

LudicSavant's credentials are pretty much above reproach (I genuinely recommend you do the reading on her contributions here, it is worth the time and effort).

Credentials and a person are not the same thing. Using qualifiers changes the meaning of sentences. In context of the discussion, I was clearly referring to rules knowledge (I'm still pretty sure she knows how HBC works) and nothing more "dangerous." Thank you for attempting to warn the people about such mentalities, but please don't use oblique references as a way to sidestep outright misquoting me and then draw conclusions that the actual quote do not allow for ... That's reeeally not sweet.

[MaxWilson]

How common are mental saving throws for half the game or how common is Web (or similar) on NPCs.

"It depends."

In some games, mental saves like Hold Person can be a Barbarian's biggest problem from Tier 1. (Instantly lose Rage AND become a sitting duck for auto-crits.) There's no shortage of CR 2+ monsters that can cast Hold Person or inflict fear/confusion/etc., if the DM elects to use them. (Inspireds, Hobgoblin Devastators, Gibbering Mouthers, Bone Nagas, Banshees, Mummies, Flameskulls, Kuo-toa priests, Neogi Masters, etc.) But, _does_ she? There are even more monsters that don't have these traits.

So many arguments and differences of opinion come down to DMing style, and the truth is we're not all fighting the same kinds of monsters. No wonder we don't have the same opinions about what's important!

Yep. Good job pushing the formula with your examples so we could see where it broke more clearly.

Curious on the other effectiveness measures you have?

One that I like a lot is loss ratios: how much damage are we taking relative to damage we inflict? It's pretty good at providing tactical guidance, at least against simple monsters (not spellcasters with concentration).

I am much less fond of DPR but it is also a measure of effectiveness, and it's important to people who value table time highly: killing the enemy faster in real time lets you get in adventuring in four hours, even if you take more HP damage. (Then again, a round of combat doesn't have to be slow either, especially in TotM. A strategy which takes ten minutes (100) to kill a tough enemy because you only get one attack every five rounds while kiting does not necessarily have to involve sitting there for hours moving miniatures around.) DPR is also better than loss ratios when you have squishies to protect, like NPC hostages.

I don't have any great metrics for measuring effectiveness against spellcasting monsters or highly-mobile monsters with hit-and-run tactics (like vampires). Loss ratios still work in those cases, but the analysis is complex. Maybe there's a better way.

E) Just because a type of save is more common on mobs doesn't mean Fireball, or any aoe, is an applicable answer. Slots may not be available, an adequate aoe may not yet be learned or you may choose to not blast your friends out of courtesy. The proposed build has a 0 initiative modifier and isn't an Evoker, there's no reason to assume reliable use of aoe in anything resembling optimum positioning. The moment you damage allies is the moment you've failed as a tank. Wisdom saves are a more common threat at higher levels, at which point an ASI can be thrown at Res:Wis if desired. Your own link shows Strength as being a save on par with Wisdom by the way.

See, here's a case where I think loss ratios matter. I would say "the moment you hurt your own side's loss ratio, you've failed as a tank," but that didn't necessarily mean you shouldn't damage your allies! If tossing a 28 HP Fireball on top of my paralyzed Barbarian friend prevents him from getting auto-critted by eight hobgoblins for 16d8+32d6+8 (192) damage, Fireball away!

[Dork_Forge]

Agreed.
I usually answer when I take breaks from work so when I'm away from my computer... And quotes on the phone are a pain

Ahh I know that pain

The amount of rages very very slowly especially compared to spell slots. If the tank is good at soaking non physical, it's weak at control and vice versa. Even the control based options are not strong. Only one target AFAIK on AG. Combats without the pre-buffs are indeed inevitable. They're not frequent, but sure, granted. Luckily Shield and Absorb Elements are both there (and you'd probably have room for stuff like Invisibility and/or Misty Step).

Yes, but for the most part one rage will see you through one combat and spell slots are far from combat specific, so the scaling issue isn't a straightforward comparison. If this Wizard is actually playing like a Wizard then presumably slots are being spent out of combat and by the very nature of prebuffs, not running anywhere enar complete efficiency.

Only in frequency. What I said about strength saves having minor annoyance effects holds true to a very large extent. It's also true a huge part of those saving throws are on mobs that just aren't that dangerous later in the game.

Strength saves are more often not annoyances, they're setting you up for worse situations. Being knocked prone is an inconvenience if there's no follow up, if you're being hounded by a pack of Dire Wolves etc. with riders, then you're in for a world of hurt or slot burning.

As someone that regularly throws things like Dire Wolves at players, that's a DMing difference. If your DM isn't challenging you with certain saves then they won't matter, if they do then you'll regret that low score very quickly. There's a lot of text about higher level features and combos, but the character needs to actually get to that point.

Compared to the tool box of spells? I took traps to also include falling down pits with monsters, ambushes etc. The Barbarian doesn't have many buttons. A Wizard does.

The Barbarian doesn't have buttons for the most part, the have passive benefits, at 7th level they can negate surprise, at second level they can chuck advantage on top of their positive Dex modifier. As with all Wizard builds though this talk of spells solving everything just makes me want to see a spell list put together (especially when the Wizard is subpar in that regard).

As for pits... I don't think I'd ever make players just fall into a pit, and it'd certainly be a Dex save to avoid it. In that circumstance the Barbarian is least likely to fall in and better spontaneously prepared to take unexpected damage.

Yup, but by that time the Barbarian in question is at least level 8 and both the familiar and the cantrips might seem a bit expensive. It can work though. I haven't said all Barbarian builds are completely useless, just that the one with Toughness struck me as not doing enough to warrant being hit. The extra hp and survivability didn't matter from my P.O.V. In most of my games that Barbarian would simply be ignored.

Another table difference, I just don't think we'll agree on this, imo it takes a certain kind of enemy to persist in trying to take down the toughest target when softer targets abound (I also don't think a Barbarian just Extra Attacking is negligible damage, so that seems to be another point of difference).

Not really, but YMMV. Being degraded to javelins is already a major nerf to Bobo and flying becomes a lot more common later on. So does higher movement speed, enemy casters as mental saving throws IMX. If you only/for the vast majority have physical damage AND the DM is kind enough to target the Barbarian because he is screaming very loudly, then yes, I can see the Barbarian work.

So, flying enemies are becoming an issue and there's no one in the party to help the martials close the gap? No ranged Battle Masters with trip? The moment a combat shifts to ranged flying enemies most party members risk losing out heavily. I'm not sure why you mentioned higher movement? Was that meant to be a hit and run thing? Barbarians are far from slow...

In my campaigns, he'd mostly be a big, hunk of physical damage resisting non-threat. Little damage, very little control, obvious and glaring weaknesses. He'd be easily circumvented and/or ignored. I don't get the point of the sword and board, no reckless attack, Toughness taking Barbarian. It's weak and I mean that with no offense intended. I'd actively warn players not to play that character at my table.

Big difference in campaigns, if glaring weaknesses are a problem then why aren't three dump stats, heavy armor and heavy reliance on spells falling into that hole too? Sure you can name specific things that will mess a Barbarian up, it's not a stretch to get those same things against the Wizard. Enemy casters? Dispel Magic and Counter Spell are going to be major wrenches, and even if the Wizard counters, it's a very fast erosion of slots and a reaction that isn't there for Shield or Absorb elements.


A weakness on the Wizard's part is also the reliance on the Ward, when that gets low, then what? You have a d6 hit die and your allies can't heal your ward. Outside of cheese you can't meaningfully recharge your ward either. If you're actually taking damage then it's a downward slope throughout the day.

Credentials and a person are not the same thing. Using qualifiers changes the meaning of sentences. In context of the discussion, I was clearly referring to rules knowledge (I'm still pretty sure she knows how HBC works) and nothing more "dangerous." Thank you for attempting to warn the people about such mentalities, but please don't use oblique references as a way to sidestep outright misquoting me and then draw conclusions that the actual quote do not allow for ... That's reeeally not sweet.

I understand the distinctions you're making, but most people don't focus on technicalities (which I believe these fall into), pretty much may as well say beyond reproach, credentials a lot of the time may as well mean the person referred to in the context. Though to be honest unless credentials are actually questioned (which I don't believe they were) it just feels more like throwing the existing contributions of one member on the forum on the forum against a newer or less active member (which is of course a strict no no). On the other hand Frogreaver made a mistake regarding HBC, that has been brought up multiple times out of context for no real reason I can see. Even now you're bringing it up where it doesn't really serve a purpose to do so.

Online discussions go a lot better if people don't try to discredit or call into question others based on unrelated mistakes, you can certainly do so, but it usually leads to many, long, posts that are tangential to the actual discussion, much like the recent pages of this thread.

See, here's a case where I think loss ratios matter. I would say "the moment you hurt your own side's loss ratio, you've failed as a tank," but that didn't necessarily mean you shouldn't damage your allies! If tossing a 28 HP Fireball on top of my paralyzed Barbarian friend prevents him from getting auto-critted by eight hobgoblins for 16d8+32d6+8 (192) damage, Fireball away!

I can see your point and there's certainly cases for that (though I'm not sure the tank doing so best fits their role). It would depend on a few factors to me, is that Barbarian resitant to fire? Is there Rage still active? Will your Fireball kill the hobgoblins or will you mostly damage them, leaving a now significantly wounded Barbarian to face multiple attacks (I think Hobgoblins are relatively squishy foes against a Fireball, but some may be out of formation with bows drawn)?

[Christew]

I understand the distinctions you're making, but most people don't focus on technicalities (which I believe these fall into), pretty much may as well say beyond reproach, credentials a lot of the time may as well mean the person referred to in the context. Though to be honest unless credentials are actually questioned (which I don't believe they were) it just feels more like throwing the existing contributions of one member on the forum on the forum against a newer or less active member (which is of course a strict no no). On the other hand Frogreaver made a mistake regarding HBC, that has been brought up multiple times out of context for no real reason I can see. Even now you're bringing it up where it doesn't really serve a purpose to do so.

Online discussions go a lot better if people don't try to discredit or call into question others based on unrelated mistakes, you can certainly do so, but it usually leads to many, long, posts that are tangential to the actual discussion, much like the recent pages of this thread.

We can agree to disagree as to whether different words and sentence meanings amount to technicalities or not.

We can outright agree that the majority of this thread has been largely off topic. Perhaps we peel off Wizard v Barbarian into its own thread, return AoE v Single Target to the thread created for it, and allow this space for discussion of the Mini-Guide.

[Dork_Forge]

Rage is definitely not still active because the Barbarian is paralyzed.

Hobgoblins have 11 HP so it's a good bet that the Fireball will kill them. There may be other hobgoblins in the scenario with bows drawn, but if Fireball kills the ones next to the Barbarian at least they won't get +2d6 Martial Advantage unless one of them wastes a turn Dashing over next to the Barbarian.

Personally if I were the Barbarian I wouldn't even care if I have fire resistance or not. Even if I've got AC 19 somehow, 8 hobgoblins attacking at +3 with advantage (for paralysis) means 3.5 hits on average, which is 84 HP (per round!) because I don't have Rage. 28 damage is better than 84 damage, per round. Please Fireball my position immediately!

My PHB might be old, but conidtion wise it only calls out unconscious for ending rage, so as long as the paralysis and attacks happen after the Barbarian's last attack turn and before a paralysed turn takes place, Rage (and the associated resistances) should still be in play. Of course later game Barbarians will be unaffected Ragewise, but at that point they probably aren't worried about some Hobgolins and a little Fireball every now and then.

So seeing as this is Hobgoblins and Fireball, I think it's reasonable to assume level 5? Assuming a +3 Con race the Barbarian would have a max hp of 55, eating 28 points of unresisted Fireball damage is over half of their health assuming they weren't damage at all up until this point. If the encounter isn't over by this point then the Barbarian is in a very precarious position (even more so if there's another encounter or traps up ahead before a safe rest).

We can agree to disagree as to whether different words and sentence meanings amount to technicalities or not.

We can outright agree that the majority of this thread has been largely off topic. Perhaps we peel off Wizard v Barbarian into its own thread, return AoE v Single Target to the thread created for it, and allow this space for discussion of the Mini-Guide.

I at no point stated that the majority of the thread was off topic, nor do my words imply it. Personally the Barbarian comparison and commentary on damage seem entirely relevant to a guide where the OP posted a build making claims and direct comparisons to said Barbarian. If those things are off topic, then they shouldn't have been brought up to begin with.

[LudicSavant]

On the other hand Frogreaver made a mistake regarding HBC, that has been brought up multiple times out of context for no real reason I can see.

Thank you for saying 'that I can see' rather than assuming that there simply was none. Here is the context, and my reason, after which I sincerely hope we can move on to another, more interesting topic.

I believe my own comment has been referred to out of context a couple times in the last page. Perhaps the most important bit of missing context being the false suggestion that I was just referring to '1 misremembered rule'...

Spoiler

Show

1 misremembered rule

be wrong once

Misremembering 1 thing

that view about misremembering 1 rule.

Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.

... when this was not the issue. I had in fact been referring to a list of numerous things, some of which I felt were ongoing to the current page.

I suggested to frogreaver that it would be helpful to him to show his work so that it could be checked, since IIRC not once but every time I have seen him do so in this thread over the last 5 pages, it has constructively revealed an error -- whether that was pointing him to an errata he didn't know about, a rule he says he misremembered, a mathematical oversight, or the like.

I feel that this list of instances of an error being helpfully revealed each time Frogreaver chooses to show his work has continued to this very page, with the latest example I'm aware of being MaxWilson checking Frogreaver's assumptions on his AoE formula and producing a more accurate and practical formula in place of the quite erroneous one. If neither that nor the HBC nor EE nor spell prep case are a clear example of the reason I think it would be helpful to show one's work, I don't know what is.

Revealing such mistakes and improving one's understanding is, to me, pretty much the point of a guide thread.

I even tried to give frogreaver pointers for how, when he shows his work, he could make his case more difficult to refute by myself or others, and thus make for a stronger case for his side (and therefore, in my view, a more interesting and productive conversation).

Here's where I said that:

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.

Heck, the first thing on that list was 'missing erratas,' which clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with HBC. So I think it should be pretty clear that I wasn't just talking about HBC here.

On a vaguely related note:

I understand the distinctions you're making, but most people don't focus on technicalities (which I believe these fall into), pretty much may as well say

The nuance and technicalities of what people say are important to their meaning. If those nuances and technicalities are disregarded, then it's a good way to end up with people talking past each other.

Now then, it would be really great if we could

allow this space for discussion of the Mini-Guide.

because I've got an awful lot more I could talk about.