D&D 5E so, mountain dwarf wizards...

[evilbob]

...are kind of awesome?

10 Str, 14, Dex, 16 Con, 14 Int, 13 Wis, 8 Cha, Medium armor proficiency (all you need to cast in armor); great armor and you'll be great at keeping concentration. Or dump Wisdom and go with 14 Con and 16 Str; now you're an actual spellsword (using a warhammer)! And all for the price of being 4 levels behind when it comes to maxing your primary stat.

Still seems awesome to me! What am I missing?

 

[Xodis]

Still seems awesome to me! What am I missing?

Nothing really, its a pretty good set up. I think Dwarven Wizards and Sorcerers will be a little more common because of this. Although with concentration being like it is, that Warhammer should be more for a backup.

 

[Dausuul]

Still seems awesome to me! What am I missing?

I'd say, this:

And all for the price of being 4 levels behind when it comes to maxing your primary stat.

You're sacrificing 2 points of Int (or a feat) in exchange for maybe 2 points of AC and a few more hit points. That isn't a bad trade, but as a veteran wizard player, I'd think long and hard before taking it. AC isn't nearly as valuable to a wizard as it is to a front-line warrior, and Int is too important, especially now that it governs how many spells you prepare as well as your spell save DCs.

 

[JC99]

I'd say, this:



You're sacrificing 2 points of Int (or a feat) in exchange for maybe 2 points of AC and a few more hit points. That isn't a bad trade, but as a veteran wizard player, I'd think long and hard before taking it. AC isn't nearly as valuable to a wizard as it is to a front-line warrior, and Int is too important, especially now that it governs how many spells you prepare as well as your spell save DCs.

One reason I like the ability score cap is because you can start with a character that is a little behind in his "most important" score and still catch up.

 

[Gargoyle]

One reason I like the ability score cap is because you can start with a character that is a little behind in his "most important" score and still catch up.

Yeah, but you're trading away extra offense (Int) at lower levels for extra defense (HP, AC). At higher levels, neither is really an issue because you catch up to 20 Int, and the extra AC and HP aren't significant. For single class wizards, it seems fine to me either way, play a mountain dwarf if you want for more survivability, or because roleplaying a mountain dwarf wizard sounds cool to you. Or play some other race and prepare more spells and have a higher save DC at lower levels.

Seems viable to me, but the whole "everyone can catch up to 20" doesn't mean that you're not paying a cost to get there, especially if your DM allows feats and there is one or more you want.

 

[Dausuul]

One reason I like the ability score cap is because you can start with a character that is a little behind in his "most important" score and still catch up.

True, but there's a tradeoff. If you spend the extra ability boost to make up the gap, your human or high elf counterpart is now up by a feat. (Or +2 to some other score, like Dexterity, which will eventually obviate the need for medium armor.)

This is not to say the mountain dwarf wizard is unworkable. It's a decent build. But it's a bit more gishy; it trades arcane prowess for the ability to stand up in a bar brawl. I'm something of a purist, I like my wizards focused on wizarding. If there's a need for somebody to stand up front and slug it out with the enemy, I'll send the fighter. If it's a tough enemy, I'll buff the fighter first.

 

[Nagol]

I think your stats are off a bit assuming you are using the 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 array.

12 Str, 14 Dex, 15 Con, 15 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha.

You get 5 stat bumps. 4th level is split between Int and Con, 8 + 12 go to Int, 16 + 19 go to Con

 

[Mouseferatu]

One reason I like the ability score cap is because you can start with a character that is a little behind in his "most important" score and still catch up.

Indeed. But it also means that the non-dwarf wizard is behind by two points or a feat while the others have moved on to improving Dex/Con/whatever.

Point is, a mountain dwarf wizard is, indeed, a cool concept. (I've already built one. ) But it doesn't actually get you ahead of other wizards; it just shifts around what you start with vs. need to work toward.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I'm actually a bit surprised that people have overlooked the hill dwarf. Those extra HPs are every bit as valuable as medium armor, IMO. A hill dwarf that raises his Con up to 20 can have +6 HPs/level, which is amazing for a wizard.

 

[evilbob]

If "a feat" gets you medium armor prof, then it's effectively the same (you're just trading "when"). If a feat gets you less, then it could be argued you're ahead. But that's not really the point.

Definitely the "pure vs. versatile" argument is valid; no question. But the thing that's awesome is that in other editions, dwarf wizards were a bad idea on multiple levels. You never saw them. Now it's just maybe not the best idea. What a difference! I really, REALLY like the 20-max rule. Also, you can make a spellsword-like character straight off the bat with the basic rules. Very nice!

Nagol: You're right; I messed up twice but I only decreased the numbers. For the first set of stats, I was using a point buy and did 14, 14, 14, 13, 8, 8, which I realize now is actually 1 point low. Arranged in order with racial bonuses, that translated to 8->10, 14, 14->16, 14, 13, 8. (Probably would change it and take 1 point out of the 13 and make Str 10->12.)

For the second one, I actually decreased the 13 to 12 when I swapped things around, and got 14, 14, 14, 12, 8, 8, and in order again it's: 14->16, 14, 12->14, 14, 8, 8, with two points left for whatever (probably Wis to 10).