thx for an extensive reply. I guess I missed a major point of my argument. Why do spell casters need to invest in the spell casting ability? Also the argument in my group isn't RP. It's mechanics.
For a wizard INT affects # of prepared spells, spell attack and DC. Lets say you have an 18 and second highest is a 14 for your wizard. The +2 for weapon attacks, dex saves, stealth, AC seems objectively better than the spell attack/DC since being able to deal ranged weapon damage will come up alot more between two long rests than spells that use spell attack/DC.
In my limited 5e experiance and extensive 2e experience low levels are by far the most deadly for a PC, mostly due to RNG. 5e seems to greatly enhance low level monsters killing power compared to 2e. So you really need the extra AC. I mean Goblins have +4 to hit and deal 1d6+2 damage using short swords or bows thats only one stray arrow away from death saving throws for your wizard.
Also the major limiting factor seems to be the number of spell slots, so a caster will soon be forced to watch, use cantrips or weapons in combat. Again 18 DEX makes a bigger difference to weapon attacks than 18 INT makes to cantrips.
Im playing Tiamats advocate here. I hate playing wizards. As a stoic atheist RL, I prefer clerics and paladins.But at the moment no one in my party wants to play any type of full caster. They seem so underpowered and mechanicly unsound. I'd love to be proven wrong.
If your main goal is to make it past the first 2 levels, then yes, prioritizing DEX and CON is the smartest thing to do. However your spell slots will increase quickly; by 3rd level you'll have four 1st level slots and two 2nd level slots, plus another two 1st level slots or one 2nd level slot from Arcane Recovery. By then you'll also have access to spells like Blur and Mirror Image which make you much harder to kill; the latter doesn't even require concentration.
By 5th level you're looking at 4/3/2 slots plus another 3 levels' worth with Arcane Recovery. That's a whole 7 times you can cast Shield throughout the day, and you still have 5 slots left over for big damage spells like Scorching Ray, Flaming Sphere or Fireball. If you've made it this far, you have more than enough tools to survive. More importantly, full spellcasters decide the outcome of battles. Their spells can incapacitate or destroy large groups of enemies and deal huge single target damage on demand. The other classes contribute by protecting the spellcasters and picking up the slack when spellcasters are holding back, but few classes have abilities that compare to what spellcasters can do.
If you're the paranoid sort, the School of Abjuration, War Magic, or Bladesinging will make you much harder to kill starting at 2nd level. Also, if your party is playing intelligently, you shouldn't come under attack regularly. You can attack from very long distances, so you should be able to stay out of range, and your friends should be placing themselves between you and your enemies so it's harder to reach you and you have half cover from ranged attacks. If you do get attacked, Shield will increase your AC by a lot until your next turn.
Have any of you experimented with making Initiative an Intelligence check instead of a Dexterity check? It seems to be suggested often as a way of decreasing the "god-stat" DEX, as well as giving a boost Intelligence (otherwise known as everyone's dump stat).
in some ways it makes sense--two overbuilt characters--ST vs Dex would be a bit like that epic battle in GOT between the mountain and whoever the guy was that was light on his feet. if it hadn't been for the arrogance of the high Dex guy he'd have clobbered the mountain. In reality, the best athletes--think gymnasts, parkour, calisthenics folks--will usually benefit from a high level of dexterity which translates to high levels of coordination. This should pretty much add to damage because that coordination means strikes are placed in more vital areas, leading to more damage. So in terms of real world attributes for combat, it seems at least somewhat plausible. I've got a level 3 thief with 6 ST and 18 Dex who is a mean marksman with the darts. But again when i come into contact with creatures with certain resistances (like skeletons), I happily stand aside to let the more brutish members of my party handle them.
In reality, the best athletes--think gymnasts, parkour, calisthenics folks--will usually benefit from a high level of dexterity which translates to high levels of coordination.
I mean, calling them the best athletes is a matter of opinion, and saying that their dexterity would make them good fighters is laughable. Sure, a gymnast may have more dexterity, but put them in a ring with a Heavyweight boxer and see who comes out on top. Also, male gymnasts are strong as hell. So even in a field defined by dexterous maneuvers, their strength "score" would still have to be on the high side to be competitive. (Not really arguing against your actual point about Dex being perfectly fine for damage, just that one line.)
Dexterity and Strength both have their advantages. If you're playing a caster, then obviously you'd want Dexterity (except for clerics in heavy armor), but in my experience, Athletics checks tend to be slightly required more than Acrobatics checks.
Really Gymnasts are one of the highest power producers in athletics. As in period. Probably top 10 highest power output domains. What's funny is anyone with high DEX would inevitably have high STR. It's essentially impossible to be fast and coordinated without being strong. If we took the same person and increased the efficiency and reactivity of the central nervous system without any change in muscle or skeletal tissue, they would become much much stronger
thx for an extensive reply. I guess I missed a major point of my argument. Why do spell casters need to invest in the spell casting ability? Also the argument in my group isn't RP. It's mechanics.
For a wizard INT affects # of prepared spells, spell attack and DC. Lets say you have an 18 and second highest is a 14 for your wizard. The +2 for weapon attacks, dex saves, stealth, AC seems objectively better than the spell attack/DC since being able to deal ranged weapon damage will come up alot more between two long rests than spells that use spell attack/DC.
In my limited 5e experiance and extensive 2e experience low levels are by far the most deadly for a PC, mostly due to RNG. 5e seems to greatly enhance low level monsters killing power compared to 2e. So you really need the extra AC. I mean Goblins have +4 to hit and deal 1d6+2 damage using short swords or bows thats only one stray arrow away from death saving throws for your wizard.
Also the major limiting factor seems to be the number of spell slots, so a caster will soon be forced to watch, use cantrips or weapons in combat. Again 18 DEX makes a bigger difference to weapon attacks than 18 INT makes to cantrips.
Im playing Tiamats advocate here. I hate playing wizards. As a stoic atheist RL, I prefer clerics and paladins.But at the moment no one in my party wants to play any type of full caster. They seem so underpowered and mechanicly unsound. I'd love to be proven wrong.
If your main goal is to make it past the first 2 levels, then yes, prioritizing DEX and CON is the smartest thing to do. However your spell slots will increase quickly; by 3rd level you'll have four 1st level slots and two 2nd level slots, plus another two 1st level slots or one 2nd level slot from Arcane Recovery. By then you'll also have access to spells like Blur and Mirror Image which make you much harder to kill; the latter doesn't even require concentration.
By 5th level you're looking at 4/3/2 slots plus another 3 levels' worth with Arcane Recovery. That's a whole 7 times you can cast Shield throughout the day, and you still have 5 slots left over for big damage spells like Scorching Ray, Flaming Sphere or Fireball. If you've made it this far, you have more than enough tools to survive. More importantly, full spellcasters decide the outcome of battles. Their spells can incapacitate or destroy large groups of enemies and deal huge single target damage on demand. The other classes contribute by protecting the spellcasters and picking up the slack when spellcasters are holding back, but few classes have abilities that compare to what spellcasters can do.
If you're the paranoid sort, the School of Abjuration, War Magic, or Bladesinging will make you much harder to kill starting at 2nd level. Also, if your party is playing intelligently, you shouldn't come under attack regularly. You can attack from very long distances, so you should be able to stay out of range, and your friends should be placing themselves between you and your enemies so it's harder to reach you and you have half cover from ranged attacks. If you do get attacked, Shield will increase your AC by a lot until your next turn.
Have any of you experimented with making Initiative an Intelligence check instead of a Dexterity check? It seems to be suggested often as a way of decreasing the "god-stat" DEX, as well as giving a boost Intelligence (otherwise known as everyone's dump stat).
in some ways it makes sense--two overbuilt characters--ST vs Dex would be a bit like that epic battle in GOT between the mountain and whoever the guy was that was light on his feet. if it hadn't been for the arrogance of the high Dex guy he'd have clobbered the mountain. In reality, the best athletes--think gymnasts, parkour, calisthenics folks--will usually benefit from a high level of dexterity which translates to high levels of coordination. This should pretty much add to damage because that coordination means strikes are placed in more vital areas, leading to more damage. So in terms of real world attributes for combat, it seems at least somewhat plausible. I've got a level 3 thief with 6 ST and 18 Dex who is a mean marksman with the darts. But again when i come into contact with creatures with certain resistances (like skeletons), I happily stand aside to let the more brutish members of my party handle them.
Or be the best of both worlds.... a high elf bladesinging wizard.
I mean, calling them the best athletes is a matter of opinion, and saying that their dexterity would make them good fighters is laughable. Sure, a gymnast may have more dexterity, but put them in a ring with a Heavyweight boxer and see who comes out on top. Also, male gymnasts are strong as hell. So even in a field defined by dexterous maneuvers, their strength "score" would still have to be on the high side to be competitive. (Not really arguing against your actual point about Dex being perfectly fine for damage, just that one line.)
Dexterity and Strength both have their advantages. If you're playing a caster, then obviously you'd want Dexterity (except for clerics in heavy armor), but in my experience, Athletics checks tend to be slightly required more than Acrobatics checks.
Really Gymnasts are one of the highest power producers in athletics. As in period. Probably top 10 highest power output domains. What's funny is anyone with high DEX would inevitably have high STR. It's essentially impossible to be fast and coordinated without being strong. If we took the same person and increased the efficiency and reactivity of the central nervous system without any change in muscle or skeletal tissue, they would become much much stronger