[Next] Dwarf Wizard

[Finarvyn]

Cross-posted to the WotC boards, but I thought I might get a more "old school" discussion here.

I have a player who wants to run a Dwarf Wizard character. As far as I can tell there are no longer limitations on race-class combinations, so this should be a legit character to play, but I'm not certain as to how the rules legislate some combination like this.

For example, dwarves are proficient with light and medium armor but wizards cannot wear armor. My assumption is that the wizard restriction trumps the dwarf proficiency.

More problematic is weapon use. Dwarves have proficiency with axes and crossbows while wizards are more daggers and slings. I think light crossbows are on both lists, but certainly this cannot mean that the light crossbow is the only weapon this character can use, right? My gut feeling is that a dwarf wizard could use hand axes since those are close to daggers but not bigger axes since wizards can't use larger melee weapons, but I was curious as to how others would rule on this.

Thoughts?

[Finarvyn]

Just as an afterthought I might add that while there don't seem to be any specific restrictions on playing any particular race-class combo, the rules clearly favor certain combinations. For example, the Mountain Dwarf gets a bonus in constitution and strength, but intelligence is important for wizards so he's not likely to be a good one. On the other hand, high elves do get a boost in intelligence and therefore it's easier for them to be better wizards.

[kesher]

I'd be inclined to follow the armor restrictions, but let him use all the dwarven weapons. The wizardly HP/HD/ attack bonus restrictions will let him retain a dwarfly flavor without encouraging him to jump into the front lines of combat.

And it's certainly true that the rules allow any combo while favoring certain ones; then again, that's been the case since 3.0. However, with the addition of Backgrounds, this edition enables you to play against type without seeming self-destructive...

[Finarvyn]

I like that solution, allowing weapons but restricting armor. Very logical.

As an FYI, I have gotten a single reply so far on the WotC boards and the poster there suggested that you get the best of both worlds. If either class or race allows it, you get it. Not an official response, understand, but you can see the difference between the mentality here and there.

[ravenheart87]

I only know the latest playtest rules and there is no armor restriction for the mage. Actually there aren't any weapon or armor restrictions for anyone, just two states: you are either proficient with something (and get bonuses) or not (no bonuses, possible penalties). Races and classes give you proficiencies, but they never negate any proficiencies from other sources. The mage class doesn't give you an armor proficiency, but if the mountain dwarf race does, then you have it.

The last playtest says the following about armored casting:

"Because of the mental focus and precise gestures required for spellcasting, you must be proficient with the armor you are wearing to cast a spell. You are otherwise too distracted and physically hampered by your armor for spellcasting."

I don't have any problem with the way the rule is. It won't increase his survival rate that much. The hill dwarf's hit point bonus or the high elf intelligence bonus and extra cantrip would be more useful and you probably won't take those away either.

Of course if an armored wizard hurts your old-school sensibility, feel free to house rule it.

If I had to change the rule, I would allow the dwarf to wear armor, but I would ask for a Dexterity check when he tries to cast in light armour, with a disadvantage in medium armor.

[Azafuse]

The Character Creation chapter (page 3, Oct. 14th 2013) says this:

Proficiency
Characters can acquire proficiency—from their class,
race, background, and feats—in any of a variety of
equipment, skills, and saving throws.

The Playtest Packets don't go too deep in rules, but being a derivate of 3E there should be presumptively a total stack of the different sources for proficiencies.

Proficiencies are shown as a measure of being good/bad more than being able/unable to wear/perform/use something.

Attacking with a longsword without having the procificiency (How to Play, page 19, Oct. 14 2013) means you have a disadvantage (you roll 2d20 and keep the worst outcome) more than being able to swing it at all.

Being not proficient with the armor you're wearing means that you have disadvantage (Character Creation, page 3, Oct. 14 2013) in stuff related to STR and DEX and that you can't cast spells (How to Play, page 26, Oct. 14 2013) more than being unable to wear it at all.


IMHO the problem is just about the PC's background. A petty problem, IMHO.
Demihumans have wider lifespans than humans: that means they can practice more than a human does.
Demihumans are not hillbillies: if we assume a 1st level 20 years old human wizard and a 1st level 80 years old elven wizard share very likely the same degree of proficiency in arcane arts, it doesn't mean that the elven guy is 4 time more stupid than the human guy but only that he did something else in his life too (like practicing with bows and swords or achieving a sub-race's trait).


So, with a dwarven wizard, you could simply think about something like this: he has achieved some martial proficiencies in his late teenage (working as a 0th level sentinel in an underground outpost) and he has vowed his young adult years to arcane arts.
This means that while a human wizard went from 0 to 18 years old that dwarf has been busy with more things to do over a longer time period, simply.

[cooper]

He can wear armor and wield all racial weapons and cast spells. This balanced by the loss of abilities another race would have had (a human for example would have +4 intelligence! An elf would have more spells to cast etc.)

5e grants enough benefits to all races so that you don't have to artificially restrict the dwarf wizard from his rightful proficiencies, nor is the wizard class so overpowered compared to other classes that it needs restrictions to balance it.

Having proficiencies in armor in weapons means he won't have started powers/proficiencies in other areas.

[kesher]

This has turned into a pretty enlightening discussion! Coop, why would a human have a +4 INT? I thought they had a +2 on all stats (unless I'm misremembering...)

[Azafuse]

Humans get +1 to all stats, while demihumans get +1 on a primary stat and +1 on a secondary stat (depending on the chosen sub-race).

Or at least that's written in one of the latest packets.

[Finarvyn]

I think the final version says humans are +1 on all six stats, demihumans get a +2 and a +1 on predetermined stats based on the race.

As a footnote to my WotC post on the same topic, the general viewpoint seems to be that proficiencies add onto a character instead of taking away. So, for example, being a wizard doesn't add any armor proficiencies but if being a dwarf does allow some then the dwarf wizard is allowed that armor. I think I'll try playing that way to see how it goes. I suspect that being a dwarf will make him less of a wizard in other ways, since he has to pay more character points to get a high intelligence.

[llenlleawg]

@finarvyn, actually in the final playtest packet, demihumans each get +1 on two scores (in the case of a mountain dwarf, that +1 Con and +1 Wis), while humans get +1 to every stat. We'll have to wait to see if that has changed for the final version.

Also, as others have said, proficiencies add. Note that there is no "anti-"proficiency, i.e. it is not that Mages/Wizards cannot use armor. Rather, it's that they do not, as such, have proficiency in armor insofar as they are mages/wizards. Mountain dwarves, on the other hand, *do* have armor proficiency as such, so a mountain dwarf wizard would as well (plus the various dwarf weapon proficiencies).

I don't think it's best to see him as "less" of a wizard. He just has different advantages, namely the armor and weapon proficiencies, plus the resistance to poison, darkvision, etc. High elves are "better" wizards in the sense of having a +1 intelligence and two extra cantrips. A human is "better" in that his various stats will be, on average, better than the dwarf's. None of these options is as such better, I think, but it does give a dwarven wizard a slightly different "feel" (i.e. still not good to put in the front lines, but much less fragile if forced into melee combat).