Improving the armor proficiency feats

DEFCON 1 said:

I agree with you that there is a place for an armored wizard or a rogue with a shield. The problem though is that those are for the most part flavored reasons for doing so. So for instance, most wizards are going to use Mage Armor or get magical items to raise their AC because its the easiest way to do it and tends to be the most effective anyway. If one chooses to put on armor, it's not because they have no choice in the matter, it's because the player thinks "You know, it'd be kinda cool for my character's story and identity to wear armor." But the PC isn't going to really gain much of anything by doing that then if they had just gone about getting a higher AC the normal way for a wizard. And thus, forcing them to spend a feat slot to do so seems rather harsh. Nevermind the fact that something like this won't actually come into play for most PCs until 4th level at a minimum-- which means by that point they've already established how they are as a combatant and there'd be little to reason to switch over to wearing armor at that point anyway.

In truth, I personally see proficiencies as so mundane and unimportant to balancing that there's no reason to not just give them "for free" via things like Backgrounds. "If you take the Soldier background, you gain proficiency in light and medium armors and simple weapons." There... now someone who wants to do the odd character choice can do so, because their background explains how/why the can. And you can be this type of character from the beginning and also not waste a feat slot for what is essentially a flavor decision.

Click to expand...

Well.. I don't entirely agree. With a breastplate and 14 dex, you get AC 17. To get that with mage armor, you need an 18 Dex... that is not insignificant. And of course, it costs you a spell slot, thus one less casting of shield. I think that is more than just fluff. And a shield grants another +2 AC with no real drawback if you anyway don't plan to make weapon attacks.

jaelis said:

Well.. I don't entirely agree. With a breastplate and 14 dex, you get AC 17. To get that with mage armor, you need an 18 Dex... that is not insignificant. And of course, it costs you a spell slot, thus one less casting of shield. I think that is more than just fluff. And a shield grants another +2 AC with no real drawback if you anyway don't plan to make weapon attacks.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I guess this is where game focus and preference lie. Are you focused on getting the best possible AC, or do you play more to support fun concepts over mechanical benefits. Additionally, it also depends on what that player wants. Most wizards or sorcerers are not wading into combat. They are staying at a distance because they are by design more squishy. Thus, they may be targeted less often compared to the melee combatants. So what is the purpose for a wizard or similar character to have a high AC? What does that represent to them? Is it just about being cool and having the aesthetic of wearing armor and using the shield? Is it to improve survivability (which also could be done by focusing more on the Wizard/sorcerers natural strengths), or is it to be an unhittable god that can sling magic around?

For me at least, there are better/easier ways to get those proficiencies that improve survivability and provide additional options on top of that. I also tend to side with the camp that prefers active and cool benefits over purely mechanical ones. I don't enjoy the +3 swords or the +1 cloak of protection as much as flaming blades and belts that allow you to use misty step.

jaelis said:

Well heck if people aren't complaining that these are overpowered then I haven't done my job

How about:

Combat Veteran
(no prereq!)
- Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1 to a maximum of 20
- Gain proficiency in light armor, medium armor, shields, and all simple weapons.

Master of Arms
Prerequisite: Proficiency with medium armor and shields
- Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1 to a maximum of 20
- Gain proficiency in heavy armor, all simple weapons, and all martial weapons.

Click to expand...

I like this. Indeed, I was gonna suggest all that after reading your first post.

Indeed, I'd be tempted to playtest wrapping it all into one single feat (with the choice of a Str or Dex boost)

This. This is what you should do.

jgsugden said:

Trained Soldier
No prerequisite.
- Gain proficiency in all armor, shields, and weapons (including siege weapons).
- As a bonus action you may issue a battlefield command. Pick a target that can see and hear you within 30 feet. That target gains advantage on their next saving throw, ability check or attack roll before the end of your next turn. You may use this ability three times. Those uses recharge on a long rest.

Click to expand...

jaelis said:

Well.. I don't entirely agree. With a breastplate and 14 dex, you get AC 17. To get that with mage armor, you need an 18 Dex... that is not insignificant. And of course, it costs you a spell slot, thus one less casting of shield. I think that is more than just fluff. And a shield grants another +2 AC with no real drawback if you anyway don't plan to make weapon attacks.

Click to expand...

I dunno... to me an isolated wizard who has the Soldier background and whose identity revolves around having been a war wizard for probably some military company now finds himself adventuring and has an AC of 17 just like a wizard with an 18 DEX would have had. I personally don't see that as such a big deal at all. Especially because for the most part wizards don't get attacked as often since they're way in the back hiding behind stuff... and thus an AC a couple points higher than normal doesn't actually get affected anyway.

Now if you whiteroom it as you did... saying the wizard now has one more slot available for the Shield spell, and that they wizard will use a shield to raise their AC even higher, sure, you're going to end up with a possible "Wait, what?!?" type of PC. But that doesn't matter if no one actually plays it.

So the question you have to ask is... how many of your players are actually going to do that? Are they so min-max focused and specific that as soon as you say "Yeah, you get simple weapons and medium armor as a Soldier kind of like what the Mountain Dwarf gets" they suddenly forsake all their own personal PC flavor and history just so half of them can take Soldier Wizards to get a couple extra points of AC? Can't speak for your table obviously, but I know for mine that they would not give up their own PC characterization just for a couple extra bennies I was throwing them for a certain combo meant to illustrate a type of character story. And if by some chance three or more of my players all DID decide "Soldier Wizard FTW!!!" and all tried to play that same character for no other reason that just for the mechanical bonus... I'd reduce the character bonus.

Basically what I'm saying is that I personally feel using the feat system for trying to create "unique" characters is a waste. Because invariably the flavorful bonuses you want for your PC to make them unique are usually never powerful enough to make anyone actually take them over an ASI or your standard "megafeats" that get chosen all the time. So just don't bother. Throw your one player who wants to play an armored wizard a bone and let them have the opportunity to play that different type of character. And if they get the slightest extra bonus by an extra AC point as though they had an 18 DEX... is that really going to break the game?

I say, no it does not. But of course that's just my opinion... I could be wrong.

I have a dream of feats that work both for enabling both roll- and role-play character concepts. I'd go so far to say that if you really don't think that is possible, then you probably oughtn't use feats at all... which of course is fine and perhaps what you would argue anyway.

Perhaps a better example case here though is a bard or warlock. They seems to carry some expectation of being in melee, at least on occasion. And they don't have quite as strong a pre-existing archetype as wizards. If someone had a concept of an armored bard, you would be comfortable to simply let them use heavy armor for free? Or even letting them take jgsugden's feat?

jaelis said:

So your vote would be, get rid of armor prof feats altogether? I kind of feel like there is a place in the game for them, for people who want an armored wizard or a rogue with a shield. Forcing those people to multiclass seems off to me, but maybe that's just me

Click to expand...

I never really gave the armor proficiency feats much thought, but I'm not against the idea of needing to multiclass in order to access this type of training (if your background didn't offer it).

This thread made me realize that I like feats that expand upon features you already have, instead of feats that add additional features (if that makes sense?).

Thank you for always offering up an opportunity to push my thinking!

Hawk Diesel said:

I feel like feats should be more about adding interesting benefits that would both add flair to your character as well as have some active component to them. Abilities that are purely passive or mechanical may be solid choices, but they aren't necessarily the fun choices.

Click to expand...

Different people have fun in different ways. If I can take a feat that lets my wizard wear heavy armor in a meaningful way, then that changes everything about how looks and acts and perceives himself, even if the only mechanical benefit is having a high AC.

I thought the fun of feats was that they let you customize your character in interesting ways, not necessarily that they add great complexity or make the character more difficult to play. I'm already juggling enough actions on a round-by-round basis.

If someone can find it, in a list of custom feats on the board someone came up with a “trained” feat. It gave you points to spend from a list. You could gain a grab bag of languages, armor weapon proficiencies, and skills.

It gave the player a meaty benefit but allowed them to tailor it to give them some nice side editions of benefits that are nice but not that strong.

I’ve used it in my games and love it. It’s the best way I’ve seen to improve proficiency feats

Stalker0 said:

If someone can find it, in a list of custom feats on the board someone came up with a “trained” feat. It gave you points to spend from a list. You could gain a grab bag of languages, armor weapon proficiencies, and skills.

It gave the player a meaty benefit but allowed them to tailor it to give them some nice side editions of benefits that are nice but not that strong.

I’ve used it in my games and love it. It’s the best way I’ve seen to improve proficiency feats

Click to expand...

That sounds very interesting, I will try to find it. Does it incorporate prereqs (like, you need med armor prof to get heavy armor prof)?