Does Medium Armor Need a Buff?

[MG.0]

Why would you be putting your players in a save or die situation anyway? You're relying on hyperbole instead of looking at the issue itself: AC.

Besides, if you get a volcano, I get save or die poison.

I don't put my players in any kind of dangerous situation (except maybe unhealthy snacks).

Characters are another matter entirely. Plenty of things ought to kill a character who fails a save. Why was he standing on the edge of a volcano anyway?

If you think characters should never die except through hit point loss in combat, you are playing a vastly different game than I am.

I don't see a problem with the issue you are trying to address. Medium armor is not as good as light/heavy armor? Ok. Why does everything have to be knife-edge balanced like some kind of video game? Some things simply aren't as good as other things.


Edit -
A few things that ought to be save or die situations:
Bottomless pit
Lava
Some poisons
Some spells
Some monter attacks
Collapsing tunnel or building
Tickling a Tarrasque's foot.

 

[Xeviat]

Plenty of things ought to kill a character who fails a save. Why was he standing on the edge of a volcano anyway?

If you're putting this on the hypothetical character, then both characters wouldn't walk up to the volcano edge ... I'm not seeing the value of your hyperbole.

If you think characters should never die except through hit point loss in combat, you are playing a vastly different game than I am.

I suppose I am.

I don't see a problem with the issue you are trying to address. Medium armor is not as good as light/heavy armor? Ok. Why does everything have to be knife-edge balanced like some kind of video game? Some things simply aren't as good as other things.

But it is as good as light and heavy armor at levels 1 through 7; why's that have to change? And things should be balanced where they can be so that they remain options. (Nice video game jab ...) And we already have stats for inferior armor (leather, hide, ring); why does a whole category of armor have to be inferior?

Edit -
A few things that ought to be save or die situations:
Bottomless pit
Lava
Some poisons
Some spells
Some monter attacks
Collapsing tunnel or building
Tickling a Tarrasque's foot.

Unless those have multiple chances to avoid it, I'd never have them in my game. So we have a different style. I won't resort to personal attacks.

Could you give me an argument as to why Medium Armor should be even with Light and Heavy up until a certain point, and from then on be a -1 AC penalty for no reward? At least medium armor had lower armor check penalties in 3E; I'd even accept that to a degree (I already accept that having a stealth penalty gives you +1 AC).

Edit: Besides, save or dies can just as likely be Con or Will; and in the case of cliffs, they could even be strength. Sounds like equivalencies to me.

 

[ad_hoc]

Multiclassing messes with proficiencies. The base rules are written assuming it isn't used (one reason I don't use it).

Take a look again assuming not multiclassing.

As for the side argument about not having any low stats: What is the solution? Have all high stats? Something has to be lower than something else, or you're just going to have all 13s and that isn't good either.

 

[Zardnaar]

Medium armor is also a bit more MAD than light and heavy armor.

Fighters are really the only class that doesn' t get penalised for wearing it.

 

[Minigiant]

Medium Armor is fine.

\Medium Armor is actually close to overpowered as almost anyone who doesn't dump Dex or use it exclusively wants it. If every class had proficiency, 50% of PCs would be wearing it.

 

[MG.0]

If you're putting this on the hypothetical character, then both characters wouldn't walk up to the volcano edge ... I'm not seeing the value of your hyperbole.

There's no hyperbole here. Are you really suggesting that characters should never find themselves in a save or die situation? At high levels would you ever let an NPC spellcaster have access to PowerWord Kill (no save)? Plenty of things can kill characters, and surprisingly often they have only themselves to blame. I don't coddle my players. I don't go out of my way to kill their characters either, but I do expect them to act intelligently with a reasonable facsimile of belief in the world around their character. Acting rashly or without thought will get your character very dead very quickly in my games.

I suppose I am.

It certainly sounds like it.

But it is as good as light and heavy armor at levels 1 through 7; why's that have to change? And things should be balanced where they can be so that they remain options. (Nice video game jab ...) And we already have stats for inferior armor (leather, hide, ring); why does a whole category of armor have to be inferior?

It doesn't have to change if you don't want it to, but it isn't wrong to stay the way it is either. As I said, not everything has to balance. That guy in full plate is going to wish he had on something else when he falls into a lake and sinks like a rock. Given the don and doff times in the PHB, it's going to be interesting to see what he does (5 full minutes to remove armor, during which he is sinking quickly). Do your characters travel by ship? Smart characters should probably remove their armor when aboard a ship in a bad storm...

How many DM's even take donning and doffing armor into account when characters are resting? No, you cannot have restful sleep in full armor in my games.

Unless those have multiple chances to avoid it, I'd never have them in my game. So we have a different style.

Yes, we have a different style. I think guaranteeing a second chance takes the teeth out of situations that really should be lethal. Not fearing failure (because the DM will always let you have another chance) breaks suspension of disbelief.

I won't resort to personal attacks.

That's good to know. I'm not attacking you.

Could you give me an argument as to why Medium Armor should be even with Light and Heavy up until a certain point, and from then on be a -1 AC penalty for no reward? At least medium armor had lower armor check penalties in 3E; I'd even accept that to a degree (I already accept that having a stealth penalty gives you +1 AC).

I covered that. It doesn't need a reason because there's nothing wrong with it being different. It's just not as good with respect to AC.

Edit: Besides, save or dies can just as likely be Con or Will; and in the case of cliffs, they could even be strength. Sounds like equivalencies to me.

Saves come in all forms and yes they can be against any ability. My point was that all stats are useful in myriad ways in games which include more than just lining enemies up on opposite sides of a grid and rolling dice. Just because that full plate tin-can renders a character's DEX moot for AC doesn't mean the character is necessarily smart to put all his points somewhere else.

 

[GreenTengu]

While save or die things might be satisfactory to a person trying to present the game as a simulation, it does not function at all in a narrative sense and is fundamentally bad for game play.

It knocks both a player and a protagonist out of a story due to an event that was almost certainly not meant to actually be an important or meaningful moment. Just a random trap coupled with a single poor roll.

And for that single poor roll?
An actual real life human being is out of the game for the rest of the night and either goes home or finds something else to do away from everyone else as they are no longer part of the group activity.
Within the story, a protagonist that had a story to tell now is unable to fulfill the story to its conclusion which is ultimately unsatisfactory to all participants in telling that story. All progress made by that character towards telling their story ends abruptly without satisfaction or meaning.
Moreover, all investment the player has made in that character so far is lost and they are, hopefully, going to be willing to make a new character-- but I guarantee you that their willingness to invest in that next character is going to be greatly diminished as they will soon just see the characters as expendable numbers on a piece of paper that will just be crumpled up and tossed away on the first bad die roll. You will see less and less and less effort put into character details like name, background story, description and so forth-- because you'll have made it clear you couldn't care less about any of it, its just another faceless, nameless lemming to go pop on a random die roll.
The rest of the group is now down a member for the rest of the adventure leading to a higher probability that the above to events will occur again before the adventure has finished.


Now, granted, there needs to be risk in the game for it to capture attention and be fun. If one is guaranteed the best result regardless of their choice of actions, then the actions themselves have no meaning.

BUT, prior to putting down the planned event where you are going to call for the entire group to make a single die roll with-- let's be generous-- an 80% chance of success, with 5 people in your group did you really mean for this to be the point in the game where you fully intended one of your players is going to leave the group unsatisfied and likely a bit bitter with less willingness to ever engage in your game again?
Because if that wasn't what you wanted happening at that particular moment in the game, you royally screwed the goose there by setting up that planned event. You virtually guaranteed a result you didn't want all for the sake of trying to make the game more "exciting" by introducing greater risk... forgetting that what you are risking is a player disengaging from a game that lasts hours a session.

 

[steeldragons]

What game are you talking about, exactly, @Xeviat ? This i sshowing up in the 5e Discussion even though it has a (what i think is) D&D/PF tag on it.

I don't know why and I don't know what you're talking about with medium armor only being good until 7th level or whatever. But maybe some of the confusion/difference of game perspective is that folks are clicking on this thread from the 5e forum and disagreeing with [what I am assuming to be] a 3x or 4e or PF sensibility/observation.

As for the save or die business, I'm totally on board with MG.0. There is no coddling the players, nor actively out to hunt down the PCs. There is (and I really like the phrasing/how you put this, @MG.0 , btw) the expectation for them to

act intelligently with a reasonable facsimile of belief in the world around their character.

 

[Xeviat]

5E D&D, the current edition of D&D; is there a 5E tag I'm supposed to be using?

I'm flagging 8th level because that's when characters can get their 2nd ability increase. It's the level that typical Dex focused characters can increase their Dex to 20. Thus, I'm using that as a baseline for comparisons.

So MG.0, what does Medium Armor afford a character that Heavy isn't? Lets take saves out of the issue. A Fighter with Dex 14 has +1 AC when wearing Heavy Armor (Plate) compared to when wearing Medium Armor (half-plate); some gold?. What do they get out of it? A Ranger with Dex 20 has the same AC in Medium Armor (half-plate) as Studded leather, except they now have a stealth penalty; what do they get?

If the argument is that medium armor is for non-dex focused warriors, for whom it does provide better AC than light ... then the question I will ask one more time is why is medium armor equivalent to light and heavy at low levels but not at mid to high levels?

 

[Barantor]

For characters that don't want to focus on only boosting dex like a rogue or a dex ranger (either finesse melee or archer) but don't want to invest all into strength either like a str melee ranger or certain fighter builds.

Barbarians that don't necessarily want to be totally unarmored always can possibly get some use out of medium armor, since some of their abilities are blocked by heavy armor wearing.

It is nice for characters that don't want to be 'all in' by relying only on armor to give them any bonus. A warrior that has 0 dex mod and is for some reason stripped of his armor (heat metal, stolen, captured, etc) will be at a disadvantage to one that is more well rounded and has the dex bonus for medium.

Feats change up a few things, but even if we ignore them then more than one class finds it useful.

Druid for one it helps if they decide to wear hide armor.

I don't think it is underwhelming, but with everything you have to have it in mind to maximize it's potential.