It would be a question of flexibility, not just the weight. D&D also doesn't really provide a detailed fatigue system, so I take some liberties in assigning limits. Armor is already weakened in 5th Edition, though, so it would touchy to apply this. It's an area with a lot of room for improvement.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E What are the Roles now?
- Thread starter Unwise
- Start date
It would be a question of flexibility, not just the weight. D&D also doesn't really provide a detailed fatigue system, so I take some liberties in assigning limits. Armor is already weakened in 5th Edition, though, so it would touchy to apply this. It's an area with a lot of room for improvement.
It doesn't give them the same AC. Light armor is good for 1 or 2 AC points plus dexterity bonus, so with a 15 at best you're talking 13 or 14 AC compared to bigger numbers for heavy armor.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
For a character that pushes for maximum dexterity (achievable by level 8 with most characters--not any later than I'd expect plate, an extremely expensive item, to start showing up) there is no difference. +5 from Dex and +3 from the best Light armor (that is, equivalent to plate, the best heavy armor) puts you at AC 18, which is exactly what plate gives. (IIRC, *medium* armor falls slightly behind, or did in the playtest anyway--best medium armor is AC 15, with a +2 max from Dexterity.)
The best light armor gives +2 AC, and if you take ability score increases into account all characters can easily manage the strength requirements for heavy armor.
Not to read the entire thread or ignore 1000 posts of history, some commentary.
2E occupations seem to match much better to 4E power sources than roles. Roles are a thing that has always been there as a nebulous concept of what is this character doing? What is this character good at? The change in roles in 4E is a prescription rather than proscription. It details what kind of abilities that class will definitely have access to rather than what abilities that class is not allowed to have. The weakening of clerics, wizards and druids to just the same amount of role coverage as most other classes is a different issue entirely. The roles were codified and integrated in 4E classes to prevent a class which is not good for anything being printed. No more fifth wheels. The result is only that the class's role tells the player where the class is not going to be bad. It wasn't there to describe the only place the class is good.
5E handles roles in a similar low-powered style as it handles everything else. They're still there. They're still baked into class abilities. 5E just takes a very ivory tower approach to how it presents the classes. The barbarian is a defender because its rage lets it take a larger amount of punishment and its reckless attacks encourage enemies to attack the barbarian. The bard is a leader as it both increases the party's healing with song of rest and improves others attacks or saves with its inspiration. There are also classes with roles that are more flexible from having a greater degree of choice in class abilities. All the abilities are also a little weaker, so they're a little less differentiated than they were in 4E. Because there is barely commentary on how to play a class, the appearance of distinct role-fulfilling abilities in each class may be accidental or natural rather than a design decision. I don't know.
For purposes of AC, a character who is already raising Dex for other reasons is well served with light armor. In a pure "how to get AC" comparison, Heavy Armor is cheaper. Light Armor is one feat which gives +1 to a stat and 20 Dexterity for 17 AC. From nothing, that's 1 feat and 4.5 stat boosts. In a point buy, it'd mean spending 9 points and three feats to raise that to 20 and get proficiency.
Medium Armor is two feats which give +1 to a stat and 14 Dexterity for 17 AC. From nothing, that's 2 feats and 1 stat boost. On the point buy, that'd be spending 4 points and two feats.
Heavy Armor is three feats which give +1 to a stat and 15 Strength if you want to move at full movement for 18 AC. From nada, that's three feats and 1 stat boost. In the point buy, that's 4 points and three feats.
Medium Armor Mastery, for the best of both 18 AC and no stealth penalty, is 1 more feat and 3 more build points. A similar investment in maximum defense for Heavy Armor Mastery results in a net buy of 3 points and 4 feats. A character already using Str might be better served getting Heavy Armor rather than raising Dexterity and sticking to medium. Obviously most characters care more about their offense than their AC, so they tend to stick with whatever armor proficiency their class comes with.
2E occupations seem to match much better to 4E power sources than roles. Roles are a thing that has always been there as a nebulous concept of what is this character doing? What is this character good at? The change in roles in 4E is a prescription rather than proscription. It details what kind of abilities that class will definitely have access to rather than what abilities that class is not allowed to have. The weakening of clerics, wizards and druids to just the same amount of role coverage as most other classes is a different issue entirely. The roles were codified and integrated in 4E classes to prevent a class which is not good for anything being printed. No more fifth wheels. The result is only that the class's role tells the player where the class is not going to be bad. It wasn't there to describe the only place the class is good.
5E handles roles in a similar low-powered style as it handles everything else. They're still there. They're still baked into class abilities. 5E just takes a very ivory tower approach to how it presents the classes. The barbarian is a defender because its rage lets it take a larger amount of punishment and its reckless attacks encourage enemies to attack the barbarian. The bard is a leader as it both increases the party's healing with song of rest and improves others attacks or saves with its inspiration. There are also classes with roles that are more flexible from having a greater degree of choice in class abilities. All the abilities are also a little weaker, so they're a little less differentiated than they were in 4E. Because there is barely commentary on how to play a class, the appearance of distinct role-fulfilling abilities in each class may be accidental or natural rather than a design decision. I don't know.
For purposes of AC, a character who is already raising Dex for other reasons is well served with light armor. In a pure "how to get AC" comparison, Heavy Armor is cheaper. Light Armor is one feat which gives +1 to a stat and 20 Dexterity for 17 AC. From nothing, that's 1 feat and 4.5 stat boosts. In a point buy, it'd mean spending 9 points and three feats to raise that to 20 and get proficiency.
Medium Armor is two feats which give +1 to a stat and 14 Dexterity for 17 AC. From nothing, that's 2 feats and 1 stat boost. On the point buy, that'd be spending 4 points and two feats.
Heavy Armor is three feats which give +1 to a stat and 15 Strength if you want to move at full movement for 18 AC. From nada, that's three feats and 1 stat boost. In the point buy, that's 4 points and three feats.
Medium Armor Mastery, for the best of both 18 AC and no stealth penalty, is 1 more feat and 3 more build points. A similar investment in maximum defense for Heavy Armor Mastery results in a net buy of 3 points and 4 feats. A character already using Str might be better served getting Heavy Armor rather than raising Dexterity and sticking to medium. Obviously most characters care more about their offense than their AC, so they tend to stick with whatever armor proficiency their class comes with.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
The best light armor for a fighter is Mage Armor, which is AC 13 + DX.
Ability score increases for a ranged fighter will go into DX to boost his damage. He can't afford to boost his ST until many levels later (if ever), which means that for most of his career his options are "light armor, good mobility/stealth, and a good AC" or "heavy armor, moderate mobility, poor stealth, and a good AC"--so why wouldn't he just wear light armor?
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Wait, that can't be right from a mechanical perspective--and you are talking about mechanics, aren't you? From a mechanical perspective you should attack whoever is dealing the most damage relative to his fragility; Reckless Attack increases fragility and damage, but Rage decreases fragility, so Rage makes it a less attractive target for most enemies (if they stop to think, which maybe they won't/shouldn't).
The correct tactic against a barbarian is to run away for a round until his rage wears off. ;-)
Having seen the recent Doom episode of Mythbusters, there may be something to this.
Adam and Jamie are reasonably fit as 2 dues who went through the Doom encumbrance course (carrying all the gear they find)
They found it to be very hard at the end.
Then they got an MMA fighter type guy, who was the spitting image of what a space marine ought to be built like.
He aced the course with all the gear in record time.
The gist being, a guy who is in athlete/heroic-grade shape (aka, a profesional Adventurer) isn't really burdened by all this basic gear we strap on them as a PC.
Sure, there's a limit. But for a guy who's in great fighting-shape, the stuff you wear to a fight is no big deal.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Pardon, you're correct. I was confusing the late-end of the playtest (which had a type of light armor that gave AC 13+Dex) with the official release (which removed that).
So the Dex-based character's maximum AC is 1 less than a Strength-based character, if they're able to pick up Plate. However, at level 1, it is entirely possible to get the best light armor in the game (it's only 45g!). If you're Dex-based, your Dexterity can be expected to be about 16, for a bonus of +3, for a total AC of 15. This is better than the starting heavy armor (Ringmail, AC 14), but not as good as the next (Chainmail, AC 16). Since a Dexterity-based character gets two different kinds of damage improvement (melee and ranged) as well as defense improvement, there's little reason not to drop two ABIs into Dex, at which point said character has AC 17.
Strength-based characters can achieve either the highest defenses (by 1 point), or the highest damage dice (1d10, 1d12, or 2d6), but not both (light armor+shield with +5 dex mod = AC 19, one point ahead of plate+2h weapon). Dexterity provides the midpoint: almost the best defenses (and better than someone wielding a 2h weapon), same max one-handed damage (1d8), and the ability to use bows which are the superior ranged damage option for both range numbers and damage dice (thrown weapons are d4s or d6s; longbows and light crossbows are 1d8). And, again, Dexterity gives a better or at least more common save, Initiative (which can't be improved any other way, AFAIK), and a much wider variety of skill benefits, which heavy armors impose Disadvantage on.
So, again, I still feel like there are plenty of incentives for playing a Dex-based character. Particularly since fighting styles and (AFAIK) most maneuvers and spells do not specify a particular attack stat, so for Fighter (and Paladin, interestingly enough) most class features don't care which path you take. Attacking earlier, having second-best defenses, no loss of damage (if only using one-handed weapons), better ranged options, having bonuses rather than penalties to stealth and acrobatics, and improving a common save (at least in the early game) sounds like it is well worth the trade-off of losing 2-3 points of average damage (1d8=4.5, 1d12=6.5, 2d6=7.5) ~or~ +1 AC, improved carrying capacity, a rare (but potentially dangerous) save, and athletic skills.
Doing much more than the above will, I feel, make the Dex-based Fighter--and in particular the archery-based Fighter--straight-up superior to the Str-based fighter most of the time. Whether you make the Str-based Fighter worse or the Dex-based Fighter better, any more relative improvement risks making Str not worth it to anyone who doesn't optimize heavily. Most "old-school" advocates I've known are rather heavily anti-optimization, and it seems that you feel the same way, so I wouldn't recommend changing things either way.
Last edited:
Aenghus
Explorer
If I'm meeting to set up a typical game of D&D as a player I might ask "Is anyone playing a healer?". By which I mean, as I go on to say, "Is someone planning to play a PC both willing and able to provide a useful amount of healing to the party". This being a meaningful question over say, "Is anyone playing a cleric", because PCs from classes who could potentially heal might not chose those options, or the player of that PC may not choose to make that healing available. This being a useful question because the presence or absence of a healer can change the desirability of various class combos in the party. A party with no dedicated healer may suggest more self-contained, defensive PCs, maybe with some minor healing ability on the side. A party with a dedicated healer may be able to support more glass cannons and/or more PCs with vulnerabilities.
And it's not just the hp. Healer classes often can solve the other maladies such as poisoning and curses that adventurers are prone to.
In this context "healer" is a role. There are consequences for the party if the role is filled, and consequences that need to be planned for if the role isn't filled.
(I would prefer to table any discussion on the availability of of NPC healing as that varies so much from game group to game group)
And it's not just the hp. Healer classes often can solve the other maladies such as poisoning and curses that adventurers are prone to.
In this context "healer" is a role. There are consequences for the party if the role is filled, and consequences that need to be planned for if the role isn't filled.
(I would prefer to table any discussion on the availability of of NPC healing as that varies so much from game group to game group)
