D&D 5E Medium armor master: Too weak?

[Horwath]

Yes, and no.

Yes it would be better if it was more balanced.

But you also need to consider the cost of the fix. If it's going to take 40 hours to fix a feat that's only ever so slightly off, and force everyone to change their books, and force everyone going to AL to have another rule to memorize, it's not worth while.

Everyone post here suggestion that they would implement to their gaming group.

Like all house rules.

Posting here is just checking and rechecking how underpowered/overpowered the change is.

Opinion of 20 people usually is better than only one. We all have tons of ideas for changing something within a game, and these boards are good place to bounce those ideas around.
It's in a way quality control. And maybe 1% of the ideas will get to the devs for eminent 5.5E

 

[mellored]

Everyone post here suggestion that they would implement to their gaming group.

Like all house rules.

Posting here is just checking and rechecking how underpowered/overpowered the change is.

Opinion of 20 people usually is better than only one. We all have tons of ideas for changing something within a game, and these boards are good place to bounce those ideas around.
It's in a way quality control. And maybe 1% of the ideas will get to the devs for eminent 5.5E

Sure, i houserule it to +1 AC. That said, i still haven't had anyone take it. People either want AC, in which case they take heavy armor, not worried about it in which case medium in good enough, or they like stealth.

 

[Celtavian]

I can see reasons to take it. It could use one more thing like +1 dex to make it really worthwhile.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Opinion of 20 people usually is better than only one.

In general, that is probably true. In the case of D&D 5th edition, I think that it very much isn't.

The reason being that these 20 people are so different in opinion that there is no common accepted power point to aim for, so an opinion of something being "too weak" or "too strong" is not inherently a helpful opinion - the feat my be "too weak" for person A and "too strong" for person B because they have entirely different definitions of "just right," which are inherently incompatible.

That creates a situation in which the opinions which are actually useful, meaning that listening to those opinions to the exclusion of all others results in the best chance of the game ending up "just right" for your specific group, are strictly limited: You, and your group - everything else has little hope to be more than just noise.

 

[jaelis]

I can see reasons to take it. It could use one more thing like +1 dex to make it really worthwhile.

I don't know... with that a rogue could take Moderately Armored plus Medium Armor master and gain +3 AC (with shield) in exchange for giving up +2 dex. That seems a little too good to me, given that they won't have much trouble maxing Dex anyway. I guess it delays maxing Dex a bit, but on the other hand until you max your dex you have +4 or +5 AC.

I don't know if it's broken, but I think it would be really attractive, and personally I'd just like it better if rogues stuck with light armor in general.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes, and no.

Yes it would be better if it was more balanced.

But you also need to consider the cost of the fix. If it's going to take 40 hours to fix a feat that's only ever so slightly off, and force everyone to change their books, and force everyone going to AL to have another rule to memorize, it's not worth while.

Exactly.

And don't forget another possible cost: the effort spent on damage control if the fix turns out to be flawed somehow (too good, most likely).

The hard truth is that feats must be designed for the optimal case. It's far too easy to dismiss that, thinking it should be good enough for your middle of the road build and thinking corner cases never happen.

And in your personal campaign that might well be true.

But posting your fix on these forum will inevitably mean someone somewhere will use the feat for a build where it simply breaks.

That's the view I'm taking when I say "it might be kind of weak, but it's best to leave it that way"

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have given the feat to a medium armored human ranger at level 1. Found it flavourful and useful. Was an effective +2 AC over studded leather. Stats were standard array with 16 dex, 14 con 14 wis.

 

[Ristamar]

I have given the feat to a medium armored human ranger at level 1. Found it flavourful and useful. Was an effective +2 AC over studded leather. Stats were standard array with 16 dex, 14 con 14 wis.

It does often seem to be more useful at lower levels when characters don't have enhanced ability scores and/or a lot of gold to spend on heavy armor. The early days of a PC's adventuring career are often unduly overlooked and dismissed in theorycrafting.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I thought it would stay a good feat, even later on since it will allow for different paths than just raising dex all the time. Also 18 AC with no disadvantage looks sexy.

 

[CapnZapp]

It does often seem to be more useful at lower levels when characters don't have enhanced ability scores and/or a lot of gold to spend on heavy armor. The early days of a PC's adventuring career are often unduly overlooked and dismissed in theorycrafting.

Feats only worthwhile during the early days of a PC's adventuring career are quite rightly overlooked and dismissed in theorycrafting. Since there are feats at least as attractive that last for longer, Medium Armor is not a feat useful to theorycrafters.