D&D 5E What potential problems are there with this medium armor fix?

[CapnZapp]

Hmmm, my own experience doesn't back that up... I've DMed a player who had a Silvan Elf fighter with Str 16, Dex 16, who wore Plate armour.

(we roll stats - he put his best 2 on Strength and Dex - my group are very much not powergamers/minmaxxers)

You aswered yourself there, bud.

 

[jaelis]

That still leaves barbarians.

Barbarians get other benefits to make up for that. If you don't think those benefits are strong enough, improve them. IE, increase their rage damage bonus.

 

[Shiroiken]

not much of an argument.

It still requires you to "burn" a 14 in dex. If your character is str based that is 14 that could have gone to con or some other stat.

No matter how you get the scores you still need investment of dex and still have lower AC than heavy armour. Also most of the time the same AC as light armour unless you want to give up stealth.

But having 14 dex, it's a shame to remove stealth from your options.

Not really. Having a moderate dex is useful for checks and saves. I've seen characters in plate mail with positive Dex modifiers for that reason. It may be "sub-optimal," but not everyone plays for min-max purposes.

Also, unless you have Heavy Armor Proficiency or a high Dex, Medium Armor grants you the best AC bonus. If you have a 12 or even a 10, you're far better off wearing medium armor than light (or heavy without proficiency). Of course, you might never play those types of characters, but others might. The TWF longsword Ranger comes to mind, along with pretty much any Barbarian, and about half the Clerics domains.

Maybe if medium armour master gave +1 to dex or give +1AC rather increased max dex for it.

Even if you think medium armor is fine, Medium Armor Master is terrible. Unless you already have the 16 Dex (so you've been wasting part of it until you got the feat) or wait until your next ability score increase/feat (thus wasting most of the feat for a few levels), the only good use of this feat is for a level 1 variant human. For this reason, I've already houseruled this to be +1AC instead (it's an elegant fix).

 

[Blue]

I like your solution a good deal. I think it makes some concepts more mechanically viable.

So I'm for it. But because it opens up new possibilities without being overpowered - I disagree that medium armor isn't the best choice at times just like light and heavy.

A combatant either focuses on Dexterity or Strength. For those focused on Dexterity, light armor is the superior option, and for those focused on Strength, heavy armor is the superior option. The only time medium armor is the best option* is for Strength focused characters who lack proficiency in heavy armor or want to avoid its stealth penalties (generally rangers, valor bards, or barbarians). All of that is fine.

Medium armor is the superior option in a lot of cases. First it is a falsehood that a combatant focuses on Dex or Str, using "focus" as you are above where the mod is high enough that light armor + dex will be higher then medium armor plus capped dex. Many armor wearers are not weapon wielders so Str or Dex are not their primary ability scores. Having a modest +0, +1 or +2 in DEX mod is a lot more reasonable from a point buy cost perspective then having higher when you are focusing on something else (Wis or Chr are most likely to have medium armor).

Also, even if you have heavy armor proficiency, many characters who are not wielding a weapon (or wielding a finessable weapon) would have a movement penalty with heavy armor making medium a better choice.

The other point vs. heavy armor is that heavy armro has no stealth options, so there are times when you'll want medium just for that, depending on your character.

In other words, medium armor already had a number of cases where it's the superior choice over light or heavy armor. They all have the times they shine with the current set-up.

All of that said, I still support your option because I think it opens up a few more concepts and archetypes. And I'm biased toward anything that weakens DEX as the uber-ability.

 

[schnee]

The problem is that a Strength focused character needs to put a 14 into Dexterity to get the full benefits of medium armor (and it is still the worst category of armor even with the 14 Dex). That is an absurd cost to pay just to have an average AC. If you don't spend that extra investment in Dexterity, then your AC is truly awful compared to everyone else wearing armor.

What's absurd about someone who is going to be in physical combat having above average capabilities in all of the physical demands it places?

Trained combatants develop strength, stamina, and agility. All of those things can help you win a fight. Hit harder, wear them down, or don't let them hit. They're not mutually exclusive, they're complementary. If you invest in those things, you're better at it.

If you don't put the 14 in DEX, it's usually because you're a caster - well then, you now have stronger stats in your casting attribute, so your strategy is to use spells to avoid combat, kill them from a distance, or use magic to protect yourself when necessary, or heal more afterwards. As they go up in level, that gets more and more possible.

If you have an extremely high DEX at high level, no matter the class, then that means - cool - you can ditch the Medium armor for lighter, quieter protection that works just as well. That's sweet!

There's no reason to force it so that all types of armor are equally as good for all people. It can be situational. Just like there's no reason to fight with a sling as an Elven Druid because you can use a bow, but in the right time and place being able to sling something accurately a long distance is quite useful.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Medium armor is the superior option in a lot of cases. First it is a falsehood that a combatant focuses on Dex or Str, using "focus" as you are above where the mod is high enough that light armor + dex will be higher then medium armor plus capped dex. Many armor wearers are not weapon wielders so Str or Dex are not their primary ability scores. Having a modest +0, +1 or +2 in DEX mod is a lot more reasonable from a point buy cost perspective then having higher when you are focusing on something else (Wis or Chr are most likely to have medium armor).

In fact light armor + Dex can NEVER* give you a better AC than medium armor + capped Dex. At Dex 20 light armor only catches up to medium armor; it never pulls ahead.

* Unless you have Dex 22+ via Epic Boons/etc.

In other words, medium armor already had a number of cases where it's the superior choice over light or heavy armor. They all have the times they shine with the current set-up.

Concur.

=====================

There's no reason to force it so that all types of armor are equally as good for all people. It can be situational. Just like there's no reason to fight with a sling as an Elven Druid because you can use a bow, but in the right time and place being able to sling something accurately a long distance is quite useful.

Incidentally, my favorite thing about the sling is that the ammo is cheap. I love the thought of a Hunter Sharpshooter who volleys with a whole fistful of bullets every round, killing whole squads of orcs at a time.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I had a real-time talk with a friend about the issue, and discovered in a few minutes what it took us a couple pages to really bring out here: We don't all share the same assumptions about the role of medium armor in the first place, so we can't really relate to other viewpoints, because they are aimed at different goals.

So I'll clarify how I see the role of medium armor, and armor in general. As a general rule, heavier armors should provide more benefit. The more armor proficiencies your class gets, the better AC you should be expected to have. All three armor categories should address equal categories of users. (Ie, "Strength focused" and "Dexterity focused" are equal categories, but "Requires both Strength and Dexterity" is not equal to the others, as it is a category that requires greater investment to get into. If the armor type that focused on that category were the clearly superior armor type overall, that would be probably be okay, but since it isn't, we default to the assumption of addressing equal categories of users.) I visualize Dexterity focused combatants differently than Strength focused combatants. The traditional warrior is a Strength focused combatant, who can wield a longsword well, while Dexterity focused combatants thing slippery folks who I do not see traipsing around in scale armor or half-plate. Scale and half-plate to me look like something a Strength focused combatant should be wearing. I also do not believe any armor category balance that is level discontinuous--ie, it's great at low levels and awful at high levels--is a proper armor balance.

To summarize my premises: The roles of armor categories are to provide good primary options for equal categories of characters over the course of their adventuring careers, in a manner that more or less supports D&D history and lore.

So, coming from those premises (and about 4 more I'm probably not even thinking to bring up) my concerns might make more sense.

Without feats, a light armor wearer can top out with an AC 17 and no stealth penalty, while a Dex (or Str and Dex) medium armor wearer can top out at AC 17 with stealth penalty, or AC 16 without, and a heavy armor wearer tops out at AC 18. That is just wrong to me. (My system isn't even going to fix that, BTW, it's just going to mitigate other issues. This is a remaining issue that isn't a big enough deal for me to worry about fixing.)

Requiring both Strength and Dexterity from a character for one armor type, while other armor types only require one, and not making having the dual attribute focus provide clearly superior armor fails for me.

(This was a good thought on how the system could have addressed that:

That creates the same problem that you dislike, punishing a high STR build with a 'need' for good DEX, as well. I think it'd be nice if medium armor were part of a cluster of mechanics that made OK-good STR & DEX builds more viable, rather than 'punishing' high-STR builds. Not sure what that'd be, exactly...

Edit: Ok, I thought of one. It's a little fiddly...

When you attack with a one-handed weapon (other than the rapier), a versatile weapon used two-handed, or a ranged weapon (other than a crossbow), you can combine your STR and DEX modifier to attack and damage, up to a total of +4.

I think that's a great idea, although I don't want to house rule that far. I'd have loved it if the game were designed that way.)

A valor bard or ranger wearing medium armors ought to be a Strength focused character for me, but they are punished for doing so with the current rules. (Unless they also have that 14 Dex, which I addressed above as setting up an unequal armor category requirement.)

If medium armor is better than light at lower levels, and then equal at higher levels, that's fine. Medium armor should be better than light. It probably shouldn't be better than heavy at any level. Note that my goal isn't actually to make medium armor better than light though. It is only to make it a good option for characters that make sense wearing it.

With bounded accuracy, mucking about with AC is always an issue for monsters and balance. and if fully a third of potentially affected Monsters see a rise, that could be a problem. Doubly so if they are mainly low level grunts who need the armour boost.
...
Basically, I'd increase CR of those monsters accordingly, or ignore the medium armour buff for them.

Yes, I have to be careful here. In general, an AC increase of 1 doesn't raise CR, but an AC increase of 2 might, and an AC increase of 3 is quite likely to. Ogres are the only +3, and I'd just change them to "studded leather" so they keep the MM AC. Duergar and Half-ogre are the +2s. That gives a +1 to four others, with 15 unchanged. What I'd actually do is just ignore everything but the Duergar and Half-ogre, and I'm not sure what I'd do with those actually, but I don't think those two monsters are going to hold me back.

Therefore, the only people who lose out are non-traditional melee characters - STR bards and Rangers who want to drop DEX below 14. And I would ask the questions, is this a) a major problem, and b) warrant a rule change. In both cases, I would answer: Probably not.

My answer is "Yes", which is a good indication of some of the differing premises on the topic. Those are classic class concepts for me.

Unless you plan on taking Dex above 16 as a second stat (to the detriment of other social stats or CON), then having Medium Armour in the majority of cases is better than not having it. Therefore it serves it's purpose for existing - as a gap blocker for certain classes.

I don't see that as a good role for an armor category. It's a different role than the other ones, which are to provide good primary options for equal categories.

[quote I can see how, if you are making the choice to pump DEX for combat optimal reasons, it might nark a bit. But if you're only concern is combat optimisation (oh I'm sorry - I meant "Progressing your character normally".......) are you really taking sub-optimal choices such as a melee STR Ranger anyway???[/QUOTE]

Sub-optimal is a matter of degrees. I'm currently playing a character that is all kinds of sub-optimal. High Charisma for no class benefits, that sort of thing. So I don't make all my characters optimized. I almost never take any stat below 10, and always have one or more 12+s purely for role-playing. I just think there are points where the rules go too far in penalizing choices. And making a longsword wielding ranger invest in Dexterity or lose 2 AC over the finesse ranger is pushing into that category.

I don't see a huge problem with it. Adding STR to AC may seem strange. Adding the /lower/ of STR or DEX to AC could 'realistically' represent high enough STR letting you move more or less unencumbered by the armor, which lets you take advantage of DEX if you've got it....

Yeah, it takes a bit of interpretation to fit it in without doing something unfortunate like that.

I have a better solution than the Strength or Dexterity mod after some discussion:

If you wear medium armor, you add your Dexterity or Constitution modifier (your choice), to a maximum of +2, to the base number from your armor type to determine your Armor Class.


This came as a suggestion after my friend indicated some very different assumptions--including that medium armor is good for characters with neither Strength or Dexterity focus (like certain casters). I disagree that that should be an armor design goal (see mine above), but switching to Constitution fixes that issue. Since medium armor works just fine if you drop the ability mod entirely and just raise all the ACs by 2, this works fine for PCs, most of whom have a 14+ Con. So since Constitution is already a secondary or tertiary attribute for pretty much every D&D character, all this requires is that you don't stick with a Dex 12 on a character you want to get the most out of medium armor with.

I even compared it against the MM statblocks, and it effects precisely the same numbers of monsters in precisely the same way. (Two monsters switch around so that a +1 becomes a Same on one and a Same becomes a +1 on another, but the final results are the same.)

In either case, the fluff is basically that you are using your physical fitness to better withstand blows to your armor. Heavy armor doesn't care, because it basically covers you so well that it just deflects off the attacks. The simulation-level is a bit strained by 3e standards, but it's right in line with 5e standards.

I also really like the idea of limiting light armor Dexterity mod to +4, but I'm not sure that rule is needed. I'd have liked it if the game came that way, though.

 

[Hillsy7]

I had a real-time talk with a friend about the issue, and discovered in a few minutes what it took us a couple pages to really bring out here: We don't all share the same assumptions about the role of medium armor in the first place, so we can't really relate to other viewpoints, because they are aimed at different goals.

So I'll clarify how I see the role of medium armor, and armor in general.

That's totally fair - at the end of the day D&D design choices are exactly that: Choices. And unless you're being asshat unreasonable, most positions on those choices are valid. I disagree with them, but they are an equally valid way of playing the game...

Soooooooooooo......

From that position, firstly your initial fix doesn't make too much stuff go wonky other than the Barbarian. From a design point of view, it shifts medium armour from the concept of either a) free AC for some caster classes, or b) the choice for those characters who are conceived as having a little bit of DEX, but not all of it, into the realm of "If you ain't all DEX and can't wear heavy, this is the armour for you, and you won't know the difference". In that, it fills the brief - Most classes who use it will immediately outshine Light armour people (thematically you can argue that's fair), but Light armour is ever so slightly better long term (no disadvantage on checks).

Personally, aside from calculating out all the Barbarian builds and ramifications, I wouldn't even go beyond your fix, and mebbe up the CR of the +2 AC increased Monsters......
Dex characters will still go Dex (unless they have 14 in STR and Medium armour proficiency - Then they might run with Medium armour early game).
STR characters without heavy get an early boost, and finish about equal with Light armour end game (lets face it, who's stealthing with less than 14 DEX and max STR anyway).
Heavy remains the best option, but the most restrictive to who can use it.

 

[CapnZapp]

So it's an NPC armor?

Yes.

That, and a Barbarian armor. And a non-typical player character armor. And a "I'm wearing this awesome magical medium armor for its properties despite losing a point of AC" kind of armor when the DM wants to hand out cool magical armor without breaking bounded accuracy.

So it's okay. It isn't great, but then it doesn't HAVE to be.

(Emphasis mine, because you should homebrew medium armor because you want to, not because the game needs it and not because there's something wrong with it. Will the game be better off with a third kind of awesome armor? Perhaps, but the danger of allowing a cornercase to make it too good isn't insignificant.)

Anyway, if you absolutely must make medium armor a minmaxing optima, don't do it on AC. Much better to introduce a whole new dimension, such as speed or stealth. Either that or rejig the entire armor table so medium and heavy armors are the things you wear for AC, and light armor is the thing you wear for sneak and stealth.

Either way, it's a non-trivial renovation, and at that point, I really suggest you spend your time on making up awesome scenarios for your players instead

 

[CapnZapp]

I have no problems with Medium Armor -- most characters I make chose it, even when they have heavy armour proficiency, because a breastplate or chain shirt work so much better in my mind's eye for day-to-day adventuring than a character clumping around in Plate mail all the time.

Wouldn't an even simpler solution be to cap the AC benefit from Dexterity of light armour at +4?

I think that accomplishes your goals.

I was wasting mental power at work today thinking about medium armor.

I think this is a better solution. The"problem" between light and medium armor crops up when you get that +5 in dexterity. This, generally speaking, won't occur until sixth level (for a fighter) or eighth level (everyone else).

Medium armor is now equal to light armor for no disadvantage at sneaking, but it costs a lot more to get there. And medium armor is still one less than heavy for sneaking disadvantage.

Agreed. Instead of mucking with medium armor (potentially destroying an off-kilter build or making an corner-case build too strong) nerf light armor one step (without actually changing the armors themselves). Remember: You're not nerfing light armor, you're nerfing maxxed-out light armor. This pretty much guarantees you're not wrecking any weak builds that really need every point of AC they can get.

My fix for padded, hide, and ring armors: you can use them without penalty at one lower level of proficiency (thought they still count as armor of their type). So wizard could use padded armor without penalty (other than to stealth), a rogue could use hide, and a ranger could use ring. That makes padded an option for non-proficient types, and it makes hide and ring better options for things like outfitting an army on a budget.

Very interesting proposal. In other words, these three act as gateway armors, getting a justification for their existance by being halfway between two tiers of armor.

Of course, padded is mostly interesting to "clothies" without easy access to mage armor, since I assume it will still only operate when the wearer is wearing no armor? Or do you mean for padded to count as "no armor", effectively giving wizards (but not drac sorqs) an AC bump?

Hide will probably remain as the armor you use when you have no options (because you're a primitive or broke NPC rather than a wealthy PC), and that's okay. Ring is probably going to be used by cheapskate warlords for their armies just as you say.

In other words, hide and ring will probably still not feature in any actual PC builds, but that's okay. The "upgrade" will still make it easier to explain why anybody bothers to make' em.

Thanks for the suggestion!