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

[CapnZapp]

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.

Your reply reads as if I think barbarians are weak somehow?

I was merely pointing out that even if medium armor is only used by barbarians, they're still used by barbarians. As an argument for leaving medium armor be, since being "used by barbarians" is not "being used by nobody". The glass isn't almost empty, it's far from empty kind of deal

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

On the other hand, the most popular archetype is the scantily dressed hunk or gal that somehow still sports the best AC in the game... just sayin' your opinion is completely outdated...

 

[schnee]

Not bad. (Obama face meme here.)

I'm really leery of home-brew that messes with AC, HP or ability scores in general - those have a LOT of dependencies and systems keyed off of them - but it looks like you've really done your homework.

That said, take that fix idea by the 'CON is overpowered' thread. I wanna see what happens.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't see an issue. By the time the Dex based character gets AC 17 at level 8 (and has zero feats btw unless he is a variant human), the Valor Bard has had an entire level of Greater Invisibility once a day where his AC doesn't matter much. Or the Barbarian has advantage on init, the ability to dodge, and possibly the ability to take half damage from nearly all attacks.

It's a balance. If you want to take a Str based character in medium armor, either invest in 12 or 14 Dex, or take upwards of 10% more hits per encounter. It's not like 2 AC is going to break the bank (unless the foe has advantage, then it's a fairly hefty penalty: e.g. 40% chance to hit goes to 64% chance to hit where 30% chance to hit goes to 51%, the 10% difference in AC becomes a 13% difference).

Going 12 Dex, 12 Con, or going 10 Dex 14 Con can be even better than going 14 Dex 10 Con. A Str based Valor Bard gets hit 5% or 10% more often, but he also has ~20% or ~40% more hit points and saves on his Concentration spells slightly more often (assuming that he started 16 Str and 16 Cha, there's not a lot of point buy points left over). Alternatively, start with a 14 Str or a 14 Cha and boost both Dex and Con.

This just seems to be a case of the MAD of a Valor Bard or some other medium armor PC not being optimal.

 

[jaelis]

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!

Glad you like it padded still counts as armor, so it's useful for a wizard/sorc without mage armor. Hide is in principle useful for a low dex warlock, and makes such a character a bit more feasible. Ring becomes an option for a low dex cleric who is broke. But I agree, for the most partit just makes it more reasonable that the armors exist

 

[CapnZapp]

Glad you like it padded still counts as armor, so it's useful for a wizard/sorc without mage armor.

Just pointing out that you can't cast mage armor while you're wearing padded in that case.

Getting that +1 AC is probably not worth losing the ability to cast Mage Armor for.

(While a bonus to AC is good, it still assumes that AC is going to see use. A +1 AC bonus is still useless if you're not gonna use it. And any AC worse than ~15 is too crappy to be useful - if your AC is that low, you're much better off thinking about ways not to get attacked at all than improving your AC)

And by "sorc" I assume you mean "wild sorcerer". Padded is effectively a -2 AC penalty for drac sorqs.


PS. All of this is just nitpicking. Still a great suggestion *thumbs up*

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

I don't see how this helps much except maybe for the wizard (and even then it interferes with mage armor).

Hide is worse than studded leather except for cost (and 1 pound of weight) and only one AC better than leather.

Ring mail requires 13 Str and for 20 GP less, it's the same as Scale mail (without the Dex bonus which actually makes it worse for some PCs/NPCs).


For PCs, this houserule makes little sense, except maybe at first level and even then, starting equipment for each class tends to be as good (e.g. Rangers get scale mail starting out, so why would they want ring mail?). Maybe in those rare circumstances where the DM captures and PCs and take all of their stuff, but still...

For an NPC army on a budget, it makes more sense. But if you are outfitting an army, chances are these are already semi-trained troops and Ring Mail would be an option anyway. If they have little or no training, why are you creating an army of total scrubs? Just to see them get killed?

 

[Staffan]

I'm assuming that medium armor is intended to be a reasonable choice for characters not proficient in heavy armor, and should be somewhere on par with light armor, just different. RAW, it fails in that.

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.

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.

I don't really follow your reasoning here. Let's take a Valor bard, and give him the following pre-race stats: Str 15, Dex 12, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 14. Make him a half-elf, and you get Str 16, Con 14, and Cha 16. This guy can either wear studded leather for AC 13, or medium armor for 15 (or 16 once he can afford half-plate). That makes medium armor a very useful choice.

But, you say, he could have had Str 12 and Dex 16 instead, and then he'd have AC 15 even in light armor! Sure. But then he would be pretty bad at melee without finesse weapons. That means he'd have to fight with a rapier in melee (or a shortsword or something wimpy like that, and you don't become a valor bard to use a short sword), and that's a bit limiting. For one thing, all finesse weapons are one-handers, so you don't get to use the real heavy-hitters. And when the party starts hitting the mid-levels and finding magic weapons, there's nothing saying those would be rapiers unless the DM just happens to tailor treasure to the party. That dancing longsword? Not yours. The trident of fish command? Nope. The mace of disruption? Sorry. Even that relatively low-key battle axe +1 should probably go to someone else in the party.

 

[jaelis]

Just pointing out that you can't cast mage armor while you're wearing padded in that case.

Getting that +1 AC is probably not worth losing the ability to cast Mage Armor for.

(While a bonus to AC is good, it still assumes that AC is going to see use. A +1 AC bonus is still useless if you're not gonna use it. And any AC worse than ~15 is too crappy to be useful - if your AC is that low, you're much better off thinking about ways not to get attacked at all than improving your AC)

And by "sorc" I assume you mean "wild sorcerer". Padded is effectively a -2 AC penalty for drac sorqs.

Yep and yep. In my games there are quite a few wizards without mage armor, at least at low levels.

I don't see how this helps much except maybe for the wizard (and even then it interferes with mage armor).

Hide is worse than studded leather except for cost (and 1 pound of weight) and only one AC better than leather.

Yeah, I shouldn't post before breakfast But it makes more sense with my other houserule that studded leather gives disadvantage on stealth.

Ring mail requires 13 Str and for 20 GP less, it's the same as Scale mail (without the Dex bonus which actually makes it worse for some PCs/NPCs).

Actually ring mail has no Str requirement, to my knowledge.

 

[KarinsDad]

Actually ring mail has no Str requirement, to my knowledge.

Nope, it doesn't. I make a lot of mistakes posting because even when I look at a page in the book, my dyslexic brain still screws stuff up.