However, regardless of everything else. There is nothing wrong with dipping into Magical Armor as an extension of mundane armor. Options like Adamantine Armor hardly qualify as "magical", but it provides a nice bump to armor durability by way of negating Critical Hits.
I'm all for revisiting alternative materials for mundane equipment: Adamantine, Mithril, Darkwood, Electrum, Glassteel, etc...
I was thinking something along the lines of only one small change at a time.
Like change the shields numbers first. Or removing the dex restrictions on armor types. Or add a simple general damage reduction option. Something simple to remember like one point of damage reduction per armor type per attack. Not counting shields.
Simple rules that can be added one at a time as the table wants or needs.
Leave the tables of number for later because they tend to intimidate some people. And really they are only needed for the number crunching players.
However, regardless of everything else. There is nothing wrong with dipping into Magical Armor as an extension of mundane armor. Options like Adamantine Armor hardly qualify as "magical", but it provides a nice bump to armor durability by way of negating Critical Hits.
I'm all for revisiting alternative materials for mundane equipment: Adamantine, Mithril, Darkwood, Electrum, Glassteel, etc...
I wonder what they’re gonna do with Adamantine Armor in 1DD since they’re thinking of doing away with monster crits.
With Death Saves, players seem to rarely be in any real danger. However, I get that DMs are often uncomfortable when they accidentally kill a player and are prone to fudging dice to play it safe. There is something to be said for trading random Monster Crits for something like a rechargeable "Encounter Crit". It would be weird to give every individual Goblin their own recharge ability, but being encouraged to call the crits when it seems impactful could be fun.
I'd venture to guess that one of the most-often recurring debates in the hobby is that of martial vs. caster class balance. I don't see anything wrong with increasing the effectiveness of martial classes (that is, the classes that most often make use of armour) with regard to making them harder to hurt than they presently are. I *don't* feel that low-level combat is well-balanced at present, and would very much like to see a Fighter or Paladin in heavy armour be able to expect to ignore attacks from enemies more than they do.
Yes and no. "Martial vs caster class balance" is a common sticking point. How much damage fighters take and receive isn't part of that sticking point though, and low level combat is also notoriously kind of boring for spellcasters in general.
Improving the AC of a low level character does basically nothing to address any of the core problems martials have and just encourages DMs to use stronger enemies (which will make low level fights even swingier and more annoying for everyone else).
With Death Saves, players seem to rarely be in any real danger. However, I get that DMs are often uncomfortable when they accidentally kill a player and are prone to fudging dice to play it safe. There is something to be said for trading random Monster Crits for something like a rechargeable "Encounter Crit". It would be weird to give every individual Goblin their own recharge ability, but being encouraged to call the crits when it seems impactful could be fun.
They’re not gonna give mooks like regular gobbos recharge abilities, only the biguns will still get ‘em.
They’re not gonna give mooks like regular gobbos recharge abilities, only the biguns will still get ‘em.
It's not at all clear that they'll remove monster crits at all, it wasn't well received and, while they say the current document doesn't reflect feedback from the prior, I'm sure they've checked the feedback from the first survey by now.
It would be interesting to have a way of varying mookness for monsters. In general the more of a given monster you have, the less data you want to track for them -- at first level when you're fighting four goblins, sure, give them special moves. At fifth level when you're fighting twenty, no way.
One thing I considered was giving a lot of monsters a fighting style. If you want them more complicated, give them Superior Technique. If you want them simple, give them Dueling or Archery or some such.
They’re not gonna give mooks like regular gobbos recharge abilities, only the biguns will still get ‘em.
It's not at all clear that they'll remove monster crits at all, it wasn't well received and, while they say the current document doesn't reflect feedback from the prior, I'm sure they've checked the feedback from the first survey by now.
It would be interesting to have a way of varying mookness for monsters. In general the more of a given monster you have, the less data you want to track for them -- at first level when you're fighting four goblins, sure, give them special moves. At fifth level when you're fighting twenty, no way.
You think they'll bring back the Minion type enemies from 4E?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
They’re not gonna give mooks like regular gobbos recharge abilities, only the biguns will still get ‘em.
It's not at all clear that they'll remove monster crits at all, it wasn't well received and, while they say the current document doesn't reflect feedback from the prior, I'm sure they've checked the feedback from the first survey by now.
It would be interesting to have a way of varying mookness for monsters. In general the more of a given monster you have, the less data you want to track for them -- at first level when you're fighting four goblins, sure, give them special moves. At fifth level when you're fighting twenty, no way.
One thing I considered was giving a lot of monsters a fighting style. If you want them more complicated, give them Superior Technique. If you want them simple, give them Dueling or Archery or some such.
I actually didn’t mind getting rid of monster crits. It was the rest of the crit rules from that UA that I disagreed with to varying degrees, but dropping monster crits was fine by me.
You’re absolutely right about needing to keep monsters simpler when there’s a hoard of them.
I have experimented with adding various feats to monsters, as well as adding races and backgrounds to the “any race” monsters. It’s a great way to spice things up a bit.
You think they'll bring back the Minion type enemies from 4E?
Maybe, but not quite what I was after.
One of the problems with the way 4e did its scaling is that it was hard to change the role of a specific monster. In 5e, an ogre can change role from boss to mook over the course of a campaign. In 4e, the xp math more or less worked if you just used a standard monster at level+10 as a boss, level-8 as a minion, but in practice doing so sucked.
So I've made the slightly-more-complex version, which involves a little more calculation before the fight but after that your AC acts the same as before. I'm now making more complicated optional rules for Armour, and I've got 2 options to pick from:
1: Flat damage reduction. Your Armour reduces incoming Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage by a fixed amount. This will make heavy armour more effective vs "death by a thousand cuts".
2: Total damage absorbtion - armour has a new form of temporary hitpoints which you can use to absorb an amount of Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage, and once it's gone, damage hits you. This comes back at the start of each of your turns.
I'm leaning towards the first one, because it's far simpler to keep track of. Thoughts?
I would go with the first - it’s far easier for the DM and player to keep track of and could probably be put into a table: Armour. AC. Slashing DR. Piercing DR. Bashing DR. Max Dex Bonus. Other gambeson/Padded 11. —— —— -1. +4. Stealth soft leather 11. -1. -1. -1. +5. Stealthy cuir Boilli. 12. -2. -1 -1. +3 -1 to stealth Hide. 12 -2 -1. -1. +2. -1 to stealth Chain Shirt. 13. -3. -2. -1. +2. Disadvantage. To stealth Scale. 14. -3. -2. -1. +2. Stealth disadvantage Breastplate. 14. -3. -2. -2. +2. Stealthy Hauberk. 15. -3. -2. -2. +2. Stealthy (Light chain, plates between 2 layers of cloth/soft leather) Half plate. 16. -4. -3. -2. +1. Stealth disadvantage ( breast & back, lamellar skirt, greaves/boots) Chainmail. 17. -4. -3 -2. 0 Stealth disadvantage lamellar. 18. -5. -3. -2. 0. Stealth disadvantage (banded/splint by culture) platemail. 19. -5. -4. -3. 0. Stealth disadvantage (Breast & back over chain + other plate pieces) articulated plate. 20. -6. -4. -3. +1. Stealth disadvantage Buckler. +PB —- —- —- —— shield. +1+PB large Shield. +2+PB
costs will probably have to be increased for the heavier armors to force them deeper into the tiers and then some of the special armors (elven chain, Mithril, Admantine, Dragon Scale, etc will have to be adjusted for a better fit.
Just go back and play 1st or 2nd edition if you want modifiers based on the attack type.
Farling beat me to it. I started reading this thread and got a headache. Why not bring back THACO, speed factors, and a DM screen with tables on tables of Thieves attack on this table while fighters attack on that table etc.
if you want to vary and buff armor AC that’s fine. Though I’m not sure how that affects Bounded Accuracy. Or allowing higher Dex modifiers for medium armor and +1 or +2 on heavy seems easy enough. But this 1/2 PB round up unless there’s an R in the name of the month then it’s rounded down blah blah blah seems a bit much.
I guess you could make 10 variations of armor for each light, medium, and heavy categories but basically everyone just rushes to the top armor for the category anyway (studded leather for light, half plate for medium, and plate for heavy) so I don’t see it being much different with all the extra complexity added in.
Why not give martials a class feature that just gives them bonuses to AC to reflect their skill on using armor?
There are house rules for a reason. Make armors as powerful and complex as needed that way.
I do agree that having separate damage modifiers for piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning is a step towards realism perhaps but does overcomplicate things. Here's what I've put together for the basic side of things (IE, you need to calculate your AC once, as you do now, but it's got a few more things to consider). Don't just take the numbers on the tabl e- if youre proficient in all the armour you're wearing, you add your Proficiency Bonus, and if you're proficient in Shields, you add half your proficiency bonus (rounding down).
Goal was to make it more in-depth, but to also make it something you don't need to change often or recalculate mid-combat, excepting shields and helmets. If you want an absolute tank, you can have plate armour, full helm, and tower shield, but you sacrifice having disadvantage on stealth checks, perception checks, and dexterity saves!
Still working on how to make the more complicated one not too complicated!
I learn long ago that 1E did bad research in armour. I learn long ago that 1E hate wizards because they started with 4 HP and did not get con bonuses. I learn this century to accept D&D is a table top game and no research still has been done on armour. The OP forgets about "Bounded Accuracy" Aka the reason AC only goes up to 30. Y
On page 47 of 1E MM. Goblin move 30. AC 14. HP 1d6+1(4). Damage 1d6 or weapon type. Weapon proficiencies Short sword, military pick, sling, spear, morning star. I never used weapon speed, factor, etc for the monsters in 1E. And to AC 20 in 1E your goblin would need a nat 20. of course since 40 to 400 are going to appear.
I do agree that having separate damage modifiers for piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning is a step towards realism perhaps but does overcomplicate things. Here's what I've put together for the basic side of things (IE, you need to calculate your AC once, as you do now, but it's got a few more things to consider). Don't just take the numbers on the tabl e- if youre proficient in all the armour you're wearing, you add your Proficiency Bonus, and if you're proficient in Shields, you add half your proficiency bonus (rounding down).
Goal was to make it more in-depth, but to also make it something you don't need to change often or recalculate mid-combat, excepting shields and helmets. If you want an absolute tank, you can have plate armour, full helm, and tower shield, but you sacrifice having disadvantage on stealth checks, perception checks, and dexterity saves!
Still working on how to make the more complicated one not too complicated!
So what does unarmored AC become in this rather terrible nerfing of armor at low levels (AKA the place where most gameplay happens)? Unless it's also dropped (ouch), it looks like there isn't any benefit for classes that are proficient only in light armor to wear armor at all until they hit at least 4th level.
Also, if you really want to be realistic about armor, then shields should provide less benefit the heavier your armor is. Historically, either heavy shields were used with medium to no armor, or heavy armor was used without shields. The image of a European knight in full plate armor astride an armored war horse with shield and weapon in hand is iconic, but in practice the shield was redundant with armor that heavy and saw far more use with people who didn't have such imposing armor.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I do agree that having separate damage modifiers for piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning is a step towards realism perhaps but does overcomplicate things. Here's what I've put together for the basic side of things (IE, you need to calculate your AC once, as you do now, but it's got a few more things to consider). Don't just take the numbers on the tabl e- if youre proficient in all the armour you're wearing, you add your Proficiency Bonus, and if you're proficient in Shields, you add half your proficiency bonus (rounding down).
Goal was to make it more in-depth, but to also make it something you don't need to change often or recalculate mid-combat, excepting shields and helmets. If you want an absolute tank, you can have plate armour, full helm, and tower shield, but you sacrifice having disadvantage on stealth checks, perception checks, and dexterity saves!
Still working on how to make the more complicated one not too complicated!
So what does unarmored AC become in this rather terrible nerfing of armor at low levels (AKA the place where most gameplay happens)? Unless it's also dropped (ouch), it looks like there isn't any benefit for classes that are proficient only in light armor to wear armor at all until they hit at least 4th level.
Also, if you really want to be realistic about armor, then shields should provide less benefit the heavier your armor is. Historically, either heavy shields were used with medium to no armor, or heavy armor was used without shields. The image of a European knight in full plate armor astride an armored war horse with shield and weapon in hand is iconic, but in practice the shield was redundant with armor that heavy and saw far more use with people who didn't have such imposing armor.
That is indee a very good point! I reduced the light armour to compensate for the shields and helms being available, but you are correct that this puts it on par with unarmoured (which would now be 8+dex+prof). I will go back and make sure that the light armour is actually worth taking!
Now, to address what you're saying is a nerf to armour, do you still think it so? If so, why? (remember that in these rules, if you're proficient in armour, you can add your proficiency bonus to your AC!)
As comparisons:
Dex+3 character in Studded leather, with a shield:
Current: 12+dex, +2 for shield, AC17, doesn't improve as you level up.
New: 10+dex+prof., +1+1/2prof for shield, so 10+3+2, +1+1 for shield, so AC17. But levelling up will give you:
At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC18 At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC20 At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC21 At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC23
Representing your improved ability to use your armour.
An absolute tank build (Plate, Tower shield, Full helm, somehow as these aren't starting equipment) would be as follows: At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC23 At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC24 At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC26 At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC27 At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC29
(Wondering if the Tower Shield is too much. Maybe it would be better just having the 3 shield sizes, to drop each of those maximum AC's by 1!)
If I were to apply the same logic to unarmoured defence and natural defence - turning the barbarian one from 10+dex+con to 8+dex+con+prof - then the highest you could get would be AC20 (+5 in both stats)+4 from Tower Shield. Helmets are armour so won't work with it. So a barb would be:
At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC24 At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC25 At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC27 At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC28 At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC30
Which seems very powerful, but then they will be fighting monsters with as much as +19 to hit, so hitting on an 11+ isn' t that difficult. It also means smaller, weaker creatures will become less of a threat over time because you can avoid being hit, not because you can just take being stabbed!
Definitely thinking of scrapping the Tower Shield, though, to tone it down a teeny bit!
Alternatively, I could make it half prof on everything rather than full prof, so that plate+tower shield build would look like:
At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC22 At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC22 At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC24 At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC24 At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC26
Which is honestly a little bit more manageable, but still a nice progression. What do you all think? full prof. or half prof.? If I do half prof., I'll have to increase the base AC by 1 to make it all match up at level 1 still, but if I also drop the Tower Shield, then it'll still be as above with a Pavise!
However, regardless of everything else. There is nothing wrong with dipping into Magical Armor as an extension of mundane armor. Options like Adamantine Armor hardly qualify as "magical", but it provides a nice bump to armor durability by way of negating Critical Hits.
I'm all for revisiting alternative materials for mundane equipment: Adamantine, Mithril, Darkwood, Electrum, Glassteel, etc...
I was thinking something along the lines of only one small change at a time.
Like change the shields numbers first.
Or removing the dex restrictions on armor types.
Or add a simple general damage reduction option. Something simple to remember like one point of damage reduction per armor type per attack. Not counting shields.
Simple rules that can be added one at a time as the table wants or needs.
Leave the tables of number for later because they tend to intimidate some people. And really they are only needed for the number crunching players.
I wonder what they’re gonna do with Adamantine Armor in 1DD since they’re thinking of doing away with monster crits.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ooooh, interesting. I hadn't heard that and it makes me feel weird. Did they say why?
They said people don’t like it because it makes combat too swingy, and apparently Monsters have Recharge abilities so DMs don’t need crits. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hmmm.... lame.
With Death Saves, players seem to rarely be in any real danger. However, I get that DMs are often uncomfortable when they accidentally kill a player and are prone to fudging dice to play it safe. There is something to be said for trading random Monster Crits for something like a rechargeable "Encounter Crit". It would be weird to give every individual Goblin their own recharge ability, but being encouraged to call the crits when it seems impactful could be fun.
Yes and no. "Martial vs caster class balance" is a common sticking point. How much damage fighters take and receive isn't part of that sticking point though, and low level combat is also notoriously kind of boring for spellcasters in general.
Improving the AC of a low level character does basically nothing to address any of the core problems martials have and just encourages DMs to use stronger enemies (which will make low level fights even swingier and more annoying for everyone else).
They’re not gonna give mooks like regular gobbos recharge abilities, only the biguns will still get ‘em.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's not at all clear that they'll remove monster crits at all, it wasn't well received and, while they say the current document doesn't reflect feedback from the prior, I'm sure they've checked the feedback from the first survey by now.
It would be interesting to have a way of varying mookness for monsters. In general the more of a given monster you have, the less data you want to track for them -- at first level when you're fighting four goblins, sure, give them special moves. At fifth level when you're fighting twenty, no way.
One thing I considered was giving a lot of monsters a fighting style. If you want them more complicated, give them Superior Technique. If you want them simple, give them Dueling or Archery or some such.
You think they'll bring back the Minion type enemies from 4E?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I actually didn’t mind getting rid of monster crits. It was the rest of the crit rules from that UA that I disagreed with to varying degrees, but dropping monster crits was fine by me.
You’re absolutely right about needing to keep monsters simpler when there’s a hoard of them.
I have experimented with adding various feats to monsters, as well as adding races and backgrounds to the “any race” monsters. It’s a great way to spice things up a bit.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Maybe, but not quite what I was after.
One of the problems with the way 4e did its scaling is that it was hard to change the role of a specific monster. In 5e, an ogre can change role from boss to mook over the course of a campaign. In 4e, the xp math more or less worked if you just used a standard monster at level+10 as a boss, level-8 as a minion, but in practice doing so sucked.
That is true.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Just go back and play 1st or 2nd edition if you want modifiers based on the attack type.
5e has everything simplified for a reason.
Farling beat me to it. I started reading this thread and got a headache. Why not bring back THACO, speed factors, and a DM screen with tables on tables of Thieves attack on this table while fighters attack on that table etc.
if you want to vary and buff armor AC that’s fine. Though I’m not sure how that affects Bounded Accuracy. Or allowing higher Dex modifiers for medium armor and +1 or +2 on heavy seems easy enough. But this 1/2 PB round up unless there’s an R in the name of the month then it’s rounded down blah blah blah seems a bit much.
I guess you could make 10 variations of armor for each light, medium, and heavy categories but basically everyone just rushes to the top armor for the category anyway (studded leather for light, half plate for medium, and plate for heavy) so I don’t see it being much different with all the extra complexity added in.
Why not give martials a class feature that just gives them bonuses to AC to reflect their skill on using armor?
There are house rules for a reason. Make armors as powerful and complex as needed that way.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I do agree that having separate damage modifiers for piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning is a step towards realism perhaps but does overcomplicate things. Here's what I've put together for the basic side of things (IE, you need to calculate your AC once, as you do now, but it's got a few more things to consider). Don't just take the numbers on the tabl e- if youre proficient in all the armour you're wearing, you add your Proficiency Bonus, and if you're proficient in Shields, you add half your proficiency bonus (rounding down).
Goal was to make it more in-depth, but to also make it something you don't need to change often or recalculate mid-combat, excepting shields and helmets. If you want an absolute tank, you can have plate armour, full helm, and tower shield, but you sacrifice having disadvantage on stealth checks, perception checks, and dexterity saves!
Still working on how to make the more complicated one not too complicated!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I learn long ago that 1E did bad research in armour. I learn long ago that 1E hate wizards because they started with 4 HP and did not get con bonuses. I learn this century to accept D&D is a table top game and no research still has been done on armour. The OP forgets about "Bounded Accuracy" Aka the reason AC only goes up to 30. Y
On page 47 of 1E MM. Goblin move 30. AC 14. HP 1d6+1(4). Damage 1d6 or weapon type. Weapon proficiencies Short sword, military pick, sling, spear, morning star. I never used weapon speed, factor, etc for the monsters in 1E. And to AC 20 in 1E your goblin would need a nat 20. of course since 40 to 400 are going to appear.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
So what does unarmored AC become in this rather terrible nerfing of armor at low levels (AKA the place where most gameplay happens)? Unless it's also dropped (ouch), it looks like there isn't any benefit for classes that are proficient only in light armor to wear armor at all until they hit at least 4th level.
Also, if you really want to be realistic about armor, then shields should provide less benefit the heavier your armor is. Historically, either heavy shields were used with medium to no armor, or heavy armor was used without shields. The image of a European knight in full plate armor astride an armored war horse with shield and weapon in hand is iconic, but in practice the shield was redundant with armor that heavy and saw far more use with people who didn't have such imposing armor.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That is indee a very good point! I reduced the light armour to compensate for the shields and helms being available, but you are correct that this puts it on par with unarmoured (which would now be 8+dex+prof). I will go back and make sure that the light armour is actually worth taking!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Updated!
Now, to address what you're saying is a nerf to armour, do you still think it so? If so, why? (remember that in these rules, if you're proficient in armour, you can add your proficiency bonus to your AC!)
As comparisons:
Dex+3 character in Studded leather, with a shield:
Current: 12+dex, +2 for shield, AC17, doesn't improve as you level up.
New: 10+dex+prof., +1+1/2prof for shield, so 10+3+2, +1+1 for shield, so AC17. But levelling up will give you:
At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC18
At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC20
At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC21
At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC23
Representing your improved ability to use your armour.
An absolute tank build (Plate, Tower shield, Full helm, somehow as these aren't starting equipment) would be as follows:
At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC23
At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC24
At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC26
At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC27
At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC29
(Wondering if the Tower Shield is too much. Maybe it would be better just having the 3 shield sizes, to drop each of those maximum AC's by 1!)
If I were to apply the same logic to unarmoured defence and natural defence - turning the barbarian one from 10+dex+con to 8+dex+con+prof - then the highest you could get would be AC20 (+5 in both stats)+4 from Tower Shield. Helmets are armour so won't work with it. So a barb would be:
At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC24
At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC25
At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC27
At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC28
At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC30
Which seems very powerful, but then they will be fighting monsters with as much as +19 to hit, so hitting on an 11+ isn' t that difficult. It also means smaller, weaker creatures will become less of a threat over time because you can avoid being hit, not because you can just take being stabbed!
Definitely thinking of scrapping the Tower Shield, though, to tone it down a teeny bit!
Alternatively, I could make it half prof on everything rather than full prof, so that plate+tower shield build would look like:
At level 1 (prof. bonus +2), AC22
At level 5 (prof. bonus +3), AC22
At level 9 (prof. bonus +4), AC24
At level 13 (prof. bonus +5), AC24
At level 17 (prof. bonus +6), AC26
Which is honestly a little bit more manageable, but still a nice progression. What do you all think? full prof. or half prof.? If I do half prof., I'll have to increase the base AC by 1 to make it all match up at level 1 still, but if I also drop the Tower Shield, then it'll still be as above with a Pavise!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!