Plate is strong but I don't think there's any point in the game where its overpowered: it's not available as starting equipment nor will starting gold cover the cost of plate armour (1,500 GP) alone, so even at level one it's unattainable. By the time you get 1,500 GP you can probably afford something with more flexibility and maybe some enchantments, if you haven't found it whilst adventuring already.
Should a player character manage to obtain a suit of plate armour, it's 65lb which isn't much for a character rocking the minimum required 15 STR, but what is a lot of time is 10 minutes to don it when you're ambushed in your sleep, and 5 minutes to remove it should someone cast Heat Metal or cause some other nastiness to happen which requires getting it off. It puts stealth checks at disadvantage, so if you're the heavy of the group you're putting everyone else at risk of being caught, and D&D isn't an MMO: enemies are under no obligation to direct the action economy to this one person with the 18 AC (20 with a shield). A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Finally, who said anything about targeting armour class? There's no shortage of spells require saving throws, especially mental attributes such as INT, WIS, and CHA. There's a number of conditions such as exhaustion, paralysis, made prone, petrification, poisoned, restraint and stunning which can also provide attackers an additional chance at beating your AC.
Anyone who's willing to spend 1,500 GP (not adjusting for inflation as I do in my games) absolutely deserves that 18 AC, warts and all. But it's not overpowered.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
I am not sure that Plate Armour was actually worn by anybody till the very end of the medieval period, historically speaking. It was really a late 14th century thing, but fantasy can afford to be anachronistic so it doesn’t really matter.
I agree, the cost of it is the great balancing aspect as is the limitations of use based on proficiency, strength and stealth.
If you get a Wizard who makes use of both Mage Armour (AC 13) and Shield (+5) spells who can get a similar effect, at least for a single shot (as well as whatever DEX bonus they still get), then it is important to remember that Fighters generally don’t get many magical perks. It is a feature of the Fighter Class that they do, however, get to use a full range of weapons and armour. Why remove one perk from one Class while ignoring the advantages others have?
This biggest "advantage" of plate is that you can go all-in on strength and dump Dex whilst still having a good AC. It exists for people who don't want a dextrous character but also want to not die.
The disadvantage on this tactic is that 90% of saving throws seem to be dexterity!
Getting AC18 at level 1 is perfectly doable - Monks and Barbarians both have unarmoured defences that are 10+2 modifiers, and barbarians can use theirs with a shield, meaning they only need +6 is Dex and Con combined to get an AC of 18 at level 1.
Tortles (IIRC) are AC17 normally with a shield for AC19, and that's also at level 1!
I don't think it's fair to compare plate to builds with shields because for the same investment you can have shields with plate too. So yes, for instance, Tortles can get AC19 with a shield...but you should be comparing that to the plate equivalent, which is AC20 with a shield.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't think it's fair to compare plate to builds with shields because for the same investment you can have shields with plate too. So yes, for instance, Tortles can get AC19 with a shield...but you should be comparing that to the plate equivalent, which is AC20 with a shield.
Sort of true. A Tortle with a Shield can be made as a level 1 starting character - a character with plate and a shield needs a 1,500gp investment (or windfall).
It's intended to be a later game reward to make you more powerful, and so being more powerful is a good thing!
I don't understand the problem this game has with the idea that armour actually works and prevents you from getting injured.
I'd like to see all ACs from mundane armour increased by at least +4 across the board, or else all monster attacks decreased by their (presumed) proficiency bonus--i.e. that goblin swinging a +4 to hit (excessive!) now only has a +2, and thus only a 25% chance to injure our boy in full plate. Even that 25% is still too often, IMO.
Frankly, the supposedly best mundane armour in the game is woefully underpowered.
That’s what HP are for. You are not taking 5 hits to the face with a mace and just smiling like it was nothing because you have 100 HP. HP is an abstraction that takes these things into account.
Plate is just fine.
Edit: there are threads around that talk about ho HP works so might be something to look into, if you are interested or disagree, instead of bringing that discussion into this thread.
I don't think it's fair to compare plate to builds with shields because for the same investment you can have shields with plate too. So yes, for instance, Tortles can get AC19 with a shield...but you should be comparing that to the plate equivalent, which is AC20 with a shield.
Sort of true. A Tortle with a Shield can be made as a level 1 starting character - a character with plate and a shield needs a 1,500gp investment (or windfall).
It's intended to be a later game reward to make you more powerful, and so being more powerful is a good thing!
I'm not disagreeing with the idea that plate isn't OP (I said that it wasn't in an earlier post, using combat examples), just that we should be comparing apples-to-apples. Either both with shields or both without. Once you start giving it to one but not the other, you're stacking the deck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't understand the problem this game has with the idea that armour actually works and prevents you from getting injured.
Plate is just fine.
(snipped a bunch of quotes there)
I think it's a valid criticism, but of how D&D works, not how plate works within D&D.
If you want a more realistic handling of armor and injury, you need a different TTRPG. They came up with D&D's way of handling "hit points" in the 70s, and this is just a longstanding limit to how well that particular gaming abstraction works.
In my experience, plate armor is nice, but not nearly as valuable as some say. When I was a player at a table running BGDiA, I ran a halfling forge cleric. Very early in the game, there is a narrative text that describes plate on display in an alcove. My DM elected to deviate from the adventure once I had zeroed in on the plate and allowed me to use my Blessing of the Forge to turn it magical. So I had +1 plate and a shield and I was still taking plenty of hits as I was melee focused. Not nearly as much as the zealot barbarian mind you, but a lot still. Plate only depreciates as you level, as AC doesn't scale proportionally to bonus to hit. So while nice for my D8 hitpoints, I still had to come to terms with the fact that I eventually had to move out of melee to midrange if I wished to avoid as many hits.
Plate is strongest at lower levels, and how soon you get it can be very campaign-specific. Right now I'm in an Icewind Dale campaign, we're midway through level 3 and I've got about 50 gold to my name. By the time my party will be able to afford it, plate will not be an impenetrable wall.
Alternatively, if your DM is handing it out at level 1 then I could see how you might think it's OP. But that's not how 5e is supposed to work.
I have a paladin at level 5 in my game. He has Plate and Shield and and defensive fighting style for an AC of 21 and often puts up a shield of faith for AC 23. I just include casters in encounters that either target his Dex, Con or Wis saves. Plenty of cantrips that do that like acid splash, sacred flame, toll of the dead, frostbite and etc.
Plate is not a fighter’s panacea for all damage. It was never intended to stop magical attacks ( there aren’t any in the real world where armor originates). Against tier 1 (PB+4) foes straight plate is hit on a roll of 14+, plate and shield on a roll of 16+ ( including non save magical attacks). That defines the basic chance to hit a fighter by a tier 1 foe - so the question is is a 6 out of 20 chance for a foe to hit a fighter OP? When phrased that way it is ( IMO) clearly not overpowered. If a T1 foe needed a Nat 20 to hit that would be OP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Plate is strong but I don't think there's any point in the game where its overpowered: it's not available as starting equipment nor will starting gold cover the cost of plate armour (1,500 GP) alone, so even at level one it's unattainable. By the time you get 1,500 GP you can probably afford something with more flexibility and maybe some enchantments, if you haven't found it whilst adventuring already.
Should a player character manage to obtain a suit of plate armour, it's 65lb which isn't much for a character rocking the minimum required 15 STR, but what is a lot of time is 10 minutes to don it when you're ambushed in your sleep, and 5 minutes to remove it should someone cast Heat Metal or cause some other nastiness to happen which requires getting it off. It puts stealth checks at disadvantage, so if you're the heavy of the group you're putting everyone else at risk of being caught, and D&D isn't an MMO: enemies are under no obligation to direct the action economy to this one person with the 18 AC (20 with a shield). A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Finally, who said anything about targeting armour class? There's no shortage of spells require saving throws, especially mental attributes such as INT, WIS, and CHA. There's a number of conditions such as exhaustion, paralysis, made prone, petrification, poisoned, restraint and stunning which can also provide attackers an additional chance at beating your AC.
Anyone who's willing to spend 1,500 GP (not adjusting for inflation as I do in my games) absolutely deserves that 18 AC, warts and all. But it's not overpowered.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
Nope. Compare Splint and Full-Plate.
Both have a 15 strength requirement for no penalties.
Splint has an AC of 17 and costs 200gp.
Full-Plate has an AC of 18 and costs 1,500gp.
The difference is +1 to AC for 1,300gp.
Hardly OP.
I am not sure that Plate Armour was actually worn by anybody till the very end of the medieval period, historically speaking. It was really a late 14th century thing, but fantasy can afford to be anachronistic so it doesn’t really matter.
I agree, the cost of it is the great balancing aspect as is the limitations of use based on proficiency, strength and stealth.
If you get a Wizard who makes use of both Mage Armour (AC 13) and Shield (+5) spells who can get a similar effect, at least for a single shot (as well as whatever DEX bonus they still get), then it is important to remember that Fighters generally don’t get many magical perks. It is a feature of the Fighter Class that they do, however, get to use a full range of weapons and armour. Why remove one perk from one Class while ignoring the advantages others have?
This biggest "advantage" of plate is that you can go all-in on strength and dump Dex whilst still having a good AC. It exists for people who don't want a dextrous character but also want to not die.
The disadvantage on this tactic is that 90% of saving throws seem to be dexterity!
Getting AC18 at level 1 is perfectly doable - Monks and Barbarians both have unarmoured defences that are 10+2 modifiers, and barbarians can use theirs with a shield, meaning they only need +6 is Dex and Con combined to get an AC of 18 at level 1.
Tortles (IIRC) are AC17 normally with a shield for AC19, and that's also at level 1!
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 don't think it's fair to compare plate to builds with shields because for the same investment you can have shields with plate too. So yes, for instance, Tortles can get AC19 with a shield...but you should be comparing that to the plate equivalent, which is AC20 with a shield.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Sort of true. A Tortle with a Shield can be made as a level 1 starting character - a character with plate and a shield needs a 1,500gp investment (or windfall).
It's intended to be a later game reward to make you more powerful, and so being more powerful is a good thing!
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!
That’s what HP are for. You are not taking 5 hits to the face with a mace and just smiling like it was nothing because you have 100 HP. HP is an abstraction that takes these things into account.
Plate is just fine.
Edit: there are threads around that talk about ho HP works so might be something to look into, if you are interested or disagree, instead of bringing that discussion into this thread.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I'm not disagreeing with the idea that plate isn't OP (I said that it wasn't in an earlier post, using combat examples), just that we should be comparing apples-to-apples. Either both with shields or both without. Once you start giving it to one but not the other, you're stacking the deck.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
(snipped a bunch of quotes there)
I think it's a valid criticism, but of how D&D works, not how plate works within D&D.
If you want a more realistic handling of armor and injury, you need a different TTRPG. They came up with D&D's way of handling "hit points" in the 70s, and this is just a longstanding limit to how well that particular gaming abstraction works.
In my experience, plate armor is nice, but not nearly as valuable as some say. When I was a player at a table running BGDiA, I ran a halfling forge cleric. Very early in the game, there is a narrative text that describes plate on display in an alcove. My DM elected to deviate from the adventure once I had zeroed in on the plate and allowed me to use my Blessing of the Forge to turn it magical. So I had +1 plate and a shield and I was still taking plenty of hits as I was melee focused. Not nearly as much as the zealot barbarian mind you, but a lot still. Plate only depreciates as you level, as AC doesn't scale proportionally to bonus to hit. So while nice for my D8 hitpoints, I still had to come to terms with the fact that I eventually had to move out of melee to midrange if I wished to avoid as many hits.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Plate is strongest at lower levels, and how soon you get it can be very campaign-specific. Right now I'm in an Icewind Dale campaign, we're midway through level 3 and I've got about 50 gold to my name. By the time my party will be able to afford it, plate will not be an impenetrable wall.
Alternatively, if your DM is handing it out at level 1 then I could see how you might think it's OP. But that's not how 5e is supposed to work.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
No!
I have a paladin at level 5 in my game. He has Plate and Shield and and defensive fighting style for an AC of 21 and often puts up a shield of faith for AC 23. I just include casters in encounters that either target his Dex, Con or Wis saves. Plenty of cantrips that do that like acid splash, sacred flame, toll of the dead, frostbite and etc.
Plate is not a fighter’s panacea for all damage. It was never intended to stop magical attacks ( there aren’t any in the real world where armor originates). Against tier 1 (PB+4) foes straight plate is hit on a roll of 14+, plate and shield on a roll of 16+ ( including non save magical attacks). That defines the basic chance to hit a fighter by a tier 1 foe - so the question is is a 6 out of 20 chance for a foe to hit a fighter OP? When phrased that way it is ( IMO) clearly not overpowered. If a T1 foe needed a Nat 20 to hit that would be OP.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.