I'm willing to bet somebody a dollar that the community's general hatred of the Wild Magic sorcerer would taper off surprisingly sharply if they just took the Fireball off the Wild Surge list. Every single time I've seen somebody really dig into why they hate the Wild sorcerer, it always ends up in an anecdote concerning a poorly-timed Fireball at exactly the wrong place. Usually not even their game, just something they've seen happen.
I don't care much for Wild Magic sorcerers, but I like that they're in the game as an option. Characters without full control over their abilities are a common story element, a thing many people would like the ability to play with, and for them the Wild Magic sorcerer is a key tool. Kinda the only tool; nothing else has any sort of instability in their features.
The Wild barb intrigues me as an option for a player whose looking to create a character that doesn't care about mastering their magical abilities. They have powerful magic - so what? Powerful magic never stopped a displacer beast from eating their pet rabbit. They don't have the temperament or disposition to learn real control, so instead they learn just enough to keep from blowing themselves up and vent all that power outwards, let it do whatever it feels like so long as it does it to their enemies. That's a concept D&D's never really had any way to express until now, and it's honestly kind of a cool one.
The only thing that I dislike about the Wild Sorcerer (other that a dislike of Sorcerers) is that it relies on the DM to randomly say make a Wild Surge check. As a DM, I rarely remember to do it and I have seen the same thing with other DMs.
Then it sounds like you really need to change your advertisement, Vince. Because asking randos to come to your table with a character that conforms to your nonstandard rules without telling the rando what those nonstandard rules are before he turns up is kind of a dick move.
Not my advertisement. The business says "Open tables 5e", with a specific time slot. And BTW, 27 point buy, anything from PHB and XGTE is hardly "non-standard".
Then talk to the business. Again - if you're advertising 'Open Tables', but someone has to meet a specific requirement to play at the 'Open Tables', that's on you and the business, not on the player. And your big complaint here is that PHB point buy, core books + Xanathar's only, is about to be made nonstandard, is it not? As such, you are now under an obligation to inform people of the nonstandard rules of your table.
This isn't complicated, Vince. You may find it distasteful, but it's not complicated.
Then it sounds like you really need to change your advertisement, Vince. Because asking randos to come to your table with a character that conforms to your nonstandard rules without telling the rando what those nonstandard rules are before he turns up is kind of a dick move.
Not my advertisement. The business says "Open tables 5e", with a specific time slot. And BTW, 27 point buy, anything from PHB and XGTE is hardly "non-standard".
It is not how games in the shops around here are run, nor how any of the private groups that I know run their games. Assuming that how your small collection of people run their games is some how the norm is silly at best. Though I would also say that the idea of some kind of "standard" for which most tables are run seems silly to me.
Then it sounds like you really need to change your advertisement, Vince. Because asking randos to come to your table with a character that conforms to your nonstandard rules without telling the rando what those nonstandard rules are before he turns up is kind of a dick move.
Not my advertisement. The business says "Open tables 5e", with a specific time slot. And BTW, 27 point buy, anything from PHB and XGTE is hardly "non-standard".
Yurei is right. The problem isn't Tasha's or anything WotC has or hasn't released. The problem is your approach to DM'ing at that business.
You let random people with pre-built characters show up to your private games? Or are you an ALDM?
If you’re an ALDM and hate it that much, quit. Then you don’t have to worry about it.
If you let random strangers show up in your games with pre-built characters, then you’re gonna have to deal with whatever the heck WotC publishes no matter what.
If you do what most DMs I know do, and take time to explain your campaign, require PCs built with that campaign concept in mind, and preview PCs to vet them before game night (as I just had to do for tonight’s campaign), then you will have fewer problems.
I allow UA, Homebrew, DMs’ Guild, all kinds of stuff... as long as I can approve it before game night. If they wait until the very last minute to hand in their sheet for approval, they don’t play that night unless everything happens to be very straight forward stuff that I would just have to rubber stamp.
I specifically do not allow Wild Magic Sorcerers (or Barbarians) at my tables. Nosir, not havin’ it. I tell people that ahead of time, they don’t bring me those characters. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
In a perfect world, what you describe is reasonable, but that is not how the place works where I DM.
There is an established timeslot, that is advertised. Everyone knows that slot and shows up. My regulars, I talk with via Discord, and know who is going to be there, who will not. We also have a pretty good feel with what DM's will be there, as we have a DM channel as well. But no DM advertises how many of his players will be there on any given day to another DM. Plus, we have zero control over drop-ins, who typically don't arrive early.
Today, I don't know how many times I have had drop-ins/ temp players from other tables that I have had to explain my table rules (27 point buy, anything from XGTE and PHB), then watch that look of annoyance on a player when they go to an empty table to tweak a char they showed up with to fit my table, as I carry on with the game, because we are on the clock. Now visualize what it will be like when I have people showing up with chars built using Tasha's ruleset. It won't be simply tweaking a char. It will be a major re-work.
Well it sounds like you and the business aren’t on the same page. How can you expect the players to be on the same page with both of you if you and the business can’t agree?
Then it sounds like you really need to change your advertisement, Vince. Because asking randos to come to your table with a character that conforms to your nonstandard rules without telling the rando what those nonstandard rules are before he turns up is kind of a dick move.
Not my advertisement. The business says "Open tables 5e", with a specific time slot.
Well, that's difficult for reasons entirely unrelated to Tasha's, as it doesn't specify things that are far more important, such as level and magic items. Arranging for a table or poster board with a one-paragraph description of each game (what the game is about, where it's set, level, magic items, character building rules, etc) would be a substantial QOL improvement for both players and DMs, I'd think.
You let random people with pre-built characters show up to your private games? Or are you an ALDM?
If you’re an ALDM and hate it that much, quit. Then you don’t have to worry about it.
If you let random strangers show up in your games with pre-built characters, then you’re gonna have to deal with whatever the heck WotC publishes no matter what.
If you do what most DMs I know do, and take time to explain your campaign, require PCs built with that campaign concept in mind, and preview PCs to vet them before game night (as I just had to do for tonight’s campaign), then you will have fewer problems.
I allow UA, Homebrew, DMs’ Guild, all kinds of stuff... as long as I can approve it before game night. If they wait until the very last minute to hand in their sheet for approval, they don’t play that night unless everything happens to be very straight forward stuff that I would just have to rubber stamp.
I specifically do not allow Wild Magic Sorcerers (or Barbarians) at my tables. Nosir, not havin’ it. I tell people that ahead of time, they don’t bring me those characters. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
In a perfect world, what you describe is reasonable, but that is not how the place works where I DM.
There is an established timeslot, that is advertised. Everyone knows that slot and shows up. My regulars, I talk with via Discord, and know who is going to be there, who will not. We also have a pretty good feel with what DM's will be there, as we have a DM channel as well. But no DM advertises how many of his players will be there on any given day to another DM. Plus, we have zero control over drop-ins, who typically don't arrive early.
Today, I don't know how many times I have had drop-ins/ temp players from other tables that I have had to explain my table rules (27 point buy, anything from XGTE and PHB), then watch that look of annoyance on a player when they go to an empty table to tweak a char they showed up with to fit my table, as I carry on with the game, because we are on the clock. Now visualize what it will be like when I have people showing up with chars built using Tasha's ruleset. It won't be simply tweaking a char. It will be a major re-work.
So the frustration or hassle here isn't anything really to do with 5e or any rules options, it's with the environment you DM in. You DM in a venue that advertises "open tables 5e". When a drop in gest to your table at the scheduled time for drop in, you explain your table has restrictions, and that requires the player to do some rework on their sheet before making late entry into your game. Do other tables at the venue have this issue or similar restrictions? Are you required by hosting a table to accept drop ins? While sure some players are very insistent on the exact sort of character they want to play and the exact sort of build they want to play, most gamers in my experience realize it's a social game and are willing to do their parts to contribute to a good game. Possible solutions, if the drop in rework time suck is a venue wide issue, perhaps the advertisement can be tweaked that drops in arrive early to do their reworks (of course that puts a burden on DMs showing up early to explain housekeeping needs to drop ins). If it's just your table you can either build time into your sessions to accommodate drop in reworks or when a random new person stops in say, "Hey, friend. So my game has a little more restriction on options than some of the other more open tables here. I'll tell you what, rather than having you miss game time doing housekeeping on your sheet, I have this portfolio of pregens I've made for drop ins. Why don't you pick one of these, and if you like playing at my table and want to start coming back, I can work with you on Discord on making your own character that fits my game's specs."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
What exactly is the “dogs and cats living together chaos” you think TCOE is bringing to your table. like walk me through the game breaking problems they are going to bring about by sitting down at your table. What kind of game are you running that mountain Dwarf with +2 charisma instead of constitution is going to break it?
Edit: This may sound like mocking but I am genuinely curious, your hypothetical vince is that someone could turn up at your table and you have to send them away to redo a character costing them, you and the rest of your players time, while making you come off like kind of a...well let’s keep this on topic. So I am genuinely curious what you think is the problem you are solving? Like you are DMing this “open” table game that allows people to sit in fresh and someone sits in with a TCOE character, what happens? What is the catastrophe you seek to avert by wasting thier time and yours by having them redo the character?
If for some reason 6e did come out soon (which I couldn't see happening since 5e is more popular as ever), and it included the rules from Tasha's as the default character rules, you could still make your typical dex-y elf or hardy dwarf. It just offers more options. And if you wanted races to have fixed ability score buffs, it seems easy enough to homebrew. Wizards is just adding more options that you have the option to use.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
I'm really not understanding what Vince and people like him are so upset about. What has been released isn't even close to game breaking.
I know, I know, but Mountain Dwarves get +2 to two stats of their choice. Big freaking deal, they also get armor proficiency which is useless to quite a few classes. And that's all the subrace offers. I would take a +1 to my secondary stat and pretty much any other subrace's bonuses over that for pretty much every single character I can think of.
One of the reasons I love Mountain Dwarves so much is their armor training. A handaxe and some hide armor only cost 15 gold, and your dwarf wizard can look like an uncouth mountain man.
Starting with 15 Int isn't bad when I've got 14 Dex, 16 Con, and 16 Int at 4th level. Now picture having 17 Int instead at 1st and 18 at 4th.
I'm really not understanding what Vince and people like him are so upset about. What has been released isn't even close to game breaking.
I know, I know, but Mountain Dwarves get +2 to two stats of their choice. Big freaking deal, they also get armor proficiency which is useless to quite a few classes. And that's all the subrace offers. I would take a +1 to my secondary stat and pretty much any other subrace's bonuses over that for pretty much every single character I can think of.
One of the reasons I love Mountain Dwarves so much is their armor training. A handaxe and some hide armor only cost 15 gold, and your dwarf wizard can look like an uncouth mountain man.
Starting with 15 Int isn't bad when I've got 14 Dex, 16 Con, and 16 Int at 4th level. Now picture having 17 Int instead at 1st and 18 at 4th.
a mountain dwarf Abjurer is a very viable tank now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The problem with mountain dwarfs and Tasha's Guide is that every class that would find +2 Str exceptionally useful already has proficiency with light and medium armor, so having those proficiencies isn't a major benefit in the PHB. It's much higher value for classes that don't get medium armor inherently and aren't Dex primary (bard, sorcerer, warlock, wizard).
Personally, I think dwarves have always been viable wizards. Fifth edition is incredibly forgiving, so getting to 18/20 a little later than other classes isn't a big deal. And I don't think that +2 being moved around is terribly game-breaking. Especially in the PHB+1 rules where using those rules means you can't use anything from Xanathar's. We don't fully know how the new subclasses will turn out, but both valor bards and any warlock with Pact of the Blade would benefit from the extra strength.
And that extra armor costs money. Half-plate on a wizard sounds great until you realize that's 750 gp. That's a lot of spells you're not copying into your spellbook.
Personally, I think dwarves have always been viable wizards. Fifth edition is incredibly forgiving, so getting to 18/20 a little later than other classes isn't a big deal. And I don't think that +2 being moved around is terribly game-breaking. Especially in the PHB+1 rules where using those rules means you can't use anything from Xanathar's. We don't fully know how the new subclasses will turn out, but both valor bards and any warlock with Pact of the Blade would benefit from the extra strength.
And that extra armor costs money. Half-plate on a wizard sounds great until you realize that's 750 gp. That's a lot of spells you're not copying into your spellbook.
I didn't say wizards....I said tanks. The extra int adds to your ward + armour + extra con? yes please. Also, scale mail is 75 gp. Thats like what, one?
The problem with mountain dwarfs and Tasha's Guide is that every class that would find +2 Str exceptionally useful already has proficiency with light and medium armor, so having those proficiencies isn't a major benefit in the PHB. It's much higher value for classes that don't get medium armor inherently and aren't Dex primary (bard, sorcerer, warlock, wizard).
Okay so you are stating this is a problem. Spell out for me why? Because classes aren’t restricted by race so you can already play a dwarf bard/sorcerer/warlock/wizard. The only difference is a stat that point buy or standard array previously capped at 15 could now go as ridiculously high as ...checks notes...17!
You have clearly stated this is a “problem”, so explain that to me. What chaotic environment and game breaking situation is the extra +1 in a single stat creating?
Okay so you are stating this is a problem. Spell out for me why?
Because medium armor proficiency is significantly valuable and thus should come with a meaningful tradeoff. It's not gamebreaking, it's just disproportionately powerful.
They can already have medium armour proficiency as any of those classes because they can already pick mountain dwarf or variant human.
the only difference is a single stat that was capped at +2 can go upto +3 if using standard or point buy. That’s the whole difference.
so again, asking for a friend, what is the problem here you think is being ignored that is going to unbalance games because there is no trade off?
I just don’t see it. Maybe it’s because I don’t really really want to see it that I can’t, but let me follow on.
you mentioned trade off, which is an interesting concept in game design. It’s the idea of choice & consequence. Because making interesting choices is what make games fun, it’s like with board games, you can tell the Eurogame is a good one if every turn you wish you could go 2-3 more things! I could assume you think that allowing people flexibility gives them all the choice with none of the consequence and is robbing them of the experience.....except no one has said that. The argument always comes down to “as a DM...something something...diversity in the streets, anarchy in the character sheets...something something...” I have seen not a single person saying this is a problem as a player, it’s always as a DM.
so here’s my 2 points
1) character creation is not the game of D&D - it’s what happens before the game, it’s the warm up. It’s fun and fulfilling, but that thing that takes 400hrs after the character creation, that’s the game. If the only meaningful choice and consequence in your game happens in character creation then your game has far bigger problems than a new book
2) The change to the rules has the possibility to be more open, more welcoming, more creative, less limiting and more exciting for the players. To lower a barrier of entry for the new players and to force some fresh blood into the joints for older players that have fallen in a rut of how they approach characters. It is not a leathal dose of poison it’s a vitamin C booster! to repeat - more open, more welcoming, more creative, less limiting and more exciting for the player - Honestly if that isn’t what you want for your table then you should retire as a DM.
But to get it you have to learn a few more rules, say yes a bit more and be okay with players gettting it better than you did.
Or you can be hesitant to change, you can refuse to incorporate the new optional rules in a meaningful way, you can send players away to redo character sheets, you can spend a month arguing against it constantly and berating people who disagree with you on the internet. You can send the message to your players that adherence to the rules you consider important and only those rules is more important than thier experience. You can forget that D&D is a game of collaborative story telling and adventure.
tldr - maybe it’s not the players that need to learn about the consequence of making meaningful choices.
Okay so you are stating this is a problem. Spell out for me why?
Because medium armor proficiency is significantly valuable and thus should come with a meaningful tradeoff. It's not gamebreaking, it's just disproportionately powerful.
Gith can do that already. +2 to wisdom with light and medium armor proficiency.
The problem with mountain dwarfs and Tasha's Guide is that every class that would find +2 Str exceptionally useful already has proficiency with light and medium armor, so having those proficiencies isn't a major benefit in the PHB. It's much higher value for classes that don't get medium armor inherently and aren't Dex primary (bard, sorcerer, warlock, wizard).
The Gith has +2 to wisdom and has proficiency with light and medium armor. So they are a higher value at the moment for classes that don’t get medium armor inherently and aren’t Dex primary, correct?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The only thing that I dislike about the Wild Sorcerer (other that a dislike of Sorcerers) is that it relies on the DM to randomly say make a Wild Surge check. As a DM, I rarely remember to do it and I have seen the same thing with other DMs.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Not my advertisement. The business says "Open tables 5e", with a specific time slot. And BTW, 27 point buy, anything from PHB and XGTE is hardly "non-standard".
Then talk to the business. Again - if you're advertising 'Open Tables', but someone has to meet a specific requirement to play at the 'Open Tables', that's on you and the business, not on the player. And your big complaint here is that PHB point buy, core books + Xanathar's only, is about to be made nonstandard, is it not? As such, you are now under an obligation to inform people of the nonstandard rules of your table.
This isn't complicated, Vince. You may find it distasteful, but it's not complicated.
Please do not contact or message me.
It is not how games in the shops around here are run, nor how any of the private groups that I know run their games. Assuming that how your small collection of people run their games is some how the norm is silly at best. Though I would also say that the idea of some kind of "standard" for which most tables are run seems silly to me.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yurei is right. The problem isn't Tasha's or anything WotC has or hasn't released. The problem is your approach to DM'ing at that business.
Well it sounds like you and the business aren’t on the same page. How can you expect the players to be on the same page with both of you if you and the business can’t agree?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well, that's difficult for reasons entirely unrelated to Tasha's, as it doesn't specify things that are far more important, such as level and magic items. Arranging for a table or poster board with a one-paragraph description of each game (what the game is about, where it's set, level, magic items, character building rules, etc) would be a substantial QOL improvement for both players and DMs, I'd think.
So the frustration or hassle here isn't anything really to do with 5e or any rules options, it's with the environment you DM in. You DM in a venue that advertises "open tables 5e". When a drop in gest to your table at the scheduled time for drop in, you explain your table has restrictions, and that requires the player to do some rework on their sheet before making late entry into your game. Do other tables at the venue have this issue or similar restrictions? Are you required by hosting a table to accept drop ins? While sure some players are very insistent on the exact sort of character they want to play and the exact sort of build they want to play, most gamers in my experience realize it's a social game and are willing to do their parts to contribute to a good game. Possible solutions, if the drop in rework time suck is a venue wide issue, perhaps the advertisement can be tweaked that drops in arrive early to do their reworks (of course that puts a burden on DMs showing up early to explain housekeeping needs to drop ins). If it's just your table you can either build time into your sessions to accommodate drop in reworks or when a random new person stops in say, "Hey, friend. So my game has a little more restriction on options than some of the other more open tables here. I'll tell you what, rather than having you miss game time doing housekeeping on your sheet, I have this portfolio of pregens I've made for drop ins. Why don't you pick one of these, and if you like playing at my table and want to start coming back, I can work with you on Discord on making your own character that fits my game's specs."
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
What exactly is the “dogs and cats living together chaos” you think TCOE is bringing to your table. like walk me through the game breaking problems they are going to bring about by sitting down at your table. What kind of game are you running that mountain Dwarf with +2 charisma instead of constitution is going to break it?
Edit: This may sound like mocking but I am genuinely curious, your hypothetical vince is that someone could turn up at your table and you have to send them away to redo a character costing them, you and the rest of your players time, while making you come off like kind of a...well let’s keep this on topic. So I am genuinely curious what you think is the problem you are solving? Like you are DMing this “open” table game that allows people to sit in fresh and someone sits in with a TCOE character, what happens? What is the catastrophe you seek to avert by wasting thier time and yours by having them redo the character?
If for some reason 6e did come out soon (which I couldn't see happening since 5e is more popular as ever), and it included the rules from Tasha's as the default character rules, you could still make your typical dex-y elf or hardy dwarf. It just offers more options. And if you wanted races to have fixed ability score buffs, it seems easy enough to homebrew. Wizards is just adding more options that you have the option to use.
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
Subclasses | Races | Spells | Magic Items | Monsters | Feats | Backgrounds
One of the reasons I love Mountain Dwarves so much is their armor training. A handaxe and some hide armor only cost 15 gold, and your dwarf wizard can look like an uncouth mountain man.
Starting with 15 Int isn't bad when I've got 14 Dex, 16 Con, and 16 Int at 4th level. Now picture having 17 Int instead at 1st and 18 at 4th.
a mountain dwarf Abjurer is a very viable tank now.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The problem with mountain dwarfs and Tasha's Guide is that every class that would find +2 Str exceptionally useful already has proficiency with light and medium armor, so having those proficiencies isn't a major benefit in the PHB. It's much higher value for classes that don't get medium armor inherently and aren't Dex primary (bard, sorcerer, warlock, wizard).
Personally, I think dwarves have always been viable wizards. Fifth edition is incredibly forgiving, so getting to 18/20 a little later than other classes isn't a big deal. And I don't think that +2 being moved around is terribly game-breaking. Especially in the PHB+1 rules where using those rules means you can't use anything from Xanathar's. We don't fully know how the new subclasses will turn out, but both valor bards and any warlock with Pact of the Blade would benefit from the extra strength.
And that extra armor costs money. Half-plate on a wizard sounds great until you realize that's 750 gp. That's a lot of spells you're not copying into your spellbook.
I didn't say wizards....I said tanks. The extra int adds to your ward + armour + extra con? yes please. Also, scale mail is 75 gp. Thats like what, one?
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Okay so you are stating this is a problem. Spell out for me why? Because classes aren’t restricted by race so you can already play a dwarf bard/sorcerer/warlock/wizard. The only difference is a stat that point buy or standard array previously capped at 15 could now go as ridiculously high as ...checks notes...17!
You have clearly stated this is a “problem”, so explain that to me. What chaotic environment and game breaking situation is the extra +1 in a single stat creating?
Because medium armor proficiency is significantly valuable and thus should come with a meaningful tradeoff. It's not gamebreaking, it's just disproportionately powerful.
They can already have medium armour proficiency as any of those classes because they can already pick mountain dwarf or variant human.
the only difference is a single stat that was capped at +2 can go upto +3 if using standard or point buy. That’s the whole difference.
so again, asking for a friend, what is the problem here you think is being ignored that is going to unbalance games because there is no trade off?
I just don’t see it. Maybe it’s because I don’t really really want to see it that I can’t, but let me follow on.
you mentioned trade off, which is an interesting concept in game design. It’s the idea of choice & consequence. Because making interesting choices is what make games fun, it’s like with board games, you can tell the Eurogame is a good one if every turn you wish you could go 2-3 more things! I could assume you think that allowing people flexibility gives them all the choice with none of the consequence and is robbing them of the experience.....except no one has said that. The argument always comes down to “as a DM...something something...diversity in the streets, anarchy in the character sheets...something something...” I have seen not a single person saying this is a problem as a player, it’s always as a DM.
so here’s my 2 points
1) character creation is not the game of D&D - it’s what happens before the game, it’s the warm up. It’s fun and fulfilling, but that thing that takes 400hrs after the character creation, that’s the game. If the only meaningful choice and consequence in your game happens in character creation then your game has far bigger problems than a new book
2) The change to the rules has the possibility to be more open, more welcoming, more creative, less limiting and more exciting for the players. To lower a barrier of entry for the new players and to force some fresh blood into the joints for older players that have fallen in a rut of how they approach characters. It is not a leathal dose of poison it’s a vitamin C booster! to repeat - more open, more welcoming, more creative, less limiting and more exciting for the player - Honestly if that isn’t what you want for your table then you should retire as a DM.
But to get it you have to learn a few more rules, say yes a bit more and be okay with players gettting it better than you did.
Or you can be hesitant to change, you can refuse to incorporate the new optional rules in a meaningful way, you can send players away to redo character sheets, you can spend a month arguing against it constantly and berating people who disagree with you on the internet. You can send the message to your players that adherence to the rules you consider important and only those rules is more important than thier experience. You can forget that D&D is a game of collaborative story telling and adventure.
tldr - maybe it’s not the players that need to learn about the consequence of making meaningful choices.
Gith can do that already. +2 to wisdom with light and medium armor proficiency.
The Gith has +2 to wisdom and has proficiency with light and medium armor. So they are a higher value at the moment for classes that don’t get medium armor inherently and aren’t Dex primary, correct?