Spellcasters are not meant to have the lowest ACs and rarely do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Spellcasters are not meant to have the lowest ACs and rarely do.
That is false. Certain spellcasters have equivalent AC to martials, and sometimes even more due to shield, but they usually have to build around it and/or use resources to do so. After all, if spellcasters are meant to have higher AC than martials, why don't wizards have armor proficiency?
Spellcasters are not meant to have the lowest ACs and rarely do.
That is false.
It isn't.
Certain spellcasters have equivalent AC to martials, and sometimes even more due to shield, but they usually have to build around it and/or use resources to do so.
Martials aren't all the same in terms of expected AC. Neither are spellcasters. My statement was correct, the error is thinking that you can have a coherent spellcaster vs martial angle to the question of who is "intended" to have the lowest AC when different spellcasters and different martials have different expected ACs.
After all, if spellcasters are meant to have higher AC than martials, why don't wizards have armor proficiency?
Why? Because they do it with magic, not armor. What a curious question.
And some wizards do have armor proficiency. So.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Spellcasters are not meant to have the lowest ACs and rarely do.
That is false.
It isn't.
Certain spellcasters have equivalent AC to martials, and sometimes even more due to shield, but they usually have to build around it and/or use resources to do so.
Martials aren't all the same in terms of expected AC. Neither are spellcasters. My statement was correct, the error is thinking that you can have a coherent spellcaster vs martial angle to the question of who is "intended" to have the lowest AC when different spellcasters and different martials have different expected ACs.
The only real exception I can think of is clerics with the protector option.
As I said, that is an option, and you must forgo the (admittedly minor) benefits of choosing thaumaturge to get it.
The cleric will be slowed unless they build to have 15 strength/use weaker armor.
There are also monks and rogues, which start with an expected 16 AC, but those go up with level.
After all, if spellcasters are meant to have higher AC than martials, why don't wizards have armor proficiency?
Why? Because they do it with magic, not armor. What a curious question.
And some wizards do have armor proficiency. So.
The thing is, wizards have lower AC than any martial 99% of the time. Also, which wizards have armor proficiency? Are you referring to ones who invest in feats for the purpose?
Certain spellcasters have equivalent AC to martials, and sometimes even more due to shield, but they usually have to build around it and/or use resources to do so.
Martials aren't all the same in terms of expected AC. Neither are spellcasters. My statement was correct, the error is thinking that you can have a coherent spellcaster vs martial angle to the question of who is "intended" to have the lowest AC when different spellcasters and different martials have different expected ACs.
The only real exception I can think of is clerics with the protector option.
As I said, that is an option, and you must forgo the (admittedly minor) benefits of choosing thaumaturge to get it.
The cleric will be slowed unless they build to have 15 strength/use weaker armor.
There are also monks and rogues, which start with an expected 16 AC, but those go up with level.
We were, generally speaking, talking about spellcasters who use Mage Armor. Again, you're taking this offtopic into some spellcaster vs martial direction which I don't agree with.
Spellcasters who use mage armor, aka Wizard and Sorcerers.... aren't designed for the lowest ACs. That privilege goes to some Rogue, Monk, or Druid, but especially Barbarian, Bard, and Warlock.
There is some argument you could make to say warlocks count as spellcasters who have access to mage armor and not shield so are spellcasters with intentionally low ACs and I wouldn't argue against that per se other than to say they're not real spellcasters. And definitely not intended to be casting mage armor, not really.
But wizards and sorcerers? They have medium AC expectations that spike up to high AC expectations on demand.
After all, if spellcasters are meant to have higher AC than martials, why don't wizards have armor proficiency?
Why? Because they do it with magic, not armor. What a curious question.
And some wizards do have armor proficiency. So.
The thing is, wizards have lower AC than any martial 99% of the time. Also, which wizards have armor proficiency? Are you referring to ones who invest in feats for the purpose?
They really don't. 99% of the time? No. Lower than the barbarian? No, just, no. Speaking personally, mine typically start with a 16AC at L1 with mage armor, even if it is a point-buy character. Which can bump to 21 with Shield. That's not sustainable. Obviously. But L1 lasts for like one adventuring day anyway. Not getting hit for a round is the difference between surviving that day or not.
My current wizard character rocks an AC of 17, which is an AC of 22 in combat with Bladesong. Bumped to 27 when he shields. Those numbers are from level 3. There is no martial with higher AC than this.
Bladesinger wizards have light armor. And dwarf wizards have medium armor.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Certain spellcasters have equivalent AC to martials, and sometimes even more due to shield, but they usually have to build around it and/or use resources to do so.
Martials aren't all the same in terms of expected AC. Neither are spellcasters. My statement was correct, the error is thinking that you can have a coherent spellcaster vs martial angle to the question of who is "intended" to have the lowest AC when different spellcasters and different martials have different expected ACs.
The only real exception I can think of is clerics with the protector option.
As I said, that is an option, and you must forgo the (admittedly minor) benefits of choosing thaumaturge to get it.
The cleric will be slowed unless they build to have 15 strength/use weaker armor.
There are also monks and rogues, which start with an expected 16 AC, but those go up with level.
We were, generally speaking, talking about spellcasters who use Mage Armor. Again, you're taking this offtopic into some spellcaster vs martial direction which I don't agree with.
Spellcasters who use mage armor, aka Wizard and Sorcerers.... aren't designed for the lowest ACs. That privilege goes to some Rogue, Monk, or Druid, but especially Barbarian, Bard, and Warlock.
There is some argument you could make to say warlocks count as spellcasters who have access to mage armor and not shield so are spellcasters with intentionally low ACs and I wouldn't argue against that per se other than to say they're not real spellcasters. And definitely not intended to be casting mage armor, not really.
But wizards and sorcerers? They have medium AC expectations that spike up to high AC expectations on demand.
You were not clear whatsoever that you only wanted to talk about mage armor. It is absurd that the most common response I get to posts is people claiming I'm derailing the conversation, or the like.
Now, to get into the numbers of what we're talking about:
Rogue: Studded armor = 12 + dex - level 1 AC = 15, level 4: 16, level 8, 17. They are also capable of using magic armor, so it is more likely you will have AC 18 at level 8.
Monk: Unarmored defence = 10 + dex + wis. level 1: 16, level 4: 17, level 8: 18. This can continue until level 20 where they get an AC of 24.
Barbarian: What are you talking about? They can wear medium armor.
I agree spellcasters are designed to have low AC. As a sidenote, druids do have access to barkskin, shields, and potentially medium armor, so not the best example.
After all, if spellcasters are meant to have higher AC than martials, why don't wizards have armor proficiency?
Why? Because they do it with magic, not armor. What a curious question.
And some wizards do have armor proficiency. So.
The thing is, wizards have lower AC than any martial 99% of the time. Also, which wizards have armor proficiency? Are you referring to ones who invest in feats for the purpose?
They really don't. 99% of the time? No. Lower than the barbarian? No, just, no. Speaking personally, mine typically start with a 16AC at L1 with mage armor, even if it is a point-buy character. Which can bump to 21 with Shield. That's not sustainable. Obviously. But L1 lasts for like one adventuring day anyway. Not getting hit for a round is the difference between surviving that day or not.
My current wizard character rocks an AC of 17, which is an AC of 22 in combat with Bladesong. Bumped to 27 when he shields. Those numbers are from level 3. There is no martial with higher AC than this.
Bladesinger wizards have light armor. And dwarf wizards have medium armor.
Yes lower than the barbarian. I don't know where you got the notion they have especially low AC. I have a druid that has 16 dexterity (aka, built to have high AC) and only beats the party barbarian in AC by one. You can start as a wizard with 16 dexterity, as I did with that druid, but that is a significant investment.
You say your current wizard has an AC of 17, or 22 in bladesong - at level three. That means you rolled for stats, as to get that you would need 20 intelligence and dexterity to get that. If a monk or barbarian got high rolls like that, they could have an AC of 20 or 22 respectively with no resource expenditure. If you use the 2014 rules, a human fighter could pick up defensive duelist, defence fighting style, and wield a shield while wearing heavy armor. Together that makes 23 AC. 23 > 22. Also, I believe that bladesinger is pretty overpowered. Finally, they have removed medium armor proficiency from dwarves in oneD&D.
Certain spellcasters have equivalent AC to martials, and sometimes even more due to shield, but they usually have to build around it and/or use resources to do so.
Martials aren't all the same in terms of expected AC. Neither are spellcasters. My statement was correct, the error is thinking that you can have a coherent spellcaster vs martial angle to the question of who is "intended" to have the lowest AC when different spellcasters and different martials have different expected ACs.
The only real exception I can think of is clerics with the protector option.
As I said, that is an option, and you must forgo the (admittedly minor) benefits of choosing thaumaturge to get it.
The cleric will be slowed unless they build to have 15 strength/use weaker armor.
There are also monks and rogues, which start with an expected 16 AC, but those go up with level.
We were, generally speaking, talking about spellcasters who use Mage Armor. Again, you're taking this offtopic into some spellcaster vs martial direction which I don't agree with.
Spellcasters who use mage armor, aka Wizard and Sorcerers.... aren't designed for the lowest ACs. That privilege goes to some Rogue, Monk, or Druid, but especially Barbarian, Bard, and Warlock.
There is some argument you could make to say warlocks count as spellcasters who have access to mage armor and not shield so are spellcasters with intentionally low ACs and I wouldn't argue against that per se other than to say they're not real spellcasters. And definitely not intended to be casting mage armor, not really.
But wizards and sorcerers? They have medium AC expectations that spike up to high AC expectations on demand.
You were not clear whatsoever that you only wanted to talk about mage armor. It is absurd that the most common response I get to posts is people claiming I'm derailing the conversation, or the like.
What is the topic of this post? What is the topic of the commenter I was replying to?
We're talking about Mage Armor, on Wizards and Sorcerers.
This is what I was replying to:
Mage Armor is meant to be a solution for Wizards and Sorcerers that do not have light armour proficiency to have some AC but ultimately these classes are still meant to have the lowest AC.
It is very clear.
They said these classes are intended to have lowest AC. But that's plainly false.
Now, to get into the numbers of what we're talking about:
Rogue: Studded armor = 12 + dex - level 1 AC = 15, level 4: 16, level 8, 17. They are also capable of using magic armor, so it is more likely you will have AC 18 at level 8.
Monk: Unarmored defence = 10 + dex + wis. level 1: 16, level 4: 17, level 8: 18. This can continue until level 20 where they get an AC of 24.
Barbarian: What are you talking about? They can wear medium armor.
I agree spellcasters are designed to have low AC. As a sidenote, druids do have access to barkskin, shields, and potentially medium armor, so not the best example.
Bard is lower. Warlock is lower. Barbarian is lower. Druid, Rogue, and Monk is comparable but can't spike up on demand with shield.
After all, if spellcasters are meant to have higher AC than martials, why don't wizards have armor proficiency?
Why? Because they do it with magic, not armor. What a curious question.
And some wizards do have armor proficiency. So.
The thing is, wizards have lower AC than any martial 99% of the time. Also, which wizards have armor proficiency? Are you referring to ones who invest in feats for the purpose?
They really don't. 99% of the time? No. Lower than the barbarian? No, just, no. Speaking personally, mine typically start with a 16AC at L1 with mage armor, even if it is a point-buy character. Which can bump to 21 with Shield. That's not sustainable. Obviously. But L1 lasts for like one adventuring day anyway. Not getting hit for a round is the difference between surviving that day or not.
My current wizard character rocks an AC of 17, which is an AC of 22 in combat with Bladesong. Bumped to 27 when he shields. Those numbers are from level 3. There is no martial with higher AC than this.
Bladesinger wizards have light armor. And dwarf wizards have medium armor.
Yes lower than the barbarian. I don't know where you got the notion they have especially low AC.
Because they do. Medium armor by itself is middling AC. They'll start with a 14 or 15 AC. Pretty low. Because they don't even have starting armor. And it'll be a few levels before they generally get to high end medium armor like half plate.
I have a druid that has 16 dexterity (aka, built to have high AC) and only beats the party barbarian in AC by one. You can start as a wizard with 16 dexterity, as I did with that druid, but that is a significant investment.
So the druid has an AC of... what? 16, maybe 17? But it ain't going up any time soon is it?
You say your current wizard has an AC of 17, or 22 in bladesong - at level three. That means you rolled for stats, as to get that you would need 20 intelligence and dexterity to get that.
18 and 20, but yes.
If a monk or barbarian got high rolls like that, they could have an AC of 20 or 22 respectively with no resource expenditure.
They couldn't. Monk could be 19. Barb could be too but it'd be insane for them to waste their 20 stat in Dex instead of in Strength. That doesn't even make sense.
If you use the 2014 rules, a human fighter could pick up defensive duelist, defence fighting style, and wield a shield while wearing heavy armor.
I'm not getting baited into this martial vs spellcaster debate you're trying to start. I said nothing about fighters and fully recognize they have high AC.
Also, I believe that bladesinger is pretty overpowered.
They're a wizard regardless of your opinion on how powerful they are. And they have armor proficiency.
Finally, they removed medium armor proficiency from dwarves in oneD&D
I guess that would matter if we were talking exclusively about onednd. We're not. This thread is about Mage Armor and was started in 2020. I'm talking about sorcerers and wizards who use Mage Armor. They're not intended to be the lowest AC classes. They just ain't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This thread is about Mage Armor and was started in 2020. I'm talking about sorcerers and wizards who use Mage Armor. They're not intended to be the lowest AC classes. They just ain't.
Yes, they are intended to have the lowest AC. You seem to be focusing on level 1 and that isn't how the whole game is built, it's clear from armour proficency and how classes interact with dexterity, which classes are meant to have the highest or lowest AC.
The order would roughly be: Paladin > Fighter > Ranger > Rogue > Cleric > Druid > Barbarian > Monk > Warlock > Bard > Sorcerer > Wizard
Now subclasses change things, that is what they are meant to do but if we are talking pure base classes, this is obviously the intention of AC.
Fighter gets Heavy Armor + Shield + Fighting Style
Ranger gets Medium Armor + Shield + Fighting Style and is Dexterity focused
Rogue gets Light Armor and is Dexterity Focused
Cleric gets Medium Armor + Shields + spells
Druid gets Medium Armor + Shields + spells
Barbarian gets Medium Armor + Shields
Monk gets unarmored defence using their two main attributes (Dexterity and Wisdom)
Warlock gets light armour
Bard gets light armour
Sorcerer gets no armor, just spells
Wizard gets no armor, just spells
Mage armor is meant to be a Tier 1/2 answer to Sorcerer and Wizard being too vulnerable in the early game but is meant to fall off intentionally for Tier 3&4 where Wizard and Sorcerer (by base class) can never challenge other classes on AC and only have the shield spell remaining, which is designed to burn spell slots and compete against absorb elements and other reactions.
Paladin is obviously meant to be the highest AC class with the highest saving throws too boot, Sorcerer and Wizard are not intended to be able to challenge a paladin on AC. This changes going to 2024 slightly but since you said 2014, this is where the base classes are intended to be, and are. Now subclasses do change this but as people are talking about CLASSES, this is the order.
Why? Because they do it with magic, not armor. What a curious question.
And some wizards do have armor proficiency. So.
The thing is, wizards have lower AC than any martial 99% of the time. Also, which wizards have armor proficiency? Are you referring to ones who invest in feats for the purpose?
They really don't. 99% of the time? No. Lower than the barbarian? No, just, no. Speaking personally, mine typically start with a 16AC at L1 with mage armor, even if it is a point-buy character. Which can bump to 21 with Shield. That's not sustainable. Obviously. But L1 lasts for like one adventuring day anyway. Not getting hit for a round is the difference between surviving that day or not.
My current wizard character rocks an AC of 17, which is an AC of 22 in combat with Bladesong. Bumped to 27 when he shields. Those numbers are from level 3. There is no martial with higher AC than this.
Bladesinger wizards have light armor. And dwarf wizards have medium armor.
Yes lower than the barbarian. I don't know where you got the notion they have especially low AC.
Because they do. Medium armor by itself is middling AC. They'll start with a 14 or 15 AC. Pretty low. Because they don't even have starting armor. And it'll be a few levels before they generally get to high end medium armor like half plate.
They can start with armor in 2024 by taking the gold and buying starting equipment. By doing this with a dexterity of 14, a barbarian would start with an expected 16 AC. Note that the barbarian also has the option to wield a shield to get 18.
I have a druid that has 16 dexterity (aka, built to have high AC) and only beats the party barbarian in AC by one. You can start as a wizard with 16 dexterity, as I did with that druid, but that is a significant investment.
So the druid has an AC of... what? 16, maybe 17? But it ain't going up any time soon is it?
17, and that's going to go up both with magic armor, and with magic shields. (it's 2014, so barkskin isn't viable)
You say your current wizard has an AC of 17, or 22 in bladesong - at level three. That means you rolled for stats, as to get that you would need 20 intelligence and dexterity to get that.
18 and 20, but yes.
How so? Do you somehow have +1 armor, or do you have the 2014 duel wielder feat?
If a monk or barbarian got high rolls like that, they could have an AC of 20 or 22 respectively with no resource expenditure.
They couldn't. Monk could be 19. Barb could be too but it'd be insane for them to waste their 20 stat in Dex instead of in Strength. That doesn't even make sense.
Barbarians are capable of using shields with their unarmored defense, and I was operating under the assumption you rolled two 20s.
If you use the 2014 rules, a human fighter could pick up defensive duelist, defence fighting style, and wield a shield while wearing heavy armor.
I'm not getting baited into this martial vs spellcaster debate you're trying to start. I said nothing about fighters and fully recognize they have high AC.
"There is no martial with higher AC than this." - you
R3sistance has answered your other points very well.
This thread is about Mage Armor and was started in 2020. I'm talking about sorcerers and wizards who use Mage Armor. They're not intended to be the lowest AC classes. They just ain't.
Yes, they are intended to have the lowest AC.
False. We know this because they don't.
You seem to be focusing on level 1 and that isn't how the whole game is built, it's clear from armour proficency and how classes interact with dexterity, which classes are meant to have the highest or lowest AC.
If armor from armor proficiency was the only way to have AC this would be a valid point. But D&D has this thing called magic. And some magic offers AC. Like Mage Armor. (Aka the topic of this thread) And Mage Armor is better than Light Armor proficiency.
The order would roughly be: Paladin > Fighter > Ranger > Rogue > Cleric > Druid > Barbarian > Monk > Warlock > Bard > Sorcerer > Wizard
Entirely false. Literally my highest AC character has been a wizard. The one I have at L3, right now, his AC goes as high as 27. None of these other classes can.
The order should be closer to Paladin/Fighter/Cleric/Artificer>Sorcerer/Wizard>Ranger/Rogue/Monk/Druid>Barbarian>Bard>Warlock.
Now subclasses change things, that is what they are meant to do but if we are talking pure base classes, this is obviously the intention of AC.
Subclasses are part of classes, any view of the classes without subclasses is, just incorrect. Because they do have them. You can whiteroom the topic all you like, but in actual games people have subclasses.
Mage armor is meant to be a Tier 1/2 answer to Sorcerer and Wizard being too vulnerable in the early game but is meant to fall off intentionally for Tier 3&4 where Wizard and Sorcerer (by base class) can never challenge other classes on AC and only have the shield spell remaining, which is designed to burn spell slots and compete against absorb elements and other reactions.
Mage Armor is better AC than light armor. And stays relevant through all tiers of play. But sure, during tiers 1 and 2 it launches the Sorcerer and Wizard much higher into the AC numbers than it does in the tiers of game that people rarely ever play. But even in those tiers it is still fantastic.
Look at some basic AC caps.
Heavy: 18
Medium: 17
Light: 17
Mage Armor: 18
A physical shield adds +2
And Shield spell adds a +5.
In any breakdown, sorcerer and wizard are higher than light armor users. Not only is it a higher AC, a higher AC cap, but they add a +5 on demand. Light armor users aren't even close to those AC levels.
Bard especially is the lowest. With his primary stat being Cha instead of Dex like the Rogue's, your average Bard is going to have really, really low AC. The only person worse is the warlock. Exception to the Hexblade of course, and part of the reason so many people play them. All other warlocks? Rock bottom of the AC game.
Druids are a mixed bag of issues. Either they're in animal form and have poor AC because of that, or they're stuck wearing light armor or hide. Their only saving grace from also being at the bottom is the access to a physical shield. Barbarian are in a similar predicament, with access to medium armor they're ok, but they'd need to use a shield to be great, something they really don't do, preferring instead twohanded weapons.
Paladin is obviously meant to be the highest AC class with the highest saving throws too boot, Sorcerer and Wizard are not intended to be able to challenge a paladin on AC.
Eh, IDK, Eldritch Knight might be better at the AC game than almost anyone. But Bladesingers are a close 2nd. Shield spell being a +5 does just too much work for non-shield-spell-havers to make up.
This changes going to 2024 slightly but since you said 2014, this is where the base classes are intended to be, and are. Now subclasses do change this but as people are talking about CLASSES, this is the order.
Again, subclasses are part of classes. You can't take them out and have anything even remotely resembling a character you'd ever see in play. Except maybe a Champion Fighter...
They can start with armor in 2024 by taking the gold and buying starting equipment. By doing this with a dexterity of 14, a barbarian would start with an expected 16 AC. Note that the barbarian also has the option to wield a shield to get 18.
I wasn't talking about 2024 rules, but sure: Barbarians don't really use shields. You've sat down and played this game with people right? We all know what barbarians do. They wade into combat with a big ol twohanded axe and rek house. You're not going to skip getting the starter ax to get some mid-grade medium armor. So that's not representative of how barbarians actually play.
But even then, you go out of your way to make a L1 barbarian with an 18 AC. Congrats: The Wizard with 16 dex, Mage Armor, and Shield? That's still 21 AC.
17, and that's going to go up both with magic armor, and with magic shields. (it's 2014, so barkskin isn't viable)
Magic items that increase AC are available to all characters, aren't guaranteed, and can't be planned for or known in advance. This isn't really a point.
How so? Do you somehow have +1 armor, or do you have the 2014 duel wielder feat?
Mage Armor is 13+dex. So an 18 dex is a +4 modifier. So, 13+4= 17. Bladesong adds their Int modifier, a +5. So 17+5= 22AC.
Then when you add shield, another +5, you get 22+5= AC of 27.
I'm hardpressed to think of another way to build a character that can hit this high an AC at this level without leaning on the charity of your DM granting you your free-for-all choice of whatever magic items your heart desires.
If a monk or barbarian got high rolls like that, they could have an AC of 20 or 22 respectively with no resource expenditure.
They couldn't. Monk could be 19. Barb could be too but it'd be insane for them to waste their 20 stat in Dex instead of in Strength. That doesn't even make sense.
Barbarians are capable of using shields with their unarmored defense, and I was operating under the assumption you rolled two 20s.
You're saying you normally see Barbarians put their highest stat into... Dexterity. And then use a Shield. Is that really what I'm expected to believe?
Naw man. That's not how people build barbarians. Maybe some multiclass barb-rogue weirdness. But we've been steering clear of multiclass shenanigans for a reason. (Because a single level dip into a heavy armor+shield proficiency cleric makes this a no brainer win for sorc/wiz characters)
Your normal starting barbarian has like 15AC, ish. And then as soon as he gets it, starts recklessly attacking making it effectively a 10AC...
If you use the 2014 rules, a human fighter could pick up defensive duelist, defence fighting style, and wield a shield while wearing heavy armor.
I'm not getting baited into this martial vs spellcaster debate you're trying to start. I said nothing about fighters and fully recognize they have high AC.
"There is no martial with higher AC than this." - you
I'm still not, though. Martials aren't a monolith. Spellcasters aren't a monolith. The classes are a spectrum of martial-thru-spellcaster. The subclasses blend that spectrum up even further.
But what's false: Saying sorcerer and wizard are intended to have the lowest AC.
That's just false. All this back and forth, and yall not having anything that shows how they even actually do have the lowest ACs, let alone say anything whatsoever that speaks to intent.
R3sistance has answered your other points very well.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Exactly, they should just let spellcasters have this.
Nope, Spellcasters are already OP'ed and have spells like Shield. With this a 1st level wizard could have 13+3+5 AC or 21 AC while wearing no armor at all... that is insane. Mage Armor is meant to be a solution for Wizards and Sorcerers that do not have light armour proficiency to have some AC but ultimately these classes are still meant to have the lowest AC.
I could see an argument for Armor of Shadows to work like this for Warlock but else wise not needed for Wizard and Sorcerer. Wizard and Sorcerer already get too much if they manage to get their hands on a staff of defense, and in the late game, way too much from Robe of the Archmagi.
Armor of shadows probably should but up it to like a 5th level invocation to avoid dips.
Mage Armor might cap at 18, but let's be realistic- the only time you're likely to see a DEX score that high on a Wizard or Sorcerer is the rare Bladesinger that still uses melee after level 8 or so, you got several very high rolls at character creation, or your DM is using a boosted array. I built a War Mage, wanted him to be a little on the tanky side- at level 4 his DEX is 14 for an AC of 15 if he uses Mage Armor. At level 4 a typical Light Armor user is very likely going to have an AC of 16 without spending any core resources on it.
This thread is about Mage Armor and was started in 2020. I'm talking about sorcerers and wizards who use Mage Armor. They're not intended to be the lowest AC classes. They just ain't.
Yes, they are intended to have the lowest AC.
False. We know this because they don't.
You seem to be focusing on level 1 and that isn't how the whole game is built, it's clear from armour proficency and how classes interact with dexterity, which classes are meant to have the highest or lowest AC.
If armor from armor proficiency was the only way to have AC this would be a valid point. But D&D has this thing called magic. And some magic offers AC. Like Mage Armor. (Aka the topic of this thread) And Mage Armor is better than Light Armor proficiency.
Mage armor costs 1-2 spell slots per day
+x studded leather is better then or equal to mage armor
The order would roughly be: Paladin > Fighter > Ranger > Rogue > Cleric > Druid > Barbarian > Monk > Warlock > Bard > Sorcerer > Wizard
Entirely false. Literally my highest AC character has been a wizard. The one I have at L3, right now, his AC goes as high as 27. None of these other classes can.
The order should be closer to Paladin/Fighter/Cleric/Artificer>Sorcerer/Wizard>Ranger/Rogue/Monk/Druid>Barbarian>Bard>Warlock.
The reason your character has unreasonably high AC is because your DM let you roll for stats. Using standard array, you would get a base AC of 16, bladesinging 19, and shield 24. That Also means you will only have a +1 to constitution, reducing your hp by about 1/6th compared to getting +2 constitution.
Now subclasses change things, that is what they are meant to do but if we are talking pure base classes, this is obviously the intention of AC.
Subclasses are part of classes, any view of the classes without subclasses is, just incorrect. Because they do have them. You can whiteroom the topic all you like, but in actual games people have subclasses.
Only a small minority of wizards are bladesingers.
Mage armor is meant to be a Tier 1/2 answer to Sorcerer and Wizard being too vulnerable in the early game but is meant to fall off intentionally for Tier 3&4 where Wizard and Sorcerer (by base class) can never challenge other classes on AC and only have the shield spell remaining, which is designed to burn spell slots and compete against absorb elements and other reactions.
Mage Armor is better AC than light armor. And stays relevant through all tiers of play. But sure, during tiers 1 and 2 it launches the Sorcerer and Wizard much higher into the AC numbers than it does in the tiers of game that people rarely ever play. But even in those tiers it is still fantastic.
Look at some basic AC caps.
Heavy: 18
Medium: 17
Light: 17
Mage Armor: 18
A physical shield adds +2
And Shield spell adds a +5.
In any breakdown, sorcerer and wizard are higher than light armor users. Not only is it a higher AC, a higher AC cap, but they add a +5 on demand. Light armor users aren't even close to those AC levels.
Bard especially is the lowest. With his primary stat being Cha instead of Dex like the Rogue's, your average Bard is going to have really, really low AC. The only person worse is the warlock. Exception to the Hexblade of course, and part of the reason so many people play them. All other warlocks? Rock bottom of the AC game.
Druids are a mixed bag of issues. Either they're in animal form and have poor AC because of that, or they're stuck wearing light armor or hide. Their only saving grace from also being at the bottom is the access to a physical shield. Barbarian are in a similar predicament, with access to medium armor they're ok, but they'd need to use a shield to be great, something they really don't do, preferring instead twohanded weapons.
AC caps are not important. It is expected AC that matters. A wizard has an expected AC of 15 with mage armor, whereas a barbarian has an expected AC of 16, and then 17 when they can afford half plate.
Paladin is obviously meant to be the highest AC class with the highest saving throws too boot, Sorcerer and Wizard are not intended to be able to challenge a paladin on AC.
Eh, IDK, Eldritch Knight might be better at the AC game than almost anyone. But Bladesingers are a close 2nd. Shield spell being a +5 does just too much work for non-shield-spell-havers to make up.
You only have a limited amount of spell slots per day.
This changes going to 2024 slightly but since you said 2014, this is where the base classes are intended to be, and are. Now subclasses do change this but as people are talking about CLASSES, this is the order.
Again, subclasses are part of classes. You can't take them out and have anything even remotely resembling a character you'd ever see in play. Except maybe a Champion Fighter...
They can start with armor in 2024 by taking the gold and buying starting equipment. By doing this with a dexterity of 14, a barbarian would start with an expected 16 AC. Note that the barbarian also has the option to wield a shield to get 18.
I wasn't talking about 2024 rules, but sure: Barbarians don't really use shields. You've sat down and played this game with people right? We all know what barbarians do. They wade into combat with a big ol twohanded axe and rek house. You're not going to skip getting the starter ax to get some mid-grade medium armor. So that's not representative of how barbarians actually play.
But even then, you go out of your way to make a L1 barbarian with an 18 AC. Congrats: The Wizard with 16 dex, Mage Armor, and Shield? That's still 21 AC.
You can afford both armor and an axe
You are treating shield like it's always active. It's not.
17, and that's going to go up both with magic armor, and with magic shields. (it's 2014, so barkskin isn't viable)
Magic items that increase AC are available to all characters, aren't guaranteed, and can't be planned for or known in advance. This isn't really a point.
The exact same thing can be said for rolling high stats.
How so? Do you somehow have +1 armor, or do you have the 2014 duel wielder feat?
Mage Armor is 13+dex. So an 18 dex is a +4 modifier. So, 13+4= 17. Bladesong adds their Int modifier, a +5. So 17+5= 22AC.
Then when you add shield, another +5, you get 22+5= AC of 27.
I'm hardpressed to think of another way to build a character that can hit this high an AC at this level without leaning on the charity of your DM granting you your free-for-all choice of whatever magic items your heart desires.
(forgot bladesinging worked with mage armor)
Battle Master Fighter with plate armor, defense fighting style, shield, defensive duelist, bait and switch maneuver, evasive footwork maneuver. Average AC: 40. Max AC: 51. No Resource expenditure Base AC: 36. Max: 43
If a monk or barbarian got high rolls like that, they could have an AC of 20 or 22 respectively with no resource expenditure.
They couldn't. Monk could be 19. Barb could be too but it'd be insane for them to waste their 20 stat in Dex instead of in Strength. That doesn't even make sense.
Barbarians are capable of using shields with their unarmored defense, and I was operating under the assumption you rolled two 20s.
You're saying you normally see Barbarians put their highest stat into... Dexterity. And then use a Shield. Is that really what I'm expected to believe?
Naw man. That's not how people build barbarians. Maybe some multiclass barb-rogue weirdness. But we've been steering clear of multiclass shenanigans for a reason. (Because a single level dip into a heavy armor+shield proficiency cleric makes this a no brainer win for sorc/wiz characters)
Your normal starting barbarian has like 15AC, ish. And then as soon as he gets it, starts recklessly attacking making it effectively a 10AC...
In the world of rolling for stats, maybe they got three 19/20s. Also, please note that I said could. Addionally, your normal starting barbarian has 16 AC, not 15 (assuming they were built with reasonable stats)
If you use the 2014 rules, a human fighter could pick up defensive duelist, defence fighting style, and wield a shield while wearing heavy armor.
I'm not getting baited into this martial vs spellcaster debate you're trying to start. I said nothing about fighters and fully recognize they have high AC.
"There is no martial with higher AC than this." - you
I'm still not, though. Martials aren't a monolith. Spellcasters aren't a monolith. The classes are a spectrum of martial-thru-spellcaster. The subclasses blend that spectrum up even further.
But what's false: Saying sorcerer and wizard are intended to have the lowest AC.
That's just false. All this back and forth, and yall not having anything that shows how they even actually do have the lowest ACs, let alone say anything whatsoever that speaks to intent.
R3sistance has answered your other points very well.
My goodness this thread is getting heated. Why are we comparing a rolled stats character to a point by character? We should probably compare point buy characters for consistency.
To go back to the OP's mage armor question. It uses dex because most AC calculations use dex to some degree with the exception of heavy armor and tortles. The idea is that you're shifting your body to avoid the damage. The magic makes the base 13. That idea of dex making you harder to hit is reflected in the different armor types max dex bonuses with heavy having no dex bonus because it's hard to dodge in, medium having +2 because it's not as hard to dodge, and light having none because it doesn't hinder movement.
When you compare ACs with a normal caster progression with point buy and mage armor they have an AC of 15 or 16 until level 12 and only get to 18 AC at level 16 or 19.
Heavy armor users normally start with chain for 16 and usually get plate at the end of tier 2 to get to 18.
Medium armor users normally start with scale mail with 14 dex for 16 AC. They can get half plate in tier 2 and often get medium armor master and a dex boost for 18 AC, without the feat 17.
Light armor users start with leather armor and 16 dex for 14 AC. They usually upgrade to studded leather in tier 1 and get dex boosts to get up to 17 by level 8.
To address one thing that has been brought up. The idea that a barbarian has the lowest AC is ridiculous. Even without getting armor at level 1 they should have a 14 dex and 16 con for 15 unarmored AC without a shield. A human in 2014 can have 16 in strength, dex, and con for an unarmored AC of 16. If they get half plate in tier 2 like other characters they can follow that track and get to 17. Unarmored defense struggles to keep up in tier 2 and 3 but ultimately is better than mage armor with proper ASIs and the capstone bringing the barbarian to 24 con and 16 dex for 20 AC.
This should be normal AC from lowest to highest in each tier of play without magic items or shields.
Tier 1: light armor, mage/barb, medium/heavy/monk
Tier 2: mage/barb, light/medium, monk, medium master/heavy
Tier 3: light/medium/mage/barb, medium master/heavy, monk
Making statements like this is pointless, you need to reason out why you say something like this but this statement adds nothing. You pulled a single sentence from a paragraph and put in a contrarian statement and then add nothing past that, this reflects worse on your ability to debate and reason than you think it does. It looks like an argument from emotion and opinions and not somebody whom has thought about what they are saying.
You seem to be focusing on level 1 and that isn't how the whole game is built, it's clear from armour proficency and how classes interact with dexterity, which classes are meant to have the highest or lowest AC.
If armor from armor proficiency was the only way to have AC this would be a valid point. But D&D has this thing called magic. And some magic offers AC. Like Mage Armor. (Aka the topic of this thread) And Mage Armor is better than Light Armor proficiency.
Magic is rarely permanent but you talk about it as if it were. Over a 4 encounter day with 4 rounds per encounter, you'd need 17 spell slots just to maintain your AC. More encounters and you are doomed, less encounters and you're wasting spell slots by holding them for more encounters. Also you can't even get that many spell slots until level 9 (and using Arcane Recovery). By level 9, you're probably facing 5 or even 6 encounters a day. Basically you can not sustain the AC you're going on about. This AC is very temporary and Bladesinger is essentially meant to cast a spell then dash into melee, do a round or two and then back out again, they are not capable of standing on the fight line like a paladin or fighter can, being the primary target for multiple creatures.
Also Mage Armor is 13+DEX. Studded Leather +2 is 14+DEX, Studded Leather +2 is inherently better than Mage Armor once you hit Tier 3 and never catches back-up, best you can get is Bracers of Defense but Bracers of Defense uses an Attunement Slot and Studded Leather +2 doesn't. There are other magic items that also use Attunement slots and give AC after all. In this very statement, you basically proved my point, you're looking at Tier 1 play, mostly things from level 1 and deciding that is how the rest of the game works. I am not even seeing a consideration of feats (level 4) in most of what you say.
The order would roughly be: Paladin > Fighter > Ranger > Rogue > Cleric > Druid > Barbarian > Monk > Warlock > Bard > Sorcerer > Wizard
Entirely false. Literally my highest AC character has been a wizard. The one I have at L3, right now, his AC goes as high as 27. None of these other classes can.
The order should be closer to Paladin/Fighter/Cleric/Artificer>Sorcerer/Wizard>Ranger/Rogue/Monk/Druid>Barbarian>Bard>Warlock.
Human Variant Paladin can exceed your 27 and still be a legal build with standard array and point buy (which I highly suspect your Wizard isn't), Just give em Plate and Shield for an AC of 20, Take Defense, AC 21, now cast Shield of Faith AC of 23 and finally take Magic Initiate to get the Shield Spell and Boom, you've now got a level 2 Paladin with an AC of 28 and it works with point buy and standard array. So yes, other classes CAN get a higher AC.
Now can that Paladin cast Shield more than once? doesn't matter, your wizard can also only cast Shield a limited number of times too. Should a level 2 Paladin actually have plate, it doesn't matter since clearly your DM gave you stuff you shouldn't be having for that 27 with dice rolled stats with rerolling. If you want to put together a build people take seriously you need to use either Point Buy or Standard Array. Either way, I wouldn't build a Paladin like this because that AC is just not needed, if you really want to go for the high AC Paladin then take Defensive Duellist and get a reaction at no cost (not even spell slot) which adds PB to AC while using Rapier + Shield, this is actually sustainable AC since you can use a reaction every round.
Now subclasses change things, that is what they are meant to do but if we are talking pure base classes, this is obviously the intention of AC.
Subclasses are part of classes, any view of the classes without subclasses is, just incorrect. Because they do have them. You can whiteroom the topic all you like, but in actual games people have subclasses.
Subclasses don't matter when talking about base classes, yes characters will have subclasses but there are too many subclasses to put literally every single subclass down. You're basically special pleading that Wizard isn't a low AC class because a single subclass can get higher AC, that doesn't mean Wizard isn't low AC, it just means there is a subclass build that can get higher AC.
Mage Armor is better AC than light armor. And stays relevant through all tiers of play. But sure, during tiers 1 and 2 it launches the Sorcerer and Wizard much higher into the AC numbers than it does in the tiers of game that people rarely ever play. But even in those tiers it is still fantastic.
Look at some basic AC caps.
Heavy: 18
Medium: 17
Light: 17
Mage Armor: 18
A physical shield adds +2
And Shield spell adds a +5.
In any breakdown, sorcerer and wizard are higher than light armor users. Not only is it a higher AC, a higher AC cap, but they add a +5 on demand. Light armor users aren't even close to those AC levels.
Bard especially is the lowest. With his primary stat being Cha instead of Dex like the Rogue's, your average Bard is going to have really, really low AC. The only person worse is the warlock. Exception to the Hexblade of course, and part of the reason so many people play them. All other warlocks? Rock bottom of the AC game.
Druids are a mixed bag of issues. Either they're in animal form and have poor AC because of that, or they're stuck wearing light armor or hide. Their only saving grace from also being at the bottom is the access to a physical shield. Barbarian are in a similar predicament, with access to medium armor they're ok, but they'd need to use a shield to be great, something they really don't do, preferring instead twohanded weapons.
This is literally the worst part of your argument
AC caps do not exist
Plate +3 gives 21 AC, fighting style can increase that too a 22AC for Fighter and Paladin. These classes can use Shields, with a +3 shield that is now 27AC. Paladin gets shield of Faith and that is now 29AC, play a warforged paladin and now up to an AC of 30. so how does Heavy have a cap of 18? You've invented this concept in your head and now asserting it as if it's the rules, it is not.
What you mean is, without magic items, the highest you get from a single piece of armor is 18, which isn't a cap, since again, the AC goes higher than 18. Further too this Medium Armor Master exists, Half-Plate with a +3 Dex modifier would give 18. Also Light Armor scales to Dexterity which technically caps at 30 (not 20 like you're thinking), there are builds that can potentially get over 20 Dexterity to get higher DEX mods, once you get to a Dex mod of +6 well it already breaks your "cap". That said, Ability Scores above 20 is generally end game stuff and doesn't really matter. Studded Leather +1 is a commonly enough awarded item by most DMs in Tier 2.
Most campaigns are medium or high magic, so while you can not guarantee magic items, more often than not, they exist and that is more so the case in regards to armor and weapons. Of course in low magic campaigns, wizard might just be a banned class anyway... given it's a high magic class.
Paladin is obviously meant to be the highest AC class with the highest saving throws too boot, Sorcerer and Wizard are not intended to be able to challenge a paladin on AC.
Eh, IDK, Eldritch Knight might be better at the AC game than almost anyone. But Bladesingers are a close 2nd. Shield spell being a +5 does just too much work for non-shield-spell-havers to make up.
Again, talking base classes, stop trying to confuse things with subclasses, it's pointless. Eldritch Knight can get the Shield spell, sure. Paladin gets Shield of Faith, using 2014 I already put together a Paladin that at level 2 beat your level 3 Bladesinger's AC and did it with a build using standard array rather than broken, likely cheated, dice rolls. A pure Paladin that picks up Defensive Duellist will match an Eldritch Knight at level 5 and go past what Eldritch Knight can get at level 9 since Paladin gets Shield of Faith and a +6 (+2 +4) is higher than a +5. Again this returns to you not really seemingly to know much about Tier 3 or Tier 4 play or the potential builds that actually exist, you crafted a few special builds and assume the rest of the class functions the same way based off of those very same limited builds.
Technically speaking Battlemaster can get a higher AC but only while they are moving, since Evasive Footwork exists but since most the builds you talk about don't do sustainable AC but temporary AC, I'll point this out.
This changes going to 2024 slightly but since you said 2014, this is where the base classes are intended to be, and are. Now subclasses do change this but as people are talking about CLASSES, this is the order.
Again, subclasses are part of classes. You can't take them out and have anything even remotely resembling a character you'd ever see in play. Except maybe a Champion Fighter...
Yes you can, let's remember that Bladesinger wasn't even a PHB subclass, before SCAG, Bladesinger didn't even exist but the class did. Anybody can invent a subclass after all and sometimes certain subclasses end out being overpowered or underpowered. SCAG being official material doesn't actually bare much weight on that, since they have repeatedly made underpowered and overpowered subclasses. 2014 Berserker Barbarian? Underpowered, 2014 Totem Barbarian? Overpowered. 2014 Hexblade overpowered, 2014 Bladesinger wizard, overpowered, 2014 beastmaster ranger, underpowered.
Overall, a subclass being over or underpowered does not make the base class over or underpowered because a class is not it's subclass but rather subclass is a choice you make of available options during class progression.
Jurmondur has already responded, so I won't waste the time of pointing out the flaws in your arguments where you quote Jurmondur.
R3sistance has answered your other points very well.
I got time for you both.
Having time doesn't mean being correct however, you can say you have time but this is another statement made only to be contrarian. Jurmondur was only saying there was no point re-iterating points I had already made, this didn't need a response but you gave one anyway, why even waste the time on that? You can be contrarian all you want but it won't make you correct nor does having time actually mean anything. If you're going to continually post incorrect information then people will continue to correct you until such a point people grow tired or things escalate and the thread gets locked or responses get deleted.
But if you have the time, please put more time into your actual responses, since to me, it still feels like you're just looking at things from Tier 1 and still insisting that is how things still work come Tier 3 or Tier 4.
I was going to do another point by point reply to correct the inaccurate claims here, but I realized where the negative space in all these replies really was: No one has yet to explain why they're claiming the bard has higher ACs than mage armored sorcs or wizards.
The sorc and wizards are not intended to have the lowest ACs. We know that is false because they don't have the lowest ACs. Standard run of the mill sorcs and wizards with mage armor have acs of 15 or 16, spiking to 20 or 21 on demand with shield. That's just not the lowest. Nor was it intended to be. Fact.
They do have to use resources to accomplish this. That's a given, that's how they do basically everything they do, it is how spellcasters work. By casting spells.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I was going to do another point by point reply to correct the inaccurate claims here, but I realized where the negative space in all these replies really was: No one has yet to explain why they're claiming the bard has higher ACs than mage armored sorcs or wizards.
The sorc and wizards are not intended to have the lowest ACs. We know that is false because they don't have the lowest ACs. Standard run of the mill sorcs and wizards with mage armor have acs of 15 or 16, spiking to 20 or 21 on demand with shield. That's just not the lowest. Nor was it intended to be. Fact.
They do have to use resources to accomplish this. That's a given, that's how they do basically everything they do, it is how spellcasters work. By casting spells.
No, you're the negative space, you're being contrarian for no real reason. You used rolled dice, with numbers that are extremely rare by pure chance, To the point of having +4 DEX mod and +5 INT mod at level 3, or so you claimed, clearly nobody is going to take that seriously and you know it. But if you're willing to post it we can review how realistic the character you got actually is.
But since you must know, Bard gets light armor and magical secrets, at level 10 they can pick up the shield spell and at that point they are just above where Wizard and Sorcerer are meaning for Tier 3 * Tier 4 Bard is just straight up better. But since you also like comparing subclasses, there are 3 subclasses that get other boosts, College of Sword and College of Valor get Medium Armor while College of Lore gets more Magical secrets and at level 6 for 2014. So in Tier 1 and most of Tier 2, Bard does have the lowest expected AC but for over half the game bard can have a higher AC than either Wizard or Sorcerer.
I was going to do another point by point reply to correct the inaccurate claims here, but I realized where the negative space in all these replies really was: No one has yet to explain why they're claiming the bard has higher ACs than mage armored sorcs or wizards.
The sorc and wizards are not intended to have the lowest ACs. We know that is false because they don't have the lowest ACs. Standard run of the mill sorcs and wizards with mage armor have acs of 15 or 16, spiking to 20 or 21 on demand with shield. That's just not the lowest. Nor was it intended to be. Fact.
They do have to use resources to accomplish this. That's a given, that's how they do basically everything they do, it is how spellcasters work. By casting spells.
Yes bards will have 1 lower AC at low levels. There are several caveats though.
It costs 2 level 1 spell slots to get the higher AC for sorcerers and wizards for the day, which can be significant at low levels.
At level 3, valor bards get medium armor proficiency, and dance bards get unarmored defense, so around half of bards played using exclusively 2024 rules will have equal or higher AC than sorcerers or wizards. Note that those two are in the core rulebooks, which makes them significantly more prevalent than subclasses from other books.
At level 6 for lore bards or level 10 for other bards, they are able to get the spell barkskin, which is basically better mage armor.
Bards can use +x light armor.
Also, I never claimed bards in particular are meant to have higher AC myself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Spellcasters are not meant to have the lowest ACs and rarely do.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That is false. Certain spellcasters have equivalent AC to martials, and sometimes even more due to shield, but they usually have to build around it and/or use resources to do so. After all, if spellcasters are meant to have higher AC than martials, why don't wizards have armor proficiency?
It isn't.
Martials aren't all the same in terms of expected AC. Neither are spellcasters. My statement was correct, the error is thinking that you can have a coherent spellcaster vs martial angle to the question of who is "intended" to have the lowest AC when different spellcasters and different martials have different expected ACs.
Why? Because they do it with magic, not armor. What a curious question.
And some wizards do have armor proficiency. So.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The only real exception I can think of is clerics with the protector option.
There are also monks and rogues, which start with an expected 16 AC, but those go up with level.
The thing is, wizards have lower AC than any martial 99% of the time. Also, which wizards have armor proficiency? Are you referring to ones who invest in feats for the purpose?
We were, generally speaking, talking about spellcasters who use Mage Armor. Again, you're taking this offtopic into some spellcaster vs martial direction which I don't agree with.
Spellcasters who use mage armor, aka Wizard and Sorcerers.... aren't designed for the lowest ACs. That privilege goes to some Rogue, Monk, or Druid, but especially Barbarian, Bard, and Warlock.
There is some argument you could make to say warlocks count as spellcasters who have access to mage armor and not shield so are spellcasters with intentionally low ACs and I wouldn't argue against that per se other than to say they're not real spellcasters. And definitely not intended to be casting mage armor, not really.
But wizards and sorcerers? They have medium AC expectations that spike up to high AC expectations on demand.
They really don't. 99% of the time? No. Lower than the barbarian? No, just, no. Speaking personally, mine typically start with a 16AC at L1 with mage armor, even if it is a point-buy character. Which can bump to 21 with Shield. That's not sustainable. Obviously. But L1 lasts for like one adventuring day anyway. Not getting hit for a round is the difference between surviving that day or not.
My current wizard character rocks an AC of 17, which is an AC of 22 in combat with Bladesong. Bumped to 27 when he shields. Those numbers are from level 3. There is no martial with higher AC than this.
Bladesinger wizards have light armor. And dwarf wizards have medium armor.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You were not clear whatsoever that you only wanted to talk about mage armor. It is absurd that the most common response I get to posts is people claiming I'm derailing the conversation, or the like.
Now, to get into the numbers of what we're talking about:
Rogue: Studded armor = 12 + dex - level 1 AC = 15, level 4: 16, level 8, 17. They are also capable of using magic armor, so it is more likely you will have AC 18 at level 8.
Monk: Unarmored defence = 10 + dex + wis. level 1: 16, level 4: 17, level 8: 18. This can continue until level 20 where they get an AC of 24.
Barbarian: What are you talking about? They can wear medium armor.
I agree spellcasters are designed to have low AC. As a sidenote, druids do have access to barkskin, shields, and potentially medium armor, so not the best example.
Yes lower than the barbarian. I don't know where you got the notion they have especially low AC. I have a druid that has 16 dexterity (aka, built to have high AC) and only beats the party barbarian in AC by one. You can start as a wizard with 16 dexterity, as I did with that druid, but that is a significant investment.
You say your current wizard has an AC of 17, or 22 in bladesong - at level three. That means you rolled for stats, as to get that you would need 20 intelligence and dexterity to get that. If a monk or barbarian got high rolls like that, they could have an AC of 20 or 22 respectively with no resource expenditure. If you use the 2014 rules, a human fighter could pick up defensive duelist, defence fighting style, and wield a shield while wearing heavy armor. Together that makes 23 AC. 23 > 22. Also, I believe that bladesinger is pretty overpowered. Finally, they have removed medium armor proficiency from dwarves in oneD&D.
What is the topic of this post? What is the topic of the commenter I was replying to?
We're talking about Mage Armor, on Wizards and Sorcerers.
This is what I was replying to:
It is very clear.
They said these classes are intended to have lowest AC. But that's plainly false.
Bard is lower. Warlock is lower. Barbarian is lower. Druid, Rogue, and Monk is comparable but can't spike up on demand with shield.
Because they do. Medium armor by itself is middling AC. They'll start with a 14 or 15 AC. Pretty low. Because they don't even have starting armor. And it'll be a few levels before they generally get to high end medium armor like half plate.
So the druid has an AC of... what? 16, maybe 17? But it ain't going up any time soon is it?
18 and 20, but yes.
They couldn't. Monk could be 19. Barb could be too but it'd be insane for them to waste their 20 stat in Dex instead of in Strength. That doesn't even make sense.
I'm not getting baited into this martial vs spellcaster debate you're trying to start. I said nothing about fighters and fully recognize they have high AC.
They're a wizard regardless of your opinion on how powerful they are. And they have armor proficiency.
I guess that would matter if we were talking exclusively about onednd. We're not. This thread is about Mage Armor and was started in 2020. I'm talking about sorcerers and wizards who use Mage Armor. They're not intended to be the lowest AC classes. They just ain't.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes, they are intended to have the lowest AC. You seem to be focusing on level 1 and that isn't how the whole game is built, it's clear from armour proficency and how classes interact with dexterity, which classes are meant to have the highest or lowest AC.
The order would roughly be: Paladin > Fighter > Ranger > Rogue > Cleric > Druid > Barbarian > Monk > Warlock > Bard > Sorcerer > Wizard
Now subclasses change things, that is what they are meant to do but if we are talking pure base classes, this is obviously the intention of AC.
Paladin gets Heavy Armor + Shield + Fighting Style + Spells
Fighter gets Heavy Armor + Shield + Fighting Style
Ranger gets Medium Armor + Shield + Fighting Style and is Dexterity focused
Rogue gets Light Armor and is Dexterity Focused
Cleric gets Medium Armor + Shields + spells
Druid gets Medium Armor + Shields + spells
Barbarian gets Medium Armor + Shields
Monk gets unarmored defence using their two main attributes (Dexterity and Wisdom)
Warlock gets light armour
Bard gets light armour
Sorcerer gets no armor, just spells
Wizard gets no armor, just spells
Mage armor is meant to be a Tier 1/2 answer to Sorcerer and Wizard being too vulnerable in the early game but is meant to fall off intentionally for Tier 3&4 where Wizard and Sorcerer (by base class) can never challenge other classes on AC and only have the shield spell remaining, which is designed to burn spell slots and compete against absorb elements and other reactions.
Paladin is obviously meant to be the highest AC class with the highest saving throws too boot, Sorcerer and Wizard are not intended to be able to challenge a paladin on AC. This changes going to 2024 slightly but since you said 2014, this is where the base classes are intended to be, and are. Now subclasses do change this but as people are talking about CLASSES, this is the order.
They can start with armor in 2024 by taking the gold and buying starting equipment. By doing this with a dexterity of 14, a barbarian would start with an expected 16 AC. Note that the barbarian also has the option to wield a shield to get 18.
17, and that's going to go up both with magic armor, and with magic shields. (it's 2014, so barkskin isn't viable)
How so? Do you somehow have +1 armor, or do you have the 2014 duel wielder feat?
Barbarians are capable of using shields with their unarmored defense, and I was operating under the assumption you rolled two 20s.
"There is no martial with higher AC than this." - you
False. We know this because they don't.
If armor from armor proficiency was the only way to have AC this would be a valid point. But D&D has this thing called magic. And some magic offers AC. Like Mage Armor. (Aka the topic of this thread) And Mage Armor is better than Light Armor proficiency.
Entirely false. Literally my highest AC character has been a wizard. The one I have at L3, right now, his AC goes as high as 27. None of these other classes can.
The order should be closer to Paladin/Fighter/Cleric/Artificer>Sorcerer/Wizard>Ranger/Rogue/Monk/Druid>Barbarian>Bard>Warlock.
Subclasses are part of classes, any view of the classes without subclasses is, just incorrect. Because they do have them. You can whiteroom the topic all you like, but in actual games people have subclasses.
Mage Armor is better AC than light armor. And stays relevant through all tiers of play. But sure, during tiers 1 and 2 it launches the Sorcerer and Wizard much higher into the AC numbers than it does in the tiers of game that people rarely ever play. But even in those tiers it is still fantastic.
Look at some basic AC caps.
Heavy: 18
Medium: 17
Light: 17
Mage Armor: 18
A physical shield adds +2
And Shield spell adds a +5.
In any breakdown, sorcerer and wizard are higher than light armor users. Not only is it a higher AC, a higher AC cap, but they add a +5 on demand. Light armor users aren't even close to those AC levels.
Bard especially is the lowest. With his primary stat being Cha instead of Dex like the Rogue's, your average Bard is going to have really, really low AC. The only person worse is the warlock. Exception to the Hexblade of course, and part of the reason so many people play them. All other warlocks? Rock bottom of the AC game.
Druids are a mixed bag of issues. Either they're in animal form and have poor AC because of that, or they're stuck wearing light armor or hide. Their only saving grace from also being at the bottom is the access to a physical shield. Barbarian are in a similar predicament, with access to medium armor they're ok, but they'd need to use a shield to be great, something they really don't do, preferring instead twohanded weapons.
Eh, IDK, Eldritch Knight might be better at the AC game than almost anyone. But Bladesingers are a close 2nd. Shield spell being a +5 does just too much work for non-shield-spell-havers to make up.
Again, subclasses are part of classes. You can't take them out and have anything even remotely resembling a character you'd ever see in play. Except maybe a Champion Fighter...
I wasn't talking about 2024 rules, but sure: Barbarians don't really use shields. You've sat down and played this game with people right? We all know what barbarians do. They wade into combat with a big ol twohanded axe and rek house. You're not going to skip getting the starter ax to get some mid-grade medium armor. So that's not representative of how barbarians actually play.
But even then, you go out of your way to make a L1 barbarian with an 18 AC. Congrats: The Wizard with 16 dex, Mage Armor, and Shield? That's still 21 AC.
Magic items that increase AC are available to all characters, aren't guaranteed, and can't be planned for or known in advance. This isn't really a point.
Mage Armor is 13+dex. So an 18 dex is a +4 modifier. So, 13+4= 17. Bladesong adds their Int modifier, a +5. So 17+5= 22AC.
Then when you add shield, another +5, you get 22+5= AC of 27.
I'm hardpressed to think of another way to build a character that can hit this high an AC at this level without leaning on the charity of your DM granting you your free-for-all choice of whatever magic items your heart desires.
You're saying you normally see Barbarians put their highest stat into... Dexterity. And then use a Shield. Is that really what I'm expected to believe?
Naw man. That's not how people build barbarians. Maybe some multiclass barb-rogue weirdness. But we've been steering clear of multiclass shenanigans for a reason. (Because a single level dip into a heavy armor+shield proficiency cleric makes this a no brainer win for sorc/wiz characters)
Your normal starting barbarian has like 15AC, ish. And then as soon as he gets it, starts recklessly attacking making it effectively a 10AC...
I'm still not, though. Martials aren't a monolith. Spellcasters aren't a monolith. The classes are a spectrum of martial-thru-spellcaster. The subclasses blend that spectrum up even further.
But what's false: Saying sorcerer and wizard are intended to have the lowest AC.
That's just false. All this back and forth, and yall not having anything that shows how they even actually do have the lowest ACs, let alone say anything whatsoever that speaks to intent.
I got time for you both.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Armor of shadows probably should but up it to like a 5th level invocation to avoid dips.
Mage Armor might cap at 18, but let's be realistic- the only time you're likely to see a DEX score that high on a Wizard or Sorcerer is the rare Bladesinger that still uses melee after level 8 or so, you got several very high rolls at character creation, or your DM is using a boosted array. I built a War Mage, wanted him to be a little on the tanky side- at level 4 his DEX is 14 for an AC of 15 if he uses Mage Armor. At level 4 a typical Light Armor user is very likely going to have an AC of 16 without spending any core resources on it.
The reason your character has unreasonably high AC is because your DM let you roll for stats. Using standard array, you would get a base AC of 16, bladesinging 19, and shield 24. That Also means you will only have a +1 to constitution, reducing your hp by about 1/6th compared to getting +2 constitution.
Only a small minority of wizards are bladesingers.
AC caps are not important. It is expected AC that matters. A wizard has an expected AC of 15 with mage armor, whereas a barbarian has an expected AC of 16, and then 17 when they can afford half plate.
You only have a limited amount of spell slots per day.
The exact same thing can be said for rolling high stats.
(forgot bladesinging worked with mage armor)
Battle Master Fighter with plate armor, defense fighting style, shield, defensive duelist, bait and switch maneuver, evasive footwork maneuver. Average AC: 40. Max AC: 51. No Resource expenditure Base AC: 36. Max: 43
In the world of rolling for stats, maybe they got three 19/20s. Also, please note that I said could. Addionally, your normal starting barbarian has 16 AC, not 15 (assuming they were built with reasonable stats)
My goodness this thread is getting heated. Why are we comparing a rolled stats character to a point by character? We should probably compare point buy characters for consistency.
To go back to the OP's mage armor question. It uses dex because most AC calculations use dex to some degree with the exception of heavy armor and tortles. The idea is that you're shifting your body to avoid the damage. The magic makes the base 13. That idea of dex making you harder to hit is reflected in the different armor types max dex bonuses with heavy having no dex bonus because it's hard to dodge in, medium having +2 because it's not as hard to dodge, and light having none because it doesn't hinder movement.
When you compare ACs with a normal caster progression with point buy and mage armor they have an AC of 15 or 16 until level 12 and only get to 18 AC at level 16 or 19.
Heavy armor users normally start with chain for 16 and usually get plate at the end of tier 2 to get to 18.
Medium armor users normally start with scale mail with 14 dex for 16 AC. They can get half plate in tier 2 and often get medium armor master and a dex boost for 18 AC, without the feat 17.
Light armor users start with leather armor and 16 dex for 14 AC. They usually upgrade to studded leather in tier 1 and get dex boosts to get up to 17 by level 8.
To address one thing that has been brought up. The idea that a barbarian has the lowest AC is ridiculous. Even without getting armor at level 1 they should have a 14 dex and 16 con for 15 unarmored AC without a shield. A human in 2014 can have 16 in strength, dex, and con for an unarmored AC of 16. If they get half plate in tier 2 like other characters they can follow that track and get to 17. Unarmored defense struggles to keep up in tier 2 and 3 but ultimately is better than mage armor with proper ASIs and the capstone bringing the barbarian to 24 con and 16 dex for 20 AC.
This should be normal AC from lowest to highest in each tier of play without magic items or shields.
Tier 1: light armor, mage/barb, medium/heavy/monk
Tier 2: mage/barb, light/medium, monk, medium master/heavy
Tier 3: light/medium/mage/barb, medium master/heavy, monk
Tier 4: light/medium/lvl 16 barb, lvl 19barb/mage/medium master/heavy, monk/lvl 20 barb
Mage armor users start off well but fall behind at the end of tier 1 and don't catch up until tier 3 or 4.
Magic is rarely permanent but you talk about it as if it were. Over a 4 encounter day with 4 rounds per encounter, you'd need 17 spell slots just to maintain your AC. More encounters and you are doomed, less encounters and you're wasting spell slots by holding them for more encounters. Also you can't even get that many spell slots until level 9 (and using Arcane Recovery). By level 9, you're probably facing 5 or even 6 encounters a day. Basically you can not sustain the AC you're going on about. This AC is very temporary and Bladesinger is essentially meant to cast a spell then dash into melee, do a round or two and then back out again, they are not capable of standing on the fight line like a paladin or fighter can, being the primary target for multiple creatures.
Also Mage Armor is 13+DEX. Studded Leather +2 is 14+DEX, Studded Leather +2 is inherently better than Mage Armor once you hit Tier 3 and never catches back-up, best you can get is Bracers of Defense but Bracers of Defense uses an Attunement Slot and Studded Leather +2 doesn't. There are other magic items that also use Attunement slots and give AC after all. In this very statement, you basically proved my point, you're looking at Tier 1 play, mostly things from level 1 and deciding that is how the rest of the game works. I am not even seeing a consideration of feats (level 4) in most of what you say.
Human Variant Paladin can exceed your 27 and still be a legal build with standard array and point buy (which I highly suspect your Wizard isn't), Just give em Plate and Shield for an AC of 20, Take Defense, AC 21, now cast Shield of Faith AC of 23 and finally take Magic Initiate to get the Shield Spell and Boom, you've now got a level 2 Paladin with an AC of 28 and it works with point buy and standard array. So yes, other classes CAN get a higher AC.
Now can that Paladin cast Shield more than once? doesn't matter, your wizard can also only cast Shield a limited number of times too. Should a level 2 Paladin actually have plate, it doesn't matter since clearly your DM gave you stuff you shouldn't be having for that 27 with dice rolled stats with rerolling. If you want to put together a build people take seriously you need to use either Point Buy or Standard Array. Either way, I wouldn't build a Paladin like this because that AC is just not needed, if you really want to go for the high AC Paladin then take Defensive Duellist and get a reaction at no cost (not even spell slot) which adds PB to AC while using Rapier + Shield, this is actually sustainable AC since you can use a reaction every round.
Subclasses don't matter when talking about base classes, yes characters will have subclasses but there are too many subclasses to put literally every single subclass down. You're basically special pleading that Wizard isn't a low AC class because a single subclass can get higher AC, that doesn't mean Wizard isn't low AC, it just means there is a subclass build that can get higher AC.
This is literally the worst part of your argument
AC caps do not exist
Plate +3 gives 21 AC, fighting style can increase that too a 22AC for Fighter and Paladin. These classes can use Shields, with a +3 shield that is now 27AC. Paladin gets shield of Faith and that is now 29AC, play a warforged paladin and now up to an AC of 30. so how does Heavy have a cap of 18? You've invented this concept in your head and now asserting it as if it's the rules, it is not.
What you mean is, without magic items, the highest you get from a single piece of armor is 18, which isn't a cap, since again, the AC goes higher than 18. Further too this Medium Armor Master exists, Half-Plate with a +3 Dex modifier would give 18. Also Light Armor scales to Dexterity which technically caps at 30 (not 20 like you're thinking), there are builds that can potentially get over 20 Dexterity to get higher DEX mods, once you get to a Dex mod of +6 well it already breaks your "cap". That said, Ability Scores above 20 is generally end game stuff and doesn't really matter. Studded Leather +1 is a commonly enough awarded item by most DMs in Tier 2.
Most campaigns are medium or high magic, so while you can not guarantee magic items, more often than not, they exist and that is more so the case in regards to armor and weapons. Of course in low magic campaigns, wizard might just be a banned class anyway... given it's a high magic class.
Again, talking base classes, stop trying to confuse things with subclasses, it's pointless. Eldritch Knight can get the Shield spell, sure. Paladin gets Shield of Faith, using 2014 I already put together a Paladin that at level 2 beat your level 3 Bladesinger's AC and did it with a build using standard array rather than broken, likely cheated, dice rolls. A pure Paladin that picks up Defensive Duellist will match an Eldritch Knight at level 5 and go past what Eldritch Knight can get at level 9 since Paladin gets Shield of Faith and a +6 (+2 +4) is higher than a +5. Again this returns to you not really seemingly to know much about Tier 3 or Tier 4 play or the potential builds that actually exist, you crafted a few special builds and assume the rest of the class functions the same way based off of those very same limited builds.
Technically speaking Battlemaster can get a higher AC but only while they are moving, since Evasive Footwork exists but since most the builds you talk about don't do sustainable AC but temporary AC, I'll point this out.
Yes you can, let's remember that Bladesinger wasn't even a PHB subclass, before SCAG, Bladesinger didn't even exist but the class did. Anybody can invent a subclass after all and sometimes certain subclasses end out being overpowered or underpowered. SCAG being official material doesn't actually bare much weight on that, since they have repeatedly made underpowered and overpowered subclasses. 2014 Berserker Barbarian? Underpowered, 2014 Totem Barbarian? Overpowered. 2014 Hexblade overpowered, 2014 Bladesinger wizard, overpowered, 2014 beastmaster ranger, underpowered.
Overall, a subclass being over or underpowered does not make the base class over or underpowered because a class is not it's subclass but rather subclass is a choice you make of available options during class progression.
Jurmondur has already responded, so I won't waste the time of pointing out the flaws in your arguments where you quote Jurmondur.
Having time doesn't mean being correct however, you can say you have time but this is another statement made only to be contrarian. Jurmondur was only saying there was no point re-iterating points I had already made, this didn't need a response but you gave one anyway, why even waste the time on that? You can be contrarian all you want but it won't make you correct nor does having time actually mean anything. If you're going to continually post incorrect information then people will continue to correct you until such a point people grow tired or things escalate and the thread gets locked or responses get deleted.
But if you have the time, please put more time into your actual responses, since to me, it still feels like you're just looking at things from Tier 1 and still insisting that is how things still work come Tier 3 or Tier 4.
I was going to do another point by point reply to correct the inaccurate claims here, but I realized where the negative space in all these replies really was: No one has yet to explain why they're claiming the bard has higher ACs than mage armored sorcs or wizards.
The sorc and wizards are not intended to have the lowest ACs. We know that is false because they don't have the lowest ACs. Standard run of the mill sorcs and wizards with mage armor have acs of 15 or 16, spiking to 20 or 21 on demand with shield. That's just not the lowest. Nor was it intended to be. Fact.
They do have to use resources to accomplish this. That's a given, that's how they do basically everything they do, it is how spellcasters work. By casting spells.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
No, you're the negative space, you're being contrarian for no real reason. You used rolled dice, with numbers that are extremely rare by pure chance, To the point of having +4 DEX mod and +5 INT mod at level 3, or so you claimed, clearly nobody is going to take that seriously and you know it. But if you're willing to post it we can review how realistic the character you got actually is.
But since you must know, Bard gets light armor and magical secrets, at level 10 they can pick up the shield spell and at that point they are just above where Wizard and Sorcerer are meaning for Tier 3 * Tier 4 Bard is just straight up better. But since you also like comparing subclasses, there are 3 subclasses that get other boosts, College of Sword and College of Valor get Medium Armor while College of Lore gets more Magical secrets and at level 6 for 2014. So in Tier 1 and most of Tier 2, Bard does have the lowest expected AC but for over half the game bard can have a higher AC than either Wizard or Sorcerer.
Yes bards will have 1 lower AC at low levels. There are several caveats though.
Also, I never claimed bards in particular are meant to have higher AC myself.