Does anyone else tend to favor medium armor? The only exception is if you're building a strength-based melee fighter and you don't care about stealth.
-- Medium armor has 1 less AC potential, with 2 less if you want to have stealth.
+ Medium armor allows you to invest 14 points into Dex to maximize the benefits, verses 15 points for Strength if you want to wear plate mail. That's 2 more points you get to spend in point buy.
+ Investing into Dex helps with more useful skills on the skill tree.
+ Dex saving throws come up much more often than Str saving throws.
+ Dex helps your initiative rolls.
+ Some medium armor allows for stealth without disadvantage
+ Dex allows for effective use of ranged weapons
Like I said, if you're playing a strength-based fighter and you don't care about stealth, heavy armor makes sense. But if I'm playing-- let's say a Cleric with heavy armor proficiency-- I'm still going to put 14 into Dex, 8 or 10 into Str, pump my Wis and wear medium armor.
You have hit the nail right on the head. Strength is rapidly becoming the least useful score in the game. The second least useful is usually Intelligence, because there's really no reason to have much of it unless you're playing a caster type based on Intelligence.
Medium armor is usually superior, and that's kind of silly. Thanks to bounced accuracy, armor in general is not all that useful. A bonus to hit is much better. The game is designed around the idea that a bunch of low level mooks can still be a threat. Thanks to the Finesse rules, the Rapier ends up welded into the hands of anyone who can use it. It's the only d8 weapon with Finesse. That doesn't seem like all that much. A whole 2 points better than a d6 weapon like all the rest of the martial weapons you can use in one hand, but it still ends up doing more damage because dex is so much better than str.
If it was up to me, I'd give all Martial weapons finesse, even the ranged ones.
I was in an argument with a guy who was talking about a Multi-class Paladin/Sorcerer and wear heavy armor. He went to the extent of giving the page number of the rules about multi-classing, where it specifically states that Sorcadins can't wear heavy armor. I guess he never troubled himself to read it himself. It's nearly the only limitation that combination of classes has.
If it was up to me, I'd probably do something like let people wearing heavy armor add their Strength bonus to their armor class when wearing heavy armor. It might acutally make builds based on Strength worth playing.
AC has *increasing* returns against a given hit bonus - AC 10->11 is a smaller rise in durability than AC 17->18. Strength is also, in general, the only ability score that does something at odd levels - it improves encumbrance, jumping, and qualifies you for heavy armor without a mobility penalty.
If I'm playing a 2/1 race with proficiency in heavy armor, my goal is speed 25 - then I can keep up with even fellow PCs whose speed is 25 anyway. That means as a dwarf or 35' race like Dhampir or Half Wood Elf, I don't need Strength.
The primary reason I'll choose medium armor over heavy when I don't have to is if a) I'm a winged tiefling or b) I'm multiclassing and my primary class needs to not put the armor on - Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, and depending on the DM, Druid may lock me out of heavy armor in order for my features to work, so that can force my hand. The secondary reason is if I'm a Fighter leaning into Dexterity and I'm not a mobile race - if I'm making a rifleman samurai and I'm not a mobile race, I need to seriously consider letting myself be speed 20 and I'll probably refuse.
A lot depends on what encumberance rules and the tpye of campaign you are playing,
With variant encumberance to wear plate and a shield a cleric with 15 strength would be encumbered unless everything else they carries weighted lass than 4lb. In practise they would probably need 18 strength to avoid encumberance in that case they are better off going 10 dex, and wearing a breast plate so they can dump strength.
With standard encomberance you might have a bit of an issue if you completely dump strength and wear plate if you also have to carry things like a bed roll, waterskin rations, and torches , but you would probably bo ok with strength of 10.
I am not a great fan of taking the movement penalty, especially if you are needing to be mobile (either as a melee attacker or as a cleric who needs to position themselves due to having spritit guardians up or wanting to cast cure wounds). As a mobile race you can keep up with the dwarf/gnome but the number it is still very frequent that you find yourself 5ft short to move where you want to (or 10ft if you are dashing).
A lot also depends on the level you are playing, when you first get plate you might have enemies that are +6 to hit so of you are AC20 they will hit 35% of the time and at AC19 40% of the time so that extra 1AC reduces hits by 12.5%. At the end game you might have +1 armor but be facing enemies with a +12 to hit so he extra AC does proportionally less damage reduction.
Having said that I agree with the OP that generally speaking characters that are proficient in heavy armor but don't use strength to attack are better off with medium armor.
I am not sure if strength is less useful than intelligence, you need one party member with high intelligence to make the investigation/arcana/religion checks but the rest of the party can safely dump it. Strength saves are much mor common than int saves. I have spent entire combats stuck in an entangle spell.
It is a bit off topic but I don't think giving all martial weapons finesse is the solution, at least it should not apply is wielding a weapon with two hands. I have no problem homebrewing weapons that are like a rapier but deal slashing or bludgeoning damage.
I have found it very frequent that 10 feet of movement can make a big difference especially for melee types. A wood elf fighter
Dexterity is a strictly superior stat, as it does more things. But if you're putting points into strength then you probably want your next highest score in Con, then into a INT, WIS, or CHA. I won't ever play a low charisma character again because doing great roleplay and then having a -1 on a Persuasion check really sucks.
Heavy Armor Master is a highly overlooked feat - 3 points of damage fewer per attack doesn't sound like a lot, but it's basically like removing the ability modifier from most attacks. Low level enemies really struggle to do any damage at all, and if your Fighter or Paladin would have taken 5 hits in a fight then it's like having an additional 15 hit points which is very potent. Some may prefer Tough, but I've had a round of combat where 8 Kobolds flung sling stones at me and even the ones that were hitting did zero damage.
Dexterity is a strictly superior stat, as it does more things. But if you're putting points into strength then you probably want your next highest score in Con, then into a INT, WIS, or CHA. I won't ever play a low charisma character again because doing great roleplay and then having a -1 on a Persuasion check really sucks.
Heavy Armor Master is a highly overlooked feat - 3 points of damage fewer per attack doesn't sound like a lot, but it's basically like removing the ability modifier from most attacks. Low level enemies really struggle to do any damage at all, and if your Fighter or Paladin would have taken 5 hits in a fight then it's like having an additional 15 hit points which is very potent. Some may prefer Tough, but I've had a round of combat where 8 Kobolds flung sling stones at me and even the ones that were hitting did zero damage.
I know how you feel about charisma, the power gaming approach is the low charisma characters keep quiet and let the high charisma characters do the persuasion rolls, but it often doesn't fit into role play. However unless I have a character that will also try to deceive frequently I think a better solution is to get proficiency in persuasion rather than putting points into charisma.
Heavy armour master is extremely powerful at low levels, but at level 4 (and usually 8) it is better to take the ASI and by the time you reach tier 3 a reduction of damage by 3 is much less significant. If you are going vHuman for a heavy armor character is it probably the best feat to take (in fact I know several DMs who ban it at level 1). Otherwise I would only really considerit at level 4 in a campaign isn't going ot go beyond about level 8-10.
The thing that makes medium armor poor isn’t necessarily AC 17 in and of itself, it’s who is wearing it: characters that either want Dex in excess of 14 (e.g. a ranger, who by level 8 will be just as well off in Light), or not want Dex at all (e.g. a Cleric, several subclasses of which would rather have points in Str for their non-finesse weapons, or even just accept the speed penalty of low-Str plate; Dwarves, who’d rather have Heavy which doesn’t slow them even with low Str). For almost every Medium armor wearer, Dex will be a tertiary stat that you’d be happy enough to drop entirely if you could get Heavy, or will be a primary that renders it a meaningless tier. The fact that making medium armor outperform light requires a feat tax is salt in the wound.
The thing that makes medium armor poor isn’t necessarily AC 17 in and of itself, it’s who is wearing it: characters that either want Dex in excess of 14 (e.g. a ranger, who by level 8 will be just as well off in Light), or not want Dex at all (e.g. a Cleric, several subclasses of which would rather have points in Str for their non-finesse weapons, or even just accept the speed penalty of low-Str plate; Dwarves, who’d rather have Heavy which doesn’t slow them even with low Str). For almost every Medium armor wearer, Dex will be a tertiary stat that you’d be happy enough to drop entirely if you could get Heavy, or will be a primary that renders it a meaningless tier. The fact that making medium armor outperform light requires a feat tax is salt in the wound.
I despise medium armor.
I see the major benefit of medium armor on casters.
Clerics can have real beefy AC and only invest 14 into DEX to get it...that means you can do more with MC potentially (Tempest Cleric/Storm Sorcerer FTW).
Basically it just lets you add +2 to another stat of some sort and depending on the build you want that could make it or break it.
Just to throw in that mithral armour is only Uncommon, and mithral eliminates both the Strength requirement and the Stealth disadvantage. I've looked at Hex Blade/Swashbuckler multiclasses where you go with only 14 DEX and still get AC 19 and Stealth with Mithral Half Plate and Shield. Take Rapier as your Hex weapon, max out CHR and Bob's your uncle.
I did say medium armor is best usually better than heavy for character that don't use strength to attack.
If a cleric is using weapons to attack they become quite MAD because their big spells will require wisdom, having strength as a secondary stat puts con third which isn't good for concentration checks. While light is superior to medium for a dex based character for a caster who can get medium armor it gives them a decent AC withount needing more than 14 dex and this is were medium armor is most appropriate. I have played 2 medium armor characters and have a third on the back burner.
A Twilight Cleric, who kept his distance from the enemies and attacked with spells (including cantrips)
A Vhuman celestial Tomb Warlock who took moderately armored as his level 1 feat.
A Dwarven Wizard
I admit only the first of those has the option of heavy, but clerics are the only full casters that easily get access to heavy armor. Something like a dex based fighter is better off in light armor as dex is their primary stat. I was mainly responding to chicken champ but optimus beat me to it.
There is no such thing as a "Most or Least Useful" stat (with the notable exception of CON). Yes, DEX, CON, and WIS are all important saves, yes DEX is used for a lot of things, but it all depends on your character. If you are a STR based character, it may be worth dropping DEX in favor of a mental ability as a Gish build, or CON for more HP. While I do think that DEX is more useful than STR overall, it all depends on the individual character and player as to whether or not going for heavy armor is worth it.
I was in an argument with a guy who was talking about a Multi-class Paladin/Sorcerer and wear heavy armor. He went to the extent of giving the page number of the rules about multi-classing, where it specifically states that Sorcadins can't wear heavy armor. I guess he never troubled himself to read it himself. It's nearly the only limitation that combination of classes has.
If it was up to me, I'd probably do something like let people wearing heavy armor add their Strength bonus to their armor class when wearing heavy armor. It might acutally make builds based on Strength worth playing.
Um, a Paladin/xxx can absolutely wear heavy armor. Where does it say they can’t? A Sorc/Paladin can not, because heavy armor prof is not granted by basic class when multiclassing INTO them.
If it was up to me, I'd probably do something like let people wearing heavy armor add their Strength bonus to their armor class when wearing heavy armor. It might acutally make builds based on Strength worth playing.
That would go way to far the other way. A level 4 or 5 sword and board fighter when they get plate would have AC24, probably 25 if they rolled for stats and many of the thing they face would require a crit to hit. Almost everything would need at least an 18. Intelligent monsters would not try to hit them, they would go for the rest of the party even if that is at disadvantage or draws an OP attack.
I would not mind heavy armor having its A.C. increased by 1 but anything more than that means str would become the God stat and everyone would be dipping a level of cleric or something to get heavy armor.
You are correct, CynicalEye, A Paladin can wear heavy armor. When they take Sorcerer, they no longer can wear it with proficiency. As I said, the multi-classing rules remove the ability to be proficient in wearing Heavy armor. He kept going on about how he'd watched many guides where they showed Sorcadins in Heavy armor tossing spells around and using their smites and so forth. Perhaps my mistake was that I failed to point out the rules about what happens when they wear Heavy armor. I suppose they could still have the stuff on...
Armor Proficiency. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells.
It would be considerably more useful for a Paladin/Sorcerer multi-class to confine themselves to armor with which they are proficient, they could keep their Heavy armor on, but I don't think this would make the character all that effective. By the rules, they are confined to at best, Medium armor. It does remain an option to wear Heavy armor, I wouldn't dream of requiring someone who wasn't proficient in whatever sort of armor the ability to wear it, I will simply remind them that it's not likely to be all that useful.
Jegpeg, as far as I am concerned, my goal is to make Strength and Dexterity equally useful, so what I think I will do, as a house rule, is allow Heavy armor a total bonus of +2 from Strength, the same size bonus as Dexterity gives. This ends up as one higher armor class than you suggested would make Strength a "god" stat, and so far as I an concerned, it would be a Good stat. Of course, taking levels in Cleric in order to keep wearing Heavy armor, It would remain a god score. That's natural, Clerics are into that sort of thing.
In light of the discussion about Heavy Armor Master above, I thought about the way that it's overpowered at 1st level and not much use after a certain point, so I came up with a scaling version of the feat:
You become more and more proficient with heavy armour as you gain experience wearing it. You gain the following benefits:
Increase your Strength score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
From 1st level, while you are wearing heavy armor, bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage that you take from nonmagical weapons is reduced by 2.
From 5th level, while you are wearing heavy armor, bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage that you take from nonmagical weapons is reduced by 3.
From 11th level, while you are wearing heavy armor, bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage that you take from weapons is reduced by 4.
From 17th level, while you are wearing heavy armor, bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage that you take from weapons is reduced by 5.
In terms of feats scaling, whilst they don't typically do this, feats like Elven Accuracy, Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Slasher, Piercer, or Crusher clearly scale with your character advancement as they become more powerful the more attacks that you have available. The goal here was to reduce the feats power a little in tier 1, and keep it relevant through the rest of the game. One of the notable changes is to enable it to affect magical attacks from level 11 onwards (I don't really understand why it doesn't affect magical weapon attacks already, it seems a fairly binary punishment).
The thing that makes medium armor poor isn’t necessarily AC 17 in and of itself, it’s who is wearing it: characters that either want Dex in excess of 14 (e.g. a ranger, who by level 8 will be just as well off in Light), or not want Dex at all (e.g. a Cleric, several subclasses of which would rather have points in Str for their non-finesse weapons, or even just accept the speed penalty of low-Str plate; Dwarves, who’d rather have Heavy which doesn’t slow them even with low Str). For almost every Medium armor wearer, Dex will be a tertiary stat that you’d be happy enough to drop entirely if you could get Heavy, or will be a primary that renders it a meaningless tier. The fact that making medium armor outperform light requires a feat tax is salt in the wound.
I despise medium armor.
So, medium armor gives you a Max of 17 AC as does light armor (*IF* you have 20 Dex). Let's say you want stealth, then medium armor gives you one less at 16. Addressing those issues:
o It's only an issue for a Dex-based character, which are common, so fair enough...
o Medium armor gives higher AC until that point.
o It does not become an issue until you reach 20 Dex. That's usually not until after level 8, because most people want feats. I say usually, because a human variant will start with a feat, or someone can forego feats until much later, etc.
o Once you reach that point, well into the game, you can switch.
o Lot's of spellcasters can wear medium armor and don't rely on Dex or Str. Barbarians don't have the points to spare to pump Dex to 20.
Sure, Dex-based fighters, rangers, and rogues will eventually fair 1 point better (assuming they want stealth) once they reach 20 Dex. You despise medium armor but for many, many builds it's the superior option.
You are correct, CynicalEye, A Paladin can wear heavy armor. When they take Sorcerer, they no longer can wear it with proficiency. As I said, the multi-classing rules remove the ability to be proficient in wearing Heavy armor. He kept going on about how he'd watched many guides where they showed Sorcadins in Heavy armor tossing spells around and using their smites and so forth. Perhaps my mistake was that I failed to point out the rules about what happens when they wear Heavy armor. I suppose they could still have the stuff on...
Armor Proficiency. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells.
It would be considerably more useful for a Paladin/Sorcerer multi-class to confine themselves to armor with which they are proficient, they could keep their Heavy armor on, but I don't think this would make the character all that effective. By the rules, they are confined to at best, Medium armor. It does remain an option to wear Heavy armor, I wouldn't dream of requiring someone who wasn't proficient in whatever sort of armor the ability to wear it, I will simply remind them that it's not likely to be all that useful.
Jegpeg, as far as I am concerned, my goal is to make Strength and Dexterity equally useful, so what I think I will do, as a house rule, is allow Heavy armor a total bonus of +2 from Strength, the same size bonus as Dexterity gives. This ends up as one higher armor class than you suggested would make Strength a "god" stat, and so far as I an concerned, it would be a Good stat. Of course, taking levels in Cleric in order to keep wearing Heavy armor, It would remain a god score. That's natural, Clerics are into that sort of thing.
AC has *increasing* returns against a given hit bonus - AC 10->11 is a smaller rise in durability than AC 17->18. Strength is also, in general, the only ability score that does something at odd levels - it improves encumbrance, jumping, and qualifies you for heavy armor without a mobility penalty.
If I'm playing a 2/1 race with proficiency in heavy armor, my goal is speed 25 - then I can keep up with even fellow PCs whose speed is 25 anyway. That means as a dwarf or 35' race like Dhampir or Half Wood Elf, I don't need Strength.
The primary reason I'll choose medium armor over heavy when I don't have to is if a) I'm a winged tiefling or b) I'm multiclassing and my primary class needs to not put the armor on - Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, and depending on the DM, Druid may lock me out of heavy armor in order for my features to work, so that can force my hand. The secondary reason is if I'm a Fighter leaning into Dexterity and I'm not a mobile race - if I'm making a rifleman samurai and I'm not a mobile race, I need to seriously consider letting myself be speed 20 and I'll probably refuse.
This is not true. If you're rolling a normal attack (not advantage or disadvantage), every 1 point increase in AC makes a an attack 5% less likely to hit you. Capping out at a 5% chance overall (crits always hit).
You are correct, CynicalEye, A Paladin can wear heavy armor. When they take Sorcerer, they no longer can wear it with proficiency. As I said, the multi-classing rules remove the ability to be proficient in wearing Heavy armor. He kept going on about how he'd watched many guides where they showed Sorcadins in Heavy armor tossing spells around and using their smites and so forth. Perhaps my mistake was that I failed to point out the rules about what happens when they wear Heavy armor. I suppose they could still have the stuff on...
Armor Proficiency. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells.
It would be considerably more useful for a Paladin/Sorcerer multi-class to confine themselves to armor with which they are proficient, they could keep their Heavy armor on, but I don't think this would make the character all that effective. By the rules, they are confined to at best, Medium armor. It does remain an option to wear Heavy armor, I wouldn't dream of requiring someone who wasn't proficient in whatever sort of armor the ability to wear it, I will simply remind them that it's not likely to be all that useful.
Jegpeg, as far as I am concerned, my goal is to make Strength and Dexterity equally useful, so what I think I will do, as a house rule, is allow Heavy armor a total bonus of +2 from Strength, the same size bonus as Dexterity gives. This ends up as one higher armor class than you suggested would make Strength a "god" stat, and so far as I an concerned, it would be a Good stat. Of course, taking levels in Cleric in order to keep wearing Heavy armor, It would remain a god score. That's natural, Clerics are into that sort of thing.
I was unaware of this. Where is that written?
Yeah I think they are mistaken...you can for sure wear heavy armor as a paladin that then takes sorcerer levels.
AC has *increasing* returns against a given hit bonus - AC 10->11 is a smaller rise in durability than AC 17->18. Strength is also, in general, the only ability score that does something at odd levels - it improves encumbrance, jumping, and qualifies you for heavy armor without a mobility penalty.
If I'm playing a 2/1 race with proficiency in heavy armor, my goal is speed 25 - then I can keep up with even fellow PCs whose speed is 25 anyway. That means as a dwarf or 35' race like Dhampir or Half Wood Elf, I don't need Strength.
The primary reason I'll choose medium armor over heavy when I don't have to is if a) I'm a winged tiefling or b) I'm multiclassing and my primary class needs to not put the armor on - Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, and depending on the DM, Druid may lock me out of heavy armor in order for my features to work, so that can force my hand. The secondary reason is if I'm a Fighter leaning into Dexterity and I'm not a mobile race - if I'm making a rifleman samurai and I'm not a mobile race, I need to seriously consider letting myself be speed 20 and I'll probably refuse.
This is not true. If you're rolling a normal attack (not advantage or disadvantage), every 1 point increase in AC makes a an attack 5% less likely to hit you. Capping out at a 5% chance overall (crits always hit).
Yes and no.
If my AC is 11 and it increases to 12, then against an enemy I go from taking hits 50% of the time, to 45% of the time. Of every 20 attacks made, on average I will get hit 1 time less. This is a 10% reduction in the number of times I get hit when this increase occurs.
If my AC is 19 and it increases to 20, then I will take hits 5% of the time instead of 10% of the time. This is a 50% reduction in the number of times that I get hit when this increase occurs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Does anyone else tend to favor medium armor? The only exception is if you're building a strength-based melee fighter and you don't care about stealth.
-- Medium armor has 1 less AC potential, with 2 less if you want to have stealth.
+ Medium armor allows you to invest 14 points into Dex to maximize the benefits, verses 15 points for Strength if you want to wear plate mail. That's 2 more points you get to spend in point buy.
+ Investing into Dex helps with more useful skills on the skill tree.
+ Dex saving throws come up much more often than Str saving throws.
+ Dex helps your initiative rolls.
+ Some medium armor allows for stealth without disadvantage
+ Dex allows for effective use of ranged weapons
Like I said, if you're playing a strength-based fighter and you don't care about stealth, heavy armor makes sense. But if I'm playing-- let's say a Cleric with heavy armor proficiency-- I'm still going to put 14 into Dex, 8 or 10 into Str, pump my Wis and wear medium armor.
You have hit the nail right on the head. Strength is rapidly becoming the least useful score in the game. The second least useful is usually Intelligence, because there's really no reason to have much of it unless you're playing a caster type based on Intelligence.
Medium armor is usually superior, and that's kind of silly. Thanks to bounced accuracy, armor in general is not all that useful. A bonus to hit is much better. The game is designed around the idea that a bunch of low level mooks can still be a threat. Thanks to the Finesse rules, the Rapier ends up welded into the hands of anyone who can use it. It's the only d8 weapon with Finesse. That doesn't seem like all that much. A whole 2 points better than a d6 weapon like all the rest of the martial weapons you can use in one hand, but it still ends up doing more damage because dex is so much better than str.
If it was up to me, I'd give all Martial weapons finesse, even the ranged ones.
I was in an argument with a guy who was talking about a Multi-class Paladin/Sorcerer and wear heavy armor. He went to the extent of giving the page number of the rules about multi-classing, where it specifically states that Sorcadins can't wear heavy armor. I guess he never troubled himself to read it himself. It's nearly the only limitation that combination of classes has.
If it was up to me, I'd probably do something like let people wearing heavy armor add their Strength bonus to their armor class when wearing heavy armor. It might acutally make builds based on Strength worth playing.
<Insert clever signature here>
AC has *increasing* returns against a given hit bonus - AC 10->11 is a smaller rise in durability than AC 17->18. Strength is also, in general, the only ability score that does something at odd levels - it improves encumbrance, jumping, and qualifies you for heavy armor without a mobility penalty.
If I'm playing a 2/1 race with proficiency in heavy armor, my goal is speed 25 - then I can keep up with even fellow PCs whose speed is 25 anyway. That means as a dwarf or 35' race like Dhampir or Half Wood Elf, I don't need Strength.
The primary reason I'll choose medium armor over heavy when I don't have to is if a) I'm a winged tiefling or b) I'm multiclassing and my primary class needs to not put the armor on - Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, and depending on the DM, Druid may lock me out of heavy armor in order for my features to work, so that can force my hand. The secondary reason is if I'm a Fighter leaning into Dexterity and I'm not a mobile race - if I'm making a rifleman samurai and I'm not a mobile race, I need to seriously consider letting myself be speed 20 and I'll probably refuse.
A lot depends on what encumberance rules and the tpye of campaign you are playing,
With variant encumberance to wear plate and a shield a cleric with 15 strength would be encumbered unless everything else they carries weighted lass than 4lb. In practise they would probably need 18 strength to avoid encumberance in that case they are better off going 10 dex, and wearing a breast plate so they can dump strength.
With standard encomberance you might have a bit of an issue if you completely dump strength and wear plate if you also have to carry things like a bed roll, waterskin rations, and torches , but you would probably bo ok with strength of 10.
I am not a great fan of taking the movement penalty, especially if you are needing to be mobile (either as a melee attacker or as a cleric who needs to position themselves due to having spritit guardians up or wanting to cast cure wounds). As a mobile race you can keep up with the dwarf/gnome but the number it is still very frequent that you find yourself 5ft short to move where you want to (or 10ft if you are dashing).
A lot also depends on the level you are playing, when you first get plate you might have enemies that are +6 to hit so of you are AC20 they will hit 35% of the time and at AC19 40% of the time so that extra 1AC reduces hits by 12.5%. At the end game you might have +1 armor but be facing enemies with a +12 to hit so he extra AC does proportionally less damage reduction.
Having said that I agree with the OP that generally speaking characters that are proficient in heavy armor but don't use strength to attack are better off with medium armor.
I am not sure if strength is less useful than intelligence, you need one party member with high intelligence to make the investigation/arcana/religion checks but the rest of the party can safely dump it. Strength saves are much mor common than int saves. I have spent entire combats stuck in an entangle spell.
It is a bit off topic but I don't think giving all martial weapons finesse is the solution, at least it should not apply is wielding a weapon with two hands. I have no problem homebrewing weapons that are like a rapier but deal slashing or bludgeoning damage.
I have found it very frequent that 10 feet of movement can make a big difference especially for melee types. A wood elf fighter
Dexterity is a strictly superior stat, as it does more things. But if you're putting points into strength then you probably want your next highest score in Con, then into a INT, WIS, or CHA. I won't ever play a low charisma character again because doing great roleplay and then having a -1 on a Persuasion check really sucks.
Heavy Armor Master is a highly overlooked feat - 3 points of damage fewer per attack doesn't sound like a lot, but it's basically like removing the ability modifier from most attacks. Low level enemies really struggle to do any damage at all, and if your Fighter or Paladin would have taken 5 hits in a fight then it's like having an additional 15 hit points which is very potent. Some may prefer Tough, but I've had a round of combat where 8 Kobolds flung sling stones at me and even the ones that were hitting did zero damage.
I know how you feel about charisma, the power gaming approach is the low charisma characters keep quiet and let the high charisma characters do the persuasion rolls, but it often doesn't fit into role play. However unless I have a character that will also try to deceive frequently I think a better solution is to get proficiency in persuasion rather than putting points into charisma.
Heavy armour master is extremely powerful at low levels, but at level 4 (and usually 8) it is better to take the ASI and by the time you reach tier 3 a reduction of damage by 3 is much less significant. If you are going vHuman for a heavy armor character is it probably the best feat to take (in fact I know several DMs who ban it at level 1). Otherwise I would only really considerit at level 4 in a campaign isn't going ot go beyond about level 8-10.
The thing that makes medium armor poor isn’t necessarily AC 17 in and of itself, it’s who is wearing it: characters that either want Dex in excess of 14 (e.g. a ranger, who by level 8 will be just as well off in Light), or not want Dex at all (e.g. a Cleric, several subclasses of which would rather have points in Str for their non-finesse weapons, or even just accept the speed penalty of low-Str plate; Dwarves, who’d rather have Heavy which doesn’t slow them even with low Str). For almost every Medium armor wearer, Dex will be a tertiary stat that you’d be happy enough to drop entirely if you could get Heavy, or will be a primary that renders it a meaningless tier. The fact that making medium armor outperform light requires a feat tax is salt in the wound.
I despise medium armor.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I see the major benefit of medium armor on casters.
Clerics can have real beefy AC and only invest 14 into DEX to get it...that means you can do more with MC potentially (Tempest Cleric/Storm Sorcerer FTW).
Basically it just lets you add +2 to another stat of some sort and depending on the build you want that could make it or break it.
Just to throw in that mithral armour is only Uncommon, and mithral eliminates both the Strength requirement and the Stealth disadvantage. I've looked at Hex Blade/Swashbuckler multiclasses where you go with only 14 DEX and still get AC 19 and Stealth with Mithral Half Plate and Shield. Take Rapier as your Hex weapon, max out CHR and Bob's your uncle.
I did say medium armor is best usually better than heavy for character that don't use strength to attack.
If a cleric is using weapons to attack they become quite MAD because their big spells will require wisdom, having strength as a secondary stat puts con third which isn't good for concentration checks. While light is superior to medium for a dex based character for a caster who can get medium armor it gives them a decent AC withount needing more than 14 dex and this is were medium armor is most appropriate. I have played 2 medium armor characters and have a third on the back burner.
I admit only the first of those has the option of heavy, but clerics are the only full casters that easily get access to heavy armor. Something like a dex based fighter is better off in light armor as dex is their primary stat. I was mainly responding to chicken champ but optimus beat me to it.
There is no such thing as a "Most or Least Useful" stat (with the notable exception of CON). Yes, DEX, CON, and WIS are all important saves, yes DEX is used for a lot of things, but it all depends on your character. If you are a STR based character, it may be worth dropping DEX in favor of a mental ability as a Gish build, or CON for more HP. While I do think that DEX is more useful than STR overall, it all depends on the individual character and player as to whether or not going for heavy armor is worth it.
Um, a Paladin/xxx can absolutely wear heavy armor. Where does it say they can’t? A Sorc/Paladin can not, because heavy armor prof is not granted by basic class when multiclassing INTO them.
That would go way to far the other way. A level 4 or 5 sword and board fighter when they get plate would have AC24, probably 25 if they rolled for stats and many of the thing they face would require a crit to hit. Almost everything would need at least an 18. Intelligent monsters would not try to hit them, they would go for the rest of the party even if that is at disadvantage or draws an OP attack.
I would not mind heavy armor having its A.C. increased by 1 but anything more than that means str would become the God stat and everyone would be dipping a level of cleric or something to get heavy armor.
You are correct, CynicalEye, A Paladin can wear heavy armor. When they take Sorcerer, they no longer can wear it with proficiency. As I said, the multi-classing rules remove the ability to be proficient in wearing Heavy armor. He kept going on about how he'd watched many guides where they showed Sorcadins in Heavy armor tossing spells around and using their smites and so forth. Perhaps my mistake was that I failed to point out the rules about what happens when they wear Heavy armor. I suppose they could still have the stuff on...
Armor Proficiency. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells.
It would be considerably more useful for a Paladin/Sorcerer multi-class to confine themselves to armor with which they are proficient, they could keep their Heavy armor on, but I don't think this would make the character all that effective. By the rules, they are confined to at best, Medium armor. It does remain an option to wear Heavy armor, I wouldn't dream of requiring someone who wasn't proficient in whatever sort of armor the ability to wear it, I will simply remind them that it's not likely to be all that useful.
Jegpeg, as far as I am concerned, my goal is to make Strength and Dexterity equally useful, so what I think I will do, as a house rule, is allow Heavy armor a total bonus of +2 from Strength, the same size bonus as Dexterity gives. This ends up as one higher armor class than you suggested would make Strength a "god" stat, and so far as I an concerned, it would be a Good stat. Of course, taking levels in Cleric in order to keep wearing Heavy armor, It would remain a god score. That's natural, Clerics are into that sort of thing.
<Insert clever signature here>
In light of the discussion about Heavy Armor Master above, I thought about the way that it's overpowered at 1st level and not much use after a certain point, so I came up with a scaling version of the feat:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/feats/703635-armored-in-steel
Armored in Steel
You become more and more proficient with heavy armour as you gain experience wearing it. You gain the following benefits:
In terms of feats scaling, whilst they don't typically do this, feats like Elven Accuracy, Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Slasher, Piercer, or Crusher clearly scale with your character advancement as they become more powerful the more attacks that you have available. The goal here was to reduce the feats power a little in tier 1, and keep it relevant through the rest of the game. One of the notable changes is to enable it to affect magical attacks from level 11 onwards (I don't really understand why it doesn't affect magical weapon attacks already, it seems a fairly binary punishment).
So, medium armor gives you a Max of 17 AC as does light armor (*IF* you have 20 Dex). Let's say you want stealth, then medium armor gives you one less at 16. Addressing those issues:
o It's only an issue for a Dex-based character, which are common, so fair enough...
o Medium armor gives higher AC until that point.
o It does not become an issue until you reach 20 Dex. That's usually not until after level 8, because most people want feats. I say usually, because a human variant will start with a feat, or someone can forego feats until much later, etc.
o Once you reach that point, well into the game, you can switch.
o Lot's of spellcasters can wear medium armor and don't rely on Dex or Str. Barbarians don't have the points to spare to pump Dex to 20.
Sure, Dex-based fighters, rangers, and rogues will eventually fair 1 point better (assuming they want stealth) once they reach 20 Dex. You despise medium armor but for many, many builds it's the superior option.
I was unaware of this. Where is that written?
This is not true. If you're rolling a normal attack (not advantage or disadvantage), every 1 point increase in AC makes a an attack 5% less likely to hit you. Capping out at a 5% chance overall (crits always hit).
Yeah I think they are mistaken...you can for sure wear heavy armor as a paladin that then takes sorcerer levels.
Yes and no.
If my AC is 11 and it increases to 12, then against an enemy I go from taking hits 50% of the time, to 45% of the time. Of every 20 attacks made, on average I will get hit 1 time less. This is a 10% reduction in the number of times I get hit when this increase occurs.
If my AC is 19 and it increases to 20, then I will take hits 5% of the time instead of 10% of the time. This is a 50% reduction in the number of times that I get hit when this increase occurs.