Might be worth splitting the discontent for Lightly Armored off into its own thread, given the push to ban spellcaster armor. Which, just gonna say - called it.
I don't think anyone asked or a ban on it, just that it has a cost commensurate with the power they have. A feat is too too small of a cost unless they balance mages around the assumption everyone has access to that level of AC, in which case just give it to them for free. I personally think a single level dip while better than a feat balance wise is still too cheap of a cost. That is still not a ban. These are 1st level feats which are more about flavor in power level for the most part than a big balancing issue. Well except light armor which actually is a balance issue powerhouse.
It's interesting to note that Crawford and the design team have noted before that the D&D playerbase is strongly opposed to anything they perceive as a radical shift in balance, even if it's not actually radical. His example was that if the barbarian class had not been core to R5e and was introduced later? Players would have been in an utter uproar over the idea of "always on" resistance against generic weapon damage, or constant advantage on Dex sabes, or the entire idea of at-will advantage on attacks. Players would have screamed bloody murder at the barbarian's class kit, despite obvious evidence from our actual timeline that barbarians are perfectly fine.
Oh no, on this case I absolutely believe him. If barbarian was, as a theoretical, being introduced now during 1DD's playtest cycle and its features had never existed in the game before? The playerbase would erupt in a cataclysmic volcano of overwhelming nerd rage and demand the class be thrown out altogether for being egregiously overpowered.
Same deal as we're seeing with this test version of Armored - it's fine and has been since the game released and dwarves were able to be medium armor spellbois from level 1 (if, generally, with godawful casting stats). If the idea was so egregious people would've been playing nothing but dwarven wizards, and yet dwarven wizards are so rare as to almost not exist. Ne?
Oh no, on this case I absolutely believe him. If barbarian was, as a theoretical, being introduced now during 1DD's playtest cycle and its features had never existed in the game before? The playerbase would erupt in a cataclysmic volcano of overwhelming nerd rage and demand the class be thrown out altogether for being egregiously overpowered.
Same deal as we're seeing with this test version of Armored - it's fine and has been since the game released and dwarves were able to be medium armor spellbois from level 1 (if, generally, with godawful casting stats). If the idea was so egregious people would've been playing nothing but dwarven wizards, and yet dwarven wizards are so rare as to almost not exist. Ne?
Its almost like you passed over that god awful casting stats part, oh and they still didn't have shields as well. Kind of like that is a cost, one far bigger than one first level feat.
You not liking people who give any criticism at all except when you agree with it isn't people erupting in a cataclysmic volcano of overwhelming nerd rage. People would be fine with the barbarian later on as its not that hard to see it and see its actually pretty weak. Its going to have a low AC when leaning into it as they wont have a shield, they will get hit all the time when they take advantage, so resistance puts them just slightly better off than a fighter who will be taking less hits. And rage damage in no way comes close to a 3rd attack. The artificer came out late game and there were no look out the artificer is too strong problems people actually thought it was undertuned for the most part. You believe him sure, but you both are just wrong.
You don't want spellcasters in armor. No price they can pay is commensurate with the gain, and yet they can gain armor anyways for a relatively moderate price of one level in fighter. How do you keep spellcasters out of armor without turning off multiclassing altogether? You can't say "if you don't take fighter as your starting class you get no armor!" because people already start as fighter for Con saves and heavy armor.
What's the solve? "Just let everybody wear whatever" isn't a solve, it's giving up on the problem. Should they abandon armor training as a feat altogether? Should they also abandon Weapon Training? As well as abandoning Magic Initiate, Ritual Caster, and any other feat that allows any sort of blending or blurring of class lines?
Lightly Armored is an option for people who would otherwise simply take a level of fighter or cleric. One level of multiclass dip gives you all the armor you could want, and so long as it's possible to multiclass in the first place it always will. You can't put the fighter's armor training at third level to discourage multiclassing without breaking fighter. This will NEVER cost more than one throwaway level to fix.
Given that, why not allow people to do it with a feat instead? Why force them to multiclass? The multiclass will always be a thing, unless they kill multiclassing in general. And the Expert doc uses the same MC rules as the base game, so there's that. If someone wants to optimance and trade their cool background feat for armor training, let them. Who cares. If it's a problem at your specific table, ban the feat. I don't see wny reason it can't be a system option though, especially since Crawford is right. Light armor by itself isn't worth making a feat for, and medium armor can't be a separate feat without light armor being a feat first. So where's the solve?
You are entirely wrong. The people taking this feat will NOT just be those that would take a level dip anyway. Level dips are expensive, and delay a lot of things. A first level feat is not. It won't be a niche it will be the mainstay. It is so strong for wizard or sorc that anyone that wants to be even minimally optimized will take it. Medium armor and a shield is now the standard for these classes, they just don't get to enjoy the first level variety others do.
My opinion is either make them level dip for armor or don't bother with armor training at all.
You do understand, do you not, that the D&D One Alert feat is a significantly better investment for a wizard or sorcerer than the D&D One Lightly Armored feat?
Origins Alert is strategy-defining, yeah. Players have never had a (RAW) way to muck with their initiative before. Allowing the wizard to take the place of the highest initiative roll and get a critical control spell out as early as possible will offer just as much defensive benefit as a few extra points of armor class. I can confirm that letting Mira go first in combats in my Sunday game would've solved a great many more problems than Mira having 19AC would have. No amount of armor is the equal of Wall of Force, after all.
But yeah. I hadn't caught that Charger, as written, technically works on ranged attacks. I don't think I'd allow that at my table, it's obvious what the RAI is, but it's the sort of "gotcha!" that makes playtests valuable. I will say that Charger is honestly kind of an attractive choice overall now, and even possibly a semi-competitor to Great Weapon Master. There's a lot you can do with all that extra damage and/or control. Heck - Charge something going after your squishy, unarmored wizard and knock it ten feet away, giving the wizard a chance to escape unmolested. Then depending on your feats/features, back up and position yourself to do it again next turn. It could be a lot of fun and make for a more dynamic overall playstyle than "I stand in the one spot and swing my Hittin' Stick till everything's dead."
Lightly Armored is an option for people who would otherwise simply take a level of fighter or cleric. One level of multiclass dip gives you all the armor you could want, and so long as it's possible to multiclass in the first place it always will. You can't put the fighter's armor training at third level to discourage multiclassing without breaking fighter. This will NEVER cost more than one throwaway level to fix.
Given that, why not allow people to do it with a feat instead? Why force them to multiclass? The multiclass will always be a thing, unless they kill multiclassing in general. And the Expert doc uses the same MC rules as the base game, so there's that. If someone wants to optimance and trade their cool background feat for armor training, let them. Who cares. If it's a problem at your specific table, ban the feat. I don't see wny reason it can't be a system option though, especially since Crawford is right. Light armor by itself isn't worth making a feat for, and medium armor can't be a separate feat without light armor being a feat first. So where's the solve?
You are entirely wrong. The people taking this feat will NOT just be those that would take a level dip anyway. Level dips are expensive, and delay a lot of things. A first level feat is not. It won't be a niche it will be the mainstay. It is so strong for wizard or sorc that anyone that wants to be even minimally optimized will take it. Medium armor and a shield is now the standard for these classes, they just don't get to enjoy the first level variety others do.
My opinion is either make them level dip for armor or don't bother with armor training at all.
You do understand, do you not, that the D&D One Alert feat is a significantly better investment for a wizard or sorcerer than the D&D One Lightly Armored feat?
How not? Even at lower levels, a well-chosen control spell fired at the start of combat - or a timely Fireball before enemies have a chance to scatter - is going to tilt the odds in the players' favor just as often if not more so than a heavily armored spellcaster. A high AC can bounce attacks that would've hit; a disable fired at the beginning of battle can prevent those attacks from ever being launched in the first place. To say nothing of allowing someone else to take your high roll if they're in a super bad position and need to bail immediately. nuAlert is spectacularly good, and the more people who have it the better it gets.
How not? Even at lower levels, a well-chosen control spell fired at the start of combat - or a timely Fireball before enemies have a chance to scatter - is going to tilt the odds in the players' favor just as often if not more so than a heavily armored spellcaster. A high AC can bounce attacks that would've hit; a disable fired at the beginning of battle can prevent those attacks from ever being launched in the first place. To say nothing of allowing someone else to take your high roll if they're in a super bad position and need to bail immediately. nuAlert is spectacularly good, and the more people who have it the better it gets.
You go first cast a spell about 1/2 of them make their save and all of those 1/2 say hey that dude in the back who just cast the spell, kill him. Now you are dead and your control spell has dropped. AKA the time old classic from shadowrun, geek the mage first. Surviving is far more important than going first. And while its good anyone can take it and shift you to first if needed for some tactic, in fact its better on people who don't want to go first.
Sometimes you want go at a certain to get out of harms way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
You don't want spellcasters in armor. No price they can pay is commensurate with the gain, and yet they can gain armor anyways for a relatively moderate price of one level in fighter. How do you keep spellcasters out of armor without turning off multiclassing altogether? You can't say "if you don't take fighter as your starting class you get no armor!" because people already start as fighter for Con saves and heavy armor.
What's the solve? "Just let everybody wear whatever" isn't a solve, it's giving up on the problem. Should they abandon armor training as a feat altogether? Should they also abandon Weapon Training? As well as abandoning Magic Initiate, Ritual Caster, and any other feat that allows any sort of blending or blurring of class lines?
I hate reading stuff like this. This is a slippery slope argument where we suggest one thing and it becomes "TAKE EVERYTHING AWAY THE LAND IS ON FIRE."
Lightly armored feat is so strong by comparison to EVERY other first level feat (No alert is not better, NO skilled is not better, NO Lucky is not better for casters, NOTHING is better for a caster than lightly armored, it increases their survivability by more than any other first level feat).
I made 2 suggestions. If you want armor training to be a thing, than tie it to classes, your class determines your armor training and if you want more armor, you have to take a class dip, because that is an actual cost. People aren't getting sneak attack without a dip in rogue, or action surge without a dip in fighter. Or second level spells without a 3 level dip in a caster class. I don't think you should get armor without a dip.
IF YOU ARE, I would much rather the 1st level options REMAIN INTERESTING, by just getting rid of armor training completely. Heavy armor already has a strength limit so it isn't like we will see casters in heavy armor. Rogues and Bards and the like that just get light armor already have incentives to be stealthy and medium armor gives disadvantage on stealth. There is already reasons to wear or not wear certain armor. Then you can have the "armor MASTER" feats, maybe even make an "Unarmored master" feat to encourage people to not wear armor like the barbarian, monk and casters.
There is a lot of design space here. If armor is going to be so easy to get that you can use a free first level feat to get it than I don't see the point in having it be a cost.
For your slippery slope argument.... they already gave EVERYBODY ritual casting, including martials. If you know a spell that has the ritual tag you can cast it as a ritual. If anything you could make light armor require 10 strength and medium require 12. I have no problem with casters running around in armor. I have a problem with illusion of choice. I like my choices being meaningful.
Edit: (also dwarf wizards are common and the loss of armor on dwarves had people crying that the BEST spell caster race had been nerfed, this said dwarves didn't provide shield proficiency which is arguably larger than the armor change, but you should already have known that. Also dwarves didn't get any of the other cool magic effects that other races had.... the new rules allow you to get those features AND STILL get better than the dwarves armor by having their armor + shield).
Just a question, what if the lightly armored feat only gave training in light and medium armors and not shields? Maybe shield training could be a different feat? Then spellcasters couldn't get such a high armor class with a single feat, but also classes that already have light armor could also just pick up shield training to give themselves a boost without necessarily getting training in medium armors. Personally, I don't have much of a problem with seeing a single-class Wizard in a chain shirt or breastplate, but wielding a shield is a bit more problematic (mostly aesthetically) for me. Of course the aesthetics are not really my biggest concern, but this would maybe moderate the power of the feat(s).
A bit puzzled over the changes to Mobile->Speedster. The loss of the get-out-off-AoO-semi-free bit makes one of my hit-and-run monk characters a bit more fragile than she used to be.
But then, without seeing what they're proposing for monks yet, it's hard to know. Maybe they've moved that AoO dodge somewhere else.
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the situation here; but one possible solution to the 'lightly armored' thing would be to have spellcasters get class features that only work when wearing the proper armor and/or spells that can't be cast if the caster isn't wearing the right gear.
I actually like the idea of a ranged rogue getting a bit more out of the charger feat. Bonus action dash, run 10ft, extra 1d8 on top of their sneak if it lands. Perhaps the creature is near a ledge to be pushed. It’s not like there aren’t a wealth of options for forced movement from 5e. Now the rogue can use it without relying on a sling and the crusher feat.
doesn’t allow for the follow up attempt if not somehow two weapon fighting though.
My suspicion on lightly armored is that it is a typo/ transfer error. It was ( I think) initially in the first UA and then got pulled and placed in the second without changing it from a L1 feat to a L4 feat. If you place it as a L4 feat then it looses its power significantly. When you consider the number of errata we have seen from WOTC over the years such a proofreading error is not surprising. Don’t be too surprised if this ends up a ( clearly labeled) L4 feat by the end of all play testing.
Similarly, fighting styles should be L4 feats that selected classes and/or subclasses are allowed to take early like the ranger is. Like the ranger it should be a limited selection of styles at L2/L3 for those classes/subclasses that access to martial feats at all. Notice that the rogue is an expert and doesn’t get access to the two weapon fighting style feat at all, the best it can do is to take the dual wielding feat which is open to all classes, the Ranger on the other hand is specifically allowed a limited selection of fighting style feats at L2 and then fighting style feats at L4+.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't think anyone asked or a ban on it, just that it has a cost commensurate with the power they have. A feat is too too small of a cost unless they balance mages around the assumption everyone has access to that level of AC, in which case just give it to them for free. I personally think a single level dip while better than a feat balance wise is still too cheap of a cost. That is still not a ban. These are 1st level feats which are more about flavor in power level for the most part than a big balancing issue. Well except light armor which actually is a balance issue powerhouse.
Crawford says a lot of wrong things.
Oh no, on this case I absolutely believe him. If barbarian was, as a theoretical, being introduced now during 1DD's playtest cycle and its features had never existed in the game before? The playerbase would erupt in a cataclysmic volcano of overwhelming nerd rage and demand the class be thrown out altogether for being egregiously overpowered.
Same deal as we're seeing with this test version of Armored - it's fine and has been since the game released and dwarves were able to be medium armor spellbois from level 1 (if, generally, with godawful casting stats). If the idea was so egregious people would've been playing nothing but dwarven wizards, and yet dwarven wizards are so rare as to almost not exist. Ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
Its almost like you passed over that god awful casting stats part, oh and they still didn't have shields as well. Kind of like that is a cost, one far bigger than one first level feat.
You not liking people who give any criticism at all except when you agree with it isn't people erupting in a cataclysmic volcano of overwhelming nerd rage. People would be fine with the barbarian later on as its not that hard to see it and see its actually pretty weak. Its going to have a low AC when leaning into it as they wont have a shield, they will get hit all the time when they take advantage, so resistance puts them just slightly better off than a fighter who will be taking less hits. And rage damage in no way comes close to a 3rd attack. The artificer came out late game and there were no look out the artificer is too strong problems people actually thought it was undertuned for the most part. You believe him sure, but you both are just wrong.
All right.
What's the solve?
You don't want spellcasters in armor. No price they can pay is commensurate with the gain, and yet they can gain armor anyways for a relatively moderate price of one level in fighter. How do you keep spellcasters out of armor without turning off multiclassing altogether? You can't say "if you don't take fighter as your starting class you get no armor!" because people already start as fighter for Con saves and heavy armor.
What's the solve? "Just let everybody wear whatever" isn't a solve, it's giving up on the problem. Should they abandon armor training as a feat altogether? Should they also abandon Weapon Training? As well as abandoning Magic Initiate, Ritual Caster, and any other feat that allows any sort of blending or blurring of class lines?
Please do not contact or message me.
Still think charger is stronger than identified and also I like it that way.
You do understand, do you not, that the D&D One Alert feat is a significantly better investment for a wizard or sorcerer than the D&D One Lightly Armored feat?
Origins Alert is strategy-defining, yeah. Players have never had a (RAW) way to muck with their initiative before. Allowing the wizard to take the place of the highest initiative roll and get a critical control spell out as early as possible will offer just as much defensive benefit as a few extra points of armor class. I can confirm that letting Mira go first in combats in my Sunday game would've solved a great many more problems than Mira having 19AC would have. No amount of armor is the equal of Wall of Force, after all.
But yeah. I hadn't caught that Charger, as written, technically works on ranged attacks. I don't think I'd allow that at my table, it's obvious what the RAI is, but it's the sort of "gotcha!" that makes playtests valuable. I will say that Charger is honestly kind of an attractive choice overall now, and even possibly a semi-competitor to Great Weapon Master. There's a lot you can do with all that extra damage and/or control. Heck - Charge something going after your squishy, unarmored wizard and knock it ten feet away, giving the wizard a chance to escape unmolested. Then depending on your feats/features, back up and position yourself to do it again next turn. It could be a lot of fun and make for a more dynamic overall playstyle than "I stand in the one spot and swing my Hittin' Stick till everything's dead."
Please do not contact or message me.
It is not.
How not? Even at lower levels, a well-chosen control spell fired at the start of combat - or a timely Fireball before enemies have a chance to scatter - is going to tilt the odds in the players' favor just as often if not more so than a heavily armored spellcaster. A high AC can bounce attacks that would've hit; a disable fired at the beginning of battle can prevent those attacks from ever being launched in the first place. To say nothing of allowing someone else to take your high roll if they're in a super bad position and need to bail immediately. nuAlert is spectacularly good, and the more people who have it the better it gets.
Please do not contact or message me.
You go first cast a spell about 1/2 of them make their save and all of those 1/2 say hey that dude in the back who just cast the spell, kill him. Now you are dead and your control spell has dropped. AKA the time old classic from shadowrun, geek the mage first. Surviving is far more important than going first. And while its good anyone can take it and shift you to first if needed for some tactic, in fact its better on people who don't want to go first.
Sometimes you want go at a certain to get out of harms way.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Look, I just want my warlock to look spiffy in a robe. Sue me.
I hate reading stuff like this. This is a slippery slope argument where we suggest one thing and it becomes "TAKE EVERYTHING AWAY THE LAND IS ON FIRE."
Lightly armored feat is so strong by comparison to EVERY other first level feat (No alert is not better, NO skilled is not better, NO Lucky is not better for casters, NOTHING is better for a caster than lightly armored, it increases their survivability by more than any other first level feat).
I made 2 suggestions. If you want armor training to be a thing, than tie it to classes, your class determines your armor training and if you want more armor, you have to take a class dip, because that is an actual cost. People aren't getting sneak attack without a dip in rogue, or action surge without a dip in fighter. Or second level spells without a 3 level dip in a caster class. I don't think you should get armor without a dip.
IF YOU ARE, I would much rather the 1st level options REMAIN INTERESTING, by just getting rid of armor training completely. Heavy armor already has a strength limit so it isn't like we will see casters in heavy armor. Rogues and Bards and the like that just get light armor already have incentives to be stealthy and medium armor gives disadvantage on stealth. There is already reasons to wear or not wear certain armor. Then you can have the "armor MASTER" feats, maybe even make an "Unarmored master" feat to encourage people to not wear armor like the barbarian, monk and casters.
There is a lot of design space here. If armor is going to be so easy to get that you can use a free first level feat to get it than I don't see the point in having it be a cost.
For your slippery slope argument.... they already gave EVERYBODY ritual casting, including martials. If you know a spell that has the ritual tag you can cast it as a ritual. If anything you could make light armor require 10 strength and medium require 12. I have no problem with casters running around in armor. I have a problem with illusion of choice. I like my choices being meaningful.
Edit: (also dwarf wizards are common and the loss of armor on dwarves had people crying that the BEST spell caster race had been nerfed, this said dwarves didn't provide shield proficiency which is arguably larger than the armor change, but you should already have known that. Also dwarves didn't get any of the other cool magic effects that other races had.... the new rules allow you to get those features AND STILL get better than the dwarves armor by having their armor + shield).
Just a question, what if the lightly armored feat only gave training in light and medium armors and not shields? Maybe shield training could be a different feat? Then spellcasters couldn't get such a high armor class with a single feat, but also classes that already have light armor could also just pick up shield training to give themselves a boost without necessarily getting training in medium armors. Personally, I don't have much of a problem with seeing a single-class Wizard in a chain shirt or breastplate, but wielding a shield is a bit more problematic (mostly aesthetically) for me. Of course the aesthetics are not really my biggest concern, but this would maybe moderate the power of the feat(s).
A bit puzzled over the changes to Mobile->Speedster. The loss of the get-out-off-AoO-semi-free bit makes one of my hit-and-run monk characters a bit more fragile than she used to be.
But then, without seeing what they're proposing for monks yet, it's hard to know. Maybe they've moved that AoO dodge somewhere else.
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the situation here; but one possible solution to the 'lightly armored' thing would be to have spellcasters get class features that only work when wearing the proper armor and/or spells that can't be cast if the caster isn't wearing the right gear.
I actually like the idea of a ranged rogue getting a bit more out of the charger feat. Bonus action dash, run 10ft, extra 1d8 on top of their sneak if it lands. Perhaps the creature is near a ledge to be pushed. It’s not like there aren’t a wealth of options for forced movement from 5e. Now the rogue can use it without relying on a sling and the crusher feat.
doesn’t allow for the follow up attempt if not somehow two weapon fighting though.
My suspicion on lightly armored is that it is a typo/ transfer error. It was ( I think) initially in the first UA and then got pulled and placed in the second without changing it from a L1 feat to a L4 feat. If you place it as a L4 feat then it looses its power significantly. When you consider the number of errata we have seen from WOTC over the years such a proofreading error is not surprising. Don’t be too surprised if this ends up a ( clearly labeled) L4 feat by the end of all play testing.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Similarly, fighting styles should be L4 feats that selected classes and/or subclasses are allowed to take early like the ranger is. Like the ranger it should be a limited selection of styles at L2/L3 for those classes/subclasses that access to martial feats at all. Notice that the rogue is an expert and doesn’t get access to the two weapon fighting style feat at all, the best it can do is to take the dual wielding feat which is open to all classes, the Ranger on the other hand is specifically allowed a limited selection of fighting style feats at L2 and then fighting style feats at L4+.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.