Armor is a balancing factor on classes. Bypassing it requires investment. Generally to the tune opf a feat or two, or a multiclass level.
Armor not being a critical investment doesn't mean it's not an investment. Armor being relatively straightforward to acquire if one wants it does not make the acquisition free. Wizards is giving people who play battlemages an option to invest in some Battle for their Mage. I see no reason to make that any harder - or easier - than it currently is.
So you are ok with just permanently having a feat tax. Because if you even remotely care about optimizing your wizard or sorc, you are automatically taking lightly armored at first level, nothing else even comes close.
I’m currently playing a 9th level Bard who still relies on mage armor. Armor proficiency is by no means an automatic take.
Are you a stealthy bard? And did you make this bard with the current rules? Where you get a free FIRST level feat. And one of those would give you medium amor and a shield.
This said for bard it is easy to see as less. You have more health, and light armor, and you are more likely to use skills that medium armor gives disadvantage for. So for you maybe not, but for wizards and sorc, it is a no brainer.
Armor is a balancing factor on classes. Bypassing it requires investment. Generally to the tune opf a feat or two, or a multiclass level.
Armor not being a critical investment doesn't mean it's not an investment. Armor being relatively straightforward to acquire if one wants it does not make the acquisition free. Wizards is giving people who play battlemages an option to invest in some Battle for their Mage. I see no reason to make that any harder - or easier - than it currently is.
So you are ok with just permanently having a feat tax. Because if you even remotely care about optimizing your wizard or sorc, you are automatically taking lightly armored at first level, nothing else even comes close.
Not at all. I currently have a 16th-level wizard whose base AC is 12. She doesn't wear armor, she doesn't cast Mage Armor. Her AC is immaterial. At lower levels it would be neat, sure, but canny mages need armor less than Bonkliners. There's plenty of other things I'd consider over Armor Training.
you can build a totally unoptimized character still. That doesn't change that it is a no brainer pick for anyone who optimizes in the slightest.
So much this. You can play a clever wizard with a 19 AC, not including magic items, and bump that sucker to 24 for an entire round on the rare occasion you are attacked.
You can sit there with 12 getting nearly auto hit by anything that manages to close the distance. Meanwhile, optimized players will all make it just as difficult for the enemy to reach them, but when it does it better have a +14 to hit or it is going to have less than 50% chance to hit.
Getting back to the Dual Wielder feat, I also think this version is very limited and has very little value.
I actually played a Dual Wielder fighter all the way to level 17 (Strenght based). Always had two non-light one-handed weapons...
The +1 AC was really nice as it ballanced the style between sword and board and two-handed weapons. Removing it is a really bad move. Forcing one of the weapons to have the light property is also completely unnecessary. Why not just consider all one-handed weapons to have the light property with the feat? The extra damage would be minimal and it will allow much more flexibility (like throwing Javelins instead of handaxes, for instance - people usually only consider melee, but throwing weapons can also be dual wielded)...
With the changes, I think that even not needing to use the bonus action for the extra attack, a dual wielder ends up loosing a bit of damage (not to mention flexibility in your choice of weapon), most of the time with this update...
Armor is a balancing factor on classes. Bypassing it requires investment. Generally to the tune opf a feat or two, or a multiclass level.
Armor not being a critical investment doesn't mean it's not an investment. Armor being relatively straightforward to acquire if one wants it does not make the acquisition free. Wizards is giving people who play battlemages an option to invest in some Battle for their Mage. I see no reason to make that any harder - or easier - than it currently is.
So you are ok with just permanently having a feat tax. Because if you even remotely care about optimizing your wizard or sorc, you are automatically taking lightly armored at first level, nothing else even comes close.
Yes. If you want something for your character that is not part of the class, you should have to pay for it through resources you would have otherwise spent somewhere else. It is kind of a no brainer.
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?
Armor is a balancing factor on classes. Bypassing it requires investment. Generally to the tune opf a feat or two, or a multiclass level.
Armor not being a critical investment doesn't mean it's not an investment. Armor being relatively straightforward to acquire if one wants it does not make the acquisition free. Wizards is giving people who play battlemages an option to invest in some Battle for their Mage. I see no reason to make that any harder - or easier - than it currently is.
So you are ok with just permanently having a feat tax. Because if you even remotely care about optimizing your wizard or sorc, you are automatically taking lightly armored at first level, nothing else even comes close.
I’m currently playing a 9th level Bard who still relies on mage armor. Armor proficiency is by no means an automatic take.
Are you a stealthy bard? And did you make this bard with the current rules? Where you get a free FIRST level feat. And one of those would give you medium amor and a shield.
This said for bard it is easy to see as less. You have more health, and light armor, and you are more likely to use skills that medium armor gives disadvantage for. So for you maybe not, but for wizards and sorc, it is a no brainer.
Nope, not particularly stealthy, she has a +8 in stealth from proficiency and a high Dex, but she’s been geared more towards social stuff. No, I made her under the current rules, not the playtest rules for the future of D&D. But even if I had made her under the playtest rules I doubt I would have taken a feat for Medium Armor, I’d have gone for either Alert, Lucky, Magic Initiate, or Skilled.
She doesn’t wear any armor at all and solely relies on mage armor, and mostly focuses on social skills which are indifferent to armor, and sleight of hand.
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?
Multi classing at least delays their spell casting advancement by one level, I personally don't think that is enough of a limit on it but its more than a starting feat. The solve is to make it an expensive proposition for the most powerful classes in the game to get some of the best built in defense in the game. Crap being back spell failure in armor and then fine wear your medium armor.
I've played a wizard without armor at 4th level and it worked great. My goblin wizard used Mage Armor, Absorb Elements, Shield, Silvery Barbs and Nimble Escape (racial feature) to avoid or minimize the damage taken at crucial times, and even though they had low AC, they went down a lot less than the fighter, barbarian, and practically just everybody else. Wizards, Sorcerers, Bards, and other spellcasters do not need high AC. Is it annoying to have low AC? Yeah, but spellcasters are already very powerful without it. If you want higher AC, take a feat or something. But your class will work without that feat, and if you want extra abilities you will have to sacrifice an Ability Score Improvement (feat in 1DD) or other feat, because that's just how building a character works. You can't get everything you want and you certainly cant have it without a cost.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
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.
I've played a wizard without armor at 4th level and it worked great. My goblin wizard used Mage Armor, Absorb Elements, Shield, Silvery Barbs and Nimble Escape (racial feature) to avoid or minimize the damage taken at crucial times, and even though they had low AC, they went down a lot less than the fighter, barbarian, and practically just everybody else. Wizards, Sorcerers, Bards, and other spellcasters do not need high AC. Is it annoying to have low AC? Yeah, but spellcasters are already very powerful without it. If you want higher AC, take a feat or something. But your class will work without that feat, and if you want extra abilities you will have to sacrifice an Ability Score Improvement (feat in 1DD) or other feat, because that's just how building a character works. You can't get everything you want and you certainly cant have it without a cost.
It definitely will work without the feat 100%. The problem is that feat being an option against the others is not close in terms of decision.
I've played a wizard without armor at 4th level and it worked great. My goblin wizard used Mage Armor, Absorb Elements, Shield, Silvery Barbs and Nimble Escape (racial feature) to avoid or minimize the damage taken at crucial times, and even though they had low AC, they went down a lot less than the fighter, barbarian, and practically just everybody else. Wizards, Sorcerers, Bards, and other spellcasters do not need high AC. Is it annoying to have low AC? Yeah, but spellcasters are already very powerful without it. If you want higher AC, take a feat or something. But your class will work without that feat, and if you want extra abilities you will have to sacrifice an Ability Score Improvement (feat in 1DD) or other feat, because that's just how building a character works. You can't get everything you want and you certainly cant have it without a cost.
It definitely will work without the feat 100%. The problem is that feat being an option against the others is not close in terms of decision.
For you.
It is obvious that not everyone feels the same way.
Armor is a balancing factor on classes. Bypassing it requires investment. Generally to the tune opf a feat or two, or a multiclass level.
Armor not being a critical investment doesn't mean it's not an investment. Armor being relatively straightforward to acquire if one wants it does not make the acquisition free. Wizards is giving people who play battlemages an option to invest in some Battle for their Mage. I see no reason to make that any harder - or easier - than it currently is.
So you are ok with just permanently having a feat tax. Because if you even remotely care about optimizing your wizard or sorc, you are automatically taking lightly armored at first level, nothing else even comes close.
I’m currently playing a 9th level Bard who still relies on mage armor. Armor proficiency is by no means an automatic take.
Are you a stealthy bard? And did you make this bard with the current rules? Where you get a free FIRST level feat. And one of those would give you medium amor and a shield.
This said for bard it is easy to see as less. You have more health, and light armor, and you are more likely to use skills that medium armor gives disadvantage for. So for you maybe not, but for wizards and sorc, it is a no brainer.
Nope, not particularly stealthy, she has a +8 in stealth from proficiency and a high Dex, but she’s been geared more towards social stuff. No, I made her under the current rules, not the playtest rules for the future of D&D. But even if I had made her under the playtest rules I doubt I would have taken a feat for Medium Armor, I’d have gone for either Alert, Lucky, Magic Initiate, or Skilled.
She doesn’t wear any armor at all and solely relies on mage armor, and mostly focuses on social skills which are indifferent to armor, and sleight of hand.
So still fairly dexterous, and again, you can be unoptimized if you want. Lets compare.
Vs skilled a +3 to your AC and a saved first level slot vs half a proficiency bonus in 3 more skills that you didnt initially feel you needed.
Vs magic initiate. 2 cantrips. Not saving you a spell slot because you are still using 1 for mage armor same with not saving you a spell prepared since you don't need to prep mage armor. Still a +3 to AC for lightly armored.
Alert and lucky same thing. Lightly armored is a +3 to AC and saves you a spell slot and a spell known for mage armor.
Also to note, mage armor is no longer on the bard list.
I've played a wizard without armor at 4th level and it worked great. My goblin wizard used Mage Armor, Absorb Elements, Shield, Silvery Barbs and Nimble Escape (racial feature) to avoid or minimize the damage taken at crucial times, and even though they had low AC, they went down a lot less than the fighter, barbarian, and practically just everybody else. Wizards, Sorcerers, Bards, and other spellcasters do not need high AC. Is it annoying to have low AC? Yeah, but spellcasters are already very powerful without it. If you want higher AC, take a feat or something. But your class will work without that feat, and if you want extra abilities you will have to sacrifice an Ability Score Improvement (feat in 1DD) or other feat, because that's just how building a character works. You can't get everything you want and you certainly cant have it without a cost.
It definitely will work without the feat 100%. The problem is that feat being an option against the others is not close in terms of decision.
For you.
It is obvious that not everyone feels the same way.
Let me rephrase. In terms of optimization it is not close. Others who don't want to make optimal choices are free to do so, but at that point you aren't talking about game balance.
Armor is a balancing factor on classes. Bypassing it requires investment. Generally to the tune opf a feat or two, or a multiclass level.
Armor not being a critical investment doesn't mean it's not an investment. Armor being relatively straightforward to acquire if one wants it does not make the acquisition free. Wizards is giving people who play battlemages an option to invest in some Battle for their Mage. I see no reason to make that any harder - or easier - than it currently is.
So you are ok with just permanently having a feat tax. Because if you even remotely care about optimizing your wizard or sorc, you are automatically taking lightly armored at first level, nothing else even comes close.
I’m currently playing a 9th level Bard who still relies on mage armor. Armor proficiency is by no means an automatic take.
Are you a stealthy bard? And did you make this bard with the current rules? Where you get a free FIRST level feat. And one of those would give you medium amor and a shield.
This said for bard it is easy to see as less. You have more health, and light armor, and you are more likely to use skills that medium armor gives disadvantage for. So for you maybe not, but for wizards and sorc, it is a no brainer.
Nope, not particularly stealthy, she has a +8 in stealth from proficiency and a high Dex, but she’s been geared more towards social stuff. No, I made her under the current rules, not the playtest rules for the future of D&D. But even if I had made her under the playtest rules I doubt I would have taken a feat for Medium Armor, I’d have gone for either Alert, Lucky, Magic Initiate, or Skilled.
She doesn’t wear any armor at all and solely relies on mage armor, and mostly focuses on social skills which are indifferent to armor, and sleight of hand.
So still fairly dexterous, and again, you can be unoptimized if you want. Lets compare.
Vs skilled a +3 to your AC and a saved first level slot vs half a proficiency bonus in 3 more skills that you didnt initially feel you needed.
Vs magic initiate. 2 cantrips. Not saving you a spell slot because you are still using 1 for mage armor same with not saving you a spell prepared since you don't need to prep mage armor. Still a +3 to AC for lightly armored.
Alert and lucky same thing. Lightly armored is a +3 to AC and saves you a spell slot and a spell known for mage armor.
Also to note, mage armor is no longer on the bard list.
She is fairly well optimized, just for social encounters more than combat.
I would love to have a couplefew more proficiencies, are you kidding?!? I’m the party’s social expert and didn’t have enough proficiencies available for stuff like Insight, I’ve been making due with Jack of all Trades in that department. And I ain’t sweating that one spell slot, I’m fairly good at rationing and have strong cantrips.
I took a level in Sorcerer primarily for the additional cantrips, and I would still consider Magic Initiate for more because there are a couple more I wish she had.
Lucky is one of the best feats in the UA, in fact I think it’s too good. Waa—aay more appealing to me than training in armor I don’t seem to need since with mage armor she has an AC of 17. She has a rapier, but has only used it once relying mainly on chill touch for damage and mind sliver to set up opponents for saves forced by other party members.
But mage armor is on the Sorcerer list and I took a level in Divine Soul. I plan to take another level in Sorcerer in a couple levels and the first feat I plan to take is Metamagic Adept which will pair nicely with the Font of Magic feature.
You seem to have a fairly narrow concept of what makes for a good character, and I just happen to be playing a character with alternate strengths. My character is a socialite and a utility/support character. She hands out goodberries every morning like Mama Cass Eliot handed out acid tabs. In combat she is more likely to kite and sandbag hostiles with spells like enthrall, bane, blindness/deafness, or hypnotic pattern. Overall she most often casts detect thoughts, detect magicor polymorph. What does she really need with armor?
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.
Armor is a balancing factor on classes. Bypassing it requires investment. Generally to the tune opf a feat or two, or a multiclass level.
Armor not being a critical investment doesn't mean it's not an investment. Armor being relatively straightforward to acquire if one wants it does not make the acquisition free. Wizards is giving people who play battlemages an option to invest in some Battle for their Mage. I see no reason to make that any harder - or easier - than it currently is.
So you are ok with just permanently having a feat tax. Because if you even remotely care about optimizing your wizard or sorc, you are automatically taking lightly armored at first level, nothing else even comes close.
I’m currently playing a 9th level Bard who still relies on mage armor. Armor proficiency is by no means an automatic take.
Are you a stealthy bard? And did you make this bard with the current rules? Where you get a free FIRST level feat. And one of those would give you medium amor and a shield.
This said for bard it is easy to see as less. You have more health, and light armor, and you are more likely to use skills that medium armor gives disadvantage for. So for you maybe not, but for wizards and sorc, it is a no brainer.
Nope, not particularly stealthy, she has a +8 in stealth from proficiency and a high Dex, but she’s been geared more towards social stuff. No, I made her under the current rules, not the playtest rules for the future of D&D. But even if I had made her under the playtest rules I doubt I would have taken a feat for Medium Armor, I’d have gone for either Alert, Lucky, Magic Initiate, or Skilled.
She doesn’t wear any armor at all and solely relies on mage armor, and mostly focuses on social skills which are indifferent to armor, and sleight of hand.
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.
That you did. Tough thing to balance wants of the many. But more and more I wonder about the large jump in potential ac and how much impact it will have. My initial feel was WOAH TOO MUCH but I am leaning towards ambivalence. Also kinda feeling the medium armor feat could allow for up to +4 from dex and make it more competitive with taking heavy armor. Is a 2 ac bump (potential) comparable to the heavy armor damage reduction feat?
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."
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Are you a stealthy bard? And did you make this bard with the current rules? Where you get a free FIRST level feat. And one of those would give you medium amor and a shield.
This said for bard it is easy to see as less. You have more health, and light armor, and you are more likely to use skills that medium armor gives disadvantage for. So for you maybe not, but for wizards and sorc, it is a no brainer.
So much this. You can play a clever wizard with a 19 AC, not including magic items, and bump that sucker to 24 for an entire round on the rare occasion you are attacked.
You can sit there with 12 getting nearly auto hit by anything that manages to close the distance. Meanwhile, optimized players will all make it just as difficult for the enemy to reach them, but when it does it better have a +14 to hit or it is going to have less than 50% chance to hit.
Getting back to the Dual Wielder feat, I also think this version is very limited and has very little value.
I actually played a Dual Wielder fighter all the way to level 17 (Strenght based). Always had two non-light one-handed weapons...
The +1 AC was really nice as it ballanced the style between sword and board and two-handed weapons. Removing it is a really bad move.
Forcing one of the weapons to have the light property is also completely unnecessary. Why not just consider all one-handed weapons to have the light property with the feat?
The extra damage would be minimal and it will allow much more flexibility (like throwing Javelins instead of handaxes, for instance - people usually only consider melee, but throwing weapons can also be dual wielded)...
With the changes, I think that even not needing to use the bonus action for the extra attack, a dual wielder ends up loosing a bit of damage (not to mention flexibility in your choice of weapon), most of the time with this update...
Yes. If you want something for your character that is not part of the class, you should have to pay for it through resources you would have otherwise spent somewhere else. It is kind of a no brainer.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Put it this way.
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?
Please do not contact or message me.
Nope, not particularly stealthy, she has a +8 in stealth from proficiency and a high Dex, but she’s been geared more towards social stuff. No, I made her under the current rules, not the playtest rules for the future of D&D. But even if I had made her under the playtest rules I doubt I would have taken a feat for Medium Armor, I’d have gone for either Alert, Lucky, Magic Initiate, or Skilled.
She doesn’t wear any armor at all and solely relies on mage armor, and mostly focuses on social skills which are indifferent to armor, and sleight of hand.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Multi classing at least delays their spell casting advancement by one level, I personally don't think that is enough of a limit on it but its more than a starting feat. The solve is to make it an expensive proposition for the most powerful classes in the game to get some of the best built in defense in the game. Crap being back spell failure in armor and then fine wear your medium armor.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.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.
It definitely will work without the feat 100%. The problem is that feat being an option against the others is not close in terms of decision.
For you.
It is obvious that not everyone feels the same way.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
So still fairly dexterous, and again, you can be unoptimized if you want. Lets compare.
Vs skilled a +3 to your AC and a saved first level slot vs half a proficiency bonus in 3 more skills that you didnt initially feel you needed.
Vs magic initiate. 2 cantrips. Not saving you a spell slot because you are still using 1 for mage armor same with not saving you a spell prepared since you don't need to prep mage armor. Still a +3 to AC for lightly armored.
Alert and lucky same thing. Lightly armored is a +3 to AC and saves you a spell slot and a spell known for mage armor.
Also to note, mage armor is no longer on the bard list.
Let me rephrase. In terms of optimization it is not close. Others who don't want to make optimal choices are free to do so, but at that point you aren't talking about game balance.
You've stated that more than once, yes. I have yet to see where the solve is considering the existence of the One Level Dip.
Please do not contact or message me.
One level dip is a significant cost. If someone wants armor training they should take a significant cost to it.
OR don't bother with armor training at all and just accept everyone can wear armor.
Gave both of these solutions a while back.
She is fairly well optimized, just for social encounters more than combat.
I would love to have a couplefew more proficiencies, are you kidding?!? I’m the party’s social expert and didn’t have enough proficiencies available for stuff like Insight, I’ve been making due with Jack of all Trades in that department. And I ain’t sweating that one spell slot, I’m fairly good at rationing and have strong cantrips.
I took a level in Sorcerer primarily for the additional cantrips, and I would still consider Magic Initiate for more because there are a couple more I wish she had.
Lucky is one of the best feats in the UA, in fact I think it’s too good. Waa—aay more appealing to me than training in armor I don’t seem to need since with mage armor she has an AC of 17. She has a rapier, but has only used it once relying mainly on chill touch for damage and mind sliver to set up opponents for saves forced by other party members.
But mage armor is on the Sorcerer list and I took a level in Divine Soul. I plan to take another level in Sorcerer in a couple levels and the first feat I plan to take is Metamagic Adept which will pair nicely with the Font of Magic feature.
You seem to have a fairly narrow concept of what makes for a good character, and I just happen to be playing a character with alternate strengths. My character is a socialite and a utility/support character. She hands out goodberries every morning like Mama Cass Eliot handed out acid tabs. In combat she is more likely to kite and sandbag hostiles with spells like enthrall, bane, blindness/deafness, or hypnotic pattern. Overall she most often casts detect thoughts, detect magicor polymorph. What does she really need with armor?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
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.
Please do not contact or message me.
Who do I have to smile at to get some Glamoured Studded Leather around here?
That you did. Tough thing to balance wants of the many. But more and more I wonder about the large jump in potential ac and how much impact it will have. My initial feel was WOAH TOO MUCH but I am leaning towards ambivalence. Also kinda feeling the medium armor feat could allow for up to +4 from dex and make it more competitive with taking heavy armor. Is a 2 ac bump (potential) comparable to the heavy armor damage reduction feat?
"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."
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.
Please do not contact or message me.