No, Resilient or Warcaster are overall still better because of Concentration. Lightly Armored just gives you another option instead of going for a multiclass dip for obtaining armor proficiency as certain casters like Wizard and Sorcerer. You can still do a multiclass dip if you want to grab another first level feat, but optimization wise you will probably be taking Resilient and/or warcaster at one point or another.
For wizard in particular, if comparing to current options, an artificer dip is still highly optimal because it grants those armor proficiencies, additional tool proficiencies, and con proficiency. Of course, artificer doesn't seem like it will be in One D&D's at launch, so this may be a bad example.
Also, with Warcaster being a half feat now, it is a lot easier to fit it into caster builds. Just have a 17 in int, wis, or charisma and you can grab it pretty easily.
Both of which are 4th level feats. This thread should really ask "is lightly armored the best FIRST level feat for a caster?" And anyone who says no is either lying or delusional for FIRST level feats. Later feats are not relevant to the point, but of course the thread misses that entirely. Even I agree that there are 4th level feats that are better for casters.
I'd even say if the other feats were first level lightly armored would still be the better choice as you aren't concentrating on that many spells levels 1-3, and almost all attacks you face will be AC based. And while at 4th I'd probably give the edge to either warcaster or resilient con for a wizard I'd point out a sorcerer already has proficiency in con saves so for them it would still be better. I know some people feel the need to double down on concentration check protection but not being dead is probably a better option at that point. And even for the wizard its not that far off and I'd say in rougher campaigns where the wizard gets targeted more aggressively than some are used to it may be the better choice.
Yeah making your con save is important, not having to make it in the first place helps with that. For a wizard/sor we are really looking at a 24 AC pretty quickly depending on campaign cash with this. You can still get hit with a 24 AC at level 4, but casting shield with a base 19 AC will likely drop quite a few hits into misses and just as importantly require a lot less shield casts to stay up. At even higher levels when area of effect attacks, breath weapons etc become more common the Ac isn't as important but levels 4-7 its not that clear cut to me which is better. But there is a decent chance in many campaigns the armor and shield are now magical so you may be looking at a 21-23 base AC. I can say as a DM dealing with a sword and board eldritch knight hitting them was pretty dang rare even up to level 13/14 when the campaign ended. Spells etc sure, but they almost never got hit from AC based attacks.
The AC on its own isn't terrible but high ACs get insanely good in the hands of a characters with spells like mirror image, protection vs evil, shield etc. Disadvantage helps that AC 16 wiz survive, it makes that AC 22 wizard with a shield spell in their pocked almost impossible to hit. All those spells everyone was bragging about for why their wizard does not need armor as magic and positioning is enough do provide a good level of defense. IMO not as good as other characters when combined with the wizards HP. But when the base AC is as good or better than the fighters AC those spells make them darn near impregnable without cheesing things to specifically counter their insane defense. And while I will have enemies fight tactically and target the wizard pretty hard when they make a target of themselves I wont make things to specifically counter the wizard anymore than I'll start tossing piles of super high Ac enemies at the party to counter GWM.
If resilient or warcaster were first level spells, I'd rather do a dip and take those than take Lightly Armored.
In current 5E, I highly rank Variant Human Warcaster + Artificer Dip for wizards. It leads to having the armor proficiency and setting up your concentration all up at first level, letting you raise your int to 20 by 9th level. I'd even consider it for Bladesinger setups despite not needing the armor or shield proficiency as getting both Con Saves and Warcaster at first level is pretty huge.
I'd have to point out that while Sorcerer does indeed get con save, dragonic sorcerer gets passive non-magical mage armor as well as more HP, so they really have enough that getting lightly armored does not add that much. Also at levels 1-3, what armor is your DM letting you get? Scale Mail is about the only +AC you'd reasonably expect to see at those levels (assuming dex mod of 2 or lower), and that disadvantages your stealth.
If you are looking to increase your ability to survive, I'd go with Tough being a better option, Lightly armored is limited to the type of damage you are least likely to take, while having tough improves your chances against the AoE damage you are more likely to take.
Scale with a shield still gets you a 18 Ac out of the gate. And sure for draconic sorcerer it may be less worth it, but I'm not judging it against just it or bladesinger for example. Getting a AC that is comparable to this is pretty much why the bladesinger is considered one of the better sub classes.
No, Resilient or Warcaster are overall still better because of Concentration. Lightly Armored just gives you another option instead of going for a multiclass dip for obtaining armor proficiency as certain casters like Wizard and Sorcerer. You can still do a multiclass dip if you want to grab another first level feat, but optimization wise you will probably be taking Resilient and/or warcaster at one point or another.
For wizard in particular, if comparing to current options, an artificer dip is still highly optimal because it grants those armor proficiencies, additional tool proficiencies, and con proficiency. Of course, artificer doesn't seem like it will be in One D&D's at launch, so this may be a bad example.
Also, with Warcaster being a half feat now, it is a lot easier to fit it into caster builds. Just have a 17 in int, wis, or charisma and you can grab it pretty easily.
Both of which are 4th level feats. This thread should really ask "is lightly armored the best FIRST level feat for a caster?" And anyone who says no is either lying or delusional for FIRST level feats. Later feats are not relevant to the point, but of course the thread misses that entirely. Even I agree that there are 4th level feats that are better for casters.
I'd even say if the other feats were first level lightly armored would still be the better choice as you aren't concentrating on that many spells levels 1-3, and almost all attacks you face will be AC based. And while at 4th I'd probably give the edge to either warcaster or resilient con for a wizard I'd point out a sorcerer already has proficiency in con saves so for them it would still be better. I know some people feel the need to double down on concentration check protection but not being dead is probably a better option at that point. And even for the wizard its not that far off and I'd say in rougher campaigns where the wizard gets targeted more aggressively than some are used to it may be the better choice.
Yeah making your con save is important, not having to make it in the first place helps with that. For a wizard/sor we are really looking at a 24 AC pretty quickly depending on campaign cash with this. You can still get hit with a 24 AC at level 4, but casting shield with a base 19 AC will likely drop quite a few hits into misses and just as importantly require a lot less shield casts to stay up. At even higher levels when area of effect attacks, breath weapons etc become more common the Ac isn't as important but levels 4-7 its not that clear cut to me which is better. But there is a decent chance in many campaigns the armor and shield are now magical so you may be looking at a 21-23 base AC. I can say as a DM dealing with a sword and board eldritch knight hitting them was pretty dang rare even up to level 13/14 when the campaign ended. Spells etc sure, but they almost never got hit from AC based attacks.
The AC on its own isn't terrible but high ACs get insanely good in the hands of a characters with spells like mirror image, protection vs evil, shield etc. Disadvantage helps that AC 16 wiz survive, it makes that AC 22 wizard with a shield spell in their pocked almost impossible to hit. All those spells everyone was bragging about for why their wizard does not need armor as magic and positioning is enough do provide a good level of defense. IMO not as good as other characters when combined with the wizards HP. But when the base AC is as good or better than the fighters AC those spells make them darn near impregnable without cheesing things to specifically counter their insane defense. And while I will have enemies fight tactically and target the wizard pretty hard when they make a target of themselves I wont make things to specifically counter the wizard anymore than I'll start tossing piles of super high Ac enemies at the party to counter GWM.
If resilient or warcaster were first level spells, I'd rather do a dip and take those than take Lightly Armored.
In current 5E, I highly rank Variant Human Warcaster + Artificer Dip for wizards. It leads to having the armor proficiency and setting up your concentration all up at first level, letting you raise your int to 20 by 9th level. I'd even consider it for Bladesinger setups despite not needing the armor or shield proficiency as getting both Con Saves and Warcaster at first level is pretty huge.
You have revealed yourself as the liar. If the only reason getting medium armor and a shield isn't the best option for a wizard is because they can get medium armor and a shield you have admitted medium armor and a shield is super strong on them. And you're deflecting by saying you don't have to take it as a feat if you take it another way.
So, according to you WIZARDS have 2 options take the lightly armored feat or take a 1 level dip. Nothing else is optimal.
Now what about sorcs? I assume same thing either take lightly armored or a 1 level dip in cleric to free up your first level feat choice. But in both the wizard and the sorc case you get to slow your casting progression. Which you can pretend isn't a cost if you want and continue to not live in reality, but while your artificer/wizard is stuck casting 2nd level spells at level 5. The wizard that just took the feat will be enjoying fly, fireball and hypnotic pattern.
As for the Magic initiate arguers that will just use mage armor... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UERRPHG9Gtg... Let's begin the explanation. Magic initiate provides you 2 cantrips and one first level spell that you can cast once per long rest. So basically 2 cantrips and a first level spell and something that is slightly worse than a first level spell slot. But you are using one of your spells known on Mage armor, which is a first level spell AND you are using a spell slot to CAST said mage armor. And unless your dex is above 14, which mean you took hits to your constitution and int/cha, which means you are have harder times holding onto concentration or landing your save or suck spells, with mage armor you have an AC of 15 (13+2 from dex). Meanwhile, the individual that took lightly armored instead of magic initiate ISN'T taking Mage Armor as a spell, thus giving them another first level spell, AND they aren't using mage armor as a spell slot every day... giving them back a first level spell slot. In addition, even if they just use scale mail and a shield, which are fairly cheap, they would still have an AC of 18 right out the gate. Which is +3 over your AC.
So you effectively got 2 cantrips for the price of 3+ AC. Against enemies with a +6 to hit, a 15 AC gets hit on a 9 or better which means it gets hit 60% of the time, which means it gets missed 40% of the time. An 18 AC, on the other hand gets hit on a 12 or better. Which means they get hit 45% of the time, or MISSED 55% of the time. This is an increase of 50% survivability at the cost of 2 cantrips, because the first level spell you gain from magic initiate is being offset by not needing to use mage armor, at higher levels this becomes even more prevelant because the Wizard/sorc isn't needing to spend ASI's to increase their dex to keep up with AC. Instead they spend some extra money on half plate, and then later spend on a cloak protection, which most people pick up anyway.
At later levels when you are facing something with a +9 with your Half plate and the shield spell with an AC of 19 without shield and an AC of 24 with vs the mage armor looking at 15 without and 20 with. The creature with a +9 is forcing a shield spell out of the person with mage armor on a 6 or better, and is hitting regardless on 11 or better. So it hits 50% of the time. Meanwhile the person with a 19 AC is only having to pop their shield spell on a 10 or better AND are only hit on a 15 or better or they are only hit 30% of the time, or they are missed 70% of the time. At +11, rock throwing giants a this point. The mage armor wearer is now hit more often than they are not, even with the shield spell. Meanwhile the medium armor wearer is still enjoying solid protect, especially after shield spell being missed 60% of the time. In all cases the higher AC is increasing survivability by about 30-40%. Against magic initiate this is the cost of 2 utility cantrips. The first level spell is a wash, because you aren't having to use mage armor. In addition, the lack of being hit means you also increase your chances to hold onto your concentration which further increases your usefulness and survivability.
For the very specific case of Draconic sorcerer that gets free mage armor taking tough. Tough adds 2 health per level. You are gaining 4+ con per level with Con likely being at least 14 if not 16, + 2 per level is a 33% increase in survivability. Which is putting it about on par with the lightly armored feat. Except you get hit more often and thus lose concentration more often. However, this +33% also counts towards all sources of damage and not just attack rolls. The higher level you go though the more mage armor isn't going to be providing you as much protection and this is when medium armor starts to matter even more. Unless you are increasing your dex beyond 14, which if you are doing that you aren't increasing your Con or your Cha. So even on a draconic sorcerer, you are better with lightly armored in the long run over tough. Which SUCKS because it means half your draconic feature at level 1 is basically invalidated.
I'd have to point out that while Sorcerer does indeed get con save, dragonic sorcerer gets passive non-magical mage armor as well as more HP, so they really have enough that getting lightly armored does not add that much. Also at levels 1-3, what armor is your DM letting you get? Scale Mail is about the only +AC you'd reasonably expect to see at those levels (assuming dex mod of 2 or lower), and that disadvantages your stealth.
If you are looking to increase your ability to survive, I'd go with Tough being a better option, Lightly armored is limited to the type of damage you are least likely to take, while having tough improves your chances against the AoE damage you are more likely to take.
Scale with a shield still gets you a 18 Ac out of the gate. And sure for draconic sorcerer it may be less worth it, but I'm not judging it against just it or bladesinger for example. Getting a AC that is comparable to this is pretty much why the bladesinger is considered one of the better sub classes.
As I've already stated previously in the thread, shields can cause issues where you can't cast some spells if you're using something like a staff or wand in one hand, so you'd either need to never use a magical stave or wand or you need to pick up warcaster.
Bladesinger gets INT to AC, as long as they aren't using Medium/Heavy Armor or Shield, but the high AC is not why they are considered the best, it's the fact they get that, the ability to attack three times a turn (using two weapons) and can switch 1 attack for a cantrip which can be bladeward, where bladeward can decrease incoming damage even more than AC in some situations.
I'd have to point out that while Sorcerer does indeed get con save, dragonic sorcerer gets passive non-magical mage armor as well as more HP, so they really have enough that getting lightly armored does not add that much. Also at levels 1-3, what armor is your DM letting you get? Scale Mail is about the only +AC you'd reasonably expect to see at those levels (assuming dex mod of 2 or lower), and that disadvantages your stealth.
If you are looking to increase your ability to survive, I'd go with Tough being a better option, Lightly armored is limited to the type of damage you are least likely to take, while having tough improves your chances against the AoE damage you are more likely to take.
Scale with a shield still gets you a 18 Ac out of the gate. And sure for draconic sorcerer it may be less worth it, but I'm not judging it against just it or bladesinger for example. Getting a AC that is comparable to this is pretty much why the bladesinger is considered one of the better sub classes.
As I've already stated previously in the thread, shields can cause issues where you can't cast some spells if you're using something like a staff or wand in one hand, so you'd either need to never use a magical stave or wand or you need to pick up warcaster.
Bladesinger gets INT to AC, as long as they aren't using Medium/Heavy Armor or Shield, but the high AC is not why they are considered the best, it's the fact they get that, the ability to attack three times a turn (using two weapons) and can switch 1 attack for a cantrip which can be bladeward, where bladeward can decrease incoming damage even more than AC in some situations.
This is actually not true. You can store or draw an item as a free interact with object action. Just put the wand away and cast. Then if you need it again for a material spell later you pull it out and cast.
I'd have to point out that while Sorcerer does indeed get con save, dragonic sorcerer gets passive non-magical mage armor as well as more HP, so they really have enough that getting lightly armored does not add that much. Also at levels 1-3, what armor is your DM letting you get? Scale Mail is about the only +AC you'd reasonably expect to see at those levels (assuming dex mod of 2 or lower), and that disadvantages your stealth.
If you are looking to increase your ability to survive, I'd go with Tough being a better option, Lightly armored is limited to the type of damage you are least likely to take, while having tough improves your chances against the AoE damage you are more likely to take.
Scale with a shield still gets you a 18 Ac out of the gate. And sure for draconic sorcerer it may be less worth it, but I'm not judging it against just it or bladesinger for example. Getting a AC that is comparable to this is pretty much why the bladesinger is considered one of the better sub classes.
As I've already stated previously in the thread, shields can cause issues where you can't cast some spells if you're using something like a staff or wand in one hand, so you'd either need to never use a magical stave or wand or you need to pick up warcaster.
Bladesinger gets INT to AC, as long as they aren't using Medium/Heavy Armor or Shield, but the high AC is not why they are considered the best, it's the fact they get that, the ability to attack three times a turn (using two weapons) and can switch 1 attack for a cantrip which can be bladeward, where bladeward can decrease incoming damage even more than AC in some situations.
This is actually not true. You can store or draw an item as a free interact with object action. Just put the wand away and cast. Then if you need it again for a material spell later you pull it out and cast.
If you are going to use it on that round and you draw it, you can't put it away until the next round, so it is true, you can get in that situation. Also some of them have bonuses past just casting spells.
I'd have to point out that while Sorcerer does indeed get con save, dragonic sorcerer gets passive non-magical mage armor as well as more HP, so they really have enough that getting lightly armored does not add that much. Also at levels 1-3, what armor is your DM letting you get? Scale Mail is about the only +AC you'd reasonably expect to see at those levels (assuming dex mod of 2 or lower), and that disadvantages your stealth.
If you are looking to increase your ability to survive, I'd go with Tough being a better option, Lightly armored is limited to the type of damage you are least likely to take, while having tough improves your chances against the AoE damage you are more likely to take.
Scale with a shield still gets you a 18 Ac out of the gate. And sure for draconic sorcerer it may be less worth it, but I'm not judging it against just it or bladesinger for example. Getting a AC that is comparable to this is pretty much why the bladesinger is considered one of the better sub classes.
As I've already stated previously in the thread, shields can cause issues where you can't cast some spells if you're using something like a staff or wand in one hand, so you'd either need to never use a magical stave or wand or you need to pick up warcaster.
Bladesinger gets INT to AC, as long as they aren't using Medium/Heavy Armor or Shield, but the high AC is not why they are considered the best, it's the fact they get that, the ability to attack three times a turn (using two weapons) and can switch 1 attack for a cantrip which can be bladeward, where bladeward can decrease incoming damage even more than AC in some situations.
This is actually not true. You can store or draw an item as a free interact with object action. Just put the wand away and cast. Then if you need it again for a material spell later you pull it out and cast.
If you are going to use it on that round and you draw it, you can't put it away until the next round, so it is true, you can get in that situation. Also some of them have bonuses past just casting spells.
Correct you can not put it away till next, but you don't need to put it away till the next round. You just cast the spell for the round. You don't need your free hand that round. You need it next round. Shields do not get in the way. It is just false that shields get in the way.
There's a part of me that thinks all armors should have a min str -- say
Leather/Cloth: 7
Studded Leather/Hide: 9
Chain Shirt/Breastplate: 11
Scale/Half-Plate: 13
It means strength is less of a dump stat, and means getting medium armor proficiency is not quite as trivial as current.
Why? Armor is assigned by class, so if I roll poorly or want to sort my scores for RP purposes, I have to worry about getting my Str up to scratch. I could see for Chain and Scale, but most of those classes use Str for their primary stat.
It sounds like a cool house or optional rule, but I don't think it should be here for the main rules
If you are going to use it on that round and you draw it, you can't put it away until the next round, so it is true, you can get in that situation. Also some of them have bonuses past just casting spells.
Correct you can not put it away till next, but you don't need to put it away till the next round. You just cast the spell for the round. You don't need your free hand that round. You need it next round. Shields do not get in the way. It is just false that shields get in the way.
You need the free hand for the shield spell, absorb elements spell and for counterspell.
There's a part of me that thinks all armors should have a min str -- say
Leather/Cloth: 7
Studded Leather/Hide: 9
Chain Shirt/Breastplate: 11
Scale/Half-Plate: 13
It means strength is less of a dump stat, and means getting medium armor proficiency is not quite as trivial as current.
that makes sense. So of course it will never be addressed here or applied by the developers.
I personally already made the suggestion as well early on. Just make armor training not a thing and give a strength requirement. Heavy armor already has it so why not, medium armor already gives disadvantage on stealth as well so there was already incentive to not wear medium armor for classes that care about stealth. But everyone went up in arms at the idea that if the tax is going to be so low as to be a first level feat that we shouldn't have the tax or that it should be a stat tax instead.
If you are going to use it on that round and you draw it, you can't put it away until the next round, so it is true, you can get in that situation. Also some of them have bonuses past just casting spells.
Correct you can not put it away till next, but you don't need to put it away till the next round. You just cast the spell for the round. You don't need your free hand that round. You need it next round. Shields do not get in the way. It is just false that shields get in the way.
You need the free hand for the shield spell, absorb elements spell and for counterspell.
It doesn't take an interact with object action to drop what you are holding, but still point is made. You still get more armor from medium armor than you do from mage armor, of course this all changes if they at all fix the spell casting rules because it is already weird that you can cast somatic components without a free hand if it also costs material components but can't if it doesn't. We will have to wait and see, but I would not be surprised if that rule got changed in the arcane test which would nulify this argument, but as it stands that is something to think about till you get warcaster at 4.
Hot take: the problem isn't 1DD Lightly Armored, the problem is Shield. A spell that grants a gigantic boost to AC for an entire round is always going to favor mass AC stacking, yes. Shield maybe shouldn't do that thing. What if Shield said "the next attack that hits you misses instead"? Regardless of your AC, something like a magical parry? Then using Shield wouldn't be about mass AC stacking and the spell wouldn't suck on conventional bathrobed-old-guy spellcasters, it'd do its job of catching surprise strikes or blunting the worst of an attack barrage.
Once you make Shield AC agnostic instead of strongly favoring AC stacking, the entire argument becomes much more reasonable. 19AC is a much better number than 12AC, yes - but it's not such a crushingly better number that nothing can be done about it, especially lategame where everything has a +47 attack modifier and only ever whiffs on a nat 1 anyways.
If you are going to use it on that round and you draw it, you can't put it away until the next round, so it is true, you can get in that situation. Also some of them have bonuses past just casting spells.
Correct you can not put it away till next, but you don't need to put it away till the next round. You just cast the spell for the round. You don't need your free hand that round. You need it next round. Shields do not get in the way. It is just false that shields get in the way.
You need the free hand for the shield spell, absorb elements spell and for counterspell.
It doesn't take an interact with object action to drop what you are holding, but still point is made. You still get more armor from medium armor than you do from mage armor, of course this all changes if they at all fix the spell casting rules because it is already weird that you can cast somatic components without a free hand if it also costs material components but can't if it doesn't. We will have to wait and see, but I would not be surprised if that rule got changed in the arcane test which would nulify this argument, but as it stands that is something to think about till you get warcaster at 4.
yes, which is the point of warcaster being better, since it annuls any disadvantage to using a shield for a spell caster, and is a half-feat, so maybe enough to get a +1 to a modifier. But I'd still stick to tough just being outright better than lightly armored, lightly armored means you can stand closer to the action but should you? toughness gives you more HP in general which means when those AoE effects do catch you, you're more likely to survive while lightly armored does nothing against AoE effects.
Hot take: the problem isn't 1DD Lightly Armored, the problem is Shield. A spell that grants a gigantic boost to AC for an entire round is always going to favor mass AC stacking, yes. Shield maybe shouldn't do that thing. What if Shield said "the next attack that hits you misses instead"? Regardless of your AC, something like a magical parry? Then using Shield wouldn't be about mass AC stacking and the spell wouldn't suck on conventional bathrobed-old-guy spellcasters, it'd do its job of catching surprise strikes or blunting the worst of an attack barrage.
Once you make Shield AC agnostic instead of strongly favoring AC stacking, the entire argument becomes much more reasonable. 19AC is a much better number than 12AC, yes - but it's not such a crushingly better number that nothing can be done about it, especially lategame where everything has a +47 attack modifier and only ever whiffs on a nat 1 anyways.
Had me all the way till the very obvious hyperbole about how high attack bonuses get. It only gets up to a +19 on a Tiamat, who is basically a god. And yes, mage armor+ shield would basically be useless against that. But Medium Armor with a +3 shield and a cloak of protection with the shield spell.... 27 AC wouldn't be entirely useless. But ya shield spell is definitely the bigger issue. But I still think if armor is going to be this easy to get I don't see the point of having it be a restriction at all, but at this point I guess that is just me.
Hot take: the problem isn't 1DD Lightly Armored, the problem is Shield. A spell that grants a gigantic boost to AC for an entire round is always going to favor mass AC stacking, yes. Shield maybe shouldn't do that thing. What if Shield said "the next attack that hits you misses instead"?
Or it does something like what it did in AD&D: "your AC becomes 18".
If you are going to use it on that round and you draw it, you can't put it away until the next round, so it is true, you can get in that situation. Also some of them have bonuses past just casting spells.
Correct you can not put it away till next, but you don't need to put it away till the next round. You just cast the spell for the round. You don't need your free hand that round. You need it next round. Shields do not get in the way. It is just false that shields get in the way.
You need the free hand for the shield spell, absorb elements spell and for counterspell.
It doesn't take an interact with object action to drop what you are holding, but still point is made. You still get more armor from medium armor than you do from mage armor, of course this all changes if they at all fix the spell casting rules because it is already weird that you can cast somatic components without a free hand if it also costs material components but can't if it doesn't. We will have to wait and see, but I would not be surprised if that rule got changed in the arcane test which would nulify this argument, but as it stands that is something to think about till you get warcaster at 4.
yes, which is the point of warcaster being better, since it annuls any disadvantage to using a shield for a spell caster, and is a half-feat, so maybe enough to get a +1 to a modifier. But I'd still stick to tough just being outright better than lightly armored, lightly armored means you can stand closer to the action but should you? toughness gives you more HP in general which means when those AoE effects do catch you, you're more likely to survive while lightly armored does nothing against AoE effects.
neither means you should stand closer to the action. Enemies have ranged attacks. This is the kind of argument you guys were making before. Just because you are wearing armor doesn't mean the way you will play will be different. The wizard isn't about to act stupid just because they put on armor. And I already showed the math AC provides more survival than tough, by a wide margin.
If you are going to use it on that round and you draw it, you can't put it away until the next round, so it is true, you can get in that situation. Also some of them have bonuses past just casting spells.
Correct you can not put it away till next, but you don't need to put it away till the next round. You just cast the spell for the round. You don't need your free hand that round. You need it next round. Shields do not get in the way. It is just false that shields get in the way.
You need the free hand for the shield spell, absorb elements spell and for counterspell.
It doesn't take an interact with object action to drop what you are holding, but still point is made. You still get more armor from medium armor than you do from mage armor, of course this all changes if they at all fix the spell casting rules because it is already weird that you can cast somatic components without a free hand if it also costs material components but can't if it doesn't. We will have to wait and see, but I would not be surprised if that rule got changed in the arcane test which would nulify this argument, but as it stands that is something to think about till you get warcaster at 4.
yes, which is the point of warcaster being better, since it annuls any disadvantage to using a shield for a spell caster, and is a half-feat, so maybe enough to get a +1 to a modifier. But I'd still stick to tough just being outright better than lightly armored, lightly armored means you can stand closer to the action but should you? toughness gives you more HP in general which means when those AoE effects do catch you, you're more likely to survive while lightly armored does nothing against AoE effects.
neither means you should stand closer to the action. Enemies have ranged attacks. This is the kind of argument you guys were making before. Just because you are wearing armor doesn't mean the way you will play will be different. The wizard isn't about to act stupid just because they put on armor. And I already showed the math AC provides more survival than tough, by a wide margin.
What maths? Also it doesn't stop the fact that lightly armored does literally zero against AoE. And how many arrows is your DM tossing at the casters if they are getting hit that often? most encounters usually don't have that many archers or ranged creatures. Humanoids are going to be the main creatures with ranged attacks, else wise it's kinda dead weight when you're standing against beasts, undead, your monstrosities, etc. So campaign/setting may play into it's overall usefulness too, which is kinda shifting it into a situational, if you're doing it because some creatures (mainly humanoids with bows), can use ranged attacks.
More HP on the other hand is less situational since as you get higher in level, there is a higher prevalence of AoE attacks, which just straight up ignore AC.
If resilient or warcaster were first level spells, I'd rather do a dip and take those than take Lightly Armored.
In current 5E, I highly rank Variant Human Warcaster + Artificer Dip for wizards. It leads to having the armor proficiency and setting up your concentration all up at first level, letting you raise your int to 20 by 9th level. I'd even consider it for Bladesinger setups despite not needing the armor or shield proficiency as getting both Con Saves and Warcaster at first level is pretty huge.
Scale with a shield still gets you a 18 Ac out of the gate. And sure for draconic sorcerer it may be less worth it, but I'm not judging it against just it or bladesinger for example. Getting a AC that is comparable to this is pretty much why the bladesinger is considered one of the better sub classes.
You have revealed yourself as the liar. If the only reason getting medium armor and a shield isn't the best option for a wizard is because they can get medium armor and a shield you have admitted medium armor and a shield is super strong on them. And you're deflecting by saying you don't have to take it as a feat if you take it another way.
So, according to you WIZARDS have 2 options take the lightly armored feat or take a 1 level dip. Nothing else is optimal.
Now what about sorcs? I assume same thing either take lightly armored or a 1 level dip in cleric to free up your first level feat choice. But in both the wizard and the sorc case you get to slow your casting progression. Which you can pretend isn't a cost if you want and continue to not live in reality, but while your artificer/wizard is stuck casting 2nd level spells at level 5. The wizard that just took the feat will be enjoying fly, fireball and hypnotic pattern.
As for the Magic initiate arguers that will just use mage armor... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UERRPHG9Gtg... Let's begin the explanation. Magic initiate provides you 2 cantrips and one first level spell that you can cast once per long rest. So basically 2 cantrips and a first level spell and something that is slightly worse than a first level spell slot. But you are using one of your spells known on Mage armor, which is a first level spell AND you are using a spell slot to CAST said mage armor. And unless your dex is above 14, which mean you took hits to your constitution and int/cha, which means you are have harder times holding onto concentration or landing your save or suck spells, with mage armor you have an AC of 15 (13+2 from dex). Meanwhile, the individual that took lightly armored instead of magic initiate ISN'T taking Mage Armor as a spell, thus giving them another first level spell, AND they aren't using mage armor as a spell slot every day... giving them back a first level spell slot. In addition, even if they just use scale mail and a shield, which are fairly cheap, they would still have an AC of 18 right out the gate. Which is +3 over your AC.
So you effectively got 2 cantrips for the price of 3+ AC. Against enemies with a +6 to hit, a 15 AC gets hit on a 9 or better which means it gets hit 60% of the time, which means it gets missed 40% of the time. An 18 AC, on the other hand gets hit on a 12 or better. Which means they get hit 45% of the time, or MISSED 55% of the time. This is an increase of 50% survivability at the cost of 2 cantrips, because the first level spell you gain from magic initiate is being offset by not needing to use mage armor, at higher levels this becomes even more prevelant because the Wizard/sorc isn't needing to spend ASI's to increase their dex to keep up with AC. Instead they spend some extra money on half plate, and then later spend on a cloak protection, which most people pick up anyway.
At later levels when you are facing something with a +9 with your Half plate and the shield spell with an AC of 19 without shield and an AC of 24 with vs the mage armor looking at 15 without and 20 with. The creature with a +9 is forcing a shield spell out of the person with mage armor on a 6 or better, and is hitting regardless on 11 or better. So it hits 50% of the time. Meanwhile the person with a 19 AC is only having to pop their shield spell on a 10 or better AND are only hit on a 15 or better or they are only hit 30% of the time, or they are missed 70% of the time. At +11, rock throwing giants a this point. The mage armor wearer is now hit more often than they are not, even with the shield spell. Meanwhile the medium armor wearer is still enjoying solid protect, especially after shield spell being missed 60% of the time. In all cases the higher AC is increasing survivability by about 30-40%. Against magic initiate this is the cost of 2 utility cantrips. The first level spell is a wash, because you aren't having to use mage armor. In addition, the lack of being hit means you also increase your chances to hold onto your concentration which further increases your usefulness and survivability.
For the very specific case of Draconic sorcerer that gets free mage armor taking tough. Tough adds 2 health per level. You are gaining 4+ con per level with Con likely being at least 14 if not 16, + 2 per level is a 33% increase in survivability. Which is putting it about on par with the lightly armored feat. Except you get hit more often and thus lose concentration more often. However, this +33% also counts towards all sources of damage and not just attack rolls. The higher level you go though the more mage armor isn't going to be providing you as much protection and this is when medium armor starts to matter even more. Unless you are increasing your dex beyond 14, which if you are doing that you aren't increasing your Con or your Cha. So even on a draconic sorcerer, you are better with lightly armored in the long run over tough. Which SUCKS because it means half your draconic feature at level 1 is basically invalidated.
As I've already stated previously in the thread, shields can cause issues where you can't cast some spells if you're using something like a staff or wand in one hand, so you'd either need to never use a magical stave or wand or you need to pick up warcaster.
Bladesinger gets INT to AC, as long as they aren't using Medium/Heavy Armor or Shield, but the high AC is not why they are considered the best, it's the fact they get that, the ability to attack three times a turn (using two weapons) and can switch 1 attack for a cantrip which can be bladeward, where bladeward can decrease incoming damage even more than AC in some situations.
This is actually not true. You can store or draw an item as a free interact with object action. Just put the wand away and cast. Then if you need it again for a material spell later you pull it out and cast.
There's a part of me that thinks all armors should have a min str -- say
It means strength is less of a dump stat, and means getting medium armor proficiency is not quite as trivial as current.
If you are going to use it on that round and you draw it, you can't put it away until the next round, so it is true, you can get in that situation. Also some of them have bonuses past just casting spells.
Correct you can not put it away till next, but you don't need to put it away till the next round. You just cast the spell for the round. You don't need your free hand that round. You need it next round. Shields do not get in the way. It is just false that shields get in the way.
that makes sense.
So of course it will never be addressed here or applied by the developers.
Why? Armor is assigned by class, so if I roll poorly or want to sort my scores for RP purposes, I have to worry about getting my Str up to scratch. I could see for Chain and Scale, but most of those classes use Str for their primary stat.
It sounds like a cool house or optional rule, but I don't think it should be here for the main rules
You need the free hand for the shield spell, absorb elements spell and for counterspell.
I personally already made the suggestion as well early on. Just make armor training not a thing and give a strength requirement. Heavy armor already has it so why not, medium armor already gives disadvantage on stealth as well so there was already incentive to not wear medium armor for classes that care about stealth. But everyone went up in arms at the idea that if the tax is going to be so low as to be a first level feat that we shouldn't have the tax or that it should be a stat tax instead.
It doesn't take an interact with object action to drop what you are holding, but still point is made. You still get more armor from medium armor than you do from mage armor, of course this all changes if they at all fix the spell casting rules because it is already weird that you can cast somatic components without a free hand if it also costs material components but can't if it doesn't. We will have to wait and see, but I would not be surprised if that rule got changed in the arcane test which would nulify this argument, but as it stands that is something to think about till you get warcaster at 4.
Hot take: the problem isn't 1DD Lightly Armored, the problem is Shield. A spell that grants a gigantic boost to AC for an entire round is always going to favor mass AC stacking, yes. Shield maybe shouldn't do that thing. What if Shield said "the next attack that hits you misses instead"? Regardless of your AC, something like a magical parry? Then using Shield wouldn't be about mass AC stacking and the spell wouldn't suck on conventional bathrobed-old-guy spellcasters, it'd do its job of catching surprise strikes or blunting the worst of an attack barrage.
Once you make Shield AC agnostic instead of strongly favoring AC stacking, the entire argument becomes much more reasonable. 19AC is a much better number than 12AC, yes - but it's not such a crushingly better number that nothing can be done about it, especially lategame where everything has a +47 attack modifier and only ever whiffs on a nat 1 anyways.
Please do not contact or message me.
yes, which is the point of warcaster being better, since it annuls any disadvantage to using a shield for a spell caster, and is a half-feat, so maybe enough to get a +1 to a modifier. But I'd still stick to tough just being outright better than lightly armored, lightly armored means you can stand closer to the action but should you? toughness gives you more HP in general which means when those AoE effects do catch you, you're more likely to survive while lightly armored does nothing against AoE effects.
Had me all the way till the very obvious hyperbole about how high attack bonuses get. It only gets up to a +19 on a Tiamat, who is basically a god. And yes, mage armor+ shield would basically be useless against that. But Medium Armor with a +3 shield and a cloak of protection with the shield spell.... 27 AC wouldn't be entirely useless. But ya shield spell is definitely the bigger issue. But I still think if armor is going to be this easy to get I don't see the point of having it be a restriction at all, but at this point I guess that is just me.
Or it does something like what it did in AD&D: "your AC becomes 18".
neither means you should stand closer to the action. Enemies have ranged attacks. This is the kind of argument you guys were making before. Just because you are wearing armor doesn't mean the way you will play will be different. The wizard isn't about to act stupid just because they put on armor. And I already showed the math AC provides more survival than tough, by a wide margin.
What maths? Also it doesn't stop the fact that lightly armored does literally zero against AoE. And how many arrows is your DM tossing at the casters if they are getting hit that often? most encounters usually don't have that many archers or ranged creatures. Humanoids are going to be the main creatures with ranged attacks, else wise it's kinda dead weight when you're standing against beasts, undead, your monstrosities, etc. So campaign/setting may play into it's overall usefulness too, which is kinda shifting it into a situational, if you're doing it because some creatures (mainly humanoids with bows), can use ranged attacks.
More HP on the other hand is less situational since as you get higher in level, there is a higher prevalence of AoE attacks, which just straight up ignore AC.