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.
I think we may need to look at what base line stats we are operating under (TBH I cannot remember or be bothered to scroll back and see if they were even mentioned). Because all my Wizards are sporting an 18 int, 16 dex, 12 con at first level ( we use an interesting/controversial array around here). So the armor feat is moot for me due to our array. I would find any of the other feats a better choice for me.
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.
I think we may need to look at what base line stats we are operating under (TBH I cannot remember or be bothered to scroll back and see if they were even mentioned). Because all my Wizards are sporting an 18 int, 16 dex, 12 con at first level ( we use an interesting/controversial array around here). So the armor feat is moot for me due to our array. I would find any of the other feats a better choice for me.
If you went 16 dex, 12 con instead of 14 dex, 14 con you are taking a hit to your concentration checks. I made a mention of stat arrays when I was doing this earlier. Everything has a cost.
I would note that in a campaign that's using the encumbrance variant rules, scale and shield (51 lb) or half-plate and shield (46) are kind of non-options; even chain shirt or breastplate + shield (26 lb) is a significant hit if you have 8 strength.
Variant encumbrance is one of those rules I'd love to get more use out of. I enjoy the challenge of building around VE and making sure even characters without Gallons of Swolitude have what they need, or even - gasp! - looking into beasts of burden. I've never quite yet worked up the gumption to try (especially since nobody else in my circle vibes on VE), but a mastiff with a couple of packs strapped to it can make for an excellent (noncombat) companion for your rookie adventurer. Not only a beast of burden, but a stalwart sentry and also a warm, friendly face on the long, cold roads. A Girl And Her Dog is a story I'd love to try sometime, provided I can get the DM to buy in on Dog not getting blown to charcoal by the first friggin' spriggan that takes umbrage at my existence.
But closer to on topic, yes - medium armor is weighty. Mythril stuff is less so, but also super pricy and difficult to obtain. Honestly, studded leather and a shield, at 19 pounds, is close to half of your VE weight cap on a STR 8 caster. If you assume you still need clothes (reminder: armor does not generally count as clothing), you're well over half of your allowed 40 pounds. The shield interferes with Hands for a DM that tracks that, to boot. Surprisingly enough, when you put back in systems the game intends people to use but which get thrown out for being "too fiddly!", a lot of other seemingly-nonsensical decisions start making sense.
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.
I think we may need to look at what base line stats we are operating under (TBH I cannot remember or be bothered to scroll back and see if they were even mentioned). Because all my Wizards are sporting an 18 int, 16 dex, 12 con at first level ( we use an interesting/controversial array around here). So the armor feat is moot for me due to our array. I would find any of the other feats a better choice for me.
If you went 16 dex, 12 con instead of 14 dex, 14 con you are taking a hit to your concentration checks. I made a mention of stat arrays when I was doing this earlier. Everything has a cost.
Can't speak for other wizard players but none of my Wizards are built for combat. They are problem solvers and thinkers not fighters. Additionally? I dont think an Abjuration Wizard under the current rules set will ever think that feat is a must have.
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.
I think we may need to look at what base line stats we are operating under (TBH I cannot remember or be bothered to scroll back and see if they were even mentioned). Because all my Wizards are sporting an 18 int, 16 dex, 12 con at first level ( we use an interesting/controversial array around here). So the armor feat is moot for me due to our array. I would find any of the other feats a better choice for me.
If you went 16 dex, 12 con instead of 14 dex, 14 con you are taking a hit to your concentration checks. I made a mention of stat arrays when I was doing this earlier. Everything has a cost.
Can't speak for other wizard players but none of my Wizards are built for combat. They are problem solvers and thinkers not fighters. Additionally? I dont think an Abjuration Wizard under the current rules set will ever think that feat is a must have.
Same, I actually don't know any wizards that aren't built this way. This still has no reason to have a dex over 14, and makes it even more baffling to see it other wise. Because, in theory that is less for wisdom and int for problem solving. You are still going to end up in combat, and the AC is still the best form of defense for that. Even as written I don't know why you wouldn't want this on an abjuration wizard. Getting hit less means less damage means less having to re-up your abjuration shield. Survivability is survivability.
I finally realized what bothered me about the Lightly Armored Feat. I tend to build toward dex wizards (after maxing INT obviously) Mainly because every DM I have had eventually Hands out the Robe of the Archmagi to their wizards. And that pops my AC right up to an 18 to 20 depending on how high my Dex was at the start. Now I have read through those Feat rules multiple times and at no point does it say I can change one out when it becomes useless to me or just because I dont like it. And even assuming I start with and never gain higher than a 14 dex that is at best a 17 AC in medium armor but the Robe will be 17 plus advantage on saves plus a bump in Spell Save DC (clearly strictly better) and now I have a dead feat.
I think I will stick with Magic Initiate or Tough or Skilled (if I am feeling cheeky enough to step on the Bards toes). Pretty sure I will get more mileage out them than the Armor feat.
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.
Not a liar, if you actually looked at the why I really value the Artificer dip, it was because it gets me the Con Save proficiency and with variant human I can just immediately take warcaster, all while not needing to make any weird stat arrays. Yeah, at 5th level I am still casting 2nd level spells, but that is worth it for getting both Warcaster and Con Save proficiency immediately. The extra armor proficiencies is just a really nice bonus, but it is not the main reason. Can't even make use of those proficiencies as a bladesinger yet the dip is still something I'd consider, which I stated in my previous post.
Also, I never pretended the delayed spell casting was not a cost; however, I value concentration enough to make the artificer dip. In one of my previous posts, I mentioned how not delaying your spellcasting was a massive plus and was why the Lightly armored feat can compete with dips.
You are literally proving my point. I never said Lightly Armored was bad, it is a decent option, but it is not the end all be all option. Concentration is more important.
Honestly, if resilient was available at 1st level, I'd probably still take it over Lightly Armored even if I went single class wizard. It is what I currently do for bladesingers if I am single classing.
For sorcerers, I'd do a 2 level hexblade dip for the classic sorlock build and hexblade's curse. Though I would take the first level in sorcerer for Con Saves. Spell progression hurts, but Sorlock has proven itself quite a number of times in the past.
Your criteria for deciding if someone is lying is flawed because I legitimately value concentration over armor proficiencies.
I think we may need to look at what base line stats we are operating under (TBH I cannot remember or be bothered to scroll back and see if they were even mentioned). Because all my Wizards are sporting an 18 int, 16 dex, 12 con at first level ( we use an interesting/controversial array around here). So the armor feat is moot for me due to our array. I would find any of the other feats a better choice for me.
If you went 16 dex, 12 con instead of 14 dex, 14 con you are taking a hit to your concentration checks. I made a mention of stat arrays when I was doing this earlier. Everything has a cost.
I would note that in a campaign that's using the encumbrance variant rules, scale and shield (51 lb) or half-plate and shield (46) are kind of non-options; even chain shirt or breastplate + shield (26 lb) is a significant hit if you have 8 strength.
Variant encumbrance is one of those rules I'd love to get more use out of. I enjoy the challenge of building around VE and making sure even characters without Gallons of Swolitude have what they need, or even - gasp! - looking into beasts of burden. I've never quite yet worked up the gumption to try (especially since nobody else in my circle vibes on VE), but a mastiff with a couple of packs strapped to it can make for an excellent (noncombat) companion for your rookie adventurer. Not only a beast of burden, but a stalwart sentry and also a warm, friendly face on the long, cold roads. A Girl And Her Dog is a story I'd love to try sometime, provided I can get the DM to buy in on Dog not getting blown to charcoal by the first friggin' spriggan that takes umbrage at my existence.
But closer to on topic, yes - medium armor is weighty. Mythril stuff is less so, but also super pricy and difficult to obtain. Honestly, studded leather and a shield, at 19 pounds, is close to half of your VE weight cap on a STR 8 caster. If you assume you still need clothes (reminder: armor does not generally count as clothing), you're well over half of your allowed 40 pounds. The shield interferes with Hands for a DM that tracks that, to boot. Surprisingly enough, when you put back in systems the game intends people to use but which get thrown out for being "too fiddly!", a lot of other seemingly-nonsensical decisions start making sense.
Please do not contact or message me.
Can't speak for other wizard players but none of my Wizards are built for combat. They are problem solvers and thinkers not fighters.
Additionally? I dont think an Abjuration Wizard under the current rules set will ever think that feat is a must have.
Same, I actually don't know any wizards that aren't built this way. This still has no reason to have a dex over 14, and makes it even more baffling to see it other wise. Because, in theory that is less for wisdom and int for problem solving. You are still going to end up in combat, and the AC is still the best form of defense for that. Even as written I don't know why you wouldn't want this on an abjuration wizard. Getting hit less means less damage means less having to re-up your abjuration shield. Survivability is survivability.
I am just reminded of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX7qIHs3nLE.
I finally realized what bothered me about the Lightly Armored Feat.
I tend to build toward dex wizards (after maxing INT obviously) Mainly because every DM I have had eventually Hands out the Robe of the Archmagi to their wizards. And that pops my AC right up to an 18 to 20 depending on how high my Dex was at the start.
Now I have read through those Feat rules multiple times and at no point does it say I can change one out when it becomes useless to me or just because I dont like it. And even assuming I start with and never gain higher than a 14 dex that is at best a 17 AC in medium armor but the Robe will be 17 plus advantage on saves plus a bump in Spell Save DC (clearly strictly better) and now I have a dead feat.
I think I will stick with Magic Initiate or Tough or Skilled (if I am feeling cheeky enough to step on the Bards toes). Pretty sure I will get more mileage out them than the Armor feat.
Not a liar, if you actually looked at the why I really value the Artificer dip, it was because it gets me the Con Save proficiency and with variant human I can just immediately take warcaster, all while not needing to make any weird stat arrays. Yeah, at 5th level I am still casting 2nd level spells, but that is worth it for getting both Warcaster and Con Save proficiency immediately. The extra armor proficiencies is just a really nice bonus, but it is not the main reason. Can't even make use of those proficiencies as a bladesinger yet the dip is still something I'd consider, which I stated in my previous post.
Also, I never pretended the delayed spell casting was not a cost; however, I value concentration enough to make the artificer dip. In one of my previous posts, I mentioned how not delaying your spellcasting was a massive plus and was why the Lightly armored feat can compete with dips.
You are literally proving my point. I never said Lightly Armored was bad, it is a decent option, but it is not the end all be all option. Concentration is more important.
Honestly, if resilient was available at 1st level, I'd probably still take it over Lightly Armored even if I went single class wizard. It is what I currently do for bladesingers if I am single classing.
For sorcerers, I'd do a 2 level hexblade dip for the classic sorlock build and hexblade's curse. Though I would take the first level in sorcerer for Con Saves. Spell progression hurts, but Sorlock has proven itself quite a number of times in the past.
Your criteria for deciding if someone is lying is flawed because I legitimately value concentration over armor proficiencies.