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.
Context/background: in my thread going over the EC document's Feats, the conversation has been dominated by the idea put forth by a number of posters that Lightly Armored, as presented in the document, is wildly overpowered, hypertoxic and awful for the game, and effectively ruins the first-level background feat for spellcasters by being so head-and-shoulders above every other possible choice that you're intentionally sabotaging yourself and your party by not taking it. Arguments have been posed elsewise, and requests have been made to split that discussion off into its own space. Thanks, Golaryn.
Arguments For: Not every gorram spellcaster in D&D needs to be a frail old man in pajamas with no idea which end of a fire bolt goes towards the enemy. Frankly, that trope is tired, played out, and just downright bad and it should've stopped being the Gold Standard years ago. Fantasy has a rich history of war wizards, battlemages, spellswords, and myriad other assorted means of combining the power of sword and sorcery. R5e is extremely awful at enabling those sorts of builds, effectively mandating janky multiclass builds and ensuring every last single battlemage looks exactly the same - Fighter 1/Wizard X, with the Fighter level first, and Abjuration or War Wizardry. Such choice. Much diversity. Wow.
Furthermore, armor proficiency is certainly fantastic but it's not the only game in town. nuAlert allowing spellcasters to add their proficiency to initiative, and to swap Initiative with a willing ally, allows them to get out in front of the enemy and disable/burn down entire crowds with a well-chosen spell. Attacks that don't get made because the enemy is disabled or dead are attacks that don't really care about the spellcaster's AC. Other feats are less powerful in a combat context, but clever spellcasters have been working around their lack of thicc AC since the game launched and sometimes people want to use other options. It's not sabotage, especially since no spellcaster in the game is acquiring the 'necessary' half-plate plus shield at level 1 anyways. Presuming spellcasters have roughly the same ~150 starting gold as a 1DD Bard (100gp class, 50gp background), the best they're gonna be able to do is scale mail and a shield, for 18AC and Stealth disadvantage if they max their dex and also don't buy anything else. Like, y'know...spellbooks, or arcane foci, or clothes.
Now don't get me wrong, 18AC Iron Wizards from level 1 is fantastic...but it's also not anything the group's martials don't start with by default. Chain plus shield is the same 18AC, and fighters/dingdongs (as well as half the clerics) just get that. Clothie wizards are a trope, yes, but if clerics can do just heccin' fine in 18AC from level 1, so can your arcane dudes. And the everybody-else gets to do cool stuff with their background feat to boot.
It's not nearly so game-shattering a deal as people are making it out to be. If it was truly so godawful, then a whole lot more DMs would be forbidding the One Level Of Fighter dip, ne?
Lightly armored feat is so strong by comparison to EVERY other first level feat (No alert is not better, NO skilled is not better, NO Lucky is not better for casters, NOTHING is better for a caster than lightly armored, it increases their survivability by more than any other first level feat).
I made 2 suggestions. If you want armor training to be a thing, than tie it to classes, your class determines your armor training and if you want more armor, you have to take a class dip, because that is an actual cost. People aren't getting sneak attack without a dip in rogue, or action surge without a dip in fighter. Or second level spells without a 3 level dip in a caster class. I don't think you should get armor without a dip.
IF YOU ARE, I would much rather the 1st level options REMAIN INTERESTING, by just getting rid of armor training completely. Heavy armor already has a strength limit so it isn't like we will see casters in heavy armor. Rogues and Bards and the like that just get light armor already have incentives to be stealthy and medium armor gives disadvantage on stealth. There is already reasons to wear or not wear certain armor. Then you can have the "armor MASTER" feats, maybe even make an "Unarmored master" feat to encourage people to not wear armor like the barbarian, monk and casters.
There is a lot of design space here. If armor is going to be so easy to get that you can use a free first level feat to get it than I don't see the point in having it be a cost.
For your slippery slope argument.... they already gave EVERYBODY ritual casting, including martials. If you know a spell that has the ritual tag you can cast it as a ritual. If anything you could make light armor require 10 strength and medium require 12. I have no problem with casters running around in armor. I have a problem with illusion of choice. I like my choices being meaningful.
Edit: (also dwarf wizards are common and the loss of armor on dwarves had people crying that the BEST spell caster race had been nerfed, this said dwarves didn't provide shield proficiency which is arguably larger than the armor change, but you should already have known that. Also dwarves didn't get any of the other cool magic effects that other races had.... the new rules allow you to get those features AND STILL get better than the dwarves armor by having their armor + shield).
I replied in the other thread before realizing that this topic had been appropriately split off into its own thread, so I will repeat here, why not make the Lightly Armored feat just relate to the actual armors and not shields? Shield training could be a separate feat. This would reduce the AC benefit a character could get from just one feat, and also provide a choice for classes that get light armor training already to use a feat to gain shield training.
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.
Context/background: in my thread going over the EC document's Feats, the conversation has been dominated by the idea put forth by a number of posters that Lightly Armored, as presented in the document, is wildly overpowered, hypertoxic and awful for the game, and effectively ruins the first-level background feat for spellcasters by being so head-and-shoulders above every other possible choice that you're intentionally sabotaging yourself and your party by not taking it. Arguments have been posed elsewise, and requests have been made to split that discussion off into its own space. Thanks, Golaryn.
Arguments For: Not every gorram spellcaster in D&D needs to be a frail old man in pajamas with no idea which end of a fire bolt goes towards the enemy. Frankly, that trope is tired, played out, and just downright bad and it should've stopped being the Gold Standard years ago. Fantasy has a rich history of war wizards, battlemages, spellswords, and myriad other assorted means of combining the power of sword and sorcery. R5e is extremely awful at enabling those sorts of builds, effectively mandating janky multiclass builds and ensuring every last single battlemage looks exactly the same - Fighter 1/Wizard X, with the Fighter level first, and Abjuration or War Wizardry. Such choice. Much diversity. Wow.
Furthermore, armor proficiency is certainly fantastic but it's not the only game in town. nuAlert allowing spellcasters to add their proficiency to initiative, and to swap Initiative with a willing ally, allows them to get out in front of the enemy and disable/burn down entire crowds with a well-chosen spell. Attacks that don't get made because the enemy is disabled or dead are attacks that don't really care about the spellcaster's AC. Other feats are less powerful in a combat context, but clever spellcasters have been working around their lack of thicc AC since the game launched and sometimes people want to use other options. It's not sabotage, especially since no spellcaster in the game is acquiring the 'necessary' half-plate plus shield at level 1 anyways. Presuming spellcasters have roughly the same ~150 starting gold as a 1DD Bard (100gp class, 50gp background), the best they're gonna be able to do is scale mail and a shield, for 18AC and Stealth disadvantage if they max their dex and also don't buy anything else. Like, y'know...spellbooks, or arcane foci, or clothes.
Now don't get me wrong, 18AC Iron Wizards from level 1 is fantastic...but it's also not anything the group's martials don't start with by default. Chain plus shield is the same 18AC, and fighters/dingdongs (as well as half the clerics) just get that. Clothie wizards are a trope, yes, but if clerics can do just heccin' fine in 18AC from level 1, so can your arcane dudes. And the everybody-else gets to do cool stuff with their background feat to boot.
It's not nearly so game-shattering a deal as people are making it out to be. If it was truly so godawful, then a whole lot more DMs would be forbidding the One Level Of Fighter dip, ne?
Wizards having armor isn't game shattering, so if everyone can have armor can we just get rid of armor training entirely and thus get rid of this feat and allow everyone to wear what ever armor they want as long as they have the strength requirement or are ok with taking negatives to stealth if the armor is too big? Now wizards and sorcerers aren't forced to take a feat to get what everyone else already has by default and that they were all going to take anyway.
Alert, currently, is better on the rogue or the ranger or any other dex based class. They add their dex + their proficiency and they can swap with you so you can go first AND have an AC of 19 AND still have shield ready to go for an AC of 24. Seriously this isn't close man, just stop. This is just basic math.
Really ask yourself who this feat is for?
Artificers, Barbarians already have it. Bards have a portion of it and valor bards and swords bards get it for free, Clerics have it, Druids have it, Fighters have better than it, Monk's use unarmored defense and have features that make getting armor not appealing, Paladin's have better, Rangers have it, Rogues don't want more than light because they don't want disadvantage on stealth, Sorcerer's Gain a huge boost by getting this over any other FIRST LEVEL FEAT, Warlocks can get it with hexblade... which is the most popular subclass on warlocks.... I wonder why? couldn't have a thing to do with armor and cha bonus to weapon attacks. Wizards same as sorcerer.
This is a first level feat tax for wizards and sorcerers. If you are taking a feat that isn't this at first level you are actively choosing to make your character weaker for their entire campaign.
If you think any of the other first level feats even compete with this for wizards or sorcerers you are either lying, delusional, or just can't do math.
Arguments For: Not every gorram spellcaster in D&D needs to be a frail old man in pajamas with no idea which end of a fire bolt goes towards the enemy.
I replied in the other thread before realizing that this topic had been appropriately split off into its own thread, so I will repeat here, why not make the Lightly Armored feat just relate to the actual armors and not shields? Shield training could be a separate feat. This would reduce the AC benefit a character could get from just one feat, and also provide a choice for classes that get light armor training already to use a feat to gain shield training.
I might be ok with this, but it brings back basically the old way of doing it where you needed 2 feats and it just made neither really worth it as feats. It is a really weird, where if you give it all as an option at first level, it is the best option at first level, by a wide margin. If you give light armor and medium armor and no shield it is decent, but not the best because half the AC boost comes from the shield. However, this also means that NO ONE is taking shield training as a feat. It just isn't good enough on it's own and you end up with a bloated feat. We already have feats like savage attack that are pretty niche and going to be rarely taken I don't think we need more.
Honestly, I would much rather just see armor training go away. Everyone can wear what ever armor, and give incentives to choose one type over another. Strength requirements, stealth disadvantages are good so far for medium and heavy to me. Just having an incentive for people to wear no armor is all that is needed. Mission accomplished for monk.
How about making Lightly Armored (without shield training) a first level feat and then Shield Training a 4th level half feat with a +1 bonus to an ability score? I'd guess there might be some Bards, Rogues, and Warlocks with high dexterity bonuses that might be interested in using light armor and shield.
How about making Lightly Armored (without shield training) a first level feat and then Shield Training a 4th level half feat with a +1 bonus to an ability score? I'd guess there might be some Bards, Rogues, and Warlocks with high dexterity bonuses that might be interested in using light armor and shield.
Funny thing, I think I would like to see the +1 on feats completely decoupled and removed from ALL feats, and then the appropriate ones will be first level feats and the stronger ones will be 4th level feats, but you will not be punished for taking a first level feat at level 4 by not having any ASI increase at all.
This said I still think shield training would not compete with 4th level feats. As I said earlier, even I agree that there are stronger 4th level feats for casters, there just isn't a stronger first level feat for them.
How about making Lightly Armored (without shield training) a first level feat and then Shield Training a 4th level half feat with a +1 bonus to an ability score? I'd guess there might be some Bards, Rogues, and Warlocks with high dexterity bonuses that might be interested in using light armor and shield.
Funny thing, I think I would like to see the +1 on feats completely decoupled and removed from ALL feats, and then the appropriate ones will be first level feats and the stronger ones will be 4th level feats, but you will not be punished for taking a first level feat at level 4 by not having any ASI increase at all.
This said I still think shield training would not compete with 4th level feats. As I said earlier, even I agree that there are stronger 4th level feats for casters, there just isn't a stronger first level feat for them.
I'd definitely agree that there would be stronger 4th level feats than shield training, but like I said there may be high-dex, light armor characters that would be happy to take it. a 20 dex, studded leather and shield gets someone up to 19 AC, although just pumping dex until it is maxed out would almost always be a better choice for those characters (unless they have an odd dex and don't want some other dex feat). What it would really do is keep spellcasters that have easy access to the Shield spell from getting up to ridiculous ACs as easily. I guess part of the point of why I would make these feats sub-optimal is that I do somewhat prefer casters from being dissuaded from easy access to armor training.
How about making Lightly Armored (without shield training) a first level feat and then Shield Training a 4th level half feat with a +1 bonus to an ability score? I'd guess there might be some Bards, Rogues, and Warlocks with high dexterity bonuses that might be interested in using light armor and shield.
Funny thing, I think I would like to see the +1 on feats completely decoupled and removed from ALL feats, and then the appropriate ones will be first level feats and the stronger ones will be 4th level feats, but you will not be punished for taking a first level feat at level 4 by not having any ASI increase at all.
This said I still think shield training would not compete with 4th level feats. As I said earlier, even I agree that there are stronger 4th level feats for casters, there just isn't a stronger first level feat for them.
I'd definitely agree that there would be stronger 4th level feats than shield training, but like I said there may be high-dex, light armor characters that would be happy to take it. a 20 dex, studded leather and shield gets someone up to 19 AC, although just pumping dex until it is maxed out would almost always be a better choice for those characters (unless they have an odd dex and don't want some other dex feat). What it would really do is keep spellcasters that have easy access to the Shield spell from getting up to ridiculous ACs as easily. I guess part of the point of why I would make these feats sub-optimal is that I do somewhat prefer casters from being dissuaded from easy access to armor training.
This is kind of where the hierarchy comes in I feel. 2 feats is more expensive than a level dip, which is why the level dips are popular right now because you need 2 feats to get armor and shield proficiency. A level dip is more expensive than a feat, but a 4th level half feat is more expensive than a first level feat. If anything i could see Lightly armored becoming a HALF feat and fourth level feat, but that becomes a question. Is resilient still better at that point? Is warcaster? Spell sniper? Maybe, and I probably be ok with this.
Lightly armored isn't bad when you can't just get it at first level with a free first level feat.
It's definitely good and worth taking, but it highly depends on your playstyle and class. If anything, I'd say that Lightly Armored is now on par with War Caster and Resilient(Con). Which is good.
I'm going to say no, as a wizard how often are you coming under attack that you'd need that additional 2AC of half-plate (compared to mage armor)? Mage armor and Shield spell should be enough most of the time, resilient(CON) and war caster are better since when you do take damage, it's more likely to be AoE which AC doesn't help again. Additionally as a Wizard now, you can pick up armor of agathys, at which point you might want to get hit to inflict the cold damage.
Lightly armored is still really good of course, but it's slightly more situational than either war caster or resilient constitution. One area where it would be better is moving into an anti-magic field/area, but then you have bigger issues as a wizard.
I replied in the other thread before realizing that this topic had been appropriately split off into its own thread, so I will repeat here, why not make the Lightly Armored feat just relate to the actual armors and not shields? Shield training could be a separate feat. This would reduce the AC benefit a character could get from just one feat, and also provide a choice for classes that get light armor training already to use a feat to gain shield training.
+1. Shield has big inpact in the game, especially if you get a magical shield. Constant bonus. Could be a different lvl 1 Feat. And could be used without armor training.
My opinion: Light armor - no need training and feat. Peasants could wear leathers and heavy clothes. Medium armor - need training. Need a feat lvl 1. Heavy armor - need training. Need a feat lvl 1. Shield - need training. Need a feat lvl 1.
Fighters get all, and the usual classes. In reality, these are depend on fighting styles. But in DnD5e they messing feats with styles etc. So leave them in feat if they do this already.
I like the idea of armored wizards, but fighters and other martial classes has two strong points. Attack and defense. If you want to compete with them in at least one as wizard, you should sacrifice time and energy to learn it aka something which is not easy to sacrifice. One feat for armor and one another for shield is plenty. One feat is not. A war wizard could get a subclass feat to wear armor and later get shield, or vice versa.
I replied in the other thread before realizing that this topic had been appropriately split off into its own thread, so I will repeat here, why not make the Lightly Armored feat just relate to the actual armors and not shields? Shield training could be a separate feat. This would reduce the AC benefit a character could get from just one feat, and also provide a choice for classes that get light armor training already to use a feat to gain shield training.
+1. Shield has big inpact in the game, especially if you get a magical shield. Constant bonus. Could be a different lvl 1 Feat. And could be used without armor training.
My opinion: Light armor - no need training and feat. Peasants could wear leathers and heavy clothes. Medium armor - need training. Need a feat lvl 1. Heavy armor - need training. Need a feat lvl 1. Shield - need training. Need a feat lvl 1.
Fighters get all, and the usual classes. In reality, these are depend on fighting styles. But in DnD5e they messing feats with styles etc. So leave them in feat if they do this already.
I like the idea of armored wizards, but fighters and other martial classes has two strong points. Attack and defense. If you want to compete with them in at least one as wizard, you should sacrifice time and energy to learn it aka something which is not easy to sacrifice. One feat for armor and one another for shield is plenty. One feat is not. A war wizard could get a subclass feat to wear armor and later get shield, or vice versa.
Without Warcaster, I wouldn't want to hold a shield as a spell caster, if you hold a focus in your other hand (such as a staff), you may leave yourself unable to cast spells that have a somatic component but not a material one (such as the shield spell), additionally you can't cast spells with a material component that have a GP value.
Obviously for Paladin and Clerics, shields themselves can act as the the spellcasting focus but they both have everything that lightly armored offers anyways, so the feat is pointless to them. Technically Druids are also in the same boat for lightly armored being pointless. It's really just the arcane spell casters only.
Without Warcaster, I wouldn't want to hold a shield as a spell caster, if you hold a focus in your other hand (such as a staff), you may leave yourself unable to cast spells that have a somatic component but not a material one (such as the shield spell), additionally you can't cast spells with a material component that have a GP value.
Not how the game works. You can have a shield and an empty hand with your arcane focus strapped to your person. You only need to touch M components during the cast, which doesn't require freeing them (otherwise component pouches wouldn't work at all).
You are right, but with the new rule, you can take one weapon as part of the attack action, so why would not take the weapon when you cast spell and your hand is free to use components as part of the spellcasting. I would personally change warcaster feat also, but thats a different matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Pretty simple question.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
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.
Context/background: in my thread going over the EC document's Feats, the conversation has been dominated by the idea put forth by a number of posters that Lightly Armored, as presented in the document, is wildly overpowered, hypertoxic and awful for the game, and effectively ruins the first-level background feat for spellcasters by being so head-and-shoulders above every other possible choice that you're intentionally sabotaging yourself and your party by not taking it. Arguments have been posed elsewise, and requests have been made to split that discussion off into its own space. Thanks, Golaryn.
Arguments For: Not every gorram spellcaster in D&D needs to be a frail old man in pajamas with no idea which end of a fire bolt goes towards the enemy. Frankly, that trope is tired, played out, and just downright bad and it should've stopped being the Gold Standard years ago. Fantasy has a rich history of war wizards, battlemages, spellswords, and myriad other assorted means of combining the power of sword and sorcery. R5e is extremely awful at enabling those sorts of builds, effectively mandating janky multiclass builds and ensuring every last single battlemage looks exactly the same - Fighter 1/Wizard X, with the Fighter level first, and Abjuration or War Wizardry. Such choice. Much diversity. Wow.
Furthermore, armor proficiency is certainly fantastic but it's not the only game in town. nuAlert allowing spellcasters to add their proficiency to initiative, and to swap Initiative with a willing ally, allows them to get out in front of the enemy and disable/burn down entire crowds with a well-chosen spell. Attacks that don't get made because the enemy is disabled or dead are attacks that don't really care about the spellcaster's AC. Other feats are less powerful in a combat context, but clever spellcasters have been working around their lack of thicc AC since the game launched and sometimes people want to use other options. It's not sabotage, especially since no spellcaster in the game is acquiring the 'necessary' half-plate plus shield at level 1 anyways. Presuming spellcasters have roughly the same ~150 starting gold as a 1DD Bard (100gp class, 50gp background), the best they're gonna be able to do is scale mail and a shield, for 18AC and Stealth disadvantage if they max their dex and also don't buy anything else. Like, y'know...spellbooks, or arcane foci, or clothes.
Now don't get me wrong, 18AC Iron Wizards from level 1 is fantastic...but it's also not anything the group's martials don't start with by default. Chain plus shield is the same 18AC, and fighters/dingdongs (as well as half the clerics) just get that. Clothie wizards are a trope, yes, but if clerics can do just heccin' fine in 18AC from level 1, so can your arcane dudes. And the everybody-else gets to do cool stuff with their background feat to boot.
It's not nearly so game-shattering a deal as people are making it out to be. If it was truly so godawful, then a whole lot more DMs would be forbidding the One Level Of Fighter dip, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I replied in the other thread before realizing that this topic had been appropriately split off into its own thread, so I will repeat here, why not make the Lightly Armored feat just relate to the actual armors and not shields? Shield training could be a separate feat. This would reduce the AC benefit a character could get from just one feat, and also provide a choice for classes that get light armor training already to use a feat to gain shield training.
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.
Wizards having armor isn't game shattering, so if everyone can have armor can we just get rid of armor training entirely and thus get rid of this feat and allow everyone to wear what ever armor they want as long as they have the strength requirement or are ok with taking negatives to stealth if the armor is too big? Now wizards and sorcerers aren't forced to take a feat to get what everyone else already has by default and that they were all going to take anyway.
Alert, currently, is better on the rogue or the ranger or any other dex based class. They add their dex + their proficiency and they can swap with you so you can go first AND have an AC of 19 AND still have shield ready to go for an AC of 24. Seriously this isn't close man, just stop. This is just basic math.
Really ask yourself who this feat is for?
Artificers, Barbarians already have it. Bards have a portion of it and valor bards and swords bards get it for free, Clerics have it, Druids have it, Fighters have better than it, Monk's use unarmored defense and have features that make getting armor not appealing, Paladin's have better, Rangers have it, Rogues don't want more than light because they don't want disadvantage on stealth, Sorcerer's Gain a huge boost by getting this over any other FIRST LEVEL FEAT, Warlocks can get it with hexblade... which is the most popular subclass on warlocks.... I wonder why? couldn't have a thing to do with armor and cha bonus to weapon attacks. Wizards same as sorcerer.
This is a first level feat tax for wizards and sorcerers. If you are taking a feat that isn't this at first level you are actively choosing to make your character weaker for their entire campaign.
If you think any of the other first level feats even compete with this for wizards or sorcerers you are either lying, delusional, or just can't do math.
Solution: Play Rita Mordio or Pascal!
https://aselia.fandom.com/wiki/Rita_Mordio
https://aselia.fandom.com/wiki/Pascal
The latter KILLED it in that play! Best. Mirror. Ever!
I might be ok with this, but it brings back basically the old way of doing it where you needed 2 feats and it just made neither really worth it as feats. It is a really weird, where if you give it all as an option at first level, it is the best option at first level, by a wide margin. If you give light armor and medium armor and no shield it is decent, but not the best because half the AC boost comes from the shield. However, this also means that NO ONE is taking shield training as a feat. It just isn't good enough on it's own and you end up with a bloated feat. We already have feats like savage attack that are pretty niche and going to be rarely taken I don't think we need more.
Honestly, I would much rather just see armor training go away. Everyone can wear what ever armor, and give incentives to choose one type over another. Strength requirements, stealth disadvantages are good so far for medium and heavy to me. Just having an incentive for people to wear no armor is all that is needed. Mission accomplished for monk.
How about making Lightly Armored (without shield training) a first level feat and then Shield Training a 4th level half feat with a +1 bonus to an ability score? I'd guess there might be some Bards, Rogues, and Warlocks with high dexterity bonuses that might be interested in using light armor and shield.
Funny thing, I think I would like to see the +1 on feats completely decoupled and removed from ALL feats, and then the appropriate ones will be first level feats and the stronger ones will be 4th level feats, but you will not be punished for taking a first level feat at level 4 by not having any ASI increase at all.
This said I still think shield training would not compete with 4th level feats. As I said earlier, even I agree that there are stronger 4th level feats for casters, there just isn't a stronger first level feat for them.
I'd definitely agree that there would be stronger 4th level feats than shield training, but like I said there may be high-dex, light armor characters that would be happy to take it. a 20 dex, studded leather and shield gets someone up to 19 AC, although just pumping dex until it is maxed out would almost always be a better choice for those characters (unless they have an odd dex and don't want some other dex feat). What it would really do is keep spellcasters that have easy access to the Shield spell from getting up to ridiculous ACs as easily. I guess part of the point of why I would make these feats sub-optimal is that I do somewhat prefer casters from being dissuaded from easy access to armor training.
This is kind of where the hierarchy comes in I feel. 2 feats is more expensive than a level dip, which is why the level dips are popular right now because you need 2 feats to get armor and shield proficiency. A level dip is more expensive than a feat, but a 4th level half feat is more expensive than a first level feat. If anything i could see Lightly armored becoming a HALF feat and fourth level feat, but that becomes a question. Is resilient still better at that point? Is warcaster? Spell sniper? Maybe, and I probably be ok with this.
Lightly armored isn't bad when you can't just get it at first level with a free first level feat.
It's definitely good and worth taking, but it highly depends on your playstyle and class. If anything, I'd say that Lightly Armored is now on par with War Caster and Resilient(Con). Which is good.
I'm going to say no, as a wizard how often are you coming under attack that you'd need that additional 2AC of half-plate (compared to mage armor)? Mage armor and Shield spell should be enough most of the time, resilient(CON) and war caster are better since when you do take damage, it's more likely to be AoE which AC doesn't help again. Additionally as a Wizard now, you can pick up armor of agathys, at which point you might want to get hit to inflict the cold damage.
Lightly armored is still really good of course, but it's slightly more situational than either war caster or resilient constitution. One area where it would be better is moving into an anti-magic field/area, but then you have bigger issues as a wizard.
+1.
Shield has big inpact in the game, especially if you get a magical shield. Constant bonus. Could be a different lvl 1 Feat. And could be used without armor training.
My opinion:
Light armor - no need training and feat. Peasants could wear leathers and heavy clothes.
Medium armor - need training. Need a feat lvl 1.
Heavy armor - need training. Need a feat lvl 1.
Shield - need training. Need a feat lvl 1.
Fighters get all, and the usual classes. In reality, these are depend on fighting styles. But in DnD5e they messing feats with styles etc. So leave them in feat if they do this already.
I like the idea of armored wizards, but fighters and other martial classes has two strong points. Attack and defense. If you want to compete with them in at least one as wizard, you should sacrifice time and energy to learn it aka something which is not easy to sacrifice. One feat for armor and one another for shield is plenty. One feat is not. A war wizard could get a subclass feat to wear armor and later get shield, or vice versa.
Might be handy for a bladelock or valor bard. Blasters? Less so.
Without Warcaster, I wouldn't want to hold a shield as a spell caster, if you hold a focus in your other hand (such as a staff), you may leave yourself unable to cast spells that have a somatic component but not a material one (such as the shield spell), additionally you can't cast spells with a material component that have a GP value.
Obviously for Paladin and Clerics, shields themselves can act as the the spellcasting focus but they both have everything that lightly armored offers anyways, so the feat is pointless to them. Technically Druids are also in the same boat for lightly armored being pointless. It's really just the arcane spell casters only.
Not how the game works. You can have a shield and an empty hand with your arcane focus strapped to your person. You only need to touch M components during the cast, which doesn't require freeing them (otherwise component pouches wouldn't work at all).
You are right, but with the new rule, you can take one weapon as part of the attack action, so why would not take the weapon when you cast spell and your hand is free to use components as part of the spellcasting.
I would personally change warcaster feat also, but thats a different matter.