Mountain Dwarf Armor Prof

[Oscredwin]

Mountain Dwarves get medium armor proficiency and the best stat mods for a melee character (+2 STR and +2 Con). What are people's favorite builds that actually make use of the proficiency? The only one I can think of is Bladelock.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Mountain Dwarves get medium armor proficiency and the best stat mods for a melee character (+2 STR and +2 Con). What are people's favorite builds that actually make use of the proficiency? The only one I can think of is Bladelock.

Take the heavy armor feat at 4
Dump Dex
Remember that dwarves aren't slowed by a lack of strength in heavy armor
Dump Str
Be a full caster
Profit

[Myzz]

The only problem I see is that you don't get shields... Otherwise Mountain dwarf caster of any type would be the best... Allows you to dump Str and Dex and still have a decent AC... could even go Breastplate and keep a Dex of 14 for +2 bonus, and no disadvantage to stealth rolls... THAT shield however would be nice.

[Shining Wrath]

The classes which don't get medium armor to start with and don't have features requiring you to eschew armor: Bard, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard. A Mountain Dwarf rogue might be amusing.

[Mandragola]

It's actually pretty hard to come up with a class that really benefits much from this. The classes that really do well from the mountain dwarf's stats, the strength-based ones, already get armour proficiencies.

Imagine if you did make a mountain dwarf wizard and took heavy armour at 4. So you've got a wizard with a slightmy better AC, but a much worse intelligence score. Is that really such a win? I'd argue not.

[Oscredwin]

Medium armor doesn't help if you're pumping dex. So it's out for Rogue and Valor Bard. All that it leaves are the castors, and you have to compare it to them having no +Cha or +int race (or variant human). The total effect is +3 to AC (within a few parameters), give or take. Would you take that as a feat (vs the +2 CHA or INT)?

Actually, now that I put it this way, why isn't medium armor considered a better feat? Would you rather have a human warlock/lorebard with medium armor feat and +1CHA and CON or a Mountain Dwarf?

[JNAProductions]

You also get poison resistance and Darkvision as a Dwarf, and that +2 to Strength is helpful, if not needed.

[SharkForce]

It's actually pretty hard to come up with a class that really benefits much from this. The classes that really do well from the mountain dwarf's stats, the strength-based ones, already get armour proficiencies.

Imagine if you did make a mountain dwarf wizard and took heavy armour at 4. So you've got a wizard with a slightmy better AC, but a much worse intelligence score. Is that really such a win? I'd argue not.

it isn't "much worse" intelligence. variant human is worth a whopping +1 int. in exchange, you get better con, and your toughness against poison goes pretty much through the roof.

you are giving up a bit on casting, but you gain elsewhere. i'll agree that the medium armour is probably not *that* valuable, but it isn't bad, and dwarf comes with other perks. i don't know that i would consider dwarf wizard builds to be fully optimized, but i'd say they're a perfectly reasonable option.

(that said, in the event i ever get a wizard to level 19 and 20, i am going to seriously consider knowledge cleric 2 for those last couple of levels for a variety of reasons :P )

[Durazno]

I assume Mandragola means that your INT will be 4 less (if you're playing as a Dwarf instead of a race that gives you INT) or 3 less (if you're playing as a Dwarf instead of a human) because you passed up the initial +2 bonus and then using your ASI to increase it further. It might be less of a concern if you roll really well, I suppose.

[SharkForce]

ok, so we're up to a point where your modifier is 1-2 points worse in int for a while... (meanwhile your con is presumably really good for a wizard, so you can concentrate better and take a hit better, so again, not a complete loss).

is that really "much worse"? and of course, in the long run, there's no difference either way.

(also, i presume by "a race that gives int" you mean "gnome" since every other race with an int bonus gives +1)

i wouldn't likely go with the dwarf build. but it's completely possible to pull it off.

[Naanomi]

Strength rogue is a very specialized build, but mountain dwarf fills it very well

[xyianth]

Mountain dwarves are the worst kind of dwarf, in my opinion. The +2 str is great for melee classes that use strength, but all of those already get the same or better armor options. More to the point, a bonus to strength directly lessens the benefit of the dwarven ability to ignore movement penalties due to armor. (which only occur if you have insufficient strength) Hill dwarves are much better, and can be used in many different types of characters. My favorite is the hill dwarf cleric(life) 1/ wizard(any) 19. You can dump strength and dex entirely, you gain heavy armor, shields, 3 cleric cantrips, healing and buff/utility spells, and extra hp; all in exchange for delaying features by 1 level and giving up the lackluster wizard capstone. The delay isn't even that bad because your slot progression isn't delayed so you can cast effectively higher level spells when you are supposed to.

[Mandragola]

What I mean by "much worse" int is the modifier rather than the stat. A mountain dwarf with heavy armour proficiency as his 4th level ASI will have a +2 int modifier instead of +4, if you're using points buy. He'll be stronger but, as already mentioned, who cares? He doesn't need to be strong to carry his armour.

Any wizard can cast Mage armour using a slot that will be all but irrelevant after a few levels. So medium armour proficiency is barely better. If you got shields too then this would be different, and also much more interesting for rogues and bladelocks but overall I don't really see the point.

I tend to design dnd characters to be as good as possible at their own jobs. I think the benefits of an armoured wizard don't outweigh the costs. It's not too bad though if you make a guy who goes around in half plate and has a bit of dex. Con does matter and wizards don't necessarily need to cap int as quickly as all that, since so many of their spells are buffs. It's just nothing to write home about I think.

[noce]

I think dwarf race should excel as a melee character, should be perfectly fine as a divine character, and should be viable as an arcane/agile character.

Mountain dwarf gives armor and weapon proficiency, that are useless for anyone except casters and rogue.
Compare it to, say, Half orc: you lose 1 CON and an artisan tool, and gain Intimidation, better crits, and a "no, I'm still up" 1/day.

Hill dwarf, instead, is much better being one of the few races with wis bonus and the best hp races.

As it is now, dwarf is perfectly fine with divine characters and better as an arcane character than a melee one.
This is sad, and the fact they no longer have +2 saves against spells make it worse. It could have been advantage on STR INT and CHA saves, at least.
And instead of armor proficiency, mountain dwarves could give heavy armor mastery to those proficient with it, shifting the benefit towards fighters, clerics and paladins.

[HoarsHalberd]

Well at the very least, mountain dwarves make great bladelocks. Stats line up, and afb but I think they benefit from medium armour proficiency.

[SharkForce]

medium armour proficiency goes up to 15 + dex (max 2) which, while it does have a lower maximum than mage armour, is practically speaking going to be better for quite a long time for the vast majority of wizards that won't be getting dex 20 any time soon. i can agree i probably wouldn't want to go the extra step to upgrading to heavy armour (unless the DM throws in shield proficiency with the heavy armour feat)

what's more, AC basically gets better the higher it goes... it is much much stronger to have someone who is very unlikely to be hit than it is to have someone who is moderately unlikely to be hit.

i don't know that i would make it a priority. but armoured wizard is a good idea if you can fit it in without delaying your main build too much. it's all a question of what you're willing to pay for it... a cleric or fighter splash can give you some useful tools to work with, at the cost of delaying your progression.

(and on a side note: i don't see why mountain dwarf needs to be buffed for the warrior classes that get armour. when you make a high elf fighter, does it need an extra benefit for not gaining anything out of proficiencies and the int bonus? when you choose any race that doesn't have optimal attributes for the class you're making, should you then also get some extra benefit? for all intents and purposes, the bonus that mountain dwarf warriors which would already gain armour proficiency and don't need the immune to slowdown ability because they're strength-based are getting extra attributes over pretty much any other race currenty available, unless you count non-variant human's almost-worthless +1 to every attribute).

[Spacehamster]

Sadly if you want a heavy armor wizard you are better off picking one level of a cleric type that grants heavy armor for free, this way your spell slots level as normal, you gain cure wounds spell and other cleric goodies at the cost of getting next level wizard spells slightly later which can be tuned down by having a spell or two that scales well with burning the empty higher lvl slot. :)

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

(and on a side note: i don't see why mountain dwarf needs to be buffed for the warrior classes that get armour. when you make a high elf fighter, does it need an extra benefit for not gaining anything out of proficiencies and the int bonus? when you choose any race that doesn't have optimal attributes for the class you're making, should you then also get some extra benefit? for all intents and purposes, the bonus that mountain dwarf warriors which would already gain armour proficiency and don't need the immune to slowdown ability because they're strength-based are getting extra attributes over pretty much any other race currenty available, unless you count non-variant human's almost-worthless +1 to every attribute).

Mountain dwarves just aren't focused on a particular class with their benefits. Those classes that like the +2 STR find the armor proficiencies to be wasted, and the classes that want the armor find the STR is wasted, with the notable exception of the bladelock.

Many other races seem to cleanly snap into place with at least one class. Elves work well with each type of caster or half/third casters, since everyone likes Dex. Halflings work well for Bards and Rogues. Humans can be anything. Dragonborn seem custom built to be Paladins. Gnomes are wizards. Half elves are great for anything CHA based. Half-orcs make great melee characters.
Tieflings are a bit out of place, since no single class needs INT and CHA.

[Xetheral]

what's more, AC basically gets better the higher it goes... it is much much stronger to have someone who is very unlikely to be hit than it is to have someone who is moderately unlikely to be hit.

While true in the proportional sense, it's also true that (not outside RNG range, no adv/dis) each point of AC reduces expected inbound damage by an identical amount.

Also, a moderately-unlikely-to-be-hit character will likely get full benefit from their AC, but a character with *too* high an AC may provoke the DM to compensate (consciously or not) with enemies with higher attack bonuses.

[SharkForce]

While true in the proportional sense, it's also true that (not outside RNG range, no adv/dis) each point of AC reduces expected inbound damage by an identical amount.

Also, a moderately-unlikely-to-be-hit character will likely get full benefit from their AC, but a character with *too* high an AC may provoke the DM to compensate (consciously or not) with enemies with higher attack bonuses.

it reduces it by the same flat amount, yes.

but a person who is hit on a 19-20 is hit twice as often as a person who is hit on a 20 only. a person who is hit on 18+ is hit 50% more often than a person who is hit on a 19+. and so on. each point of AC is on average worth getting hit 1 fewer time in 20, but if you look at it in terms of how long you can last before you need healing, each additional point of AC gets more valuable.

and DM problems is a problem no matter how you build your character.