Giving Unarmored defense to any heavy armor character who want it

[Saffron-sama]

Sorry if this would be in the wrong place was not sure where exactly to put it.
So the idea is simple a character with heavy armor proficiency from a class would be allowed to trade its heavy, medium and light armor proficiency to gain the barbarian version of the Unarmored defense but can choose one of Charisma, Constitution, Intelligence or Wisdom mod instead of just con mod.
So would you as a DM allow this?
I personally love the idea of Unarmored warriors but I don't want to be stuck with just barbarian and monk or dips into those classes to build that. The only reason I ask is I want to get a general idea what the community believes before I start asking any and every DM I play with.

(Sorry for any errors I'm using a mobile device)

[MeeposFire]

It would not destroy the game however remember that with barbarians in particular they can go for max defenses with dex and con but will lose out on a number of class features that require strength.

Fighters and paladins however do not have this issue. Paladins you could give a similar choice by keeping the second stat to AC being con since they would ahve to choose between their likely casting/ aura stat and their AC/HP stat (sort of like the barb offense or defense choice).

Fighters would have no serious issue since they can use dex fully with no problem and have no other stat requirements (though like everybody con is desired).

That being said it would not destroy the game.

If you want more control over the AC you could give them an AC of 13+dex/or other stat sort of like mage armor or dragon sorc. AC values stay close to heavy armor without going over (though will potentially falling behind since a lack of magical armor boosts for them).

[NiklasWB]

I would say no. For two reasons.

1. It takes away from the uniqueness of Barbarians and Monks. One of the selling points of those classes is being a badass melee class with no armor. Don't make that less special.

2. Heavy armor imposes disadvantage on stealth checks in order to gain its high and stable AC. Also, sometimes you are out of armor (resting, bathhouse, fancy dinner). The ones that usually have heavy armor is at a disadvantage at those moments. Having them have Unarmored Defenses in all those situations is a huge benefit.



I'd say you are better off homebrewing a specific archetype for the fighter/paladin/cleric you had in mind, giving them the exact feature you describe at the appropriate level (3/3/1).

[MeeposFire]

I would say no. For two reasons.

1. It takes away from the uniqueness of Barbarians and Monks. One of the selling points of those classes is being a badass melee class with no armor. Don't make that less special.

2. Heavy armor imposes disadvantage on stealth checks in order to gain its high and stable AC. Also, sometimes you are out of armor (resting, bathhouse, fancy dinner). The ones that usually have heavy armor is at a disadvantage at those moments. Having them have Unarmored Defenses in all those situations is a huge benefit.



I'd say you are better off homebrewing a specific archetype for the fighter/paladin/cleric you had in mind, giving them the exact feature you describe at the appropriate level (3/3/1).

Well considering we are talking about characters that would have good to great dex scores (since we are talking about barbarian unarmored defense type abilities) the characters in question would already likely have decent stealth bonuses and were not going to wear heavy armor in the first place oddly.

Honestly the dissonance in this idea is that it really is more of a way to improve the AC of lightly armored characters rather than heavy armor characters (unless you made an unarmored defense that did not use dex in the calculation). Of course it only improves the AC of unarmored characters in campaigns with no magic armor otherwise the AC gain is none to actually falling behind (depending if your armor is +1-+3).

[Saffron-sama]

I would say no. For two reasons.

1. It takes away from the uniqueness of Barbarians and Monks. One of the selling points of those classes is being a badass melee class with no armor. Don't make that less special.

2. Heavy armor imposes disadvantage on stealth checks in order to gain its high and stable AC. Also, sometimes you are out of armor (resting, bathhouse, fancy dinner). The ones that usually have heavy armor is at a disadvantage at those moments. Having them have Unarmored Defenses in all those situations is a huge benefit.



I'd say you are better off homebrewing a specific archetype for the fighter/paladin/cleric you had in mind, giving them the exact feature you describe at the appropriate level (3/3/1).

1. Actually multiclassing would take that uniqueness away since its a first level ability it takes a 1 level dip to get those powers with a only slight trade off due to the fact that most games do not get to level 20 or you will spend only a small portion of the play at that level.

2. There are several ways to get rid of that disadvantage like mithral, cloaks(elvenkind) or even a variaty of spells that might up stealth and generally paladins and fighters inless dex builds won't have decent stealth anyway.

[Sander]

Would I give it to them for free? No, probably not. Simply seems a little stupid considering that these are actual class abilities of the Barb & Monk. However, maybe allow them to pick up the ability for a feat? That seems about right in my mind, although I'd limit the ability scores available to the three mental ones - Charisma, Intelligence and Wisdom. Why? Well, because constitution is basically always a great score and everybody wants it, ideally. So to discourage characters, fighters parcticularly, who'd just smack on some str/dex/whatnot as a primary and con as a secondary for ac AND hp. Should be some tradeoff, imo, so making them a bit MAD in any case seems right in my mind.

[Saffron-sama]

Would I give it to them for free? No, probably not. Simply seems a little stupid considering that these are actual class abilities of the Barb & Monk. However, maybe allow them to pick up the ability for a feat? That seems about right in my mind, although I'd limit the ability scores available to the three mental ones - Charisma, Intelligence and Wisdom. Why? Well, because constitution is basically always a great score and everybody wants it, ideally. So to discourage characters, fighters parcticularly, who'd just smack on some str/dex/whatnot as a primary and con as a secondary for ac AND hp. Should be some tradeoff, imo, so making them a bit MAD in any case seems right in my mind.

The trade off was to lose all armor proficiency besides shields. This would stop them from going "oh nice +2 plate that will be better then my 19 from my con and dex." Without making the character be human or 4th level to pick up that feat. The reason I included con is because of barbarian which has the least amount of business having con to ac (rage + d12 hd makes them hardy as hell).

[JackPhoenix]

In my bronze age setting, I gave everyone an option to exchange Heavy Armor Proficiency for either Medium Armor Mastery or barbarian's version of unarmored defense (constitution with shields), because heavy armor was extremely rare (pretty much only the Roman Empire equivalent had one, and even then it was only splint mail (lorica segmentata)). It was both to not have fighters and paladins disadvantaged in absence of the best armor, and to keep with the setting's feel.

At the same time, druids and clerics could also exchange their Medium Armor Proficiency for monk's unarmored defense (wisdom, but no shields).

I would likely allow something like that even in a normal game, but I'd judge it on case-by-case basis, asking the player what's s/he aiming for.

[YCombinator]

I would say no. For two reasons.

1. It takes away from the uniqueness of Barbarians and Monks. One of the selling points of those classes is being a badass melee class with no armor. Don't make that less special.

2. Heavy armor imposes disadvantage on stealth checks in order to gain its high and stable AC. Also, sometimes you are out of armor (resting, bathhouse, fancy dinner). The ones that usually have heavy armor is at a disadvantage at those moments. Having them have Unarmored Defenses in all those situations is a huge benefit.



I'd say you are better off homebrewing a specific archetype for the fighter/paladin/cleric you had in mind, giving them the exact feature you describe at the appropriate level (3/3/1).

I would say yes, absolutely do this. I think NiklasWB's point one is not something I would give and credence to. I do believe that the Barbarian and Monk have something special going on and I would never want WotC to print something in official material than made that less special. However, we're talking about in the context of a specific game with house rules. It takes nothing away from a class that is perhaps not even in the group.

Secondly, you are the DM and it is your job, primarily, to make sure everyone's having fun. Is everyone going to have more fun if they are ridiculously overpowered? Then just do it. Hint: Being overpowered very rarely makes the game more fun. But are you playing with an 8 year old? Well consider it. ;)

Find a way to say yes is a very good DM slogan. I would apply it here.

But try not to break balance. NiklasWB's second point has some weight. You're giving up the disadvantage on stealth checks. I would take that into account. You could easily role play this. Fine you have unarmored defense but you have to take my Clumsy feat. You have disadvantage on stealth checks. In this case, you've actually basically made it the same but now the character gets the flavor they want.

Maybe that Clumsy feat is lame. Maybe they specifically wanted unarmored defense because they want to be stealthy? That's okay. I'd still work with this. Weigh the balance of the abilities off of how that character would have to go about getting the benefits normally. Perhaps figure out the difference, which in this case is no disadvantage on stealth and their armor now scales automatically instead of buying new armor.

In the end, this change is not a big change to balance. I wouldn't worry about it. I, personally, would make them pay some small amount for the benefit though. If not Clumsy, something else. If all you do is take away proficiencies... eh, it's a power boost to the player. It's probably not hugely game breaking though.

[MrStabby]

So I have a few mixed views on this.

1) I like it.

It opens up a lot of character concepts that otherwise wouldn't work and can make playable some things that would be fun, were it not for their power level.

2) The idea on stepping on the toes of other classes is not one I give a lot of concern to.

Classes are not people. You cannot offend the "Monk Class". Sure you can step on the toes of monk players but having a higher AC, as one might already have with heavy armour is not new. Anyway, if multiclassing is allowed then it is no worse than dipping a level in the class to get that ability anyway. To me this is like saying the barbarian class steps on the toes of the paladin class by also granting a second attack at 5th level. More options does not in any way diminish the others.

3) It is possibly very, very good in some circumstances. Druids wildshaping, as an example can take a level of tempest cleric rather than monk to boost AC and so maintain full caster progression. Likewise I could see other classes like valor bard dip a level of cleric to use Cha as a defensive stat.

In fact it is strictly better than the monk ability as you can use a shield with it.




Finally some things I find interesting:

You may want to add monk anyway - consider a paladin with a dip of monk for martial arts. Drop wisdom to 13 and have high dex and cha. The MAD of the build diluted as you can shift some of the burden to another stat.

Fighter 1 or 2 becomes an even more common dip for casters. Now sorcerers can action surge AND get to add Cha to armour without worrying about being slow due to low Str.

Nature cleric now pretty much aligns to how I would see them, being able to use Wis for both attack and defense. A nature cleric/ranger could be a pretty potent character.



I think it is not a bad rule on balance, I might look for shield proficiency to be needed and sacrificed as well. I would be tempted to try it for a brief campaign to see how it works before unleashing it on a full campaign.

[MadBear]

1. Actually multiclassing would take that uniqueness away since its a first level ability it takes a 1 level dip to get those powers with a only slight trade off due to the fact that most games do not get to level 20 or you will spend only a small portion of the play at that level.


actually that's not a fair comparison.

You don't have to go to level 20 at all. The fact is that if you dip 1 level, you are forever for the rest of the game 1 level behind on every class feature you're going to get. That's an opportunity cost that is lost on you for the rest of the game, that you're accepting for the ability to have unarmored AC.

Just giving it away for free has no real associated cost (yeah you lose out on armor, but as already stated they weren't going to use that anyway).

With that said, it won't break the game, and if it makes your game more fun, have at it hoss.

[RickAllison]

actually that's not a fair comparison.

You don't have to go to level 20 at all. The fact is that if you dip 1 level, you are forever for the rest of the game 1 level behind on every class feature you're going to get. That's an opportunity cost that is lost on you for the rest of the game, that you're accepting for the ability to have unarmored AC.

Just giving it away for free has no real associated cost (yeah you lose out on armor, but as already stated they weren't going to use that anyway).

With that said, it won't break the game, and if it makes your game more fun, have at it hoss.

This. So long as you have neither Barbarians or Monks, I hardly think anyone will be mad that those classes are being relatively screwed over.

[MrStabby]

This. So long as you have neither Barbarians or Monks, I hardly think anyone will be mad that those classes are being relatively screwed over.

How are they being screwed over? You are not taking anything from them?

[RickAllison]

How are they being screwed over? You are not taking anything from them?

You are giving one of their core class features away. It would be fine if you let other core class features also get stolen (Rage, Wild Shape, Bardic Inspiration, Sneak Attack, etc.).

Honestly, the best way to do it in my eyes is to make it something like the Martial Adept feat (the one where you get Battlemaster maneuvers, but you only get one instead of four superiority dice). You can get the Unarmored Defense, but it only works up to +3, for example. It gives the option of poaching class features, but the character can't get as much from it as if they went and actually took the class level.

[MrStabby]

You are giving one of their core class features away. It would be fine if you let other core class features also get stolen (Rage, Wild Shape, Bardic Inspiration, Sneak Attack, etc.).

Honestly, the best way to do it in my eyes is to make it something like the Martial Adept feat (the one where you get Battlemaster maneuvers, but you only get one instead of four superiority dice). You can get the Unarmored Defense, but it only works up to +3, for example. It gives the option of poaching class features, but the character can't get as much from it as if they went and actually took the class level.

Nothing is being given away, there is a swap of one core class feature (heavy armour) for another (unarmoured defense).

An important feature of "giving something away" is that you no longer have it. No one has any fewer features.

[Demonic Spoon]

Unarmored defense is there more for flavor than anything else. The reason that monks get +WIS to armor instead of just using armor is, more than any mechanical reason, because it fits the flavor they were going for with monks. An eastern-style martial artist in full plate would be weird

On average, unarmored defense results in slightly inferior AC in exchange for a little bit more flexibility (don't need to put it on, worry about stealth disadvantage, etc). You're not providing some great boon by allowing someone to trade armor proficiency for unarmored defense.

No one chooses monk or barbarian because they want to fight without armor. Barbarians and monks both have a wide range of unique, class-defining abilities that provide a reason to play them even if other classes get unarmored defense.

[RickAllison]

Nothing is being given away, there is a swap of one core class feature (heavy armour) for another (unarmoured defense).

An important feature of "giving something away" is that you no longer have it. No one has any fewer features.

I'd hardly call heavy armor proficiency a core class feature. It's a nice bonus, but it doesn't make a class unique. You can do whatever you like in your games, but that doesn't change the fact that you are letting someone trade away excess features they didn't care about to gain something they really wanted but by the balance of the game would have to take a level in another class for.

As for not being powerful, I beg to differ. Barbarian UD still lets you use a shield (so no difference in the armor there), so let's compare the armors. At early levels, it's right on par. Heavy armor gets 16 AC from chain mail, the UD can get 16 Dex and Con for 16 as well. A few levels, heavy armor pulls ahead with 18 AC, while the UD likely only has 17. A barbarian or monk using these will be getting slower progress, only getting to 18 at level 8. A fighter with it? He can get that at level 6. By level 12, he can have 20 AC while boosting his primary attack stat (Dex) and also having sky-high HP. If the heavy armor wielder wants that high of AC, he needs +2 plate mail. When is that available?

On the magic item tables, that doesn't come in until I, the very highest level. At the level where a fighter with UD can roll out 20 AC without giving up much of anything (a little later if he wants to grab Sharpshooter, etc.), the randomly generated loot can potentially get the heavy armor user there (Challenge 11-16). How likely? 0.08 probability to actually hit the right table, 0.01 probability to hit the right entry on the loot, and then 0.33 probability to match his AC or 0.083 to beat it. So the lovely fighter archer gets a guaranteed 20 AC when a heavy armor user gets a whopping 0.000264 probability to match and 0.000067 probability to beat it.

Now, at the final hoard level, we finally see some decent chances. 0.2 probability to roll on the right table 1d4 times, significantly better. That changes the probabilities for those results to 0.00165 and 0.000416, an order of magnitude better! But still small. Meanwhile, your UD fighter is laughing his/her ass off, as he/she's been rocking her AC for half the game.

[MrStabby]

I'd hardly call heavy armor proficiency a core class feature. It's a nice bonus, but it doesn't make a class unique. You can do whatever you like in your games, but that doesn't change the fact that you are letting someone trade away excess features they didn't care about to gain something they really wanted but by the balance of the game would have to take a level in another class for.



Giving players the features they need to build the characters they want to play sounds like a feature not a bug.

[RickAllison]

Giving players the features they need to build the characters they want to play sounds like a feature not a bug.

Indeed, that's why they multi-class!

[Drackolus]

Ki and Rage are what make monks and barbarians interesting, not unarmored defense. Hell, many barbarians don't even use it.

That said, I would definitely play a paladin. Choose Charisma, use rapier+shield, max dex and cha. Have 22 ac and still be an awesome paladin.