Medium Armor vs. Mage Armor

[robbie374]

Assuming that your PC has access to either *permanent* Mage Armor (or equivalent) or Medium Armor, either of which could be obtained with a one level dip if desired, which is better?

For a PC with stealthy Dex-based AC, and starting Dex of 14,

Mage Armor:
Level 2: 13+2 = 15 (Dex: 14)
Level 5: 13+3 = 16 (Dex+2, 16)
Level 9: 13+4 = 17 (Dex+2, 18)
Level 13: 13+5 = 18 (Dex+2, 20)

Medium Armor:
Level 2: 14+2 = 16 (Dex: 14)
Level 5: 15+2 = 17 (Medium Armor Master)
Level 9: 15+3 = 18 (Dex+2, 16)

Medium Armor over Mage Armor (Or Light Armor which gives a -1AC) results in the following:
- Losses: -2 Dex att, -2 Dex dmg, -2 Dex saving throws, -2 initiative, and -2 Dex skills; greater encumbrance; loss of theft-prevention (permanent Mage Armor can't be stolen)
- Gains: 1 feat or ASI, max AC four levels earlier, access to fancy +3 magical armor

Which is better?

Should Medium Armor Master include a +1 stat bump like all the other armor feats?

How would an additional feat or ASI choice weigh against the drawbacks of a not-yet-maxed Dex?

(Also consider that the attack and damage bonuses are largely inconsequential if you play a primary caster.)

[rudy]

Which is better?

It depends on your class. One thing you are not including in your analysis, though, is that Medium Armor *usually* comes with shield proficiency, which can be very relevant.

That being said, for my houserules I do give a +1 Dex or +1 Str to Medium Armor Mastery.

[PeteNutButter]

I wouldn't be wasting so many previous ASIs on AC for a caster. The mage armor is obviously better for a character that uses DEX as it's core stat. Otherwise the more AC you can get from your items the better. Even stealth disadvantage isn't so bad if you can do things like Pass Without Trace.

The two step process of raising dex and taking MAM is just too much wasted power, and should probably never be done, unless dex has another use on that character. The best use of MAM is on a character starting with a 16 dex with no intent to raise it, preferably variant Human. The obvious examples here are Str based ranger or medium armor cleric.

I'd just wear medium armor and boost attack stat.

[Lombra]

It depends on how high your dex and str are. Mage armor is weightless and poses no limitation to dex, so if you have high dex it's better, but if you have a moderate dex and a decent strength then a medium armor may be better.

[rudy]

It depends on how high your dex and str are. Mage armor is weightless and poses no limitation to dex, so if you have high dex it's better, but if you have a moderate dex and a decent strength then a medium armor may be better.
Why do you think str is relevant? I suppose if your GM uses the optional encumbrance rules, but medium armor does not have a str requirement.

[Anymage]

In a vacuum, medium armor eats up fewer build resources. Although pumping dex at the expense of your casting stat strikes me as silly right out the gate.

Considering everything else, still probably medium armor. Assuming your options are wiz/cleric or wiz/warlock, clerics get their proficiencies at level 1 while you only get your first warlock invocation at second level. Add in the fact that cleric casting boosts total caster level and cleric spells can be scaled up in those slots, while warlocks have to keep their resource pools separate, the cleric comes out ahead.

Although it's worth noting that just staying single classed and casting mage armor as needed is always an option. Multiclassing will eat up stat points on top of the ASIs you're burning on dex, and likewise mountain dwarf will have little in the way of relevant stat boosts when you're sinking your first two ASIs on a relatively minor AC boost.

[Maxilian]

It depends in a couple of things, have in mind that there is no mage armor +1, also Medium armor allows you to have a decent AC without having to spend much in DEX (14 dex and you already set for the sake of AC with medium armor, unless you wanna spend a feat to increase that).

Also, if you have Mage armor you most likely don't have a shield, so yeah...

[eastmabl]

My concern from a CharOp standpoint is that one level dips either require (1) forgoing a level in a casting class or (2) Wis 13 to get access to medium armor through Cleric/Druid. Either way, you're looking at being somewhat behind the curve for a standard wizard.*

A first level spell known and first level spell slot for a wizard is initially a high cost - but rapidly becomes minimal to neglible.

* Yes, you could also get medium armor proficiency from being a mountain dwarf, but the lack of racial Int bonus means that you're going to be behind the curve of other wizards that get the Int bump.

[Vaz]

My concern from a CharOp standpoint is that one level dips either require (1) forgoing a level in a casting class or (2) Wis 13 to get access to medium armor through Cleric/Druid. Either way, you're looking at being somewhat behind the curve for a standard wizard.*

A first level spell known and first level spell slot for a wizard is initially a high cost - but rapidly becomes minimal to neglible.

* Yes, you could also get medium armor proficiency from being a mountain dwarf, but the lack of racial Int bonus means that you're going to be behind the curve of other wizards that get the Int bump.

Or Fighter, or Paladin, or Ranger, or Warlock.

[Specter]

Depends on how far you want your DEX to go.

For a STR-Valor Bard, for instance, I'd go medium armor and never look back (maybe even with 12 DEX): you'll have to spend four ASIs maxing your casting stat and attack stat, so it would be a waste of energy to pursue other things.

But with a DEX-Valor Bard, I'd go a bit out of my way (perhaps one level of Sorcerer) to grab Mage Armor and possibly Shield: 18AC with a maxed DEX is very good.

[Citan]

Assuming that your PC has access to either *permanent* Mage Armor (or equivalent) or Medium Armor, either of which could be obtained with a one level dip if desired, which is better?

For a PC with stealthy Dex-based AC, and starting Dex of 14,

Mage Armor:
Level 2: 13+2 = 15 (Dex: 14)
Level 5: 13+3 = 16 (Dex+2, 16)
Level 9: 13+4 = 17 (Dex+2, 18)
Level 13: 13+5 = 18 (Dex+2, 20)

Medium Armor:
Level 2: 14+2 = 16 (Dex: 14)
Level 5: 15+2 = 17 (Medium Armor Master)
Level 9: 15+3 = 18 (Dex+2, 16)

Medium Armor over Mage Armor (Or Light Armor which gives a -1AC) results in the following:
- Losses: -2 Dex att, -2 Dex dmg, -2 Dex saving throws, -2 initiative, and -2 Dex skills; greater encumbrance; loss of theft-prevention (permanent Mage Armor can't be stolen)
- Gains: 1 feat or ASI, max AC four levels earlier, access to fancy +3 magical armor

Which is better?

Should Medium Armor Master include a +1 stat bump like all the other armor feats?

How would an additional feat or ASI choice weigh against the drawbacks of a not-yet-maxed Dex?

(Also consider that the attack and damage bonuses are largely inconsequential if you play a primary caster.)
Basically depends on whether you plan on using DEX as a main stat or not.
If you intend to max DEX for whatever reason and have no starting armor proficiency, Mage Armor is the way to go. Simply because it means you are a caster, so getting Mage Armor means one way or another keeping at least your caster level progression.
If you already have light armor proficiency, then Mage Armor is just +1 AC, not worth a full level imo. Whereas multiclass or Moderately Armored bring also shield proficiency which is a tad better (+2), if you can afford wielding one (caster needs one hand free). May or not be worth the dip/feat depending on your character.

If you are fine with 14 DEX, Medium Armor is a net better choice because it always comes with shield. So it's not +1 but potential +3 to AC.

[Willie the Duck]

If you are using your Dex as an attack stat, try to max it out, otherwise, stick with dex 14, medium armor, and maybe a shield, depending on what classes we are talking about. About the only build I would bother with Medium-armor master would be a str-based fighter that needs to not penalize stealth.

[Findulidas]

Its unfortunate that lizardfolks natural AC dont stack with mage armor. I suppose warforged +1 AC does however.

[PeteNutButter]

Its unfortunate that lizardfolks natural AC dont stack with mage armor. I suppose warforged +1 AC does however.

RAW the lizardfolk natural AC does stack with fighter defense style since it allows you to wear armor and the FS does not say you have to use the armor to calculate your AC. Only 13+dex feature in the game that lets you do this.

[Lombra]

Why do you think str is relevant? I suppose if your GM uses the optional encumbrance rules, but medium armor does not have a str requirement.

I just assumed that everyone used the encumberance rules, my bad.

[imanidiot]

Why do you think str is relevant? I suppose if your GM uses the optional encumbrance rules, but medium armor does not have a str requirement.

If you're taking Mage Armor Strength shouldn't be your attack stat anyway, but if strength is your attack stat you can't use 3 ASIs raising dexterity.

Also everyone should be using encumbrance, it's important.

[Drackolus]

I wouldn't multiclass for armor unless I was a blood hunter. I can't think of a class that has such insufficient ac that it's worth slowing down your build.
I've come to like the cleric dip for wizards less and less the more I think about it. If you go life (the standard), your healing still stops being relevant at the same time the sleep you would have been using would, and heavy armor isn't gonna save you when you lowered your con to 12 to get your wis high enough to do the switch and your str or dex high enough for your armor, with your measely d6 hit dice.
Ac is really only important if you've got to be in melee and take hits, and you have the hp and saves to back it up.
Your level 5 party will be more impressed with a wizard/sorcerer/warlock who counterspells the fireball than one who got one shot by the second attack from the monster's multiattack because the first one missed.
Tldr; if you have to dip for armor, you shouldn't be worrying about ac in the first place and it won't really help.

[Tanarii]

Why do you think str is relevant? I suppose if your GM uses the optional encumbrance rules, but medium armor does not have a str requirement.


I just assumed that everyone used the encumberance rules, my bad.
Max load isn't an optional rule. Otoh Str 8 Max load is 120 lbs, so usually a Str 8 character can carry their basic kit, even with Medium Armor. They might run into problems if they start trying to add Hunting Traps, lots of extra Rope, or heavier Artisan's Tools though. Or if they're trying to haul off a big enough treasure pile. Although that's what the Barbarian is for, amiright?

Edit: to actually add something on topic, AFAICT Medium Armor seems assumes you're not really planning to raise your Dex above 14. And yeah, Medium Armor Mastery does deem a tad weak. Or at least, niche. But I don't really have enough experience with Feats to have seen it on a build in play, as far as I can recall, so that's just an impression.

[Citan]

I wouldn't multiclass for armor unless I was a blood hunter. I can't think of a class that has such insufficient ac that it's worth slowing down your build.
I've come to like the cleric dip for wizards less and less the more I think about it. If you go life (the standard), your healing still stops being relevant at the same time the sleep you would have been using would, and heavy armor isn't gonna save you when you lowered your con to 12 to get your wis high enough to do the switch and your str or dex high enough for your armor, with your measely d6 hit dice.
Ac is really only important if you've got to be in melee and take hits, and you have the hp and saves to back it up.
Your level 5 party will be more impressed with a wizard/sorcerer/warlock who counterspells the fireball than one who got one shot by the second attack from the monster's multiattack because the first one missed.
Tldr; if you have to dip for armor, you shouldn't be worrying about ac in the first place and it won't really help.
1. Healing Words never stops being relevant from start to end. The difference is that at (very) low levels, you can just pop it on anyone down because there is a decent chance he will survive until it's his turn. Soon enough, it's worthless to use it unless your ally's turn comes before the next enemy, or there is someone else to help him recover/evacuate, or he's at two failed death saves already. But being able to "restore" an ally's turn is always efficient, whether at level 1 or 20.

2. That's the reason many players multiclass into Fighter instead, since you don't have WIS requirement. That is the usual "standard". Besides that, it's easy to start with 16 INT, 14 DEX, 14 CON and 14 WIS as a High Elf (8 STR, 8 CHA) so I'm sure there are other ways to get all decent stats with other races (also depending on later feat choice obviously).

3. Nop: AC is also what protects you from ranged attacks, whether from weapons, cantrips or leveled spells. And especially because you have such low hit points (and only a few uses of Shield to help), and low concentration too, having the best AC as possible is important, unless a) enemy is real stupid b) your party is providing great cover. Of course as you gain levels, you also get access to better and better spells to avoid being targeted, either by making yourself a harder target to access, or by directly controlling how/where creatures can go and act. But that becomes really true once you get access to 4th level spells. Which is also the time when you start fighting smart enemies and creatures with a few nasty special abilities, which compensates: if you are currently Holding a BBEG for example, good chances are that all his ranged lackeys will try to pin you to break concentration or outright kill you. If your pals don't cover you one way or another, you will suffer a decent amount of attacks. Using Shield on an AC 13 won't make that much of a difference. Using it on an AC 17-18 is much much better.
This does not dispense you from getting Warcaster or Resilient: Constitution anyways (unless you started Fighter of course) but it's a great help.

[Drackolus]

1. Healing Words never stops being relevant from start to end. The difference is that at (very) low levels, you can just pop it on anyone down because there is a decent chance he will survive until it's his turn. Soon enough, it's worthless to use it unless your ally's turn comes before the next enemy, or there is someone else to help him recover/evacuate, or he's at two failed death saves already. But being able to "restore" an ally's turn is always efficient, whether at level 1 or 20.

Fair. I guess what I meant is that the additional healing from the life domain bonus becomes mostly meaningless, as 1d4+1+3 is far less than a typical attack. But then, that's kinda true early on, too.


2. That's the reason many players multiclass into Fighter instead, since you don't have WIS requirement. That is the usual "standard".

I thought the majority went cleric for the extra spells and to minimize the effect on spellcasting progression. I don't have any numbers on that though, so I guess I'm talking out of my *** :smallbiggrin:

Besides that, it's easy to start with 16 INT, 14 DEX, 14 CON and 14 WIS as a High Elf (8 STR, 8 CHA) so I'm sure there are other ways to get all decent stats with other races (also depending on later feat choice obviously).
Huh. That's not too bad. I guess I was thinking more of str for heavy armor on a vuman, but that route lets you take mobile and leave str at 8 anyway. As long as you don't care about equip load, of course, but even then, plate+shield+spellbook leaves you at 46/120 lbs left of gear.

3. Nop: AC is also what protects you from ranged attacks, whether from weapons, cantrips or leveled spells. And especially because you have such low hit points (and only a few uses of Shield to help), and low concentration too, having the best AC as possible is important, unless a) enemy is real stupid b) your party is providing great cover. Of course as you gain levels, you also get access to better and better spells to avoid being targeted, either by making yourself a harder target to access, or by directly controlling how/where creatures can go and act. But that becomes really true once you get access to 4th level spells. Which is also the time when you start fighting smart enemies and creatures with a few nasty special abilities, which compensates: if you are currently Holding a BBEG for example, good chances are that all his ranged lackeys will try to pin you to break concentration or outright kill you. If your pals don't cover you one way or another, you will suffer a decent amount of attacks. Using Shield on an AC 13 won't make that much of a difference. Using it on an AC 17-18 is much much better.
This does not dispense you from getting Warcaster or Resilient: Constitution anyways (unless you started Fighter of course) but it's a great help.
It's strong, for sure, but ac isn't the only way you'll get swung at. Any monster can shove you. And the con save proficiency, while great, isn't free - you also lose out on wisdom saves, which are arguably the most likely to get you killed if you fail. And, on top of all that, you get disadvantage on one of the easiest ways to not take damage; stealth rolls. Shield's a great spell to have on your list just in case, but ideally, you shouldn't have to use it. A clever suggestion, phantasmal force, or even sleep or disguise self can prevent damage way better than shield could.

An abjuration wizard is a pretty big exception though. A warmage could also get a lot from it too, if built well. Otherwise? The tradeoff just isn't worth it.

Warlocks are kinda in a different boat, but I probably still wouldn't want to delay the spell progression unless I were a bladelock. They also get light armor (or infinite mage armor), d8 hit points, and control options coupled with a powerful damage cantrip, so they certainly aren't lacking in defensive options.

[Citan]

It's strong, for sure, but ac isn't the only way you'll get swung at. Any monster can shove you. And the con save proficiency, while great, isn't free - you also lose out on wisdom saves, which are arguably the most likely to get you killed if you fail. And, on top of all that, you get disadvantage on one of the easiest ways to not take damage; stealth rolls. Shield's a great spell to have on your list just in case, but ideally, you shouldn't have to use it. A clever suggestion, phantasmal force, or even sleep or disguise self can prevent damage way better than shield could.
Agreed on that certainly. ;)
But if you stay out of melee, it should be harder for monsters to Shove you (I mean, at least more difficult to reach you. Sure, once there are close enough you're probably toast XD).

And CON save proficiency is indeed a tough tradeoff with Wisdom, no argue there either.
I'd actually prefer Wisdom myself if feats weren't allowed, because as you said I see no reason to be on the frontlines, and I'd count on AC to limit the chances of having to actually roll a concentration save (also, from my -limited- experience, putting spells aside most creatures's effect targeting CON are of melee range so I'm more wary of ranged).

When feats are allowed, I think any optimized character should have proficiency in both Wisdom and either Constitution (for caster) or Dexterity (for martials). ;)

Disagreed, partially, on the stealth aspect.
Sure, Hiding yourself is the best way to not get targeted. But being just invisible is already a great way to avoid a good part of attacks or at least imposing disadvantage on them: between Minor Illusion, Fog Cloud, Invisibility etc you have several ways of getting out of view.
I concur though on the fact that it's a tough choice, that's why I went the "medium armor" way in my example (at "worse" with a 16 DEX it makes MAM a decent choice).

But honestly? When I have to think about building a Wizard, I most often goes the Mage Armor way with starting 16 in DEX and end 18-20. Because when you consider just the "armor" aspect (barring everything else a dip provides), it's always the best way to go: nearly as good armor, better DEX saves as you said, AND better Initiative. Which gives you a better chance to flatline that "deadly" encounter because you had the adequate spell and the time to cast it while context is good (ex Wall of Fire before enemy reached melee, Slow before that milice spread out, Forcecage while that BBEG is still within reach, etc). Only when I strive towards a particular goal with my Wizard (usually a multiclass gish then) do I consider grabbing medium armor / heavy armor.
Then again, that choice was not part of the initial question if I may no mistake. ;)