Divine Rage - can you do a heavy armor clad warrior correct?

[Spore]

It is almost a trope: A holy warrior is blinded by his rage fighting an enemy ruthlessly.

First thing many people realize with that: Paladins might be involved in that character concept. Barbarians are also cool, especially the Path of the Zealot. What if you wanted to get a full on divine attacker that does not care as much about his or her defense. What if you wanted to combine Paladins and Barbarians. Yes, in 5e you can.

There is just a small niggling detail: You cannot rage in heavy armor. Why is that?

I would want a Vengeance Paladin/Barbarian (usually 2 levels are enough for my needs to have reckless attack and rage). I just don't want to be the partially nude dude that gets a rage boner to kill fiends and the like. I want to be the heavily armored dude exploding in anger to kill said fiends.

Is there a balancing issue? And even if it were, why are Paladin/Barbs targetted and not Paladin/Bards or Paladin/Sorcerer, some much more obvious and powerful synergies?

[Man_Over_Game]

It is almost a trope: A holy warrior is blinded by his rage fighting an enemy ruthlessly.

First thing many people realize with that: Paladins might be involved in that character concept. Barbarians are also cool, especially the Path of the Zealot. What if you wanted to get a full on divine attacker that does not care as much about his or her defense. What if you wanted to combine Paladins and Barbarians. Yes, in 5e you can.

There is just a small niggling detail: You cannot rage in heavy armor. Why is that?

I would want a Vengeance Paladin/Barbarian (usually 2 levels are enough for my needs to have reckless attack and rage). I just don't want to be the partially nude dude that gets a rage boner to kill fiends and the like. I want to be the heavily armored dude exploding in anger to kill said fiends.

Is there a balancing issue? And even if it were, why are Paladin/Barbs targetted and not Paladin/Bards or Paladin/Sorcerer, some much more obvious and powerful synergies?

Rage is balanced by not having easy access to high AC. Heavy Armor is balanced by having a Strength requirement followed by requiring proficiency from a specific class. Generally, Strength is more AC efficient than Dexterity when Heavy Armor is an option.

People have made a lot of different Barbarian homebrews that allow heavy armor. You should look into them, they might give some decent insight.

Until something comes from WotC, Half Plate weights 40lbs, gives 15 + Dex in AC, and is Rage-legal, so that's the best we got for now.

Although, a few ideas come to mind as possible alternatives you could talk to your DM about:
Raging while wearing heavy armor doesn't grant rage damage
Raging while wearing heavy armor requires your Bonus Action each turn.
Raging while wearing heavy armor makes you more reckless and a larger target, causing enemies to always have Advantage to attack you.

[Innocent_bystan]

Rage

In battle, you fight with primal ferocity. On your turn, you can enter a rage as a bonus action.

While raging, you gain the following benefits if you aren’t wearing heavy armor:

You have advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws.
When you make a melee weapon attack using Strength, you gain a bonus to the damage roll that increases as you gain levels as a barbarian, as shown in the Rage Damage column of the Barbarian table.
You have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.



You can enter a rage, but it doesn't do a lot.

Now, and this is debatable, look at the Bear totem's lvl 3 ability. Note how it doesn't have a "while you are not wearing heavy armor"-clause. The Eagle ability does.
My interpretation is that a Bear barbarian can wear heavy armor, rage and still get resistance to damage.

[GlenSmash!]

It is almost a trope: A holy warrior is blinded by his rage fighting an enemy ruthlessly.

First thing many people realize with that: Paladins might be involved in that character concept. Barbarians are also cool, especially the Path of the Zealot. What if you wanted to get a full on divine attacker that does not care as much about his or her defense. What if you wanted to combine Paladins and Barbarians. Yes, in 5e you can.

There is just a small niggling detail: You cannot rage in heavy armor. Why is that?

You can rage in Heavy armor, you just won't gain those sweet rage benefits. You can however get the Level 3 Bear Totem benefit while raging in Heavy Armor, which is interesting.


I would want a Vengeance Paladin/Barbarian (usually 2 levels are enough for my needs to have reckless attack and rage). I just don't want to be the partially nude dude that gets a rage boner to kill fiends and the like. I want to be the heavily armored dude exploding in anger to kill said fiends. Unarmored Barbarians are quite rare in my experience. You need pretty good rolls to pull it off. In Point Buy or Standard array games, a Medium Armor wearing Barbarian is typically preferred.

And really only the Berserker and Battlerager are angry when raging. every other subclass has a supernatural source of rage. Which despite the name is more about being in an altered state of mind that makes you fight better, than actually being angry.

Also, unless you have something like a Berserker Axe or other magic item compelling you to attack you friends, you don't have too. Sociopathic players claiming to be CN probably still will though.


Is there a balancing issue? And even if it were, why are Paladin/Barbs targetted and not Paladin/Bards or Paladin/Sorcerer, some much more obvious and powerful synergies?

Those are still targeted since you can't cast spells or concentrate on spells while raging. At least the Paladin/Barbarian, can use spell slots to smite during a rage.

[Man_Over_Game]

You can enter a rage, but it doesn't do a lot.

Now, and this is debatable, look at the Bear totem's lvl 3 ability. Note how it doesn't have a "while you are not wearing heavy armor"-clause. The Eagle ability does.
My interpretation is that a Bear barbarian can wear heavy armor, rage and still get resistance to damage.

I know that The Craw hath ruled that all of the Totem abilities take place only while Raging, unless they state otherwise.

[GlenSmash!]

I know that The Craw hath ruled that all of the Totem abilities take place only while Raging, unless they state otherwise.

Certainly, the question is not can you do it while raging, but will you still gain this benefit while raging, but wearing Heavy Armor. Eagle is a certain no. Bear doesn't say one way or the other.

[Man_Over_Game]

Certainly, the question is not can you do it while raging, but will you still gain this benefit while raging, but wearing Heavy Armor. Eagle is a certain no. Bear doesn't say one way or the other.

Right, I literally mean that Crawford ruled that every instance that states "When you are Raging" has no effect while wearing Heavy Armor.

In other words, you can Rage while in heavy armor, but regardless of your subclass, abilities, or otherwise, it does literally nothing. You're an angry monkey screaming inside of a metal can.

RAW, it doesn't say there's any issues with it, I'm just presenting what the Lead Designer said what the intent was.

[GlenSmash!]

Right, I literally mean that Crawford ruled that every instance that states "When you are Raging" has no effect while wearing Heavy Armor.

In other words, you can Rage while in heavy armor, but regardless of your subclass, abilities, or otherwise, it does literally nothing. You're an angry monkey screaming inside of a metal can.

RAW, it doesn't say there's any issues with it, I'm just presenting what the Lead Designer said what the intent was.

Ah interesting. As far as RAW I still see only the level 2 ability rage, effects not working, but subclass effects that don't specify are up for grabs.

Makes not difference to me. I've never thrown Heavy armor on any of my many Barbs.

[Innocent_bystan]

Here's the relevant tweet: https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/801126631926468608

RAW: it's possible, RAI: it's not possible

Like I said earlier: it's debatable. -> ask your DM

[Spore]

And really only the Berserker and Battlerager are angry when raging. every other subclass has a supernatural source of rage. Which despite the name is more about being in an altered state of mind that makes you fight better, than actually being angry.


By historic example, rage at its very core is designed to emulate Germanic berserkers who abused hallucinogenic drugs to reach a state where they were able to ignore grievous wounds. Many of them died after battles though.

Often berserker or barbarian stands for a dude that doesn't really care about its defense as much as it just wildly swings at enemies until they are dead.

In a contrast, the 5e barbarian ironically is EXTREMELY defensive and offers one of the best defensive abilities in the game.


Until something comes from WotC, Half Plate weights 40lbs, gives 15 + Dex in AC, and is Rage-legal, so that's the best we got for now.

Although, a few ideas come to mind as possible alternatives you could talk to your DM about:
Raging while wearing heavy armor doesn't grant rage damage
Raging while wearing heavy armor requires your Bonus Action each turn.
Raging while wearing heavy armor makes you more reckless and a larger target, causing enemies to always have Advantage to attack you.

In this vein, I would probably ultimatively ask for the removal of the damage resistance (your permanent recklessness thing is close but it would allow for reckless attack to confer yet another penalty).

But yes, Half-Plate is a good enough compromise because I don't see epic adventuring maneuvers in an honest-to-god full plate anyway.

[Man_Over_Game]

In this vein, I would probably ultimatively ask for the removal of the damage resistance (your permanent recklessness thing is close but it would allow for reckless attack to confer yet another penalty).

Not quite. I added that as a bullet because of the fact that Advantage or Disadvantage doesn't stack. Having x2 Advantage doesn't do anything. If you had 3 sources of Advantage, and 1 source of Disadvantage, you roll as normal.

Effectively, the ruling just means you have to use Reckless Attack every turn. You no longer have a choice whether or not you're allowed to use Reckless Attack, it's "on". Period. Which is not necessarily a good thing when you're outnumbered (since your 1 attack with Advantage will mean a lot less against 4 attacks against you with Advantage).

[GlenSmash!]

By historic example, rage at its very core is designed to emulate Germanic berserkers who abused hallucinogenic drugs to reach a state where they were able to ignore grievous wounds. Many of them died after battles though.

Often berserker or barbarian stands for a dude that doesn't really care about its defense as much as it just wildly swings at enemies until they are dead.

In a contrast, the 5e barbarian ironically is EXTREMELY defensive and offers one of the best defensive abilities in the game.

Yup. This is a bit of cognitive dissonance between the historic context of the Berserker and the 5e implementation of the Barbarian. Simply put it's grown beyond its roots, much like the concept of the Ranger.

Although Reckless Attack at least does trade defense for offense well.

Really the 5e Barbarian isn't a "doesn't care about defense" guy he is a "doesn't care about getting hit" guy. Particularity the Zealot.

[Neknoh]

To add to the discussion on Half-plate and Breastplate:

Here are some examples of historical "half plate"

16th century 3/4 armour:
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4044/4275924850_d87b9deae5_z.jpg?zz=1
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/22/1d/67/221d6791c3b0c9105625fe6547cab7b0.png
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5b/20/f6/5b20f613266f649b66e9b83b9a547b43.png
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mharrsch/5740977067/

Here are some 15th century examples of partial armour:
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/1b/63/dd/1b63dd5777a41483afec56105c03ee51.jpg
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/HG5549/miniature-15th-century-the-hundred-years-war-siege-of-caen-by-edward-HG5549.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/bd/12/95/bd12952d203bcb25c729c22ecde8b163.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/47/de/9f/47de9f52e729a21a8ed8d7547d35362b.jpg

And here's a bunch of reenactors and larpers representing various forms of Half Plate and Breastplates
https://www.pinterest.se/nickshomenta/15th-century-infantry-w-plate/?lp=true
https://66.media.tumblr.com/93b4ad332425bf8f55326a71dc01f9f0/tumblr_inline_pdwf52cd4y1spp315_540.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4468/36595398464_4b8f964bfe_b.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/e0/74/37/e0743751ec13bb8a50ccad5b82e7241b.jpg
https://vk.com/wall-869292?offset=640&z=photo135359467_387824856/wall-869292_2041
http://www.ageofarmour.com/instock/heroic-armour.html
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/57/ec/c2/57ecc23f6cb150956d0a4cc69304a760.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/3c/97/72/3c9772ec3d7ac77149031f280635c96a.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/7e/77/fd/7e77fd01559f12ce6ba7b0243e0c3b59.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/a7/b2/6a/a7b26a37f971a9a420f247af9b472b84.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/17/60/cd/1760cd292d26f5998e1c122faecbb349.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ed/75/95/ed759512d71c00a853fa88fd4da167a7.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/fe/55/47/fe55472a4142f89d2dbe537c1a9b6074.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/9e/dd/d5/9eddd5da2c2c999b825b6168cabc5c1d.jpg

None of the above are "studded leather" or somesuch, they are all just differing forms of plate defenses, brigandines and coats of plate are just as plate-y as a breastplate or cuirass, except when hit by something like a lance or similar penetrating blow (which is why coats of plate fell out of use and brigandines were found more on infantry than cavalry).

TLDR:

Half Plate and Breastplate configurations are all absolutely enough to represent a paladin.