A Fix for the Medium Armor Meta

[strangebloke]

So its easy to get medium armor proficiency and shields. I would argue, too easy. It's one thing if you're taking moderately armored. That's a very good feat for some classes, particularly rogues and bards and warlocks, who already get light armor and thus can take it as a feat. It's a bit more wild when a wizard or sorcerer is just grabbing a level of hexblade or cleric.

Getting shields and medium armor is a huge bonus to AC. In most cases getting both will improve your AC by 4-5, a massive jump, and the opportunity cost (a half-feat or a single-level MC that gives you loads of other goodies) is simply not that high. IMO, from a pure optimization standpoint, this is a bit too easy, and weakens these archetypes by making it to easy for them to have good armor.

I realize some of you don't see this as an issue, but assuming you do, what would be a way to restrict this kind of thing without an awkwardly-worded or unclear phrasing? "No 1-level dips" seems fine superficially, but is that merely saying "take 2 levels of hexblade?"

Of course part of the problem here is that cleric and hexblade don't actually give you proficiencies via multiclassing, its a first level subclass feature (such features are always a mistake, change my mind)

[Talionis]

Why does Hexblade feel dirtier as a one level dip than Cleric?

I agree the feat is an appropriate cost and feels balanced.

The worst part about Hexblade is when the character isn’t trying to be a Gish and took Hexblade as an easy way to get armor proficiency. I guess they do the same with Cleric and it doesn’t feel as bad.

I would have split the level one Hexblade powers and moved half to replace the Shade ability.

[sithlordnergal]

Sooo...while I agree with you that its incredibly easy to get Medium Armor...at the same time, its probably even easier to get Heavy Armor proficiency thanks to Fighter. A Wizard is almost always better off AC wise going Fighter 1 with the Defense Fighting Style over starting as a Wizard. If you make it harder to get Medium Armor, you'll find people just take Heavy Armor instead. That said, I can agree with changing up Hexblade. Most of the Hexblade's 1st level features should have been built into Pact of the Blade.

[Second Wind]

One level of Life cleric gets you heavy armor and bolstered healing spells, and doesn't slow your spell slot progression. It's notorious for good reason.

[Amechra]

Honestly? The solution is as simple as it is controversial: you aren't allowed to cast Sorcerer or Wizard spells while wearing medium or heavy armor. Done.

[sophontteks]

A level dip or fear seems an appropriate cost. These are expensive choices.

[CheddarChampion]

I don't think there's a problem that needs to be fixed here, at least not a specific one about medium armor.

But if you as a DM feel the need to restrict it, you can say
"No multiclass dipping for armor proficiency" or
"If you're a multiclass character, you only have proficiency in armor that both of your classes have proficiency in" or
"No multiclassing" or
"If you want to multiclass, you have to take levels evenly divided between your classes" or
"No feats or races that give armor proficiency" or
any combination of those. For justification, "I think it is too strong."

I think there's less of a problem where medium armor + shield proficiency is too easy to get and more of a problem with multiclassing being a stronger option for some classes and not others.
I think it's a shame that a wizard that dips a fighter level or two gets more out of multiclassing than a fighter that dips a wizard level or two. I don't know how to fix that though.

[strangebloke]

Why does Hexblade feel dirtier as a one level dip than Cleric?
I don't think it feels that much dirtier.

But what does bother me more is that while most characters worship a god and thus can sort of justify a level of cleric (though it makes no sense why their sudden fit of piety allows them to wear armor) the hexblade patron is kind of inherently obscure and I can't think of an in-character way to justify it. Like... how did you come into contact with one of the dark powers again?



Sooo...while I agree with you that its incredibly easy to get Medium Armor...at the same time, its probably even easier to get Heavy Armor proficiency thanks to Fighter. A Wizard is almost always better off AC wise going Fighter 1 with the Defense Fighting Style over starting as a Wizard. If you make it harder to get Medium Armor, you'll find people just take Heavy Armor instead. That said, I can agree with changing up Hexblade. Most of the Hexblade's 1st level features should have been built into Pact of the Blade.
Can't believe I forgot the fighter! Overall fighter/cleric/hexblade/rogue are the insane dip classes. Barbarian and monk would be up there too if not for the built-in anti-synergy.

Personally I think the cleric level gives more to the classes that really want armor. For any class that's not built around having heavy armor, medium armor is better. Clerics don't lose you any spell slot progression and then too clerics have loads of random subclass goodies at level 1. Forge Cleric for example gives you as much AC as fighter would.

And yes, if the hexblade features need to exist (personally I'd say just medium armor is fine along with weapons, the Cha to attack and damage is uneccesary) they should have been rolled into pact of the blade. Arguably this could be one part of a multi-prong fix.

One level of Life cleric gets you heavy armor and bolstered healing spells, and doesn't slow your spell slot progression. It's notorious for good reason.
Yeah, its annoying because its really good and can be imo somewhat lacking in flavor. Had a wizard who wanted to take a level of Boccob Cleric. When I said "Your character doesn't worship a god." He replied, "Boccob wouldn't care though." :smallsigh:

[Second Wind]

The armor situation is bizarre when you look at realism instead of tropes. Why would anyone crawl a dungeon without armor? Yes, yes, wizards are supposed to wear silly hats instead of helmets, and bathrobes instead of mail. But that's only a smidge less ridiculous than chainmail bikinis. You're asking for an arrow to pierce your vitals.

Proficiency-based gatekeeping would make sense if armor were so very complicated to learn to wear. But, uh, it's not.

[jas61292]

Honestly? The solution is as simple as it is controversial: you aren't allowed to cast Sorcerer or Wizard spells while wearing medium or heavy armor. Done.

Personally, I like this, though I would probably go even further and say you aren't allowed to cast any spells in armor more than one category higher than what the class that gives you the spells gives you proficiency in. No medium armor Wizards or Sorcs, and no heavy armor Bard or Warlocks.

Heck, I'd be tempted to go even further than that and just say that if a class does not give you proficiency with an armor, you can't cast its spells in that armor at all. Defense is supposed to be a weakness for casters. It should not be a trivial thing to circumvent.

[OldTrees1]

Who does this effect? Very weird Monks, Strength Rogues (Dex Rogues get lesser effect), and Mages(Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard).

Can this be summarized as a Mage taking a 1 level martial/divine dip to learn how to use Medium Armor and Shields?

[MrCharlie]

Honestly? The solution is as simple as it is controversial: you aren't allowed to cast Sorcerer or Wizard spells while wearing medium or heavy armor. Done.
Which is why it's a bad solution. It limits character options.

The real solution is that there is no solution. Feats and casting progression are both expensive costs.

[strangebloke]

Honestly? The solution is as simple as it is controversial: you aren't allowed to cast Sorcerer or Wizard spells while wearing medium or heavy armor. Done.
This does work, although it does get rid of some edge cases I'm fine with like hobgoblins and githyanki who take moderately armored.

hmm.

Actually, what if we just said that sorcerer and wizard spells can't be cast with a shield in hand?

A level dip or fear seems an appropriate cost. These are expensive choices.
In T1? Unthinkably high. In T2? Still a big cost?

In T3? No, not expensive at all. All you're doing is delaying your spells known by one level, and you only have one slot for that new level anyway.

I don't think there's a problem that needs to be fixed here, at least not a specific one about medium armor.

But if you as a DM feel the need to restrict it, you can say
"No multiclass dipping for armor proficiency" or
"If you're a multiclass character, you only have proficiency in armor that both of your classes have proficiency in" or
"No multiclassing" or
"If you want to multiclass, you have to take levels evenly divided between your classes" or
"No feats or races that give armor proficiency" or
any combination of those. For justification, "I think it is too strong."

I think there's less of a problem where medium armor + shield proficiency is too easy to get and more of a problem with multiclassing being a stronger option for some classes and not others.
I think it's a shame that a wizard that dips a fighter level or two gets more out of multiclassing than a fighter that dips a wizard level or two. I don't know how to fix that though.
You're correct here, I think my favorite picks is the bolded one. Very elegant (though might need a little work. I will think about this tomorrow.)

The armor situation is bizarre when you look at realism instead of tropes. Why would anyone crawl a dungeon without armor? Yes, yes, wizards are supposed to wear silly hats instead of helmets, and bathrobes instead of mail. But that's only a smidge less ridiculous than chainmail bikinis. You're asking for an arrow to pierce your vitals.

Proficiency-based gatekeeping would make sense if armor were so very complicated to learn to wear. But, uh, it's not.

If we ran on realism, armor proficiency wouldn't be a thing to begin with, but DND runs on tropes though, not realism. Thank goodness for that.

Who does this effect? Very weird Monks, Strength Rogues (Dex Rogues get lesser effect), and Mages(Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard).

Can this be summarized as a Mage taking a 1 level martial/divine dip to learn how to use Medium Armor and Shields?
That's the core of what's most annoying to me yes.

Which is why it's a bad solution. It limits character options.

The real solution is that there is no solution. Feats and casting progression are both expensive costs.
You don't lose casting progression from dipping cleric. You lose spells known progression. Which isn't that big a deal for say a sorcerer who isn't getting any more spells known by t3 anyway.

[OldTrees1]

That's the core of what's most annoying to me yes.

While eldritch knights don't annoy me, have you considered:

Bard, Sorcerer, and Wizard gain permanent Mage Armor at 3rd class level and arcane spells of 5th level and higher can't be cast in armor.

I omitted Warlock from the list because they could have medium armor proficiency, but you could add them to the list if you see fit.

[Tanarii]

How about something like: gain one level of armor proficiency if the new class is better than the worst of your old classes, up to a maximum of your best class.

In other words, a Wizard Multiclassing Fighter gets light armor. If they later add Rogue, they go to Medium. If they later add Ranger they get Heavy armor.

Alternative wording would be your second best class's proficiency plus one level of armor proficiency, up to a maximum of your best class.

[strangebloke]

How about something like: gain one level of armor proficiency if the new class is better than the worst of your old classes, up to a maximum of your best class.

In other words, a Wizard Multiclassing Fighter gets light armor. If they later add Rogue, they go to Medium. If they later add Ranger they get Heavy armor.

Alternative wording would be your second best class's proficiency plus one level of armor proficiency, up to a maximum of your best class.

I really like this idea but I'm a little wary because you end up with people just taking the 1 level dip first if they roll up a high level character. "I'm a cleric 1/sorcerer 12!"

[Sorinth]

One option might to to say you can't cast spells if you don't meet the strength requirement and then add a strength requirement of say 13 to Medium Armor and/or Shields. It doesn't prevent the issue but it does make those builds more MAD and likely will weakens them in some other way.

That said I'm not actually a fan of armor preventing spellcasting, so a better option might be to impose disadvantage on concentration checks. This makes it a more interesting decision as there's a real cost for builds that want to do it.

[ftafp]

Why does Hexblade feel dirtier as a one level dip than Cleric?

I think the reason Hexblade feels dirtier is a compound of issues. For years after it was introduced it was simply the best warlock subclass, and the fact that all its best abilities were in the first level meant that literally any charisma caster was immediately better off taking a level of it. This in itself wouldn't have been a problem, but because wotc made their patron so vague and their fluff non-existent, you had a subclass that multiple classes wanted one level of with no flavor baggage that ultimately only existed only to make builds "powergamer-ey".

It was literally the most despicable thing possible to a community of players who collectively decided that learning how to play the game effectively was toxic, exploitative behavior. Even I'm not free of that, still preferring to avoid hexblade in my builds because of the stigma I absorbed through osmosis

[SLOTHRPG95]

So its easy to get medium armor proficiency and shields. I would argue, too easy. It's one thing if you're taking moderately armored. That's a very good feat for some classes, particularly rogues and bards and warlocks, who already get light armor and thus can take it as a feat. It's a bit more wild when a wizard or sorcerer is just grabbing a level of hexblade or cleric.

Getting shields and medium armor is a huge bonus to AC. In most cases getting both will improve your AC by 4-5, a massive jump, and the opportunity cost (a half-feat or a single-level MC that gives you loads of other goodies) is simply not that high. IMO, from a pure optimization standpoint, this is a bit too easy, and weakens these archetypes by making it to easy for them to have good armor.

I realize some of you don't see this as an issue, but assuming you do, what would be a way to restrict this kind of thing without an awkwardly-worded or unclear phrasing? "No 1-level dips" seems fine superficially, but is that merely saying "take 2 levels of hexblade?"

Of course part of the problem here is that cleric and hexblade don't actually give you proficiencies via multiclassing, its a first level subclass feature (such features are always a mistake, change my mind)

The admittedly draconian solution is just not to allow multiclassing, or no multiclassing of certain combinations (i.e. the ones that give better armor proficiency). Then drop the granted shield proficiency from Moderately Armored, and call it a day. Less extreme but more subjective (and time-consuming for the DM) is to vet any proposed multiclass or feat choice, and allow on a case-by-case basis.


Sooo...while I agree with you that its incredibly easy to get Medium Armor...at the same time, its probably even easier to get Heavy Armor proficiency thanks to Fighter. A Wizard is almost always better off AC wise going Fighter 1 with the Defense Fighting Style over starting as a Wizard. If you make it harder to get Medium Armor, you'll find people just take Heavy Armor instead. That said, I can agree with changing up Hexblade. Most of the Hexblade's 1st level features should have been built into Pact of the Blade.

The speed drop for using decent heavy armor is rough, though. And honestly, if I had a player who started Fighter (delaying their Wizard spell progression) AND invested a 15 into Str knowing they'd be spending most of their time casting spells, I'd probably be fine with them running around in chainmail or whatever.


Honestly? The solution is as simple as it is controversial: you aren't allowed to cast Sorcerer or Wizard spells while wearing medium or heavy armor. Done.

Feels pretty bad for the Mountain Dwarf Sorcerer or Wizard who got that proficiency from just picking one of the basic PHB (sub)races. No optional feats/multiclassing involved. They're not even getting that great of an AC compared to a High Elf or Forest Gnome just casting mage armor.


One option might to to say you can't cast spells if you don't meet the strength requirement and then add a strength requirement of say 13 to Medium Armor and/or Shields. It doesn't prevent the issue but it does make those builds more MAD and likely will weakens them in some other way.

That said I'm not actually a fan of armor preventing spellcasting, so a better option might be to impose disadvantage on concentration checks. This makes it a more interesting decision as there's a real cost for builds that want to do it.

I like the strength requirement idea, although I agree no spellcasting might be a bit harsh. Also, maybe for medium armor the strength requirement could vary based off the AC bonus it provides? So you need no Str for hide armor (just like ring mail), 13 for chain shirt/scale mail/shields, and 14 for breastplate/half plate? Still slightly less of a Str investment on the high end compared to heavy armor, but not a flat 13 from hide to half plate.

[Psyren]

Personally, I like this, though I would probably go even further and say you aren't allowed to cast any spells in armor more than one category higher than what the class that gives you the spells gives you proficiency in. No medium armor Wizards or Sorcs, and no heavy armor Bard or Warlocks.



Actually, what if we just said that sorcerer and wizard spells can't be cast with a shield in hand?


These two are my favorite so far. I especially like that the second one allows for an animated shield, should the character want to go out of their way to invest in one.

[Eldariel]

From an optimisation perspective, those half level higher spells are generally worth more than AC so I wouldn't say this is a problem in that sense. If it doesn't tickle your fancy though, I can see trying to fix it, as well as if you plan to buff armor (add some DR to it or something). I think the bigger problem is that shields are better on casters than non-casters; non-casters have to pay the very real cost of having to wield one-handed weapons locking them out of most of the strong weapon feats and options if they go shield. Meanwhile, casters have...ehh, no real costs since all you need is one hand for somatics and materials (the rules are explicit in that you can do both with one hand if needed) so you've got a hand free anyways and that's free +2 AC. This isn't a dip-based issue but it's a core issue with Clerics, Hexblades, Artificers, Valor Bards & Druids. They simply pay less for having high AC than warriors.

[sithlordnergal]

So, I'm personally against making it so armor prevents arcane casting, simply because 3.5 had a somewhat similar system. Instead of saying no casting in armor you had a chance of your spell failing, and each set of armor had a different chance of a spell failing. And it was...needlessly complicated.

[Witty Username]

Heat metal

[JackPhoenix]

Which is why it's a bad solution. It limits character options.

Good. Some things should not have been an option in the first place.

[MoiMagnus]

IMO, you should never win medium/heavy armor proficiency out of nowhere.

Except for level 1, I'd replace every "you get heavy armor proficiency" by "your armor proficiency increase by one rank" and "you get medium armor and shield proficiency" by "your armor proficiency increase by one rank, maximum rank 2" where:

Rank 0: no armor
Rank 1: light armor
Rank 2: medium armor + shield
Rank 3: heavy armor

=> Wizard and Sorcerer would need to take TWO armor increasing feats/classes dips to get up to Rank 2.

[Kane0]

In most cases getting both will improve your AC by 4-5, a massive jump, and the opportunity cost (a half-feat or a single-level MC that gives you loads of other goodies) is simply not that high.

I disagree, however my position is based on experience and thus anecdotal.



I realize some of you don't see this as an issue, but assuming you do, what would be a way to restrict this kind of thing without an awkwardly-worded or unclear phrasing? "No 1-level dips" seems fine superficially, but is that merely saying "take 2 levels of hexblade?"

Of course part of the problem here is that cleric and hexblade don't actually give you proficiencies via multiclassing, its a first level subclass feature (such features are always a mistake, change my mind)

I believe your argument is more against those particular routes to armor + shield prof than the profs themselves. So address those specifically.

Hexblade is an egregious 1 level dip indeed, a popular modification is moving some of its benefits to blade pact at level 3 to more accurately address what the hexblade was created to do (make bladelocks more viable).

Cleric 1 domain armor profs are a different matter, and I contest that you can simply downgrade all clerical armor profs by 1 step and they would still be very desirable (and more distinctly separated from both paladins and druids in doing so). If that isnt something youre interested in perhaps remove the ability to cast with a holy symbol on your shield or remove the offending proficiencies from domains that really dont need it (war i think is the only one truly justified myself).

[Warder]

At the table I play at, this has never been an issue and I think it's because we attach roleplaying responsibilities (or maybe consequences?) to both warlock and cleric. You can't just pick up a level of those classes, reap the rewards and go on with your life - they come with patrons who expect things from you in return. That means that making those choices makes those classes a big part of your character's identity, and that tends to be a weightier concern than some extra points of AC.

[Slider Eclipse]

While I don't see this as an Issue myself. I think it's more of a matter of Medium Armor being the only thing actually designed well.

Light Armor gives you basically nothing in exchange for no Dex cap and generally everyone can wear it. this becomes a bit of an issue when Dex caps out at +5 and you have no "Light Armor Master" Feat to help it improve. Now consider a Breastplate can get to 17 AC with the Medium Armor feat and Half Plate gets to 18 AC while only requiring 16 Dex.... Light Armor is only getting 17 AC at 20 Dex which is something you'll only see at high level optimization and even then only on A Rouge or Fighter that chose to specialize in a Finesse weapon.

Meanwhile Heavy Armor gets that 18 AC for free while only needing 15 Str (and only if you don't have a feature to negate this requirement).. but that Plate costs 1500 Gold which is absurdly expensive for a character to afford and still be able to stay relevant in other resources like Weapon upgrades or Potions until close to the end of your average campaign. Heavy Armor is also the hardest proficiency to obtain for most characters as unless you're ok starting as a Fighter or Paladin you'll have to either burn a level on a Cleric Dip (Meaning you needed to invest in 13 Wis just to access it.. Cleric is the only Wisdom class that wants Armor outside of Rangers) or spend an ASI on it... at which point why not go for Half Plate and the Medium Armor Feat? you get the same AC but at a much cheaper price point.

All this adds up to one thing, Heavy Armor is good, but prohibitively expensive in both Gold and Mechanics, while Light Armor is too costly in Stats and under supported by the system. This in turn pigeon holes AC optimization towards Medium Armor because the game just does not properly support the other two.

[Tanarii]

IM(limited)X almost no characters take MAM / 16 Dex. It's almost universally better to spend your ASIs elsewhere if you wear medium armor if you are a non-martial, or to change to heavy armor and dump Dex or go with light armor and maximize Dex if you are a martial.

OTOH my limited experience with feats was in AL, and that's a breeding ground for optimization. If something isn't commonly done there, it's probably not optimal.

And I disagree about Medium armor being optimal other than that too. It's the "fallback" armor.

It's only with multiclassing dips that it becomes an issue. Those classes are intended to be low AC. For arcane nuke classes (sorcerer, warlock, Wizard) with Shield the proficiency, it's usually a 5-6pt AC gain (from AC 12-13 to AC 18). Even without a shield it's still 3-4 point AC gain.

[Yakk]

MAM is worth +2 AC if you care about stealth and was wearing medium armor.

With 16 Dex we have:
Light: 15 AC
Medium: 16 AC
Medium Clanky: 17 AC
MAM: 18 AC

Heavy Clanky: 18 AC (15 str required or -10 ft movement)

The real problem is you have to care enough about dex to hit 16, but not enough to hit 20, for MAM to be worth more than +1 AC.

So MAM is a red herring.

A 14 dex wizard or sorcerer can spend 1 spell slot and spell known to hit 15 AC with mage armor. Getting medium armor ups this to 16, getting shields ups this to 18 (+enhancement), and saves you 1 spell known/level 1 slot per day (+1 if you accept stealth disadvantage).

If you find this a problem:
1. Add a Str 13 requirement to Half Plate/Breastplate or Shields
2. Restrict sorcerer/wizard spellcasting to not work with a Shield.
or, my personal favorite:
3. Make the Shield spell act as a Shield, and not add to it.

The last one is very subtle. AC optimizing on casters stacks enchanted armor, an enchanted shield, and the shield spell to get really high AC. If the shield spell's +5 doesn't stack with enchanted shields, a +3 shield adding +5 and the shield spell adding +5 just save you from burning level 1 spell slots.

It single-handedly makes most of the AC-cap breaking optimizations in 5e fade away. I mean, you can still pull it off crazy AC with a swords bard, but that is doing some build effort.

[Gtdead]

Shield is the actual offender. You can easily create a 16 AC mage but that's where it tops (unless you are crazy enough to pump dex) so it's not like Medium Armor is that significant enough (+1 to CON mod and +1 AC isn't worth losing a level of spell progression). It certainly isn't worth any feat investment, even if you could completely bypass the Light Armor prof requirement.

Also we need to consider the "promise" of stacking enhanced armor and shield.

A wizard with wizard specific items can get what? 15 AC from Archmagi Robes + 2 from Bracers + 3 from DEX = 20. And both these items require attunement. On the other hand we can get +3 half plate and +3 shield for a total of 18+5+2 = 25 armor without attunement.

A possible solution would be to make enhancement boni not stack for AC (across the board, AC stacking is currently the worst offender that breaks bounded accuracy) and give spell failure when holding a shield.

This would limit the multiclassed wizard to a starting AC of 17 with the possibility of Bracers and a +3 Half Plate for a total of 22 and the loss of an attunement slot (Bracers) which is a significant drop from the current 19-25 range that doesn't require attunement. It's still worth the dip, but now the other class features become vastly more important.

[heavyfuel]

Perhaps a more elegant solution is that you may only cast spells in armor that your class gives proficiency.

Bards may only cast Bard spells in Light Armor because that's the proficiency that Bard class gives them. If they dip Hexblade, they can cast Hexblade spells in Medium Armor, but not Bard spells.

It would invalidate some builds (including my favourite build in 5e so far, the Iron Wizard), but it's still a change I wish they make for 5.5e

[Kurt Kurageous]

...when you look at realism instead of tropes.

That way leads to madness.

AC by armor and shields is a legacy from the origins of D&D. We all want a perfect blend of realism and tropes/fantasy. What we have is D&D. It would be a whole new combat system (An attack roll contested by DEX+bonuses save to dodge to hit, and armor only reduces damage taken, for example).

[Mjolnirbear]

Removing shields gained via multiclassing seems the easiest and least complicated solution. Or, better, make shields incompatible with casting unless you have the Holy Symbol Shield class feature.

Or, y'know, let the players play what they want. Gishes are very popular. Why fight that?

There's also no real reason, aside from tradition, to limit armour to divine casters but not arcane casters (bard and lock technically excepted, since all light armours are worse than Mage Armour.) Why do divine casters get medium or heavy armours? They don't need it more than arcane casters. You can play a blasty cleric with no healing spells in full plate, but the support wizard must not be permitted armour or healing, goodness gracious!

What are we worried about? Fireball? Even the EK can get it. Light cleric, one version of the wildfire druid... It's on the Artillerist list too, right?

It doesn't really matter though. If the problem is "but Wizard Spell!!" my response is gonna be "but bard, who can have that spell and medium armour".

If they pay the opportunity cost to get the armour they want, it's fine. And balanced. The game won't die.

[quindraco]

So its easy to get medium armor proficiency and shields. I would argue, too easy. It's one thing if you're taking moderately armored. That's a very good feat for some classes, particularly rogues and bards and warlocks, who already get light armor and thus can take it as a feat. It's a bit more wild when a wizard or sorcerer is just grabbing a level of hexblade or cleric.

Getting shields and medium armor is a huge bonus to AC. In most cases getting both will improve your AC by 4-5, a massive jump, and the opportunity cost (a half-feat or a single-level MC that gives you loads of other goodies) is simply not that high. IMO, from a pure optimization standpoint, this is a bit too easy, and weakens these archetypes by making it to easy for them to have good armor.

I realize some of you don't see this as an issue, but assuming you do, what would be a way to restrict this kind of thing without an awkwardly-worded or unclear phrasing? "No 1-level dips" seems fine superficially, but is that merely saying "take 2 levels of hexblade?"

Of course part of the problem here is that cleric and hexblade don't actually give you proficiencies via multiclassing, its a first level subclass feature (such features are always a mistake, change my mind)

Supposing I wanted to do something like what you're suggesting - nerf access to armor proficiency - I'd remove it as a class feature entirely, so no classes grant armor proficiency, then grant everyone proficiency based on a prerequisite structure; something like this:

Light Armor: Dex 11 or Str 11
Medium Armor: Dex 13 or Str 13
Heavy Armor: Str 15

Where Medium Armor proficiency comes with Shield proficiency.

[strangebloke]

What would people think of the following:

hex warrior is rolled into the blade pact feature
If you are a multiclass character, you can only use shields if you have five or more levels in a class that grants shield proficiency (including via ASI)




I disagree, however my position is based on experience and thus anecdotal.
I mean isn't that all of us?

But as an example, if you're a sorcerer who picked a non-dex race (say a dragonborn) a single level of cleric

removes the need for mage armor
gives you loads of first level spells know, probably increases your spells known by half and lets you safely get rid of most of your sorcerer first level spells
pops your AC from 15 to 19 or 20 instantly.

It's a huge swing and I've seen it in practice.


I believe your argument is more against those particular routes to armor + shield prof than the profs themselves. So address those specifically.

Hexblade is an egregious 1 level dip indeed, a popular modification is moving some of its benefits to blade pact at level 3 to more accurately address what the hexblade was created to do (make bladelocks more viable).

Cleric 1 domain armor profs are a different matter, and I contest that you can simply downgrade all clerical armor profs by 1 step and they would still be very desirable (and more distinctly separated from both paladins and druids in doing so). If that isnt something youre interested in perhaps remove the ability to cast with a holy symbol on your shield or remove the offending proficiencies from domains that really dont need it (war i think is the only one truly justified myself).
That's probably a fair point. If the problem is just 1 class and 1 subclass, there's no reason you can't just change how those classes specifically work with multiclassing. And there's no great loss here, as a wizard is almost never multiclassing cleric outside of a one level dip.

Heat metal
I don't think punishing players for build choices by tailoring encounters against them is something you want to be doing all that often. Also, heat metal doesn't really do that much to a caster besides damage them and force concentration.

IM(limited)X almost no characters take MAM / 16 Dex. It's almost universally better to spend your ASIs elsewhere if you wear medium armor if you are a non-martial, or to change to heavy armor and dump Dex or go with light armor and maximize Dex if you are a martial.
I've seen MAM taken once on a vhuman dexadin. It let him get 21 AC by level two without sacrificing stealth or needing to focus DEX, which seemed like pretty good value overall. Not overpowered, but reasonable.

Overall though AL tends to prioritize DPR over everything from what I've seen because its rarely challenging enough that defenses matter. So its more about having the biggest impact on the board than on the team staying alive.

Shield is the actual offender. You can easily create a 16 AC mage but that's where it tops (unless you are crazy enough to pump dex) so it's not like Medium Armor is that significant enough (+1 to CON mod and +1 AC isn't worth losing a level of spell progression). It certainly isn't worth any feat investment, even if you could completely bypass the Light Armor prof requirement.

Oh agreed completely. Medium armor by itself would just be one or two AC. Significant but not insane. And really, I think that conceptually a wizard in plate is less discordant to me than a wizard with a shield.



It would invalidate some builds (including my favourite build in 5e so far, the Iron Wizard), but it's still a change I wish they make for 5.5e
It's elegant but I agree that it has a significant cost.

[Psyren]

hex warrior is rolled into the blade pact feature

I'm fine with this.



If you are a multiclass character, you can only use shields if you have five or more levels in a class that grants shield proficiency (including via ASI)

Do you mean "cast with shields" here, or use them at all?