3 houserules, are they good for the game?

[Witty Username]

So, watching YouTube videos about D&D and came across a video suggesting these houserules for the game:
1. Ban the shield spell.
2. A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.*
3. When you use the attack action to make an attack using a weapon or unarmed strike you can choose to take a -5 penalty to that attack. If that attack hits, you add +10 to the damage roll. **

For the sake of clarity
*this essentially means you need to get armor though the base class or subclass
So a paladin can cast their spells in heavy armor.
A bladesinger can cast spells in light armor.
A Fighter 1/ sorcerer x can't cast leveled spells in armor.
**the video creator noted that during their playtest, no one took GWM or Sharpshooter, but would recommend not allowing them to stack with the attack action house rule. The feats do still provide value for bonus action attacks and reaction attacks, which were deliberately left out of the house rule to keep martials less pressured into using their bonus action for attacks. Oh, and in later discussion the creator clarified that this houserule only applies to PCs, not monsters, NPCs or summoned creatures.

How useful are these houserules?
What are their effects on the game?

[Sigreid]

So, watching YouTube videos about D&D and came across a video suggesting these houserules for the game:
1. Ban the shield spell.
2. A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.*
3. When you use the attack action to make an attack using a weapon or unarmed strike you can choose to take a -5 penalty to that attack. If that attack hits, you add +10 to the damage roll. **

For the sake of clarity
*this essentially means you need to get armor though the base class or subclass
So a paladin can cast their spells in heavy armor.
A bladesinger can cast spells in light armor.
A Fighter 1/ sorcerer x can't cast leveled spells in armor.
**the video creator noted that during their playtest, no one took GWM or Sharpshooter, but would recommend not allowing them to stack with the attack action house rule. The feats do still provide value for bonus action attacks and reaction attacks, which were deliberately left out of the house rule to keep martials less pressured into using their bonus action for attacks. Oh, and in later discussion the creator clarified that this houserule only applies to PCs, not monsters, NPCs or summoned creatures.

How useful are these houserules?
What are their effects on the game?

1. So you want no defense at all against Magic Missile? I have no idea why this spell would be considered a problem.
2. What if the spellcaster burns feats for armor proficiency? As a DM I see this as unnecessary and as a player it would shut down some concepts.
3. Makes certain feats less than desirable and gives one of the key features people complain about in those feats to every one with every weapon.

These would not suit my gaming style. That said, if they appeal to you, try them out with your group. If the table as a whole finds them too undesirable, you still have the option to drop the house rules that aren't working out.

[Yora]

These seem like responses to issues that came up during a specific campaign. How good these changes are depends mostly on what they were supposed to address.

[Witty Username]

These seem like responses to issues that came up during a specific campaign. How good these changes are depends mostly on what they were supposed to address.

Isn't that all houserules?

@sigreid
On the magic missile thing, sure, but I have never seen shield used to block a magic missile spell. I have seen shield cast in just about every encounter in my game, and the last 2 games I played.

[RSP]

What are you trying to accomplish with these? They sound like they’re targeting multiclassing casters. Is that a problem in your games?

[Sigreid]

Isn't that all houserules?

Not really. Sometimes they exist just to create a specific setting. For example, one of my group is currently running a campaign where no one has magic, but magic bushes grow that sprout seeds that can be combined for spell effects. So the house rules aren't in response to some issue, but needed to facilitate the setting premise.

[OldTrees1]

Isn't that all houserules?

If all houserules are as context specific as "These seem like responses to issues that came up during a specific campaign." then houserules are not very portable as advice. You would first need to check if both playgroups are prone to the same specific context.

In this case I suspect the houserules stem from 2 contexts.
1) Nerfing the AC of spellcasters (particularly arcanists) might be thematic or due to a heavily armored mage. Do you encounter those in your playgroup? Are they an issue for your playgroup? In what way and is reducing their AC sufficient?
2) The -5/+10 sounds like someone was tired of people picking GWM and Sharpshooter for the -5/+10 as if it were a tax, so they tested separating it as a combat feature instead of part of a feat. Do you encounter this feeling of a tax in your playgroup? Would it be worthwhile testing granting this for free?

Personally I don't share the context and thus would not adopt these houserules without another reason.

How useful? Depends, did you have this shared context?
What effect? Mage AC is lowered and Martial DPS is increased.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

1. So you want no defense at all against Magic Missile? I have no idea why this spell would be considered a problem.
2. What if the spellcaster burns feats for armor proficiency? As a DM I see this as unnecessary and as a player it would shut down some concepts.
3. Makes certain feats less than desirable and gives one of the key features people complain about in those feats to every one with every weapon.

These would not suit my gaming style. That said, if they appeal to you, try them out with your group. If the table as a whole finds them too undesirable, you still have the option to drop the house rules that aren't working out.

This is funny in that our other DM came across this video and I was considering making a post asking the same question. I was particularly interested in what Multiclassses would still be good and what would be basically gone as a result. I'd think most Dex based mulitis would still be good, but Strength based or dips just to get heavy armor would be out.

Anyway, my take on the rules:

1 and 2 together: I think the intent is for martials to have the ability to have the best AC in the game. That, I do agree with. When a high level full caster not only has all the benefits of spellcasting, but also the slots to burn to cast shield at will on top of the best armor in the game that adds to the balance problem.
1: I'd be OK with a ban, but I might suggest something like a modification to Shield: the caster has to declare the reaction when they are attacked before they know if the attack hits.
Edit: I do think some of the perceived issue with this spell is caused by a short adventuring day. 6-8 encounters, many of these combative with multiple rounds does add to the cost of this spell. Though, at high levels I can see the issue.
2: This is the rule I'd most agree with the intent of. 1 level of Cleric, Fighter, Artificer... to allow the other classes spells to be cast in armor just doesn't sit well with me. I would agree with Sigreid in that my first thought was that in a game that allowed feats I'd still let players spend those on Feats to buy armor proficiency. This represents a more significant investment and I'm fine with it.
Edit: One other thing that occurs to me is that the way the houserule is written actually stops multiclass casting in armor that would be acceptable for 2 single classes. For example if a Heavy Armor Cleric takes some Paladin levels the Paladin only provides medium armor; I'd think there'd need to be a clarification that in this case the character could still cast both sets of spells in Heavy armor.
3: I don't really see the need for this and wouldn't implement it. Martials still do tons of single target damage in our games.
Edit: To add to this I'd say our table already sees a variety of martials, including those who use shields. Though with the power creep of now being able to start with an 18 and 1/2 feat I can see more characters having the freedom to sacrifice an ASI for GWM sooner. I do think a lot of people don't realize the power attack is really a -6/+9 until your attack attribute is maxed. I'd also say we tend to have some magic at our table, and shields will tend to be worth more than a +2 by tier 2/3. The only thing we've seen as an issue with martials has to do with ranged attacks, largely due to Archery style being better than all others and mitigating the penalty of taking the power attack.

[Greywander]

I saw that video as well. Here are my thoughts.

1. It's probably easiest and simplest to ban something than to fix it, but I'd rather fix it than ban it. What I might do is change Shield to just give +3 AC, but it scales if you upcast it, giving an additional +1 AC per level. (This also makes it more useful for straight-classed Hexblade warlocks, where it didn't really make sense for them to get Shield before.) But another thing to consider is if you're determined to take casters out of armor, then it might make sense to leave Shield as-is. The problem seems to be mainly having access to both at the same time, so I don't know that it's necessary to remove both. Of the two, it makes more sense to me to leave in the Shield spell for casters, and try to take them out of armor. That said, banning Shield is the easier of the two to do.

2. My main beef with this is that it makes non-class armor proficiencies essentially worthless. Martial characters already get all the armor proficiencies they need, unless you just really wanted to play a STR rogue or something, so casters are the only ones who would really benefit from these in the first place. If armor proficiencies gained from feats or racial abilities don't allow spellcasting, then what use are they? I can't help but think that this rule was coming from the place of someone who was used to 3.x and never quite got used to the way 5e handles it. Personally, I think the rules for casting in armor are fine as-is, instead I would look at making it more difficult to get armor proficiencies. If someone is spending a feat for armor proficiencies, then IMO they've paid a steep enough price. I think multiclassing is the main issue, as you get a lot more than armor proficiencies out of multiclassing. You could, for example, delay getting multiclass proficiencies until you've put at least three levels into that class. That said, you would probably just see more people starting as a 1st level fighter or cleric then immediately multiclassing into another caster.

3. I think this rule is fine. A lot of people feel like they have to take GWM or Sharpshooter, so this removes a "feat tax". And generally, I think a buff will be better received than a nerf. Nerfing should be reserved when something is actually causing problems, not just when something is unusually strong.

[Witty Username]

What are you trying to accomplish with these? They sound like they’re targeting multiclassing casters. Is that a problem in your games?
Like I said I saw these on a video. I believe there are trying to reduce the the most common trends for optimization, but I am not sure.
Things like cleric 1/wizard
Hexblade dips
GWF and Sharpshooter being dominant to the point that a number of builds suggests variant human to get them earlier (or the feats that synergize with them like PAM and XBE).

[Willowhelm]

It's sensible to discuss the houserules in their original context.

The motivations etc are well explained in the Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbsTKreJwsk and the
2nd video on addressing responses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2nIT_jfLvs

[Keravath]

So, watching YouTube videos about D&D and came across a video suggesting these houserules for the game:
1. Ban the shield spell.
2. A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.*
3. When you use the attack action to make an attack using a weapon or unarmed strike you can choose to take a -5 penalty to that attack. If that attack hits, you add +10 to the damage roll. **

For the sake of clarity
*this essentially means you need to get armor though the base class or subclass
So a paladin can cast their spells in heavy armor.
A bladesinger can cast spells in light armor.
A Fighter 1/ sorcerer x can't cast leveled spells in armor.
**the video creator noted that during their playtest, no one took GWM or Sharpshooter, but would recommend not allowing them to stack with the attack action house rule. The feats do still provide value for bonus action attacks and reaction attacks, which were deliberately left out of the house rule to keep martials less pressured into using their bonus action for attacks. Oh, and in later discussion the creator clarified that this houserule only applies to PCs, not monsters, NPCs or summoned creatures.

How useful are these houserules?
What are their effects on the game?

Personally, I would NOT use any of these house rules in a game I was running. In my opinion, they don't address anything that could remotely be a problem in games I run.

The author of these house rules clearly seems to have had some issue with folks multi-classing or picking up GWM/SS. They especially want wizards to have limited defences for some reason. Under these house rules, a wizard would not have the shield spell and would not be able to cast any of their spells while wearing armor or a shield. The best they could have would be mage armor+dex ... so somewhere around a 16 AC at end game. Sorcerers would be similarly limited.

If the author of the house rules had issues with a wizard multiclassing one level of artificer or cleric, a sorcerer multiclassing one or two levels of hexblade warlock, a paladin multiclassing with sorcerer or warlock (for combinations of armor+shield+shield spell), and a large number of players taking GWM/SS for the -5/+10 (which really isn't an issue unless the DM is handing out magic weapons like candy) then the DM could address those issues directly rather than imposing some house rules that hurt wizards/sorcerers etc far more.

Anyway, just my opinion, every DM is free to run their game however they like and every DM has their own opinions on what could be fixed in 5e by house rules and they are free to do so. I just wouldn't go for these ones.

[Trask]

1. I think this one is good for the game, if a bit of a bummer. In my experience wizards and sorcerers are far more defensively capable than I would like, though. They often have about as much HP, armor and shield, (everyone at my table dips fighter, paladin, or cleric on their wizards and sorcerers) and the shield spell which makes them not squishy at all and they REALLY ought to be. Its a huge contributing factor to what makes them feel overpowered (in my games). I think I would be OK with this.

2. This one is kind of a bummer as well, and harder to swallow since it invalidates a whole swath of popular character builds. I have a paladin sorcerer myself that would get blasted by this houserule, and maybe deservedly so (they would also be hurt by the aforementioned shield houserule but I think its a reasonable level of nerf) but even if it is overpowered I don't think this is the way I'd go about addressing it. I think I would skip this one even though it does address a thorny issue.

3. This one is a great rule and I've already been using something similar that I just called "power attack". I really don't think this should apply to ranged attacks though, just because fighting at ranged is already superior to fighting in melee. Melee trades off safety for the best damage, and limiting this to only melee would firmly establish that.

All in all they're decent rules that do address some common problems, I wouldn't grumble too much as a player. Although I do think we can come up with something better for 2.

[Witty Username]

@Greywander
I am not sure there is a good way for armor proficiency to not be easy from multiclassing without hampering the martial characters.
As it stands Fighter 1, gets you everything and shield. Then multiclass. The only way to fix this would be to take away proficiency after multiclassing, which feels really weird. Maybe something like not allowing multiclassing until after 3rd level? but that seems like it punishes alot more builds.

[heavyfuel]

1 - Why? "Shield" is a great spell, sure, but it's being cast - at most - 4 times per day (Arcane Recovery and Sorcery Points can technically allow for more castings, but in practice Wizards will use AR to get a higher level slot back, and converting into spells is a terrible way to spend SP).

Even in early Tier 2, spending a 1st level slot is not something a caster does lightly. For every Shield spell they cast, it's one fewer Hideous Laughter/Sleep/Featherfall they can cast.

If you had problems with people casting Shield every fight, I guarantee it's either because they were playing super conservatively with their spell slots (aka, using cantrips literally every round) or it's because the GM was giving you 5-min adventure days.

2 - Slowing down your casting progression just to get armor sucks balls. Plus, they usually a 13 in a non-priority stat to multiclass. If a player makes these sacrifices, they should be allowed to cast in armor.

The biggest problem is Cleric, because you can dip it at any level and get full heavy armor prof because it's technically sublcass feature.

My suggestion is to nerf Cleric dips by only allowing light armor and shields when they multiclass, regardless of subclass.

3 - Good rule. You can even let GWM/SS stack. Taking a -10 to hit means you're only hitting on like a 17 most of the time, so even with +20 damage it's almost never going to be worth it.

[diplomancer]

If I'd modify number 2, I would give a "minimum multiclass level" to be able to use armor not from the class. A way to stop easy dips, but not stop characters concepts completely. 3 or 4 levels in the class that granted the better armor proficiency sounds about right (and even justifiable from an in-game perspective).

So you stop the ubiquitous Cleric 1 (or Hexblade 1)/Wizard X (or Bard X). But you don't kill the Sorcadin.

[Sigreid]

It's also possible that the DM in question longs for 1e with the armor thing. In 1e if a human multi-classed, he lost access to his prior class(es) until his new class level exceeded what he previously had. And if you were human you could never cast your wizard spells in armor regardless. Wizard casting in armor was a special privilege of elves (I think only elves, but that was a long time ago) who were levelling fighter and magic user together and thus levelling around half as fast as the rest of the party at best.

* you could technically use your old abilities before your new class exceeded your prior levels, but doing that forfeited you xp and you didn't advance in the new class for that time period.

[PhantomSoul]

@Greywander
I am not sure there is a good way for armor proficiency to not be easy from multiclassing without hampering the martial characters.
As it stands Fighter 1, gets you everything and shield. Then multiclass. The only way to fix this would be to take away proficiency after multiclassing, which feels really weird. Maybe something like not allowing multiclassing until after 3rd level? but that seems like it punishes alot more builds.

Yeah, I think that proposal 2 (basically, out-of-class casting failure based on armor proficiency) is actually a surprisingly good solution (and if it's a feats game, might add a feat to reduce or negate the penalty). Plus if it's made to be only spells with S components (maybe also spells with M components) as a caveat, it actually seems even better (while V-only spells would be weird).

[Witty Username]

2. What if the spellcaster burns feats for armor proficiency? As a DM I see this as unnecessary and as a player it would shut down some concepts.

Sorry for not responding to this sooner but I wanted to give it a think.
I am not sure what concepts this shuts down, at least by feat use. If one wants to play an armored wizard, bladesinger exists, warlock has access to hexblade. Druid has problems with armor already.
I guess armored sorcerer builds?
Sure, I suppose this rule restricts accessing armor via multiple feats, like say wizard dropping two feats for lightly armored and moderately armored but I am not convinced many people want to do that.

This argument could be restructured for racial armor proficiency, if a dwarf, githyanki, warforged, or hobgoblin must be armored to fit the Races concept. Which was excluded in the video primarily due to KISS.

[Kane0]

So, watching YouTube videos about D&D and came across a video suggesting these houserules for the game:
1. Ban the shield spell.
2. A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.*
3. When you use the attack action to make an attack using a weapon or unarmed strike you can choose to take a -5 penalty to that attack. If that attack hits, you add +10 to the damage roll. **

How useful are these houserules?
What are their effects on the game?

Counter proposal:

1: Shield doesnt stack with actual shields. So if you have a regular shield its worth +3 AC, if you have a +3 shield it doesnt increase your AC at all.

2: Scrap it, see above. Casters investing in armor is less of an issue with Shield giving diminishing returns.

3: When making melee weapon attacks you can forego your proficiency bonus to the attack roll in order to add double your proficiency bonus to the damage roll.
Ranged weapon attacks already benefit from range, they can cough up an ASI.

[Greywander]

Maybe a better solution to rule 2, instead of worrying about armor in general, is to target shields, specifically. Probably something like somatic components needing both hands, though there's some awkwardness with that as well. But a breastplate is only slightly better than Mage Armor, and half plate weighs quite a bit if you're dumping STR. The AC is better, but it still comes at a price. The shield is really what pushes it over the edge from decent to excellent.

So how about something like this? You need both hands to perform somatic components, but one of those hands can be holding a spell focus. If the spell has an associated focus type (e.g. wizard spells and arcane foci), then it has to be the correct type of focus (so you can't be a wizard holding a shield with a holy symbol), and if the spell doesn't have an associated focus type (e.g. racial spells), then it can be any focus. This is independent of whether that particular spell uses material components or not, this is just for somatic components, specifically. With Warcaster, you can perform somatic components even when holding both a weapon and shield, or two weapons (though if one of these isn't a spell focus, you won't be able to cast M spells).

This would allow you to dip into cleric to get medium armor, but you wouldn't be able to cast your cleric spells (with S components) while holding a staff, or your wizard spells (with S components) while using a shield. If you really want a battle mage, you'd need to take Warcaster, which I think is fitting enough.

[Witty Username]

I think that punishes bladesingers and druids for the sins of cleric/wizard.

[Pex]

So, watching YouTube videos about D&D and came across a video suggesting these houserules for the game:
1. Ban the shield spell.
2. A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.*
3. When you use the attack action to make an attack using a weapon or unarmed strike you can choose to take a -5 penalty to that attack. If that attack hits, you add +10 to the damage roll. **

For the sake of clarity
*this essentially means you need to get armor though the base class or subclass
So a paladin can cast their spells in heavy armor.
A bladesinger can cast spells in light armor.
A Fighter 1/ sorcerer x can't cast leveled spells in armor.
**the video creator noted that during their playtest, no one took GWM or Sharpshooter, but would recommend not allowing them to stack with the attack action house rule. The feats do still provide value for bonus action attacks and reaction attacks, which were deliberately left out of the house rule to keep martials less pressured into using their bonus action for attacks. Oh, and in later discussion the creator clarified that this houserule only applies to PCs, not monsters, NPCs or summoned creatures.

How useful are these houserules?
What are their effects on the game?

1) Sounds like the DM is upset he's failing to hit a PC. The DM is not supposed to be upset he misses.
2) Sounds like the DM is upset he's failing to hit a PC. The DM is not supposed to be upset he misses.
3) Sounds like the DM is upset PCs are not taking feats he wants them to take, but at least he's letting players have what he thinks they want.

I get a distinct vibe of a DM overreacting to a PC doing/having something powerful. Different DMs have different tolerance levels of what power PCs manifest. I can't make a DM like something, but even when a DM changes something I think is fine I value the reasonableness of the change. Outright banning is always suspect. It's acceptable when the reason is for a specific campaign theme or a published book just came out and the DM doesn't have it but will consider stuff from it later. Worse is passive aggressive banning. This is technically allowing something but applying enough costs and restrictions it's not worth doing so the players ban it themselves by never choosing to take it.

[Anymage]

I think that punishes bladesingers and druids for the sins of cleric/wizard.

Bladesingers can easily have an adjusted class feature, and druids should finally up and admit that nonmetallic versions of better armors are possible. Easy fixes while limiting tanky wizard potential.


1) Sounds like the DM is upset he's failing to hit a PC. The DM is not supposed to be upset he misses.
2) Sounds like the DM is upset he's failing to hit a PC. The DM is not supposed to be upset he misses.


I do think that Shield was designed to let the wizard have a noncrappy AC for a round, but given how easy it is to get decent AC from multiclassing it's turned into a bounded accuracy breaker. Too wide a difference between the highest and lowest target number is something that 5e wants to avoid.

I wouldn't mind seeing Shield updated to give a flat AC (possibly with an upcasting bonus) instead of a stacking bonus as we go into 5.5. That's just a standard issue with the fact that sometimes a spell doesn't quite work out as the designers originally intended.

[diplomancer]

I also liked the suggestion of Shield not stacking with shield. Clean, easy, simple, and a good way to test a nerf.

Conversely, I think it's a bad idea to make Spell Component rules even more convoluted than they already are, and an even worse one to waive away all the convolutedness at the cost of a feat. That's a feat tax if there ever was one.

[Greywander]

Counter proposal:

1: Shield doesnt stack with actual shields. So if you have a regular shield its worth +3 AC, if you have a +3 shield it doesnt increase your AC at all.
This might actually work better than some convoluted setup requiring two hands for somatic components. Though this would only apply to casters with access to both shields and the Shield spell.


1) Sounds like the DM is upset he's failing to hit a PC. The DM is not supposed to be upset he misses.
2) Sounds like the DM is upset he's failing to hit a PC. The DM is not supposed to be upset he misses.
I think the idea is that high AC is supposed to be one of the benefits of being a martial, and giving access to high AC to casters is taking away one of the major benefits martials were supposed to have. The wizard isn't supposed to be on the front line, but with half plate and a shield, and the Shield spell, the wizard can sit in melee fairly comfortably.

I can agree that there's a potential issue here, but I don't agree with the method being used to fix said issue. I'm also not sure that the issue is quite as severe as is being portrayed.

[Witty Username]

Sounds like the DM is upset he's failing to hit a PC. The DM is not supposed to be upset he misses.
I do have personal play experience with this one. I would say there is a difference between a DM that complains that they missed, and the DM voicing concerns that a PC cannot be hit.
AC 24, that is half plate, shield, and shield spell.
I am familiar with it because that is what my party's Artificer uses. (Technically not quite, the party invested in cloaks of protection and the Artificer found one of my secret rooms in the first dungeon and rolled +1 armor) so it actually AC 26) This is a level 5 party. I can confirm that this has not caused a "issue"
I can also confirm I have mostly stopped using CR 5 or less monsters because the cannot hit that AC.
Note a balgura, (last CR 5 enemy I used) has a +7 attack, they can hit an AC 24 on a 17 or higher.
I can definitely see a DM seeing this as a problem, especially given the reason CR I have eyeballed is around CR 9-11. Which have some concerning damage numbers for a lv 5 party, which can cause blowouts (I assume, my PC deaths is currently at 0 still,
with 2 close calls).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

This might actually work better than some convoluted setup requiring two hands for somatic components. Though this would only apply to casters with access to both shields and the Shield spell.


I think the idea is that high AC is supposed to be one of the benefits of being a martial, and giving access to high AC to casters is taking away one of the major benefits martials were supposed to have. The wizard isn't supposed to be on the front line, but with half plate and a shield, and the Shield spell, the wizard can sit in melee fairly comfortably.

I can agree that there's a potential issue here, but I don't agree with the method being used to fix said issue. I'm also not sure that the issue is quite as severe as is being portrayed.

Having now sat at watched the vid, the point of #2 is as much to correct a thematic issue as a balance one. And for me it's an issue as well. I know some folks are going to have a negative knee jerk reaction to this rule as more than the other 2 it just kills some builds (including some I've used). I would have written the rule to state it more positively: that proficiency provided by a spellcasting class provides only casting in that class, and still leave the option open for racial and feat based armor casting. Overall I like the direction this rule goes more than the others, and I do think it orders the spellcasting classes in terms of their defensive capabilities the way the game was intended.

[tKUUNK]

#1) Shield spell- Kane0's suggestion to NOT let it stack with actual shields is interesting. Then again, there are high-AC builds even without wearing a shield.

The cheese with Shield is it's effectively always on for higher level casters (unless they are pressed for resources). You could change the Shield spell so it only affects the outcome of the triggering attack (has no duration). Or make it a bonus action to cast, so it's more of an action economy and risk/reward decision.

#2) I'm neutral on this idea.

#3) Yes! I like this rule (or a version of it that scales with proficiency bonus, as others have proposed on this forum).

[JNAProductions]

I do have personal play experience with this one. I would say there is a difference between a DM that complains that they missed, and the DM voicing concerns that a PC cannot be hit.
AC 24, that is half plate, shield, and shield spell.
I am familiar with it because that is what my party's Artificer uses. (Technically not quite, the party invested in cloaks of protection and the Artificer found one of my secret rooms in the first dungeon and rolled +1 armor) so it actually AC 26) This is a level 5 party. I can confirm that this has not caused a "issue"
I can also confirm I have mostly stopped using CR 5 or less monsters because the cannot hit that AC.
Note a balgura, (last CR 5 enemy I used) has a +7 attack, they can hit an AC 24 on a 17 or higher.
I can definitely see a DM seeing this as a problem, especially given the reason CR I have eyeballed is around CR 9-11. Which have some concerning damage numbers for a lv 5 party, which can cause blowouts (I assume, my PC deaths is currently at 0 still,
with 2 close calls).

Each Shield spell takes a slot.

At level 5, an Artificer has 6 slots total. And they're gonna want to cast more than just Shield.

AC 19 is hit by a Balgura on a 12+. That's pretty reasonable for a defensive PC.

[Witty Username]

Bladesingers can easily have an adjusted class feature, and druids should finally up and admit that nonmetallic versions of better armors are possible. Easy fixes while limiting tanky wizard potential.
I realize my concern wasn't clear enough, my complaint is that this hurts all casters that want to hold something other than a focus I.E
Valor bards
Paladins that use weapons
Druid using shields
Bladesinger using weapons

This change would either require a bunch of hot fixes, or multiple classes needing to take warcaster to function (not a deal breaker, I like warcaster, but I like things being good not necessary).

[kazaryu]

So, watching YouTube videos about D&D and came across a video suggesting these houserules for the game:
1. Ban the shield spell.
2. A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.*
3. When you use the attack action to make an attack using a weapon or unarmed strike you can choose to take a -5 penalty to that attack. If that attack hits, you add +10 to the damage roll. **


having watched the exact video these spells come from i can confidently say that no, those houserules are not objective improvements to the game. They may be improvements to a very specific style of game, specifically the style where PC's tend to be optimized and the DM plays monsters entirely by the book. But that is the only thing they are designed to address, because those are the game types that are described by the author of that video. (as evidenced by him using optimized builds for his examples)

that being said, i won't say that implementing them probably won't reduce the quality of your game, all the first 2 rules do is place some minor extra limits on build options, its still fully possible to play a game with those extra limits in place, just as it would be possible to run a game where full caster's are all banned.

the last rule opens up build options. it reduces the allure of SS/GWM thus allowing other feats to potentially shine. unfortunately it also means that there may be less overall variety in how martials play. now everyone can do the -5/+10 there's even less of a difference between a great weapon fighter and a Sword and Board fighter.

edit: i should note, in cast i was unclear. im not saying this is a bad change, neccesarily. i *am* saying that its probably not a change that you should even consider implementing unless your players tend to optimize. Because as has been noted in this thread, the big 'problem' with shield is when its stacked on top of an already high AC. but if your players aren't optimizing, ther AC is likely not crazy high anyway.

[Witty Username]

Each Shield spell takes a slot.

At level 5, an Artificer has 6 slots total. And they're gonna want to cast more than just Shield.

AC 19 is hit by a Balgura on a 12+. That's pretty reasonable for a defensive PC.

Bless, summon turret. Maybe a misty step. Maybe 1 shield spell before the monster dies. I was able to make it work with multiple Balgura's. I used 5, 1 per player, which I would say would normally be 1-2 too high but they had some NPC help which I was taking into account.
I think the Artificer got hit once, I can't remember if it was a crit or if they decided to not bother with a shield because it was near the end of the fight.

[EggKookoo]

I get a distinct vibe of a DM overreacting to a PC doing/having something powerful.

A frustrating attitude for a DM to have. It's so easy to counter powerful PCs if need be (i.e. create challenge). You can even do it without increasing CR all that much, if at all.

[Anymage]

A frustrating attitude for a DM to have. It's so easy to counter powerful PCs if need be (i.e. create challenge). You can even do it without increasing CR all that much, if at all.

You can counter a party that's generally stronger than expected. Up the numbers and/or build the encounter as if they're higher level.

Challenging the party with wide divergences in character power is different. Bounded accuracy is a thing in this edition because it used to be quite possible to have target numbers where one character's reasonable challenge was another character's automatic success/failure. Being able to stack +5 AC on top of an already strong defensive baseline can push characters too far from their squishier comrades, which can cause problems if the monsters you meant to aim at the AC tank have reason to run up to anyone else instead.

[Leon]

For that particular game yes, for all other games no.

Sounds most likely that the DM doesn't like tanky spellcasters and wants them to all be squishy clothies. A major draw of 5e to me is that if your proficient in it you can cast in it and not worry about the insanity of arcane spell failure.

For the third its those related feats for free for everyone, which prob shouldn't be as GWM is Power attack and Cleave in one and they were both feats of old (Personally i'd remake the feat to not be locked to heavy weapons because as mighty as your Str 20 Halfling is apparently they are not mighty enough to hit harder)

[Witty Username]

edit: i should note, in cast i was unclear. im not saying this is a bad change, neccesarily. i *am* saying that its probably not a change that you should even consider implementing unless your players tend to optimize. Because as has been noted in this thread, the big 'problem' with shield is when its stacked on top of an already high AC. but if your players aren't optimizing, ther AC is likely not crazy high anyway.

I would say there is a potential problem with shield because of its ubiquity. Part of the reason why I was thinking about these houserules is that a friend of mine is trying again to get his first game together and is trying to get character sheets from people. When I was digging out the goblin evoker I made for the game a bit ago, I noticed I had grabbed and listed as prepared the shield spell, and It got me thinking. Shield might be the best first level spell.
I rarely see a build that doesn't take it that has the option, I see it cast nearly every combat, I see it recommended in guides, and see it as one of the up sells on build discussions.
I got me thinking if it being so widely used is an indicator of a problem with the spell.

[RSP]

I got me thinking if it being so widely used is an indicator of a problem with the spell.

Depends on playstyle and level. Sleep is fantastic early on. Bless stays good throughout play as well. AE is always good to have.

But just because it’s good, doesn’t mean it should be banned.

Way I see it, it’s there to help mitigate Wizard and Sorcerers low HP: taking it away, takes away some play options. I’m currently playing a Sorc that focuses on melee combat and Shield makes that possible (so does going Dex=Con>Cha).

If you ban spells simply because they’re good spells, that’s just eliminating Player options for no reason.

[Greywander]

Sounds most likely that the DM doesn't like tanky spellcasters and wants them to all be squishy clothies. A major draw of 5e to me is that if your proficient in it you can cast in it and not worry about the insanity of arcane spell failure.
Well, I think part of it is also that the game is balanced around casters being squishy clothies. Wizards get all these cool spells, and one of the prices you pay for that is not having any armor. Clerics are then unique precisely because they get to wear armor while also casting spells. Giving armor to the wizard is a huge boost with a negligible penalty. Part of the benefit of being a martial is supposed to be the strong defenses, but that's not really a perk if everyone gets it.

So I understand where this is coming from, but I, too, enjoy being a tanky spellcaster. I'd be more in favor of some kind of rebalance to casters, ideally something that both scales them back while also giving them something new, so that the end result isn't just a nerf, but a trade-off. But that would probably require a pretty large amount of work.

[stoutstien]

I would say there is a potential problem with shield because of its ubiquity. Part of the reason why I was thinking about these houserules is that a friend of mine is trying again to get his first game together and is trying to get character sheets from people. When I was digging out the goblin evoker I made for the game a bit ago, I noticed I had grabbed and listed as prepared the shield spell, and It got me thinking. Shield might be the best first level spell.
I rarely see a build that doesn't take it that has the option, I see it cast nearly every combat, I see it recommended in guides, and see it as one of the up sells on build discussions.
I got me thinking if it being so widely used is an indicator of a problem with the spell.

I actually rate AE above shield for mitigation 1st lv reaction spells. Shield is good but for it to really shine you need a respectability high starting AC but low enough HP to make it worth spending the slot. It's a slot eater for newer player for higher tuned play or a waste of resources for lower ones because the risk of goin down isn't there. It's an ok oh crap button early on and when 1st lv slot start to lose value it stays relevant but if someone has enough slots to use it readily then pacing is the issue not the spell.

[Captain Panda]

1) Sounds like the DM is upset he's failing to hit a PC. The DM is not supposed to be upset he misses.
2) Sounds like the DM is upset he's failing to hit a PC. The DM is not supposed to be upset he misses.
3) Sounds like the DM is upset PCs are not taking feats he wants them to take, but at least he's letting players have what he thinks they want.


Well, yeah, that's probably about right. Though in his case, being an optimizer who runs for pretty much only other optimizers he is likely worn down by how every build he sees has Shield, to the point damage rarely lands if he runs "normal" fights of medium difficulty.

What I'd suggest instead of his nerfs is just cranking the difficulty up. Optimizers love hard fights, speaking as one.



I get a distinct vibe of a DM overreacting to a PC doing/having something powerful.

Probably. That is something DMs do an annoying amount. Just looking at the recent uproar about Silvery Barbs being "broken," a lot of DMs I see on these forums feel like the fun police. No fun allowed.

[Trask]

I think one of the reasons D&D DMs try and nerf or change things more than GMs for any other games (in my experience) is because D&D characters are really powerful and only get stronger in sometimes very unpredictable ways, especially with spellcasters. Theres so much optimization potential and when combined with internet hiveminds creates this need to want to make a "overpowered" character with no weaknesses. Whats the best X build? whats the most overpowered multiclass? You see it often on many public forums. That can really get under a DM's skin, I know it can get under mine.

Obviously the DM can just "crank up the difficulty" but that isnt always fun either, I don't really care to make every encounter a nail-biting experience or add a bunch tedious weak encounters and traps just to "wear them down", but if you don't then the game can simply be a cakewalk when playing with optimizers. Compound this with how hard CR can be to parse and you get people wanting to change things, and not always for the better, but it doesn't mean they're petty tyrants, they just want to have fun too, albeit somewhat misguidedly sometimes.

I don't think banning the shield spell is all THAT bad though. It definitely might let some different spells, features, and tactics come to the fore since it basically acts like a cushion against the most common threat in the game: being hit.

[Leon]

Well, I think part of it is also that the game is balanced around casters being squishy clothies. Wizards get all these cool spells, and one of the prices you pay for that is not having any armor.

If that were actually the case we'd be back at 3.5 levels of well you can wear it but your at a penalty to do anything in it, in this edition they would be making all spellcasting related checks at a disadvantage for wearing it even if proficient in it.

[RSP]

The only real issue I’ve seen with AC in 5e is when one PC has all the magic AC gear and made for AC, when the rest of the party doesn’t and isnt.

We had an AC 24 Barb, with 6 other party members each in the 16-19 range.

That got annoying for the DM as upping the “to hit” of bad guys, to get to the Barb, meant the rest of the PCs getting hit more often and dropping. But not upping the to hit meant the Barb wasn’t really threatened.

I haven’t seen any issues with Shield: it’s a nice spell to get out of a hit or two, but isn’t causing any troubles, particularly as it’s a limited resource.

[Greywander]

If that were actually the case we'd be back at 3.5 levels of well you can wear it but your at a penalty to do anything in it, in this edition they would be making all spellcasting related checks at a disadvantage for wearing it even if proficient in it.
And I have no desire to return to that. I'm just stating where this mindset is coming from. If you don't allow multiclassing, a lot of these issues clear up, but I do like my multiclassing, so I'm not willing to get rid of it, either.


The only real issue I’ve seen with AC in 5e is when one PC has all the magic AC gear and made for AC, when the rest of the party doesn’t and isnt.
I think the issue is that some people feel like casters shouldn't be able to achieve martial levels of AC. As it is, it's not hard for any character to get around 18 to 20 AC without magical items. I don't think these people are necessarily wrong, but I feel like a lot of the proposed solutions involve bringing back rules from older editions that were changed for a reason.

Here's a crazy idea: what if martial classes had built-in AC bonuses at specific levels? E.g. you get +1 to AC at 5th, 11th, and 17th level. This means that martials would have higher AC, and multiclass builds wouldn't benefit unless they went deep into a martial class. Instead of trying to nerf casters, we could buff martials instead. This does mean the overall power level of PCs will rise, but arguably martials already lag somewhat behind casters.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I've gotta ask:
Is there anyone on this thread that actually thinks that many/ most Wizards taking 1 level dips into Cleric (or I guess now Artificer, though I'm not too familiar with those) to get heavy armor is good for the game?

[Mellack]

I've gotta ask:
Is there anyone on this thread that actually thinks that many/ most Wizards taking 1 level dips into Cleric (or I guess now Artificer, though I'm not too familiar with those) to get heavy armor is good for the game?

I think it is as good for the game as any other 1 level dips. It adds options for character builds.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think one of the reasons D&D DMs try and nerf or change things more than GMs for any other games (in my experience) is because D&D characters are really powerful and only get stronger in sometimes very unpredictable ways, especially with spellcasters. Theres so much optimization potential and when combined with internet hiveminds creates this need to want to make a "overpowered" character with no weaknesses. Whats the best X build? whats the most overpowered multiclass? You see it often on many public forums. That can really get under a DM's skin, I know it can get under mine.

Obviously the DM can just "crank up the difficulty" but that isnt always fun either, I don't really care to make every encounter a nail-biting experience or add a bunch tedious weak encounters and traps just to "wear them down", but if you don't then the game can simply be a cakewalk when playing with optimizers. Compound this with how hard CR can be to parse and you get people wanting to change things, and not always for the better, but it doesn't mean they're petty tyrants, they just want to have fun too, albeit somewhat misguidedly sometimes.

I don't think banning the shield spell is all THAT bad though. It definitely might let some different spells, features, and tactics come to the fore since it basically acts like a cushion against the most common threat in the game: being hit.

And just cranking up the difficulty has both weird chances of boring rocket tag and pushes parker who can't or don't want to optimize out. Pumping difficulty if only one player is optimized is a bad thing, generally. Oh, and more importantly, it makes a mockery of settings. How many ancient dragons are there to kill?

[Lolzyking]

You can counter a party that's generally stronger than expected. Up the numbers and/or build the encounter as if they're higher level.

Challenging the party with wide divergences in character power is different. Bounded accuracy is a thing in this edition because it used to be quite possible to have target numbers where one character's reasonable challenge was another character's automatic success/failure. Being able to stack +5 AC on top of an already strong defensive baseline can push characters too far from their squishier comrades, which can cause problems if the monsters you meant to aim at the AC tank have reason to run up to anyone else instead.

Too much focus on AC. As an AL dm dealing with years of min maxed ac, just use saving throws to target high ac players.

[RSP]

I've gotta ask:
Is there anyone on this thread that actually thinks that many/ most Wizards taking 1 level dips into Cleric (or I guess now Artificer, though I'm not too familiar with those) to get heavy armor is good for the game?

Why not? Increased player options are generally good, so long as they’re balanced. I don’t see any issue with Wizards sacrificing a level to get a bit better AC, particularly since a lot of that can already be accomplished with race selection.

I don’t know why that would be worse for the game than Druids dipping Monk or Barb. Or any Cha caster dipping Hexblade. Any character dipping Rogue for expertise and SA.

It’s part of Multiclassing, and I’m fine with it: it allows Players to play a build more to their liking.

[Sigreid]

And I have no desire to return to that. I'm just stating where this mindset is coming from. If you don't allow multiclassing, a lot of these issues clear up, but I do like my multiclassing, so I'm not willing to get rid of it, either.


I think the issue is that some people feel like casters shouldn't be able to achieve martial levels of AC. As it is, it's not hard for any character to get around 18 to 20 AC without magical items. I don't think these people are necessarily wrong, but I feel like a lot of the proposed solutions involve bringing back rules from older editions that were changed for a reason.

Here's a crazy idea: what if martial classes had built-in AC bonuses at specific levels? E.g. you get +1 to AC at 5th, 11th, and 17th level. This means that martials would have higher AC, and multiclass builds wouldn't benefit unless they went deep into a martial class. Instead of trying to nerf casters, we could buff martials instead. This does mean the overall power level of PCs will rise, but arguably martials already lag somewhat behind casters.

In playtest the Armored Defense fighting style gave a fighter type wearing armor's opponents disadvantage to hit them instead of just +1 AC. I thought that was a more fun mechanic and definitely made the fighting men awesome in a fight.

[Coidzor]

I've gotta ask:
Is there anyone on this thread that actually thinks that many/ most Wizards taking 1 level dips into Cleric (or I guess now Artificer, though I'm not too familiar with those) to get heavy armor is good for the game?

I've gotta ask:
Regardless of whether they're actually dipping Cleric as often as you think that they are, does it matter?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Why not? Increased player options are generally good, so long as they’re balanced. I don’t see any issue with Wizards sacrificing a level to get a bit better AC, particularly since a lot of that can already be accomplished with race selection.

I don’t know why that would be worse for the game than Druids dipping Monk or Barb. Or any Cha caster dipping Hexblade. Any character dipping Rogue for expertise and SA.

It’s part of Multiclassing, and I’m fine with it: it allows Players to play a build more to their liking.

Well, we've already banned the Hexblade dip at our table... so maybe that's why I'm fine with doing away with the Cleric one. I actually like multiclassing, but one level that seems almost manditory as it's superior to the full class option isn't good game design. And I don't love a bunch of wizards in full armor.

[kingcheesepants]

This feels like a strong overreaction and one that I would not be comfortable with as either a player or a DM. Well the free feat to martials would be fine to me (though I'd just give out a feat to everyone at char creation rather than favor one player over another).

Rather than banning shield or making convoluted armored casting rules I would just not allow multiclassing or severely restrict multiclassing (you need a good reason to do it and need to level up both classes at the same rate for example). He doesn't like these optimized builds that utilize multiclassing dips, that's fair enough but rather than punishing one particular playstyle just get rid of the real problem which is multiclassing. Then you can still have your armored hobgoblin wizards and your hexblades running into melee with a shield spell but you get rid of the most egregious optimizers that are apparently a hindrance.

[Yakk]

The easiest fix to shield is say it counts as a shield. So it doesn't stack with shields.

Ditto the int bonus to AC on bladesingers.

---

Another approach is to make it last for 1 attack per spell level. I would also throw in BPS resist for those attacks in this case.

---

Limit armor to 1 level higher than what the base class grants maybe. That allows some armor investment (subclasses that grant armor always grant 1 step as far as I can tell).

---

I also boost heavy armor by 1 AC. Mundane heavy armor can be custom fit for 25% of item cost and a week of work. Magic heavy armor gains that +1 AC if attuned. (You can choose to attune armor that does not require it).

(This bump helps heavy armor classes).

---

The -5/+10 feats are one of the few feats that, with charop, compete with +2 str/dex inndamage dealing. The others are XBE/PAM.

I just wrote more decent feats. Archer, Blade, Axe, Hammer, reworked TWF, and boosted shields defence.

Sword+Board, GWF, Range, Dual cross weapon type produce a matrix of 2 feats per gesr layout.

[Pex]

I do have personal play experience with this one. I would say there is a difference between a DM that complains that they missed, and the DM voicing concerns that a PC cannot be hit.
AC 24, that is half plate, shield, and shield spell.
I am familiar with it because that is what my party's Artificer uses. (Technically not quite, the party invested in cloaks of protection and the Artificer found one of my secret rooms in the first dungeon and rolled +1 armor) so it actually AC 26) This is a level 5 party. I can confirm that this has not caused a "issue"
I can also confirm I have mostly stopped using CR 5 or less monsters because the cannot hit that AC.
Note a balgura, (last CR 5 enemy I used) has a +7 attack, they can hit an AC 24 on a 17 or higher.
I can definitely see a DM seeing this as a problem, especially given the reason CR I have eyeballed is around CR 9-11. Which have some concerning damage numbers for a lv 5 party, which can cause blowouts (I assume, my PC deaths is currently at 0 still,
with 2 close calls).

Do what players do when they face a foe with a high AC, attack via saving throws. Let the artificer have his fun of high AC. He gets to enjoy absorbing the attacks that don't attack party members because he's in the way. He still has to make his saves. A reaction for Shield is a reaction that doesn't exist for Absorb Elements and vice versa. It's also a reaction that doesn't exist for opportunity attack so some enemies can take advantage of that. High AC is strong at it should be, but it's not invulnerability.

[Tanarii]

#2 limits on casting in armor counts good to me. Multiclassing has a few problems, which is unsurprising since it's a tack on variant rule, if a popular one. And one of the biggest is casters dipping one level for medium or heavy armor. There's various ways to address it, and this is certainly one.

I do think if you're also playing with feats, allowing a player to take the armored feats to increase allowed armored casting to the appropriate level is a good idea.

An alternative middle ground might be to allow armored casting one level higher than normal for the base class if they have proficiency from Multiclassing. So light for Wizards/Sorcs, Medium for Warlocks/Bards/ATs, Heavy for Clerics, and Heavy (non-metal) for Druids. Optional if that'd apply to subclasses, Valor Bards, Bladesinger, Hexblade. It might make the rule pointless if they're allowed one up from them, or it might be 'unfair' to base it on the base class and not subclass.

[EggKookoo]

Do what players do when they face a foe with a high AC, attack via saving throws. Let the artificer have his fun of high AC. He gets to enjoy absorbing the attacks that don't attack party members because he's in the way. He still has to make his saves. A reaction for Shield is a reaction that doesn't exist for Absorb Elements and vice versa. It's also a reaction that doesn't exist for opportunity attack so some enemies can take advantage of that. High AC is strong at it should be, but it's not invulnerability.

Right. I have a player at my table with a Battle Smith and a 22 AC. He has shield prepped (plus an amulet that allows him to cast it, which I meant for another PC but ended up with him). He specifically built his guy around high AC. Then a trapper jumped him and he came pretty close to death before the party saved him. In general, yeah, he's hard for my monsters to hit with direct attacks, but so what? It just puts more pressure on him to figure out how to draw the fire.

[JNAProductions]

Right. I have a player at my table with a Battle Smith and a 22 AC. He has shield prepped (plus an amulet that allows him to cast it, which I meant for another PC but ended up with him). He specifically built his guy around high AC. Then a trapper jumped him and he came pretty close to death before the party saved him. In general, yeah, he's hard for my monsters to hit with direct attacks, but so what? It just puts more pressure on him to figure out how to draw the fire.

Is good point.

Doesn't matter how good your AC is if you're not being targeted, or if your non-AC defenses are targeted.

[Kane0]

Is good point.

Doesn't matter how good your AC is if you're not being targeted, or if your non-AC defenses are targeted.

Heh, reminds me of the 4e phrase 'grab em by the NADs'.

[Mastikator]

I think 2 makes 1 overkill. The reason you'd want wizards not wearing medium armor + shield is that their spells are too good and they need to pay the squishy price. An eldricht knight with shield and casting shield is perfectly fine IMO, sure it breaks bounded accuracy but that's only for 1 round and they are running out of precious spell slots fast. Same goes for battle smiths and hex blades. What's NOT ok is a wizard with the same AC casting force wall or some other very powerful spell that no other class even has access to.

3 I just love, I think it neatly fixes feat tax and thrown weapon issues. I also like the restriction to take pressure off the bonus action.

I'd run 2 and 3 and skip 1 IMO, a wizard with mage armor + dex + shield is FINE, but a wizard with half plate + shield + dex + shield is NOT OK.

[Bobthewizard]

When I watch the video, I don't get the impression that Treantmonk is complaining about the power level of the builds, he's trying to fix the fact that the parties don't look like what he would expect a fantasy party to look like.

He complains that current rules push most optimized martial builds to dip in order to get the shield spell. Then PAM/GWM and CBE/SS push martial characters to only 2 builds. He complains that all casters are armored and wearing shields, and martial characters only use polearms and hand crossbows. So when he plays with optimized characters, all the spellcasters are carrying shields and none of the martials are.

I think that's what he's trying to fix, not the overall power level. Ramping up the difficulty won't fix the lack to squishy casters or the fact that casters are using shields and martial characters aren't.

I don't agree that this is a problem, but I think his rules will push martial characters to use shields and sorcerers and wizards to not use them.

[Chronic]

I think 1 and 2 aren't perfect fix but do adress real problems. For armor proficiency I have taken drastic mesures. In multiclassing, you have the armor proficiency of the class of the highest level. If a mage want heavy armor, he'll invest in feats.
I also have nerfed the shield spell to be used only with light armor or less, and created another spell called heavy shield (which is actually the classic shield spell) for the classes like artificer. Probably not perfect either but those changes among others have contributed significantly to balancing the combat aspect of the game.
For the 3rd, I really don't like it, power attack is not only boring, but the - 5 +10 isn't balanced in the 5e bounded accuracy. It's to easy to hit even with - 5 and bring almost no depths to the system.

[stoutstien]

When I watch the video, I don't get the impression that Treantmonk is complaining about the power level of the builds, he's trying to fix the fact that the parties don't look like what he would expect a fantasy party to look like.

He complains that current rules push most optimized martial builds to dip in order to get the shield spell. Then PAM/GWM and CBE/SS push martial characters to only 2 builds. He complains that all casters are armored and wearing shields, and martial characters only use polearms and hand crossbows. So when he plays with optimized characters, all the spellcasters are carrying shields and none of the martials are.

I think that's what he's trying to fix, not the overall power level. Ramping up the difficulty won't fix the lack to squishy casters or the fact that casters are using shields and martial characters aren't.

I don't agree that this is a problem, but I think his rules will push martial characters to use shields and sorcerers and wizards to not use them.

Which is fair. The problem with the somewhat simple 5e system is it's easy to see repeating and overlapping mechanics taking the bulk of the focus. I don't agree with his approach but it's an understandable goal.

[MoiMagnus]

So, watching YouTube videos about D&D and came across a video suggesting these houserules for the game:
1. Ban the shield spell.
2. A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.*
3. When you use the attack action to make an attack using a weapon or unarmed strike you can choose to take a -5 penalty to that attack. If that attack hits, you add +10 to the damage roll. **

1 -> If the table is running a low number of combat per long rest, I'd say that's fair. Reaction spells are IMO way too good in Nova playstyle. If you're table is heavily using multiclassing, I can see that being useful to indirectly ban some multiclassing builds that the GM doesn't like, but our table play without multiclassing so I don't really have much experience on that.

2 -> I'd argue for armour&shield feats to be compatible with spellcasting, because that's kind of the only point of those feats. The goal of this houserule here seems again to ban some multiclassing builds that the GM doesn't like.

3 -> Seems reasonable to me. It will certainly tilt the balance, but I think it makes martial build more interesting to play (and potentially increase the average number of non-combat feats the martial characters take, which I like). I'd consider only applying it to melee attacks as it would help to make melee fighting more rewarding compared to ranged fighting.

[Mastikator]

Which is fair. The problem with the somewhat simple 5e system is it's easy to see repeating and overlapping mechanics taking the bulk of the focus. I don't agree with his approach but it's an understandable goal.

When the meta is extremely narrow it's often because there are a small number of universally powerful options that overshadow the rest of the options, like stacking shield spell with half plate and a shield, it's too good on a character that can also summon shadow spawn or twin hold person. I think the 2nd house rule fixes the domination of sorc-paladins and the like. With this build you could still do that, but you could only use the spell slots for divine smite and if you want to cast sorcerer spells you'd have to lose the armor. I think that's fair, in fact it would make dex paladins more viable since you may see a sorc-paladin running mage armor.

But like I also said, I don't think half plate + shield + shield spell on a hexblade is too good, even though it breaks bounded accuracy, because a warlock just don't get that many spells. A wizard will comfortably burn then 1st level spell slots on making themselves invincible while using their higher level spell slots to make the enemy redundant. That is a too good combo. I think you should only get one of those on a character.

[stoutstien]

When the meta is extremely narrow it's often because there are a small number of universally powerful options that overshadow the rest of the options, like stacking shield spell with half plate and a shield, it's too good on a character that can also summon shadow spawn or twin hold person. I think the 2nd house rule fixes the domination of sorc-paladins and the like. With this build you could still do that, but you could only use the spell slots for divine smite and if you want to cast sorcerer spells you'd have to lose the armor. I think that's fair, in fact it would make dex paladins more viable since you may see a sorc-paladin running mage armor.

But like I also said, I don't think half plate + shield + shield spell on a hexblade is too good, even though it breaks bounded accuracy, because a warlock just don't get that many spells. A wizard will comfortably burn then 1st level spell slots on making themselves invincible while using their higher level spell slots to make the enemy redundant. That is a too good combo. I think you should only get one of those on a character.

I don't necessarily disagree but I believe fixes shouldn't be structured in this way because it just shifts the meta rather than addressing it. It doesn't prevent the smite happy multiclass as much as just change the racial selection to gain a different armor formula.
My fix wasn't simple but it works.

First thing was I removed feats and moved them over to the weapon table as special tags with ability requirements. I think it about 15 of them have been replaced now I this fashion. This had two big impacts. The first is it reduced feat tax down so feats are about fulfilling the PC concept not false progression. Second it puts the cost/benefits of those features back to having a cost status. You want to use a hex dip for
SaDness? Sure but SS/GWM power attack (which is altered to to remove the -/+ and instead if you roll an attack that is either +5 of the targets AC or a critical hit you add double modifier damage) you need at least 18 dex/str with a two handed/versatile weapon wielded into hands. You want to remove the loading property from weapons? You need some strength to go alongside that dex.

The armor issue isn't really a problem IMO past wearing H armor without the str to avoid any real serious cost so I upgraded the penalty to include disadvantage on all str and dex checks and saves.

The shield spell I just changed to be flat damage reduction from attacks = to casting modifier unless that damage is force which it provides immunity to. It's still a powerful defensive option but it changes its role a little bit from avoidance to reduction. I added in a lv 2 reaction based spell that just sets AC at 18+ caster mod but breaks iftjat or any other attack does hit before your next turn. Does some minor retribution damage to the person who breaks it (2d6+mod force con save for half. Upcasting adds 2d6)

couple all this with a few other house rules such as casting spells with an action in melee range provokes AOs and adding str requirements for certain shields I've started to strike a balance. Magic and casting is still extremely powerful and impactful they just can't snipe super cheap abilities at a bargain.

I don't think the games that I run can officially be called 5th edition anymore.

[kazaryu]

I would say there is a potential problem with shield because of its ubiquity. Part of the reason why I was thinking about these houserules is that a friend of mine is trying again to get his first game together and is trying to get character sheets from people. When I was digging out the goblin evoker I made for the game a bit ago, I noticed I had grabbed and listed as prepared the shield spell, and It got me thinking. Shield might be the best first level spell.
I rarely see a build that doesn't take it that has the option, I see it cast nearly every combat, I see it recommended in guides, and see it as one of the up sells on build discussions.
I got me thinking if it being so widely used is an indicator of a problem with the spell.

i'd say that a spell being widely used is a potential indicator of it being a problem spell, not proof on its own. thing is that shield is also a reaction spell (for classes that don't really have many reactions) that boosts AC. and its the only spell of its kind. absorb elements fills a similar niche, but for elemental damage. you'd probably see it all over the place even if the AC boost was reduced because 'i may as well take it for those random hits i can cancel'.

but again, this is also entirely from the perspective of fully optimized play. im not suggesting that the shield spell isn't a problem in some games. im just saying that those rules don't address genearlized problems. and without knowing the exact type of gaming group you have, i can't tell you if these rules are good. so i mostly focused on elaborating the (apparent) full context surrounding those rule changes so you could identify if your gaming group is similar enough to the one discussed in the video. i've never seen a problem with shield or armored mages/sorcerers, but i also don't really play with optimizers, and i don't typically run monsters 100% by the book.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

OK, so I have to ask another question:
I see quite a few people on here agreeing with rule 3. Treantmonk put this in to address an issue of most/ all of his martials not taking sword and board, so is this what's happening at your tables? My second question would be if this is happening, have any of your players tried sword and board as a comparison?
I ask because we've had and continue to have a variety of fighting styles at our table. One thing we've noticed, playing mostly published content is a good amount of (sometimes very powerful) magic one handed weapons and shields that support sword and board fighting and a lack of magic for other options. I do think that swings the balance significantly so maybe that's a reason we aren't seeing the issue at our table. Or maybe it's something else.
I would say that ranged builds do still seem strong regardless, but this is due to a variety of reasons, some more to do with how Dex interacts with Initiative, Saves, and Ability Checks, particularly Stealth.

[PhoenixPhyre]

OK, so I have to ask another question:
I see quite a few people on here agreeing with rule 3. Treantmonk put this in to address an issue of most/ all of his martials taking sword and board, so is this what's happening at your tables? My second question would be if this is happening, have any of your players tried sword and board as a comparison?
I ask because we've had and continue to have a variety of fighting styles at our table. One thing we've noticed, playing mostly published content is a good amount of (sometimes very powerful) magic one handed weapons and shields that support sword and board fighting and a lack of magic for other options. I do think that swings the balance significantly so maybe that's a reason we aren't seeing the issue at our table. Or maybe it's something else.
I would say that ranged builds do still seem strong regardless, but this is due to a variety of reasons, some more to do with how Dex interacts with Initiative, Saves, and Ability Checks, particularly Stealth.

Personally, I haven't seen many people take those feats. I've seen Sharpshooter a couple times (both on "sniper" builds), CBE never, PAM never, and GWM once (on a barbarian for whom it was very on-theme). But I don't run high-op or high-challenge games, so I've seen a wide diversity of builds.

I think that latter part's the key. Once you go down the route of "challenge is everything" (ie the optimization spiral), build diversity plummets. Just like it does in a fighting game or a tabletop wargame. The meta becomes the important thing and little differences in numbers matter more than everything else. And the other issues with the system (long vs short rests, 5mwd, spells ruling supreme, etc) become much more salient. The answer is stop doing that.

[Gtdead]

So, watching YouTube videos about D&D and came across a video suggesting these houserules for the game:
1. Ban the shield spell.
2. A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.*
3. When you use the attack action to make an attack using a weapon or unarmed strike you can choose to take a -5 penalty to that attack. If that attack hits, you add +10 to the damage roll. **

For the sake of clarity
*this essentially means you need to get armor though the base class or subclass
So a paladin can cast their spells in heavy armor.
A bladesinger can cast spells in light armor.
A Fighter 1/ sorcerer x can't cast leveled spells in armor.
**the video creator noted that during their playtest, no one took GWM or Sharpshooter, but would recommend not allowing them to stack with the attack action house rule. The feats do still provide value for bonus action attacks and reaction attacks, which were deliberately left out of the house rule to keep martials less pressured into using their bonus action for attacks. Oh, and in later discussion the creator clarified that this houserule only applies to PCs, not monsters, NPCs or summoned creatures.

How useful are these houserules?
What are their effects on the game?

I will answer the same way I commented on that video.

Banning the shield spell and caster AC in general is bad for the game IMO. High AC casters are good because they increase their combat potency. Makes them more likely to be in the the thick of things, branch out to different roles and while they increase the complexity of the game, it also increase the "directness" of combat. If you make all arcane casters squishy by default then the experienced players will transition into a more passive playstyle, consisting of things like maximizing their effective range, use total cover through tricks like Rope Trick and use more minions. This is a more effective playstyle than just a few more points of AC but it slows down combat a lot.

These changes will only help dealing against players who use builds they find online and operate under certain biases that emerge from the guides in question. However I don't feel like the DM should focus on these players. They aren't very detrimental to the game. It's those that plan to use the high potential spells the ones who create headaches. Magic Jars, Clones, True Polymorphs, tricks with summoning spells, etc.

(Edit: If you want to nerf casters, nerf their strongest feature, not their weakest. I've been advocating for this for a long time but I think these solutions are more "sexy" than just banning the powerful stuff, like for example making Wall of Force a straight wall only without the ability to shape it like a dome).

For the power attack change, it's fun, but it affects some classes way more than others. For example, Warlock and Barbarian will have a field day with this because they have consistent ways to generate advantage, and power attacking isn't good without advantage. So essentially it's a free shield AC for them. For every other, it's a fairly neutral or even negative change depending on the experience level of the player. It should be accompanied with the optional flanking rule.

[Witty Username]

For the power attack change, it's fun, but it affects some classes way more than others. For example, Warlock and Barbarian will have a field day with this because they have consistent ways to generate advantage, and power attacking isn't good without advantage. So essentially it's a free shield AC for them. For every other, it's a fairly neutral or even negative change depending on the experience level of the player. It should be accompanied with the optional flanking rule.

Isn't that issue already true with GWM and SS? It mostly saves them a feat and expands weapon choices like it does for everyone else. Doesn’t it?

[stoutstien]

Isn't that issue already true with GWM and SS? It mostly saves them a feat and expands weapon choices like it does for everyone else. Doesn’t it?

Sort of. It basically shift melee into the same range of issues that hand crossbow, CBE, and SS have where spamming lots of attacks and using the +/- is going to shift meta away from two hand weapons.

[Witty Username]

Sort of. It basically shift melee into the same range of issues that hand crossbow, CBE, and SS have where spamming lots of attacks and using the +/- is going to shift meta away from two hand weapons.

Given that the houserule only applies to attacks made with the attack action I don't think that is the case, since most of the time it will only apply to two attacks in your attack line. The extra damage from a bonus action attack and the extra damage from a two handed weapon are about the same.
I would expect to see more one handed weapons, but not them to be better than two-handed.
Edit: more @gtdead
I personally think that the shield spell at least, encourages passive play. Again personal experience, I have seen my party leverage range, battlefield control, and minions. They do it, partially because they find it fun, partially because they know it will conserve first level spell slots, which can be used for shield spells later. (Note: I can see this may be a reason to adopt a shield ban but not the armor rule, given that would encourage casters to have a higher passive AC that doesn't cost resources, that being said options like defensive duelist, arcane deflection, or deflect arrows exist so it could open up options I don't see as much in actual play. YMMV)

[Tanarii]

Worth pointing it that making the -5/+10 a built in capability narrows the gap between one handed and two handed weapons. I mean, it's only a point or two of difference average damage (unless you assume GWM was automatic before), may it may be a Moo Point.

I think the bigger counterpoint is it unbalances martials. They don't need the help. You're better off just removing the bullet point from GWM/SS to bring those feats into power line, not make it universal for everyone.

If you absolutely must have it, make a feat Power Attack, give it a level limit of 12+, and give it just one bullet point: -5/+10. That's a balanced feat and becomes available after a point when casters have finally caught up with martials in power.

[Gtdead]

Isn't that issue already true with GWM and SS? It mostly saves them a feat and expands weapon choices like it does for everyone else. Doesn’t it?

Not exactly, the point isn't to save a feat. This would be achieved by giving everyone a free one. The point is to bypass the restrictions of dex attacks and shield+sword styles and equalize the differences between martials so that their unique features will determine build and feat choices instead of being shoehorned into the specific styles that work with power attacking feats.

Unless you give all the martials a way to generate advantage in a more consistent fashion, power attacking feats aren't really worth the trouble for those who can't. Do we want a house rule who double's a SnS Warlock's output while boosting Monk's by 10-15%?

I also forgot to mention Rogue. In the same post I advocated for allowing the Rogue to attack through Cunning Action since the class doesn't benefit at all from power attacking feats. His changes don't address Rogue issues at all and nerf the most powerful subclass (AT) through changes in Shield and Armor Casting.

[PhantomSoul]

Worth pointing it that making the -5/+10 a built in capability narrows the gap between one handed and two handed weapons. I mean, it's only a point or two of difference average damage (unless you assume GWM was automatic before), may it may be a Moo Point.

I think the bigger counterpoint is it unbalances martials. They don't need the help. You're better off just removing the bullet point from GWM/SS to bring those feats into power line, not make it universal for everyone.

If you absolutely must have it, make a feat Power Attack, give it a level limit of 12+, and give it just one bullet point: -5/+10. That's a balanced feat and becomes available after a point when casters have finally caught up with martials in power.

And/or make it scale if it continues to exist:
- Scale by level = Reduce your attack roll by a number equal to your proficiency bonus (or stop adding your proficiency bonus to your attack bonus), deal extra damage equal to double that
- Scale by stats = Reduce your attack roll by a number up to your Strength Mod and deal extra damage equal to twice that attack roll reduction

[Witty Username]

I thought rogue benefits from Sharpshooter?

[Kane0]

I thought rogue benefits from Sharpshooter?

By ignoring range and cover yes, because its important for Rogues to hit with their one attack. Exchanging accuracy for damage is a poor trade for rogues.

[PhantomSoul]

I thought rogue benefits from Sharpshooter?

Les than others in that their damage depends on hitting once (and they default to only getting that one shot) and sharpshooter makes that less likely, whereas a multi-hit character is normally adding less to each hit (so less loss on a loss) and can add the bonus damage more often (so getting more value). Missing on a rogue basically just sucks more!

[kingcheesepants]

When I watch the video, I don't get the impression that Treantmonk is complaining about the power level of the builds, he's trying to fix the fact that the parties don't look like what he would expect a fantasy party to look like.

He complains that current rules push most optimized martial builds to dip in order to get the shield spell. Then PAM/GWM and CBE/SS push martial characters to only 2 builds. He complains that all casters are armored and wearing shields, and martial characters only use polearms and hand crossbows. So when he plays with optimized characters, all the spellcasters are carrying shields and none of the martials are.

I think that's what he's trying to fix, not the overall power level. Ramping up the difficulty won't fix the lack to squishy casters or the fact that casters are using shields and martial characters aren't.

I don't agree that this is a problem, but I think his rules will push martial characters to use shields and sorcerers and wizards to not use them.

I also don't agree that it's a problem but if you really want to reinforce a more "traditional" fantasy class aesthetic removing or greatly limiting multiclassing seems like it would be the surest bet and cause the fewest problems. Most of the issues highlighted come from multiclassing dips and there are a fair number of thematic reasons to not want those in the game.

If you really want to encourage players to use sword and shield rather than a 2 handed weapon (for that one I really gotta ask why though, it would never have occurred to me that anyone might see 2 handed weapons on a martial as problematic) than sure having a feat similar to GWM for 1 handed weapons might help (or just make GWM valid for all melee weapons) but I'd probably draw the line at handing out a free feat to the martials only. That still seems quite unfair to me.

Another good way to encourage shield use by martials (as others have pointed out) would be by handing out cooler magic shields and 1 handed weapons. This latter point is practically speaking encouraged by the official materials. Considering how there are very few magic polearms that are anything aside from generic variants while there are dozens of magic swords that do all sorts of cool things as well as a handful of very cool shields.

[Elastoid]

First thing I noticed from the video is that he said "just about every" optimized build had a dip into a spellcasting class to give Shield to a fighting character to make their AC overwhelming, and that's not been the experience I've had or seen. More, if you've got an issue with single-level dips, just have an issue with single level-dips, don't make a bunch of rules that try to backdoor solutions to it.

1) Shield is a strong spell, but it's hardly gamebreaking, and I don't see it as solving a specific problem. If your characters are bored using builds with Shield, they can opt for something else -- it sounds honestly like a lack of player creativity is the main problem they're trying to solve here.

2) This is the second houserule they've presented that's essentially a complaint about high PC armor class. With respect to the challenges that can provide, there are many, many ways around this in the existing rules.

3) Just what? This rule fails the "what if the DM used it against the players" test. Especially after you've made two other rules nerfing AC.

One of the earlier comments in this thread pointed out that the rules seem designed to combat problems from a specific campaign with a specific party. I'd agree, and add that in such a case, recommending the rules for general use seems like a foolish idea.

[Witty Username]

3) Just what? This rule fails the "what if the DM used it against the players" test. Especially after you've made two other rules nerfing AC.


Straight up naw bro. That party with the Artificer I mentioned (for reference 2 warlocks, celestial and great old one, 2 wizards and an Artificer) I decided to throw a level 20, champion Fighter with GWM at them as a joke. Not only did they win without any deaths, they didn't take damage (lost two zombies off of animate dead). -5 atk, +10 damage is not very useful against parties. Not to mention that the 1 and 2 rules don't effect parties much with martial characters, with most other people would have.

[Elastoid]

Straight up naw bro. That party with the Artificer I mentioned (for reference 2 warlocks, celestial and great old one, 2 wizards and an Artificer) I decided to throw a level 20, champion Fighter with GWM at them as a joke. Not only did they win without any deaths, they didn't take damage (lost two zombies off of animate dead). -5 atk, +10 damage is not very useful against parties. Not to mention that the 1 and 2 rules don't effect parties much with martial characters, with most other people would have.

Yeah that's great. The DM is using this rule for *everyone* making a weapon attack. This is going to be way more deadly from a group of 20 goblins than from a single beefy attacker.

I shudder to think of Tucker's Kobolds in this scenario.

[Witty Username]

Yeah that's great. The DM is using this rule for *everyone* making a weapon attack. This is going to be way more deadly from a group of 20 goblins than from a single beefy attacker.

I shudder to think of Tucker's Kobolds in this scenario.
Nelgeting the fact that the rule was later clarified to not apply to monsters, NPCs or summoned creatures.

[Leon]

A rule put in for only the PCs is never a good rule.

[Witty Username]

A rule put in for only the PCs is never a good rule.

Really, this argument boils down to "if the DM can abuse it then it is bad." Things the DM can abuse, the shield spell, therefore the shield spell should be banned.

[EggKookoo]

A rule put in for only the PCs is never a good rule.

That's how inspiration works. There's really nothing wrong with having PC- or NPC-only rules in the game. I guess you'd want to keep it to a minimum and try to make a houserule work for both. But in the end, PC and NPCs serve different roles in and have different needs for the gameplay.

[Kane0]

Straight up naw bro. That party with the Artificer I mentioned (for reference 2 warlocks, celestial and great old one, 2 wizards and an Artificer) I decided to throw a level 20, champion Fighter with GWM at them as a joke. Not only did they win without any deaths, they didn't take damage (lost two zombies off of animate dead). -5 atk, +10 damage is not very useful against parties. Not to mention that the 1 and 2 rules don't effect parties much with martial characters, with most other people would have.

Was it only Shield that stopped them from getting hit? What are their standard ACs?

[Elastoid]

Nelgeting the fact that the rule was later clarified to not apply to monsters, NPCs or summoned creatures.

Not neglecting it. My initial statement was that it fails the "what if the DM used it against the players" test. To make this more clear:

Is a house rule too powerful, or does it shift the balance of power too much? Here's a good way of testing it -- would the players have more or less fun if the DM used it against the players? If the rule requires that we make the PCs extra powerful, it would fail this test. For example, creatures can take the "help" action to grant advantage on an incoming attack. Familiars do this all the time. But what about spells and abilities that require a saving throw, not an attack roll? A "fun" rule could be to allow the help action to grant an enemy *disadvantage* on their next saving throw. Then we can hit with Sacred Flame or have other really cool moments where a critical spell hits because of the help action, allowing more PCs to feel connected to the victory. Is this a good rule? Well, what happens if the players have this happen to them, failing saves against enemy spellcasts because a nearby bat or something took the help action against them. The players would probably not like this very much. Thus, the rule is probably not an improvement.

In this instance, the creator of the video apparently knew it failed this test, so he made it a PC-only rule, which generally is a sign that a house rule is terrible.

[Sorinth]

Can't say I'd be a fan of these house rules.

I don't like the power attacks to begin with, giving them out all the time just makes it worse. Assuming this is trying to fix the martial power gap, I'd be much more inclined to find a different DPR boost.

For the armour, I feel like if someone wanted to spend an ASI to get the armour that it should be allowed. Similarly racial abilities that grant armour should also work, especially since Natural Armor is there so all you really do is push the people into using Tortle. In any case if you fixed this you probably don't need to ban the Shield spell, but if you still dislike the spell maybe take a page from War Mage and prevent non-cantrip casting in the round following a Shield spell and/or make the AC bonus equal to proficiency mod. That would probably make it more interesting while keeping it from being the go to defensive spell.

[RSP]

Though I guess you wouldn’t see them as much due to lacking the Shield spell, and potentially lacking armor, but the -5/+10 would help a Shadow Blade user, assuming they’re in dim light or darkness.

Without Advantage (and sometimes even with), I’m not a fan of the accuracy tradeoff of the feature.

[Kane0]

So, objectively good for the game as a whole?
1: No
2: No
3: No

Good for curbing an optimized, caster heavy party using new published material against mostly unoptimized MM enemies?

1: Yes
2: Sorta?
3: No

[Psyren]

I was thinking about starting a thread on Treatmonk's video as well.

My thoughts:

1) Nuking shield is unnecessary / overkill. Yeah it's probably the best 1st-level spell in the game, but I don't see a problem with that - sure it's a boost to Wizards, but Eldritch Knight loves it too.

2) I do like armor proficiencies mattering a bit more than they currently do, so I don't hate this one - but players at my tables typically aren't going out of their way for armor either, so I don't see it mattering much.

3) This is my favorite of the three. I was a big fan of making Power Attack and Deadly Aim be just combat options rather than feats in PF, and that extends to this as well.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

First thing I noticed from the video is that he said "just about every" optimized build had a dip into a spellcasting class to give Shield to a fighting character to make their AC overwhelming, and that's not been the experience I've had or seen. More, if you've got an issue with single-level dips, just have an issue with single level-dips, don't make a bunch of rules that try to backdoor solutions to it.

1) Shield is a strong spell, but it's hardly gamebreaking, and I don't see it as solving a specific problem. If your characters are bored using builds with Shield, they can opt for something else -- it sounds honestly like a lack of player creativity is the main problem they're trying to solve here.

2) This is the second houserule they've presented that's essentially a complaint about high PC armor class. With respect to the challenges that can provide, there are many, many ways around this in the existing rules.

3) Just what? This rule fails the "what if the DM used it against the players" test. Especially after you've made two other rules nerfing AC.

One of the earlier comments in this thread pointed out that the rules seem designed to combat problems from a specific campaign with a specific party. I'd agree, and add that in such a case, recommending the rules for general use seems like a foolish idea.

Yeah, I didn't really get the 'optimized' fighters dipping or using feats to get Shield. Full casters for sure, half casters maybe, but on limited slots Shield is not the best 1st level spell in the game unless a group is actually on a 5 minute adventuring day. If I only had 2-3 slots per day, assuming several encounters, Bless blows it out of the water. Heck, even Shield of Faith provides protection for 10 min, enough for 2-3 encounters in some cases.

[Aalbatr0ss]

I guess this is obvious, but it depends so much on the table.

Party size: It’s harder for a small party to consistently defend the casters with martials. It seems the classic mage armor wizard relies pretty hard on a big dynamic party with multiple martials.

Round 1 combat approaches: If DM is constantly throwing summoned / invisible creatures out of nowhere into the middle of the party without giving them a chance to position, or focus firing ranged ambushes on the casters, they are going to get hit a lot. Why wouldn’t casters do anything they can to get better AC in this scenario?

I would consider these rules for a large group of experienced players who were all used to playing together. It could lead to interesting martial builds and maybe help the problem of almost everyone wanting to play a full caster.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

After thinking about these rules as a whole I'm starting to wonder if they would actually have the impact on builds that Treantmonk claims. Maybe in some cases, but in others there are ways around the Strength based builds to Dex based builds that are just as good, and in some circumstances better.
Just as an example I'm currently playing a Strength based Paladin 2/ Swords Bard X with PAM (Spear and Shield). If I had to remake the character using these rules I'd have a couple of options. All Require at least Str 13 for Paladin muliti and Dex 14 to get at least the max armor bonus available for Med Armor. So the character would be more MAD than it currently is, requiring Str, Dex, Chr, and Con, which is definitely a negative. Dex is a good enough stat that this comes with a good upside though: Saves, Initiative, and Skills will be better. Opening up the option for a whole different play style using Stealth, potentially with Expertise, shouldn't be overlooked. From there it's a bit of a mixed bag if I go rule by rule:

Rule 1) The character doesn't get Shield spell so that has no impact

Rule 2) The armor restriction: The character has a couple of options, one of them going Valor Bard instead to get a shield, which having not given it too much thought, I'd likely do. The 2 extra points on AC, which would likely go up at our table which tends to include a fair bit of magic, would be worth it. So that character would be down 1 AC point (2 if stealthy and Dex hasn't been maxed), a fighting style and swap Flourishes for the Valor Bard ID options. Clearly that's a downgrade, but not an insurmountable one.
Sticking with Swords bard costs the shield, so the AC penalty is 3+ points, which is significant. However the character would keep the other superior Swords Bard abilities.

Rule 3) For this character (and many Gish builds) this is going to be a good upgrade. The power attack is now available on my (basically) full caster using any fighting style I want. Even at low levels he's got good options to create advantage using Stealth or with spells like Faerie Fire, or can go with Bless to get the +2.5 Bonus, so will get good mileage out of the Power Attack.

Overall I would end up with a character that is more MAD and takes a hit on AC (and maybe more if I went Valor to mitigate the AC hit). But I'm up in Initiative, Saves, and Skills (crucially including Stealth). I'm also up significantly on Melee Damage, so at the end of the day, it would really depend on circumstances whether I'm better off or not.

That said, I get that maybe this particular character isn't the real target of Treantmonk's rules. He is, however a full caster Gish where the armor restriction has impact; making the power attack available to all fighting styles is a trade off that at least mitigates the pain if not totally makes up for it when you account for the other benefits of better Dex.

[Witty Username]

Was it only Shield that stopped them from getting hit? What are their standard ACs?

The quick math
AC 16 for the warlocks. (Light armor + Dex 14/15 + cloak of protection)
AC 18 for the wizards. (Mage armor +18 dex + cloak of protection)

But most of what kept the heat off of them was a couple summon undead spells and animate dead(1 slot). One shield spell was cast as I recall to block a regular attack. -5, +10 could reliably hit the zombies, not so much the summons or the PCs.

[Pildion]

As much as I love Treantmonk, I think rule 2 is showing how much he misses 3.x haha

I agree that casters should not have more AC then a martial tank however. I can see using rule 1 or 2 but not both. I would personally use rule 2, as much as I love Hex1/SorcX and Hex1/BardX builds the armor/shield proficiencies are pretty OP for a 1 level dip. That said, when casters back in their robes, they need the shield spell now.

Rule 3 seems OK, martials fall behind casters in late game as it is so giving them a bit of a buff like this might not be a bad idea, not sure I would go with it right at level 1 though. Maybe come online around level 8?

[KorvinStarmast]

So, watching YouTube videos about D&D and came across a video suggesting these houserules for the game:
1. Ban the shield spell.
Hard no. That kind of Dm reaction screams "poor DM" to me.

2. A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.* Maybe, it's an AD&D kind of approach that I got used to.

3. When you use the attack action to make an attack using a weapon or unarmed strike you can choose to take a -5 penalty to that attack. If that attack hits, you add +10 to the damage roll. **
I see no reason to do that, and particularly no on the Unarmed strike.

So no for 1 and 3, maybe for 2. (But the simpler thing to do is simply say "no multiclassing" and problem is solved. If you want armor proficiency, get the feat.

How useful are these houserules?
Bad. Trying to fix a symptom, not an actual problem.

What are you trying to accomplish with these? They sound like they’re targeting multiclassing casters. Is that a problem in your games? Bingo.

1 - Why? "Shield" is a great spell, sure, but it's being cast - at most - 4 times per day (Arcane Recovery and Sorcery Points can technically allow for more castings, but in practice Wizards will use AR to get a higher level slot back, and converting into spells is a terrible way to spend SP).

Even in early Tier 2, spending a 1st level slot is not something a caster does lightly. For every Shield spell they cast, it's one fewer Hideous Laughter/Sleep/Featherfall they can cast. It is in the game for a good and sufficient reason. Archers.
If you had problems with people casting Shield every fight, I guarantee it's either because they were playing super conservatively with their spell slots (aka, using cantrips literally every round) or it's because the GM was giving you 5-min adventure days. We have a winner.

The biggest problem is Cleric, because you can dip it at any level and get full heavy armor prof because it's technically sublcass feature. But is it really a problem? Not in my experience. If it really is a problem then don't allow multiclass.

My suggestion is to nerf Cleric dips by only allowing light armor and shields when they multiclass, regardless of subclass. No improvement there.

1: Shield doesnt stack with actual shields. That would be consistent with "you have to pick how to calculate your armor class" from the basic rules. I'd be interested in seeing this become the standard rule.

3: When making melee weapon attacks you can forego your proficiency bonus to the attack roll in order to add double your proficiency bonus to the damage roll. Make proficiency meaningful, I can work with this.

Ranged weapon attacks already benefit from range, they can cough up an ASI. Concur.


1) Sounds like the DM is upset he's failing to hit a PC. The DM is not supposed to be upset he misses.
2) Sounds like the DM is upset he's failing to hit a PC. The DM is not supposed to be upset he misses. Concur.

I also liked the suggestion of Shield not stacking with shield. Clean, easy, simple, and a good way to test a nerf. Play test this, yeah.

The cheese with Shield Shield isn't cheese, it's a defensive spell. Archers versus casters is as old of a habit as this game has. Shield is the counter to that.

having watched the exact video these spells come from i can confidently say that no, those houserules are not objective improvements to the game.

Is there anyone on this thread that actually thinks that many/ most Wizards taking 1 level dips into Cleric (or I guess now Artificer, though I'm not too familiar with those) to get heavy armor is good for the game? Whose game?

How many ancient dragons are there to kill? An interesting question, to be sure, and if an ancient dragon has a mate, why would they not both be encountered at the same time. :smalleek: Maybe, just maybe, they get to have PC snacks together.

[Psyren]

I see no reason to do that, and particularly no on the Unarmed strike.

May I ask why not unarmed strike in particular getting a damage buff option?

[Azuresun]

A frustrating attitude for a DM to have. It's so easy to counter powerful PCs if need be (i.e. create challenge). You can even do it without increasing CR all that much, if at all.

I don't see much difference between "You can't play that." and "every significant thing you encounter is coincidentally able to counter your build".

[KorvinStarmast]

May I ask why not unarmed strike in particular getting a damage buff option?Two reasons.
It's crapping on monks.
Stretches suspension of disbelief too far.

[Mastikator]

Here's a thought, if a player builds a PC in a very strong way maybe don't counter it or adjust everything for it, let them convert that effort into some easier victories. If they plan some clever strategy or come up with one during play: let it work out naturally, if it crushes an encounter or two good. D&D 5e is a power fantasy game, the players are supposed to be totally awesome. A total victory of the objectives of the campaign should be a possible outcome, if skillful play or build is countered then that's just railroading under the rubric of balance.

[stoutstien]

Here's a thought, if a player builds a PC in a very strong way maybe don't counter it or adjust everything for it, let them convert that effort into some easier victories. If they plan some clever strategy or come up with one during play: let it work out naturally, if it crushes an encounter or two good. D&D 5e is a power fantasy game, the players are supposed to be totally awesome. A total victory of the objectives of the campaign should be a possible outcome, if skillful play or build is countered then that's just railroading under the rubric of balance.

Welcome to the paradox of TTRPG game design. If you are lucky you will at least have a vague idea what your players actual want out of the game so you can adjust accordingly but even then it's constant effort to maintain that without becoming stagnant.
Usually there's very little crossover in the type of game the different players at the same table are looking for so it's a juggling act to provide the fix for everyone. Even that could change session to session.

[EggKookoo]

I don't see much difference between "You can't play that." and "every significant thing you encounter is coincidentally able to counter your build".

I mean counter in the sense of compensate for. Players want their victories to feel earned, right?

[Necrosnoop110]

So, watching YouTube videos about D&D and came across a video suggesting these houserules for the game:
1. Ban the shield spell.
2. A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.*
3. When you use the attack action to make an attack using a weapon or unarmed strike you can choose to take a -5 penalty to that attack. If that attack hits, you add +10 to the damage roll. **


Wouldn't it be cleaner to get where he is trying to go by just removing multiclassing and removing feats from the game?

[Kane0]

Wouldn't it be cleaner to get where he is trying to go by just removing multiclassing and removing feats from the game?

He has a reputation as an optimizer, i dont see that happening any time soon.

[Psyren]

Two reasons.
It's crapping on monks.
Stretches suspension of disbelief too far.

But wouldn't monks benefit from this? I feel like I'm missing something?

Unlike other martials, they're cut off from GWM (no heavy monk weapons) and anti-synergy between their bonus damage mechanic and sharpshooter (can't flurry with ranged weapons). Letting this work with unarmed strike would therefore be a buff to monks, no?


As for suspension of disbelief, I can't speak for yours - but monks getting access to Power Attack, Piranha Strike or Deadly Aim in 3.P didn't strain my disbelief and neither does this.

[Witty Username]

Wouldn't it be cleaner to get where he is trying to go by just removing multiclassing and removing feats from the game?

I believe the reasoning was based on the assumption that feats and multiclassing are generally good for gameplay baring a few edge cases. And by fixing edge the cases the resulting game play ends better than not allowing the multiclassing and feat rules. Heck from the sound of it from his follow up, the hierarchy would be
Top: houserules
Middle: standard rules w/multiclassing and feats
Bottom: No multiclassing or feats.

Kinda like if there is an issue with a spell on a class list (say for example healing spirit and druid). Does it make more sense to ban the spell or the class?

[kore]

Still seeing responses from people who have obviously not watched the videos.

The explanations for each of these houserules have a basis in years of 5e experience and the reasons are pretty well thought-out and dumping them into a forum without full context set this whole thread up for all manner of argument. While I don't know if I agree with his #1, Treantmonk's objective is multi-purpose but the reason that gets primacy is encouraging variation. This is the same reason that makes his #3 a bit refreshing. Want to see more sword-and-board (or whatever else)? Don't make GWM or SS pigeonhole martials into using very specific weapons. This encourages variety and I think that is a great objective.

[stoutstien]

Still seeing responses from people who have obviously not watched the videos.

The explanations for each of these houserules have a basis in years of 5e experience and the reasons are pretty well thought-out and dumping them into a forum without full context set this whole thread up for all manner of argument. While I don't know if I agree with his #1, Treantmonk's objective is multi-purpose but the reason that gets primacy is encouraging variation. This is the same reason that makes his #3 a bit refreshing. Want to see more sword-and-board (or whatever else)? Don't make GWM or SS pigeonhole martials into using very specific weapons. This encourages variety and I think that is a great objective.
His diagnosis of the issue is well and good but his prognosis isn't. If you want to reward and encourage seeing more variety in concepts shifting the meta isn't going to help without addressing the actual issue which is probably more of a DM/pacing/resource problem.

[Leon]

Want to see more sword-and-board (or whatever else)? Don't make GWM or SS pigeonhole martials into using very specific weapons. This encourages variety and I think that is a great objective.

Want to see more variety, play with more diverse groups who are not shackled to using only what's "best"

[Psyren]

Still seeing responses from people who have obviously not watched the videos.

The explanations for each of these houserules have a basis in years of 5e experience and the reasons are pretty well thought-out and dumping them into a forum without full context set this whole thread up for all manner of argument. While I don't know if I agree with his #1, Treantmonk's objective is multi-purpose but the reason that gets primacy is encouraging variation. This is the same reason that makes his #3 a bit refreshing. Want to see more sword-and-board (or whatever else)? Don't make GWM or SS pigeonhole martials into using very specific weapons. This encourages variety and I think that is a great objective.

Agreed, and it's even beneficial for martials who ARE using those "optimal" weapons. By letting everyone have that previously feat-gated damage option for free, now you've opened all those builds up to entirely new feats, or to be able to grab ASIs without feeling disadvantaged - variety in other words.


Want to see more variety, play with more diverse groups who are not shackled to using only what's "best"

Those groups aren't hurt by this either though. They can simply choose to not use this option.

[Sception]

I like these rules - though I'd make the second one apply only to concentration spells, not all leveled spells. But yeah, when the party squishy can have a default AC on par with if not even higher than the party tank with a single level dip, or a racial choice and/or feat, and that's before shield/mirror image/other defensive spells, that basically defeats the entire point of having a tank in the first place. When 'abjurer', the wizard subclass, is arguably a better party tank than any subclass of any class actually meant for tanking, yeah, that's frustrating.

In a highly optimized environment SS and GWM are extremely consolidating, somewhat invalidating weapon damage builds based on anything other than great weapons & ranged weapons. Just making the -5/+10 available to every weapon by default makes other weapon builds more interesting again.

Shield is just way too much. First level spells are supposed to get overshadowed by higher level spell slots as characters level, but shield stays every bit as dramatically powerful as levels go on. Arguably it gets even more so once you have more first level spells, and enough 2+ level spells that casting first level spells defensively isn't meaningfully eating into your offense. Plus +5 to AC would be shocking in a 'bounded accuracy' context for even a single attack. Shield gives it to you for an entire round, not even burning an action, for a resource cost that just gets less and less significant as you level, activated retroactively only when something hits you to begin with. It makes an absolute shambles of things and combines with the ease of picking up armor proficiencies to make casters considerably tougher than the classes that are supposedly there to protect them.



So yeah, all these make sense to me. I can at least see the logic behing them. I'd happily play in a game using them. If I ran games for compulsive optimizers I'd be tempted to incorporate them into my own games.

[Witty Username]

Still seeing responses from people who have obviously not watched the videos.

The explanations for each of these houserules have a basis in years of 5e experience and the reasons are pretty well thought-out and dumping them into a forum without full context set this whole thread up for all manner of argument. While I don't know if I agree with his #1, Treantmonk's objective is multi-purpose but the reason that gets primacy is encouraging variation. This is the same reason that makes his #3 a bit refreshing. Want to see more sword-and-board (or whatever else)? Don't make GWM or SS pigeonhole martials into using very specific weapons. This encourages variety and I think that is a great objective.

I do apologize for not providing the context if it hurt the discussion. I left out the specifics of the video because there are a few on the forum that have the opinion "Treantmonk, therefore wrong" and I was hoping to avoid that argument.

[Kane0]

I do apologize for not providing the context if it hurt the discussion. I left out the specifics of the video because there are a few on the forum that have the opinion "Treantmonk, therefore wrong" and I was hoping to avoid that argument.

Eheheheh, that may well be the case but I prefer to believe the general GitP response is 'the fact that it is TreantMonk offers no additional credibility'

[Arcomage]

Note also that the context is not "These specific builds are a problem in my game and therefore I'm going to nerf them", as many people seem to be assuming, but rather that the idea is to implement these as part of a Session 0 for a new campaign, encouraging build variety by shaking up the optimization meta. It's also not a matter of Treantmonk being unable to provide a challenge for an optimized group (he's been doing that pretty much since 5e came out), but these houserules do seem to come from a general sense of frustration with the state of 5e optimization.

I suspect that he's getting that worse than most because he runs games that specifically expect a high degree of system mastery. In my home group, I see no reason to implement these houserules. Nonetheless, it's hard to deny that Shield distorts the basic assumptions of bounded accuracy, especially in the tier 1/2 bands where a lot of campaigns actually play. Armored mages aren't as much of a problem to me as they seem to be to him, but I'd agree that it's a rather generic capability that shows up on a lot more builds than it perhaps should. Making Power Attack universally available is just generally nice for improving weapon type viability.

My personal overall verdict is therefore that I'm not going to use these, but I see where they're coming from and agree with most of the reasoning behind them..

[Glorthindel]

The biggest problem is Cleric, because you can dip it at any level and get full heavy armor prof because it's technically sublcass feature.

My suggestion is to nerf Cleric dips by only allowing light armor and shields when they multiclass, regardless of subclass.


I personally already run a houserule that removes Heavy Armour Proficiency to all Cleric subclasses, and grants it to the core Cleric Class. Sure, that buffs a few Cleric subclasses that didn't originally get Heavy Armour (but I haven't felt this is a problem, all the strong Cleric subclasses already have Heavy Armour), but removes the ability to claim the Proficiency through a dip.

[Sorinth]

I'm not sure that I buy the argument that these changes would actually result in more variety. If you constantly see the same builds because everyone plays the most optimized build(s) then nothing's really changes because after these rules you'll just see whatever the new best build(s) over and over again. There's no rule change that can fix this problem for any length of time, if you want the meta to feel new/fresh you have to constantly be changing it. So for D&D every campaign you'd need/want to throw in a bunch of variants/house rules so that the meta is different for each campaign.


Now in terms of the actual "fixes" I think they are weak solutions because they aren't actually interesting. For example, banning the Shield isn't interesting because it doesn't foster choice, whereas tweaking Shield so that it isn't an automatic cast would make it interesting. As an example make it so that it's similar to Arcane Deflection and you can only cast Cantrips on the next turn. The power level is reduced which was a primary goal, but it actually forces a decision where the right answer isn't obvious. Go a step further and have the reaction trigger before you know whether the attack hits or misses, or have it last for 1 attack instead of 1 round, or have the AC bonus be a 1d6+Spell Level so you don't even know if it will prevent the hit. There are plenty of ways of making it less powerful but more interesting.

[diplomancer]

I personally already run a houserule that removes Heavy Armour Proficiency to all Cleric subclasses, and grants it to the core Cleric Class. Sure, that buffs a few Cleric subclasses that didn't originally get Heavy Armour (but I haven't felt this is a problem, all the strong Cleric subclasses already have Heavy Armour), but removes the ability to claim the Proficiency through a dip.

Unless you're a dwarf or you're playing a weird caster build that wants heavy weapons, the difference between medium and heavy armour is pretty small. And this doesn't do anything really, dip-wise, apart from encouraging taking the cleric level first.

I still think that the best way to implement rule 2 is to set a minimum level (3 or 4) in the armor-granting class to be able to use spells from any class.

3 or 4 levels in a secondary class is a huge investment, specially for a caster.

True, it doesn't stop the martials who dip for Shield, but I honestly think this is not a problem for pure martials, unless this is a 1-big-fight-a-day game (and not even then. In such a game, martials need all the help they can get).

Might be a problem for Hexblade/Paladins, but if that's a problem, just ban that particular combination, or Hexblade entirely, as many DMs do. The combination without shield is problematic enough.

[kore]

I do apologize for not providing the context if it hurt the discussion. I left out the specifics of the video because there are a few on the forum that have the opinion "Treantmonk, therefore wrong" and I was hoping to avoid that argument.

Nah, no apology necessary. Your assumption about bias is proven correct. But for everyone interested in having a discussion without regard for the source the context of the genesis of these rules helps cut to the chase. In my opinion, the 3rd one seems like a no-brainer for the reasons given; the swing to offense from defense isn't so great as to objectively eliminate one or the other, from an optimization perspective.

[diplomancer]

Nah, no apology necessary. Your assumption about bias is proven correct. But for everyone interested in having a discussion without regard for the source the context of the genesis of these rules helps cut to the chase. In my opinion, the 3rd one seems like a no-brainer for the reasons given; the swing to offense from defense isn't so great as to objectively eliminate one or the other, from an optimization perspective.

Something about rule 3 that just occurred to me; wouldn't it make PAM Staff+Shield or Spear+Shield almost mandatory for any melee build that does not have any good use of a bonus action? Thus diminishing even more build diversity? Now, at the price of 1 feat, you get PAM+GWM and a shield to boot!

Edit: unlike Sharpshooter, which provides significant benefits apart from -5+10, GWM's big thing is the -5+10. So some archers might still take Sharpshooter nonetheless, but no melee would ever take GWM.

[heavyfuel]

After having watched both videos (that I didn't even know existed) I can't say I changed my mind about any rules except maybe rule 1.

Personally, I love the Shield spell, but if you have everyone dipping casters just for that, then you are using it, at most 4 times per long rest with Wizard (3 base + 1 from AR).

To me, that's more easily solved by increasing the number of combat encounters in between long rests.

I suppose a DM would be justified in banning it if they wanted more variety in their builds, but I don't think that's a huge deal.

Armor/Shield proficiency still only leaves the Cleric and Artificer dips as the main offender. Scrape Medium armor and Shields from dips in these class and the problem solves itself (although that is a houserule in its own right)

The -5/+10 houserule is much better than I thought. His arguments have really convinced me to go for it next time I DM. I think I might make GMW (but no SS) a half-feat after that (and remove the -5/+10 from both)


I personally already run a houserule that removes Heavy Armour Proficiency to all Cleric subclasses, and grants it to the core Cleric Class. Sure, that buffs a few Cleric subclasses that didn't originally get Heavy Armour (but I haven't felt this is a problem, all the strong Cleric subclasses already have Heavy Armour), but removes the ability to claim the Proficiency through a dip.

I like it, thought it doesn't solve the Medium Armor + Shield + Spell slot progression combo you get from dipping, which is what is so prevalent in 5e (according to OP and TM)

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Something about rule 3 that just occurred to me; wouldn't it make PAM Staff+Shield or Spear+Shield almost mandatory for any melee build that does not have any good use of a bonus action? Thus diminishing even more build diversity? Now, at the price of 1 feat, you get PAM+GWM and a shield to boot!

Edit: unlike Sharpshooter, which provides significant benefits apart from -5+10, GWM's big thing is the -5+10. So some archers might still take Sharpshooter nonetheless, but no melee would ever take GWM.

Melee Dex builds would be much improved, and as you point out ranged Dex builds would still be good. 2 handed weapons would be basically trash; any tiny benefit you get from the base damage is offset by Dueling.
I do agree that rule 3 would just pigeonhole characters. Our table currently gets a good range of styles with RAW, except for 2 weapon, which I buffed a bit for one player that wanted it.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Unless you're a dwarf or you're playing a weird caster build that wants heavy weapons, the difference between medium and heavy armour is pretty small. And this doesn't do anything really, dip-wise, apart from encouraging taking the cleric level first.

I still think that the best way to implement rule 2 is to set a minimum level (3 or 4) in the armor-granting class to be able to use spells from any class.

3 or 4 levels in a secondary class is a huge investment, specially for a caster.

True, it doesn't stop the martials who dip for Shield, but I honestly think this is not a problem for pure martials, unless this is a 1-big-fight-a-day game (and not even then. In such a game, martials need all the help they can get).

Might be a problem for Hexblade/Paladins, but if that's a problem, just ban that particular combination, or Hexblade entirely, as many DMs do. The combination without shield is problematic enough.

Agreed on the Med vs Heavy armor. Heavy armor isn't really worth it unless a character is using the extra strength requirement for attacking or comes across some magic armor. The benefits of a dex build, the extra attribute point available, and and potential to use stealth compensate for any AC benefit.

[Dark.Revenant]

I feel these rules are not objective improvements. They're just, well, changes, that may or may not fit a particular group or gaming style.

Personally, I do nerf Shield—by preventing it from stacking with actual shields. It's a very sensible change to make, and curtails rampant abuse of the spell without affecting the characters that need it the most.

Also, mathematically, -5/+10 isn't *that* good when you're blowing an ASI to get it, save for weird situations like having a Belt of Giant Strength and a +X weapon. PAM+GWM isn't massively better than just PAM by itself. The meta feats have always been CBE and PAM because of the bonus action attack.

[Damon_Tor]

I made a suggestion earlier on these forums to make armor proficiencies gradual over the first few levels of a class, so they dont get plate or half plate proficiency until level 4 or 5 is a class with a relevant proficiency. This would make "dipping" less powerful.

[Witty Username]

I find the idea interesting, but I have concerns on the effectiveness of martials being disrupted. I know for other tables it would possibly be a non issue as things like plate wouldn't be affordable until 4th level anyway, but I like providing those things earlier, since it makes Dex builds less of a no brainer.