Unarmored characters need an equivalent to armor +X

[Greywander]

So in a game without magic items, AC values are quite tightly tuned. The quickest way to 20 AC is plate and a shield, though it may take a while before you can afford plate. Mage Armor is actually slightly better than studded leather, albeit only if you max out your DEX, which a caster might not (CON is often considered just as if not more important on casters). Monks take a bit longer, but eventually match plate and a shield once their DEX and WIS are maxed. Pretty much you can typically expect every PC to eventually end up with an AC between 17 and 20.

And then this tight tuning breaks once magic armor is introduced to the game.

With armor +X and shields +X, we're looking at potentially up to a +6 bonus to AC. That's a lot. But not everyone has shield proficiency, and some who do choose to discard the shield in favor for a two-handed weapon. So we can ignore magic shields for now, aside from one exception I'll get to later. And besides, I'm kind of okay with those wielding shields having higher AC than those not wielding shields, it just kind of makes sense.

Even just looking at magic armor, we're still looking at a potential +3 bonus, which isn't insignificant. And most classes can benefit from this. The only casters without armor proficiency are wizards and sorcerers, and it's pretty common for wizards to dip into fighter or cleric, and sorcerers to dip into bard, warlock, or paladin. The main point I want to get across is that the only ones left hanging out to dry are monks, and single-classed wizards and sorcerers.

People already complain about wizards and sorcerers dipping for armor proficiency. And not only are monks a martial class, but they're a martial class with top tier AC before magic items are introduced. And yet, after magic items are introduced, they get... nothing. Not unless you're willing to give up an attunement slot. But why should the monk have to give up a slot for Bracers of Defense when the fighter and paladin are getting it for free from non-attuned armor/shield +X?

Now, I know some of you are going to say that not every campaign has magic items. That's true, and that might be relevant if we were comparing magic items to something that isn't a magic item, like a class feature. But we're not. We're comparing magic items to other magic items, so we're operating under the assumption that magic items are being given out.

My first thought was to take the Bracers of Defense and change them to mirror armor +X, so they would come in three varieties of different rarities and wouldn't require attunement. But I think I actually want to leave the bracers as they in, if for no other reason than because there are other bracer items you might want to wear and I don't want players to feel locked out of those because they "have" to wear the Bracers of Defense. Armor is defensive item, so wearing one suit of armor over another just means trading one type of defense for a different type of defense, but not all bracers are defensive items, e.g. the Bracers of Archery. Besides, if we only provide an equivalent for armor +X and not for shields +X, then the Bracers of Defense can act as a way of getting close to having both the magic armor and magic shield.

Instead, let's create a new magic item. My first thought was a belt, but I could see DMs ruling you can only wear one belt. Rings are boring. Instead, let's make it a Charm of Defense, like a keychain type of thing that you clip onto your belt or clothing, with a tiny shield. That's nice and flavorful. It comes in three rarities matching armor +X (Rare, Very Rare, and Legendary), offering +1, +2, or +3 AC, but only while you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield. No attunement.

This offers a bonus to those wizards and sorcerers who stay straight-classed, and helps monks to keep up with martials in magic armor. The one place this still falls a bit short is monk AC vs. martials with both magic armor and a magic shield. Before magic items, monks match someone in plate wielding a shield. With armor/shield +X, the monk falls behind, even with this charm. That said, perhaps the Bracers of Defense can fill that gap. A non-monk martial is giving up two-handed weapons or TWF to use a shield, so the monk has to give up an attunement slot to get a similar AC boost. And even without the bracers, the monk is still slightly ahead of a martial not using a shield.

TL;DR, the lack of an equivalent to armor +X but for unarmored characters only hurts monks and straight-classed wizards/sorcerers (encouraging dips for armor), and the Bracers of Defense aren't an acceptable substitute due to requiring attunement. Instead, let's add a new item, the Charm of Defense, that doesn't require attunement and mirrors armor +X in rarity and AC bonus, but only works when not wearing armor or wielding a shield.

[OldTrees1]

Umm, why have +1 armor instead of +0 armor of interesting effect or +0 belt of interesting effect? Your Charm of Defense idea is fine, but I would never want one. There is no need for a Charm of Defense, just like there is no need for a +1 Shield instead of a Spellguard Shield or Shield of Missile Attraction.

That said, there are very few magic belts. Making some more belt options would be neat.

TLDR: Sure, it is not needed, but it is fine and won't break anything.

[Witty Username]

Wizards and Sorcerers don't need additional defensive options. First, they tend to be backline characters that provide wide scale effects. Second, they have strong defensive options like Shield. Generally they are a bit overtuned defensively without armor for what they are supposed to do. them dipping for armor is for mildly gamebreaking AC values.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No one needs +X armor. Plus, it's actually quite rare, especially if you want top tier armor like plate or half plate or even studded leather.

IMO the game would be better if all +X items replaced that effect by more interesting effects.

[Greywander]

Umm, why have +1 armor instead of +0 armor of interesting effect or +0 belt of interesting effect? Your Charm of Defense idea is fine, but I would never want one. There is no need for a Charm of Defense, just like there is no need for a +1 Shield instead of a Spellguard Shield or Shield of Missile Attraction.

No one needs +X armor. Plus, it's actually quite rare, especially if you want top tier armor like plate or half plate or even studded leather.

IMO the game would be better if all +X items replaced that effect by more interesting effects.
You're both entirely missing the point. It's all fine and dandy if the DM decides not to hand out armor +X, and/or if they hand out more interesting items instead. In fact, I'll agree with you that it would be more interesting to get a suit of armor that has an interesting effect on it and not just a bland +X to AC. That's great.

But what's being discussed is the context in which the DM is handing out armor +X. All I'm saying is that the DM could also be handing out Charms of Defense for the monk and/or wizard/sorcerer, in addition to armor +X. If the DM isn't handing out armor +X, then there isn't really a need for the Charm of Defense.

It's like saying there's no need for a cure for cancer if people just don't get cancer. Like, yeah, sure, but what if people do get cancer? Having a cure for cancer isn't going to affect all the people not getting cancer, but it would sure be a huge help for the people who are getting cancer. Is "I think people just shouldn't get cancer" really the take you want to go with?


Wizards and Sorcerers don't need additional defensive options. First, they tend to be backline characters that provide wide scale effects. Second, they have strong defensive options like Shield. Generally they are a bit overtuned defensively without armor for what they are supposed to do. them dipping for armor is for mildly gamebreaking AC values.
You're not wrong. Wizards and sorcerers probably have more AC than they should. But there are a few things to consider. First, what about the poor monk? Second, dipping for armor is actually the optimal build for wizards and sorcerers; all the Charm of Defense is doing is shoring up a suboptimal build, and that's generally a good thing. Third, as you point out, wizard/sorcerer AC is already not what it should be. Not adding the Charm of Defense isn't "fixing" anything, it's just not making the problem worse. The real offender is most likely the Shield spell. If you remove the Shield spell, this issue pretty much goes away. That said, I do like the Shield spell, so I'd rather fix it than remove it, but that's a discussion for another time and another thread.

[Mellack]

Don't the bracers of defense fit the niche you are looking for?

[DarknessEternal]

Don't the bracers of defense fit the niche you are looking for?

Yes, this option exists already. No problem here.

[Amechra]

You also have Cloaks of Protection, Rings of Protection, and Scaled Ornaments (rare or better).

[Christew]

Don't the bracers of defense fit the niche you are looking for?


You also have Cloaks of Protection, Rings of Protection, and Scaled Ornaments (rare or better).

All of which require attunement.

[Telwar]

Yes, this option exists already. No problem here.

Except Bracers of Armor require attunement, as do the other Blorp of Protection items. And monks get the same three attunement slots everyone who isn't an artificer does.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong in removing the attunement requirement to the Bracers for characters with an Unarmored Defense feature, or even just monks.

I'm really not that concerned about wizards/sorcerers, as they can be backline folks, and also frankly they can obtain medium armor proficiency with a quick multiclass, and their spells will still work fine. It's only monks who lose features if they're wearing armor they're proficient in.

[Greywander]

Don't the bracers of defense fit the niche you are looking for?

Yes, this option exists already. No problem here.

You also have Cloaks of Protection, Rings of Protection, and Scaled Ornaments (rare or better).
These all require attunement. Armor +X does not. That's my issue.

If the Bracers of Defense didn't require attunement, I probably wouldn't have an issue. As I said in the OP, I think it's fine to leave the Bracers of Defense as-is to act as a stand-in for a magic shield; a martial is giving up a hand to use the shield, while that's a negligible cost to a monk or mage, so instead the monk or mage has to give up an attunement slot. So I think this covers shields +X, but it still leaves armor +X unaccounted for.

There are suits of magic armor that give different effects and do require attunement, but monks and non-proficient casters are locked out of those anyway. A martial can choose to wear armor that requires attunement, but they at least have the choice of switching to armor +X that doesn't require attunement so they can attune to something else instead. Monks and mages don't have that choice. The Charm of Defense acts as if they had chosen to wear armor +X, since attunable armors aren't an option for them anyway.

Again, this won't matter if the party isn't getting magic items. For the sake of critique, you have to assume that martials have access to comparable armor and shields +X. If the fighter and paladin have plate +3 and a shield +3, and can still attune to three items, how is it fair to give the monk Bracers of Defense and ask them to give up an attunement slot for one third the AC bonus the fighter and paladin are getting for free?

[Keravath]

I think you are mostly thinking of the monk in this context though also possibly the single classed wizard or sorcerer.

The issue you are looking at is that all the other martial classes wear armor and so can benefit from +1 -> +3 from armor and an additional +1 -> +3 from shields without requiring attunement. The characters just need to find the armor/shields.

However, magic items are very firmly in the hands of the DM. They can easily add anything they like to the game if they feel it will enhance their game or their players will like it. So, this isn't really a general problem, it is something specific DMs will address if they feel necessary in their games. This is especially true since the items that could resolve this are exceptionally easy to create and unlikely to cause much of a balance issue (at least not any more than +3 armor or shields already do).

e.g.

Hardened Gi - this magical clothing is only wearable by a creature with access to ki - woven from the silk of Sword Spiders, the especially tight weave provides more protection to the wearer than normal clothing but does not impede their movement in any way. The ki of the wearer suffuses the fabric making them more aware of incoming attacks. The clothing provides a +1, +2 or +3 bonus to armor class depending on the quality of the garment (rare, very rare, legendary). The properties of the gi do not function if armor is worn.

The DM could also create a more generic shirt that would function for anyone not wearing armor.

However, the game doesn't NEED these items but if a DM wants to include something to fill that niche then they are welcome to do so.

[OldTrees1]

You're both entirely missing the point. It's all fine and dandy if the DM decides not to hand out armor +X, and/or if they hand out more interesting items instead. In fact, I'll agree with you that it would be more interesting to get a suit of armor that has an interesting effect on it and not just a bland +X to AC. That's great.

But what's being discussed is the context in which the DM is handing out armor +X. All I'm saying is that the DM could also be handing out Charms of Defense for the monk and/or wizard/sorcerer, in addition to armor +X. If the DM isn't handing out armor +X, then there isn't really a need for the Charm of Defense.

It's like saying there's no need for a cure for cancer if people just don't get cancer. Like, yeah, sure, but what if people do get cancer? Having a cure for cancer isn't going to affect all the people not getting cancer, but it would sure be a huge help for the people who are getting cancer. Is "I think people just shouldn't get cancer" really the take you want to go with?

I understood the context. You might want to re-review my answer.

1) In the context where +X items exist, and the party comes across them, nobody NEEDS them.

Let's say I have a Paladin and the GM hands out +3 Armor, a +3 Weapon, a +3 Shield, and a Broom of Flying. I'll take the Broom of Flying thank you. There is no need for a Charm of Defense because there is no need for the +3 Armor. If I were playing a Monk in your campaign I would take the Broom of Flying instead of the Charm of Defense if given the option (notice the symmetry? neither character needed the +X item). The game does not require me to take a +X item so I would much rather have one of the the other non-attunement magic items we found.

2) However your idea doesn't break anything. It might not be NEEDED, and I wouldn't want the item, but it won't break anything, and you would want the item. Go for it.

3) (implied above, stated explicitly now) What about Charms of Defense with interesting effects and no attunement as additional options instead of only these +X Charms?


If the "cancer" is "feeling a need for a +X item and lacking the option" then part of the holistic cure is the understanding that you don't need the +X item (the other half is having these +X Charms of Defense as available options).

[arnin77]

I dont understand this OP complaint at all... not all martials use shields, martials are supposed to have higher ac, monks already get unarmored defense, and wizards get the mage armor and shield spells... some wizards even get bumps to ac and this extremely helps barbarians who also get unarmored defense and seems to nullify the need for them to wear armor. Martials are upfront and in more dangerous positions so them having a higher ac makes sense - also, casters are supposed to be more squishy and if you want 20 ac and to be a full caster you can be a cleric.. a heavy armor cleric with a shield and shield of faith can have just as high an AC as a martial... especially forge cleric. I've also never heard anyone complain about casters multiclassing for armor proficiency... if they do so they push back their casting a level or two - seems like a fair trade if that's what they prefer. Also, bracers of defense, while already stated is attunement - can only be attuned by someone without armor. so...all the classes you mentioned - and not martials with armor. So if you make an +x non-attunement armor bonus item, then you'd have to make a +x attunement armor bonus item that martials can use to match bracers of defense. Just my opinion.

[Pex]

Umm, why have +1 armor instead of +0 armor of interesting effect or +0 belt of interesting effect? Your Charm of Defense idea is fine, but I would never want one. There is no need for a Charm of Defense, just like there is no need for a +1 Shield instead of a Spellguard Shield or Shield of Missile Attraction.

That said, there are very few magic belts. Making some more belt options would be neat.

TLDR: Sure, it is not needed, but it is fine and won't break anything.


No one needs +X armor. Plus, it's actually quite rare, especially if you want top tier armor like plate or half plate or even studded leather.

IMO the game would be better if all +X items replaced that effect by more interesting effects.

Why can't you have both? Be a +X armor or shield and have an interesting effect? A +X thing might be boring to you, but that's not a universal truth. It's said because of Bounded Accuracy even a +1 matters, so a +1 armor, shield, or weapon is a big deal. There's nothing wrong with +0 and something interesting, but that's not a requirement. +X and something interesting is perfectly fine.

As for thread question, it is annoying for unarmored characters to have low AC, but that's a feature not a bug. It's a factor of that class's design. Some call it a balance factor. Mage Armor exists for a reason. There now exists published magic tattoos that give AC. It would have been nice if there exists other published AC boosts. Bracers of defense come to mind which existed since the beginning of 5E, so the OP's concern was already addressed. However, that particular classes do not have it easy, if at all, of ever getting 22, 23, 24, AC is how it is supposed to work. The theoretical Fighters and Paladins having the best AC with +X armor and shield, possibly with other interesting effects, is their cool somewhat unique thing. Not everyone is supposed to be like that.

[Greywander]

I think you are mostly thinking of the monk in this context though also possibly the single classed wizard or sorcerer.

The issue you are looking at is that all the other martial classes wear armor and so can benefit from +1 -> +3 from armor and an additional +1 -> +3 from shields without requiring attunement. The characters just need to find the armor/shields.
Yeah, monk is really the focus, but I did want to acknowledge single-classed wizards and sorcerers. Perhaps the problem with the latter is the multiclass rules, though I kind of like them. In the absence of a radical change to how multiclassing works, I thought that this could also serve as a nice boon for those willing to stay single-classed instead of dipping for armor.

For the monk, specifically, they're supposed to be a martial class. If you just don't have magic items in your game, there isn't a problem, but if the fighter and paladin are getting magic armor and magic shields, it leaves monks feeling like they're getting shafted. Everyone but them is getting these nice, shiny defensive items that don't cost anything to equip. It's true that this doesn't actually make the monk weaker than it already does, but it does make them feel weaker by comparison. Suddenly, the monk who had matching AC to the paladin can't keep up when tanking hits anymore, not because the monk is getting hit more often, but because the paladin is getting hit less often.


However, magic items are very firmly in the hands of the DM. They can easily add anything they like to the game if they feel it will enhance their game or their players will like it. So, this isn't really a general problem, it is something specific DMs will address if they feel necessary in their games. This is especially true since the items that could resolve this are exceptionally easy to create and unlikely to cause much of a balance issue (at least not any more than +3 armor or shields already do).
Sure, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to provide a ready-made solution that they can throw in without having to do any additional work. Arguments like this come off like the equivalent of "we'll fix it in post"; technically any issue in the game can be fixed by the DM, but that's not a reason to offload the problem onto them when you can come up with an adequate solution ahead of time.


I understood the context. You might want to re-review my answer.

1) In the context where +X items exist, and the party comes across them, nobody NEEDS them.
Ah, I understand now. No one actually needs any magic items, which is why you can have a campaign that leaves them out. It could also be said that no one needs Christmas presents, but we all know that if one person gets a present and someone else does not, the person who didn't get a present is going to feel like they've been spited. You don't just give out items to one party member, you try to distribute them evenly between the party.

With your example of the Broom of Flying, sure, I'd rather have that then slightly better armor. But if Bob the fighter gets magic armor, I'm still going to expect to get my own magic armor at some point later on. And maybe Bob the fighter wants something cool to use since I took the Broom of Flying, like a Decanter of Endless Water or Immovable Rod or something. Or maybe Bob the fighter isn't really interested in those kinds of items, and just cares about what magic weapons armor he can get. Utility items also tend to get treated more as property of the party as a whole, rather than belonging to a specific player. An item can get passed around depending on who needs it, and its utility functions are often directly beneficial to the whole party, and not to a specific player. I don't know that utility items can be directly compared to combat items because of this. Obviously, if a utility item requires attunement, then a comparison will have to be made, but that will typically come down to that player's personal preferences.


3) (implied above, stated explicitly now) What about Charms of Defense with interesting effects and no attunement as additional options instead of only these +X Charms?
This made me realize a potential issue with making the item a kind of charm. Armor competes with other armor, because you can only wear one suit of armor, but a keychain-style charm wouldn't have any such limitation. Thus, if I did make some other charms with interesting effects, there wouldn't be any reason you couldn't use both at the same time. And as I think about it, most item slots could potentially be doubled up. I'm sure you could probably wear two cloaks, for example. There's only a few equip slots that couldn't really double up: armor, gauntlets (but not gloves), helmets (but not hats), and boots.

So something like the gi idea posted above might be kind of comparable, but you could still wear two shirts.

Alternatively, it might be as simple as having a "Charm of _____ Defense", e.g. a Charm of Lucky Defense, or a Charm of Fire Defense, or a Charm of Leaping Defense, etc., and just explicitly say that they don't stack with the Charm of Defense. These would probably all give an AC bonus as well, but none except the pure Charm of Defense would get to +3. So, for example, a Charm of Leaping Defense might give you +1 AC and triple jump distance.

You could even push the monk flavor by literally making them those paper talisman things.


I dont understand this OP complaint at all...
And I'm having trouble parsing your post. Please try to format your posts for easier readability, it really does help.


not all martials use shields, martials are supposed to have higher ac, monks already get unarmored defense, and wizards get the mage armor and shield spells... some wizards even get bumps to ac and this extremely helps barbarians who also get unarmored defense and seems to nullify the need for them to wear armor.
Martials giving up a shield for a two-handed weapon or TWF are choosing to do so. Monks and mages don't get to choose. Martials are supposed to have high AC, and Unarmored Defense does give the monk high AC pre-magic items. But once the magic items start to flow, the monk sees little benefit, and falls behind the other martial classes.

The Shield spell is its own issue, and should be dealt with separately. If you remove Shield from the game, then a lot of the issues with casters having too much AC go away. In other words, the problem is the Shield spell, not my proposed Charms of Defense.

From what I've heard, most barbarians wear armor, mostly because they don't want to invest deeply enough into DEX (or even CON, really) for Unarmored Defense to be worth it. Also, note that an unarmored barbarian can still use a shield, whereas this proposed Charm of Defense doesn't work with a shield. If it enables more unarmored barbarians, then I think that's a win.


I've also never heard anyone complain about casters multiclassing for armor proficiency...
Wasn't there a thread on this very subject not that long ago? Someone was wanting to institute a houserule that casting in armor would only work for armor proficiencies gained from that class, so a wizard who dips into cleric could cast their cleric spells in armor, but not their wizard spells. Basically the complaint was that too many people were playing armored wizards and it didn't fit the preconceived image that person had of wizards. I'll acknowledge that there's a problem there, but I don't think there's an easy solution, and I like my armored wizards, too.


Also, bracers of defense, while already stated is attunement - can only be attuned by someone without armor. so...all the classes you mentioned - and not martials with armor. So if you make an +x non-attunement armor bonus item, then you'd have to make a +x attunement armor bonus item that martials can use to match bracers of defense. Just my opinion.
I've said this before, but I see the Bracers of Defense as a stand in for a magic shield. Martials have to give up a hand to wield a shield, but monks and mages both have hands to spare, so that's not a huge cost to them. So martials are getting magic shields instead of Bracers of Defense. Or, if you really want an attunement item, the Ring or Cloak of Protection could also work.

[arnin77]

Yeah, monk is really the focus, but I did want to acknowledge single-classed wizards and sorcerers. Perhaps the problem with the latter is the multiclass rules, though I kind of like them. In the absence of a radical change to how multiclassing works, I thought that this could also serve as a nice boon for those willing to stay single-classed instead of dipping for armor.

For the monk, specifically, they're supposed to be a martial class. If you just don't have magic items in your game, there isn't a problem, but if the fighter and paladin are getting magic armor and magic shields, it leaves monks feeling like they're getting shafted. Everyone but them is getting these nice, shiny defensive items that don't cost anything to equip. It's true that this doesn't actually make the monk weaker than it already does, but it does make them feel weaker by comparison. Suddenly, the monk who had matching AC to the paladin can't keep up when tanking hits anymore, not because the monk is getting hit more often, but because the paladin is getting hit less often.


Sure, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to provide a ready-made solution that they can throw in without having to do any additional work. Arguments like this come off like the equivalent of "we'll fix it in post"; technically any issue in the game can be fixed by the DM, but that's not a reason to offload the problem onto them when you can come up with an adequate solution ahead of time.


Ah, I understand now. No one actually needs any magic items, which is why you can have a campaign that leaves them out. It could also be said that no one needs Christmas presents, but we all know that if one person gets a present and someone else does not, the person who didn't get a present is going to feel like they've been spited. You don't just give out items to one party member, you try to distribute them evenly between the party.

With your example of the Broom of Flying, sure, I'd rather have that then slightly better armor. But if Bob the fighter gets magic armor, I'm still going to expect to get my own magic armor at some point later on. And maybe Bob the fighter wants something cool to use since I took the Broom of Flying, like a Decanter of Endless Water or Immovable Rod or something. Or maybe Bob the fighter isn't really interested in those kinds of items, and just cares about what magic weapons armor he can get. Utility items also tend to get treated more as property of the party as a whole, rather than belonging to a specific player. An item can get passed around depending on who needs it, and its utility functions are often directly beneficial to the whole party, and not to a specific player. I don't know that utility items can be directly compared to combat items because of this. Obviously, if a utility item requires attunement, then a comparison will have to be made, but that will typically come down to that player's personal preferences.


This made me realize a potential issue with making the item a kind of charm. Armor competes with other armor, because you can only wear one suit of armor, but a keychain-style charm wouldn't have any such limitation. Thus, if I did make some other charms with interesting effects, there wouldn't be any reason you couldn't use both at the same time. And as I think about it, most item slots could potentially be doubled up. I'm sure you could probably wear two cloaks, for example. There's only a few equip slots that couldn't really double up: armor, gauntlets (but not gloves), helmets (but not hats), and boots.

So something like the gi idea posted above might be kind of comparable, but you could still wear two shirts.

Alternatively, it might be as simple as having a "Charm of _____ Defense", e.g. a Charm of Lucky Defense, or a Charm of Fire Defense, or a Charm of Leaping Defense, etc., and just explicitly say that they don't stack with the Charm of Defense. These would probably all give an AC bonus as well, but none except the pure Charm of Defense would get to +3. So, for example, a Charm of Leaping Defense might give you +1 AC and triple jump distance.

You could even push the monk flavor by literally making them those paper talisman things.


And I'm having trouble parsing your post. Please try to format your posts for easier readability, it really does help.


Martials giving up a shield for a two-handed weapon or TWF are choosing to do so. Monks and mages don't get to choose. Martials are supposed to have high AC, and Unarmored Defense does give the monk high AC pre-magic items. But once the magic items start to flow, the monk sees little benefit, and falls behind the other martial classes.

The Shield spell is its own issue, and should be dealt with separately. If you remove Shield from the game, then a lot of the issues with casters having too much AC go away. In other words, the problem is the Shield spell, not my proposed Charms of Defense.

From what I've heard, most barbarians wear armor, mostly because they don't want to invest deeply enough into DEX (or even CON, really) for Unarmored Defense to be worth it. Also, note that an unarmored barbarian can still use a shield, whereas this proposed Charm of Defense doesn't work with a shield. If it enables more unarmored barbarians, then I think that's a win.


Wasn't there a thread on this very subject not that long ago? Someone was wanting to institute a houserule that casting in armor would only work for armor proficiencies gained from that class, so a wizard who dips into cleric could cast their cleric spells in armor, but not their wizard spells. Basically the complaint was that too many people were playing armored wizards and it didn't fit the preconceived image that person had of wizards. I'll acknowledge that there's a problem there, but I don't think there's an easy solution, and I like my armored wizards, too.


I've said this before, but I see the Bracers of Defense as a stand in for a magic shield. Martials have to give up a hand to wield a shield, but monks and mages both have hands to spare, so that's not a huge cost to them. So martials are getting magic shields instead of Bracers of Defense. Or, if you really want an attunement item, the Ring or Cloak of Protection could also work.

but monks have unarmored defense already - and they aren't meant to be tanking at an equal level to paladin. The Paladin is a frontliner - the Monk is a skirmisher like Rogue and Ranger but more melee focused... at least in my opinion. And you can take a race with light armor proficiency and just get studded leather armor +3 with maxed out dex ... still don't understand the complaint. Also you're arguing that martial characters are making a choice but also saying that casters who've made a choice one way or the other should still get an item of non-attunement to get higher ac. I had a single class evocation wizard with 19 ac at level 7 so again... not sure what the problem is. that's before shield.

[Witty Username]

The argument here is in jist, not that unarmored people and armored people have the same AC. The argument is that armored characters have more options than unarmored options. Example, an unarmored monk has on average 18 AC, an armored Fighter will tend to have an AC about 19 (I don't want to get into this math again), working as intended. A Fighter with +3 armor now has an AC of 22. The OP I not worried about the AC 18 vs AC 19 difference,they are worried about the AC 18 vs AC 22 difference.
YMMV on the severity of the issue.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The argument here is in jist, not that unarmored people and armored people have the same AC. The argument is that armored characters have more options than unarmored options. Example, an unarmored monk has on average 18 AC, an armored Fighter will tend to have an AC about 19 (I don't want to get into this math again), working as intended. A Fighter with +3 armor now has an AC of 22. The OP I not worried about the AC 18 vs AC 19 difference,they are worried about the AC 18 vs AC 22 difference.
YMMV on the severity of the issue.

I think that's well understood and, with that said, I'm not convinced the options should be equal.

For +X armor, the armor is what is magically reinforced. For +X Unarmored things, the magic must reinforce you. It makes sense that an item that functions independently of its user might not require attunement.

A +3 set of plate armor doesn't stop having an AC of 21 if it's discarded or not in use, bracers of defense however have no function without their attunement, they're just magical bracers until they are worn and attuned to. I don't see much (or any) room for an item that would boost your unarmored AC that isn't enhancing, enchanting or altering the user in some way that wouldn't require attunement.

I think that's an intended design as well, almost all forms of unarmored AC calculation list a specific reason for their function to set them apart from "normal". Tortles are protected by a massive shell, Lizardfolk have hardened and rugged scales, Monks have a circulating inner source of power, Mage Armor is a spell. Barbarian might be the only stand out as being pure physical resilience, the peak of "normal" unarmored defense.

[Sception]

what about the poor monk?

The poor monk should be allowed (and expected) to wear light armor in the same way that the barbarian is allowed (and expected) to wear medium armor even though they also have an unarmored defense feature to help them out in the rare circumstance when they're caught without it.

As for spell casters, if anything their AC should be reigned in a bit, perhaps by discouraging them from wearing heavy armor somehow. Maybe armor that imposes disadvantage on stealth should ~also~ impose disadvantage on concentration saves, and the handful of characters who are supposed to cast in heavier armor (paladins, clerics) should get a class feature specifically allowing them to concentrate on *only those spells they know from their own class* without disadvantage from armor.

Also shield is way to good, drop it to +2 AC, or only vs. the triggering attack, or both.


Ideally, I'd like to see a wider variance in the defensive abilities of party members, if only to encourage party cooperation and coordination in the form of protecting the squishier party members.

[Kane0]

These all require attunement. Armor +X does not. That's my issue.


So remove the attunement or make up some +X clothes/robes/vestments/loincloths

[LudicSavant]

So in a game without magic items, AC values are quite tightly tuned. The quickest way to 20 AC is plate and a shield, though it may take a while before you can afford plate. Mage Armor is actually slightly better than studded leather, albeit only if you max out your DEX, which a caster might not (CON is often considered just as if not more important on casters). Monks take a bit longer, but eventually match plate and a shield once their DEX and WIS are maxed. Pretty much you can typically expect every PC to eventually end up with an AC between 17 and 20.

And then this tight tuning breaks once magic armor is introduced to the game.

With armor +X and shields +X, we're looking at potentially up to a +6 bonus to AC. That's a lot. But not everyone has shield proficiency, and some who do choose to discard the shield in favor for a two-handed weapon. So we can ignore magic shields for now, aside from one exception I'll get to later. And besides, I'm kind of okay with those wielding shields having higher AC than those not wielding shields, it just kind of makes sense.

Even just looking at magic armor, we're still looking at a potential +3 bonus, which isn't insignificant. And most classes can benefit from this. The only casters without armor proficiency are wizards and sorcerers, and it's pretty common for wizards to dip into fighter or cleric, and sorcerers to dip into bard, warlock, or paladin. The main point I want to get across is that the only ones left hanging out to dry are monks, and single-classed wizards and sorcerers.

People already complain about wizards and sorcerers dipping for armor proficiency. And not only are monks a martial class, but they're a martial class with top tier AC before magic items are introduced. And yet, after magic items are introduced, they get... nothing. Not unless you're willing to give up an attunement slot. But why should the monk have to give up a slot for Bracers of Defense when the fighter and paladin are getting it for free from non-attuned armor/shield +X?

Now, I know some of you are going to say that not every campaign has magic items. That's true, and that might be relevant if we were comparing magic items to something that isn't a magic item, like a class feature. But we're not. We're comparing magic items to other magic items, so we're operating under the assumption that magic items are being given out.

My first thought was to take the Bracers of Defense and change them to mirror armor +X, so they would come in three varieties of different rarities and wouldn't require attunement. But I think I actually want to leave the bracers as they in, if for no other reason than because there are other bracer items you might want to wear and I don't want players to feel locked out of those because they "have" to wear the Bracers of Defense. Armor is defensive item, so wearing one suit of armor over another just means trading one type of defense for a different type of defense, but not all bracers are defensive items, e.g. the Bracers of Archery. Besides, if we only provide an equivalent for armor +X and not for shields +X, then the Bracers of Defense can act as a way of getting close to having both the magic armor and magic shield.

Instead, let's create a new magic item. My first thought was a belt, but I could see DMs ruling you can only wear one belt. Rings are boring. Instead, let's make it a Charm of Defense, like a keychain type of thing that you clip onto your belt or clothing, with a tiny shield. That's nice and flavorful. It comes in three rarities matching armor +X (Rare, Very Rare, and Legendary), offering +1, +2, or +3 AC, but only while you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield. No attunement.

This offers a bonus to those wizards and sorcerers who stay straight-classed, and helps monks to keep up with martials in magic armor. The one place this still falls a bit short is monk AC vs. martials with both magic armor and a magic shield. Before magic items, monks match someone in plate wielding a shield. With armor/shield +X, the monk falls behind, even with this charm. That said, perhaps the Bracers of Defense can fill that gap. A non-monk martial is giving up two-handed weapons or TWF to use a shield, so the monk has to give up an attunement slot to get a similar AC boost. And even without the bracers, the monk is still slightly ahead of a martial not using a shield.

TL;DR, the lack of an equivalent to armor +X but for unarmored characters only hurts monks and straight-classed wizards/sorcerers (encouraging dips for armor), and the Bracers of Defense aren't an acceptable substitute due to requiring attunement. Instead, let's add a new item, the Charm of Defense, that doesn't require attunement and mirrors armor +X in rarity and AC bonus, but only works when not wearing armor or wielding a shield.

I'd say Monks are left hanging out to dry more than single-classed Wizards and Sorcerers. They get all those "must be attuned by a spellcaster" items, and some of those are insanely good, like the Staff of Power (even if it does require Attunement). Not to mention that if they really want it, Wizards and Sorcerers can pick up armor by a variety of means, even while single-classed. Bladesingers get it as a class feature, some races get it as a racial feature, and feats are always an option... as is just dipping something for 1 level. Indeed, most of my Wizard/Sorcerer builds end up in armor one way or another.

All that said, I think it's weird that things like +X armors and shields don't take attunement in the first place. A +6 AC bonus seems like exactly the sort of thing that deserves to be eating up some attunement. I'd sooner add attunement to those than remove it from other stuff.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So remove the attunement or make up some +X clothes/robes/vestments/loincloths

Your comment has reminded me that Explorer's Guide to Wildemount does add a type of silk clothing that sets your base armor class to 11+Dex while unarmored.


All that said, I think it's weird that things like +X armors and shields don't take attunement in the first place. A +6 AC bonus seems like exactly the sort of thing that deserves to be eating up some attunement. I'd sooner add attunement to those than remove it from other stuff.

It's one of the few types of items that are heavily restricted at our table. The DM has stated outright that +3 shields and generic +3 armors don't exist, and honestly I think that's a good call. All of the +X armor pieces we have do require attunement because of their additional effects, the +1 Shield that my Paladin uses gives immunity to forced movement among a few other handy benefits.

[Greywander]

So remove the attunement or make up some +X clothes/robes/vestments/loincloths
Yeah, that's what I did. The Charm of Defense is a new magic item I'm proposing that mirrors armor +X in rarity and AC bonus, but only works when not wearing armor or wielding a shield, and doesn't require attunement. It's an equivalent piece of gear to armor +X for unarmored characters.

If anyone is really worried about these being used by mages, just limit it to a few martial classes, say, monks, barbarians, and rogues, or something.


All that said, I think it's weird that things like +X armors and shields don't take attunement in the first place. A +6 AC bonus seems like exactly the sort of thing that deserves to be eating up some attunement. I'd sooner add attunement to those than remove it from other stuff.

It's one of the few types of items that are heavily restricted at our table. The DM has stated outright that +3 shields and generic +3 armors don't exist, and honestly I think that's a good call. All of the +X armor pieces we have do require attunement because of their additional effects, the +1 Shield that my Paladin uses gives immunity to forced movement among a few other handy benefits.
Yeah, +3 armor or shields should be exceedingly rare. That's not just a suit of plate +3, that's the suit of plate +3, the battle armor of the Emperor himself. It's a legendary magic item, after all.

But the rarity shouldn't be used as an argument to not have an equivalent magic item for unarmored characters. The Charm of Defense +3 should be equally as rare as the plate +3. If your campaign has one, then it should probably have the other... somewhere. Or at least a Charm of Defense +2. Maybe there's only one singular suit of plate +3 in the entire world, so the paladin and the fighter and the cleric have to draw straws for it. But it would be kind of cruel for the DM to not at least provide sets of plate +2 for the losers.

Now, that said, I could also see taking a third option with regards to magic item rarity, by making magic items both super rare but also super powerful. So maybe there's only one suit of plate +3, and no suits of plate +1 or +2. In such a scenario, I could see not having a Charm of Defense in the game. I wrote up the Charm of Defense with the idea in mind that all the martial characters are getting magical armor, so let's give an equivalent to the monk (and potentially wizard and sorcerer), too. But if this isn't the case, if there's only one suit of magic armor in the world, then we don't really need an equivalent. We probably do want at least one magic item for each player, but instead of armor +3, the monk might get a Dragonhide Belt +3, or the Eldritch Claw tattoo, or some other suitable monk item.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Plate +3 (and even plate +1) is super rare already. Plate+1 is a 2% chance on the highest table. Plate +2 is a 1/6% chance on the highest table. Plate +3 is a 1/12% chance on the highest table.

And there is a single form of +1 plate other than the generic (and it's cursed) and one of +2 plate. Oddly, that dwarven plate is actually less rare than generic +2 plate (a 1% chance on a lower table).

This issue only really arises if you're letting people pick and choose their items. So don't do that.

Edit: did the math.

Using the DMG tables + xanathar's sidebar on expected number of draws per table, your campaign chances of seeing a single suit of +X plate armor are:
+1: 9.68%, of which 8% comes from the T4 treasure table.
+2: ~5.1%, of which most is actually in the form of Dwarven Plate. Due to the oddity mentioned.
+3: 0.37%. That is about 1/250 campaigns will see a single set of +3 plate.

The numbers for +X half-plate are actually worse than those for +3 plate, since there isn't an analogue of the Dwarven Plate. +3 studded leather is just as rare as +2 half plate; +2 studded leather is as rare as +1 half plate or +2 leather. +1 studded leather is as rare as +2 scale.

Because I feel like doing the numbers (and for no other point), the expected chance of finding a single piece of armor over the duration of a 1-20 campaign by AC (assuming max DEX for light and +2 DEX for medium, only looking at generic +X items so I don't go insane) is:



AC
Types
Total chance


16
Chain shirt +1
5.8%


17
Leather +1, scale +1, breastplate +1 , chain +1, chain shirt +2
27%


18
half plate +1, studded +1, splint +1, leather +2, scale+2, breastplate +2, chain mail +2, chain shirt +3
47.6%


19
plate +1, studded +2, half plate +2, splint +2, leather +3, scale +3, breastplate +3, chain mail +3
59.7%


20
plate +2, studded +3, half plate +3, splint +3
2.8%


21
plate +3
0.4%



Odd side note--the rarest forms of generic magical armor are padded, hide, and ring mail. Because they don't exist on the DMG treasure tables at all.

And note that a 20 DEX/20WIS monk, without anything else, has a 20 AC. That's equal to plate +2. A wizard with mage armor and capped dex (doable, especially in a no-feat game) has an 18. Which is in the band for "relatively common" magical armor.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Plate +3 (and even plate +1) is super rare already. Plate+1 is a 2% chance on the highest table. Plate +2 is a 1/6% chance on the highest table. Plate +3 is a 1/12% chance on the highest table.

And there is a single form of +1 plate other than the generic (and it's cursed) and one of +2 plate. Oddly, that dwarven plate is actually less rare than generic +2 plate (a 1% chance on a lower table).

This issue only really arises if you're letting people pick and choose their items. So don't do that.

Our current campaign is featuring epic level heroes with downtime, we could theoretically make the +X plate armor, though in all likelyhood it would be faster to find one somewhere in the entire realm than to spend the exorbitant and ridiculous time crafting it. Instead we're opting to hunt an ancient dragon and make +3 Dragonhide Belt, much faster.

Our campaigns do tend to track with this, the only times we receive such armor is when its written into the adventure or we take a sidequest to find it. My Paladin doesn't even have +X armor, he wears a set of Mithral Plate. The most powerful magical armor we found was a set of Efreeti Chain which we opted to sell (at quite a loss) to fund political endeavors to oust a family of nobles.

[Pex]

. . . make up some +X clothes/robes/vestments/loincloths

Yes, that is a solution. It's fine to be disappointed the game does not provide for such. Acknowledge it and when they ask for feedback on stuff tell them you want such things. Maybe they'll publish some in the future to have something official. Until then, as DM of your own game you can provide for such things to the players. As a player you can out of game request to your DM an item exists and come to your possession eventually somewhere somewhen in the campaign the DMs seems appropriate but not when the campaign is almost over so you actually get to enjoy it. If the DM refuses it's up to you if that's a deal breaker for you and don't play.

I'm not certain WOTC will oblige though. The tattoos made it in, but in playtest the Redemption Paladin had base unarmored AC of 16 + DX modifier and that was removed. Maybe players objected. It appears by 5E design PCs who don't wear armor aren't supposed to have high AC anyway. It makes sense, Why bother having plate mail if you don't need it to get AC? There needs to be a reason for heavy armors to exist, magical or not. A homebrew magical clothing that gives +1, +2, +3 at respective rarity to unarmored AC is fine, but still it's the heavy armor users who are supposed to have AC > 21, not the naked guys.

[KorvinStarmast]

Re: Unarmored characters need an equivalent to armor +X
Bracers of defense are +2 but they require attunement.
Cloak and ring of protection:

I can see an argument to be made for bracers of +1, 2 and 3 (and I think that AD&D had those, memory hazy)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Our current campaign is featuring epic level heroes with downtime, we could theoretically make the +X plate armor, though in all likelyhood it would be faster to find one somewhere in the entire realm than to spend the exorbitant and ridiculous time crafting it. Instead we're opting to hunt an ancient dragon and make +3 Dragonhide Belt, much faster.

Our campaigns do tend to track with this, the only times we receive such armor is when its written into the adventure or we take a sidequest to find it. My Paladin doesn't even have +X armor, he wears a set of Mithral Plate. The most powerful magical armor we found was a set of Efreeti Chain which we opted to sell (at quite a loss) to fund political endeavors to oust a family of nobles.

The formula for +3 of any of the top-tier armors is non-existent, being by default above Legendary. And so the chances of finding it are on the order of "you found an artifact." Yeah, not gonna happen by random chance. If you find it, it's purely GM fiat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For those that care (and because I have the numbers handy), here are the broken out probability ( by monster tier and item:


Type AC Table % T1 T2 T3 T4 Total
chain shirt +1 16 G 1.0% 0.2% 1.8% 3.0% 0.8% 5.8%
Leather +1 17 G 1.0% 0.2% 1.8% 3.0% 0.8% 5.8%
Scale +1 17 G 1.0% 0.2% 1.8% 3.0% 0.8% 5.8%
Breastplate +1 17 H 1.0% 0.0% 0.4% 3.0% 1.4% 4.8%
Chain mail +1 17 G 1.0% 0.2% 1.8% 3.0% 0.8% 5.8%
chain shirt +2 17 H 1.0% 0.0% 0.4% 3.0% 1.4% 4.8%
Studded L. +1 18 H 1.0% 0.0% 0.4% 3.0% 1.4% 4.8%
Half plate +1 18 I 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 2.8% 4.5%
Splint +1 18 H 1.0% 0.0% 0.4% 3.0% 1.4% 4.8%
Leather +2 18 H 1.0% 0.0% 0.4% 3.0% 1.4% 4.8%
Scale +2 18 H 1.0% 0.0% 0.4% 3.0% 1.4% 4.8%
Breastplate +2 18 I 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 8.0% 9.7%
Chain mail +2 18 H 1.0% 0.0% 0.4% 3.0% 1.4% 4.8%
chain shirt +3 18 I 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 8.0% 9.7%
Plate +1 19 I 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 8.0% 9.7%
Studded L. +2 19 I 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 8.0% 9.7%
Half plate +2 19 I 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% 0.8%
Splint +2 19 I 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 8.0% 9.7%
Leather +3 19 I 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 8.0% 9.7%
Scale +3 19 I 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 8.0% 9.7%
Breastplate +3 19 I 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% 0.8%
Chain mail +3 19 I 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 8.0% 9.7%
Plate +2 20 I 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% 0.8%
Studded L. +3 20 I 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% 0.8%
Half plate +3 20 I 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.4%
Splint +3 20 I 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% 0.8%
Plate +3 21 I 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.4%

[ProsecutorGodot]

The formula for +3 of any of the top-tier armors is non-existent, being by default above Legendary. And so the chances of finding it are on the order of "you found an artifact." Yeah, not gonna happen by random chance. If you find it, it's purely GM fiat.

Magic Items already live in the world of GM Fiat, crafting them by magnitudes more for sure. To be honest I forgot completely about the need to have a formula for the armor, we only have one for the belt because an Artificer NPC in our groups employ was tasked with researching magic items for the party monk and Fizban's conveniently released a perfect fit, research concluded with "Ancient Dragons are creatures with mastery over their internal magic and the wisdom of many years and battles to survive into this age, if you want a powerful Ki enhancer you use dragonhide".

The point has been illustrated well though, in the near 6 years now we've played in this group in all of our campaigns that Efreeti Chain is the only +3 armor we've seen or heard of and it nearly killed us to get it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Magic Items already live in the world of GM Fiat, crafting them by magnitudes more for sure. To be honest I forgot completely about the need to have a formula for the armor, we only have one for the belt because an Artificer NPC in our groups employ was tasked with researching magic items for the party monk and Fizban's conveniently released a perfect fit, research concluded with "Ancient Dragons are creatures with mastery over their internal magic and the wisdom of many years and battles to survive into this age, if you want a powerful Ki enhancer you use dragonhide".

The point has been illustrated well though, in the near 6 years now we've played in this group in all of our campaigns that Efreeti Chain is the only +3 armor we've seen or heard of and it nearly killed us to get it.

Agreed. Which is why I take all the "optimization" stuff that assumes that you'll end up with a +3 armor and +3 shield and +3 weapon sometime in mid-levels with a mountain of salt.

My last game did have some really strong items--by fluke chance they managed to roll 4 legendaries at level 10 or so (beat an ithillich in her lair by clever tactics and good rolling, then rolled really well on the treasure tables). They got a Sword of Answering, a Defender, a Staff of the Magi, and a Cubic Gate. I think the best armor they saw was +1, and that they got as a quest reward. They did pick up adamantine armor as soon as they could. I was much more free with that than stuff that gives +X.

[Greywander]

Agreed. Which is why I take all the "optimization" stuff that assumes that you'll end up with a +3 armor and +3 shield and +3 weapon sometime in mid-levels with a mountain of salt.
You're also unlikely to get in a car accident, and yet you wear a seat belt. That's the perspective I'm working off of. The Charm of Defense +3 isn't supposed to show up in most campaigns, it's supposed to be just as rare as plate +3. That's the point. If you do find armor +X, you're suppose to also find a Charm of Defense +X. Maybe not right at the same time, but it should be in the plan somewhere.

Now, I'll admit I'm mostly banking off of DM fiat here. The DM is choosing to hand out armor +X, and thus it would be unfair to the monk to not also hand out a Charm of Defense +X. In a situation where you're rolling randomly for magic items, it make more sense that there would be some disparity; your party is actually really lucky to have found that plate +X, and you're unlikely to find another. Only one person in the party gets to wear it. It's not that favoritism is being shown or the other players are being treated unfairly, it's that you were given a random item and gave it to the person who could make the best use of it. However, even in this case, if there's a monk in the party, I don't see why Charms of Defense couldn't be added to loot tables. At least this way they would have a chance to drop, no matter how unlikely. If you never add such an item to the loot table, the chance of it dropping is always 0.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But a monk with capped dex and Wis (very doable by 20 and useful for lots of reasons other than AC) is behind a +3 plate wearer by 1 AC. So no, you shouldn't have a +3 item for them. The clear design is that plate is the best form of armor for AC. Period. Full stop.

Everyone else lives in the 18-20-ish range. Even with magic armor. Which a monk can have by level 4. And that's normal.

So yes, even with magic armor monks are fine.

Oh, and such an item makes level 20 barbarians (base ac 17 plus dex, so probably 20-21) also way better than plate. Stop trying to make sex even better than it already is. If you want high ac, then heavy armor should be your best opportunity. That's what fits the existing design as well as the thematics and archetypes.

[sithlordnergal]

No one needs +X armor. Plus, it's actually quite rare, especially if you want top tier armor like plate or half plate or even studded leather.

IMO the game would be better if all +X items replaced that effect by more interesting effects.

Ehh, I have to disagree with you on this. You need the +X armor after a certain point if you plan on tanking with your AC instead of face tanking everything like a Barbarian or Moon Druid. Eventually enemy NPCs reach a To-Hit bonus of 11 and above, at which point even a 21 AC is effectively a coin flip.

For top tier stuff, like Tier 4, you'll regularly see enemies with +14 to +16 to hit, and the enemies deal enough damage to quickly rip through anyone that doesn't have Barbarian levels of HP. At that point your only options for tanking are:

A) Have so much HP that it won't matter

Or

B) Have such high AC that they literally need a Nat 20 just to hit you.

I have a few level 20 characters. Most of them go the AC route, with one AL character in particular that has a base AC around 30, and can increase it to about 37 via magic. She is the only character I tank effectivly with using AC. The others either have too low of an AC to tank, or they're a level 20 Moon Druid that has no ****s to give about HP loss because "Screw you , I Wildshape every round now".


As for the OP, one the one hand I could see the benefits of having +X items for unarmored AC. That said, you can actually get an incredibly high AC with a Kensei Monk. I had a friend do an AL epic with me, he played a Kensei Monk. I was the only one with a higher AC, and even then it was only due to Shield of Faith and Shield.

Not only that, but take a peek at my signature. You can play a Monk that wears armor and keep all of your Monk abilities. The only three abilities you lose are Unarmored Movement, Martial Arts, and Unarmored Defense. Martial Arts and Unarmored Defense are fine to lose, cause taking one level of Fighter at the start nets you Unarmed Fighting Style and heavy armor proficiency. So the only thing you lose is bonus movement.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ehh, I have to disagree with you on this. You need the +X armor after a certain point if you plan on tanking with your AC instead of face tanking everything like a Barbarian or Moon Druid. Eventually enemy NPCs reach a To-Hit bonus of 11 and above, at which point even a 21 AC is effectively a coin flip.

For top tier stuff, like Tier 4, you'll regularly see enemies with +14 to +16 to hit, and the enemies deal enough damage to quickly rip through anyone that doesn't have Barbarian levels of HP. At that point your only options for tanking are:

A) Have so much HP that it won't matter

Or

B) Have such high AC that they literally need a Nat 20 just to hit you.
.

If all you fight is big solos, then maybe. But that breaks the game in dozens of other ways. The median encounter by the books at level 20 is a pack of cr 10s (average melee attack of 8.1). And those obscene bonuses? Yeah, they're actually quite rare. Done the math. Basically the named demon princes, archdevils, and ancient dragons. Which are all unique creatures, not what you fight generally. And yes, those things are supposed to hit you. You've got the hp to deal with it, because their attack dpr isn't all that great (most of the spike damage is from save abilities).

So basically, that's a self inflicted wound. Stop doing that and the game makes a lot more sense. As do your settings.


Marut
Orcus
Tarrasque
Zaratan
Ancient Silver Dragon
Empyrean
Kraken
Baphomet
Ancient Red Dragon
Ancient Gold Dragon
Demogorgon
Leviathan
Molydeus
Astral Dreadnought
Ancient Bronze Dragon
Geryon
Ancient Blue Dragon
Fraz-Urb'luu
Elder Tempest
Yeenoghu
Zariel
Solar
Ancient Black Dragon
Ancient Copper Dragon
Hutijin
Moloch
Ancient Green Dragon
Storm Giant
Storm Giant Quintessent
Adult Red Dragon
Adult Gold Dragon
Balor
Ancient White Dragon
Ancient Brass Dragon
Pit Fiend
Jubilex

Two below T4 (Storm Giant/Quintessent), whose DPR is only 76 under the laughable assumption that everything always hits. There are a couple CR 17 dragons, and the CR 19 Balor. The rest are CR 20+ named or unique-ish monsters.

[Witty Username]

But a monk with capped dex and Wis (very doable by 20 and useful for lots of reasons other than AC) is behind a +3 plate wearer by 1 AC. So no, you shouldn't have a +3 item for them. The clear design is that plate is the best form of armor for AC. Period. Full stop.

Everyone else lives in the 18-20-ish range. Even with magic armor. Which a monk can have by level 4. And that's normal.

So yes, even with magic armor monks are fine.

Oh, and such an item makes level 20 barbarians (base ac 17 plus dex, so probably 20-21) also way better than plate. Stop trying to make sex even better than it already is. If you want high ac, then heavy armor should be your best opportunity. That's what fits the existing design as well as the thematics and archetypes.

Do you use rolled stats? I ask because outside of rolled a monk can't get 18 AC until 8th level with a dex 16, wis 16 start. so 18-20ish is not normal for a monk by 4th level.

[Greywander]

But a monk with capped dex and Wis (very doable by 20 and useful for lots of reasons other than AC) is behind a +3 plate wearer by 1 AC. So no, you shouldn't have a +3 item for them. The clear design is that plate is the best form of armor for AC. Period. Full stop.
I guess shields don't exist.

I mean, it's fair to point out that monks can exceed plate armor (sans shield). But the game is balanced around that. Adding magic armor to the game upsets that balance.


Everyone else lives in the 18-20-ish range. Even with magic armor.
Hmmmm, maybe if you exclude shields (again). Otherwise, the sword'n'board fighter or paladin has 20 AC before magic items, which matches the monk. There will be a lot of variation from campaign to campaign, so it's a little disingenuous to just say they can get "up to 26 AC" (although this is technically true), without needed to spend an attunement slot. But let's say we can expect them to find plate +1 and a shield +2 (which have the same rarity). They're now sitting at 23 AC. And the monk still has 20 AC. Even if we give the monk Bracers of Defense, they still fall behind with only 22 AC, and they had to give up an attunement slot for that.


Which a monk can have by level 4. And that's normal.
LAWL, how

The highest you can expect to start with at 1st level is two 16s, probably in DEX and WIS. That's 16 AC. At 4th level, you get to boost one of those stats to 18. You're still only at 17 AC. You won't reach 20 AC until 16th level.

Even on a custom lineage, the most you can start with is an 18 and a 15. You still end up with an 18 and a 16 at 4th level, for 17 AC. Unless you're rolling for stats, or playing a warforged, I don't think there's a way to hit 18 AC by 4th level on a monk.


So yes, even with magic armor monks are fine.
I feel like this would be like if we gave out Wands of the War Mage or other magic item spell foci to the casters, but never gave out weapons +X, or any magic weapons. After all, no one needs magic items, so the martials will be fine without magic weapons. I would feel pretty off put if I was playing in such a campaign, even if I was playing a caster, but especially if I was a martial. And I can totally see a DM doing that (I've heard of DMs banning fighters because they're "boring", or banning smites or sneak attacks because they're "OP", or just showing blatant favoritism to casters in general or wizards in particular).

[JonBeowulf]

Your proposed solution to the (non-)problem of Armor +X not requiring attunement is to create a bunch of +X AC items that also don't require attunement... instead of just houseruling that Armor +X requires attunement?

Seems like you're taking the complicated road.

[MrStabby]

So in a game without magic items, AC values are quite tightly tuned. The quickest way to 20 AC is plate and a shield, though it may take a while before you can afford plate. Mage Armor is actually slightly better than studded leather, albeit only if you max out your DEX, which a caster might not (CON is often considered just as if not more important on casters). Monks take a bit longer, but eventually match plate and a shield once their DEX and WIS are maxed. Pretty much you can typically expect every PC to eventually end up with an AC between 17 and 20.

And then this tight tuning breaks once magic armor is introduced to the game.

With armor +X and shields +X, we're looking at potentially up to a +6 bonus to AC. That's a lot. But not everyone has shield proficiency, and some who do choose to discard the shield in favor for a two-handed weapon. So we can ignore magic shields for now, aside from one exception I'll get to later. And besides, I'm kind of okay with those wielding shields having higher AC than those not wielding shields, it just kind of makes sense.

Even just looking at magic armor, we're still looking at a potential +3 bonus, which isn't insignificant. And most classes can benefit from this. The only casters without armor proficiency are wizards and sorcerers, and it's pretty common for wizards to dip into fighter or cleric, and sorcerers to dip into bard, warlock, or paladin. The main point I want to get across is that the only ones left hanging out to dry are monks, and single-classed wizards and sorcerers.

People already complain about wizards and sorcerers dipping for armor proficiency. And not only are monks a martial class, but they're a martial class with top tier AC before magic items are introduced. And yet, after magic items are introduced, they get... nothing. Not unless you're willing to give up an attunement slot. But why should the monk have to give up a slot for Bracers of Defense when the fighter and paladin are getting it for free from non-attuned armor/shield +X?

Now, I know some of you are going to say that not every campaign has magic items. That's true, and that might be relevant if we were comparing magic items to something that isn't a magic item, like a class feature. But we're not. We're comparing magic items to other magic items, so we're operating under the assumption that magic items are being given out.

My first thought was to take the Bracers of Defense and change them to mirror armor +X, so they would come in three varieties of different rarities and wouldn't require attunement. But I think I actually want to leave the bracers as they in, if for no other reason than because there are other bracer items you might want to wear and I don't want players to feel locked out of those because they "have" to wear the Bracers of Defense. Armor is defensive item, so wearing one suit of armor over another just means trading one type of defense for a different type of defense, but not all bracers are defensive items, e.g. the Bracers of Archery. Besides, if we only provide an equivalent for armor +X and not for shields +X, then the Bracers of Defense can act as a way of getting close to having both the magic armor and magic shield.

Instead, let's create a new magic item. My first thought was a belt, but I could see DMs ruling you can only wear one belt. Rings are boring. Instead, let's make it a Charm of Defense, like a keychain type of thing that you clip onto your belt or clothing, with a tiny shield. That's nice and flavorful. It comes in three rarities matching armor +X (Rare, Very Rare, and Legendary), offering +1, +2, or +3 AC, but only while you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield. No attunement.

This offers a bonus to those wizards and sorcerers who stay straight-classed, and helps monks to keep up with martials in magic armor. The one place this still falls a bit short is monk AC vs. martials with both magic armor and a magic shield. Before magic items, monks match someone in plate wielding a shield. With armor/shield +X, the monk falls behind, even with this charm. That said, perhaps the Bracers of Defense can fill that gap. A non-monk martial is giving up two-handed weapons or TWF to use a shield, so the monk has to give up an attunement slot to get a similar AC boost. And even without the bracers, the monk is still slightly ahead of a martial not using a shield.

TL;DR, the lack of an equivalent to armor +X but for unarmored characters only hurts monks and straight-classed wizards/sorcerers (encouraging dips for armor), and the Bracers of Defense aren't an acceptable substitute due to requiring attunement. Instead, let's add a new item, the Charm of Defense, that doesn't require attunement and mirrors armor +X in rarity and AC bonus, but only works when not wearing armor or wielding a shield.

So I am kind of in both agreement and disagrement here.

1) If you are in a position to add new item types to the game, you are probably DM and therefore able to take away items as well. As the problem is, as you identified, +X armour then you can just not have this armour in your games. It seems a beter solution.

2) The problem isn't so much that there is an issue with wizards and sorcerers but rather there is an issue with unoptimised wizards and sorcerers. When players are power-building characters then these kind of effecs are fine. They are just a constraint. When you have different power levels within a party then the DM can close some of these gaps with items. Now I don't think magic items are a great tool for this but if the game doesn't support one of these options then it does limit the DM's ability to balance the game.

3) I have a big issue with these armours making certain character features much less cool. Forge cleric granting an enhancement bonus sucks if everyone can pick up +1 armour anyway. Tortle AC moves from being a cool thematic character feature to being crap. Draconic sorcerer AC is already probably only freeing up a spell slot and a spell known for mage armour but if there were other ways to calculate AC/boost it then a sucky subclass has just been made suckier. The iconic unarmoured barbarian using unarmoured defence is not really great in 5th edition D&D and use of medium armour is better... add in magic armour and your really cool thematic thing just became an even worse choice.


So yeah, I think you are non to something that magic items screw up AC... but I disagree that the fix is more magic items.

[Bphill561]

Don't forget the Tomes of Ability score increases. If all your characters are running around with +3 armor and shield, then surely your monk can afford tomes of dex and wisdom along with bracers of defense for less cost. Maybe it gets you to a 24 vs. 26 at the cost of one attunement, but also increases initiative, saves, skills, and to-hit. Your light armor guy can get an extra plus 1 as well with a dex tome, but that would just even him out with heavy armor and less other bonuses (plus cost a tome on top of 2 +3 items).

Wasn't one of the 4e complaints that every character was the same?

[Magicspook]

I don't understand the problem. We are playing dnd, if you feel like you want this item in the game, put it in the game?

Unless you are a players, in which case, simply ask your DM to put it in the game?

Me, I don't use +X stuff. The only +X items are those made by an artificer, forge cleric, or similar class features. The sole exception being that I sometimes give +1 to a lesser armour to keep it viable (like a +1 leather armour to bring it on par with studded).

[diplomancer]

Do you use rolled stats? I ask because outside of rolled a monk can't get 18 AC until 8th level with a dex 16, wis 16 start. so 18-20ish is not normal for a monk by 4th level.

Without rolling, Tasha's Mountain Dwarf can have 18 AC by level 4, but I think that's about it.

Anyway, rolled stats are not that unusual; in my experience, it's slightly more common than point-buy, and definitely more common than standard array- as a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever played a game with Standard Array, though I have seen people "buy" a Standard Array playing point buy. With rolled stats and with moderate good luck, pretty much any race, with Tasha's, can do it.

[Psyren]

Without rolling, Tasha's Mountain Dwarf can have 18 AC by level 4, but I think that's about it.

Tortle from MotM can use their natural armor calculation (flat 17) until their monk unarmored defense exceeds that number. They can also increase this to 21 at first level using Shell Defense, but can't take actions until they emerge.

[JackPhoenix]

Stop trying to make sex even better than it already is.

While I do have an opinion on the topic, I just want to point out this absolutely wonderful typo.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While I do have an opinion on the topic, I just want to point out this absolutely wonderful typo.

<side-eyes>Darn autocarrotautocorrect</side-eyes>

[ZRN]

You're also unlikely to get in a car accident, and yet you wear a seat belt. That's the perspective I'm working off of. The Charm of Defense +3 isn't supposed to show up in most campaigns, it's supposed to be just as rare as plate +3. That's the point. If you do find armor +X, you're suppose to also find a Charm of Defense +X. Maybe not right at the same time, but it should be in the plan somewhere.


I think the disparity is working as intended, actually. I think there aren't +3 robes for the same reason there aren't no-attunement Boots of Swiftness that give you a permanent +15ft movement speed: niche protection. Your class/build is supposed to help dictate what things are easy for you to excel at and what things take more specific effort to build up. If you want your monk to have high AC, there are clear ways of getting it, but there's no reason it should have to come without costing at least an attunement slot.

[Sigreid]

Meh, make a shirt of iron thread if you want to.

[Telwar]

Alternately, make +n armor require attunement, too.

[sithlordnergal]

If all you fight is big solos, then maybe. But that breaks the game in dozens of other ways. The median encounter by the books at level 20 is a pack of cr 10s (average melee attack of 8.1). And those obscene bonuses? Yeah, they're actually quite rare. Done the math. Basically the named demon princes, archdevils, and ancient dragons. Which are all unique creatures, not what you fight generally. And yes, those things are supposed to hit you. You've got the hp to deal with it, because their attack dpr isn't all that great (most of the spike damage is from save abilities).

So basically, that's a self inflicted wound. Stop doing that and the game makes a lot more sense. As do your settings.



No, you can run into those big ones as random encounters pretty easily at high levels, especially in AL modules. Heck, in Turn Back the Endless Night you're playing against the timer and can't take any short or long rests at all, unless you find a single special room as a random encounter that lets you take a single short rest. In this module you'll face things like a Balor riding an Adult Red Dragon, a modified Giant Goat that has over 500hp, has a +14 to hit, and has a recharging breath attack that deals 18d6 in a 60ft Cone, traps that deal 4d10 automatically if you make a mistake, and leads to a massive fight against a Red Wizard Zulkir and their Simulacrum, both of whom have Meteor Swarm, 20 zombies, 5 or 6 Thayan Knights that have an aura that resists Spell Damage, and a Necromancer.

And to top it off, if you take too long in the module, you have to immediately face a CR 30. And if you fail, you're perma-dead.

So its less of a "Self inflicted wound" and more "That's just the kind of stuff you regularly face in T4". I can name other adventures with similar things, where a random encounter is literally a bunch of high ranking devils in a corridor that deals a ton of slashing damage if you happen to step in the wrong space, followed by a random Ancient White Dragon, and ends with a gladiator tournament that can have insanely high CR creatures and a final fight what I think was an aspect of death? Maybe? I forget. Either way screw Pipyap and his dang cookies. >_>


EDIT: I do suggest checking out T4 modules, I tend to use them as a baseline for my high level adventures. You'll find that most of those supposedly rare and high power creatures are effectively used as random encounters to slightly weaken the party a bit before the big climactic fight.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And in those cases, I'd expect the module to be showering the party with loot. They're so far outside the guidelines that it's not even funny. Using those as a baseline is a bad idea. AL, in particular, suffers from optimization spirals, so the modules have to do stupid (from a world building perspective) tricks. But that's a sign of the system breaking because people are using it way outside specifications.

[Pex]

Your proposed solution to the (non-)problem of Armor +X not requiring attunement is to create a bunch of +X AC items that also don't require attunement... instead of just houseruling that Armor +X requires attunement?

Seems like you're taking the complicated road.

Makes sense if you have an issue regarding attunement itself, which he does and started another thread about it. Even despite that, it's perfectly fine to be happy armor +X has no attunement but be bothered items that improve unarmored defense do and choose to make those not require attunement also. It's no more complicated to remove attunement from some items than it is to add attunement to others.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Makes sense if you have an issue regarding attunement itself, which he does and started another thread about it. Even despite that, it's perfectly fine to be happy armor +X has no attunement but be bothered items that improve unarmored defense do and choose to make those not require attunement also. It's no more complicated to remove attunement from some items than it is to add attunement to others.

More Complicated? No. More Risky? Yes. Adding attunement fails safe--they just don't get used and/or people complain. Removing attunement risks having to restructure your approach to encounters, without knowing that it's needed until something goes wrong and people aren't having fun.

[sithlordnergal]

And in those cases, I'd expect the module to be showering the party with loot. They're so far outside the guidelines that it's not even funny. Using those as a baseline is a bad idea. AL, in particular, suffers from optimization spirals, so the modules have to do stupid (from a world building perspective) tricks. But that's a sign of the system breaking because people are using it way outside specifications.

The module actually doesn't shower you with loot. You get a Scarab of Protection, Potion of Supreme Healing, Potion of Flying, Scroll of Teleport and Scroll of Mass Heal. Out of those the best item would be the Mass Heal Scroll, but its no loot fest.

As for the guidelines, they pretty much fall apart at T4, especially if full casters are involved. I know this for a fact because I was able to work with the Wizard when I played that module to turn what was supposed to be a Deadly encounter, the Balor/Dragon fight, into an Easy/Medium encounter based on resource and HP loss. All it took was a Forcecage from the Wizard, and me being a level 20 Moon Druid, and our party effectively lost no resources outside of the Forcecage slot. Heck, I didn't even have any magic items that encounter because the DM ruled I couldn't benefit from any of my items while Wild Shaped...not that it mattered since the Dragon couldn't deal enough damage to me to break my Elemental Form before I refreshed it every round.

Now, I will admit it was that easy because we happened to have a Moon Druid at level 20 and a Wizard that had prepared Forcecage...but Forcecage is a pretty common spell to prepare at that level because of how game breakingly powerful it is. But the simple fact that a basic PHB spell and ability can turn a Deadly encounter into the equivalent of an Easy/Medium encounter without any other items or optimization kind of tells me their formula stops working after a certain level. Now you can go ahead and ban those game breaking spells in order to force the Encounter Formula to work, but that means it requires homebrew to force the broken thing into working.

That's why I use AL modules as a basis for my T4 games. The encounter rules for 5e simply fail to work when you're at T4 because by then you're working with insane abilities and spells that, quite literally, break the game, even if you only play with the PHB spells and classes. Meanwhile I find AL modules are better suited for making balanced combat encounters that actually have some difficulty to them without being too insane.

[Pex]

More Complicated? No. More Risky? Yes. Adding attunement fails safe--they just don't get used and/or people complain. Removing attunement risks having to restructure your approach to encounters, without knowing that it's needed until something goes wrong and people aren't having fun.

I disagree because the ones who are benefiting are not wearing the magic armors, and those who wear the magic armors aren't using the hypothetical magical clothing.

[Witty Username]

I believe I am in camp Pex on this one, reducing character power is more risky than adding as a general rule. A DM can survive a party steamrolling encounters, a party by definition does not survive a TPK.

I think adding defensive items for unarmored characters is not a good solution to this framing of problem. Wizard and Sorcerer have good defensive options already even if their are more optimal choices by multiclassing for armor. So this leaves the monk, which makes this more of a monk problem then an unarmored character problem. A more monk targeted solution is probably better to consider using this framing.

If you want to provide +X AC items not tied to armor and without attuning, That is probably not going to cause a new issue, but it feels like a weird fix for the perceived issue (and I personally agree with the monk being a bit behind, I imagine the monk is fine crowd being much more confused with this problem/solution set).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I guess I'd argue that the game is balanced around most high level characters having magical (non-attuned) armor against the relative power of sorcerers and wizards. Monks are weak, and there are fewer items that are going to help them out than most other classes, so I agree that in a magic rich game done totally by random rolls they aren't going to get the same bump in power. I definitely made sure to include items specifically for them when I've DMed monks.

If I'm DMing single classed wizards or sorcerers there's no way I'm including non-attunement AC improving items. But, to put it in context, I'm also probably through allowing 1 level dips to get armor for those classes too.

[Nagog]

I would also add the argument in favor of Monks getting more AC boosting magic items to the fact that they need to invest a ton of ASIs to compete with martials who can get AC 20 pretty much right out the gate, and Monks don't get any bonus ASIs, though just as with martials (who *do* get those bonus ASIs), those ASIs can also be extraordinarily effective when traded for feats of varying flavors and styles.

[Jerrykhor]

I've always felt that Monks have an AC problem, but nobody seems to agree. They always point out the maximum AC that Unarmored Defense can achieve, but its an unrealistic expectation in actual play. Compound with the fact that they cant use magic armours and shields, their AC is quite stagnant. Its definitely a monk problem, as Barbarians don't get much value from +AC bonuses. They also can choose to wear medium armour if they feel the need.

Its 2022 and Monks still can't wear armour, or have good AC. And the general opinion seems to be very anti +AC. I would like to ask... Why? And don't tell me Bounded Accuracy, because you don't understand it. The enemies get more Attack bonus the stronger they get, yet your AC never increase since level 1. Sure, feats, abilities and spells do help, but they are usually opportunity costs. They will tell you one of Fighters strength is high AC, but never give out +Armours, and throw out monsters with +15 to attacks.

I feel like most people have seen one of those 'Whats the maximum AC a PC can get' threads and get scared without understanding the bigger picture.

/rantover

[ProsecutorGodot]

I've always felt that Monks have an AC problem, but nobody seems to agree. They always point out the maximum AC that Unarmored Defense can achieve, but its an unrealistic expectation in actual play. Compound with the fact that they cant use magic armours and shields, their AC is quite stagnant. Its definitely a monk problem, as Barbarians don't get much value from +AC bonuses. They also can choose to wear medium armour if they feel the need.

Its 2022 and Monks still can't wear armour, or have good AC. And the general opinion seems to be very anti +AC. I would like to ask... Why? And don't tell me Bounded Accuracy, because you don't understand it. The enemies get more Attack bonus the stronger they get, yet your AC never increase since level 1. Sure, feats, abilities and spells do help, but they are usually opportunity costs. They will tell you one of Fighters strength is high AC, but never give out +Armours, and throw out monsters with +15 to attacks.

I feel like most people have seen one of those 'Whats the maximum AC a PC can get' threads and get scared without understanding the bigger picture.

/rantover

The Monk in our party has the highest AC of the party among a Paladin, Fighter and Sorcerer. Granted, they do have two AC boosting items but because of Monk's having a low item requirement it's easy for them to afford the attunement slots where the other party members can't. This is an 18th level party.

Paladin - 22 AC (Mithral Plate, +1 Heartscale Shield, Blessing of Protection supernatural gift)
Fighter - 21 AC (Plate +2 from an NPC Artificer Infusion [considered a mark of prestige award], Cloak of Protection)
Monk - 25 AC (22/20 Wis/Dex, Bracers of Defense, Ring of Protection)
Sorcerer - 18 AC (13 base AC+3 dex, Staff of Power)

Our Monk has had or tied for the highest AC in the party consistently throughout the entire campaign through a combination of decent stat rolls and the fortunate acquiring of Bracers of Defense and a Tome of Wisdom. Take note that even without the Tome and Bracers the Monk is still tying my Paladin in AC and that's only after I have a +1 Shield and Blessing from a god.

So I posit the Monk's don't have an AC problem, they instead might have a hit point problem due to being a D8 martial who must prioritize Constitution as a tertiary stat. They're given sufficiently powerful tools for increasing their Dex and Wis that losing some Con can be worth the risk. So I suppose I really don't agree.

Side note, Monk's can wear armor, assuming you gain proficiency with it. You only lose access to the three bullet points of Martial Arts and your unarmored movement, technically this only affects the base speed increase and not the improvement at 9th level. Having access to a natural weapon eliminates the need for the first two bullets and the third can be ignored if you prioritize flurry, have a better consistent use for your bonus action or are a ranged Kensei using Kensei's shot. You still keep the remaining base class features and all of your subclass features. It's certainly not a playstyle I would personally be eager to play (I like Monk's enough as they are, my Astral Self in a separate campaign is proving to be quite powerful) but it's doable.

[GeoffWatson]

I've always felt that Monks have an AC problem, but nobody seems to agree. They always point out the maximum AC that Unarmored Defense can achieve, but its an unrealistic expectation in actual play. Compound with the fact that they cant use magic armours and shields, their AC is quite stagnant. Its definitely a monk problem, as Barbarians don't get much value from +AC bonuses. They also can choose to wear medium armour if they feel the need.

Its 2022 and Monks still can't wear armour, or have good AC. And the general opinion seems to be very anti +AC. I would like to ask... Why? And don't tell me Bounded Accuracy, because you don't understand it. The enemies get more Attack bonus the stronger they get, yet your AC never increase since level 1. Sure, feats, abilities and spells do help, but they are usually opportunity costs. They will tell you one of Fighters strength is high AC, but never give out +Armours, and throw out monsters with +15 to attacks.

I feel like most people have seen one of those 'Whats the maximum AC a PC can get' threads and get scared without understanding the bigger picture.

/rantover

The problem is that adding "free" AC to no-armour wearers also helps Wizards, who can have the best AC already. In the recent campaign I played in the Bladesinger Wizard had the best AC, and could throw shield on top of that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem is that adding "free" AC to no-armour wearers also helps Wizards, who can have the best AC already. In the recent campaign I played in the Bladesinger Wizard had the best AC, and could throw shield on top of that.

Right. If you want to buff monks, buff monks. Not wizards. Heck, if being hit is the issue, let them use step of the wind for free (ki and action) when they do (other thing that spends ki) above a certain level. Free disadvantage on incoming attacks or the ability to disengage for free without burning ki or actions is worth at least +3 AC, and fits their thematics way better.

[MrStabby]

I've always felt that Monks have an AC problem, but nobody seems to agree. They always point out the maximum AC that Unarmored Defense can achieve, but its an unrealistic expectation in actual play. Compound with the fact that they cant use magic armours and shields, their AC is quite stagnant. Its definitely a monk problem, as Barbarians don't get much value from +AC bonuses. They also can choose to wear medium armour if they feel the need.

Its 2022 and Monks still can't wear armour, or have good AC. And the general opinion seems to be very anti +AC. I would like to ask... Why? And don't tell me Bounded Accuracy, because you don't understand it. The enemies get more Attack bonus the stronger they get, yet your AC never increase since level 1. Sure, feats, abilities and spells do help, but they are usually opportunity costs. They will tell you one of Fighters strength is high AC, but never give out +Armours, and throw out monsters with +15 to attacks.

I feel like most people have seen one of those 'Whats the maximum AC a PC can get' threads and get scared without understanding the bigger picture.

/rantover

So I don't know what should be expected.

As long as different classes have different access to armor there will always be a class with lower AC than others. This isn't by itself wrong or a problem. If it has to be one class, then which class should be lower than the monk?

Indeed the monk needn't be the lowest at all. I find bards, rangers and rogues tend to be lower - depending on the level range.


And if the issue is magic items... then the issue is magic items not the core class design (not to say that there are not some design issues, but I think that this one may be a little misplaced).


Complaining that the monk has the worst AC is like claiming that bards have the worst saves or that fighters have the worst mobility. It might possibly be true... but even if it is, then so what? Some class needs to be the worst and not everyone can have diamond soul or the ability to run up walls.

[diplomancer]

Sometimes, it seems to me that people that complain about a Monk's defenses never use Patient Defense. Yes, defense is not as sexy as offense, but Patient Defense is one of the best abilities in the game. You're not going to use it all the time, but if you expect a lot of attacks incoming, it's gold.

[MrStabby]

Sometimes, it seems to me that people that complain about a Monk's defenses never use Patient Defense. Yes, defense is not as sexy as offense, but Patient Defense is one of the best abilities in the game. You're not going to use it all the time, but if you expect a lot of attacks incoming, it's gold.

Or moving.

Leaving enemies without a soft target is a realy good form of defense as well.

[Jerrykhor]

Sometimes, it seems to me that people that complain about a Monk's defenses never use Patient Defense. Yes, defense is not as sexy as offense, but Patient Defense is one of the best abilities in the game. You're not going to use it all the time, but if you expect a lot of attacks incoming, it's gold.

The problem with Patient Defense is that it not only shares the same resource as everything else, it also shares the same action economy as Flurry of Blows. You're sacrificing offense for defense, something no other class need to do. Also if you don't Flurry, then you have less chance of landing a Stunning Strike.

A Barbarian can Rage and reckless and still have high HP and possible resistances. Fighters can action surge and second wind on the same turn, and maybe use BM maneuvers as a reaction. A wizard can Fireball and Shield (and possibly have more AC if Bladesinger) on the same round.

Monk having bad AC is not a big problem if they are good at other things.. But they are not.

[MrStabby]

The problem with Patient Defense is that it not only shares the same resource as everything else, it also shares the same action economy as Flurry of Blows. You're sacrificing offense for defense, something no other class need to do.

Apart from any class that decides between using a big weapon and using a shield.

[diplomancer]

Apart from any class that decides between using a big weapon and using a shield.

This. Choosing between Offense and Defense is normal and expected. That the Monk gets to make this decision every turn instead of every combat (or, in many cases, once a build) is an advantage of the Monk, since he gets to choose it according to the circumstances.

And before I forget.. Flurry of Blows is overrated, except for Open Hand monks (which is a reason I don't like the subclass very much; you get a class feature dependant on taking a normally inferior option; the class feature makes the option quite good, true, but you're still paying for it with your subclass choice, and now you feel you have to take flurry of blows as often as you can).

[Pildion]

So in a game without magic items, AC values are quite tightly tuned. The quickest way to 20 AC is plate and a shield, though it may take a while before you can afford plate. Mage Armor is actually slightly better than studded leather, albeit only if you max out your DEX, which a caster might not (CON is often considered just as if not more important on casters). Monks take a bit longer, but eventually match plate and a shield once their DEX and WIS are maxed. Pretty much you can typically expect every PC to eventually end up with an AC between 17 and 20.

And then this tight tuning breaks once magic armor is introduced to the game.

With armor +X and shields +X, we're looking at potentially up to a +6 bonus to AC. That's a lot. But not everyone has shield proficiency, and some who do choose to discard the shield in favor for a two-handed weapon. So we can ignore magic shields for now, aside from one exception I'll get to later. And besides, I'm kind of okay with those wielding shields having higher AC than those not wielding shields, it just kind of makes sense.

Even just looking at magic armor, we're still looking at a potential +3 bonus, which isn't insignificant. And most classes can benefit from this. The only casters without armor proficiency are wizards and sorcerers, and it's pretty common for wizards to dip into fighter or cleric, and sorcerers to dip into bard, warlock, or paladin. The main point I want to get across is that the only ones left hanging out to dry are monks, and single-classed wizards and sorcerers.

People already complain about wizards and sorcerers dipping for armor proficiency. And not only are monks a martial class, but they're a martial class with top tier AC before magic items are introduced. And yet, after magic items are introduced, they get... nothing. Not unless you're willing to give up an attunement slot. But why should the monk have to give up a slot for Bracers of Defense when the fighter and paladin are getting it for free from non-attuned armor/shield +X?

Now, I know some of you are going to say that not every campaign has magic items. That's true, and that might be relevant if we were comparing magic items to something that isn't a magic item, like a class feature. But we're not. We're comparing magic items to other magic items, so we're operating under the assumption that magic items are being given out.

My first thought was to take the Bracers of Defense and change them to mirror armor +X, so they would come in three varieties of different rarities and wouldn't require attunement. But I think I actually want to leave the bracers as they in, if for no other reason than because there are other bracer items you might want to wear and I don't want players to feel locked out of those because they "have" to wear the Bracers of Defense. Armor is defensive item, so wearing one suit of armor over another just means trading one type of defense for a different type of defense, but not all bracers are defensive items, e.g. the Bracers of Archery. Besides, if we only provide an equivalent for armor +X and not for shields +X, then the Bracers of Defense can act as a way of getting close to having both the magic armor and magic shield.

Instead, let's create a new magic item. My first thought was a belt, but I could see DMs ruling you can only wear one belt. Rings are boring. Instead, let's make it a Charm of Defense, like a keychain type of thing that you clip onto your belt or clothing, with a tiny shield. That's nice and flavorful. It comes in three rarities matching armor +X (Rare, Very Rare, and Legendary), offering +1, +2, or +3 AC, but only while you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield. No attunement.

This offers a bonus to those wizards and sorcerers who stay straight-classed, and helps monks to keep up with martials in magic armor. The one place this still falls a bit short is monk AC vs. martials with both magic armor and a magic shield. Before magic items, monks match someone in plate wielding a shield. With armor/shield +X, the monk falls behind, even with this charm. That said, perhaps the Bracers of Defense can fill that gap. A non-monk martial is giving up two-handed weapons or TWF to use a shield, so the monk has to give up an attunement slot to get a similar AC boost. And even without the bracers, the monk is still slightly ahead of a martial not using a shield.

TL;DR, the lack of an equivalent to armor +X but for unarmored characters only hurts monks and straight-classed wizards/sorcerers (encouraging dips for armor), and the Bracers of Defense aren't an acceptable substitute due to requiring attunement. Instead, let's add a new item, the Charm of Defense, that doesn't require attunement and mirrors armor +X in rarity and AC bonus, but only works when not wearing armor or wielding a shield.

Are you saying its wrong that Fighter's and Paladin's in fullplate have more AC then monks\barbarians and wizards\sorcerers? And you want to come up with ways to give more AC to non armor wearing classes?

[Witty Username]

The Monk in our party has the highest AC of the party among a Paladin, Fighter and Sorcerer. Granted, they do have two AC boosting items but because of Monk's having a low item requirement it's easy for them to afford the attunement slots where the other party members can't. This is an 18th level party.

Paladin - 22 AC (Mithral Plate, +1 Heartscale Shield, Blessing of Protection supernatural gift)
Fighter - 21 AC (Plate +2 from an NPC Artificer Infusion [considered a mark of prestige award], Cloak of Protection)
Monk - 25 AC (22/20 Wis/Dex, Bracers of Defense, Ring of Protection)
Sorcerer - 18 AC (13 base AC+3 dex, Staff of Power)

Our Monk has had or tied for the highest AC in the party consistently throughout the entire campaign through a combination of decent stat rolls and the fortunate acquiring of Bracers of Defense and a Tome of Wisdom. Take note that even without the Tome and Bracers the Monk is still tying my Paladin in AC and that's only after I have a +1 Shield and Blessing from a god.

So I posit the Monk's don't have an AC problem, they instead might have a hit point problem due to being a D8 martial who must prioritize Constitution as a tertiary stat. They're given sufficiently powerful tools for increasing their Dex and Wis that losing some Con can be worth the risk. So I suppose I really don't agree.

Side note, Monk's can wear armor, assuming you gain proficiency with it. You only lose access to the three bullet points of Martial Arts and your unarmored movement, technically this only affects the base speed increase and not the improvement at 9th level. Having access to a natural weapon eliminates the need for the first two bullets and the third can be ignored if you prioritize flurry, have a better consistent use for your bonus action or are a ranged Kensei using Kensei's shot. You still keep the remaining base class features and all of your subclass features. It's certainly not a playstyle I would personally be eager to play (I like Monk's enough as they are, my Astral Self in a separate campaign is proving to be quite powerful) but it's doable.

Those AC numbers seems strange to me, in my game we have a level 5ish Artificer with AC 21 (half-plate +1, shield +1).

In my last game I played we had a paladin with an AC closer to 25 as I recall (Plate +3 and a shield, I guess that would make it +2) that and he got bored with paladin around level 15 and started taking sorcerer so he got access to the shield spell. For an accessible AC of 30. That game ended at level 17.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Those AC numbers seems strange to me, in my game we have a level 5ish Artificer with AC 21 (half-plate +1, shield +1).

In my last game I played we had a paladin with an AC closer to 25 as I recall (Plate +3 and a shield, I guess that would make it +2) that and he got bored with paladin around level 15 and started taking sorcerer so he got access to the shield spell. For an accessible AC of 30. That game ended at level 17.

If you roll back to the discussion on page 2 about the accessibility of +3 armors, you'll note that +3 plate is a fraction of a percentage on the loot drop table and not something easily attainable. Magical Plate in general is exceptional. Even if my Paladin did have +3 plate he would only match the Monk because this Shield has too many effects for me to even consider dumping it for an extra +2 AC. My Paladin does also have access to shield but I don't consider a conditional +5 AC that takes my reaction (a very precious resource for a Redemption Paladin) to be all that consistent.

[Segev]

Give the monk a tome of +2 Dex or Wis?

[JackPhoenix]

Give the monk a tome of +2 Dex or Wis?

Better yet, change their capstone to similar to barbarian, but for Dex and Wis instead of Str and Con. It'll be about as relevant in average game as the chance of getting +3 plate and shield.

[Greywander]

So as many have pointed out, I suppose this really is a monk issue, not an unarmored character issue. Although, I'll suggest that maybe this could extend to unarmored barbarians, and there's also a section in the DMG that talks about a cleric trading away armor proficiencies for Unarmored Defense. So perhaps it actually is an unarmored character issue, it's just that typically your only unarmored characters are monks, wizards, and sorcerers, and the latter two already have tools to increase their AC.


Are you saying its wrong that Fighter's and Paladin's in fullplate have more AC then monks\barbarians and wizards\sorcerers? And you want to come up with ways to give more AC to non armor wearing classes?
For monks at least, yes. The monk is balanced around (eventually) having the same AC as someone in plate with a shield. If you hand out magic armor and shields, the monk no longer has the same AC as someone in magic plate with a magic shield. The obvious solution is to create a new magic item for monks that acts as an analogue to magic armor. I've already said why I think the Bracers of Defense can act as an analogue for a magic (martials give up a hand to use a shield, monks give up an attunement slot to use the bracers), and with both items the monk would have comparable AC to someone in magic plate with a magic shield. The balance is maintained.

I can see the stat-boosting tomes being used as a potential alternative. They are Very Rare, the same as armor +2, and boosting either DEX or WIS comes with other benefits than just an AC boost. A bonus to DEX also increases your attack and damage rolls, and a bonus to WIS increases your ki save DC. Either of those would compare reasonably well with getting an additional +1 to AC, so it probably is fairly comparable overall. Though a DEX bump is also acting as an alternative to a magic weapon, and a weapon +3 is also a Very Rare item. So finding a weapon +3 and plate +2 on a martial would leave them in a slightly better position than finding two DEX tomes on a monk. Although, even in that case, the monk still has a +2 bonus to DEX saves and DEX checks, so even then it balances out. (Insignia of Claws also doesn't require attunement and is only Uncommon, and would bring the monk up to the same level as a weapon +3. Also, monks can still use magic weapons for most of their attacks.)

Maybe this isn't really an issue after all. It just requires giving out the stat boosting tomes as an alternative to magic weapons and armor. This also naturally benefits those with Unarmored Defense more; a monk getting a DEX and WIS bump gets double the AC bonus that a wizard getting a DEX and INT bump would. And the wizard would probably trade the DEX bump for another INT bump, losing any AC bonus, whereas the monk gets an AC bump either way.

[ZRN]

Ehh, I have to disagree with you on this. You need the +X armor after a certain point if you plan on tanking with your AC instead of face tanking everything like a Barbarian or Moon Druid. Eventually enemy NPCs reach a To-Hit bonus of 11 and above, at which point even a 21 AC is effectively a coin flip.

For top tier stuff, like Tier 4, you'll regularly see enemies with +14 to +16 to hit, and the enemies deal enough damage to quickly rip through anyone that doesn't have Barbarian levels of HP.

Statistically, this effect works the opposite direction you're suggesting: additional AC is better the higher your AC (and the lower the enemies' attack bonuses) already are.

Against an enemy with +14 to hit, you'll get hit 75% of the time with AC20. A +3 armor/trinket would bring that down to 60%. This means that for every 100 damage the AC20 guy takes, the AC23 guy takes 80.

Against an enemy with +9 to hit, AC20 guy gets hit 50% of the time and AC23 guy gets hit 35% of the time. This means that for every 100 damage the AC20 guy takes, the AC23 guy takes 70.

Thus, the marginal impact of adding AC is lower if enemies have higher attack bonuses.

[Mellack]

Apart from any class that decides between using a big weapon and using a shield.

And any spellcaster using spells like shield or mage armor. Those spell slots could instead be used for offense.