Possible houserule to nerf caster multiclassing for armor

[diplomancer]

So, many people feel that it is too easy for casters to improve their AC by multiclassing. If that's how you feel, maybe an easy houserule to at least raise the costs of doing so is to make gradually improving armor proficiencies; it can be as simple as:
Heavy Armor: Chain at level 1, Splint at level 2, Plate at level 3
Medium Armor: Chain Shirt/Scale at level 1, Breastplate at level 2, Half-Plate at level 3.

Now, this doesn't solve the main offender, which is shield proficiency, but it still makes martials have their niche of "higher AC", without creating any problem for dedicated martials, as they won't have the cash for the better armor at the earlier levels anyway..

[DarknessEternal]

Giving up a caster level is far worse than having higher armor class.

They are deliberately making themselves worse if they do that.

[diplomancer]

Giving up a caster level is far worse than having higher armor class.

They are deliberately making themselves worse if they do that.

If a Wizard multiclasses Artificer or Cleric, they are not losing any slots. They are one spell level back on half of the levels, and have much better AC on every level. Whether this makes them worse is a subject of debate, but from the number of threads talking about the issue I've mentioned, it's definitely a popular thing to do. I wouldn't do it before level 5, because that's a BIG power difference, but after that? Yes, I usually would.

[Mastikator]

Treatmonk had a houserule for dealing with this.

"You can't cast spells from a class feature while wearing armor or shield unless the same class grants proficiency in that armor or shield."

Multiclassing won't let your wizard wear armor, taking armor feats won't let you, being a mountain dwarf won't let you. Wizard's do not need armor to be the best class, they already have the best spells.

[Psyren]

Treantmonk's 3 Simple House Rules (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbsTKreJwsk) video might be worth a watch here if you're looking for a way to nerf multiclass casters. In summary, the three rules are:

1) Ban the Shield Spell.
2) A levelled spell from a class can only be cast in armor/shield, if the class you got the spell from grants that proficiency.
3) Every character can do the -5 attack /+10 damage on an attack roll without needing a specific weapon or feat.

The important one for this thread is of course #2, though you might want to consider combining it with #1 if wizards/sorcerers and their multiclasses still feel too sturdy in your games. It only applies to spells gained from a class - so leveled spells from racials, feats and magic items all still work in armor, but any you get from wizard/sorcerer for example don't work in anything, while any from bard and warlock don't work with shields or in medium/heavy armor.

Personally I think #1 is overkill, but I'd be inclined to give the other two a try - especially #3.

[diplomancer]

Treantmonk's 3 Simple House Rules (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbsTKreJwsk) video might be worth a watch here if you're looking for a way to nerf multiclass casters. In summary, the three rules are:

1) Ban the Shield Spell.
2) A levelled spell from a class can only be cast in armor/shield, if the class you got the spell from grants that proficiency.
3) Every character can do the -5 attack /+10 damage on an attack roll without needing a specific weapon or feat.

The important one for this thread is of course #2, though you might want to consider combining it with #1 if wizards/sorcerers and their multiclasses still feel too sturdy in your games. It only applies to spells gained from a class - so leveled spells from racials, feats and magic items all still work in armor, but any you get from wizard/sorcerer for example don't work in anything, while any from bard and warlock don't work with shields or in medium/heavy armor.

Personally I think #1 is overkill, but I'd be inclined to give the other two a try - especially #3.

Yeah, I know about Treantmonk houserules. I don't like them. They are simpler, that's their one advantage. But rule number 2 is just a way of saying "don't multiclass for armor". I wanted to provide an alternative houserule, that still allows multiclassing for armor, but making it necessary to dip deeper if you want the full benefits of it.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I know about Treantmonk houserules. I don't like them. They are simpler, that's their one advantage. But rule number 2 is just a way of saying "don't multiclass for armor". I wanted to provide an alternative houserule, that still allows multiclassing for armor, but making it necessary to dip deeper if you want the full benefits of it.

Ah I understand. Then the answer is, people are still going to dip for armor proficiency (or be a mountain dwarf etc) just like they do now, and take the 1 or 2 AC hit.

[Mastikator]

How do you deal with starting level in your dip class?

For example, level 1 as fighter to get all weapons, armor and shield. Then level x as wizard.

This seems to bypass your entire system, and nets you that sweet juicy constitution save proficiency to boot!

[diplomancer]

How do you deal with starting level in your dip class?

For example, level 1 as fighter to get all weapons, armor and shield. Then level x as wizard.

This seems to bypass your entire system, and nets you that sweet juicy constitution save proficiency to boot!

Hmm, looks like I should have made it clearer. This is not a multiclass rule. Every class that gets armor proficiency gets it progressively, not all at once. So a Fighter 1 gets proficiency in light armor, shields, Chain Mail, Chain Shirt and Scale Mail (and Ring Mail and Hide, but those armors exist for NPCs, not PCs). At level 2, he'd get proficiency in Splint and Breastplate. At level 3, Plate and Half-plate.

It's interesting in that, though it looks like a nerf to martials, it really isn't (because of the cost of armor); it's a nerf to dipping.

I'd even consider putting shields proficiency at level 2 or even 3, but that would be also a nerf to martials, and I don't want to do that, unless I was in a group that usually starts at level 3 (which I wish was a more common thing than it is).


Ah I understand. Then the answer is, people are still going to dip for armor proficiency (or be a mountain dwarf etc) just like they do now, and take the 1 or 2 AC hit.

Well, I don't mind that. Casters are improving their AC (at a cost), but still not competing with Martials for base AC.

[Kane0]

Now, this doesn't solve the main offender, which is shield proficiency

If thats your primary target, target it.

Say for example Shield and Shield of Faith dont stack with holding an actual shield.

[LudicSavant]

Keep in mind that it's not just multiclassing. You've got the Clerics and Hexblades and Bladesingers and the like who just come with this stuff. And there's also the Moderately Armored feat (especially for Bards and Warlocks, but also for things like Hobgoblin Sorcerers/Wizards).

[Mastikator]

Well, I don't mind that. Casters are improving their AC (at a cost), but still not competing with Martials for base AC.

A wizard with scale mail, shield and the shield spell can easily out-AC any martial at the very low cost of being gith/mountain dwarf/level 1 fighter. I don't think you're really solving a problem here

[diplomancer]

If thats your primary target, target it.

Say for example Shield and Shield of Faith dont stack with holding an actual shield.

Well, stacking with Shield of Faith is not bad; Shield of Faith is a spell from classes that already have native shield proficiency. I do like the idea of not letting it stack with Shield spell.


Keep in mind that it's not just multiclassing. You've got the Clerics and Hexblades and Bladesingers and the like who just come with this stuff. And there's also the Moderately Armored feat (especially for Bards and Warlocks, but also for things like Hobgoblin Sorcerers/Wizards).

True. But:
1- Clerics have always been good at AC. I don't think that's a problem
2- Hexblades and Bladesingers come with the associated cost of, well, not being other subclasses.
3- A feat is a big thing; even more so Feat+Racial selection for Hobgoblin wizards. If you are "paying" for that, I don't think this is so much of a problem.

This allows me perhaps to clarify my position further. It's not so much that "casters having high AC" is a problem. It is "arcane casters having high AC at a low cost is a problem". And 1 level in another class is a really low cost, specially after level 5.


A wizard with scale mail, shield and the shield spell can easily out-AC any martial at the very low cost of being gith/mountain dwarf/level 1 fighter. I don't think you're really solving a problem here

So, with my houserule, you don't need to be a Mountain Dwarf to have proficiency in Scale Mail with Fighter 1. But disadvantage in stealth is a big thing. Being a Mountain Dwarf would allow you to get Breastplate and Half-Plate eventually, but you're paying for that by not having another race (I DON'T accept Tasha's rules as regards Mountain Dwarves and Yuan-Ti specifically, they obviously were not balanced around picking your ASIs).

And Shield spell is very nice, but it's still about 4 rounds per day, (more if you use some of your Arcane Recovery for that, but that's also a considerable cost). That's why I've said "not competing with Martials for base AC. Shield spell + Mage Armor + decent Dex already allows casters to outcompete Martials for burst AC, without any multiclassing involved, and I think that's alright. What I don't think is alright is a caster getting one level of Cleric (or starting Fighter) and being decked out in Plate and shield and an empty hand, having base AC 20 without even needing War Caster to cast the Shield spell.

[Leon]

What this forum is very good at is overcomplicating the simple nature of 5e with needlessly fiddly rules and seeking justification for them. Its simple (like 5e) If you as a player think that X should be Y then talk to your group and DM and the opposite is the same if you the DM, talk to you players that you have concerns over whatever it is. That's the essence of a house rule, its for your group.

[Kane0]

What this forum is very good at is overcomplicating the simple nature of 5e with needlessly fiddly rules and seeking justification for them.

As much as I want to dispute this, I dont think I can.

[Arkhios]

If I really felt this was necessary, I would probably require a specific minimum strength to be able to cast in armor, if your class can't do that already, but that's it.

Either you can or you can't. No reduction in "caster level" (what's that thing anyway? in 5th edition we talk about spell levels, and that's the only level we need to know when casting spells), nor arguably redundant percentile failure chance, like in 3rd edition (and before?).

[Glorthindel]

I know it doesn't fix the whole problem, but one small fix I applied to address some of the abuse (and fix what feels like an unnecessary imbalance in Cleric subclasses) was to remove Heavy Armour from all Cleric subclasses and give it to the Cleric class itself. That removes it from being obtainable my Multiclassing, while allowing actual Clerics to keep it.

[diplomancer]

If I really felt this was necessary, I would probably require a specific minimum strength to be able to cast in armor, if your class can't do that already, but that's it.

Either you can or you can't. No reduction in "caster level" (what's that thing anyway? in 5th edition we talk about spell levels, and that's the only level we need to know when casting spells), nor arguably redundant percentile failure chance, like in 3rd edition (and before?).

Considering how Str is the oddest stat in 5e, since, with a few exceptions, you either really want it or it's a dump stat, this is also a good solution, specially if playing point-buy or standard array. If you're rolling, it'd make the gap between good rolls and mediocre rolls a bit too wide.

I'd put it at 15 str for Heavy Armor, 14 for Medium.

[Kane0]

Chain, Splint and Plate already have Strength requirements so you could expand on that.

[Chronic]

I use a fairly drastic one. First, a PC has the profiencies of the class of the highest level. Second taking a level in a class with better armor proficiency improve the type of armor the original class can wear by one step. Example, if you have no armor proficiency and take a level in a class with better armor proficiency, you gain proficiency with light armor only. I also have a modified shield spell, which can be cast only without wearing armor or shield. And a new spell, barrier that can be cast in armor but no shield for +3 AC. This one is on no one spell list and is a reward.

[Arkhios]

Considering how Str is the oddest stat in 5e, since, with a few exceptions, you either really want it or it's a dump stat, this is also a good solution, specially if playing point-buy or standard array. If you're rolling, it'd make the gap between good rolls and mediocre rolls a bit too wide.

I'd put it at 15 str for Heavy Armor, 14 for Medium.

Funnily enough, my excuse for this solution is based purely on certain amount of realism or at the very least, verisimilitude, that if you're wearing armor and you want it to not hinder (any of) your movements, you need to have the strength to move in that armor easily. And a minimum strength requirement makes sense in that regard.

[Mastikator]

Wouldn't a strength requirement for medium armors also nerf dex fighters, clerics with medium armor, artificers, druids, rangers and warlocks (who wear medium armor)?

Feels like a very large pool of collateral damage just to nerf wizards in half plate.

Just nerf wizards in half plate if they're the problem. Don't re-arrange the whole system.

[diplomancer]

Considering how Str is the oddest stat in 5e, since, with a few exceptions, you either really want it or it's a dump stat, this is also a good solution, specially if playing point-buy or standard array. If you're rolling, it'd make the gap between good rolls and mediocre rolls a bit too wide.

I'd put it at 15 str for Heavy Armor, 14 for Medium.


Wouldn't a strength requirement for medium armors also nerf dex fighters, clerics with medium armor, artificers, druids, rangers and warlocks (who wear medium armor)?

Feels like a very large pool of collateral damage just to nerf wizards in half plate.

Just nerf wizards in half plate if they're the problem. Don't re-arrange the whole system.

From what I understood, the Str requirement is, specifically, to cast a spell in the armor IF the spell is from a class that natively doesn't have access to the armor. So single-classed Clerics, Hexblades, Rangers, etc are fine.

[Sception]

If you feel Treantmonk's flat ban on casting in armor not from the spellcasting class targets the right problem but is too extreme, then maybe try the same targeting but a lesser penalty.

EG: you have disadvantage on concentration saves while concentrating on a spell gained from a class while wearing any armor that that class doesn't grant proficiency with. Disadvantage on concentration save is annoying enough to possibly put some off, but not so debilitating that it forcloses armored mage builds altogether.

I definitely recommend either banning shield or targeting it for nerfs, though. My favorites being 1) doesn't stack with actual shields, 2) reduce the bonus to either a flat +2 or an unreliable +d4, and 3) it only applies to the triggering attack, and doesn't linger until your next turn. Note the 'and' there, not 'or'.

[Pildion]

So, many people feel that it is too easy for casters to improve their AC by multiclassing. If that's how you feel, maybe an easy houserule to at least raise the costs of doing so is to make gradually improving armor proficiencies; it can be as simple as:
Heavy Armor: Chain at level 1, Splint at level 2, Plate at level 3
Medium Armor: Chain Shirt/Scale at level 1, Breastplate at level 2, Half-Plate at level 3.

Now, this doesn't solve the main offender, which is shield proficiency, but it still makes martials have their niche of "higher AC", without creating any problem for dedicated martials, as they won't have the cash for the better armor at the earlier levels anyway..

Just bring back Arcane Spell Failure, done =D

[Jakinbandw]

Man, I didn't realize that my cleric 1/bard x was breaking the entire game with his 16 ac and needed to be nerfed down to 12 ac. It feels kinda excessive when the fighters in my party are rocking ac 20 or higher.

I guess it just makes it so that taking the Dodge action is pretty pointless, and that anything that attacks me will hit, instead of having a chance to miss. On the other hand I guess maybe all it would do is make me do armor swapping all the time as in combat I only ever cast 1st level cleric spells.

I guess I didn't realize that having 16 ac was a problem.

[Sception]

I guess I didn't realize that having 16 ac was a problem.

That same single level multiclass dip could just as easily get you 20 AC on your full caster, who is otherwise supposed to be a squishy backline character that the party is supposed to put group effort into protecting. It sucks to play a 'tank' in a party where every other character is as or more durable than you are, utterly negating the entire point of your intended combat contribution.

If a bard player wants to focus on defense in a campaign that employs these house rules, they still have options to do so. You could spend some of your spell slots defensively via Mirror Image, Greater Invisibility, & the like, making the same sort of trade off between offense and defense that non-casters are expected to make. Alternatively, you could choose the College of Valor as your subclass in order to access medium armor and shield proficiencies in-class.

The fact that it's so easy to access these extremely powerful proficiencies via races, feats, or single level dips is a big part of why Valor tends to be rated so lowly by the community, despite the fact that they are otherwise one of the most powerful bard subclasses specifically because of how strong medium armor and shield proficiencies are - because they allow the Valor bard to have a solid base line defense without "wasting" actions and spell slots on defensive spells.

[Psyren]

Well, I don't mind that. Casters are improving their AC (at a cost), but still not competing with Martials for base AC.

I think it's more fiddly mental real estate than such a marginal difference deserves. 1 AC less, that'll show those pesky casters! (And it may not even be that if you come across, say, magical chain.)

Also it does nothing to mountain dwarves, githyanki etc.

[Dalinar]

Base assumption: Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards picking up extra armor proficiency via single-level dips is a problem. (I personally like my tank-caster builds to exist, I'm really into the heavily-armored mage knight fantasy, but if you're making the fighter in the same party feel invalid, I totally get why you feel that way.)

There are many approaches to tackle this problem. Let's take a look. Some of these have already been mentioned, and I'll bring up a few myself.

Proposed solution 1: ignore multiclassing entirely. Stops a lot of game breakers but also greatly limits fun-but-not-broken things as well.

Proposed solution 2: you cannot pick up additional armor proficiencies via multiclassing. Does nothing, because you can still start Fighter 1 and still be a very good Wizard.

Proposed solution 3: ban or nerf the Shield spell. Shield matters more when you are fighting things with enough to-hit to get through 17+ AC with any consistency. Perhaps it adds PB to AC? Perhaps you can't Shield while concentrating? Needs more analysis by people smarter than me.

Proposed solution 4: Treantmonk's second houserule mentioned upthread. Solves a lot, but strikes me as a tad complicated/weird. If I'm a Sorcadin, I can cast Command in heavy armor, but not Shield?

Proposed solution 5: rather than attacking tank-casters, buff non-casters e.g. by giving all fighter subclasses BM maneuvers. Pros: maintains mage-knight fantasy while not rendering non-casters obsolete. Cons: some people enjoy relative simplicity, which is why Champion exists even if I doubt most of the people reading this post are interested in it at all outside weird critfishing builds.

Proposed solution 6: you cannot cast spells while wielding a shield unless that shield is also a spellcasting focus. This might not go far enough: Artificer 2 can cast spells while holding an infused shield, Clerics and Paladins can already have their holy symbol engraved on a shield per PHB chapter 5, and Rangers--arguably the least offensive dip from this perspective--are sorta left out to dry.

Proposed solution 7: DM case-by-case soft-bans problematic builds. Requires a lot of table trust, may cause arguments.

Proposed solution 8: Strength requirement to cast while wearing armor. Makes some logical sense, which is good. Tunable to DM's preference, which is good. Nonissue for Sorcadins; inconvenient for Artiwizards. Rangers and single-class Artificers once again left out to dry unless specific exception is made. For Clerics, it kinda depends.

Proposed solution 9: a parry mechanic. On any turn in which you take the Attack action, you gain AC. Maybe +2? +1 per attack made with the Attack action? Don't want to make Dodge useless. Pros: tank builds focused on spellcasting have reduced defensive effectiveness compared to tank builds focused on the Attack action. Cons: probably have to uptune your monsters' to-hit and downtune their AC. Otherwise, you create a situation where martials want to keep attacking for defensive reasons but are less likely to actually hit said attacks; which means that targeting saves is a relatively more effective offensive choice, and we've accidentally buffed casters by buffing martials, hilariously.

[tiornys]

Man, I didn't realize that my cleric 1/bard x was breaking the entire game with his 16 ac and needed to be nerfed down to 12 ac. It feels kinda excessive when the fighters in my party are rocking ac 20 or higher.

I guess it just makes it so that taking the Dodge action is pretty pointless, and that anything that attacks me will hit, instead of having a chance to miss. On the other hand I guess maybe all it would do is make me do armor swapping all the time as in combat I only ever cast 1st level cleric spells.

I guess I didn't realize that having 16 ac was a problem.
Having 16 AC isn't a problem. Having 19 AC baseline (half plate + shield + 14 DEX) + spells to conditionally boost that AC further is arguably a problem. AC is interesting in that a boost to an already high AC is more powerful than the same boost to a lower AC (as you allude to when you comment that Dodge with 12 AC is much less effective than Dodge with 16 AC).

[Telwar]

1) No multicasting allowed.

2) (after loud protests) Okay, fine, you can multiclass. But:
a) Armor proficiency only conveys at your first character level, like save proficiency, and
b) Cleric is divided into two demiclasses, warpriest, which gets heavy armor proficiency at first level, and cloistered, which doesn't. Subclasses are assigned based on their armor proficiency.

To be fair, this doesn't prevent the armored wizard wannabe from starting as a fighter and then taking wizard levels. To which I would refer you to 1) above if that's a concern.

[Willie the Duck]

What this forum is very good at is overcomplicating the simple nature of 5e with needlessly fiddly rules and seeking justification for them. Its simple (like 5e) If you as a player think that X should be Y then talk to your group and DM and the opposite is the same if you the DM, talk to you players that you have concerns over whatever it is. That's the essence of a house rule, its for your group.

Fundamentally, this is how my groups tend to do it. In effect, it is 'guys, can we not dip for features?' social convention. It has solved Cleric or Fighter 1/Wizard X-1 builds and Hexblade 1/Paladin X-1 builds while still letting people do Cleric 5/Wizard 5 instead of L10 for either (certainly not going to bemoan that plaeyer's choice as OP).

[Jakinbandw]

That same single level multiclass dip could just as easily get you 20 AC on your full caster, who is otherwise supposed to be a squishy backline character that the party is supposed to put group effort into protecting. It sucks to play a 'tank' in a party where every other character is as or more durable than you are, utterly negating the entire point of your intended combat contribution.

If a bard player wants to focus on defense in a campaign that employs these house rules, they still have options to do so. You could spend some of your spell slots defensively via Mirror Image, Greater Invisibility, & the like, making the same sort of trade off between offense and defense that non-casters are expected to make. Alternatively, you could choose the College of Valor as your subclass in order to access medium armor and shield proficiencies in-class.

The fact that it's so easy to access these extremely powerful proficiencies via races, feats, or single level dips is a big part of why Valor tends to be rated so lowly by the community, despite the fact that they are otherwise one of the most powerful bard subclasses specifically because of how strong medium armor and shield proficiencies are - because they allow the Valor bard to have a solid base line defense without "wasting" actions and spell slots on defensive spells.


I mean, as I said. It wouldn't change how I play much. GMs would just have to put up with me taking off my armor every time I wanted to cast a Bard spell, then putting them back on.

Also bards don't have access to mirror image, and greater invisibility is pretty useless on an ac 12 character at level 9/10. I guess the question is, is stopping a my cleric from casting speak with animals in combat worth the annoyance of constantly having to have my character say if they are changing in and out of armor all the time?

It just feels needlessly annoying and complicated for no real gain.

I've played curse of strahd from 3 to 8, and the only non cleric combat spell I've cast in combat was talk with animals. Normally it's bless, command, command, and cause wounds if I'm feeling especially spicy.

[MrCharlie]

Having 16 AC isn't a problem. Having 19 AC baseline (half plate + shield + 14 DEX) + spells to conditionally boost that AC further is arguably a problem. AC is interesting in that a boost to an already high AC is more powerful than the same boost to a lower AC (as you allude to when you comment that Dodge with 12 AC is much less effective than Dodge with 16 AC).
I'd like to take a second to refute a misunderstanding of the system.

The idea that AC is better with higher investment is rooted in a misunderstanding of math. The core of it is that, assuming the enemy has a +0 to hit, AC 10 to AC 15 provides 50% reduction in damage, but AC 18 to AC 19 also provides 50% reduction in damage. It's the same benefit, for less AC!

Why this is a misunderstanding is because that is still 5% of the total damage per point of AC, the starting damage is just lower because it's already reduced by 90%, so a reduction of 5% of the total looks like a bigger number. Given how crits work, it's actually less reduction per point in absolute terms (as crits always hit and always roll double), even if the percentage reduction is bigger. Even ignoring crits, each point of AC is the same reduction in absolute terms.

Hence, AC is not a better investment per point, it's the same per point, 5%. It's just that having a high AC is good damage reduction and percentage reduction per point double counts the already impressive reduction.

5e is actually unique, however, in that it provides a counter-point; both situational AC boosts and disadvantage break that math. Disadvantage is best at middling AC numbers by the mathematical impact. Rolling twice has the biggest impact when the chance is 50-50, and the least impact when the enemy requires a crit. It's just that it works to reduce the likelyhood of a crit too, to 1/400; and absurd number. The key is that's less than 5% of the potential attacks damage, because 95% of the potential attacks damage is already mitigated. Disadvantage when the enemy needs a 10 or 11 actually reduces the to enemies total damage by nearly 25%, about half of what having resistance would do, and is one of the best defensive buffs you can have; Shield and disadvantage are mathematically similar at this AC.

The other counter-point is situational AC boosts. If my AC is 12, and an enemy has a +14 to hit, then my shield spell effectively "covers" only one enemy die roll, a 2. If my AC is 15 to start, then shield "covers" every die roll the enemy can roll, meaning that I've mitigated more from having AC 15 than would be suggested from the AC itself.

Of course, some characters get attacked more than others. If you aren't attacked, AC does not matter. Hence, the fighter who occupies the frontline benefits more from AC than the wizard, simply because they're using that AC more.

Improving a middling AC to a high AC is okay, and extremely safe if you can pair it with imposed disadvantage. However low AC to middling AC is actually exceptional, precisely because situational AC boosts and disadvantage make this AC much better. High AC to super high AC is actually the worst investment by the numbers, but sometimes has value because attacks are selective and positioning can force that selection on you.

To put it simply: Robes to armor great, armor to super armor okay, but making the tank better is good if the tank can draw aggression to them.

[Kane0]

To put it simply: Robes to armor great, armor to super armor okay, but making the tank better is good if the tank can draw aggression to them.

Also keep in mind things like mage armor and racial natural armor.

[Sandeman]

Is casters in armor really an issue?
They still have crappy HP and dont want to be in the front line.
Getting hit a few times less is good but might not be worth a level if you are in the back row most of the time anyway.

[JLandan]

So, many people feel that it is too easy for casters to improve their AC by multiclassing. If that's how you feel, maybe an easy houserule to at least raise the costs of doing so is to make gradually improving armor proficiencies; it can be as simple as:
Heavy Armor: Chain at level 1, Splint at level 2, Plate at level 3
Medium Armor: Chain Shirt/Scale at level 1, Breastplate at level 2, Half-Plate at level 3.

Now, this doesn't solve the main offender, which is shield proficiency, but it still makes martials have their niche of "higher AC", without creating any problem for dedicated martials, as they won't have the cash for the better armor at the earlier levels anyway..

I like this house rule in general. I do think it needs a little simplification. Rather than specific armors at progressing levels, I think it would be better with proficiencies at progressing levels.

Light and shields at 1st
Medium at 2nd
Heavy at 3rd

I think this would be okay across all classes, since most characters wouldn't have funds for the heavier armors till later anyway. It would require a deeper commitment to multiclassing to get armor proficiencies. Racial proficiencies would override this. Also, the armor may be worn without the proficiency, just no casting and a penalty to certain skills.

It does complicate starting equipment packages, but I have always preferred allotting cash and purchasing, with the same amount for all classes, not the amounts in the PH. Like a straight up 400 gp.

That being said, I don't have a problem with casters increasing their AC by multiclassing. To me it isn't any different than a martial being able to cast by multiclassing. Specialization is good, but versatility is good too.

Shield proficiency for casting is not a problem to me. A free hand is necessary for casting, materials or focus. So shield in one hand and a free hand for casting means no weapon. Unless the weapon is a focus, which some class features have, or the material component is the weapon, like booming blade. Not all material components are replaced by a focus and drawing and sheathing a weapon can interfere with action economy.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Fundamentally, this is how my groups tend to do it. In effect, it is 'guys, can we not dip for features?' social convention. It has solved Cleric or Fighter 1/Wizard X-1 builds and Hexblade 1/Paladin X-1 builds while still letting people do Cleric 5/Wizard 5 instead of L10 for either (certainly not going to bemoan that plaeyer's choice as OP).

That's sort of where we've evolved. There's not a demand for a 5/5 split, but 2 or 3 levels min is the expected to do a 'proper' multiclass. I think it's probably led to some better role playing as a benefit, where the 1 level dip was getting forgotten (except mechanically) down the line.

[Kane0]

Proposed solution 8: Strength requirement to cast while wearing armor. Makes some logical sense, which is good. Tunable to DM's preference, which is good. Nonissue for Sorcadins; inconvenient for Artiwizards. Rangers and single-class Artificers once again left out to dry unless specific exception is made. For Clerics, it kinda depends.

Artificers have the ability to ignore STR reqs of armor which you could spread to applying here as well.

[sithlordnergal]

Is casters in armor really an issue?
They still have crappy HP and dont want to be in the front line.
Getting hit a few times less is good but might not be worth a level if you are in the back row most of the time anyway.

Personally I firmly agree with this. Yeah, caster's can have high AC...but so what? Just don't target their AC. There are very few PCs that can have perfect defenses. The only two classes that can be built to tank against everything are Monks and Artificers. And even then you need to have a very specific build with very specific feats, very specific items, and be close to level 20. At which point all of your effects to tank are kind of pointless because Moon Druid, Zealot Barbarians, and Bear Totem Barbarians exist, and they'll tank better than anyone else ever will in that tier.

[Kane0]

There are very few PCs that can have perfect defenses. The only two classes that can be built to tank against everything are Monks and Artificers. And even then you need to have a very specific build with very specific feats, very specific items, and be close to level 20. At which point all of your effects to tank are kind of pointless because Moon Druid, Zealot Barbarians, and Bear Totem Barbarians exist, and they'll tank better than anyone else ever will in that tier.

No love for the Paladin there? Heavy armor, shields, +Cha to all saves and solid tanking spells/features all in Tier 2?

[MrCharlie]

Personally I firmly agree with this. Yeah, caster's can have high AC...but so what? Just don't target their AC. There are very few PCs that can have perfect defenses. The only two classes that can be built to tank against everything are Monks and Artificers. And even then you need to have a very specific build with very specific feats, very specific items, and be close to level 20. At which point all of your effects to tank are kind of pointless because Moon Druid, Zealot Barbarians, and Bear Totem Barbarians exist, and they'll tank better than anyone else ever will in that tier.
Paladins can also tank against everything, basically. CHA to saves is extremely good.

But in general, this is right. Attacks aren't very threatening in 5e because there are numerous ways to avoid them, counter their effects, and repair the damage from them. Having a high AC is just the most direct and the first line of defense. Saves, ability checks, and occasional mobility challenges are all significantly more threatening in practice, precisely because AC stacking is relatively easy and threats therefore don't solely or primarily attack it.

[LudicSavant]

Is casters in armor really an issue?
They still have crappy HP and dont want to be in the front line.

"They have crappy HP" is not a correct generalization. It's just a stereotype.

Abjurer Wizards, for instance, have more HP than Fighters do, before they even do anything.

For some more examples, Warlock, Bard, or Cleric have only -1 HP/level compared to a Fighter's base, and often have features that give them immense amounts of health -- see Glamour Bard, Undead Warlock, Celestial Giftlocks, Twilight Clerics, Life Clerics, and more.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A wizard with scale mail, shield and the shield spell can easily out-AC any martial at the very low cost of being gith/mountain dwarf/level 1 fighter. I don't think you're really solving a problem here

How about this outrageous idea:

The shield spell doesn't raise your AC. It sets it to 20 instead, and specifically ignores any increases in AC from other sources. Wording to the effect of "until the beginning of your next turn, your AC is 20 regardless of other sources of AC."

Then give Eldritch Knights (I'd maybe allow battle smith artificers it as well) a low-level sub-class feature which lets them add bonuses from shields to their AC when they cast shield.

Are you a "normal" wizard/sorcerer with mage armor and not-super-high DEX? It's about the same boost (base ac with +2 DEX is 15, so +5 or +4 if you've got a +3 DEX). No big nerf.

Are you trying to cheese things by stacking armor? You get a reasonable AC (same as plate + shield), but it doesn't go up. Unless you're willing to dip in say 3-5 levels of fighter) (at which point you're paying a couple spell levels and a bunch of slots to do so).

Bladesingers? They already get a +INT boost while bladesinging. That's plenty on top of light armor.

Hexblade? Probably not casting shield all that much due to spell slots. If they do, it boosts their AC +3 (assuming max DEX and studded leather or +2 DEX and half-plate) or +1 (if they have a shield on as well).

Reduces shield from a must-have to a nice benefit for squishier folks.

[LudicSavant]

Even ignoring crits, each point of AC is the same reduction in absolute terms.

However, each 5% of absolute reduction increases the attacks required to kill you more than the last 5%.

If you reduce damage by an absolute 50%, you've doubled your durability. To double your durability again, you only need to decrease damage by another absolute 25%. To double your durability again, you only need to decrease damage by another absolute 12.5%. And so forth.

Indeed, the first 50% will make you take twice as many attacks to kill, but the second 50% will make you literally invulnerable.

If you're ignoring crits, the curve looks like this:
https://i.postimg.cc/MTvcMjvC/Arcane-Trickster5save-HP.png

(As for what it looks like with crits, that's enemy-specific, but the curve more-or-less retains its general shape).

Of course, there are other forces at work too. When you get to very high reductions, an important question is "how sticky/punishing to ignore are you?" If you're investing beyond the point that enemies are already willing to eat your OA (or whatever else) and leave, then that reduces the value of those investments.

[sithlordnergal]

-snip-

That would make Shield completely useless for pretty much everyone. There's a reason Druid's never use Barkskin, and its not just because of it requiring Concentration. Setting your AC to 20 for a single round is worse than useless, you'd be better off removing Shield from the game entirely instead of making it a trap option. Hell, the so called buff you'd give to Eldritch Knights is actually a massive nerf to their AC because an Eldritch Knight can have a 21 AC without any magic items what so ever.

If you feel the +5 is too strong then do the following:

+2 AC for the round, if you upcast it add +1 AC per spell level to a max of +5 AC. That basically grants you the benefits of wearing a shield for the round without things going too crazy. Allow the upcast so that its worth using at higher levels and in case someone really wants to defend themselves.

[tiornys]

I'd like to take a second to refute a misunderstanding of the system.

The idea that AC is better with higher investment is rooted in a misunderstanding of math. The core of it is that, assuming the enemy has a +0 to hit, AC 10 to AC 15 provides 50% reduction in damage, but AC 18 to AC 19 also provides 50% reduction in damage. It's the same benefit, for less AC!

Why this is a misunderstanding is because that is still 5% of the total damage per point of AC, the starting damage is just lower because it's already reduced by 90%, so a reduction of 5% of the total looks like a bigger number. Given how crits work, it's actually less reduction per point in absolute terms (as crits always hit and always roll double), even if the percentage reduction is bigger. Even ignoring crits, each point of AC is the same reduction in absolute terms.

Hence, AC is not a better investment per point, it's the same per point, 5%. It's just that having a high AC is good damage reduction and percentage reduction per point double counts the already impressive reduction.
Allow me to refute your refutation.

You're absolutely correct that each point of AC is the same reduction in average damage, assuming no advantage/disadvantage and staying within the range between (only miss on a 1) and (only hit on a 20). However, I would argue that this is not the most important metric. The most important metric is: how many attacks can I expect to survive (edit to add, this is basically the same as LudicSavant's Effective HP). To calculate that, we divide our HP by the average damage per attack.

So, let's do a little numerical analysis. For the purpose of this exercise, I'll assume 50 HP, an enemy attack bonus of +8, and enemy damage of 2d6 + 3 so 10 on a normal hit and 17 on a crit. Let's look at AC's 12, 17, and 22; this gives us a decent sample from low to high AC as well as an idea of how much impact Shield has.



AC
Normal Miss%
Normal Crit%
Normal Standard Hit%
Normal Damage per Att.
Normal #Attacks to Kill
Advantage Miss%
Advantage Crit%
Advantage Standard Hit%
Advantage Damage per Attack
Advantage #Attacks to Kill
Disadvantage Miss%
Disadvantage Crit%
Disadvantage Standard Hit%
Disadvantage Damage per Attack
Disadvantage #Attacks to Kill


12
20%
5%
75%
8.35
5.988
4%
9.75%
86.25%
10.2825
4.863
36%
0.25%
63.75%
6.4175
7.791


17
45%
5%
50%
5.85
8.547
20.25%
9.75%
70%
8.6575
5.775
69.75%
0.25%
30%
3.0425
16.434


22
70%
5%
25%
3.35
14.925
49%
9.75%
41.25%
5.7825
8.647
91%
0.25%
8.75%
0.9175
54.496



At 12 AC, you can expect to (pretend I say "expect to" throughout) survive 5 attacks but die to 6. If the attacker has advantage you'll survive 4 but die to 5 attacks instead; if they have disadvantage you survive 7 attacks but not 8. At 17 AC, you survive 8 normal attacks, 5 attacks at advantage, or 16 attacks at disadvantage. At 22 AC, you survive 14 normal attacks, 8 attacks at advantage, or 54(!) attacks at disadvantage.

Shield from 12 AC lets you withstand an extra 3/1/9 attacks. Shield from 17 AC lets you withstand an extra 6/3/38 attacks. As LudicSavant noted, boosts to already high AC have more impact.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That would make Shield completely useless for pretty much everyone. There's a reason Druid's never use Barkskin, and its not just because of it requiring Concentration. Setting your AC to 20 for a single round is worse than useless, you'd be better off removing Shield from the game entirely instead of making it a trap option. Hell, the so called buff you'd give to Eldritch Knights is actually a massive nerf to their AC because an Eldritch Knight can have a 21 AC without any magic items what so ever.

If you feel the +5 is too strong then do the following:

+2 AC for the round, if you upcast it add +1 AC per spell level to a max of +5 AC. That basically grants you the benefits of wearing a shield for the round without things going too crazy. Allow the upcast so that its worth using at higher levels and in case someone really wants to defend themselves.

Maybe too harsh on EKs, sure. So they get a feature instead that returns it to normal.

So getting +4 or +5 for one round isn't good? Because for normal wizards who aren't stacking AC, that's what they get now. It's only people who are trying to stack AC for whom is a major change.

Personally, I'd be much more comfortable if AC generally had a soft cap about 20-23-ish. From any source. You've got a +3 plate? Your +3 shield don't do much for you. Basically put some teeth into bounded target numbers. And then adjust any monster numbers (ac and attack) to fit.

Having a high passive ac means you can turn your attention to other things like offense. If your passive is lower, you can benefit from temporary boosts. But no stacking into the stratosphere.

[sithlordnergal]

Maybe too harsh on EKs, sure. So they get a feature instead that returns it to normal.

So getting +4 or +5 for one round isn't good? Because for normal wizards who aren't stacking AC, that's what they get now. It's only people who are trying to stack AC for whom is a major change.

Personally, I'd be much more comfortable if AC generally had a soft cap about 20-23-ish. From any source. You've got a +3 plate? Your +3 shield don't do much for you. Basically put some teeth into bounded target numbers. And then adjust any monster numbers (ac and attack) to fit.

Having a high passive ac means you can turn your attention to other things like offense. If your passive is lower, you can benefit from temporary boosts. But no stacking into the stratosphere.

The problem is the only wizards getting a +4 to +5 from your change are only extremely low level wizards. There's only one time when I see a wizard with AC so low that setting their AC to 20 nets them a boost of +4 to +5, and that's a level 1 to 4 Wizard. Even at level 1, every Wizard I've seen aims for a 16 Int and 16 Dex, meaning yoyr change only nets them +4. And once you start actually investing in Dex, your change will typically net them a +2 at best...and that's only if they don't have any AC boosting magic items like a staff, robes, cloak, ring, or bracers. Pretty much every wizard I meet, in homebrew and AL, has an AC that is at least 20 in Tier 2.

Once again, I shall point you towards Barkskin. It has a similar effect to your proposed change, it makes it so your AC can never be lower than 16. Now, it does take Concentration but it lasts an hour. Seems like it should be an ok spell, but I've never seen Barkskin ranked highly and never seen it used. Why? Because setting your AC to a number or making it unable to go below a certain number isn't a good use of a spell slot.

Now I can understand wanting a soft cap on AC, but again, your nerf to shield will just make it so shield is effectively worthless to every caster outside of tier 1.

Hence why I suggest making it boost your AC by two, and you can increase it to a maximum of +5 by casting it at a higher level slot. That makes it give the AC of a normal shield at base level, and a +3 shield at max. It keeps the Shield spell useful for everyone, including martials or casters that have high AC, like Bladesingers, instead of making it a trap.

My suggestion also lets you keep that soft cap of 23. You can never have a passive AC higher than 23, and you end up with a hard cap of 32 AC if you dump a 4th level slot to cast Shield and you have both Haste and Shield of Faith active. Which given you're using a 3rd level slot, a 4th level slot, and the Cleric or Paladin's Concentration and 2nd level slot, I think that's a fair resource expenditure to get 32 AC.

Basically, when changing a spell you never want it to directly cause a downgrade to a passive thing the caster might already have. Its why Barkskin, as bad as it is, doesn't set your AC to 16. It just makes it so your AC can't go below a 16.

[diplomancer]

The problem is the only wizards getting a +4 to +5 from your change are only extremely low level wizards. A caster with, say, 20 Dex, Mage Armor, and a Cloak of Protection gets effectivly nothing from your change.

Again, I point you towards Barkskin. It has a similar effect to your proposed change, it makes it so your AC can never be lower than 16. Now, it does take Concentration but it lasts an hour. Seems like it should be an ok spell, but I've never seen Barkskin ranked highly and never seen it used. Why? Because setting your AC to a number or making it unable to go below a certain number isn't a good use of a spell slot.

Now I can understand wanting a soft cap on AC, but again, your nerf to shield will just make it so shield is effectively worthless to every caster outside of tier 1.

Hence why I suggest making it boost your AC by two, and you can increase it to a +5 by casting it at a higher level slot. That makes it give the AC of a normal shield at base level, and a +3 shield at max. It keeps the Shield spell useful for everyone, including martials or casters that have high AC, like Bladesingers, instead of making it a trap.

Basically, when changing a spell you never want it to directly cause a downgrade to a passive thing the caster might already have. Its why Barkskin, as bad as it is, doesn't set your AC to 16. It just makes it so your AC can't go below a 16.

I've never seen a wizard with Dex higher than 16. Maybe on a featless game? Even then, they should raise Constitution before Dex (specially in a featless game!). So, with Mage Armor and 16 Dex, that's a nerf of 1 to Shield. Not that bad.

I like the idea. Maybe 20 is low, 21 (for the "normal optimized" use case of Mage Armor and 16 dex) would be best.

[sithlordnergal]

I've never seen a wizard with Dex higher than 16. Maybe on a featless game? Even then, they should raise Constitution before Dex (specially in a featless game!). So, with Mage Armor and 16 Dex, that's a nerf of 1 to Shield. Not that bad.

I like the idea. Maybe 20 is low, 21 (for the "normal optimized" use case of Mage Armor and 16 dex) would be best.

I've yet to meet a pure wizard that doesn't max out Dex right after they max Int, with or without feats. The only exceptions are when they're Fighter/Wizards in plate armor, and can dump their dex.

And while the nerf of 1 isn't bad for a 16 dex wizard, you effectivly have a useless spell for literally everyone else. Now, he did mention making Shield normal for the Eldritch Knight, which is a nice bone to throw to the martials. But for everyone else? They get nothing. Bladesingers, for example, are supposed to be rhe melee frontline wizard subclass...this nerf actually makes their AC worse. Same for Hexblades, or really any dwarf caster that chooses to wear armor.

Shield may be a strong spell currently, but there's no need to nerf it so hard that the only ones capable of using it without getting debuffed by it are an unoptomized wizard and Eldritch Knights.

Again, this is basically turning Shield into a worse version of Barkskin, where it only lasts 1 round and it causes you to lose AC if you cast it when you have higher than 20 AC. And again, Barkskin is already considered a horrible spell. Why make a worse version of Barkskin?

[diplomancer]

I've yet to meet a pure wizard that doesn't max out Dex right after they max Int, with or without feats. The only exceptions are when they're Fighter/Wizards in plate armor, and can dump their dex.

And while the nerf of 1 isn't bad for a 16 dex wizard, you effectivly have a useless spell for literally everyone else. Now, he did mention making Shield normal for the Eldritch Knight, which is a nice bone to throw to the martials. But for everyone else? They get nothing. Bladesingers, for example, are supposed to be rhe melee frontline wizard subclass...this nerf actually makes their AC worse. Same for Hexblades, or really any dwarf caster that chooses to wear armor.

Shield may be a strong spell currently, but there's no need to nerf it so hard that the only ones capable of using it without getting debuffed by it are an unoptomized wizard and Eldritch Knights.

Again, this is basically turning Shield into a worse version of Barkskin, where it only lasts 1 round and it causes you to lose AC if you cast it when you have higher than 20 AC. And again, Barkskin is already considered a horrible spell. Why make a worse version of Barkskin?

A Wizard that's not a V. Human or Custom Lineage, and that starts with at least 16 Dex and Int (i.e, without Tasha's, from a very limited selection of races), would get 20 Dex at level 16 if they don't get any feats, 19 if they get one, never if they get two. In my experience, Wizards set their Dex at 16 (at most) at level 1, and never raise it after that. And the one Wizard I've seen played to level 20 was a Bladesinger, so the one Wizard who is more incentivized to raise their Dex, as they use it not only for AC, but for their attacks as well. I think, but am not so sure, that he managed to get it to 18 with Elven Accuracy, but that was it.

What this nerf to Shield would do is to make it good for some builds and not others (and these others, who invested in a higher AC, get to save their reactions and slots for other uses, so it's not like their investment was useless), instead of good for some builds and pretty much "you can't hit me unless you crit" for some others. You think this is a problem. I'm not so sure it is.

[Sception]

Also bards don't have access to mirror image.

They do if your game uses the expanded spell lists from Tasha's.

[sithlordnergal]

A Wizard that's not a V. Human or Custom Lineage, and that starts with at least 16 Dex and Int (i.e, without Tasha's, from a very limited selection of races), would get 20 Dex at level 16 if they don't get any feats, 19 if they get one, never if they get two. In my experience, Wizards set their Dex at 16 (at most) at level 1, and never raise it after that. And the one Wizard I've seen played to level 20 was a Bladesinger, so the one Wizard who is more incentivized to raise their Dex, as they use it not only for AC, but for their attacks as well. I think, but am not so sure, that he managed to get it to 18 with Elven Accuracy, but that was it.

What this nerf to Shield would do is to make it good for some builds and not others (and these others, who invested in a higher AC, get to save their reactions and slots for other uses, so it's not like their investment was useless), instead of good for some builds and pretty much "you can't hit me unless you crit" for some others. You think this is a problem. I'm not so sure it is.

The problem I mainly have with it is that spells, and really just any resource based ability in general, should never end up weaking the character that uses it, no matter who/what that character is.

For example, lets say you had a Battlemaster Maneuver that just set your damage roll to the exact average, or that set their AC to a specific number. I'd consider both of those to be terrible maneuvers because it is lowering either the damage they do or their AC.

I'm good with a nerf to Shield, that's perfectly fine. It grants you the effect of a +3 shield for one round at the cost of a 1st level spell. I can see people wanting to nerf that because it is a powerful effect.

But I can't really agree with turning any ability into something that will directly nerf a build, no matter what the build is. Doesn't matter to me what their base AC is, if the change causes a build's AC to drop, then its a bad change that is poorly thought out.

Again, nerf Shield if you think its strong. But instead just give it a +2 bonus to AC, like a normal shield, and let casters upcast to that max of +5. Because at that point you're investing resources into it to gain that higher AC.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If casting it would weaken you, don't cast it. Not every spell or feature is fit for every build. No one forces you to take it, or to build that way.

Flat boosts to ac that stack with other things are bad. Any stacking buff is, in my mind, bad design.

[Kane0]

I'm good with a nerf to Shield, that's perfectly fine. It grants you the effect of a +3 shield for one round at the cost of a 1st level spell. I can see people wanting to nerf that because it is a powerful effect.


Which is essentially why I dont let it stack with actual shields. Its still a decent spell if you have a shield and it gives you +3 AC, but if you have say a +2 shield then its only worth +1 AC and not really worth it.

[sithlordnergal]

If casting it would weaken you, don't cast it. Not every spell or feature is fit for every build. No one forces you to take it, or to build that way.

Flat boosts to ac that stack with other things are bad. Any stacking buff is, in my mind, bad design.

Not every feature has to be fit for every build, but features shouldn't weaken those that take it, even if they're not fit for the build. Not even spells that are universally agreed as being the worst of the worst, like True Strike, weaken the caster who uses it. The only spell/ability that does have a direct effect that weakens the caster is Wish...and that's only if you use it to give yourself something insane.

Then why not just remove shield entirely instead of making it into a trap option?

[sithlordnergal]

Which is essentially why I dont let it stack with actual shields. Its still a decent spell if you have a shield and it gives you +3 AC, but if you have say a +2 shield then its only worth +1 AC and not really worth it.

That's the kind of nerf I can agree with. This change won't lower your AC at all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not every feature has to be fit for every build, but features shouldn't weaken those that take it, even if they're not fit for the build.

Then why not just remove shield entirely instead of making it into a trap option?

Because it's not a trap, except for really really high op games that are already way outside any kind of system expectations? You broke things by optimizing that way. Which is your problem if things don't work right then.

[sithlordnergal]

Because it's not a trap, except for really really high op games that are already way outside any kind of system expectations? You broke things by optimizing that way. Which is your problem if things don't work right then.

What exactly is your expected AC for wizards? Because pretty much every wizard I play and run into tend to have an 18 AC or higher via dex investment, and minor items.

Heck, your option is an absolute trap for Bladesingers. And why? What's the point of making it a trap for the wizard subclass that's supposed to be a melee tank via their AC?

Its better off either to remove the spell, if you dislike +X bonuses to things, or just make it equal to holding a shield.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What exactly is your expected AC for wizards? Because pretty much every wizard I play and run into tend to have an 18 AC or higher via dex investment, and minor items.

Heck, your option is an absolute trap for Bladesingers. And why? What's the point of making it a trap for the wizard subclass that's supposed to be a melee tank via their AC?

Its better off either to remove the spell, if you dislike +X bonuses to things, or just make it equal to holding a shield.

It's a good spell for all those levels before you get those boosts. It's a 1st level spell. It's fine if it's superceded by growth. Then you can cast something else instead.

Edit: and capped dex doesn't come until T3 at the earliest, if ever. And there are no minor items that boost AC. Your idea of what's normal is so far out of whack it's not relevant, really. Except in the circles you play in.

The basic expectation for a wizard's ac is 15 or 16. Throughout the entirety of the game. That's mage armor + 14-16 DEX. Oh, and bladesingers? They don't need shield at all. That's what bladesong is for. That way they can use their reaction for other things, as well as their slots.

If shield stacks with everything, then shield becomes a no-brainer. Which removes choice. If it doesn't stack, then you actually have to consider when to learn and use it. Which increases choice.

[sithlordnergal]

It's a good spell for all those levels before you get those boosts. It's a 1st level spell. It's fine if it's superceded by growth. Then you can cast something else instead.

Are you planning on making a replacement spell for it then? Because as it is currently, there are no replacements for it.

But if you're going to make a series its better to just have 1 spell that improves via casting with higher slots.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Are you planning on making a replacement spell for it then? Because as it is currently, there are no replacements for it.

But if you're going to make a series its better to just have 1 spell that improves via casting with higher slots.

No need for a replacement. If you passively have better you can cast something else instead. Just like a tiefling doesn't need to cast Resistance against a fire spell. They already have the effect. There's no need to drive your AC to the skies. And in fact doing so is actively detrimental to the game, because it produces really warped incentives.

[sithlordnergal]

No need for a replacement. If you passively have better you can cast something else instead. Just like a tiefling doesn't need to cast Resistance against a fire spell. They already have the effect. There's no need to drive your AC to the skies. And in fact doing so is actively detrimental to the game, because it produces really warped incentives.

I would disagree, there does need a replacement, because enemy hit bonuses increase faster then AC does. Hell, most CR 5 creatures have a +6 to +7 to attack rolls. 20 AC doesn't actually defend you from very much outside of Tier 1. Meaning a 20 AC is less like a Tiefling's resistance and more like Heavy Armor Master's -3 to non-magical B/P/S damage. Nice to have, but its not really doing too much for you outside of T1.

And because getting hit is one the best ways to end a spell you're concentrating in, all casters need a way to mitigate damage and avoid attack rolls in all Tiers of play. Mirror Image helps, but the Shield spell is what was made to balance out low AC vs attack bonus bloat.

[diplomancer]

Are you planning on making a replacement spell for it then? Because as it is currently, there are no replacements for it.

But if you're going to make a series its better to just have 1 spell that improves via casting with higher slots.

Have you heard of this brand new 1st-level spell, Silvery Barbs? Great replacement for Shield if you have a very high AC and the new nerfed Shield spell's not good for your particular, abnormally high AC for a Wizard, build.


I would disagree, there does need a replacement, because enemy hit bonuses increase faster then AC does. Hell, most CR 5 creatures have a +6 to +7 to attack rolls. 20 AC doesn't actually defend you from very much outside of Tier 1. Meaning a 20 AC is less like a Tiefling's resistance and more like Heavy Armor Master's -3 to non-magical B/P/S damage. Nice to have, but its not really doing too much for you outside of T1.

And because getting hit is one the best ways to end a spell you're concentrating in, all casters need a way to mitigate damage and avoid attack rolls in all Tiers of play. Mirror Image helps, but the Shield spell is what was made to balance out low AC vs attack bonus bloat.

Yes. To balance low AC. Not "23 before magical items" (a Bladesinger with Mage Armor, 20 dex and 20 Int with active bladesong) AC. Setting it to 21 does that job perfectly fine. I know this may be controversial, but... monsters are supposed to challenge you, and one of the ways they're supposed to do that is by hitting you. Stack AC to the sky and you'r going to create problems for encounter balancing

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would disagree, there does need a replacement, because enemy hit bonuses increase faster then AC does. Hell, most CR 5 creatures have a +6 to +7 to attack rolls. 20 AC doesn't actually defend you from very much outside of Tier 1. Meaning a 20 AC is less like a Tiefling's resistance and more like Heavy Armor Master's -3 to non-magical B/P/S damage. Nice to have, but its not really doing too much for you outside of T1.

And because getting hit is one the best ways to end a spell you're concentrating in, all casters need a way to mitigate damage and avoid attack rolls in all Tiers of play. Mirror Image helps, but the Shield spell is what was made to balance out low AC vs attack bonus bloat.

Have you ever considered that...that's intended? That you're supposed to get hit more as the challenge increases? Because you have so many other ways of either avoiding the attack entirely or mitigating the damage? That each hit represents a diminishing fraction of your HP, because damage per hit doesn't really scale very well? That having your concentration broken is supposed to happen? Evasion tanking is not supposed to be a thing. You are supposed to be hit. Regularly, at that. And you are supposed to hit, regularly. Because whiff/whiff/whiff/splat is horrible play. And, by the core assumptions, wizards aren't supposed to be front-liners. They have lots of other defensive abilities. Use them. Instead of pretending you're a defender.

That's what I mean about being able to stack AC to the heavens distorting the game.

By the baseline expectations of the game, AC 20 is fine for a frontliner from 1 to 20. That's the core of bounded accuracy. Because there is no expectation for any specific magic gear.

[sithlordnergal]

Have you ever considered that...that's intended? That you're supposed to get hit more as the challenge increases? Because you have so many other ways of either avoiding the attack entirely or mitigating the damage? That each hit represents a diminishing fraction of your HP, because damage per hit doesn't really scale very well? That having your concentration broken is supposed to happen? Evasion tanking is not supposed to be a thing. You are supposed to be hit. Regularly, at that. And you are supposed to hit, regularly. Because whiff/whiff/whiff/splat is horrible play. And, by the core assumptions, wizards aren't supposed to be front-liners. They have lots of other defensive abilities. Use them. Instead of pretending you're a defender.

That's what I mean about being able to stack AC to the heavens distorting the game.

By the baseline expectations of the game, AC 20 is fine for a frontliner from 1 to 20. That's the core of bounded accuracy. Because there is no expectation for any specific magic gear.

I have, and I don't think that's correct. I actually think that evasion is supposed to be the primary way most classes and characters survive being being attacked. If you were supposed to be hit regularly then I feel you'd have the following changes:

1) Out of combat and in-combat healing would be far, far stronger

2) There would be far more ways to lower incoming damage after a hit is successful. As it is, most classes don't really have much in the way of defensive abilities that lower oncoming damage.

3) There would be far more ways to force an enemy to focus on the supposed tank of the group instead of what we currently have, where enemies can completly ignore the guy in heavy armor and immediately target the squishest PC with 0 consequences.

As it is currently, there are only three classes/subclasses designed to survive combat while being hit regularly. The first is the Barbarian, with the highest base HP and their resistances to damage. The second is the Moon Druid, with the massive HP pools that Wild Shape gives. And the third is the Abjuration Wizard, which is similar to the Moon Druid in that it has a large pool of bonus HP.

Every other class is designed to evade damage instead of take damage. Heck, look at most of the defensive abilities that allow classes to tank. They either:

A) Directly increase AC

Or

B) Lower the enemy's chance to hit, either by directly lowering the attack roll or forcing the enemy to have Disadvantage

And while wiff/wiff/splat can be boring after a while and potentially frustrating for a DM, evasion is how the majority of classes were designed to survive combat encounters.

I also would argue that losing Concentration is not supposed to be the norm. If it was suppsed to be the norm then the base DC for a Concentration check wouldn't be 10. As it is currently, it is slightly lower than the average roll of a d20, which means you should succeed on Concentration checks more than you fail.

As for the "baseline of 20 AC is perfect from 1 to 20" that is simply not true. If it were true then you wouldn't see +9 to hit as such a common occurrence in high teirs

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's this thing called bounded accuracy. AC is not expected to scale significantly with level. Your HP is your main way to survive, because it's all about attrition. No single combat is supposed to drain everything. If you're dominantly doing one or two fights per day, that's a you problem.

Yes, those high level things are supposed to hit you just about every time. Even as a front liner. That's why their per hit damage is fairly low and there are tons of ways to impose disadvantage, get resistance, or otherwise mitigate the damage.

And wizards aren't supposed (by baseline) to be on the front line anyway. That's why gank the squishy is an enduring principle and glass canons are a thing.

[sithlordnergal]

There's this thing called bounded accuracy. AC is not expected to scale significantly with level. Your HP is your main way to survive, because it's all about attrition. No single combat is supposed to drain everything. If you're dominantly doing one or two fights per day, that's a you problem.

Yes, those high level things are supposed to hit you just about every time. Even as a front liner. That's why their per hit damage is fairly low and there are tons of ways to impose disadvantage, get resistance, or otherwise mitigate the damage.

And wizards aren't supposed (by baseline) to be on the front line anyway. That's why gank the squishy is an enduring principle and glass canons are a thing.

While bounded accuracy is a thing, I disagree that HP is supposed to be the main way you survive. Again, if it were your main way to survive encounters abilities that either grant massive amounts of extra HP, like Wild Shape or Arcane Ward, or abilities that simply halve oncoming damage, like Rage and Uncanny Dodge would be widely available to all classes and subclasses. Instead you have abilities like Shield, Shield of Faith, Monk's being able to take the Dodge action as a Bonus Action, Agile Parry, Blur, ect. And make no mistake, the Dodge action and imposing disadvantage is effectively the same as increasing your AC because it decreases their attack roll.

Hell, I'm pretty sure the highest attack bonus in the base game is a +19 to hit with Tiamat. The highest AC you can get in the base game, with 0 magical items, is 30 via Eldritch Knight, Haste, Shield, and Shield of Faith. Meaning if characters work together, a tank should only be hit by Tiamat about 50% of the time when they cast Shield. Which again, means they're avoiding that damage via evasion, not with their HP.

Thinking about it, there are very, very few abilities that simply lower oncoming damage. Obviously there's Rage and Uncanny Dodge, but outside of that you have the Lore Bard, which lowers attack or damage so it falls into both categories, the Energy Protection spell, the Ancient Paladin's aura, Parry, and Blade Ward. Outside of that, I can't think of any ability that lowers oncoming damage that PCs have access to, and nearly all of those abilities use your Reaction, so you can only lower the damage from a single attack. Compare that list to the plethora of ways that make it easier to evade oncoming damage by causing enemies to miss you, either by increasing your AC or lowering their attack rolls, and consider that the methods that increase your AC typically last an entire round instead of just a single attack.

If there were more abilities that lowered oncoming damage for an entire round or more, then I'd be in full agreement with you that HP is how you survive oncoming attacks. But there aren't, which means its not the common intended method to survive encounters.

As for Wizards aren't supposed to be on the front line, that's true. But at the same time 5e has a lack of ways to force a frontline to be attacked. Outside of Sentinel, one Barbarian subclass ability, and Compelled Duel, there is nothing in 5e that prevents someone from completely ignoring the front line and targeting the people in the back line. Name me an ability outside of those three that will force an NPC to target anyone in the frontline, because I can't actually think of any. In order to balance the lack of abilities that force aggro on the tank, they gave pretty much every class a super easy way to increase their AC to a point where they can't be hit, even if they're supposedly squishy.

EDIT: Thinking about it, even the abilities I mentioned don't actually force enemies to target the tank. Sentinel prevents an enemy from moving away/past you, and both the Barbarian ability and Compelled Duel impose Disadvantage on attack rolls to anyone except you. But they're still free to make an attack at disadvantage against someone they consider a higher threat. They aren't forced to target you in any way, shape, or form.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Tiamat is supposed to hit you basically every time. That's what being a demigod is all about. Note that those defensive abilities mostly let you soak damage more (resistance). And are placed on classes that are designed to be front-liners. That's the thing about archetypes--they're just as much about what you can't do as what you can. Rogues, wizards, sorcerers...are not supposed to be frontliners. Thus, they're not given the strong damage mitigation tools. That's a feature, not a bug. That's expected play.

And yes, bounded accuracy literally means that you're supposed to scale to face harder challenges by doing more damage and having more hit points (including resistances and healing), not by increasing the target numbers needed. That's literally the definition of bounded accuracy. That the system assumes that target numbers don't need to scale substantially at all. That a low CR monster can face a high level player character and still be able to hit a normal amount. And vice versa. Those lower-level threats are less of a threat because their total damage output is a smaller fraction of your effective health, not because they can't hit you. Higher level threats are a threat because they do more damage and have more hit points. Average monster HP scales from 28 (CR 1/8) to 676 (CR 30); average monster AC scales from 11 (CR 0) to 25 (CR 30). And of CRs you're likely to face, it basically doesn't change (13-19) over 20 levels. Monster attack values scale from 3 (CR 1/8) to 19, but really (for CR 1-20) from 4 to 13. Which is faster their AC scales over that same range (CR 1 = 13, CR 19 = 19.7, CR 20 actually being lower than CR 19), but not nearly as much as their HP does. And their damage output scales from 5 DPR to 288 DPR.

5e scales on HP and damage, not AC or attack. That's designed. And ways to circumvent that are bad for the game because they strongly limit the range of possible things you can face and shove you into the distorted, pathological "one fight against a super-massive enemy" rocket tag territory that we all know is bad in lots of ways.

[stoutstien]

TBH dnd has never handled mitigation well. 5e was a step in the right direction with moving away from pointless static values but failed to rip it out completely. They also made mitigation formulas uneven. Moving from medium armor to Heavy is mostly a lateral move but light armor to medium + shields is both a AC increase and a reduction of ability score requirements to cap it. Additionally avoidance (AC) has a very swingy impact once you move out a narrow range. If it was a form of damage reduction and the threshold was decided by something else like class/subclass it would create a more gradular curve and allow the 'tough' classes to actually act so.

[sithlordnergal]

Tiamat is supposed to hit you basically every time. That's what being a demigod is all about. Note that those defensive abilities mostly let you soak damage more (resistance). And are placed on classes that are designed to be front-liners. That's the thing about archetypes--they're just as much about what you can't do as what you can. Rogues, wizards, sorcerers...are not supposed to be frontliners. Thus, they're not given the strong damage mitigation tools. That's a feature, not a bug. That's expected play.

And yes, bounded accuracy literally means that you're supposed to scale to face harder challenges by doing more damage and having more hit points (including resistances and healing), not by increasing the target numbers needed. That's literally the definition of bounded accuracy. That the system assumes that target numbers don't need to scale substantially at all. That a low CR monster can face a high level player character and still be able to hit a normal amount. And vice versa. Those lower-level threats are less of a threat because their total damage output is a smaller fraction of your effective health, not because they can't hit you. Higher level threats are a threat because they do more damage and have more hit points. Average monster HP scales from 28 (CR 1/8) to 676 (CR 30); average monster AC scales from 11 (CR 0) to 25 (CR 30). And of CRs you're likely to face, it basically doesn't change (13-19) over 20 levels. Monster attack values scale from 3 (CR 1/8) to 19, but really (for CR 1-20) from 4 to 13. Which is faster their AC scales over that same range (CR 1 = 13, CR 19 = 19.7, CR 20 actually being lower than CR 19), but not nearly as much as their HP does. And their damage output scales from 5 DPR to 288 DPR.

5e scales on HP and damage, not AC or attack. That's designed. And ways to circumvent that are bad for the game because they strongly limit the range of possible things you can face and shove you into the distorted, pathological "one fight against a super-massive enemy" rocket tag territory that we all know is bad in lots of ways.

And yet, you're able to make it so she can only hit about 50% of the time with 0 magic items what so ever if you have even the slightest amount of co-operation in the base game. You're not resisting her damage, you're evading it entirely with that strategy. And if you look at my list of abilities that lower damage, the only frontline class that consistently mitigates damage by resisting it is the Barbarian. Paladins and Fighters do not have anything in the way of lowering/resisting damage unless it either lowers a small amount of damage from a single strike or it resists damage from a very specific source on a single subclass. Paladins and Fighters resist damage by evading it, not via their HP. Now, Paladins and Fighters do have a minor amount of healing, but their healing isn't nearly enough to survive tanking on HP alone. And in-combat healing is so poor that, even with a Life Cleric, all it can really do is pick you back up if you fall. The only exception to this is the Barbarian, since healing a raging Barbarian effectively grants them double the HP since they can halve the damage.

And yes, higher HP and higher damage is part of Bounded Accuracy, but another major part is having the resources to spare to evade the damage entirely. An Eldritch Knight at level 20 can afford to burn a spell slot or two on the Shield spell and still have plenty of slots to cast more powerful spells, while a level 5 Eldritch Knight can only do that 3 times per long rest before they run out of spells and start having to tank via their HP whenever they're hit by an attack. Same goes for Paladins, they have the resources it cast spells on themselves that buff their AC, while also having the resources to Smite or cast other spells at higher levels.

5e scales on HP, damage, and AC and attacks. Being able to evade pretty much all attacks with 0 magic items what so ever is a feature of the system, not a circumvention or a bug. However, its a feature that's been tuned to force you to spend resources to do it. Hell, if evading damage wasn't meant to be a thing then the Dodge action wouldn't exist, because that is literally you evading damage by making it even harder to hit you. WotC built it so most classes can evade damage via their AC, not their HP, including tanks. But they made sure those classes can only evade a certain number of times between every long rest unless you give up your action. You can't constantly cast spells all day, you eventually run out of spell slots and now you're out of options. Monks can't constantly Dodge every round as a Bonus Action, they eventually run out of Ki Points. Evading damage via AC is built into, and is a part of, the system for Bounded Accuracy.

As for the rocket tag against "one fight against a super-massive enemy", that's not caused by high AC. You'd have that issue even if there were 0 ways to mitigate damage via AC or HP. That's simply poor encounter design on the side of DMs who are struggling with pacing.

[Sception]

If it was a form of damage reduction and the threshold was decided by something else like class/subclass it would create a more gradular curve and allow the 'tough' classes to actually act so.

Armor as damage reduction, or maybe as increased maximum hit points, would work a lot better for a system that claims bounded accuracy as one of its fundamental mechanical pillars

[stoutstien]

Armor as damage reduction, or maybe as increased maximum hit points, would work a lot better for a system that claims bounded accuracy as one of its fundamental mechanical pillars
As much as I agree with that they really never stated what bounded accuracy's goal was past keeping low CRs and DCs relevant as the PCs advance. An army of goblins can still at least hit and damage anything that isn't an avatar or god like NPC/PC.
It's not a strict rigid governor on any particular value besides maybe ability scores. Maybe they should have had more hard caps in place but I don't know if it would have changed much. If there was an AC cap that would just become the standard for tables that meddle deep in the optimization spectrum. Same for spell DC, attack, and saves. Might help some who want to use optional rules like feats and multiclassing but have a discrepancy in game mastery between the players or even DM.
As a general design principle I'd rather have more natural limits in place and I've done so for my games but it's not 5e anymore really lol. Next step is going to take out unnecessary HP and damage inflation but it's a daunting task that in avoiding because I'm lazy sometimes.