5.5 suggestion to key Barbarian Unarmored Defense off Strength and Constitution

[Talionis]

Barbarians feel very mad and have an impossible time trying to max Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity. It also strangles them on Feats. Why not allow Unarmored Defense to key off Strength and Constitution. It’s still a huge commitment to max both. And might free up ASI for a feat or two.

[JNAProductions]

Barbarians feel very mad and have an impossible time trying to max Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity. It also strangles them on Feats. Why not allow Unarmored Defense to key off Strength and Constitution. It’s still a huge commitment to max both. And might free up ASI for a feat or two.

Or you could wear Medium Armor.

Unarmored Defense for Barbarians is a nice to have, especially if your DM is generous with stats. But it ain't central to their defenses like it is for Monks.

[KorvinStarmast]

Here is a better idea.
Add an ASI at level 10, which Rogues get. :smallwink:

[Dr.Samurai]

Barbarians feel very mad and have an impossible time trying to max Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity. It also strangles them on Feats. Why not allow Unarmored Defense to key off Strength and Constitution. It’s still a huge commitment to max both. And might free up ASI for a feat or two.
I'd be in favor of this. Luckily we rolled for stats for our current game and I rolled well enough that I can go unarmored. But I think Unarmored Defense should be tuned to be a viable option that is competitive with Armor to some degree, as opposed to "I was caught without my armor on but I still have an AC 14 instead of 10, woo-hoo!".

Or you could wear Medium Armor.

Unarmored Defense for Barbarians is a nice to have, especially if your DM is generous with stats. But it ain't central to their defenses like it is for Monks.
Sure but... it could be. Why should monks be the only unarmored warrior that works? Unarmored Defense could be something that allows the Barbarian to realistically go unarmored and be competitive AC wise. So I am open to revisions to it. It's a big trope.

@Korvin - Extra ASI could work.

What if Unarmored Defense also improved later on, instead of keying off Strength. So it could be 11+dex+con and then 12+dex+con, etc. Not sure when and how far but just an idea.

[heavyfuel]

Barbarian's UD is a ribbon feature at best, and a super trap at worse. Their actual level 1 feature is Rage, and nothing else.

All it does is tempt new players into playing an unarmored barbarian, which always results in a ridiculously ineffective character

[Dr.Samurai]

Just a reminder that the barbarian starting package does not include any armor, not even a shield. So yes, players will think they are supposed to use Unarmored Defense as their method of having good AC.

But the point of the OP is to make the feature something that actually provides that competitive AC, instead of being a ribbon.

[stoutstien]

Barbarian's UD is a ribbon feature at best, and a super trap at worse. Their actual level 1 feature is Rage, and nothing else.

All it does is tempt new players into playing an unarmored barbarian, which always results in a ridiculously ineffective character

Not necessarily true. You just have to disregard all the str focused features and use AG which also has no strong motivation to use str. Dex based barbarian are actually pretty solid in play.

[Amnestic]

I made this change and it works fine.

16/16 they're on AC18 with a shield at 1st.
18/16 is AC19 at 4th level.
20/16, 20 at 8th.
20/18, 21 at 12th.
20/20, 22 at 16th.
24/24, 26 at 20th.

And that assumes they're investing all but 1 of their ASIs into buffing strength and con - nothing else, and using a shield instead of a 2-hander or dual wielding. Barbarians will still want some dex (even with advantage on dex saves and initiative) so they won't dump it entirely.

It turns UD from "wait until you get some good medium armour" as a feature into pretty viable - but still likely overshadowed if magic armour is available except at max level and if you spent all your ASIs buffing str+con instead of getting feats or other things.

[KorvinStarmast]

Just a reminder that the barbarian starting package does not include any armor, not even a shield. That's a very good point. A shield is not very expensive, but it does represent quite a bit of the 'free' gold at chargen.

But the point of the OP is to make the feature something that actually provides that competitive AC, instead of being a ribbon. But it isn't a ribbon. (I prefer to use a shield initially, since the damage of a warhammer or battleaxe is good enough at low level to take the DC bonus).

You start with the following equip⁠ment, in addition to the equipment⁠ granted by your background:

(a) a Greataxe or (b) any martial melee weapon
(a) two handaxes or (b) any simple weapon
An explorer’s pack and four javelins
Not sure why shield isn't included in there ...
Another proposal for Barbarian would be a feature like Bard's Jack of All trades: AC bonus of 1/2 Proficiency Bonus (rounded down) which I had also proposed for Fighter class. (Might take a bit of play testing to fine tune that, however). The flat AC bonus needs to be considered with care, though.

[RSP]

Barbarian's UD is a ribbon feature at best, and a super trap at worse.

It’s a pretty fantastic dip on any build that emphasizes Dex and Con. Unarmored AC 17+, plus Rage is pretty awesome.

[Greywander]

Rather than an extra ASI, I think a better option is to separate out feats from ASIs. A lot of the issues with MAD builds go away when a player is allowed to use all their ASIs for stats instead of feats. But feats are cool, so most of us want to play with them. Making feats a separate thing you get some other way, while ASIs are only spent on stats, largely fixes the issue.

Now, that said, barbarians have it a bit rough in that they can't really max their STR and DEX and CON, even with using all ASIs on stats, but you can get pretty close. Personally, I think it should be STR and DEX, as that would fix that issue.

[Frogreaver]

Barbarians feel very mad and have an impossible time trying to max Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity. It also strangles them on Feats. Why not allow Unarmored Defense to key off Strength and Constitution. It’s still a huge commitment to max both. And might free up ASI for a feat or two.

The biggest argument against that is the +4 Str and +4 Con capstone. You could have an unarmored barbarian wearing a shield with 26 AC. That said, such only happens at level 20.

Alternatively, you could have a 20str + 16con Barbarian at level 8. That matches the AC of a heavy armor fighter. Barbarians get rage, they don't actually need to match the AC of a Fighter to be survivable.

[Amnestic]

The biggest argument against that is the +4 Str and +4 Con capstone. You could have an unarmored barbarian wearing a shield with 26 AC. That said, such only happens at level 20.

I think a barbarian having 26AC at level 20 is fine. Bladesingers can do similar - Mage armour (13) + Bladesong (5) + Dex (let's say 3 to be fair) + at-will Shield spell (5)=26. Granted it costs some resources (reaction, bladesong, 1 mage armour spell slot) but it's also fairly 'straightforward', and doesn't require max ASI investment like Barb does.

Ancient dragons (CR20-24) range from +14 to +17 on their attack bonuses, so even at 26AC they're hitting you around 1/3rd to 1/2 of the time - more often if you're Reckless, of course.

Once magic items get involved the barbarian can get rather insane (30/30 from stat tomes with a +3 shield is 35AC passive) but if the DM lets it get to that point I assume they're facing truly Mythical threats who will have suitably dangerous +attack roll modifiers, turning autohits on the other characters back into potential hits on you, letting you fulfill the "tank" role still.

[Dr.Samurai]

But it isn't a ribbon.
I don't think you can realistically get a competitive AC relying solely on Unarmored Defense unless you roll very well or the DM is giving you magic items.

Medium Armor + 14 Dex is 16 AC.

Starting scores of 14 Dex and 15 Con is 14 AC.

If you are pumping your Strength or getting feats, your AC isn't going anywhere. So we're talking half the game (assuming you're playing up until level 20, which is dubious) where you don't improve your Constitution score, so your unarmored AC never improves beyond 14 (or 16 with shield).

And remember, you're only absorbing half damage when you're raging, not every encounter. For the encounters without Rage, you want a good AC.

(I prefer to use a shield initially, since the damage of a warhammer or battleaxe is good enough at low level to take the DC bonus)
That's fair, but shield-use conflicts with Grappling, which is one of the strongest things a barbarian can do.

Alternatively, you could have a 20str + 16con Barbarian at level 8. That matches the AC of a heavy armor fighter. Barbarians get rage, they don't actually need to match the AC of a Fighter to be survivable.
The fighter has had that AC since they got Plate Armor, and didn't have to invest in their ability scores to do it.

And rage is a limited resource; you won't have it for every encounter.

Rune Knights at level 8 can have the same Heavy Armor AC and also resist B/P/S damage 1/rest.

But I think this highlights the question we need to answer: what is the point of Unarmored Defense? Is it meant to match Medium Armor? Is it not supposed to reach Heavy Armor ACs? Should a barbarian be able to rely on it in combat? Is it just meant for ambushes at night or when you've been captured?

[KorvinStarmast]

That's fair, but shield-use conflicts with Grappling, which is one of the strongest things a barbarian can do. But shoving is the same mechanic and using a shield does not interfere with that.


And rage is a limited resource; you won't have it for every encounter. Yes.

But I think this highlights the question we need to answer: what is the point of Unarmored Defense? To fit a particular trope, Conan the Barbarian being a fine example of it.

My idea on AC boosting based on proficiency bonus (noted above) might mitigate that but I am sure someone would find a loophole to exploit.

[Nagog]

Because Barbarians having middling to low AC is part of their purpose. The Barbarian is the go-to bullet sponge, having low AC and abilities (like Reckless Attack and subclass features) that penalize targeting allies and incentivize targeting the Barbarian instead is their whole thing. Hence why they are the only class with a d12 hit die and they have the maximum possible effective HP.

[clash]

I like the theme of it. Instead of dodging hits your tanking them completely through meat and muscle. It's like on kenchi, the guys that just flex their muscles hard enough to block hits.

[Greywander]

Because Barbarians having middling to low AC is part of their purpose.
I've seen this argument for a few different builds, such as those weaponizing Armor of Agathys, and I don't buy it. You can argue that AC is less important, but the idea that low AC is good doesn't fly.

Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario. An enemy is attacking you. Let's consider both possible extremes.

(a) The enemy hits you with all of their attacks. You reduce the damage by whatever means you have at your disposal, and deal whatever thorns/retribution damage you have. You've taken only a little damage, and it might have cost the enemy some of their own HP, or even some kind of debilitating status effect.

OR

(b) The enemy misses you with all of their attacks, essentially wasting their turn. You take no damage, but you deal no retributive damage or anything.

Outcome (b) is obviously the better result. If we take this to an even greater extreme and say you're surrounded by hordes of enemies and one of these two options applies to all of them, then with outcome (a) you're still going to die eventually, but with outcome (b) you can eventually just cut them down using your own attacks.

The point of strategies like this isn't to make it better to get hit than to be missed, it's to turn the situation into a Morton's Fork (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MortonsFork) where no matter which outcome occurs, it's always bad for the attacker. The best outcome is always if the enemy misses, all you're doing is making a hit less bad for you, but it will never be better than being missed.

[JNAProductions]

Well, if you have AC 25, and your friend has AC 17, which one will be targeted more?

That’s the point you missed-the easier Target will (sometimes, at least) be preferable to the more elusive one.

[Nagog]

I've seen this argument for a few different builds, such as those weaponizing Armor of Agathys, and I don't buy it. You can argue that AC is less important, but the idea that low AC is good doesn't fly.


The argument comes in right here:


Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario. An enemy is attacking you. Let's consider both possible extremes.

(Emphasis mine)
The point is not to mitigate or negate damage, it's to ensure that damage dealt is dealt to you rather than the squishier allies. It's to make the enemy (in or out of character) realize that attacking you is going to be better than attacking the Wizard. Your AC is lower, and you're within a threatening melee range, so they're more likely to do something rather than risk an Opportunity Attack to go after allies.

[Greywander]

So let's say the barbarian has 10 AC. Who am I going to attack? The wizard with 17 AC who will fold in one hit? Or the barbarian who has been tanking hits the whole fight without slowing down? I mean, if we're dumping AC, why not dump HP too so that we'll actually go down faster than the wizard will?

The only way to make yourself an appealing target is to either be the softest thing on the field or the most dangerous thing on the field. In the former case, you don't want to be attacked; being an appealing target is bad. The latter case is difficult to achieve without also sharing the former case, because the game is (somewhat) balanced.

Making yourself an appealing target helps, but it alone is not sufficient to be a good tank. Because the things that make you a good tank tend to make you an unappealing target. You need to use some kind of control effects to force enemies to attack you. An example of this is the Armorer artificer's thunder gauntlets, where the enemy still has a choice of who to attack, but attacking anyone but you gives them a serious penalty. In that moment, the enemy has to weigh the effect of that penalty which can make you a more appealing target, and even if it doesn't it will still help protect any ally they choose to attack anyway. Another example is a Conquest paladin who can use fear effects to hold enemies in place and, again, give them disadvantage. Enemies have to either shake off the fear effect or deal with the paladin, or else they're toast.

Barbarians don't have a lot of control options, though some subclasses have some. But this doesn't mean they can't still be used to tank. You just need to take advantage of the terrain and work with your party. You can physically block an entrance so the enemy literally can't get past you to attack your allies. This might depend on the wizard creating a Wall of Stone to funnel enemies into a choke point, or something similar. You can also pick up feats like Sentinel to try and force enemies to stick to you.

Point is, of course I'm going to go for the guy in a robe holding a staff and not the roided up muscle man. Doesn't matter what the barbarian's AC is. How do you plan to stop me? Answer that question, and you'll see that AC alone isn't doing much in that regard.

This is, by the way, why defensive boosts (such as magic items) are usually most effective on the weakest party member. It's a good idea for the wizard to dip for medium armor and a shield, since this makes them a lot more resilient. A tank can't body block 100% of the time, so the most effective tanking tactic is often to just make everyone a tank. The Ring of Protection you found should go to whoever is consistently going down first in every combat, and that isn't going to be the barbarian. Before you say "Aha!", the barbarian artificially lowering their own AC is not boosting the AC of the wizard; you want as high AC as possible on every party member.

Again, you can say AC is less important for a barbarian, but it's never beneficial to have low AC. An AC boost will see more value on the wizard, but it still has value for the barbarian.

[Gignere]

The argument comes in right here:


(Emphasis mine)
The point is not to mitigate or negate damage, it's to ensure that damage dealt is dealt to you rather than the squishier allies. It's to make the enemy (in or out of character) realize that attacking you is going to be better than attacking the Wizard. Your AC is lower, and you're within a threatening melee range, so they're more likely to do something rather than risk an Opportunity Attack to go after allies.

Yes if all the enemies attack the raging barbarian chances are your group is going to win. Making the raging barbarian impossible to hit though will make the squishies in the back look much more attractive.

[KorvinStarmast]

are all of the enemies telepathic, reading the AC from their enemy's thoughts? :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

I would say just make it 13+Con instead of 10+Dex+Con if you want them to be less MAD.

Otherwise I like Korvin's suggestion of giving them an extra ASI or two.

[Pex]

Or you could wear Medium Armor.

Unarmored Defense for Barbarians is a nice to have, especially if your DM is generous with stats. But it ain't central to their defenses like it is for Monks.

The shirtless warrior is an iconic image, however you want to interpret one's fascination with it. Conan, Tarzan, Wolverine, Captain Kirk, He-Man, Hulk (Not saying they're all barbarians.) They're distinct enough from monks wearing armor ruins the aesthetic.

[Hytheter]

It’s a pretty fantastic dip on any build that emphasizes Dex and Con. Unarmored AC 17+, plus Rage is pretty awesome.

The required 13 STR can be prohibitive for a dex build, though.

[Dr.Samurai]

The argument comes in right here:


(Emphasis mine)
The point is not to mitigate or negate damage, it's to ensure that damage dealt is dealt to you rather than the squishier allies. It's to make the enemy (in or out of character) realize that attacking you is going to be better than attacking the Wizard. Your AC is lower, and you're within a threatening melee range, so they're more likely to do something rather than risk an Opportunity Attack to go after allies.
I know this is a common... idea, but if the barbarian is so tough to deal with that the enemy wants to just up and ignore them in the middle of combat... what is the enemy doing to prevent the barbarian from... following them to the wizard?

So the enemy NPC is thinking "boy, this warrior is a challenge, I think I might just walk around them and pick a fight with that little person in the robes, that will be much easier, surely this warrior will honor my decision..."

If the barbarian was meant to have crap AC, it wouldn't have Medium Armor and Shield proficiency.

[Coranhann]

I think any design should work if people are not using feats, as they are optional. Assuming that, the barbarian unarmored Defense is already not competitive, but the best armor in game.

On a second point, any design should take the rest of the game into account. Here, the barbarian ends up with a better defense than the fighter on AC and HP management, and a better offense damage wise. And it gets worst if you're not playing with feats.
Oh, and reckless attack is not as painful if your AC is super high. A monster needing 10+ to hit on his d20 has a 55% chance to hit, and it skyrockets to 80% with advantage. A monster needing 14+ has 30% chance to hit, up to 50% with advantage. Meaning that, while you give proportionally more ground, you still end up suffering less from the downside than the current barbarian.

If you are a DM, no one can stop you from running this rule, but as a suggestion I wouldn’t go for it. Makes the fighter irrelevant, and the Barbarian overly strong (no pun intended ;) )

[Leon]

What does Strength bring to the Defensive theme? With Dex and Con as a basis the Barbarian is Being tough, enduring attacks as well as agile in dodging, Similarly Monk is Cunning in combat and Agile on the Dex/Wis Aspect.

The current design is good in that if you want to use that class feature well you have to spread out your stats a bit beyond what otherwise might be chosen, its a option not a requirement to use class features.

[Zhorn]

It does seem like a bit of an overcorrection to a perceived problem.

High hp + halving damage while raging - which if this really is the whole "barbarian are bad at end tier" would mean they are raging all the time - means they usually don't care as much about getting hit compared to other classes, not unless you're playing rocket tag, in which case doubling down on numbers bloat (via consolidating the stat focus to a more SAD arrangement, or extra ASIs) isn't exactly fixing the root problem.

Leave AC tanking for the Fighters and Paladins.
Barbarians are damage soakers.

[Amnestic]

Regrettably, with the fighter's extra ASIs if you want to pump unarmoured defense - whether in strength or con mode, you dip barbarian and then go fighter, unless you're definitely going to hit level 20. And you have the patience of a monk.



Leave AC tanking for the Fighters and Paladins.
Barbarians are damage soakers.

Ignoring for a moment that higher level gameplay has a lot of non-BPS damage flying around which ignores rage entirely (outside of one specific subclass), this is...an odd statement. Medium armour+shield nets you an AC only 1 below plate+shield. That's not exactly 'dumping' AC or anything.

Really the questions are "Is unarmoured defense competitive with medium armour?" I would say no, outside of specifically dexbarbs which aren't common - with the potential exception at level 20 thanks to the capstone. In tier 1/2, at the moment, medium armour is the better choice from the start. This is also complicated somewhat by magic items. If they're in play - which I'd generally assume they are in some capacity, then it messes with the comparison scaling.

and "Should it be competitive with medium armour?" I would say yes, otherwise why have it? If unarmoured defense is meant to only be really viable at level 20...why is it a 1st level feature and not a 20th level feature?

[Zhorn]

Ignoring for a moment that higher level gameplay has a lot of non-BPS damage flying around which ignores rage entirely (outside of one specific subclass), this is...an odd statement. Medium armour+shield nets you an AC only 1 below plate+shield. That's not exactly 'dumping' AC or anything.

The larger non-BPS damage is mostly tied to saving throws though, so AC not involved for the majority of those cases. And for those that do include non-BPS damage on an attack roll it is paired with a BPS component. Sure you can narrow in and find specific examples of a creature here and there dealing more non-BPS vs BPS on an attack roll, but those are outliers, not the norm.

Also I didn't say 'dump AC', The barbarian just isn't focusing on it the same way the heavy armor classes are when they build for tanking.
AC in the mid to high teens is respectable, not a dump, which is still easily reached in RAW for barbarians without specializing in DEX or mandating a shield. 14 DEX is perfectly serviceable.

Relentless Rage, Persistent Rage and a high CON will makes any Barbarian of any subclass hard to take down.

[Frogreaver]

The fighter has had that AC since they got Plate Armor, and didn't have to invest in their ability scores to do it.

And rage is a limited resource; you won't have it for every encounter.

Rune Knights at level 8 can have the same Heavy Armor AC and also resist B/P/S damage 1/rest.

But I think this highlights the question we need to answer: what is the point of Unarmored Defense? Is it meant to match Medium Armor? Is it not supposed to reach Heavy Armor ACs? Should a barbarian be able to rely on it in combat? Is it just meant for ambushes at night or when you've been captured?

You can start out 17 AC with a shield and unarmored defense as is. That’s equivalent to medium armor and a shield at level 1.

The only other medium armor that doesn’t grant disadvantage to stealth is a breastplate. That puts you at 18 AC but takes 400 gold.

Unarmored defense equals a free breastplate in AC if you invest an ASI into dex or con. And only 1 less if not.

By high level it can overtake the breastplate. By max level it’s substantially better. It also has a few advantages that armor doesn’t (like always being equipped).

Seems about as balanced as you can get to me.

[Dr.Samurai]

You can start out 17 AC with a shield and unarmored defense as is. That’s equivalent to medium armor and a shield at level 1.

The only other medium armor that doesn’t grant disadvantage to stealth is a breastplate. That puts you at 18 AC but takes 400 gold.

Unarmored defense equals a free breastplate in AC if you invest an ASI into dex or con. And only 1 less if not.

By high level it can overtake the breastplate. By max level it’s substantially better. It also has a few advantages that armor doesn’t (like always being equipped).

Seems about as balanced as you can get to me.
When exactly does the barbarian increase their strength?

What you're describing is exactly the issue the OP is trying to solve for...

[JNAProductions]

When exactly does the barbarian increase their strength?

What you're describing is exactly the issue the OP is trying to solve for...

The issue of "I can choose to focus on my offense, but one of my defenses will suffer; or I can focus on defense, but my offense won't be as stellar," doesn't seem like something that needs solving. Your mileage may vary, I guess.

[Dr.Samurai]

The issue of "I can choose to focus on my offense, but one of my defenses will suffer; or I can focus on defense, but my offense won't be as stellar," doesn't seem like something that needs solving. Your mileage may vary, I guess.
Putting aside that something doesn't have to be "needed" in order for someone to do it, what you're describing is the role of a shield and the decision to Reckless Attack or not.

If, in order for Unarmored Defense to "equal Breastplate" and "surpass Breastplate at higher levels", you need to sink your ASIs into Constitution and/or Dex, then you aren't increasing your Strength or grabbing feats.

No one else has to make this trade off to have competent AC.

The Monk doesn't have this problem because both stats required for their Unarmored Defense determine their attack/damage rolls and their saving throw DCs. so they're increasing those anyway.

So the feature is "instead of wearing regular armor and having a normal AC, you can go without armor to fulfil an awesome trope but... good luck with that, you're definitely going to want to use a shield and don't think about increasing Strength for a while or grabbing any cool feats..."

[Frogreaver]

When exactly does the barbarian increase their strength?

What you're describing is exactly the issue the OP is trying to solve for...

What you and the OP are arguing for is that Unarmored Defense be the best way to build a barbarian.

I want Barbarians to also wear medium armor or go for unarmored defense. There should be pros and cons for that choice. There currently are. The proposed change turns medium armor into a trap and Unarmored Defense into the only choice.

[Dr.Samurai]

What you and the OP are arguing for is that Unarmored Defense be the best way to build a barbarian.

I want Barbarians to also wear medium armor or go for unarmored defense. There should be pros and cons for that choice. The proposed change turns medium armor into a trap and Unarmored Defense into the only choice.
One is a trap either way. In the same way that you say "if you ignore your Strength and boost Con, your Unarmored Defense is great", I can say "if you ignore Unarmored Defense and wear Armor, you can benefit from magical armor enhanncements".

[Amnestic]

What you and the OP are arguing for is that Unarmored Defense be the best way to build a barbarian.

Why shouldn't a level 1 class feature (something that generally defines a class) be the 'best way', with medium armour as an option if they get a nice magical item dropped in their lap?

[Frogreaver]

If, in order for Unarmored Defense to "equal Breastplate" and "surpass Breastplate at higher levels", you need to sink your ASIs into Constitution and/or Dex, then you aren't increasing your Strength or grabbing feats.

Assuming 14 dex.

Armor
Chain Shirt (50 gp) - 15 AC
Scale Mail (50 hp) - 16 AC (disadvantage on stealth)
Breastplate (400 gp) - 16 AC
Halfplate (750 gp) - 17 AC (disadvantage on stealth)

14 dex and 16 con

Unarmored Defense
Starting Stats - 15 AC
Increase Con or Dex +2 = 16 AC
Increase Con or Dex +4 = 17 AC
Cap Stone with +4 con or dex = 19 AC

Conclusion: Any boost to Unarmored defense makes it be outright better than the armor options.



No one else has to make this trade off to have competent AC.


You have competent AC without making any tradeoff. The worst case scenario is that you are within 1 AC of a character using a breatplate (the best non-stealth-disadvantaged medium armor out there). Best case scenario is it get significantly more AC than you do with the breatsplate.


Why shouldn't a level 1 class feature (something that generally defines a class) be the 'best way', with medium armour as an option if they get a nice magical item dropped in their lap?

Rage is what defines the Barbarian. Unarmored defense is a ribbon.

[Greywander]

I think making Unarmored Defense key off STR and DEX solves most of the issues. DEX is still useful for using a bow, and for initiative, and for saving throws (which barbarians get advantage on, thanks to Danger Sense). It's not quite as useful as WIS is to monks, but eh. STR of course contributes to their melee attack and damage. This also makes the capstone work the same as before, since we're just switching out CON for STR. If Unarmored Defense was STR and CON, then you'd get double the benefit from the capstone.

Now, this does mean your CON might not end up as high, but that's pretty typical for any class. And, as we've established, barbarians might not need AC as much as other classes do, so they might actually get more benefit from maxing CON than DEX, though that leaves you in basically the same place as before. That said, you're sure to max out STR, which would be a +5 to AC, basically the same as half plate, and better than half plate if your DEX is 16 or higher.

Edit:

Why shouldn't a level 1 class feature (something that generally defines a class) be the 'best way', with medium armour as an option if they get a nice magical item dropped in their lap?
This. If Unarmored Defense is STR + DEX, and you max out your STR, then it's equivalent to half plate. So you can make the aesthetic choice of whether to wear armor or not, and if you find cool magic armor you can use that.

[Dr.Samurai]

Conclusion: Any boost to Unarmored defense makes it be outright better than the armor options.
Right, so you're not increasing your Strength until level 12. Got it.

You have competent AC without making any tradeoff. The worst case scenario is that you are within 1 AC of a character using a breatplate (the best non-stealth-disadvantaged medium armor out there). Best case scenario is it get significantly more AC than you do with the breatsplate.
That's, again...., assuming that you're not increasing your strength score.

And half-plate is 17. Not having Disadvantage on Stealth is a perfectly fine benefit from Unarmored Defense, we don't need to hamstring the comparisons here.

This is essentially like asking a heavy armor character not to upgrade to the best armor available as they progress.

It's okay, you've got 15 AC. That was good at level 1. Should be good now too right? Don't worry that if you were wearing armor you could have 16, or even 17 AC. Or even higher or with other enchantments if it was magical. You're playing a trope, so you should have to sacrifice for it.

Rage is what defines the Barbarian. Unarmored defense is a ribbon.
Hence why I asked what is the point of Unarmored Defense. Some people think it should be a ribbon, others don't.

[Frogreaver]

Right, so you're not increasing your Strength until level 12. Got it.

That's, again...., assuming that you're not increasing your strength score.

The absolute worst case scenario is that a Barbarian that starts with 14 dex and 16 con is 1 AC behind a breatplate. That's with only increasing your strength score.


And half-plate is 17. Not having Disadvantage on Stealth is a perfectly fine benefit from Unarmored Defense, we don't need to hamstring the comparisons here.

You shouldn't be comparing to Half-plate though. It's a flawed comparison. You must stay apples and apples which means looking at non-disadvantage stealth armors.

[Dr.Samurai]

The absolute worst case scenario is that a Barbarian that starts with 14 dex and 16 con is 1 AC behind a breatplate. That's with only increasing your strength score.
Which only works if you're playing a race with a +1 con. It's also very possible to be 2 points behind breastplate.

You shouldn't be comparing to Half-plate though. It's a flawed comparison. You must stay apples and apples which means looking at non-disadvantage stealth armors.
That's your perspective on this. The purpose of Unarmored Defense is to provide defense instead of armor. You could be wearing Half-Plate instead, so that comparison needs to be made.

Not having Disadvantage on Stealth is a perk of Unarmored Defense, but remember you have to pump your stats to increase your AC, and you can't enchant Unarmored Defense for higher AC or other benefits.

[Frogreaver]

Which only works if you're playing a race with a +1 con. It's also very possible to be 2 points behind breastplate.

But that's an issue with basing AC off stats to begin with. You end up with races not having the stats being worse than those that do. Either the more stat aligned race is too strong with such abilities or the less stat aligned race is too weak with them. There's nothing that can be done there except to decouple from stat.


That's your perspective on this. The purpose of Unarmored Defense is to provide defense instead of armor. You could be wearing Half-Plate instead, so that comparison needs to be made.

It's not just perspective. It's objective. You've got to compare to the most like thing you can as the starting point for balance. Failing to do so is a flawed comparison.

Your take is that Unarmored Defense should be the defacto best option for a Barbarian. I think it should be a balanced option with his other armor options. We can have that discussion but it's not the same discussion as talking about whether it's currently weak or whether it's currently balanced - which is where we are right now.


Not having Disadvantage on Stealth is a perk of Unarmored Defense, but remember you have to pump your stats to increase your AC,

Yes. And in doing so you end up with higher AC than you can with armor. That's perfectly reasonable.


and you can't enchant Unarmored Defense for higher AC or other benefits.


If you are worried about magic items unbalancing it and armoers then simple make magic items that boost the barbarians unarmored AC.

Speaking of magic items, keying off strength might be really bad because of belts of giant strength.

[heavyfuel]

Just a reminder that the barbarian starting package does not include any armor, not even a shield. So yes, players will think they are supposed to use Unarmored Defense as their method of having good AC.

At level 1? Sure. I's about as effective as Hide armor, which is fine for lv 1

But as soon as you can afford Scale Armor - which isn't going to be that long at all - you should dump that garbage truck of a feature and stick to actual armor.

[Amnestic]

Rage is what defines the Barbarian. Unarmored defense is a ribbon.


If it's a ribbon then it doesn't really compete with medium armour, at least with my understanding of the term 'ribbon'?

Surely it should be the reverse and armour proficiency is the 'ribbon' that takes a back seat to a class feature, especially one that's intended to help represent the classic "shirtless barbarian" archetype/trope?

What do we gain by treating/making Unarmoured Defense a ribbon instead of a "core class feature"?

[Dr.Samurai]

But that's an issue with basing AC off stats to begin with. You end up with races not having the stats being worse than those that do. Either the more stat aligned race is too strong with such abilities or the less stat aligned race is too weak with them. There's nothing that can be done there except to decouple from stat.
Well it's an issue with basing AC off two non-attack stats.

It's not just perspective. It's objective. You've got to compare to the most like thing you can as the starting point for balance. Failing to do so is a flawed comparison.
It's not because we're discussing AC points, not Stealth checks. This is an additional factor that you want to be AS IMPORTANT as the AC points but it isn't.

Your take is that Unarmored Defense should be the defacto best option for a Barbarian. I think it should be a balanced option with his other armor options. We can have that discussion but it's not the same discussion as talking about whether it's currently weak or whether it's currently balanced - which is where we are right now.
Assuming 14 dex.

Armor
Chain Shirt (50 gp) - 15 AC
Scale Mail (50 hp) - 16 AC (disadvantage on stealth)
Breastplate (400 gp) - 16 AC
Halfplate (750 gp) - 17 AC (disadvantage on stealth)

14 dex and 16 con

Unarmored Defense
Starting Stats - 15 AC

Level 4: Increase Con or Dex +2 = 16 AC

So at level 4 you're down 1 AC behind Half-Plate and you're down 1 attack/damage because your Strength is still 16.

Level 8: Increase Con or Dex +4 = 17 AC

So at level 8 you're finally equal to another barbarian in half-plate, but you're behind +2 attack/damage because they have a 20 Strength now while you only have a 16 Strength. And this will be the case for the next 4 levels until level 12, and in that time they might get magic armor that has other benefits. And when you finally do reach level 12, you're still behind +1 attack/damage.

How is this the balanced option? And all because they don't have Disadvantage on Stealth?

If you are worried about magic items unbalancing it and armoers then simple make magic items that boost the barbarians unarmored AC.
I'm not worried, I'm pointing out a benefit of wearing armor over going unarmored.

[Frogreaver]

If it's a ribbon then it doesn't really compete with medium armour, at least with my understanding of the term 'ribbon'?

Surely it should be the reverse and armour proficiency is the 'ribbon' that takes a back seat to a class feature, especially one that's intended to help represent the classic "shirtless barbarian" archetype/trope?

What do we gain by treating/making Unarmoured Defense a ribbon instead of a "core class feature"?

Ribbons are there to add flavor not power. That’s exactly what Unarmored defense currently does. It’s a balanced side grade to armor that provides the flavor of an unarmored barbarian.

What is gained by treating it as it currently is instead of how you propose? A more balanced feature. A feature that leaves open the option of a barbarian wearing armor without needing to sacrifice his AC and/or stealth ability just for the privilege of donning medium armor.

[Psyren]

+1 to "Barbarian's Unarmored Defense is not supposed to be better than wearing armor." It's there to give you a way to be the bare-chested fantasy and not die horribly immediately, but you'll still have a harder time than actually wearing armor unless you have very high stats.

With that said, 16/14/16 is not that bad (works fine for monk) and you are much tougher in melee than they are even when Reckless Attacking.

[Amnestic]

What is gained by treating it as it currently is instead of how you propose? A more balanced feature.

Balanced in that it simply won't get used because medium armour is just better, cheaper, and easier to use, requiring no investment of crucial ability score improvements to attain the same armour class, and also having existing magic item support, unlike your suggestion:


If you are worried about magic items unbalancing it and armoers then simple make magic items that boost the barbarians unarmored AC.

which requires a DM homebrewing. And if they're doing that then...why not just boost unarmoured defense to begin with?

Avoiding stealth disadvantage isn't even all that valuable: Mithral armour are Uncommon and remove that disadvantage, they're generally pegged at round the 100-500gp cost per Xanathar's guidelines.


+1 to "Barbarian's Unarmored Defense is not supposed to be better than wearing armor." It's there to give you a way to be the bare-chested fantasy and not die horribly immediately,

But why though? Why isn't it supposed to be better?

[Frogreaver]

But why though? Why isn't it supposed to be better?

So you can choose to wear medium armor without being worse.

[Amnestic]

So you can choose to wear medium armor without being worse.

But now you're choosing unarmoured defense to be worse.

What do we gain by encouraging the "less thematic" armoured barbarian over the "more thematic" unarmoured barbarian?

[Frogreaver]

But now you're choosing unarmoured defense to be worse.

What do we gain by encouraging the "less thematic" armoured barbarian over the "more thematic" unarmoured barbarian?

I want them to be equally balanced with a few pros and cons each.

I believe unarmored defense is currently as balanced as it can get over the course of levels 1-20.

[Dr.Samurai]

"Balanced" here meaning "most people will tell you not to bother with Unarmored Defense once you can purchase armor".

[Psyren]

But why though? Why isn't it supposed to be better?

Well - do you want Watsonian or Doylist reasoning? (Eh, who am I kidding, I'll do both.)

Watsonian: Barbarian UD comes from a combination of agility (Dex) and extraordinarily thick skin (Con). But your skin needs to be exceptionally thick to beat metal. That can happen eventually for Barbarians (you only need 18 Dex + 18 Con to = full-plate, and 20/20 surpasses it) but most won't be that tough until high tiers.

Doylist: Armor has drawbacks that offset its mechanical superiority at defense; these include cost, weight, disadvantage at stealth rolls, rest penalties and the time it takes to don and doff. Unarmored Defense has none of these drawbacks, so having a lower floor than armor to start with makes wearing armor a mechanically competitive option.


But now you're choosing unarmoured defense to be worse.

See above - UD isn't worse. It starts out slightly worse (15 vs. Scale Mail's 16 for the same stats) but later on UD can rival full plate (which barbarians can't wear anyway) and in some campaigns even surpass it.

[Frogreaver]

"Balanced" here meaning "most people will tell you not to bother with Unarmored Defense once you can purchase armor".

Armor is +1 ac better assuming no boosting dex or con with early ASIs.

By level 12 it equals the AC. By 16 it overtakes by +1. By level 20 it’s +2 or +3 higher.

The reason you don’t see many unarmored barbarians is because people tend to boost str or feats over con. Or they start with variant human for the feat and put their 16 into str instead of con. Those kinds of choices does tend to make for an inferior unarmored defense. But they are all based on player choices.

I tend to prefer con based barbarians in the early game and from experience they perform very well. If you’ve not tried one you really should.

[Amnestic]

Well - do you want Watsonian or Doylist reasoning? (Eh, who am I kidding, I'll do both.)

Watsonian: Barbarian UD comes from a combination of agility (Dex) and extraordinarily thick skin (Con).

This is circular reasoning though - UD comes from agility and thick skin because that's what it currently does, but if it were str/con -as posited - it would come from massive muscles and thick skin, and that's not "less reasonable" in a magical world where your mystical anger makes swords stab you less hard.


But your skin needs to be exceptionally thick to beat metal.

This is striking me as edging very close towards guy-at-the-gym.

[Dr.Samurai]

Armor is +1 ac better assuming no boosting dex or con with early ASIs.
You're equal to someone wearing Studded Leather with a 16 Dex.

At level 4, you boost your Constitution and the Rogue boosts their Dex. Now you're at 16 AC and they're at 16 AC. At level 8 you boost your Constitution and the Rogue boosts their Dex. Now you're 17 AC and they're 17 AC. All the while the Rogue's attack bonus is as high as it can be and yours is lagging behind (not to mention your Athletics check, which governs combat maneuvers).

So the "balance" here is that the Barbarian can choose not to wear armor and be equal to a rogue in AC. And somehow this is equal to wearing medium armor...

BUT!!!

If you instead improve your Strength, like most people will, then Unarmored Defense is worse than Light Armor. So I am not sure what the "balance" is.

By level 12 it equals the AC. By 16 it overtakes by +1. By level 20 it’s +2 or +3 higher.
These are very high levels, meaning most games don't achieve them.

I tend to prefer con based barbarians in the early game and from experience they perform very well. If you’ve not tried one you really should.
I am applying to a PBP now where we had the option of starting with a rare item if we rolled 3d6 in order for stats. I'm applying with a Mountain Dwarf Battle Rager, currently have a 14 in Strength and Constitution after racial bonuses. We'll see how it goes :smalleek::smallbiggrin::smallcool:

[JNAProductions]

Because Barbarians are, defensively, the exact equal of a Rogue with the same AC, right? /s

[Dr.Samurai]

Because Barbarians are, defensively, the exact equal of a Rogue with the same AC, right? /s
...

...

Barbarians can wear medium armor and have better AC than a rogue...

Barbarians that boost their Strength first have worse AC than a rogue if using Unarmored Defense...

How are these two equal?

Either Unarmored Defense is a ribbon or it's not.

I think barbarians should be able to go unarmored and have competitive AC, without having to sacrifice Strength. So I don't think it should be a ribbon feature.

[Psyren]

This is circular reasoning though - UD comes from agility and thick skin because that's what it currently does, but if it were str/con -as posited - it would come from massive muscles and thick skin, and that's not "less reasonable" in a magical world where your mystical anger makes swords stab you less hard.

I'm purely talking about how it works now, I wasn't commenting on the OP's houserule or how reasonable I find it. You were asking why WotC likely designed it a certain way.


This is striking me as edging very close towards guy-at-the-gym.

Except it's not, because you can end up with equal or even better defenses than full plate naked, without even a drop of magic. How is that "guy at the gym?"


Because Barbarians are, defensively, the exact equal of a Rogue with the same AC, right? /s

Barbarians also get shield proficiency and can wear them without losing unarmored defense (unlike Monks and Rogues.)

[JNAProductions]

...

...

Barbarians can wear medium armor and have better AC than a rogue...

Barbarians that boost their Strength first have worse AC than a rogue if using Unarmored Defense...

How are these two equal?

Either Unarmored Defense is a ribbon or it's not.

I think barbarians should be able to go unarmored and have competitive AC, without having to sacrifice Strength. So I don't think it should be a ribbon feature.

Do Barbarians of AC 17 have the same defensive profile as a Rogue of AC 17?

No. They have more HP, barring the Rogue having 6 more Constitution, and while the Rogue has Uncanny Dodge, the Barbarian has Rage. (Assuming level 5+.)

So even with less AC, a Barbarian is generally more durable.

[Greywander]

I have yet to see anyone else comment on the idea of Unarmored Defense using STR and DEX. This seems like a happy middle ground between DEX + CON vs. STR + CON. With maxed STR it will be equivalent to nonmagical half plate, but unless you invest into DEX magic armor will still be better. At 20 unarmored becomes better again, but the game doesn't really try to balance things at 20.

And TBH CON never really made a lot of sense. CON is healthiness, not so much toughness. STR gives you big, tough muscles, CON just makes you less likely to get sick and allows you to heal more quickly. Don't get me wrong, barbarians would have lots of CON, but their toughness would make more sense to be derived from STR than CON.

[Dr.Samurai]

Do Barbarians of AC 17 have the same defensive profile as a Rogue of AC 17?

No. They have more HP, barring the Rogue having 6 more Constitution, and while the Rogue has Uncanny Dodge, the Barbarian has Rage. (Assuming level 5+.)

So even with less AC, a Barbarian is generally more durable.
The point is that we have to speak specifically about what we're saying. Arguing that Unarmored Defense is balanced vs Medium Armor is only true if you devote your ASIs to it. And then your attack stat is suffering.

There are assumptions baked into the claims being made.

That's the point. There is nothing wrong with a barbarian having a higher AC than a Rogue. In fact, any barbarian wearing medium armor will have a higher AC than a rogue. It's to be expected.

But a barbarian using Unarmored Defense and boosting Strength will not only have a lower AC than a regular barbarian in medium armor, they'll have a lower AC than a rogue.

So when someone says "Unarmored Defense and Medium Armor are balanced with each other", it's unclear what they mean.

[Frogreaver]

You're equal to someone wearing Studded Leather with a 16 Dex.

At level 4, you boost your Constitution and the Rogue boosts their Dex. Now you're at 16 AC and they're at 16 AC. At level 8 you boost your Constitution and the Rogue boosts their Dex. Now you're 17 AC and they're 17 AC. All the while the Rogue's attack bonus is as high as it can be and yours is lagging behind (not to mention your Athletics check, which governs combat maneuvers).

So the "balance" here is that the Barbarian can choose not to wear armor and be equal to a rogue in AC. And somehow this is equal to wearing medium armor...

All the martial classes start out 15-16 AC. They top out 16-18 AC.

Barbarian Unarmored defense starts out out 15 AC and tops out at 19-20 AC (before shield).


BUT!!!

If you instead improve your Strength, like most people will, then Unarmored Defense is worse than Light Armor. So I am not sure what the "balance" is.

It's almost as if AC isn't the primary determiner of survivability for Barbarians in 5e. High hp and Damage resistance from rage is their defense.


These are very high levels, meaning most games don't achieve them.

I agree, but so what? My claim was that the feature was balanced for levels 1-20. Trying to narrow the focus to the levels it underperforms while ignoring the levels it overperforms... and proposing a 'fix' that not only boosts the underperforming levels but also the overperforming ones - that's not balance.


I am applying to a PBP now where we had the option of starting with a rare item if we rolled 3d6 in order for stats. I'm applying with a Mountain Dwarf Battle Rager, currently have a 14 in Strength and Constitution after racial bonuses. We'll see how it goes :smalleek::smallbiggrin::smallcool:

The game isn't balanced around rolled stats. Roll high str,dex and con and unarmored defense is much better than armor. Roll low and it's much worse. No surprise there.


I have yet to see anyone else comment on the idea of Unarmored Defense using STR and DEX. This seems like a happy middle ground between DEX + CON vs. STR + CON. With maxed STR it will be equivalent to nonmagical half plate, but unless you invest into DEX magic armor will still be better. At 20 unarmored becomes better again, but the game doesn't really try to balance things at 20.

And TBH CON never really made a lot of sense. CON is healthiness, not so much toughness. STR gives you big, tough muscles, CON just makes you less likely to get sick and allows you to heal more quickly. Don't get me wrong, barbarians would have lots of CON, but their toughness would make more sense to be derived from STR than CON.

Str and Dex determining AC means you can start out with 16 ac and have 18 by level 8. Then by level 16 you get to 20 AC unarmored. Essentially full plate with no disadvantage to stealth. So unarmored barbarians are the only way to go. I think it's important to keep armored barbarians as a viable option. I don't think this option does that.

[HPisBS]

I'd be in favor of this. Luckily we rolled for stats for our current game and I rolled well enough that I can go unarmored. But I think Unarmored Defense should be tuned to be a viable option that is competitive with Armor to some degree, as opposed to "I was caught without my armor on but I still have an AC 14 instead of 10, woo-hoo!".

Sure but... it could be. Why should monks be the only unarmored warrior that works? Unarmored Defense could be something that allows the Barbarian to realistically go unarmored and be competitive AC wise. So I am open to revisions to it. It's a big trope.

@Korvin - Extra ASI could work.

What if Unarmored Defense also improved later on, instead of keying off Strength. So it could be 11+dex+con and then 12+dex+con, etc. Not sure when and how far but just an idea.

Alright, fine. But the new Monk's lvl 20 becomes an actual "Perfect Self" that adds +4 Dex and Wis. If Barbs can get 24 AC naked, so should Monks.

-- Or +2 to all stats. That could work, too... if they retain the "always have some ki pts when rolling initiative" thing.


.... While we're on the subject, the role of quick-and-easy ki restoration should become something like a "Centering Meditation" around lvl 8 or so to regain up to 1/5 of your max ki pool.

[Dr.Samurai]

All the martial classes start out 15-16 AC. They top out 16-18 AC.

Barbarian Unarmored defense starts out out 15 AC and tops out at 19-20 AC (before shield).
How are you getting to 19-20?

It's almost as if AC isn't the primary determiner of survivability for Barbarians in 5e. High hp and Damage resistance from rage is their defense.
But we're not arguing between Unarmored Defense and Nothing. We're arguing between Unarmored Defense and Medium Armor. How do you say these two are balanced when one is worse than light armor if you don't constantly boost it?

I agree, but so what?
It's misleading because most people will not reach the levels where you claim it "evens out".

My claim was that the feature was balanced for levels 1-20.
But you haven't shown that to be true. You're taking "sacrifice Strength" for granted and ignoring it as an opportunity cost. It's behind for most of the game, until level 12, and that is assuming you're dumping your ASIs into it.

Trying to narrow the focus to the levels it underperforms while ignoring the levels it overperforms... and proposing a 'fix' that not only boosts the underperforming levels but also the overperforming ones - that's not balance.
Saying "it's works out at the levels almost no one plays at" is also not balance.

The game isn't balanced around rolled stats. Roll high str,dex and con and unarmored defense is much better than armor. Roll low and it's much worse. No surprise there.
Just saying I have an opportunity to try out your suggestion.

Str and Dex determining AC means you can start out with 16 ac and have 18 by level 8.
Ok, no different from Monk here.

Then by level 16 you get to 20 AC unarmored.
Assuming you bump Dex instead of Con...

And what's wrong with AC 20 at level 16?

Essentially full plate with no disadvantage to stealth. So unarmored barbarians are the only way to go.
There is no difference between this paradigm, and the current paradigm that exists in medium armor's favor.

I think it's important to keep armored barbarians as a viable option. I don't think this option does that.

Unarmored Str/Dex (assuming Dex +2)
Level 1 - 15
Level 4 - 16
Level 8 - 17
Level 12 - 17
Level 16 - 17
Level 19 - 17
Level 20 - 19

Medium Armor (assuming Dex +2)
Level 1 - 15 (unarmored)
Level 4 - 16 (scale mail)
Level 8 - 17 (half-plate)
Level 12 - 17
Level 16 - 17
Level 19 - 17
Level 20 - 17

Heavy Armor (fighter)
Level 1 - 16 (chain mail)
Level 4 - 17 (splint armor)
Level 8 - 18 (plate armor)
Level 12 - 18
Level 16 - 18
Level 19 - 18
Level 20 - 18

If the barbarian starts pumping Dexterity at levels 12 and beyond, then the AC is as good as plate armor levels 12-15, and is 1 point better than plate armor levels 16-19.

I don't really see the issue there though. The barbarian is giving up Con boosts (and that 24 Con at level 20) and/or feats. To rival Plate for a few levels and then be 1 point ahead for a few more levels?

[JNAProductions]

Perfect balance is impossible.

It's okay to have a feature that isn't always useful-if your Barbarian doesn't have to worry about sneaking and uses point buy to determine stats, Unarmored Defense won't be super helpful in many cases. If your DM lets you roll 5d6b3 or some other big stat array, and you like being able to sneak around, Unarmored Defense is a heck of a lot more useful.

And, here's probably the most important bit: A player who chooses Barbarian and decides to lean into Unarmored Defense will still be a competent, contributing PC. Or at least, missing two points of AC or whatever the exact number is, isn't going to be what stops them from being useful.

I'm okay with options that aren't as good as others, provided they aren't full-out traps. And Unarmored Defense... Is not a trap. It might not be as good under common assumptions, but it's not gonna tank a character into uselessness-not even close.

[Frogreaver]

The point is that we have to speak specifically about what we're saying. Arguing that Unarmored Defense is balanced vs Medium Armor is only true if you devote your ASIs to it. And then your attack stat is suffering.

There are assumptions baked into the claims being made.

The alternative is for it to be balanced with no ASI's put toward it and much stronger when ASI's are put toward it. The middle road is to have it slightly worse with no ASI's. Equal with a few ASI's toward it. Better with many. That's the only way to balance things that scale via attributes.


That's the point. There is nothing wrong with a barbarian having a higher AC than a Rogue. In fact, any barbarian wearing medium armor will have a higher AC than a rogue. It's to be expected.

But a barbarian using Unarmored Defense and boosting Strength will not only have a lower AC than a regular barbarian in medium armor, they'll have a lower AC than a rogue.

If you are going to bring Rogues into it then I'm going to bring Fighters into it. Barbarians should have less AC than Fighters. Can we agree there?


So when someone says "Unarmored Defense and Medium Armor are balanced with each other", it's unclear what they mean.

I've explained it 5x now. You know exactly what it means. Here's the 6th time. For levels 1-20 unarmored defense is balanced with Medium armor. Some levels/investment it's better and some levels/investment it's worse. But overall it trends towards only being slightly worse (-1 AC) and potentially being much better (+3 AC). Without making it exactly identical to medium armor you don't get better balance than that.

[Dr.Samurai]

The alternative is for it to be balanced with no ASI's put toward it and much stronger when ASI's are put toward it. The middle road is to have it slightly worse with no ASI's. Equal with a few ASI's toward it. Better with many. That's the only way to balance things that scale via attributes.
Given that you only have five ASIs total, and they only come very four levels, this is not the reasonable investment it's being made out to be.

If you are going to bring Rogues into it then I'm going to bring Fighters into it. Barbarians should have less AC than Fighters. Can we agree there?
I already brought fighters into it in my last post, and I'm happy with the comparisons. And that's vs the stronger Str/Dex suggestion. Given that normal Unarmored Defense can't even keep up with Light Armor unless you dump your ASIs into it, I don't think we need that comparison vs Heavy Armor.

I've explained it 5x now. You know exactly what it means. Here's the 6th time. For levels 1-20 unarmored defense is balanced with Medium armor. Some levels/investment it's better and some levels/investment it's worse. But overall it trends towards only being slightly worse (-1 AC) and potentially being much better (+3 AC). Without making it exactly identical to medium armor you don't get better balance than that.
Unarmored Defense =/= Medium Armor.

Rather;

Unarmored Defense + ASIs + non-increasing attacks stats = Medium Armor.

[Frogreaver]

Given that you only have five ASIs total, and they only come very four levels, this is not the reasonable investment it's being made out to be.

I already brought fighters into it in my last post, and I'm happy with the comparisons. And that's vs the stronger Str/Dex suggestion. Given that normal Unarmored Defense can't even keep up with Light Armor unless you dump your ASIs into it, I don't think we need that comparison vs Heavy Armor.

Then why are you suggesting changes that make unarmored defense provide more AC than the fighter gets?


Unarmored Defense =/= Medium Armor.

Rather;

Unarmored Defense + ASIs + non-increasing attacks stats = Medium Armor.

That actually makes unarmored defense provide more AC than heavy armor.

It takes 1 ASI into dex or con for unarmored defense to equal a breastplate which is the most comparable medium armor to it.

The next asi investment gives you something better than half plate. The next asi gives you better than full plate. The capstone further boosts your unarmored feature well beyond full plate.

[Psyren]

Arguing that Unarmored Defense is balanced vs Medium Armor is only true if you devote your ASIs to it. And then your attack stat is suffering.

There are assumptions baked into the claims being made.

That's the point. There is nothing wrong with a barbarian having a higher AC than a Rogue. In fact, any barbarian wearing medium armor will have a higher AC than a rogue. It's to be expected.

But a barbarian using Unarmored Defense and boosting Strength will not only have a lower AC than a regular barbarian in medium armor, they'll have a lower AC than a rogue.

So when someone says "Unarmored Defense and Medium Armor are balanced with each other", it's unclear what they mean.

You can in theory leave Con at 14 and pick up an Amulet of Health later. And rogues typically don't use shields since they lack proficiency.

[clash]

I've read most of the thread but haven't come across this suggestion so going to put it forth. What if instead of str + con you changed it to 13+ con. Now most barbarians will start in the 15-16 range and it gets as high as 20 without shield or 22 with the shield but only if con is maxed out. This seems like a reasonable alternative in my opinion.

[Frogreaver]

I've read most of the thread but haven't come across this suggestion so going to put it forth. What if instead of str + con you changed it to 13+ con. Now most barbarians will start in the 15-16 range and it gets as high as 20 without shield or 22 with the shield but only if con is maxed out. This seems like a reasonable alternative in my opinion.

I would have proposed 10+str+2 as the formula. Would mostly equally medium armor. Get a little boost at max level.

[Psyren]

I've read most of the thread but haven't come across this suggestion so going to put it forth. What if instead of str + con you changed it to 13+ con. Now most barbarians will start in the 15-16 range and it gets as high as 20 without shield or 22 with the shield but only if con is maxed out. This seems like a reasonable alternative in my opinion.

I suggested it (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?643354-5-5-suggestion-to-key-Barbarian-Unarmored-Defense-off-Strength-and-Constitution&p=25386702&viewfull=1#post25386702) on the first page yeah :smallsmile:

[Dr.Samurai]

Then why are you suggesting changes that make unarmored defense provide more AC than the fighter gets?
Did you see the lists I provided? It never surpasses heavy armor until level 20. And that's assuming the fighter doesn't get a +1/2/3 enhancement on the armor. Or has the Defense fighting style lol.

In fact, it's always behind Heavy Armor until level 20. It only provides more AC at level 16, and that's assuming you prioritize Dexterity over Constitution and/or Feats.

OR, you assume that:

1. The barbarian wants to start with a 16 Dex instead of 16 Con. Then it matches heavy armor at level 1, and falls behind by level 12.
2. The barbarian boosts Dexterity at level 12 onward.

These are dubious assumptions.

That actually makes unarmored defense provide more AC than heavy armor.
Maybe I wasn't clear.

In order for you to make the claim that Unarmored Defense is "balanced" with Medium Armor, you have to throw ASIs at it, which are a much larger (and much more limited) resource than some gold to purchase medium armor.

It takes 1 ASI into dex or con for unarmored defense to equal a breastplate which is the most comparable medium armor to it.
No barbarian guide is going to suggest bumping your Dex/Con before Strength. So you're talking about at least by level 8, likely level 12. So you're behind 2 points from Half-Plate. Again, you're doing worse than a rogue unless you disregard Strength, your primary combat stat.

The next asi investment gives you something better than half plate.
Not AC-wise it doesn't.

The next asi gives you better than full plate.
No one is going to just dump ASIs into Dex/Con and disregard Strength to have "better than full plate".

The capstone further boosts your unarmored feature well beyond full plate.
It's a cap stone, I'm not concerned about it.

I've read most of the thread but haven't come across this suggestion so going to put it forth. What if instead of str + con you changed it to 13+ con. Now most barbarians will start in the 15-16 range and it gets as high as 20 without shield or 22 with the shield but only if con is maxed out. This seems like a reasonable alternative in my opinion.
I like this as well. And credit to Psyren for suggesting it previously :smallcool:

You can in theory leave Con at 14 and pick up an Amulet of Health later.
True, but if the DM is giving this to you, I'm guessing it's okay for the game/table.

And rogues typically don't use shields since they lack proficiency.
True, but Conan is often depicted without a shield, He-Man doesn't have a shield. Barbarians often use heavy weapons with big damage dice for Brutal Critical, or the Heavy property for GWM if they can take it.

I am not arguing that Unarmored Defense needs to match Armor+Shield.

[Psyren]

True, but if the DM is giving this to you, I'm guessing it's okay for the game/table.

Sure - my point though is that, naked, the barbarian has ways to hit heavy armor-levels of AC without necessarily needing all their ASIs to do so. If nothing else that makes them better off than the poor monk.



True, but Conan is often depicted without a shield, He-Man doesn't have a shield. Barbarians often use heavy weapons with big damage dice for Brutal Critical, or the Heavy property for GWM if they can take it.

I am not arguing that Unarmored Defense needs to match Armor+Shield.

The way I view barbarians using a shield is that they don't do that if they don't need it. Yes, most of the time you'd smash face with the big two-hander, but if you're in a fight where AC matters more - like being shot at by a bunch of archers you can't reach - unstrapping that shield from your back makes sense, and it isn't even an action.

And hell, if even Conan can go around wearing armor and using a shield (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conan_the_Barbarian) - most of my barbarians aren't going to get too fussed over it either.

[Amnestic]

unstrapping that shield from your back makes sense, and it isn't even an action.

Donning a shield is an action, for the record.

I guess holding it in your hand isn't but unless it's a magic shield (oh no, not this argument again) it's not going to help.

[Psyren]

Donning a shield is an action, for the record.

Whoops, thought it was an object interaction, missed the bottom of that table in the equipment section.

Drawing your longsword to go with it is a FOI though.

[Dr.Samurai]

The way I view barbarians using a shield is that they don't do that if they don't need it. Yes, most of the time you'd smash face with the big two-hander, but if you're in a fight where AC matters more - like being shot at by a bunch of archers you can't reach - unstrapping that shield from your back makes sense, and it isn't even an action.
I'm not sure how I feel about barbarians and shields. On the one hand, I want to be able to grab enemies as needed. Does that mean I stow my weapon to grab them and have my shield in my other hand/arm? Then what do I attack with next turn? A 1+str unarmed strike? Thematic, for sure.

On the other hand, going one-handed with no shield means I'm not benefiting from a two-handed weapon or a shield. But even if I wield a two-handed weapon, I still can't attack someone if I grab them...

So, not sure. I don't like shields because they can't be removed easily, so once you have one on you're keeping it on without using an Action.

And hell, if even Conan can go around wearing armor and using a shield (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conan_the_Barbarian) - most of my barbarians aren't going to get too fussed over it either.
Of course, there's obviously room for barbarians in armor and shields; it's the optimal way to go for AC after all (add a long tail from Path of the Beast :smallcool: ).

But I think Unarmored Defense should be just as viable. For every image of Conan with a shield, there are a dozen without one. I'm sure the same is true for He-Man, Tarzan, John Carter, Hulk, etc. And right now, given the investment needed to match half-plate, I don't consider it viable. But I recognize there are other opinions on the matter, as always :smallbiggrin:.

[Frogreaver]

Did you see the lists I provided? It never surpasses heavy armor until level 20. And that's assuming the fighter doesn't get a +1/2/3 enhancement on the armor. Or has the Defense fighting style lol.

Magic item issue can be fixed by making magic items for unarmored defense


In fact, it's always behind Heavy Armor until level 20. It only provides more AC at level 16, and that's assuming you prioritize Dexterity over Constitution and/or Feats.

Your level is off a bit. It becomes better than heavy armor by the time you use 3 ASI's on AC increase (assuming you start with 14 dex and 16 con). So the level you can outperform plate is level 12.


OR, you assume that:

1. The barbarian wants to start with a 16 Dex instead of 16 Con. Then it matches heavy armor at level 1, and falls behind by level 12.
2. The barbarian boosts Dexterity at level 12 onward.

With this assumption it becomes better than plate after 2 ASI's. It can be better than plate by level 8.


In order for you to make the claim that Unarmored Defense is "balanced" with Medium Armor, you have to throw ASIs at it, which are a much larger (and much more limited) resource than some gold to purchase medium armor.

'Throw ASI's at it' is an odd way of describing a Barbarian that decides to max Con first.


No barbarian guide is going to suggest bumping your Dex/Con before Strength. So you're talking about at least by level 8, likely level 12. So you're behind 2 points from Half-Plate. Again, you're doing worse than a rogue unless you disregard Strength, your primary combat stat.

I'd suggest those Barbarian guides are wrong.


Not AC-wise it doesn't.

AC isn't the only variable being modified between the different armors and unarmored defense.


No one is going to just dump ASIs into Dex/Con and disregard Strength to have "better than full plate".

Neither Dex nor Con only provide you AC.

[Dr.Samurai]

Frogreaver, you and I obviously have different ideas of how to prioritize ASIs. I am not sure what the value is in quoting me and repeating the things I already said in my post, but yes, if you only boost your AC stats instead of Strength/Feats, Unarmored Defense will match other armors. That is not a surprise and we've gone over it enough times already.

I think balancing a feature under the assumption that a barbarian will not boost Strength makes zero sense, but you obviously feel this is the way to play. I don't think there's much more to say on it. You think a massive opportunity cost "balances" Unarmored Defense with Medium Armor. Noted :smallsmile:.

[Psyren]

I'm not sure how I feel about barbarians and shields. On the one hand, I want to be able to grab enemies as needed. Does that mean I stow my weapon to grab them and have my shield in my other hand/arm? Then what do I attack with next turn? A 1+str unarmed strike? Thematic, for sure.

On the other hand, going one-handed with no shield means I'm not benefiting from a two-handed weapon or a shield. But even if I wield a two-handed weapon, I still can't attack someone if I grab them...

If your AC is that much of a concern you probably shouldn't be grappling anyone would be my take. Or play Beast Barb so you either always have a hand free regardless (claws) or don't need a shield to bolster your defenses (tail, as you mentione).


But I think Unarmored Defense should be just as viable. For every image of Conan with a shield, there are a dozen without one. I'm sure the same is true for He-Man, Tarzan, John Carter, Hulk, etc. And right now, given the investment needed to match half-plate, I don't consider it viable. But I recognize there are other opinions on the matter, as always :smallbiggrin:.

I think it should be viable (and it definitely is), but equal to armor and shield at all levels? Nah. It ends up being superior in the end and I'm okay with that.

[Frogreaver]

Frogreaver, you and I obviously have different ideas of how to prioritize ASIs. I am not sure what the value is in quoting me and repeating the things I already said in my post, but yes, if you only boost your AC stats instead of Strength/Feats, Unarmored Defense will match other armors. That is not a surprise and we've gone over it enough times already.

Glad we agree there.

the question remaining is what armor the in armored defense should equal when maxing str. I say a breastplate as itÂ’s the most comparable. Having it equal half plate while maxing str would make it better than all the armors a barbarian has - which is a design goal IÂ’m against as it makes armor strictly inferior. If this is our design balance goal then unarmored defense is one ac behind where it should be for most the game.

Are we anywhere close to agreement there?


I think balancing a feature under the assumption that a barbarian will not boost Strength makes zero sense, but you obviously feel this is the way to play. I don't think there's much more to say on it. You think a massive opportunity cost "balances" Unarmored Defense with Medium Armor. Noted :smallsmile:.

IÂ’d be down moving it up 1 ac around level 4-5 with no additional investment. However Doing so makes it so that at level 12 with max str and then 1 asi in dex or con makes it better than the best medium armor you can get - half plate.

[Thunderous Mojo]

My personal wish is that ability scores be decoupled from Unarmored Defense Calculations, altogether.

Set a Barbarian’s Unarmored AC at 14 and give a scaling bonus equal to their Proficiency Bonus, and Bob is your Uncle.

The 20th level capstone can include a flat bonus to AC, as well.

Nigh, the exact same progression, while reducing ASI pressure, and odd artifacts, such as a Rolled Stat Dex-barian have 18 AC at 1st level, and not caring much about Str.

[Frogreaver]

My personal wish is that ability scores be decoupled from Unarmored Defense Calculations, altogether.

Set a Barbarian’s Unarmored AC at 14 and give a scaling bonus equal to their Proficiency Bonus, and Bob is your Uncle.

The 20th level capstone can include a flat bonus to AC, as well.

Nigh, the exact same progression, while reducing ASI pressure, and odd artifacts, such as a Rolled Stat Dex-barian have 18 AC at 1st level, and not caring much about Str.

14 + proficiency makes unarmored defense the best option the whole game. I want to still have option of using armored barbarian.

[Amnestic]

My personal wish is that ability scores be decoupled from Unarmored Defense Calculations, altogether.

Set a Barbarian’s Unarmored AC at 14 and give a scaling bonus equal to their Proficiency Bonus, and Bob is your Uncle.

My concern with PB scaling is it becomes very dippable from an multiclassing perspective.

Granted, if MCing isn't active in your game, not a problem, but 16-20AC unarmoured (+shield) is pretty good for 1 level, plus you get Rage if you ever want that.

If you gave it equivalent scaling to PB but required barb levels (which I also like as a change to rage damage scaling) that's less of an issue though.

[Frogreaver]

My concern with PB scaling is it becomes very dippable from an multiclassing perspective.

Agreed. That’s another concern.

[KorvinStarmast]

Agreed. That’s another concern. That is part of why I had suggested 1/2 PB rounded down as the bonus, but one has to be Unarmored to get it.
Suppose that in late-game that's a +3.
Is +3 AC that big of a deal in Tier 4?
I found that monsters at that level had a lot of plusses to hit ... and plenty of spell effects and features like spell effects ...

[Dr.Samurai]

If your AC is that much of a concern you probably shouldn't be grappling anyone would be my take. Or play Beast Barb so you either always have a hand free regardless (claws) or don't need a shield to bolster your defenses (tail, as you mentione).
Yeah, you're probably right; ditch the shield.

I think it should be viable (and it definitely is), but equal to armor and shield at all levels? Nah. It ends up being superior in the end and I'm okay with that.
It definitely is not, unless you invest in it at the cost of other things.

And I did of course mention in a previous post that I don't expect it to be equal to armor and shields, just armor :smallcool:.

the question remaining is what armor the in armored defense should equal when maxing str. I say a breastplate as itÂ’s the most comparable. Having it equal half plate while maxing str would make it better than all the armors a barbarian has - which is a design goal IÂ’m against as it makes armor strictly inferior. If this is our design balance goal then unarmored defense is one ac behind where it should be for most the game.

Are we anywhere close to agreement there?
I am not at all concerned with having Unarmored Defense match Half-Plate.

My personal wish is that ability scores be decoupled from Unarmored Defense Calculations, altogether.

Set a Barbarian’s Unarmored AC at 14 and give a scaling bonus equal to their Proficiency Bonus, and Bob is your Uncle.

The 20th level capstone can include a flat bonus to AC, as well.

Nigh, the exact same progression, while reducing ASI pressure, and odd artifacts, such as a Rolled Stat Dex-barian have 18 AC at 1st level, and not caring much about Str.
I think this is a great idea. Instead of keying it off PB, just have it scale alongside PB to prevent dipping as Amnestic mentioned.

[JNAProductions]

It definitely is not, unless you invest in it at the cost of other things.

A Barbarian with 17 AC (Half-Plate, 14 Dex) is viable.

A Barbarian with 15 AC (16 Con, 14 Dex) is also viable.

[Zhorn]

A Barbarian with 17 AC (Half-Plate, 14 Dex) is viable.

A Barbarian with 15 AC (16 Con, 14 Dex) is also viable.

indeed.

I think its the trap of regularly seeing optimization and minmaxing is they get mistaken for a baseline rather then being above curve.
The existence of higher numbers elsewhere leading to the expectation of high numbers being the norm across the board.

[Psyren]

It definitely is not, unless you invest in it at the cost of other things.

I suspect your definition of "viable" is far too strict :smallconfused:


A Barbarian with 17 AC (Half-Plate, 14 Dex) is viable.

A Barbarian with 15 AC (16 Con, 14 Dex) is also viable.


indeed.

I think its the trap of regularly seeing optimization and minmaxing is they get mistaken for a baseline rather then being above curve.
The existence of higher numbers elsewhere leading to the expectation of high numbers being the norm across the board.

+1

And unlike a monk, they can use a shield for +2 AC to both versions.

[Dr.Samurai]

It really is difficult to have these conversations over forums it seems...


A Barbarian with 17 AC (Half-Plate, 14 Dex) is viable.

A Barbarian with 15 AC (16 Con, 14 Dex) is also viable.
Viable is referring to the class feature as a match for Medium Armor, not whether a barbarian can succeed with 15 AC.

I think its the trap of regularly seeing optimization and minmaxing is they get mistaken for a baseline rather then being above curve.
The existence of higher numbers elsewhere leading to the expectation of high numbers being the norm across the board.
Medium Armor on a medium armor class is not the baseline? Medium armor is minmaxing?

*barbarian walks into shop*

Shopkeeper: What will it be today?

Barbarian: Let me have 1 breastplate please.

Shopkeeper: Ah, a minmaxer! Come here you little munchkin, you little rules lawyering optimizer! Get over here and try this on you power-gamer!


When you start guessing at people's intentions, you've lost the argument. It's pretty simply... many fictional barbarian types run around shirtless. The game gives you a feature to do this, but the AC is worse than a rogue's unless you roll stats and roll very well, or you forego your attack and Athletics stat for Constitution. We're just asking to have the AC be on par with medium armor without having to invest ASIs, which is not minmaxing.

Decoupling it from ability scores is a great suggestion.

I suspect your definition of "viable" is far too strict
Viable - capable of working successfully

Has Unarmored Defense successfully matched Medium Armor?


A Barbarian with 17 AC (Half-Plate, 14 Dex) is viable.

A Barbarian with 15 AC (16 Con, 14 Dex) is also viable.
Looks like not...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Viable is referring to the class feature as a match for Medium Armor, not whether a barbarian can succeed with 15 AC.


I have no dog in this fight, but that seems like a rather slanted, arbitrary definition of "viable." I'd say "viable" for a class feature is "can you use this in a game and be successful according to the game's standards." In which case UD is totally viable.

[Dr.Samurai]

I have no dog in this fight, but that seems like a rather slanted, arbitrary definition of "viable." I'd say "viable" for a class feature is "can you use this in a game and be successful according to the game's standards." In which case UD is totally viable.
Arbitrary?

Only if you ignore the argument Frogreaver and I have had throughout this entire thread. The whole discussion has focused on whether or not Unarmored Defense matches Medium Armor and exactly how "balanced" it is vs Medium Armor.

I have never claimed the barbarian will fail at life if they use Unarmored Defense. The entire point of the thread (read the OP) is to use Unarmored Defense and have the Medium Armor AC equivalent without having to max Str/Con/Dex or forego feats.

I can't be blamed for someone else picking up on the word I used and using it to refer to something else.

[JNAProductions]

I have no dog in this fight, but that seems like a rather slanted, arbitrary definition of "viable." I'd say "viable" for a class feature is "can you use this in a game and be successful according to the game's standards." In which case UD is totally viable.

Echoing this.

2 points of AC better is helpful, no doubt about it. But it's unlikely to be the difference between success and failure.

Not to mention, you can narrow that to 1 point of difference (18 Con, 14 Dex) without missing a beat on Strength (Mountain Dwarf, even without Tasha's Rules, gets 17 Str, 14 Dex, and 17 Con at level one-bump Str and Con up to 18 at level 4).

And, if you want a TRUE direct comparison, you compare to Breastplate. 14+Dex Mod (Max 2) AC, no Stealth penalty. Which, shock of all shocks, is the same as a Barbarian can get at level 4 while still having 18 Strength, using point buy.


Arbitrary?

Only if you ignore the argument Frogreaver and I have had throughout this entire thread. The whole discussion has focused on whether or not Unarmored Defense matches Medium Armor and exactly how "balanced" it is vs Medium Armor.

I have never claimed the barbarian will fail at life if they use Unarmored Defense. The entire point of the thread (read the OP) is to use Unarmored Defense and have the Medium Armor AC equivalent without having to max Str/Con/Dex or forego feats.

I can't be blamed for someone else picking up on the word I used and using it to refer to something else.

Do you insist every single option be exactly equal to every single other option?

Why can't my Dex Fighter get 18 AC without investing in Strength?

[Dr.Samurai]

Do you insist every single option be exactly equal to every single other option?
Me: Barbarians are so cool, and I love the unarmored warrior trope. I want to be able to use Unarmored Defense!

Forum: Like... you want to have higher AC than the fighter???

Me: No, just make it match medium armor, the same armor that barbarians can wear.

Forum: *pushes glasses up the bridge of their nose and rests their arm back down on the armrest of the chair* This is indicative of munchkinist tendencies, at least according to my degree in Forum Psychology...

Me: Not really... just make it the same as normal, but without armor. Because of the trope, you know?

Forum: Do you want everything to be the same as everything else?!?!?!?!?!?!

Me: This planet is not ready for integration into the Federation *beams back up to starship*

Why can't my Dex Fighter get 18 AC without investing in Strength?
I don't know, you tell me...

[Greywander]

I'd say Unarmored Defense should at least equal a breastplate. The cost becomes negligible at a certain point, and the weight is negligible on a high STR character like a barbarian. I think there's a fair point to be made that half plate should be "better" due to imposing disadvantage to Stealth check, but we also have to consider magical armor here.

I still think my idea of using STR and DEX for Unarmored Defense provides a happy middle ground. This makes it equivalent to nonmagical half plate, or better if you invest more into DEX. But this means that magic armor will still offer you a better option. Since it scales off STR, you can, like the monk, boost your AC while also boosting your attack and damage rolls. This does, however, mean that items like rarer Belts of Giant's Strength offer a disproportionate benefit to barbarians, but maybe that's a feature, not a bug. In a way, it would be like getting half the capstone early, that's all.

[JNAProductions]

It is equal. 16 AC (before shield) with no Stealth penalty. That's the same as Breastplate, and you get it at level 4-which might come after you earn the 400 GP needed for a Breastplate, but might come before too!

Unless, you want to achieve the AC of Half-Plate, without investing GP, with better Stealth rolls, and without sacrificing anything offensively... Which would make Unarmored Defense strictly BETTER.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It is equal. 16 AC (before shield) with no Stealth penalty. That's the same as Breastplate, and you get it at level 4-which might come after you earn the 400 GP needed for a Breastplate, but might come before too!

Unless, you want to achieve the AC of Half-Plate, without investing GP, with better Stealth rolls, and without sacrificing anything offensively... Which would make Unarmored Defense strictly BETTER.

Having read the whole discussion, I agree. And consider a 1 AC bonus to be a trivial price to pay for better stealth and cheaper.

[Frogreaver]

Me: Barbarians are so cool, and I love the unarmored warrior trope. I want to be able to use Unarmored Defense!

Forum: Like... you want to have higher AC than the fighter???

Me: No, just make it match medium armor, the same armor that barbarians can wear.

Forum: *pushes glasses up the bridge of their nose and rests their arm back down on the armrest of the chair* This is indicative of munchkinist tendencies, at least according to my degree in Forum Psychology...

Me: Not really... just make it the same as normal, but without armor. Because of the trope, you know?

Forum: Do you want everything to be the same as everything else?!?!?!?!?!?!

Me: This planet is not ready for integration into the Federation *beams back up to starship*

I don't know, you tell me...

Serious question, do you believe unarmored defense providing 17 ac makes it better than half plate?

[Amechra]

The thing about comparing Unarmored Defense to medium armor isn't that Unarmored Defense is necessarily non-viable... it's that ASIs are way more precious than gold.

Assuming standard array, you're going to be starting off with something like Str 16/Con 16/Dex 13 or Str 16/Con 14/Dex 14¹. Either array gives you an AC of 14, which is at best the AC you'll get for wearing a chain shirt. You'd need to spend two ASIs to get your AC to match the AC that you'd get while wearing scale mail. Let's be honest here — any game where the 400gp to buy a breastplate is less expensive than spending two ASIs on secondary stats (and not, say, Strength or cool feats) is a weird game. And that's before you consider that magical armor is potentially a thing.

For those of you who are going "but that's just because standard array sucks — you can easily get scale-mail-equivalent AC out of Unarmored Defense if you use point-buy"... consider that doing so effectively forces you to make your stats 15/15/15/8/8/8. I feel like requiring shirtless barbarians to dump all of their mental ability scores is a little punitive.

...

I kinda hope that 5.5 avoids this kind of thing by not tying Barbarians so strongly to Str+Con. Heck, just let them use their Constitution in place of their Strength, thanks to how vigorously alive they are!

¹ Yes, you can build a Dex-focused Barbarian — however, doing so tanks your offense in exchange for a couple points of AC, and isn't generally what most people are looking for when they think of a Cool Dude Barbarian who fends of spear-thrusts with their pecs.

[JNAProductions]

Except that, if your Dex is less than 14, you ALSO lose that same AC when wearing Medium Armor.

Dexterity is irrelevant to the AC differential unless it hits 16 or higher (where it FAVORS Unarmored Defense, not Medium Armor) so it's just Constitution vs. base AC from armor, pretty much.

So, if you do only have a 16 Con, you've got the equivalent of Chain Shirt. Which, sure, ain't as good as a Breastplate. But if you choose to not invest into defensive stats, two important notes:

1) You'll still do fine as a Barbarian. You've got a d12 hit die and Rage. Say what you will about Rage (I know you've got a lot of thoughts on it, Amechra) but it IS a potent defensive tool-not against everything, but against a LOT of stuff that a better AC would help with!

2) You CHOSE to not invest into defensive stats. This isn't making you suck as a Barbarian, this is choosing to prioritize an offensive build over a defensive one. Choice is good!

Also, while you could be shackled to Point Buy or Standard Array by your DM, you could also have a DM who says "Pick six numbers, 3-18, you may repeat numbers if you want. These are your preracial stats." That's what I used to do. I had to change it, because people kept crippling themselves too hard. So now it's 8-18 for all stats, instead of 3-18.

[Amechra]

Also, while you could be shackled to Point Buy or Standard Array by your DM, you could also have a DM who says "Pick six numbers, 3-18, you may repeat numbers if you want. These are your preracial stats." That's what I used to do. I had to change it, because people kept crippling themselves too hard. So now it's 8-18 for all stats, instead of 3-18.

To be entirely fair to you, JNAProductions, "your DM could fix issues with the system by making up their own system" covers up a lot of mechanical sins.

[JNAProductions]

To be entirely fair to you, JNAProductions, "your DM could fix issues with the system by making up their own system" covers up a lot of mechanical sins.

{scrubbed}

[Amechra]

{scrubbed}

Is it one of the systems for generating stats in the book? No? Then it's a new system.

(Probably should've said "sub"system, but eh. I'm tired tonight.)

[JNAProductions]

Is it one of the systems for generating stats in the book? No? Then it's a new system.

(Probably should've said "sub"system, but eh. I'm tired tonight.)

Is fixing Witchbolt adding a new sub-system? Because that's honestly more work than my stat generation stuff. It doesn't add any more complexity at the table during play, it reduces complexity in character creation relative to Point Buy (by an admittedly trivial amount-Point Buy is basic math, but my system is NO MATH! :P ) and isn't really adding anything new, it's just a different way of making your stats.

And yes, I'm more generous than many DMs with ability scores. But 4d6b3 six times (or seven, drop lowest overall roll) can get you some pretty nice stats too.

And even WITH Point Buy or the Standard Array, you're a perfectly viable Barbarian without armor.

[Zhorn]

Medium Armor on a medium armor class is not the baseline? Medium armor is minmaxing?
Not what I said and missing the point.

The point being that because a high number is possible elsewhere (B) under different conditions, it leads people to the idea that the prior situation they were looking (A) at is underperforming overall. The more that people lean into optimization and minmax builds that make situation B more prevalent, the more the idea of A being bad and in need of a buff is reinforced.

Not that wearing armor is minmaxing, but the prevalence of optimized builds with high AC leading to the view of an AC in the mid-to-high teens not being viable, or even being perceived as a punishment.

That's the trap. And when design decisions are being driven by such perceptions it just leads to numbers bloat and powercreep.

[Witty Username]

Then why are you suggesting changes that make unarmored defense provide more AC than the fighter gets?



That actually makes unarmored defense provide more AC than heavy armor.


True, only If you invest 2 ASIs into Con. And by 1 point assuming the barbarian and Fighter are using similar builds.

Why shouldn't barbarian have more AC than the fighter? They do less damage.

[Dr.Samurai]

Serious question, do you believe unarmored defense providing 17 ac makes it better than half plate?
I'm just not sure what part of my posts are unclear...

It's equal to AC in half plate, which is exactly what I want. I don't mind that it doesn't grant Disadvantage in Stealth. That's not a big deal to me. Armor can be enchanted for higher bonuses or other effects like negating crits (a regularity for Barbarians spamming Reckless Attack).

It doesn't have to be as good as half plate immediately. But I don' want to have to forego ASIs to get it there, and try as I might, I can't see the big deal in the Stealth perk.

Given that you and others are advocating for multiple ASIs to pump Unarmored Defense to the moon to prove a point, our armored barbarian in Half-Plate can nab Dex +2 and Medium Armor Mastery and sport better AC than Unarmored Defense with no Disadvantage to Stealth either. See? I can make my point too if I just assume ASIs will be used in a certain way.


The thing about comparing Unarmored Defense to medium armor isn't that Unarmored Defense is necessarily non-viable... it's that ASIs are way more precious than gold.
Correct. The entire conversation on the other side has taken ASIs for granted.

The point being that because a high number is possible elsewhere (B) under different conditions, it leads people to the idea that the prior situation they were looking (A) at is underperforming overall. The more that people lean into optimization and minmax builds that make situation B more prevalent, the more the idea of A being bad and in need of a buff is reinforced.

Not that wearing armor is minmaxing, but the prevalence of optimized builds with high AC leading to the view of an AC in the mid-to-high teens not being viable, or even being perceived as a punishment.

That's the trap. And when design decisions are being driven by such perceptions it just leads to numbers bloat and powercreep.

Yeah, I'm sure this is very intelligent and insightful, but it's not that complicated. Despite your assertions, it isn't power-creep to maintain medium armor AC with Unarmored Defense. The monk does it just fine. Let's take a look:

Monk, Dex 16, Wis 16

Level 1 - AC 16 (equal to Scale Mail + 14 Dex)
Level 4 - AC 17 (equal to Half-Plate + 14 Dex)
Level 8 - AC 18 (equal to Plate Armor, uh-oh...)
Level 12 - AC 19 (... oh no, what's happening???)
Level 16 - AC 20 (I... I don't understand, how is it equal to Plate+Shield? *touches nose, blood on fingertips*)
Level 20 - Monks finds Bracers of Armor (*head explodes*)

This is the thought process:

1. Barbarians are often seen unarmored, so we should give them something to play into that trope. Let's give them Unarmored Defense.

2. If you start with a 14 Dex and a 16 Con, that's an AC of 15 Unarmored. Oh, good, that's right at a Chain Shirt!

3. How do we improve it?

4. You need to keep pumping up either Dexterity or Constitution.

5. What about my Strength?

6. Well, you can only pick one at ASI levels. So either be stronger like a barbarian, or be tougher while unarmored, like a barbarian. But not both lol.

7. Well what happens if I pick Strength and don't improve it?

8. Well then it falls behind the Rogue's AC.

9. Well then I'm not really playing up that trope that much am I?

10. Dude... this is the best we can do...



ASIs come online every 4 levels. {scrubbed} . Barbarians are both, and often without armor. It's the entire reason the class feature exists. If the trope wasn't a thing, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[Zhorn]

Yeah, I'm sure this is very intelligent and insightful, but it's not that complicated. Despite your assertions, it isn't power-creep to maintain medium armor AC with Unarmored Defense. The monk does it just fine.
Monk also isn't getting d12 hit dice, halving BPS damage and making con saves when dropped to 0 hp to instead drop to 1 hp where the barbarian does.
That physical toughness isn't just AC, they have other stuff that makes the class less dependant on AC to be very tanky.

What's happening here is precisely what I was warning about; seeing a higher number in a different scenario and perceiving that number to be what the baseline should be. Even that level-by-level monk breakdown is assuming maximized stat ASI placement in only the AC granting stats. Taking an optimized build and holding it up as a standard.

Here's the thing about powercreep; it doesn't need to be blatant. Incremental step by step increases, one could every say creeping. You want the AC provided by available medium armor while eschewing armor, an incremental free boost granting more defense while focusing on maximizing the offense stat.

[Spiritchaser]

Here is a better idea.
Add an ASI at level 10, which Rogues get. :smallwink:

I think I’m going to do this.

I mean, my campaigns seldom go past 10-12 so this actually won’t see much play time, but it does kind of feel “right”

Plus there’s just that tiny extra incentive for barb to be more than a dip on an echo knight.

[Dr.Samurai]

Monk also isn't getting d12 hit dice, halving BPS damage and making con saves when dropped to 0 hp to instead drop to 1 hp where the barbarian does.
That physical toughness isn't just AC, they have other stuff that makes the class less dependant on AC to be very tanky.
Once. Again. The barbarian has medium armor. So yes, the barbarian has d12 hit dice and Rage AND medium armor AC.

If you want to say "Ok fine but I don't want them to have that without armor on" that's fine, that's your opinion, just say it clearly that you just don't like the aesthetic. But please stop pretending that the barbarian can't just strap on scale mail or a breastplate or some half plate and do the very thing you're suggesting they can't.

What's happening here is precisely what I was warning about; seeing a higher number in a different scenario and perceiving that number to be what the baseline should be.
It's a game that progresses with level. It's not my perception. Fighters don't begin the game with plate armor, it's not power creep if a fighter player wants to get their hands on plate armor at some point.

Even that level-by-level monk breakdown is assuming maximized stat ASI placement in only the AC granting stats. Taking an optimized build and holding it up as a standard.
This is absolutely ridiculous.

So Frogreaver uses every single ASI, ignoring the barbarian's attack stat completely, to pump up Unarmored Defense and everyone golf claps. I use every ASI to pump up the monk's attack stat and DC modifier, and this is an "optimized build" that proves power creep.

Not to mention... I don't have to hold it up as a standard. The barbarian's normal AC is the standard. The point is that running around with medium armor AC unarmored is not a big deal. And no one, and please everyone read this carefully, NO ONE has demonstrated it is. Here are the facts:

1. Barbarians have medium armor AC proficiency, so any comments about how tough they are and how they're not supposed to have high AC are irrelevant if we're talking about medium armor AC levels.

2. The monk can run around unarmored with even higher AC, so any comments about how unarmored characters should necessarily have lower AC are irrelevant.


Here's the thing about powercreep; it doesn't need to be blatant. Incremental step by step increases, one could every say creeping. You want the AC provided by available medium armor while eschewing armor, an incremental free boost granting more defense while focusing on maximizing the offense stat.
See point 2 above. It's already in the game.

Also, here's the actual thing about power-creep; it's not a reason not to do something. Let's say somewhere, deep down in a TOP SECRET facility where the most cutting edge research and development is done, someone reads the little bumps on a paper print out and determines that "unarmored AC equal to medium armor is power creep on a barbarian", it's not a reason to reject it.

You're all saying "I don't like it" and we're saying "We like it". Even Frogreaver saying "I want the option to use armor" is identical to us saying "We want the option to use Unarmored Defense". If Unarmored Defense is "better", in Frogrever's eyes, than medium armor, they feel like they can't use armor, they MUST use Unarmored Defense. Well that's how we feel right now in the opposite direction.

If you are okay with that, I understand. But there aren't higher, principled reasons to not allow this. If 1 point behind breastplate is not a big deal to you guys, then 1 point ahead of breastplate shouldn't be a big deal either. It's just half-plate after all.

It's all about what you're willing to dismiss, highlight, etc. according to your own preferences and it's why the arguments against the idea are very weak; it's just preference and nothing game-breaking will actually happen.

[Thunderous Mojo]

My concern with PB scaling is it becomes very dippable from an multiclassing perspective.

Granted, if MCing isn't active in your game, not a problem, but 16-20AC unarmoured (+shield) is pretty good for 1 level, plus you get Rage if you ever want that.

If you gave it equivalent scaling to PB but required barb levels (which I also like as a change to rage damage scaling) that's less of an issue though.

Since I’m not being paid to write the rules, I’m throwing out general ideas, but halting MC dipping is not hard to do…as you demonstrate.

One could even limit the Unarmored AC Bonus to the PB level consistent with the amount granted by the Barbarian class levels…a 5th level Barbarian would have a +3 bonus.

[Zhorn]

That's not my view, and it's so far removed from what I'm saying that there's barely even a point in engaging in a discussion with you about it any more.

[Frogreaver]

True, only If you invest 2 ASIs into Con. And by 1 point assuming the barbarian and Fighter are using similar builds.

Why shouldn't barbarian have more AC than the fighter? They do less damage.

That post was referencing the proposal to make unarmored defense be 10+str+con.

By level 8 and just maxing str such a barbarian would have plate level ac (16 str 16 con start)


I'm just not sure what part of my posts are unclear...

It's equal to AC in half plate, which is exactly what I want. I don't mind that it doesn't grant Disadvantage in Stealth. That's not a big deal to me. Armor can be enchanted for higher bonuses or other effects like negating crits (a regularity for Barbarians spamming Reckless Attack).

It doesn't have to be as good as half plate immediately. But I don' want to have to forego ASIs to get it there, and try as I might, I can't see the big deal in the Stealth perk.

Given that you and others are advocating for multiple ASIs to pump Unarmored Defense to the moon to prove a point, our armored barbarian in Half-Plate can nab Dex +2 and Medium Armor Mastery and sport better AC than Unarmored Defense with no Disadvantage to Stealth either. See? I can make my point too if I just assume ASIs will be used in a certain way.

It’s an objective truth that Unarmored defense providing half plate ac with no ASI investment makes unarmored defense strictly better than half plate as 1) no stealth penalty and 2) no risk of ever having to fight without it on 3) no gold cost.

I still want a reason to make a half plate barbarian and what you propose makes such a thing inferior in every way.

[Psyren]

On the "armor can be enchanted/magic armor exists" point - I mean, yeah, but Bracers of Defense and Tomes also exist. It's not like the unarmored barbarian has no magic items of their own.

Granted, I do wish there were a 19 Dex item like there is for Str and Con.

[Frogreaver]

On the "armor can be enchanted/magic armor exists" point - I mean, yeah, but Bracers of Defense and Tomes also exist. It's not like the unarmored barbarian has no magic items of their own.

Granted, I do wish there were a 19 Dex item like there is for Str and Con.

Making magic items to work as +enchantments for unarmored defense would work too.

[Dr.Samurai]

It’s an objective truth that Unarmored defense providing half plate ac with no ASI investment makes unarmored defense strictly better than half plate as 1) no stealth penalty and 2) no risk of ever having to fight without it on 3) no gold cost.
Points 2 and 3 are of such little concern to me that I am not sure I'm reading your post correctly. The fact that you are laying the gold cost down at my feet, but have no problem suggesting a barbarian will use his ASIs on AC before Strength is mind-boggling...

And if the Stealth penalty is of such concern to you, grab Medium Armor Master. That's your solution for Unarmored Defense right now "use your ASIs". No difference.


I still want a reason to make a half plate barbarian and what you propose makes such a thing inferior in every way.
I addressed this already:

Even Frogreaver saying "I want the option to use armor" is identical to us saying "We want the option to use Unarmored Defense". If Unarmored Defense is "better", in Frogreaver's eyes, than medium armor, they feel like they can't use armor, they MUST use Unarmored Defense. Well that's how we feel right now in the opposite direction.

@Thunderous Mojo: Agreed.

Re: Magic Armors - Armors can grant resistances to damage or immunity to critical hits as well, it's not just the enhancement bonuses. They can also grant natural attacks and other magical abilities.

No one is suggesting there isn't a difference, but what is happening now is we're hyping up the lack of Stealth penalty, and completely dismissing the ASI investment and lack of magical enhancements. It's a lopsided discussion.

[Frogreaver]

Points 2 and 3 are of such little concern to me that I am not sure I'm reading your post correctly. The fact that you are laying the gold cost down at my feet, but have no problem suggesting a barbarian will use his ASIs on AC before Strength is mind-boggling...

And if the Stealth penalty is of such concern to you, grab Medium Armor Master. That's your solution for Unarmored Defense right now "use your ASIs". No difference.


I addressed this already:

Even Frogreaver saying "I want the option to use armor" is identical to us saying "We want the option to use Unarmored Defense". If Unarmored Defense is "better", in Frogreaver's eyes, than medium armor, they feel like they can't use armor, they MUST use Unarmored Defense. Well that's how we feel right now in the opposite direction.

@Thunderous Mojo: Agreed.

Re: Magic Armors - Armors can grant resistances to damage or immunity to critical hits as well, it's not just the enhancement bonuses. They can also grant natural attacks and other magical abilities.

No one is suggesting there isn't a difference, but what is happening now is we're hyping up the lack of Stealth penalty, and completely dismissing the ASI investment and lack of magical enhancements. It's a lopsided discussion.

Then the solution is for neither to be strictly superior to the other. There should be trade offs for choosing medium armor and trade offs for choosing unarmored defense.

The AC at which Unarmored defense creates those trade offs is at ac 16 (no additional investment).

[Psyren]

Re: Magic Armors - Armors can grant resistances to damage or immunity to critical hits as well, it's not just the enhancement bonuses. They can also grant natural attacks and other magical abilities.

No one is suggesting there isn't a difference, but what is happening now is we're hyping up the lack of Stealth penalty, and completely dismissing the ASI investment and lack of magical enhancements. It's a lopsided discussion.

It's supposed to be lopsided. Armor, even magic armor, has disadvantages that going without it doesn't.

[Frogreaver]

It's supposed to be lopsided. Armor, even magic armor, has disadvantages that going without it doesn't.

5e isn’t balanced at all around magic item assumptions. So they really shouldn’t be a factor.

That and it’s trivial easy to fix magic item discrepancies by created magic items with similar properties for unarmored defense.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I wish we could drop the “Not balanced with Magic Items in Mind” Nonsense. 5e does not require a DM to assiduously track a Groups Wealth level…which 3e and 4e did.

When Barbarians have Rage powers on the same order of magnitude as Forcecage, then Magic Items are not needed.

Loot is fun. Martials need Loot!

[Frogreaver]

I wish we could drop the “Not balanced with Magic Items in Mind” Nonsense. 5e does not require a DM to assiduously track a Groups Wealth level…which 3e and 4e did.

When Barbarians have Rage powers on the same order of magnitude as Forcecage, then Magic Items are not needed.

Loot is fun. Martials need Loot!

Tell me then - what levels can a barbarian expect +1 +2 and +3 half plate.

[JNAProductions]

Points 2 and 3 are of such little concern to me that I am not sure I'm reading your post correctly. The fact that you are laying the gold cost down at my feet, but have no problem suggesting a barbarian will use his ASIs on AC before Strength is mind-boggling...

And if the Stealth penalty is of such concern to you, grab Medium Armor Master. That's your solution for Unarmored Defense right now "use your ASIs". No difference.


I addressed this already:

Even Frogreaver saying "I want the option to use armor" is identical to us saying "We want the option to use Unarmored Defense". If Unarmored Defense is "better", in Frogreaver's eyes, than medium armor, they feel like they can't use armor, they MUST use Unarmored Defense. Well that's how we feel right now in the opposite direction.

@Thunderous Mojo: Agreed.

Re: Magic Armors - Armors can grant resistances to damage or immunity to critical hits as well, it's not just the enhancement bonuses. They can also grant natural attacks and other magical abilities.

No one is suggesting there isn't a difference, but what is happening now is we're hyping up the lack of Stealth penalty, and completely dismissing the ASI investment and lack of magical enhancements. It's a lopsided discussion.

MAM is bad-ESPECIALLY on a Barbarian.

You’d be paying an entire ASI for no Stealth penalty. That’s it.

For the same cost, you can just… increase Con or Dex.

You also ignored the “Can’t be caught without your AC.” That’s not always useful-usually, you’ll have your gear. But when it helps, it’ll really help.

[Dr.Samurai]

I wish we could drop the “Not balanced with Magic Items in Mind” Nonsense. 5e does not require a DM to assiduously track a Groups Wealth level…which 3e and 4e did.

When Barbarians have Rage powers on the same order of magnitude as Forcecage, then Magic Items are not needed.

Loot is fun. Martials need Loot!
Somewhere, on an ancient Sumerian tablet that has yet to be unearthed, a prophet etched these words into the stone:

The end times will be signaled by unarmored barbarians matching half-plate AC without using an ASI.

We were warned, in this thread. But our love of a trope made us deaf to their wisdom and foresight...

It's supposed to be lopsided.
I'm referring to how Stealth penalties and ASIs are being weighted. Great, now the grammar police are going to be on my case again...

@JNA - Please follow Frogreaver's argument, which is that an unarmored barbarian will boost AC stats before boosting Strength to have a higher-than-armor AC. Following that logic, an armored barbarian can boost Dex and then grab MAM to also have higher AC in armor and no Stealth penalty. And I didn't ignore not having access to your armor, I dismissed it as a trivial concern. Like the gold cost.

[JNAProductions]

I agree that the gold cost is trivial.
I don’t agree that being without your best gear is trivial-uncommon, but not so rare as to be dismissed out of hand.

I’d also like to point out that two ASIs for MAM and a Dex increase might as well go to Con and Dex, or both Con, or both Dex, and you’d get what you get with MAM… but with Unarmored Defense.

[Frogreaver]

I agree that the gold cost is trivial.

It’s still a benefit, even if small.

Though in some campaigns it can be major as gold may be hard to attain. In others even with the gold you may not be able to easily find anyone selling half plate.

So IMO it’s worth listing as a benefit.

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree that the gold cost is trivial.
I don’t agree that being without your best gear is trivial-uncommon, but not so rare as to be dismissed out of hand.
Sure, I can even agree with you on that. But I don't think it's worth 2 points of AC. The argument is something like "well sometimes you might get ambushed at night and not have your armor, so the barbarian has an advantage in those rare situations and we should deduct 2 AC for the entire rest of his career if he wants to go without armor to make up for it".


I’d also like to point out that two ASIs for MAM and a Dex increase might as well go to Con and Dex, or both Con, or both Dex, and you’d get what you get with MAM… but with Unarmored Defense.
True, so the Unarmored Barbarian would be up by +1 Init and Dex checks/saves, or +8hp and +1 Con checks/saves. But both barbarians will be down -4 Strength. Which is why I don't take this line of argumentation seriously. There's a barbarian in Half-Plate with 20 Strength laughing at the other two.

[Frogreaver]

@JNA - Please follow Frogreaver's argument, which is that an unarmored barbarian will boost AC stats before boosting Strength to have a higher-than-armor AC. Following that logic, an armored barbarian can boost Dex and then grab MAM to also have higher AC in armor and no Stealth penalty. And I didn't ignore not having access to your armor, I dismissed it as a trivial concern. Like the gold cost.

My arguments are:
1) over the course of levels 1-20 unarmored defense is currently balanced.

2) if you want to ‘fix’ unarmored defense for tier 1-2 then it should reach 16 ac with no additional ASI investment. And it should do so without increasing its level 1 nor max level ac potential higher than it currently is.

[Psyren]

UD can get the barb to 17* with no ASIs at first level, because it intentionally works with shields (unlike the monk version.) That's plenty for T1 and T2.

Do I think Barbarians should get an extra ASI though - absolutely. I think the same for Monk.

*Technically they can get to 18 but people probably want Str to be their highest stat.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Tell me then - what levels can a barbarian expect +1 +2 and +3 half plate.

Any level at which the DM feels comfortable giving it out.

That is precisely the point I was making…in 3e and 4e, the system indicated when certain types of items were necessary, including the materials the Half Plate was made out of.

5e leaves this up to the DM/Table. I do think, that if your high level 5e Barbarian has substantially less Magic items than an AD&D Barbarian…then something might have gone awry.

[Frogreaver]

True, so the Unarmored Barbarian would be up by +1 Init and Dex checks/saves, or +8hp and +1 Con checks/saves. But both barbarians will be down -4 Strength. Which is why I don't take this line of argumentation seriously. There's a barbarian in Half-Plate with 20 Strength laughing at the other two.

At least get your comparisons straight. 20 str barbarian means level 8. This means the Barbarian in question can additional +16 hp, +2 con saves, +2 con checks and half plate AC with no disadvantage on stealth, no cost and always on.


Any level at which the DM feels comfortable giving it out.

That is precisely the point I was making…in 3e and 4e, the system indicated when certain types of items were necessary, including the materials the Half Plate was made out of.

5e leaves this up to the DM/Table. I do think, that if your high level 5e Barbarian has substantially less Magic items than an AD&D Barbarian…then something might have gone awry.

Exactly. Which is why assuming magic items at any particular level is a fraught comparison. Magic items should be a bonus, not the baseline.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Frogreaver, the Operative phrase is: “Should Be”.

I’ve worked in fields that remunerate their employees through Bonuses;
Human Beings, still project assumptions. We need to, in order to plan.
The baseline, human assumption is: the future will largely be like the present.

What ghost of D&D past has no assumption of magic items in it?

A +1 Weapon at 5th level, Consumable items being found at 2nd-3rd level, etc are widespread assumptions, based off my experience of the Internet.

Full Spell Casters and Artificers have class abilities/spells that naturally broaden their range of being able to meaningfully interact with any scenario as they advance in level.

Martial Characters require Magic Items to not only be effective at fighting, but most also need Magic Items in order to broaden their range of being able to meaningfully interact with any scenario.

[Frogreaver]

Frogreaver, the Operative phrase is: “Should Be”.

I’ve worked in fields that remunerate their employees through Bonuses;
Human Beings, still project assumptions. We need to, in order to plan.
The baseline, human assumption is: the future will largely be like the present.

What ghost of D&D past has no assumption of magic items in it?

A +1 Weapon at 5th level, Consumable items being found at 2nd-3rd level, etc are widespread assumptions, based off my experience of the Internet.

Full Spell Casters and Artificers have class abilities/spells that naturally broaden their range of being able to meaningfully interact with any scenario as they advance in level.

Martial Characters require Magic Items to not only be effective at fighting, but most also need Magic Items in order to broaden their range of being able to meaningfully interact with any scenario.

Since you want to nitpick about ‘should’ let me be more clear:

In 5e, magic items are a bonus not a baseline or requirement. If you get a magic item you are supposed to perform better than you could without the magic item. Trying to alter unarmored defense to keep up with magic half plate just means there’s no reason for barbarians to use magic half plate or half plate or any armor at all. That shouldn’t happen.

[JNAProductions]

Frogreaver, the Operative phrase is: “Should Be”.

I’ve worked in fields that remunerate their employees through Bonuses;
Human Beings, still project assumptions. We need to, in order to plan.
The baseline, human assumption is: the future will largely be like the present.

What ghost of D&D past has no assumption of magic items in it?

A +1 Weapon at 5th level, Consumable items being found at 2nd-3rd level, etc are widespread assumptions, based off my experience of the Internet.

Full Spell Casters and Artificers have class abilities/spells that naturally broaden their range of being able to meaningfully interact with any scenario as they advance in level.

Martial Characters require Magic Items to not only be effective at fighting, but most also need Magic Items in order to broaden their range of being able to meaningfully interact with any scenario.

So why give them +X to AC, which does nothing except make them a little harder to hit, instead of something that broadens their capabilities?

[Dr.Samurai]

At least get your comparisons straight. 20 str barbarian means level 8. This means the Barbarian in question can additional +16 hp, +2 con saves, +2 con checks and half plate AC with no disadvantage on stealth, no cost and always on.
Yes, and:

-2 attacks
-2 damage
-2 Strength checks (Athletics --> Shove, Knock Prone, Grapple)
-2 Strength saving throws
-4 Horizontal Jump distance
-2 Vertical Jump distance
-30lb carrying capacity
-60lb push/pull/lift capacity

There's those pesky downsides we're supposed to overlook every time...

[JNAProductions]

Yes, and:

-2 attacks
-2 damage
-2 Strength checks (Athletics --> Shove, Knock Prone, Grapple)
-2 Strength saving throws
-4 Horizontal Jump distance
-2 Vertical Jump distance
-30lb carrying capacity
-60lb push/pull/lift capacity

There's those pesky downsides we're supposed to overlook every time...

Which would apply just as much with MAM and 16 Dex.

And for someone who says “Being without armor is so trivial as to be easily dismissed” you’re now bringing up jump distances and carrying capacity as downsides?

[Frogreaver]

Yes, and:

-2 attacks
-2 damage
-2 Strength checks (Athletics --> Shove, Knock Prone, Grapple)
-2 Strength saving throws
-4 Horizontal Jump distance
-2 Vertical Jump distance
-30lb carrying capacity
-60lb push/pull/lift capacity

There's those pesky downsides we're supposed to overlook every time...

Yes. There’s a trade off there. Tradeoffs are good.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Response to JNA Productions:

One could argue that being able to rip Grendel’s arm off while naked, is a broadening of combat abilities. AC does correlate, in large measure, to fighting prowess.

That, said, I am a proponent of the idea that the Barbarian class needs a complete redesign.

The Subclasses are “Mystical, Magical, Warriors”…..with only Frenzy Barbarians and their awful Exhaustion penalties representing the raging madman motif.

In Response to Frogreaver:

The ideal Magic Armor for Barbarians would be armor that be able to enhance their AC, while also adding extra capabilities. A non Bear Totem Barbarian wears Efreeti Chain against a Red Dragon for the Fire Resistance, even if this might result in a slightly lower AC.

(“You can’t always get what you want…but if you try sometimes, you get what you need.”)

The Various methods of AC calculation usually wind up in a fairly close grouping. Isn’t that why the Shield spell is considered so valuable?

[Dr.Samurai]

Which would apply just as much with MAM and 16 Dex.
Yes, correct, I referred to both ridiculous examples of barbarians ignoring Strength for their armor.

And for someone who says “Being without armor is so trivial as to be easily dismissed” you’re now bringing up jump distances and carrying capacity as downsides?
Well if someone is going to throw the cost of armor at me, of course I'm going to mention carrying capacity :smallamused:.

But you shouldn't sleep on jump distances though.

A lot of the discussion in the Casters can do everything thread has made me consider writing a barbarian guide. I am going to give it some more thought. But jump is very useful; it's an advantage that strength based characters have over those that dump their strength.

[Frogreaver]

In Response to Frogreaver:

The ideal Magic Armor for Barbarians would be armor that be able to enhance their AC, while also adding extra capabilities. A non Bear Totem Barbarian wears Efreeti Chain against a Red Dragon for the Fire Resistance, even if this might result in a slightly lower AC.

(“You can’t always get what you want…but if you try sometimes, you get what you need.”)

The Various methods of AC calculation usually wind up in a fairly close grouping. Isn’t that why the Shield spell is considered so valuable?

No idea what you are responding to me about. What point of mine is this meant to counter?

[Psyren]

Which would apply just as much with MAM and 16 Dex.

And for someone who says “Being without armor is so trivial as to be easily dismissed” you’re now bringing up jump distances and carrying capacity as downsides?


Yes. There’s a trade off there. Tradeoffs are good.

+1 to these.

Now with that said, would I object if UD was buffed - either directly via the math, or indirectly by giving Barbarian more ASIs? Certainly not. But it starting out inherently not as good as wearing armor is fine by me.

[Dr.Samurai]

Crom, please give me the strength... :smallsigh:

Folks... the point of the thread is that the trade-off is too steep. Because you are not speaking directly to this and you just assume that ASIs are trivial things to invest in a non-attack stat, you keep circling the actual intent of the thread. Then when I, for the millionth time, point out the trade-off, you say something obvious like "Trade-offs are good... yeah +1".

Especially when the trade-off appears to be "no stealth penalty".

With regular Unarmored Defense, I have to put 1 ASI in to match Breastplate, and 2 ASIs to match Half-Plate.

So the trade-off is 2 ASIs + not increasing my attack stat, for no stealth penalty and always on AC.

No one is saying "trade-offs not allowed". They're saying it's too much of a trade-off. If the argument against it were so rock solid these types of rhetorical tactics wouldn't be needed.

[Frogreaver]

Crom, please give me the strength... :smallsigh:

Folks... the point of the thread is that the trade-off is too steep. Because you are not speaking directly to this and you just assume that ASIs are trivial things to invest in a non-attack stat, you keep circling the actual intent of the thread. Then when I, for the millionth time, point out the trade-off, you say something obvious like "Trade-offs are good... yeah +1".

Especially when the trade-off appears to be "no stealth penalty".

With regular Unarmored Defense, I have to put 1 ASI in to match Breastplate, and 2 ASIs to match Half-Plate.

So the trade-off is 2 ASIs + not increasing my attack stat, for no stealth penalty and always on AC.

No one is saying "trade-offs not allowed". They're saying it's too much of a trade-off. If the argument against it were so rock solid these types of rhetorical tactics wouldn't be needed.

Counterpoint. Your proposed solution makes unarmored defense better than half plate. Why pretend you are for trade offs if you are for eliminating all of them?

[Psyren]

I understand your position Samurai, I just don't agree with your solution (nor the OP's.)

I think the better approach would be for Barbarian to get 1-2 more ASIs. This keeps the UD vs. armor tradeoff in Tier 1, but allows it to catch up and eventually beat armor faster (at least until magic armors come online.)

Alternatively, making UD be 13+Con would make them less MAD since they rarely care about Dex.

[Frogreaver]

I understand your position Samurai, I just don't agree with your solution (nor the OP's.)

I think the better approach would be for Barbarian to get 1-2 more ASIs. This keeps the UD vs. armor tradeoff in Tier 1, but allows it to catch up and eventually beat armor faster (at least until magic armors come online.)

I like more ASIs but I think they exaggerate the problem not minimize it.

[Dr.Samurai]

Psyren, I'm good with both your suggestions :smallcool:.

*gives Crom a thumbs up*

Frogreaver, is your concern that with more ASIs, a barbarian can strictly bump their Con/Dex and get higher than heavy armor AC quicker?

[JNAProductions]

Crom, please give me the strength... :smallsigh:

Folks... the point of the thread is that the trade-off is too steep. Because you are not speaking directly to this and you just assume that ASIs are trivial things to invest in a non-attack stat, you keep circling the actual intent of the thread. Then when I, for the millionth time, point out the trade-off, you say something obvious like "Trade-offs are good... yeah +1".

Especially when the trade-off appears to be "no stealth penalty".

With regular Unarmored Defense, I have to put 1 ASI in to match Breastplate, and 2 ASIs to match Half-Plate.

So the trade-off is 2 ASIs + not increasing my attack stat, for no stealth penalty and always on AC.

No one is saying "trade-offs not allowed". They're saying it's too much of a trade-off. If the argument against it were so rock solid these types of rhetorical tactics wouldn't be needed.

The trade off is too steep for you.

It’s clearly not for everyone.

[Frogreaver]

Psyren, I'm good with both your suggestions :smallcool:.

*gives Crom a thumbs up*

Frogreaver, is your concern that with more ASIs, a barbarian can strictly bump their Con/Dex and get higher than heavy armor AC quicker?

Not what I had in mind but it is an issue.

From your perspective it’s not just maxing strength but also combat feats like GWM and PAM. If you take those feats and max str then your AC is still 15 instead of 16/17 from breastplate or half plate. So it doesn’t seem more ASI solves your problem. They still leave you behind the medium armor barbarian until late game.

[Psyren]

Not what I had in mind but it is an issue.

From your perspective it’s not just maxing strength but also combat feats like GWM and PAM. If you take those feats and max str then your AC is still 15 instead of 16/17 from breastplate or half plate. So it doesn’t seem more ASI solves your problem. They still leave you behind the medium armor barbarian until late game.

I mean, if you choose to do that with your first set of ASIs then clearly AC wasn't your biggest concern anyway, especially since GWM/PAM preclude using a shield.

But for Barbarians in campaigns where getting hit is more lethal or frequent, more ASIs gives them a way to deal with it.

The thing about AC is that how valuable it is depends on a lot of factors, many of which are not in the martial player's control.

[Frogreaver]

I mean, if you choose to do that with your first set of ASIs then clearly AC wasn't your biggest concern anyway, especially since GWM/PAM preclude using a shield.

But for Barbarians in campaigns where getting hit is more lethal or frequent, more ASIs gives them a way to deal with it.

The thing about AC is that how valuable it is depends on a lot of factors, many of which are not in the martial player's control.

You are preaching at someone that played a 14str 14 dex 16con barbarian and proceeded to max con first and solely use unarmored defense. He played great. *I was the sole melee character in the campaign and the survivability was more important than damage in my estimation.

But the question was about why adding ASIs is not a solution to the particular ‘problem’ raised in this thread. The answer is simple: They aren’t a solution because they can be used on feats instead of fixing unarmored defenses AC to be balanced with medium armor.

[Psyren]

I think they can be a solution if AC + iconic barb nakedness is something the player is anxious about. That they can be used for other things in campaigns where getting hit is less concerning doesn't really bother me, Barbarians could use a buff.

[Frogreaver]

I think they can be a solution if AC + iconic barb nakedness is something the player is anxious about. That they can be used for other things in campaigns where getting hit is less concerning doesn't really bother me, Barbarians could use a buff.

A solution to what?

[KorvinStarmast]

About magic items and balance:

Three level 2 PCs fought a wight last night.
No magic items.
It took us seven rounds to kill it.
No magic weapons.
1 rogue
1 warlock(genie)
1 cleric (Chose to use the THP channel divninty rather than turn a single enemy)
Rogue nearly got done for by the Max HP drain.
Had either the rogue's sword or the cleric's weapon been magical, maybe a three round fight.
Had I taken Agonizing blast (I did not for a variety of reasons) 5 round fight. (I did have the +2 boost for Dao/Genie)

Resistance to BPS drags the game down a bit. In theory, most combats that are 'level appropriate' take 3 or 4 rounds. And no, we have not been able to put together enough money to get even one silvered weapon between the three of us. (A silvered short sword or rapier for our rogue would be awesome).

[Psyren]

A solution to what?


I think they can be a solution if AC + iconic barb nakedness is something the player is anxious about. That they can be used for other things in campaigns where getting hit is less concerning doesn't really bother me, Barbarians could use a buff.

Barbs targeting feats for their build but who also want to be loincloth + two-hander at mid/high levels.

And even if they don't, an extra ASI for barb solves another problem by letting them more easily pick up Resilient (Wis), which is practically a feat tax if you're going past T2 straight-classed.

[Witty Username]

You are preaching at someone that played a 14str 14 dex 16con barbarian and proceeded to max con first and solely use unarmored defense. He played great. *I was the sole melee character in the campaign and the survivability was more important than damage in my estimation.

But the question was about why adding ASIs is not a solution to the particular ‘problem’ raised in this thread. The answer is simple: They aren’t a solution because they can be used on feats instead of fixing unarmored defenses AC to be balanced with medium armor.

Why not just take the tough feat and wear medium armor, you will get better AC and HP faster and then can invest in str and get damage as well?

[Frogreaver]

Why not just take the tough feat and wear medium armor, you will get better AC and HP faster and then can invest in str and get damage as well?

Are you asking why I didn't do that, or why that doesn't work for the OP and others in this thread?

[Witty Username]

Are you asking why I didn't do that, or why that doesn't work for the OP and others in this thread?

Asking you, since you are the one advocating for unarmored defense as is and you are proposing a build that uses it.

[Frogreaver]

Asking you, since you are the one advocating for unarmored defense as is and you are proposing a build that uses it.

Soo... i still have no idea what question you want answered.

[Witty Username]

Soo... i still have no idea what question you want answered.

Ah, I see. You are sighting a case when unarmored defense is better than medium armor, investing in Con before Strength. I am asking for clarification since as far as I can tell that line of reasoning still benefits from medium armor more, since you can take the tough feat for the same HP increase at a faster rate, so you can invest in strength faster getting both the defensive qualities of your suggestion and getting to boost Strength. In short, I don't grok why the suggestion proves that unarmored defense is equal to medium armor.

[Frogreaver]

Ah, I see. You are sighting a case when unarmored defense is better than medium armor, investing in Con before Strength. I am asking for clarification since as far as I can tell that line of reasoning still benefits from medium armor more, since you can take the tough feat for the same HP increase at a faster rate, so you can invest in strength faster getting both the defensive qualities of your suggestion and getting to boost Strength. In short, I don't grok why the suggestion proves that unarmored defense is equal to medium armor.

My positions are:
1. Unarmored Defense at 17 AC (14 dex and max con) is better than half plate. You don't seem to be disagreeing there.
2. Unarmored Defense is overall balanced for levels 1-20. Some levels it provides 1 less AC than the most comparable medium armor (breastplate). By the time Con is raised to 18 it matches a breastplate. By the time Con is raised to 20 it becomes strictly better than half plate (due to having the same AC but other advantages). By the time you hit level 20, it gains +2 AC over half plate along with those other advantages.

I have no idea which of my positions your point is meant to counter. It doesn't seem like it's very related to either. Or at least I'm not able to draw the connection you are intending to make.

[Witty Username]

My positions are:
1. Unarmored Defense at 17 AC (14 dex and max con) is better than half plate. You don't seem to be disagreeing there.

Marginally, by 8th level. Arguably. The only cases I can think of are carry capacity, which investing in Str mitigates, and Stealth, which is going to be an issue for a barbarian regardless.
My thought is that you get that AC in half-plate as soon as the cost can be afforded (4th level?), and then tough gets you the same HP as if you were maxing Con. So Medium armor comes online faster, doesn't actually lose build options, and doesn't delay gaining damage in the same way. I guess I am not buying that Medium armor has meaningful downsides in comparison to Unarmored Defense. Even if you are prioritizing the defensive benefits normally associated with higher Con like increased HP.

[Frogreaver]

Marginally, by 8th level. Arguably. The only cases I can think of are carry capacity, which investing in Str mitigates, and Stealth, which is going to be an issue for a barbarian regardless.

Barbarians are fine at stealth. They are no rogue, but +2 with no disadvantage and a good speed (at level 5) along with tons of survivability of survivability they aren't bad at most stealth situations. Perhaps your expectations about what it takes to be okay at stealth are a little out of whack.


My thought is that you get that AC in half-plate as soon as the cost can be afforded (4th level?), and then tough gets you the same HP as if you were maxing Con. So Medium armor comes online faster, doesn't actually lose build options, and doesn't delay gaining damage in the same way.

I follow your thought and it's a fine idea. The question comes to how you value +2 con saves and checks, +2 hp healing on each hit dice, not having disadvantage on stealth checks, not having to worry about armor not being equipped and the gold cost (fairly trivial for most games but not all, and even if trivial it could provide some other benefit) and the future opportunity to have a higher AC than medium armor can offer. Are those benefits worth +2 str? In general it's hard to say. Certainly in some scenarios but probably not in all. Seems like there's a good tradeoff between your suggestion and the max con suggestion to me.

Now if you don't value any of the benefits of con other than hp, then toughness and the str bonus would certainly be better, but I don't think that's a fair valuation.


I guess I am not buying that Medium armor has meaningful downsides in comparison to Unarmored Defense. Even if you are prioritizing the defensive benefits normally associated with higher Con like increased HP.

You know the list of benefits. The question is why you don't feel they are meaningful.

[Witty Username]

Eh, I guess it is a bit related to thinking of Con saves as a bit of a spellcaster thing since while con saves happen a fair amount of the time it always seems the big thing related to an encounter is concentration which a barb is very unlikely to be worried about, between prof and 16 con your saves are pretty good anyway.
As for stealth, I have found +6 is about where it gets consistent enough to be useful, unless you have a source of advantage (which I give things using dark vision is close enough). Make of that what you will.

Thinking on it I can see a similar argument for Strength with prof and a 16, I am going to bed, I think I am coming around to that forum argument from awhile back that feats are better than raising stats, I think I need to come at this will a fully conscious brain to make sure I believe what I am thinking.

[Frogreaver]

Eh, I guess it is a bit related to thinking of Con saves as a bit of a spellcaster thing since while con saves happen a fair amount of the time it always seems the big thing related to an encounter is concentration which a barb is very unlikely to be worried about, between prof and 16 con your saves are pretty good anyway.
As for stealth, I have found +6 is about where it gets consistent enough to be useful, unless you have a source of advantage (which I give things using dark vision is close enough). Make of that what you will.

Thinking on it I can see a similar argument for Strength with prof and a 16, I am going to bed, I think I am coming around to that forum argument from awhile back that feats are better than raising stats, I think I need to come at this will a fully conscious brain to make sure I believe what I am thinking.

LOL. I like how you put that.