Is Heavy Armor good?

[Aimeryan]

...melee can get a remarkable amount of toughness with that same resource allocation, more than ranged can. HAM gives you damage reduction, shield master gives you dex saves and poor man's evasion, and of course, you get the AC bonus from a shield in melee unless you want to stick with just a hand crossbow.

ASI/Feats are not unlimited, and there are a good number of great feats available after the mandatory ASIs, PAM/CBE, GWM/SS that are available to both melee and ranged (Lucky, Fey Touched, Alert, etc.). If we ignore that, even then HAM requires you to get hit; not being hit at all is less damage - and melee cannot control that aspect like ranged can. Shield Master does not allow you to use it with GWM (and some aspects are incompatible with PAM too), so damage suffers greatly - cover is also superior to this and is largely unavailable to melee while being available almost at leisure for ranged.

Essentially, if you max out damage as melee, you are still often worse off at it than ranged AND you take more damage by dint of being melee. If you try to max out survivability as melee, you are still often worse off at it then ranged AND you deal far less damage by dint of not using GWM (and potentially not using PAM).

What if we don't consider what is optimal? Is Heavy Armor good (outside of Paladin)? Well, if we don't consider what is optimal then the question could easily be 'is naked Fighter with a dagger good?' What exactly are we asking in a binary choice (medium or heavy) if not which is optimal?

[Dr.Samurai]

Those features (and Skulker) are a flat upgrade to "ask your DM" for the situations in which they apply, after the errata.

Thanks for sharing this errata angle, because it makes sense why the language doesn't add up and people are forced to make these arguments. To me, it's sort of silly that in an edition built around "the DM must approve/determine literally everything", we're now making the argument you can grab a feat or a race that completely bypasses the DM's say-so. Obviously the intent of these features was to allow hiding in Lightly Obscured conditions when it wasn't normally allowed. Now, we have to pretend that an elf can just hide under lightly obscured conditions and the DM can't say anything.

Also seems strange that they didn't change the language elsewhere when they put in the errata, such as "you can't sneak or surprise if you're out in the open".

IMO, a big part of this is the lack of AC granted by parrying with a melee weapon. If you're holding a greatsword I'm going to find it a lot more difficult to find an opening to attack once in melee range than if you're holding a crossbow. Getting in close to a ranged character should be absolutely devasting, but in 5e all that matters is the armour - the weapon doesn't come into it.

100% agreed.

The designers CLEARLY favor literally every build type over Strength builds. Previous editions included materials to reduce the armor check penalty, or feats to reduce the armor check penalty, that would have made this conversation about Stealth perfectly irrelevant. Previous editions had Arcane Spell Failure chance which required some focused resources to get down to 0 in heavy armor. What does 5E do? Lets remove the arcane spell failure chance for casters. Ok. And the Stealth penalty for martials? Nah, let's leave that in... for, realism, or something, I don't know I'm just feeling cheeky.

I've made this complaint before but to your point, the fact that there is a reaction mechanic that pumps AC and it's a spell that casters use instead of a Parry feature that martials use is absolutely BONKERS!

To my mind, this treatment in the actual rules has an impact on how players and DMs perceive the game. As I've noted previously, there seems to be little engagement with mechanics that contend with Strength. Meanwhile, Dex characters should all be Batman, and caster spells can do whatever a creative player can imagine.

We need a Strength/Martial revolution in this game.

[animorte]

The designers CLEARLY favor literally every build type over Strength builds.

Yes, as do I!

I've made this complaint before but to your point, the fact that there is a reaction mechanic that pumps AC and it's a spell that casters use instead of a Parry feature that martials use is absolutely BONKERS!

Preach the bonkers out of it! Yes.

We need a Strength/Martial revolution in this game.

Even though I stated how little I care for the Strength-game, we absolutely do need one. Just because it’s not my cup-o-tea, doesn’t mean many other people shouldn’t be represented in their preferences.

Looking forward to what the UA Warrior has to offer.

[Dr.Samurai]

Lol, I agree Animorte. For some reason, the druid (and I think it's the wildshape feature) is a class that I never see myself playing. Like... ever. It just does not appeal to me at all. And yet, in the other thread regarding it's capstone I'm like... eh, let 20th level druids ignore spell components. They're level 20 and I'm sure the druid players will like that feature a lot!

[animorte]

Lol, I agree Animorte. For some reason, the druid (and I think it's the wildshape feature) is a class that I never see myself playing. Like... ever. It just does not appeal to me at all. And yet, in the other thread regarding it's capstone I'm like... eh, let 20th level druids ignore spell components. They're level 20 and I'm sure the druid players will like that feature a lot!

I’ve personally never gotten one to 20 nor do I care for the Moon favorite, so it’s still a weird feeling for me. I don’t often tend to like the “common” favorite.

All of this is why I think it’s valuable when reading into things, that people take a moment to recognize, “this thing right here isn’t speaking to me. It isn’t mine and I should let the people who really care about it have their thoughts heard.”

Sometimes it’s admittedly hard to do just because we want to nit-pick everything. I’m trying to bow out of the heavy armor discussion because I’ve always thought it was silly, but again, I’ve rarely used it and will likely stay that way. So, everybody else have their go!

[diplomancer]

IMO, a big part of this is the lack of AC granted by parrying with a melee weapon. If you're holding a greatsword I'm going to find it a lot more difficult to find an opening to attack once in melee range than if you're holding a crossbow. Getting in close to a ranged character should be absolutely devasting, but in 5e all that matters is the armour - the weapon doesn't come into it.

What I'd do is subtract 1 or 2 points of AC if you're being attacked in melee and don't have a melee weapon. Also cuts down on the silly image of casters going around with a shield in one hand and an empty hand in the other, just so they can get the AC bonus but without interfering with their somatic and material components. It really bugs me that, if you're a gish, you usually need the Warcaster feat to cast spells properly, but if you're a pure caster you can just go around with nothing-and-shield and have the same AC as someone who actually has a weapon in their hands.

[Keltest]

What I'd do is subtract 1 or 2 points of AC if you're being attacked in melee and don't have a melee weapon. Also cuts down on the silly image of casters going around with a shield in one hand and an empty hand in the other, just so they can get the AC bonus but without interfering with their somatic and material components. It really bugs me that, if you're a gish, you usually need the Warcaster feat to cast spells properly, but if you're a pure caster you can just go around with nothing-and-shield and have the same AC as someone who actually has a weapon in their hands.

That kind of screws over monks then, or unarmed fighters in general, doesnt it?


ETA: more generally, the "dex is best stat" crowd tends to run into the same white room issues as the "casters are supreme" crowd. Sure, dex protects you better... if youre fighting a melee wielder who is slower than you are and you have infinite ammo.

[strangebloke]

We need a Strength/Martial revolution in this game.

Yeah that's pretty much inarguable. One of the biggest misses in the game tbh. And it comes up in silly ways.

Lets say that you were hit by the sleep spell and are unconscious. A man comes up to attack you. Naturally, he has advantage. But what's your AC? Why, its the same it always was! If you're in plate, perhaps this makes sense, but if you're wearing light armor? How is being 'dextrous' protecting you here? Perhaps this lack of 'realism' could be ignored, but then as you point out its not consistent. When you need to be stealthy, suddenly realism matters a whole lot (nevermind that its not really) that realistic.

shield is, imo, fine, or would be if it didn't last a whole turn. There are actually lots of parry effects, most notably defensive duelist, but these are insanely limited compared with Shield, and usually have a pretty significant build / weapon choice cost. Another thing you can't do, is use your shield to protect others from a dragon's breath, something that again is very common in fantasy imagery. You can protect yourself, a little bit, with shield master, but overall its not that impressive.

What I've done is the following

• All weapon attacks can apply -5/+10 (so unarmed monks get to pump damage same as everyone) (Sharpshooter is banned, GWM is a half-feat)
• If you have 16 Strength you get a +10 foot bonus to walking speed. If you have 20 Strength you get a +15 bonus to walking speed
• Two weapon fighting can include one non-light melee weapon
• You get no bonus to AC from dexterity if you're incapacitated.

[Boci]

[*]You get no bonus to AC from dexterity if you're incapacitated.[/LIST]

Incapacitated, or unconscious/paralysed? Because by default you can still move your full speed when incapacitated.

[strangebloke]

Incapacitated, or unconscious/paralysed? Because by default you can still move your full speed when incapacitated.

Good catch. I suppose Stunned / Unconcious / Paralyzed is more accurate, but I'm also not aware of anything that incapacitates without also reducing speed to zero.

Maybe "reduce speed to zero" should be enough.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Incapacitated, or unconscious/paralysed? Because by default you can still move your full speed when incapacitated.

If I were going to use that rule, I'd say "incapacitated or speed reduced to 0". I probably wouldn't, because changing numbers on the fly like that is too fiddly for my liking.

Good catch. I suppose Stunned / Unconcious / Paralyzed is more accurate, but I'm also not aware of anything that incapacitates without also reducing speed to zero.

Maybe "reduce speed to zero" should be enough.

Oddly, hypnotic pattern incapacitates but says nothing about speed.

[JNAProductions]

Good catch. I suppose Stunned / Unconcious / Paralyzed is more accurate, but I'm also not aware of anything that incapacitates without also reducing speed to zero.

Maybe "reduce speed to zero" should be enough.

But then grappling becomes a LOT stronger.

Not saying that's BAD, mind you, but it is something to note.

[Boci]

If I were going to use that rule, I'd say "incapacitated or speed reduced to 0". I probably wouldn't, because changing numbers on the fly like that is too fiddly for my liking.



Oddly, hypnotic pattern incapacitates but says nothing about speed.

"While charmed by this spell, the creature is incapacitated and has a speed of 0."

Psychic Lance doesn't reduce speed. Were you thinking of that?

[strangebloke]

But then grappling becomes a LOT stronger.

Not saying that's BAD, mind you, but it is something to note.

Oh yes I am aware. On the PC side, restrain effects also get insanely punishing. Ropers probably need to get their CR bumped up. I'm fine with that, though it perhaps is a bit of scope creep here. The goal was initially just to get rid of the silly "sleeping man dodges your attack" nonsense. It is at least a little plausible that a grappeld/restrained person can thrash around and defend themselves.

Frankly I'd be okay with the 'incapacitated' wording I have. Even if you can dance merrily after getting hit by Psychic Lance, I still think its fine to say you can't dodge.

[PhoenixPhyre]

"While charmed by this spell, the creature is incapacitated and has a speed of 0."

Psychic Lance doesn't reduce speed. Were you thinking of that?

Hmm. Probably I just remembered wrong. That happens some times.

[Boci]

Frankly I'd be okay with the 'incapacitated' wording I have. Even if you can dance merrily after getting hit by Psychic Lance, I still think its fine to say you can't dodge.

You're at no penalty for dexterity saves though, which implies you can dodge. Paralyzed, stunned and unconscious also include that you fail strength and dexterity based saving throws in their effects.

[Dr.Samurai]

@Strangebloke: I love the idea of a wizard sleeping, and every time the goblin tries to stab him the wizard rolls over, scooches to the side, switches to spread eagle, etc. but never wakes up. It's just that pesky ever present Dex mod to AC .

I hadn't caught that, but it's a good example of how the game wants to appeal to realism sometimes and then other times doesn't.

[PhoenixPhyre]

@Strangebloke: I love the idea of a wizard sleeping, and every time the goblin tries to stab him the wizard rolls over, scooches to the side, switches to spread eagle, etc. but never wakes up. It's just that pesky ever present Dex mod to AC .

I hadn't caught that, but it's a good example of how the game wants to appeal to realism sometimes and then other times doesn't.

<personal opinion> I don't think it really ever wants to appeal to realism as much as tropes, which are sometimes sort of based on reality, seen through a fun-house mirror. That wizard issue? That's a totally troperific scenario for a hero. What isn't is "and the goblin stabs you in the chest and now you're dead".</>

[Boci]

<personal opinion> I don't think it really ever wants to appeal to realism as much as tropes, which are sometimes sort of based on reality, seen through a fun-house mirror. That wizard issue? That's a totally troperific scenario for a hero. What isn't is "and the goblin stabs you in the chest and now you're dead".</>

Its hardly against a fantasy trope that you're more vulnerable sleeping. I'm positive its just simplicity. 5th ed is incredibly sparring with actual modifiers to a d20 roll, being attacked while unconscious was never going to be a situation to get a unique numerical modifier.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Its hardly against a fantasy trope that you're more vulnerable sleeping. I'm positive its just simplicity. 5th ed is incredibly sparring with actual modifiers to a d20 roll, being attacked while unconscious was never going to be a situation to get a unique numerical modifier.

And you are more vulnerable. Unconscious (and prone) both give advantage. So also removing Dex's contribution is double-dipping.

[Boci]

And you are more vulnerable. Unconscious (and prone) both give advantage. So also removing Dex's contribution is double-dipping.

Sure, and tropes have nothing to do with that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure, and tropes have nothing to do with that.

I'm saying that the trope is already satisfied--you're more vulnerable. And there are other tropes that say that more vulnerable =/= an effortless kill (which is what would happen if you did both).

[Boci]

I'm saying that the trope is already satisfied--you're more vulnerable. And there are other tropes that say that more vulnerable =/= an effortless kill (which is what would happen if you did both).

Yeah but I doubt "sleep kong fu" was the intentions with not losing dex to AC, which you initially speculated. Tropes matter in D&D, no argument there, I just don't think this is a good example. It was about simplicity, not some comedic trope.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think it's more like:

Sleeping in plate armor doesn't allow you to get a full rest because --> realism?

Sleeping doesn't remove your dexterity to AC because --> simplicity?

And the problem is that "simplicity" often favors the casters.

[Boci]

I think it's more like:

Sleeping in plate armor doesn't allow you to get a full rest because --> realism?

Sleeping doesn't remove your dexterity to AC because --> simplicity?

And the problem is that "simplicity" often favors the casters.

Sure, but 3.5 wasn't exactly simple, and it wasn't any better for caster favouritism, so complexity can favour casters too.

[strangebloke]

You're at no penalty for dexterity saves though, which implies you can dodge. Paralyzed, stunned and unconscious also include that you fail strength and dexterity based saving throws in their effects.

That's true.

It is probably best to just say Paralyzed, Stunned, or Unconcious. That's the most clear, even if 'incapacitated' works in most cases.

@Strangebloke: I love the idea of a wizard sleeping, and every time the goblin tries to stab him the wizard rolls over, scooches to the side, switches to spread eagle, etc. but never wakes up. It's just that pesky ever present Dex mod to AC .

I hadn't caught that, but it's a good example of how the game wants to appeal to realism sometimes and then other times doesn't.

It is pretty silly, yeah. You literally auto-fail dex saves but you still can have 18 AC, mostly from dexterity.

<personal opinion> I don't think it really ever wants to appeal to realism as much as tropes, which are sometimes sort of based on reality, seen through a fun-house mirror. That wizard issue? That's a totally troperific scenario for a hero. What isn't is "and the goblin stabs you in the chest and now you're dead".</>

I agree regarding 'heroic tropes' but I don't think that it makes sense for every hero to have the 'can fight while unconcious' trick. Batman can probably do that. Dr. Mcninja. Luke Skywalker maybe. But Peter Quill? Han Solo? Robin Hood? The current rule makes it so even goblins can fight dodge while unconscious.

And its not just unconscious either, its also characters that are fully paralyzed, as in, unable to do more than blink. Being slightly more vulnerable if you're reliant on dodging kind of just makes sense. If I'm a DM and the player fails to hit the paralyzed assassin with a roll of 14, how do I narrate that? It doesn't make sense.

Sure, but 3.5 wasn't exactly simple, and it wasn't any better for caster favouritism, so complexity can favour casters too.

Yeah I mean, it mostly comes down to whether the rules are giving you more abilities, or giving you more hurdles to overcome.

STR bros have complexity aimed at giving them hurdles. They can't sleep in armor, they need proficiency, they're always going to suck at stealth.

Casters have complexity aimed at giving them even more powerful abilities. The disputed areas are things like "can you use [x] spell to do [y] nutty thing?" Even if the answer is no, there are a lot of spells.

[animorte]

It is pretty silly, yeah. You literally auto-fail dex saves but you still can have 18 AC, mostly from dexterity.

I’ll admit, moving from 3.5e to 5e, I was a bit confused at why they removed Touch AC. It made sense to me. Simplicity probably.

[strangebloke]

I’ll admit, moving from 3.5e to 5e, I was a bit confused at why they removed Touch AC. It made sense to me. Simplicity probably.

I mean they just replaced touch AC with dex saves, which makes sense. It's basically the same thing just a save instead of an attack. That's normal.

The thing we're talking about is flat-footed AC, which is a weirder omission. They sort of capture it by giving people advantage in certain situations, but its still odd imo.

[Boci]

I mean they just replaced touch AC with dex saves, which makes sense. It's basically the same thing just a save instead of an attack. That's normal.

The thing we're talking about is flat-footed AC, which is a weirder omission. They sort of capture it by giving people advantage in certain situations, but its still odd imo.

This is very much going to be a YMMV thing. Cutting touch AC meant ghost could now be stopped by non-magical armour and shields, and removed the ability and fantasy trope of magical weapons that ignore armour, or being able to do that non-magical because you are just that good. To you, no FF is the bigger omission, but that's hardly objective, others will feel "FF = attacker has advantage" is fine, and mourn the loss of touch AC more.

[animorte]

I mean they just replaced touch AC with dex saves, which makes sense. It's basically the same thing just a save instead of an attack. That's normal.

The thing we're talking about is flat-footed AC, which is a weirder omission. They sort of capture it by giving people advantage in certain situations, but its still odd imo.

Yeah, that’s what else I was looking for! Both of those and all the AC rules. Been a while.