Is Heavy Armor good?

[JellyPooga]

Yup. As much as this forum likes to talk about Dex-adins, I can't recall ever seeing one in AL. And I don't think any were made in my open table campaign, although I'd have to go dig through copies of character sheets to be sure.

Edit: And it's not like they don't instantly jump out, being restricted in weapon to the Rapier.

The 1st Paladin I played in 5e (PHB only) wore light armour and wielded a quarterstaff two-handed. Defence FS gave me AC 16 at 1st lvl. Could have had a Shield for AC 18 had I chosen to. Don't have to be a Dexadin in the optimal sense to wear light armour. Could I have worn medium or heavy armour and been more optimal? For sure, but it didn't fit the aesthetic I wanted, which was a "simple", humble but likable wanderer.

[As I recall, my 27 point-buy stats as a Half-elf looked something like Str 14+1, Dex 15+1, Con 12, Wis 10, Int 10, Cha 12+2. I rounded out Str to 16 @4th and then planned on focusing on Cha for the rest of the build. If only he hadn't fallen off a cliff before I got to see the latter end of Tier 2!]

[RogueJK]

The 1st Paladin I played in 5e (PHB only) wore light armour and wielded a quarterstaff two-handed. Defence FS gave me AC 16 at 1st lvl. Could have had a Shield for AC 18 had I chosen to. Don't have to be a Dexadin in the optimal sense to wear light armour. Could I have worn medium or heavy armour and been more optimal? For sure, but it didn't fit the aesthetic I wanted, which was a "simple", humble but likable wanderer.

I know it was a deliberate thematic choice, but from a purely mechanical standpoint, 1H Staff+Shield+Dueling is superior in every way to 2H Staff+Defense, with both higher damage as well as higher AC.

2H Staff + Defense fighting style
1d8 (4.5 average damage before STRMOD)
+1 AC

1H Staff + Shield + Dueling fighting style
1d6+2 (5.5 average damage before STRMOD)
+2 AC

[JellyPooga]

I know it was a deliberate thematic choice, but from a purely mechanical standpoint, 1H Staff+Shield+Dueling is superior in every way to 2H Staff+Defense, with both higher damage as well as higher AC.

2H Staff + Defense fighting style
1d8 (4.5 average damage before STRMOD)
+1 AC

1H Staff + Shield + Dueling fighting style
1d6+2 (5.5 average damage before STRMOD)
+2 AC

It also would have been better to drop Dex to 14, allowing Str to go up to 16, to wear Medium Armour and wield a longsword/rapier/battleaxe to increase both AC and To-Hit/Damage.

Str 16/Dex 14 Longsword, Scale Armour, Shield + Dueling FS VS. Str 15/Dex 16 2-H Q.staff, Studded Leather + Defence FS
1d8+2+3 (9.5) vs. 1d8+2 (6.5)
AC: 18 (14+2+2) vs. 16 (12+3+1)

Purely mechanically, I chose sub-optimally. At least in terms of damage/AC. On the other hand, I made gains in equipment weight and cost, as well as stealth, Initiative and some other incidentals.

[Angelalex242]

I do have to brush off stealth, but in practice, that's...

"Sir Clankeyclank Smitesalot stays back here with the cleric and the fighter while the sneaky types go sneak."

[Dr.Samurai]

This question is really "is Dexterity better than Strength" masquerading as a question about armor.

Chances are that for anyone that is proficient with Heavy Armor, the answer is... probably not.

Strength saves are more common, especially on the front lines and at the most common levels of play, than Dexterity saves, unless you're constantly fighting dragons. So unless you want to be pushed around, knocked down, dragged, grappled, and restrained at the enemy's leisure, a high strength score is preferable to dexterity. Strength opens up better melee weapon options as well. It also controls your movement options in swimming, climbing, and jumping via Athletics, and determines how far you can jump without a check in the first place. You're also pretty easily able to Shove/Knock Prone/Grapple anything Large or smaller.

If you're on the backline using spells or ranged weapons and thinking to yourself "literally none of these things are a concern for me", then yeah, of course, go with the "godstat" Dexterity.

But if I'm on the frontline, am I going to give all of this up so I can sneak better and win Initiative 1 out of 10 times? No. It's not even a question. Melee characters, specifically frontliners, need mobility, they need to resist enemy movement control, they benefit from reach and heavy weapons, etc.

[animewatcha]

Would it be too much if Heavy armor (probably with a feat) provided DR equal to half your total AC?

[JNAProductions]

Would it be too much if Heavy armor (probably with a feat) provided DR equal to have your total AC?

Yes. Ten Characters.

[Witty Username]

Would it be too much if Heavy armor (probably with a feat) provided DR equal to have your total AC?

So like 8-10? DR, so like CR 5 enemies can barely damage you outside of crits?

[animewatcha]

That is a bout the time that one can somewhat afford heavy armor, yes? Just around the time of magical weapons start saying 'hi'. Not to mention the disadvantages of heavy armor that come with.

[animorte]

So like 8-10? DR, so like CR 5 enemies can barely damage you outside of crits?

I would think that, to remain relevant but not too ridiculous, it would likely scale with proficiency bonus instead.

[Tanarii]

Would it be too much if Heavy armor (probably with a feat) provided DR equal to half your total AC?

DR 3 is already worth a half Feat. A good one too.

[animewatcha]

DR 3 is already worth a half Feat. A good one too.

For non magical BPS damage. Which falls away as you get higher in levels. Versus say prof. bonus or 'half your total AC'.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think the DD1 version, where it maps to Prof bonus and includes magic damage is good.

[animewatcha]

It is better but it stays with BPS. Wouldn't it be better with 'any' damage?

[OvisCaedo]

There are just some types of damage that it doesn't strictly make sense for heavy armor to help with. With some it could even make things worse. But, admittedly, "logic" like that might not have much place in the design decision for a fantasy game! From the game's perspective, non-physical damage types are *usually* effects that are either save-based or additional damage on physical attacks. Heavy armor is already suggested by the game mechanics to not help avoid elemental damage baseline in most cases, and for attack riders you can still diminish the physical attack a bit, elemental resistance would be double-dipping. There ARE some attack rolls that deal pure non-physical damage, but they tend to be pretty uncommon and niche. Not much worth designing an exception for, perhaps?

Personally I think it's fine just being for physical damage only, but that the "non-magical weapons" part is unnecessary, even if it's debatable how often it actually does or doesn't come up at higher levels. It's still a sword doing sword things at you, making the most of your armor shouldn't really change or stop working because it has a little magic on it.

[Unoriginal]

Strength saves are more common, especially on the front lines and at the most common levels of play, than Dexterity saves, unless you're constantly fighting dragons. So unless you want to be pushed around, knocked down, dragged, grappled, and restrained at the enemy's leisure, a high strength score is preferable to dexterity.

I have to point out that most of those effects are pretty often opposed STR checks (or STR vs DEX checks) with relevant proficiency, rather than saves, while DEX saves are probably the second most commonplace saves.

But if I'm on the frontline, am I going to give all of this up so I can sneak better and win Initiative 1 out of 10 times? No. It's not even a question. Melee characters, specifically frontliners, need mobility, they need to resist enemy movement control, they benefit from reach and heavy weapons, etc.

Quite true.

Strength is good for what it does, Dex is good for what it does, trying to use one for the other is possible to an extant but still limited.

And that's a good thing.

I think the DD1 version, where it maps to Prof bonus and includes magic damage is good.

Because DD1 will remove all BPS magic damage from monsters and NPCs unless they specifically wield a magic weapon. They've already made the changes for all post-MM monsters.

[Dr.Samurai]

I have to point out that most of those effects are pretty often opposed STR checks (or STR vs DEX checks) with relevant proficiency, rather than saves, while DEX saves are probably the second most commonplace saves.

Yes and no, but I think opposed checks are in the minority.

There are traits that call specifically for Strength saving throws under the right conditions, and these are things like Charge and Pounce. Then attacks like Tentacle and Constrict, and many Bites/Claws have a rider that calls specifically for a Strength saving throw to avoid usually being grappled or knocked prone. These grapples can often impose Restrained as well. Finally, some attacks just simply say you are grappled if the attack lands a hit.

Assuming Heavy Armor is giving you the highest AC, then you'll have the best chances at avoiding the attack landing in the first place, and therefore outright avoiding the rider effect. Then actually having a primary Strength score, and probably proficiency in Strength saves and Athletics, will give you the best chances at resisting the rider effects if/when you do get hit.

For the attacks that auto-grapple, I think Strength still has an edge in that medium armor requires only a 14 dex to maximize AC (meaning you'll only ever have a +2 bonus), and the Strength character, under the right conditions, can spend an Action on the Attack action and Shove the target out of reach to break the grapple, allowing them to move forward and still attack with Extra Attack. This only works if the target is Large or smaller, and doesn't have Reach, but it's an option Strength characters will have over non-strength characters.

What follows is not in response to you, just stuff that I remembered while typing.

That said, you have reminded me that Strength has another advantage over Dexterity in that some monsters call for Strength checks even outside of opposing grapples/shoves/etc. And I don't think that any monsters call for a Dexterity check, though I haven't really looked into it. Pulling someone out of a gelatinous cube, unsticking your weapon from a kuo-toa shield, removing a cloaker from someone's face, or detaching a darkmantle, these all call for Strength checks. Web attacks from various spider monsters also require Strength checks to escape from, as do difficult terrain effects such as from Lair Actions or monsters like the Gibbering Mouther.

And then finally, the heavy armor character grappling monsters can prevent Flyby attacks, skirmishers, those traits like Pounce, Charge, Aggressive, Dive, etc. It can also negate a Displacer Beast's Displacement, prevent monsters from Burrowing, or move monster auras/gaze attacks away from the party. These are options not available to a Medium Armor character that dumps Strength.

It seems to me that Strength characters are simply much more versatile than Dexterity characters once you actually engage in combat, and specifically melee combat (Dex rules ranged combat). Being able to Finesse a melee weapon is nice, but, as Unoriginal put it, it's not an all out replacement of the Strength melee option. Dexterity has its place, but Strength also certainly has its place.

Because DD1 will remove all BPS magic damage from monsters and NPCs unless they specifically wield a magic weapon. They've already made the changes for all post-MM monsters.

Ah, then that makes sense.

[animorte]

It seems to me that Strength characters are simply much more versatile than Dexterity characters once you actually engage in combat, and specifically melee combat.

Oh, so basically what you’re saying is: Somehow, the majority have succumbed to the “strength is superior” shenanigans.

Keeping up with this, I was suddenly reminded that I haven’t tried to grapple, and have successfully avoided attempted grapples, for probably the last three years of playing.

(Dex rules ranged combat)

I mean, I’d much rather sit on the couch with my remote in order to control the television as opposed to walking across the room every time it needs an adjustment. Or, you know, standing next to it.

To be fair, that control more often relies on your casting stat…

[stoutstien]

For non magical BPS damage. Which falls away as you get higher in levels. Versus say prof. bonus or 'half your total AC'.

Not really. Flat out magical BPS is extremely rare. Usually with NPCs it's not magical damage with a *insert type* rider on it. Spells are the primary source and even then BPS based options are in the minority.

HaM is consistently one of the highest forms of mitigation available for H armor users over the entire game length. it's just not flashy and avoidance is cheap(and gettig cheaper) so reduction is hard to justify sometimes.

[LostBenefit]

For non magical BPS damage. Which falls away as you get higher in levels. Versus say prof. bonus or 'half your total AC'.

It doesn't fall away as much as you think—damage from enemies is scaled by increasing the number of their attacks and the majority of enemies (NOT homebrewed) do not have magical BPS damage.

[Unoriginal]

It doesn't fall away as much as you think—damage from enemies is scaled by increasing the number of their attacks and the majority of enemies (NOT homebrewed) do not have magical BPS damage.

There used to be more, but now they do force damage or the like. Or will do it in 2024.


Still, it's true Angels and Demons aren't the majority of enemies by a wide margin.

[Dr.Samurai]

Oh, so basically what you’re saying is: Somehow, the majority have succumbed to the “strength is superior” shenanigans.

I'm saying that there's a difference between "Dexterity can govern to-hit and damage with weapons, and also improves AC, Initiative, Stealth, and Reflex saving throws" and "Dexterity is a better stat for fighting in melee".

In other words... there are things that you will like to have while you are primarily engaging monsters in melee. Strength is one of those, and therefore Heavy Armor. Just because you can consolidate a bunch of stats through Dexterity, doesn't mean that it is outright the superior option to Strength when you're wading into melee combat.

Keeping up with this, I was suddenly reminded that I haven’t tried to grapple, and have successfully avoided attempted grapples, for probably the last three years of playing.

Well, you literally said that you don't care for Strength builds, so it doesn't surprise me that you've never tried to grapple anything. The forum, generally, and for whatever reason, derides grappling as a mostly useless tactic.

The second claim though tracks with my suspicions in these types of conversations; people just aren't engaging with the Strength side of the game. Grappled is the one condition that can be imposed on you most commonly without even being contested outside of AC (hit=grappled). The fact that you haven't been grappled in three years is remarkable, and suggests to me a few things: your DM doesn't use monsters that grapple, your DM only uses creatures that trigger an opposed check (therefore allowing for Acrobatics), or you're not really on the frontline. Alternatively, maybe you're rolling for stats and have a high Strength and Charisma combo that allows your Dexadin to successfully save against Strength saves.

But I said in my first post... if you don't have to worry about these things, then go for Dexterity. But not having to worry about Strength targeting attacks/obstacles is very much a playstyle thing, as much as suggesting that people are going to be using Pass Without Trace, Stealth Prof, and Initiative Optimization to get Surprise regularly.

I mean, I’d much rather sit on the couch with my remote in order to control the television as opposed to walking across the room every time it needs an adjustment. Or, you know, standing next to it.

That's all fair. But a preference doesn't negate the advantages that Strength gives in melee. My fighter or barbarian needs to be able to reach his targets, so he can't be impeded by Difficult Terrain, restraining or grappling effects, shoved around, etc. He may want to use Reach weapons that allow him to hit someone from further away. As a tougher character, he may want to hold onto a monster and trade blows with it and prevent it from moving away and targeting other party members.

For most of this, Strength is the superior stat over Dexterity. It's not to take away from what Dexterity provides, but simply to put it into context. If combats are only ever "keep away from enemy and target it with ranged attacks/spells" then yeah, no need for Strength.

[stoutstien]

There used to be more, but now they do force damage or the like. Or will do it in 2024.


Still, it's true Angels and Demons aren't the majority of enemies by a wide margin.

Ironically since I started testing the *new" stat blocks it made single damage type resistance/immunity more powerful so in some cases the effectiveness of NPCs drops. (Of the three base damage types piercing saw a big jump in the *new* blocks).

*Note that all types are fairly evenly spread out CR 5-10. For most tables that means it's all on equal footing.

*Note psychic is almost as prevalent as force as a primary type until CR 17+*

*Note note* hard to really value any of this due to small sample sizes of some CRs.see note on CR 5+10*

[Thunderous Mojo]

This question is really "is Dexterity better than Strength" masquerading as a question about armor.

I believe this is a mistaken assertion. The original post was inquiring if Heavy Armor is “worth it” for a cleric.

A character devoted to Strength or Dexterity, has essentially already decided if Heavy Armor is an option for them.

A cleric, with only a single attack, simply does not derive that much value from having a very high Strength score. The Spirit Shroud spell, that is in TCoE, is the only spell that cleric’s have access to to enhance their weapon damage.

A baseline Spirit Shroud spell when combined with the 8th level version of Blessed Strikes is adding 2d8 damage of varying types for the cost of a 3rd level spell and the use of a more versatile class feature, that is Blessed Strikes.

This does not strike me, as an amazing return on investment.

While the notion of a Grappling Cleric has some appeal, we should not forget the fact that Grappling is dependent upon creature size. Most clerics lack the means to alter their size, and thus are limited to Grappling only Large, (or smaller) creatures.

The cleric subclass that does have access to Magic that alters their form, is the Trickery cleric, whom is using the Polymorph spell. One consequence of the Polymorph spell is that the cleric’s native Strength score is not germane to their King Kong Grapple option.

Also, when looking at Grappling, Expertise is vastly more impactful then one’s Strength score. A 10 Strength PC, that has taken the Skill Expert Feat from TCoE, and gained Expertise in Athletics, is almost as good of a grappler as a PC with an 18 Strength.

Expertise in Athletics can shore up an area of gameplay for low strength characters while still providing a +1 Ability score increase to any ability. On a high Strength character, Expertise in Athletics makes Grappling checks almost too easy.

Just this last Saturday, my 14th level, (now 15th level), Psi Warrior, whom has a +15 bonus to Athletics checks due to Expertise and Strength modifier, pushed Grazz’t, (and his patchouli stink), through the one way door of a Gate spell created by a Adventuring Companion’s Cubic Gate, (a magic item).

A Life Cleric with 14 Strength using Medium Armor and a Shield, is not substantially far behind in AC terms from a 15 Strength Life Cleric that is using Heavy Armor and a shield.

[animorte]

Well, you literally said that you don't care for Strength builds, so it doesn't surprise me that you've never tried to grapple anything. The forum, generally, and for whatever reason, derides grappling as a mostly useless tactic.

You got that right!
As far as the forum goes, I’ve seen plenty accounts of grappling being mentioned.

1. your DM doesn't use monsters that grapple
2. or you're not really on the frontline.
3. Alternatively, maybe you're rolling for stats and have a high Strength and Charisma combo that allows your Dexadin to successfully save against Strength saves.

1. Not far from the truth. He isn’t quite as experienced. But… I also DM more than anybody else, as I’m the most experienced. I’ve used some grappling monsters, to be fair.
2. This is most accurate. I’m like my mobility, kiting tactics, and battlefield control.
3. This has been the case before. Let’s not forget how many classes have proficiency with Strength saves though. Off the top of my noggin: Barbarian, Monk, Fighter, and Ranger.

That's all fair. But a preference doesn't negate the advantages that Strength gives in melee.

Absolutely, thanks for making the note. There’s nothing wrong with preferences, and I have no problem admitting when something is accurate, whether or not it suits mine.

For most of this, Strength is the superior stat over Dexterity. It's not to take away from what Dexterity provides, but simply to put it into context.

Agreed. Everything has its place and it’s a good thing that they have some notable differences.

[Pex]

I believe this is a mistaken assertion. The original post was inquiring if Heavy Armor is “worth it” for a cleric.

A character devoted to Strength or Dexterity, has essentially already decided if Heavy Armor is an option for them.

A cleric, with only a single attack, simply does not derive that much value from having a very high Strength score. The Spirit Shroud spell, that is in TCoE, is the only spell that cleric’s have access to to enhance their weapon damage.

It depends on cleric Domain and player preference. A cleric domain that gives heavy armor means a cleric can have AC 20 with full plate and shield. Spirit Guardians and Dodge is classic. A cleric can get two attacks with Spiritual Weapon along with his weapon attack and gets an extra d8 damage with weapon on top of that at 8th level (Domain dependent). If not bothering with Spirit Guardians then Shield of Faith gives AC 22. The cleric is not good at melee combat as a warrior nor should he be, but he can be the back-up warrior should he need to.

[Dr.Samurai]

I believe this is a mistaken assertion. The original post was inquiring if Heavy Armor is “worth it” for a cleric.

Well, nothing about Medium Armor grants bonuses to Initiative or skill checks or Reflex saves. In essence, people are taking the requirement of a 14 Dexterity to maximize Medium Armor Proficiency, and turning it into a boon of Medium Armor, saying "look at all the stuff medium armor gives me". So, in essence, this comes down to talking about the advantages of Dexterity compared to those of Strength.

A character devoted to Strength or Dexterity, has essentially already decided if Heavy Armor is an option for them.

Indeed. But if a cleric is going to make a consideration between the two, it's best to consider all the advantages they have to offer. Then, as I've said, if you think some or most of those advantages don't apply, you can make your determination. But the OP reads essentially like "Medium Armor boosts all of these amazing attributes, and Heavy Armor gets me Disadvantage on Stealth", and the situation is more than that.

I played in a two year campaign with a cleric that dumped Strength. It was brutal. DiA has a lot of encounters with difficult terrain and/or vertical mobility, and also that start at long distances. The cleric simply had trouble keeping up and getting into melee. Rooftop fights, leaning towers where the slope was difficult terrain, rubble, patches of lava, vertical fights in giant hives... all of these proved a significant challenge for the cleric that just wanted to get into melee and use touch spells and cast aura spells and stay within range to use his class features. Had the cleric had a 15 Strength and Heavy Armor, he could jump over 10ft of lava, or difficult terrain, or from one roof to another, or leap vertically and reach a height of 12ft in the air. Or resist the monsters a bit better that knocked him down or shoved him. (It's worth noting that he was a Grave cleric, so heavy armor wasn't a native option, but the observation of dumping Strength in a campaign with dynamic terrain still stands.) Instead, he had a +2 to Initiative, Reflex saves, and Stealth. Nice bonuses to have, but I suspect the higher Strength would have done more for the cleric in the 2 years of gameplay.

In a PbP I'm in now, in our very first encounter my barbarian was the only one that could reach the demon on turn 1 because he leaped over 2 squares of difficult terrain. He wound up "faster" than the monk because the monk dumped Strength and the difficult terrain chewed up their speed.

While the notion of a Grappling Cleric has some appeal, we should not forget the fact that Grappling is dependent upon creature size. Most clerics lack the means to alter their size, and thus are limited to Grappling only Large, (or smaller) creatures.

For a cleric I think it would be the opposite consideration; resisting or breaking free from grapples.

Also, when looking at Grappling, Expertise is vastly more impactful then one’s Strength score. A 10 Strength PC, that has taken the Skill Expert Feat from TCoE, and gained Expertise in Athletics, is almost as good of a grappler as a PC with an 18 Strength.

Expertise in Athletics can shore up an area of gameplay for low strength characters while still providing a +1 Ability score increase to any ability. On a high Strength character, Expertise in Athletics makes Grappling checks almost too easy.

My point though is that Strength opens up these options. Ignoring hazards/difficult terrain, grappling enemies, holding your position, reach weapons and highest damage on weapons, best AC. It's not just grappling, but rather a combination of things that make you a versatile and optimal melee combatant.

If we open up feats and only focus on one aspect of the attribute, then Alertness blows 14 Dexterity out of the water.

Just this last Saturday, my 14th level, (now 15th level), Psi Warrior, whom has a +15 bonus to Athletics checks due to Expertise and Strength modifier, pushed Grazz’t, (and his patchouli stink), through the one way door of a Gate spell created by a Adventuring Companion’s Cubic Gate, (a magic item).

That's awesome! I love grappling . In that same Avernus game I mentioned, half the party was stuck in a diving bell at the bottom of a river. The ranger was trying to work the contraption to bring them up. A glabrezu swooped down from the sky to challenge us, and my barbarian grappled him and dunked him into the Styx. Good times!

Athletics Expertise on Strength characters can be overkill. In your case, it's providing the same benefit as your Strength score, so forgoing Strength for Expertise is just achieving the same result but costs you a feat.

A Life Cleric with 14 Strength using Medium Armor and a Shield, is not substantially far behind in AC terms from a 15 Strength Life Cleric that is using Heavy Armor and a shield.

Not only is the one behind the other on AC, but also on the saving throws and checks most relevant to being in melee combat. Again, that's for anyone to consider and make the determination themselves. But as I've already said, if I'm going to be in melee, I'd prefer the benefits of Strength over better reflex, stealth, and Initiative. (And, if Stealth is really a strong advantage of medium armor, then we're really talking about Breastplate vs Full Plate, so 2 points behind, unless we're investing in feats and higher Dexterity.)

[Tanarii]

I have to point out that most of those effects are pretty often opposed STR checks (or STR vs DEX checks) with relevant proficiency, rather than saves, while DEX saves are probably the second most commonplace saves.

Are they? Certainly many of the low level monster knock down / grapple effects are Str saves.

[Skrum]

I do have to brush off stealth, but in practice, that's...

"Sir Clankeyclank Smitesalot stays back here with the cleric and the fighter while the sneaky types go sneak."

My current Dex 8 paladin recently said " Stealth is for peasants." He's kind of a jerk, but on this I think he's right. Stealth is very marginally useful, and far outmatched by Athleticism.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My current Dex 8 paladin recently said " Stealth is for peasants." He's kind of a jerk, but on this I think he's right. Stealth is very marginally useful, and far outmatched by Athleticism.

Stealth is, in my experience, either something one single person is great at (and becomes somewhat of a solo game) OR something that the whole party has specialized in and uses things like pass without trace...and then is only useful when the DM enables it. And PWoT covers for both disadvantage (~-5) and not having proficiency (-2 - -6). If you have proficiency or don't have disadvantage, you end up with effectively expertise.