Is Heavy Armor good?

[Tanarii]

.... well, you can start your surprise round within 30-40 feet.

DMG screen guidelines:
Normal encounter range without surprise is 2d6x10ft
Normal encounter range with surprise is 2d6x5ft

Obviously this is constrained by the encounter space. And ultimately the DM decides the starting range.

Personally I just went with, opportunity and situation allowing, attempted ambushes start at 30ft and otherwise at 60ft. That wasn't based on the DMG, it was based on those being reasonable distances (using dB scales) at which talking loudly sounds like a whisper (60ft), and the distance at which a normal indoor conversation sounds like a whisper (30ft). But it lines up nicely with the averages from the DMG screen, 35ft and 70ft. The split party to 30ft/90ft is therefor an alternative to everyone at 60ft.

Of course, this is all baseline details, specific details of adventuring environments can vary wildly. For starters, it assumes the party can't be clearly seen before that. Nor can any light sources if it's dark.

[tokek]

Overall my more general feeling is that "one side notices the other first" is the condition for surprise, and that's necessarily going to be pretty common.

This I think is the core difference of opinion here.

I would characterise surprise as "One side is caught off guard". Being surprised represents being caught unawares and unprepared. A guard in a watch tower should be on guard and ready for trouble even if they don't specifically see that trouble coming - they have their weapons to hand and are in a ready state to use them. This is different to a bunch of off-duty guards sitting and eating their soup who I would regard as vulnerable to surprise if they don't see the attackers coming. This is beside the point (already made) that a watch tower is by design hard to sneak up on and there should be insufficient cover to do so without magic.

I don't like the lack of granularity in the assumption that anyone who spots the other side is under surprise. It leaves no room for difference between those narratively and reasonably on guard and somewhat expecting trouble and on the other hand those who are clearly off guard.

But yes if you play in a game where surprise is the result of getting that perception roll in first and pretty much most combats have one side or the other surprised (only ties for timing do not) then stealth and perception are by far the most important things in the game and its not even close. In a game with that theme any armor that affects stealth is not worth it. I would argue that building for anything other than stealth and perception is terrible in that game.

[strangebloke]

This I think is the core difference of opinion here.

I would characterise surprise as "One side is caught off guard". Being surprised represents being caught unawares and unprepared. A guard in a watch tower should be on guard and ready for trouble even if they don't specifically see that trouble coming - they have their weapons to hand and are in a ready state to use them. This is different to a bunch of off-duty guards sitting and eating their soup who I would regard as vulnerable to surprise if they don't see the attackers coming. This is beside the point (already made) that a watch tower is by design hard to sneak up on and there should be insufficient cover to do so without magic.

I don't like the lack of granularity in the assumption that anyone who spots the other side is under surprise. It leaves no room for difference between those narratively and reasonably on guard and somewhat expecting trouble and on the other hand those who are clearly off guard.

But yes if you play in a game where surprise is the result of getting that perception roll in first and pretty much most combats have one side or the other surprised (only ties for timing do not) then stealth and perception are by far the most important things in the game and its not even close. In a game with that theme any armor that affects stealth is not worth it. I would argue that building for anything other than stealth and perception is terrible in that game.

Spoken like someone who's never been on guard duty.

[JellyPooga]

A guard in a watch tower should be on guard and ready for trouble even if they don't specifically see that trouble coming - they have their weapons to hand and are in a ready state to use them.

And my KP's at work should be cleaning or prepping something any time they run out of dishes to wash and I'm not there to tell them what to do - they have their sprays and sponges to hand and are in a ready state to use them...
...
...that doesn't mean they do, or that I don't catch them frequently watching the footie (soccer) when they should be working!

Never underestimate the human psyche's ability to do anything and everything except what it should. Especially when said should is repetitive, unexciting or otherwise uneventful. Guard duty is a clear example of a task that will frequently be done inefficiently, particularly in low-traffic, night-shift and/or (assumed) low-risk circumstances. "Stand here and watch X direction for the next 4 hours" is a good instruction to make someone look in direction Y, daydream, pick their nose or any number of activities except look in direction X with anything but disinterest.

Even if our erstwhile guard does spot someone, absolutely nothing guarantees they're in a state of readiness; armour loose or off, weapon on a rack or propping up a wall, playing cards/sandwhich/book in hand, etc. Unless there's a hard-a** superior there maintaining discipline (and even then, still no guarantee), even a partner or worse, a group will provide distraction. Not to mention the "Hey what's that?" reaction of having to put your brain in gear to recognise a threat for what it is; for some, this can take a shockingly long time.

The perfect guard that always negates the possibility of surprise? Yeah, that guy is not alive (note the possibility of them being unalive...).

That said, I tend to agree with your overall point that simply being the party to notice the other first is an insufficient condition for surprise. There are many more factors involved. Heck, there are even circumstances where a party could notice an enemy first, be ready and still be surprised (e.g. they spot the enemy knight in armour at 200yrds, go 'weapons hot', but don't see the assassin about to shank their mage in back...surprise muddy fuggle!)

[tokek]

The perfect guard that always negates the possibility of surprise? Yeah, that guy is not alive (note the possibility of them being unalive...).

That said, I tend to agree with your overall point that simply being the party to notice the other first is an insufficient condition for surprise. There are many more factors involved. Heck, there are even circumstances where a party could notice an enemy first, be ready and still be surprised (e.g. they spot the enemy knight in armour at 200yrds, go 'weapons hot', but don't see the assassin about to shank their mage in back...surprise muddy fuggle!)

Guards are generally effective. That is why every remotely disciplined military has had them throughout recorded history and probably before that too. So I don't go along with the idea that you can generally get surprise on them. Or that they are routinely surprised and ambushed while actually on guard.

[stoutstien]

Guards are generally effective. That is why every remotely disciplined military has had them throughout recorded history and probably before that too. So I don't go along with the idea that you can generally get surprise on them. Or that they are routinely surprised and ambushed while actually on guard.

Guards are where a single guard isn't. Single or even double personnel postings or patrols are almost 100% psychological. It's a numbers game.
This is a factor that d&d doesn't particularly work well with. There really should be features that allow overlapping creatures preforming repetitive tasks (like being on watch or guarding a particular location) should have some interaction.
As long as there are two or more creatures on guard that aren't particularly distracted by something I tend to give them advantage on PP and PI.

[Keltest]

Guards are where a single guard isn't. Single or even double personnel postings or patrols are almost 100% psychological. It's a numbers game.
This is a factor that d&d doesn't particularly work well with. There really should be features that allow overlapping creatures preforming repetitive tasks (like being on watch or guarding a particular location) should have some interaction.
As long as there are two or more creatures on guard that aren't particularly distracted by something I tend to give them advantage on PP and PI.

At its most basic, thats the Help action, which means a +5 to passive or advantage on an active roll. Not unreasonable IMO. A partner can help watch during things like a sneeze, but then any more people start being as distracting as they are helpful.

[Dr.Samurai]

Here we see again where at one time we're told "D&D isn't a simulation", but now we're being educated on the supposed real life deficiencies of guards as justification for guards in the game regularly not paying attention and therefore vulnerable to Surprise.

I love this forum pendulum that swings back and forth all the time.

Look, the game I'm in now required getting into a giant steading. Recon done by the monk and then druid confirmed the giant lookout was fast asleep on the floor with any empty tankard next to him. I'm not saying that this could never be the case (it's also a trope).

But to assume that this is regularly going to happen... why even have the guards there in the first place then? To keep up appearances? For who?

If this is where we are, then just have someone use the Help Action on the plate armor martial to cancel their Disadvantage on Stealth, and just roll with a +9 or +10 since PWT is assumed to be running. Problem solved.

[Tanarii]

This I think is the core difference of opinion here.

I would characterise surprise as "One side is caught off guard". Being surprised represents being caught unawares and unprepared. A guard in a watch tower should be on guard and ready for trouble even if they don't specifically see that trouble coming - they have their weapons to hand and are in a ready state to use them. This is different to a bunch of off-duty guards sitting and eating their soup who I would regard as vulnerable to surprise if they don't see the attackers coming. This is beside the point (already made) that a watch tower is by design hard to sneak up on and there should be insufficient cover to do so without magic.

1) PCs can be caught off guard with weapons and shield in hand while traveling down an adventuring site hallway even when hey are looking for danger. This is in the adventuring rules chapter for noticing danger while exploring. Pp 182-183
2) Guard duty is infamous for how hard it is to maintain a steady state of watchfulness. And that's far less than #1.

The rules are clear that even equipped and paying attention for danger PCs have to use passive perception to determine if they notice danger. If they're doing something other than paying attention, they don't even get to use passive perception at all.

[stoutstien]

At its most basic, thats the Help action, which means a +5 to passive or advantage on an active roll. Not unreasonable IMO. A partner can help watch during things like a sneeze, but then any more people start being as distracting as they are helpful.

Minor distractions are actually useful for people in stationary guard positions due to saccadic effects like masking, and forced perspective. 5eis very far away from the simulation side of things but little nuances like that are nice to breathe some life into the game. Like sneaking up on a few guards arguing if three slices of bread is considered a sandwich.

In d&dvirse I like 3 just because it's a good balance of complexity and impact. Two goblins and a bugbear or two dwarfs and a guard goat.

[animorte]

Guards are generally effective. That is why every remotely disciplined military has had them throughout recorded history and probably before that too. So I don't go along with the idea that you can generally get surprise on them. Or that they are routinely surprised and ambushed while actually on guard.

Yes, as you said guardS. If you have enough, someone is bound to notice. But I mostly agree with the statements is plenty room for error.

Never underestimate the human psyche's ability to do anything and everything except what it should.

Speaking of which, I love throwing this around…

I read a thing some time ago, don’t recall where it’s from (paraphrased, of course): ”There are two places you can always find a [D&D] game, military and prison. When people are stuck somewhere they don’t want to be, you can bet they’ll find a way to pretend they’re somewhere else.”

[strangebloke]

A band of adventurers sneaks up on a bandit camp, springing from the trees to attack them. A gelatinous cube glides down a dungeon passage, unnoticed by the adventurers until the cube engulfs one of them. In these situations, one side of the battle gains surprise over the other.

If being "ready for danger" was enough to make you immune to surprise, one would think that both of these situations would simply be impossible. Bandits are going to have people on watch, and adventurers investigating a dungeon are going to be expecting some kind of enemy.

Surprise deals with the idea that - whether ready for danger or not - you cannot act against someone you don't know is there. The goblins beat your party's PP and so are hidden, and the first notice you get of them is a series of arrows flying out at you from the underbrush. It doesn't matter that you are "ready for danger," you didn't know they were there until they took a shot at you! You can't act first!

Unless you're alert, of course. Then you can. Because having lightning reactions is cool like that.

If you know there are goblins just outside your field of vision because you can hear them, or because you noticed some birds that got spooked by them, that's represented by the goblins failing to beat your PP, and you know the goblins are there.

[Segev]

Personally, while this may or may not reflect the RAW, I would be inclined to allow surprise to affect only some of the enemy (or PCs) in a fight. Let's say the party stealth roll is 15, and that affects 4 of the 6 guards due to differences in passive perception in their stat blocks. The party was trying to sneak by, but the more perceptive guardsmen call out a challenge or warning, or otherwise act to indicate they see the PCs. Initiative is rolled: the PCs are not surprised; they knew the guards were there. The NPCs who didn't know the party was there are surprised; the NPCs who noticed the party are not surprised. Surprise goes away on a creature's first turn, as normal.

[Keltest]

Personally, while this may or may not reflect the RAW, I would be inclined to allow surprise to affect only some of the enemy (or PCs) in a fight. Let's say the party stealth roll is 15, and that affects 4 of the 6 guards due to differences in passive perception in their stat blocks. The party was trying to sneak by, but the more perceptive guardsmen call out a challenge or warning, or otherwise act to indicate they see the PCs. Initiative is rolled: the PCs are not surprised; they knew the guards were there. The NPCs who didn't know the party was there are surprised; the NPCs who noticed the party are not surprised. Surprise goes away on a creature's first turn, as normal.

Theoretically thats supported by the text, but Im struggling to think of a scenario where combat is initiated by people being spotted (as opposed to jumping out to activate their ambush) that doesnt result in the spotter just calling out the presence of the PCs. Maybe if somebody was asleep and the guy on watch had to wake them up?

[Segev]

Theoretically thats supported by the text, but Im struggling to think of a scenario where combat is initiated by people being spotted (as opposed to jumping out to activate their ambush) that doesnt result in the spotter just calling out the presence of the PCs. Maybe if somebody was asleep and the guy on watch had to wake them up?

If somebody "calls out their presence," and the PCs decide to immediately leap to combat or the immediate consequence of calling out their presence is the people who noticed them trying to attack, it is time for initiative. Only if the PCs give the callers time to alert their buddies and see if they start a dialog rather than attacking, and if the callers do not begin to attack nor call for one, would you wait to roll initiative. At least, that's my reading on it.

[Keltest]

If somebody "calls out their presence," and the PCs decide to immediately leap to combat or the immediate consequence of calling out their presence is the people who noticed them trying to attack, it is time for initiative. Only if the PCs give the callers time to alert their buddies and see if they start a dialog rather than attacking, and if the callers do not begin to attack nor call for one, would you wait to roll initiative. At least, that's my reading on it.

What does that have to do with anything though? Initiative is presumed. If theres no initiative, theres no surprised condition.

Sure, there are scenarios where failure to stealth means verbal confrontation before violence, but thats neither here nor there for the question of groups partially having surprise when combat does start.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Anecdote coming... I was out for a walk with my wife and dog last night. At a distance of under 60' my dog perked up, then my wife and I noticed a deer right in front of us out in the open on the road. It had some foliage and a brownish house behind it. Despite walking directly towards something with no 'cover', it was able to get within 60' of all 3 of us before the dog noticed. The experience re-enforced my belief that it is certainly possible to use stealth with no cover, even if some of group are generally facing in the direction of potential danger.

[strangebloke]

Anecdote coming... I was out for a walk with my wife and dog last night. At a distance of under 60' my dog perked up, then my wife and I noticed a deer right in front of us out in the open on the road. It had some foliage and a brownish house behind it. Despite walking directly towards something with no 'cover', it was able to get within 60' of all 3 of us before the dog noticed. The experience re-enforced my belief that it is certainly possible to use stealth with no cover, even if some of group are generally facing in the direction of potential danger.

well this would still be 'lightly obscured' in DND terms.

But yes, such experiences with deer and other animals are not uncommon. The saying is that for every animal you see, ten see you.

[Dr.Samurai]

PHB, page 182:

Stealth
While traveling at a slow pace, the characters can move stealthily. As long as they're not in the open, they can try to surprise or sneak by other creatures they encounter. See the rules for hiding in Chapter 7, "Using Ability Scores".

[strangebloke]

PHB, page 182:

Stealth
While traveling at a slow pace, the characters can move stealthily. As long as they're not in the open, they can try to surprise or sneak by other creatures they encounter. See the rules for hiding in Chapter 7, "Using Ability Scores".

This is for overland travel, and thus doesn't apply to dungeoneering most of the time.

But yes. Not in the open. Sticking to Lightly Obscured areas could reasonably be said to qualify as 'not in the open.' But that's ambiguous, so you would go to the linked rules for hiding in chapter 7 which....

Oh yeah, that's what we've been discussing this whole time. And again, in very literal terms, "Lightly obscured" = "Not Clearly seen" and so there's no prohibition against hiding. There's no blanket permission for hiding either, but its within the realm of things that the DM should consider their allowing, at their discretion.

Stealth is part of the game, and is designed to be used. I don't see why people are so opposed to using this part of the game. Its interesting and requires interaction with the environment in a way that raw DPR does not.

[Dr.Samurai]

This is for overland travel, and thus doesn't apply to dungeoneering most of the time.

This is flat out wrong. This is for traveling, period, and applies to dungeoneering.

It's under the greater header Activity While Traveling, which reads: As adventurers travel through a dungeon or the wilderness...

But yes. Not in the open. Sticking to Lightly Obscured areas could reasonably be said to qualify as 'not in the open.'

Interesting. The same person that arrogantly dismissed an argument from interpretation earlier now wants to argue what being out "in the open" means.

But that's ambiguous, so you would go to the linked rules for hiding in chapter 7 which....

Oh yeah, that's what we've been discussing this whole time. And again, in very literal terms, "Lightly obscured" = "Not Clearly seen" and so there's no prohibition against hiding. There's no blanket permission for hiding either, but its within the realm of things that the DM should consider their allowing, at their discretion.

The rules literally tell us that if you're in the open you can't attempt surprising anyone or sneaking past them. What is ambiguous here?

Stealth is part of the game, and is designed to be used. I don't see why people are so opposed to using this part of the game. Its interesting and requires interaction with the environment in a way that raw DPR does not.

No one is opposed to anything here. We're just making sure that all assumptions are out in the open when people make claims about what can be accomplished regularly in the game. You've been pretty strident about "basic English", and now suddenly "out in the open" is open to interpretation. As an example, that deer in the anecdote earlier was not "hiding". Why? Because it's literally standing out in the open for everyone to see it. Consider that the dog could have perked up, and then the person could look ahead and see... nothing, because the deer is ACTUALLY hiding. Just because someone doesn't see it immediately doesn't mean it was "hidden" up until that moment. It's basic English, as people say.

[strangebloke]

This is flat out wrong. This is for traveling, period, and applies to dungeoneering.

It's under the greater header Activity While Traveling, which reads: As adventurers travel through a dungeon or the wilderness...


Interesting. The same person that arrogantly dismissed an argument from interpretation earlier now wants to argue what being out "in the open" means.

The rules literally tell us that if you're in the open you can't attempt surprising anyone or sneaking past them. What is ambiguous here?

No one is opposed to anything here. We're just making sure that all assumptions are out in the open when people make claims about what can be accomplished regularly in the game. You've been pretty strident about "basic English", and now suddenly "out in the open" is open to interpretation. As an example, that deer in the anecdote earlier was not "hiding". Why? Because it's literally standing out in the open for everyone to see it. Consider that the dog could have perked up, and then the person could look ahead and see... nothing, because the deer is ACTUALLY hiding. Just because someone doesn't see it immediately doesn't mean it was "hidden" up until that moment. It's basic English, as people say.

Yeah dude, I'm out. If you're just going to insult me, and then suggest there's some completely OTHER system for determining who sees who first besides stealth/passive perception/obscured terrain/etc. that's never spelled out in the rules... there's very little point to talking further.

[Witty Username]

Stealth is part of the game, and is designed to be used. I don't see why people are so opposed to using this part of the game. Its interesting and requires interaction with the environment in a way that raw DPR does not.

I believe the issue is trying to argue the minutia of the stealth rules. Which has been going since the PHB was printed.

Our best guesses:
Heavily obscured - yes?
Lightly obscured - maybe
Not obscured- ask your DM, because ask your DM is the only correct answer for all three

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah dude, I'm out. If you're just going to insult me,

Sorry I offended you but you dismissed my argument as me not understanding basic English. So if you're this sensitive at taking offense, perhaps choose your words more carefully next time, especially when your argument is as thin as it is.

and then suggest there's some completely OTHER system for determining who sees who first besides stealth/passive perception/obscured terrain/etc. that's never spelled out in the rules... there's very little point to talking further.

I have no idea what you're referring to. The stealth rules are in various places, unfortunately. The rules for traveling (through dungeons, yes) are pretty clear that you can't attempt to surprise or sneak past enemies if you're in the open.

This is in line with every other rule. And the mechanics that say otherwise are exceptions to the general rule. As an example, Lightfoot Halflings have Naturally Stealthy, saying: You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is one size category larger than you.

Normally, characters don't provide enough obscurement to allow Stealth. But lightfoot halflings can do it as long as the creature is at least one size larger than them.

But by your reading, we can always attempt to hide behind a creature only one size category larger than us, this feature just lets halflings do it without DM permission. This, to me, is a weak argument.

Mask of the Wild and Skulker are exceptions to the general rule that you can't attempt to Hide when you're only Lightly Obscured.

[Witty Username]

Mask of the Wild and Skulker are exceptions to the general rule that you can't attempt to Hide when you're only Lightly Obscured.

In theory, It could refer to hiding while being observed, which isn’t normally possible however you do.

Like say, hiding in a crowd, the intent could be that a halfling, can vanish into a crowd while guards are chasing them, while a hide check wouldn't be allowed unless you were not in plain veiw prior to entering.

Not to say anything is correct or incorrect, just that the RAW is barely relevant to how it is supposed to work.

[Tanarii]

I believe the issue is trying to argue the minutia of the stealth rules. Which has been going since the PHB was printed.

Our best guesses:
Heavily obscured - yes?
Lightly obscured - maybe
Not obscured- ask your DM, because ask your DM is the only correct answer for all three

They changed the rule for hiding in errata to be:
1) ask your DM.
2) can't be seen clearly, as opposed to can't be seen.

IIRC Crawford also confirmed at the time that this change was made so that that total cover/concealment wasn't automatically required.

He definitely called out Wood Elf and Lightfoot racial as being a ticket to literally disappear even if someone was staring right at you and could see you clearly, as long as you were standing in light concealment / standing behind someone. (The latter being half cover.)

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

[Aimeryan]

Sure, but if the question is optimization, STR-based melee hyperspecialists using PAM/GWM aren't very good outside of a whiteroom. They end up marginally better in melee and absolute biscuits at ranged play, while the ranged builds are marginally behind in melee and leagues ahead at range, while also getting ahead in all the utility areas as outlined above.

As soon as you start looking at combats starting at distances greater than 30 feet these builds fall way behind. It may be aesthetically important to have a greatsword, but mechanically there's little reason, and a lot of the melee builds you can think of that focus strength don't even get the proficiency to begin with or straight up CAN'T use heavy armor (barbarians lol) so... one questions what th.

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.

[Gignere]

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.

It’s not quite that simple. You will also need to differentiate between the reach of weapons, much more finely then 5e does. Like a dagger against a greatsword is SoL unless you get in close combat with it then the dagger will have the advantage.

In fact if someone had a crossbow and gets in grappled range with the greatsword user I’d say both is just as screwed.

[Aimeryan]

It’s not quite that simple. You will also need to differentiate between the reach of weapons, much more finely then 5e does. Like a dagger against a greatsword is SoL unless you get in close combat with it then the dagger will have the advantage.

In fact if someone had a crossbow and gets in grappled range with the greatsword user I’d say both is just as screwed.

Agreed; there is more granularity than just melee vs. ranged here. However, the steps are significantly different enough to put them in different categories. Of particular relevance here, it helps to explain why ranged is so godly in the game even at relatively short distances. If melee weapons gave an AC bonus (for bounded accuracy the bonus could in turn be removed from armour; inc. Mage Armor) while ranged weapons did not, this would help.

For myself, I only see one use for Heavy Armor under optimal conditions; a Paladin. Due to the lack of ranged options Paladins are either forced into melee or are forced to multiclass. If melee, you want the PAM+GMW option, so Str, so Heavy Armor. If multiclassing (something like Pal 1, Undead Warlock 2 for Agonising Repelling Blast, followed up by 7/8 Watchers Pal for Auras, then Sorcerer X) you need 13 Str (and Cha), so Heavy Armor.

All other Heavy Armor potentiates can go ranged - so they might as well take advantage of the other things Dex offers even if a Caster. So, Medium Armor. Being ranged is better for your survival than not being ranged, and the damage is often better as well (Archery, Initiative, and no wasted turns having to close being the major ones). Dex saves are also superior to Str saves if you are rarely close to the enemy.

[Keltest]

Agreed; there is more granularity than just melee vs. ranged here. However, the steps are significantly different enough to put them in different categories. Of particular relevance here, it helps to explain why ranged is so godly in the game even at relatively short distances. If melee weapons gave an AC bonus (for bounded accuracy the bonus could in turn be removed from armour; inc. Mage Armor) while ranged weapons did not, this would help.

For myself, I only see one use for Heavy Armor under optimal conditions; a Paladin. Due to the lack of ranged options Paladins are either forced into melee or are forced to multiclass. If melee, you want the PAM+GMW option, so Str, so Heavy Armor. If multiclassing (something like Pal 1, Undead Warlock 2 for Agonising Repelling Blast, followed up by 7/8 Watchers Pal for Auras, then Sorcerer X) you need 13 Str (and Cha), so Heavy Armor.

All other Heavy Armor potentiates can go ranged - so they might as well take advantage of the other things Dex offers even if a Caster. So, Medium Armor. Being ranged is better for your survival than not being ranged, and the damage is often better as well (Archery, Initiative, and no wasted turns having to close being the major ones). Dex saves are also superior to Str saves if you are rarely close to the enemy.

Optimal conditions meaning youve spent 2-3 feats on it? Because 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.