Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Eric888 Dec 02, 2014 16:45:17	Dexterity builds versus strength builds have been debated on these threads for a while, but they usually came down to this: dex builds had better initiative, strength builds had one better AC. Weapons are a wash with rapier around. (Two handed favors strength for melee, dex for ranged, but I am more concerned with sword and board here.)   Now the DMG is out and all that is thrown out the window. +2 studded leather is listed in the same chart as +1 plate. Why is this? At 20 dex, studded was one less AC than plate. It made sense as heavily armored tanks made more sense than light armored ones, and mechanically since taking a huge hit in initiative order by choosing the heavily armored guy should give some benefit over the fast-acting rapier option.   This is continued in other spots. Table H has +2 leather and +1 studded but only +1 splint, which gives the same AC as regular plate. Table I also has +3 leather and +2 splint. On the subchart (number 76) +3 studded leather is listed alongside +2 plate. The only advantage of strength anywhere left in the game for a tank seems to be that if you roll a 76, followed by a 12 (00.08%) you get +3 plate. Is that really worth taking -6 initiative for?   Hopefully I am not chicken little here, but it seems like any paladin or fighter who wants to be a tank has just lost any reason to wear heavier armors and should just go for dex from now on. His party will thank his fast initiative and his DM will thank him by giving him the exact same AC he would get going heavy.
#2 ClockworkNecktie Dec 02, 2014 18:06:01	I think when it comes to item rarity, all +1 armor counts as "rare," which is important for crafting costs, etc. It sounds like you're talking about the random treasure tables, which IMHO aren't that big a deal because they're, um, random. Even which item chart you roll from for a given encounter is randomized to a significant degree.
#3 ClockworkNecktie Dec 02, 2014 18:07:58	Also, strength saves and contests do kinda matter in 5e, especially for melee types, and both Heavy and Medium Armor Master let you get better defenses than a light-armor character.
#4 Lawolf Dec 02, 2014 18:17:28	ClockworkNecktie wrote:
(Reply to #4) DaveDash	Lawolf wrote:
#6 Lawolf Dec 02, 2014 18:53:37	DaveDash wrote:
#7 AaronOfBarbaria Dec 02, 2014 19:17:34	Comparing only the AC values is probably not going to get a full picture of the balance, or lack thereof, between light, medium, and heavy magical armors - you should also look at any types of magic armor that can come in some, but not all types of armor.   For example, there is no such thing as adamantine studded leather armor, but there is adamantine full plate. I don't have my DMG yet so I can only go by the list of items by rarity which means I can see the names, but not the effects or allowed types of armor - there are, by my count: adamantine armor, mariner's armor, mithral armor, armor of resistance, armor of vulnerability (i expect that is cursed), elven chain, glamoured studded leather, demon armor, dragon scale mail, dwarven plate, armor of invulnerability, efreeti chain, and plate armor of etherealness that need to be evaluated before deciding which category of magic armor has the real advantage.
(Reply to #6) DaveDash	Lawolf wrote:
#9 Zardnaar Dec 02, 2014 20:51:07	I think dex is mostly better strength can deal more damage at the pric of  feat while dex builds need 2.
#10 Grazel Dec 02, 2014 20:55:12	Also I don't think using the random treasure tables as a basis for "balance" is a good choice. These tables are meant to provide a mix of items of related theme and rarity to provide a mix of items found randomly. The tables also are meant to fit with certain level ranges, and at least in their 1e origin days, monster type. Different monsters had treasure rolled from different tables and not all monsters of the same 'challenge' had the same tables. The tables are meant to generate random treasure, not to say "all items on this table are equivalent to each other".
#11 Lawolf Dec 02, 2014 21:12:25	DaveDash wrote:
#12 Rains Dec 02, 2014 21:41:09	Eric888 wrote:
(Reply to #11) DaveDash	Lawolf wrote:
#14 ankiyavon Dec 02, 2014 22:45:14	Rains wrote:
#15 Eric888 Dec 02, 2014 22:56:28	Sorry being late here, something came up for a few hours.   I agree that random tables are supposed to be random, and therefor not a great measure of balance. But they did go out of their way to skew the randomness in the favor of lighter armors. The decision was purposeful. I'm trying to understand why, and what, if any, the implications may be. But yeah, I probably overstated the danger those unbalanced charts will have on the game.   I don't see anything in the rules about adding dex to initiative being an optional rule. I mean DMs can do whatever they want, and there is a good argument for not doing it, but the game should be balanced along the standard rules and DMs can make any house rules and deal with the consequences.
#16 Grazel Dec 03, 2014 0:30:42	Well plate armor is supposed to be very rare and even most classes that can get it as a proficiency don't even start with it. That means that lighter armors will be more common when randomly placed. The DM of course is always free to award plate if he wants, and should if he's got a plate wearing PC in the party. Random tables are great but shouldn't be the only option for treasure or the PC's could end up never getting a useful item to them depending on their builds.   Honestly the magic armors are just as balanced as the non-magical variants, it's not like non-plate gets more plusses, just that based on teh tables you're more likely to see non-plate, just as you're more likely to see non-magical plate armor less than other non-magical armors (hence it's higher price).
#17 Xguild Dec 03, 2014 4:07:26	I think your underestimating the value of strength but in as a whole I can say that when it comes right down to it there is no RPG ever made, nore will there ever be one that does not break down when you hand it over to a power gamer with a calculator.  Picking strength or deciding on using a certain type of armor is a narrative decesion for your character.  Each has benefits or drawbacks, the fact that they are not exactly even does not make them unbalanced, it just means that in role-playing games things are rarely ever even.   I think its a tribute to 5e's balance when the discussions suggesting unbalance are focused on such a complete trivial element of the game.
#18 1eejit Dec 03, 2014 4:51:37	I'd also like to point out that while all classes that can use medium and heavy armors get shield proficiency none of the classes/subclasses limited to light armor can use shields.
#19 UngeheuerLich Dec 03, 2014 6:39:58	In our game, the low strength character has noticed, that in actual play, low strength is annoying, as he is bad at a lot of things:   - carrying loot - grappling (especially grabbing a friend and dragging him from the front line) - strangling a sleeping orc.   To make i even worse I will use following modification from now on:   If you are unable to move, i.e. unconscious or paralyzed, your dexterity is treated as 0. So heavy armor still protects you there. light armor does not at all.
#20 mellored Dec 03, 2014 10:30:26	Eric888 wrote:
#21 ClockworkNecktie Dec 03, 2014 10:20:11	Lawolf wrote:
#22 mellored Dec 03, 2014 10:30:07	ClockworkNecktie wrote:
#23 pauln6 Dec 03, 2014 16:49:06	Random tables can still be random but different armours can be added with different frequencies.  In 1e it was almost impossible to find light armours at greater than +1, while heavier armours with higher +s were more common.  In fact, I think 1e Unearthed Arcana said that +4 armours were mithral and +5 armours were adamantine, impliedly excluding non metal armours above +3 (although I don't think that was ever followed).It takes a bit of work but you can adjust random tables to suit your tastes.
#24 Kalani Dec 03, 2014 22:31:43	mellored wrote:
#25 Eric888 Dec 03, 2014 22:45:59	1eejit wrote:
#26 Psikerlord Dec 03, 2014 22:51:57	Strength is good for GWF, knocking prone, grappling, climbing, holding doors closed/opening them etc (especially if the DM does not allow rerolls until you get a 20, like I do - generally just one attempt to do something, although depends on the situation, or until something changes).   Heavy armour stealth issues can be mitigated by group checks.   But yeah dex does have a lot going for it. Too much really.   I havent seen the rule myself yet, but isnt there an optional "iniative side" rule. That would mitigate the high dex = better initiative benefit. I have been considering this option just for the simplicity/speed, frankly, but perhaps there is also an incidental dex balancing side effect too.
#27 mellored Dec 04, 2014 7:55:33	Kalani wrote:
#28 mellored Dec 04, 2014 7:54:48	Eric888 wrote:
#29 Kalani Dec 04, 2014 8:23:48	mellored wrote:
#30 mellored Dec 04, 2014 8:49:17	Kalani wrote:
#31 Elfcrusher Dec 04, 2014 9:05:41	I have to admit I sort of wish there were some kind of distinct advantage, even if a limited case advatnage, to wearing heavier armor.  Like, I wish there were a mechanic that got used in some circumstances where None/Light/Medium/Heavy armor gave a +0/+1/+2/+3 bonus to some roll, so that folks who trudged around in heavy armor could be glad they were wearing it.
#32 Kalani Dec 04, 2014 9:12:17	I do see your pov - I do however disagree that you need exactly 16DEX to make it worthwhile. 20 DEX allows for a very stealthy character with high AC (20-21). While some other stealth-enabled classes can match this score, and the Barbarian can theoretically exceed it (although at the expense of primary class features due to over-reliance on a tertiary stat), the MAM character can do so for a relatively inexpensive cost.   Don't get me wrong. MAM is not designed for every class, and many classes gain more benefit out of other game features. MAM is however, a very good option for a S&B Paladin (or MC Paladin/Sorcerer), or the aforementioned Valor Bard - allowing both classes to invest more in their CHA.   A Devotion/Vengeance PAL can get away with having a slightly lower attack stat thanks to their class features (+CHA to hit, or adv.). If they multiclass as sorcerer or bard, they also gain increased spell slots for a smite-heavy build option, which helps narrow the damage gap between the GWM build while still retaining superior AC in addition to its other options (improved Initiative, Dex Skills/Saves, and stealth).    All I am saying is that MAM is far more competitive (to the right character) than you are giving it credit.
#33 mellored Dec 04, 2014 9:27:53	Kalani wrote:
#34 pauln6 Dec 04, 2014 11:44:32	mellored wrote: