In 4e, the heavy armor wearer was often at a disadvantage, especially at higher levels, compared to the character whose AC was based on a combination of light armor and Dexterity modifier. As a fan of fighters, paladins, and other folks who prefer plate mail to leather, I was disappointed that my character's AC didn't scale as nicely and effortlessly as, say, the ranger's. Unfortunately, the problem with heavy armor persists in 5e...at least in this first draft of the rules.
Simply put, heavy armor is bad. It's really bad. As expected, heavy armor (chainmail, banded, and plate) does not allow you to add your Dexterity bonus to your AC. (Side-note: Sorry, wizard fans, in 5e you can't apply your Intelligence bonus to your AC.) Medium armor (ringmail, scale, and splint) allow you to apply half your Dexterity bonus, while light armor (leather, studded leather, and chain shirt) give you your full Dexterity bonus.
If you're a fighter or cleric, you're likely going to start out at first level with chainmail (+5 AC) and a heavy shield (+2 AC), for an AC of 17. Your friend the rogue (who has proficiency only in light armor) could opt for leather (+2 AC) as in 4e, but why not splurge for a chain shirt (+4 AC)? With a Dexterity of 18 (+4 bonus), the rogue easily starts out at first level with an AC of 18...higher than the fighter! I don't get it. Maybe the rogue doesn't get access to a chain shirt, but at least on the pre-generated character sheet for the rogue, it specifically says that he/she has proficiency in light armor, and chain shirt falls into that category. There's no stealth penalty for chain shirt, either. There's no reason whatsoever that a rogue would opt for leather over a chain shirt. Obviously the chain shirt costs more, but it should still be well within the budget of a first-level character.
So, as it stands now, if I'm building a first-level fighter, I'm going for high (18) Dexterity, chain shirt, and heavy shield. That's a robust 20 for my AC. But wouldn't that limit my offensive capabilities? After all, if I'm putting 18 into Dexterity, I won't have much left over for Strength, right? Well, it just so happens that in 5e there are "finesse" weapons that allow you to use your Dexterity bonus instead of your Strength bonus for attack and damage rolls. Fighters have proficiency in all weapons, so I don't need to burn a feat to get this benefit. I'll pick up a short sword (1D6 damage), which is only marginally less damage than the longsword (1D8) that I would have chosen as a typical Strength-based sword-and-board fighter.
What are the implications of all this? In the playtest rules as written, Dexterity is even more of an uber-stat than it was in 4e. Needless to say, they have some work to do to get the defenses right.
In DND 3.5, they had a players option about Armor Defense. This was to try to fix a rule where a warrior does not improve its defense in armor over time. Historically, heavy armor was mainly for generals on top of horses (they didn't walk/travel far). In modern warfare, the main limiting factor for tanks is their access to fuel supply. So realistically, this makes sense.
ReplyDeleteRogues traditionally had many social skills/options, but were limited and vulnerable in melee. To get them a better defense in melee is not necessary a bad thing.
Stay tuned to my discussion on abilities. I liked 4e that abilities was based off of 2-3 abilities. With the elevation of Dexterity to a must have statistic to survive makes character class and purpose irrelevelant.
In a future issue of my series I will be discussing how diversity within every character class is important to create unique and fun experience.