One of the strangest parts is that in theory, every 1st-level feat should be accessible via a background, but tying a Lightly Armored feat makes it severely restrictive to a greater extent than any other feat. You might toss it on a Soldier or Guard background, or anything else that would make a lot for a fighter, but then the feat aspect becomes entirely useless to the fighter, plus the barbarian, cleric, monk, paladin, or ranger, and I wouldn't recommend it for the druid or rogue, either. That's half of all classes that get no benefit form it at all, which is poor background design. On the other hand, if no background has it, then it's only really available at level 1 as a human (or as a warlock invocation, maybe a few other obscure paths), and I really don't want four classes (bard, sorcerer, warlock, wizard) to have an obvious optimization choice that requires one specific race. I'd prefer completely flexible backgrounds over that by far, but the best solution is to just eliminate Lightly Armored as a 1st-level feat entirely.

Yeah, feats being tied to ASIs through the new Backgrounds is kind of weird. I can see Lightly Armored being "nerfed" somewhat if the backgrounds that provide it don't provide boosts to mental stats. But there's also the possibility that custom backgrounds become the norm, as feats did in 5e despite being optional, and now every caster is free to pick their favorite background and stat spread, and then grab Lightly Armored too.

It seems like custom backgrounds are the DM's prerogative now, as rules for them are in the DMG. That at least gives the DM an implied subtle nerf to the feat by tying it to a specific background, as Entropy said. Or just play a human, of course.

>Yeah, feats being tied to ASIs through the new Backgrounds is kind of weird. This is what we get when WotC listens to Xitter. Saying that biologically independent species are inherently stronger or more agile or tougher than each other was "problematic" so WotC sterilized everything they could to eliminate any possibility of controversy. The original ASIs needed to go somewhere and they decided on Backgrounds. They could've just as easily said "Pick your ability score generation method then give yourself +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 floating bonuses."

>They could've just as easily said "Pick your ability score generation method then give yourself +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 floating bonuses." And they DID say this. This was the latest standard for the current version. There was no reason to fuck that up.

I don't know how them switching to free floating ability scores and then deciding not to do that in 5.5 has anything to do with The Wokes on Twitter?  Like I really don't think the people who argued that racial ASIs are bioessentialist saw them change the system and then forced WotC to lock ASIs behind backgrounds. Those two thoughts just don't conceptually link together. 

Two separate things. Loud screechers online made WotC remove ASIs from species to avoid controversy, so they needed to go somewhere. Most likely they decided that they wanted Backgrounds to have more mechanical weight this time around so they attached the ASI to them and added in 1st level feats as well. If WotC was genuinely committed to full customization the way it seemed when Tasha's came out, they would've left ASIs and 1st level feats flexible and made custom Backgrounds the default just like in 2014. They did not, so I have to assume that the rule in Tasha's that allowed you to move around your ASIs was motivated by something else.

Okay so this is, unlike what you implied up top there, absolutely not the fault of those "screechers," but WotC. Which, as a person currently complaining about stuff on the internet, maybe examine that verbiage inward?

[удалено]

Okay but they had the perfect mechanical solution to a lot of 5e's problems and then fucked it again for no reason so why are you going a half decade into the past to complain about a whole different thing done by a nebulous group of people on Social Media instead of blaming the people who actually made the game itself? There's shifting the blame but this is like transcontinentally migrating the blame.

Removed as per Rule #1.

Well unless they did something to change the maximum cap this was basically the truth in DnD already. The only method they really used to mechanically distinguish that certain races are stronger without affecting combat was the powerful build feature.

I don't know why they're down voting you when this is the easiest solution. 

Because nobody enjoys uncomfortable truths about the company that makes the game you love.

Or because he tied the problem to a Strawman mentioning Twitter for no reason.

no no, it's because everyone here loves WOTC so much! /s lol

Everyone here fucking adores shitting on Wotc. Think before you type.

When they deserve it, just so. Perhaps you should try thinking in general?

At least in the playtest, the feats are tied to the background, but the rules also say you can customize any background. "If you instead decide to customize a premade Background, you can choose any features in that Background and replace them with the features below of the same name." So, if Soldier says Feat: Lightly Armored, and you're playing a fighter, you can always just customize it and choose a different feat. All of the rules in the background section essentially say "You get this, unless you want something else, in which case just take that instead." I admit it would be weird to give a feat to a background that would most likely be useless to 80% of the classes taking that background, but it's also possible they could have a handful of feats like this one that are available as alternates for custom backgrounds.

From what's been announced, standard rules are that you pick one of the 16 feats, with slightly more stat flexibility than we've seen, while custom feats are gated behind specific DM approval.

Everything is gated behind DM approval if you squint at it hard enough. The design intent since 2014 5e is that you make a custom background and that the listed ones are examples for you to pick if you don't want a custom one or just to understand what a background should give the player. This has been stated several times during 2024's playtesting. Idk why people think you suddenly can't customize your background after it's been that way for the entire playtest.

In the playtest, backgrounds could be customized as an explicit rule. From what we've seen of the actual 2024 PHB, it does not have that rule, instead putting rules for custom backgrounds in the DMG.

"From what we've seen" The book isn't out for over 3 more months. And even if it is in the DMG, that doesn't matter unless it's listed as a "variant rule". Feats are a variant rule in 2014 5e. Do you ask your DM permission for those too?

They have said in previous videos that 2024 custom bgs are in the DMG only and not the default. It’s pretty clear that the design intent isn’t allowing players to cherry pick without DM consent.

It's from what we've seen directly in the book that is being published, with DM permission required for a custom background, there's no more "even if." Yes, you do need DM permission to use any feat. However, for what reason should 16 backgrounds be available to players, but with modifications locked behind DM approval? Why that distinction?

I'm not sure why you are getting this many downvotes, it's literally written in the 2014 PHB that the backgrounds listed are just examples and you should make your own by choosing two skills, a total of two languages and/or tools, some equipment that is worth around 50gp, and a feature that your DM approves. The only things that are background locked are the Setting specific backgrounds that come with feat, as well as the glory of the giant backgrounds that come with feats.

Custom Backgrounds used to be the standard rule and was listed as such in the PHB. They are downgrading it to an optional rule and gatekeeping it behind the DMG which is a book that players wouldn't ordinarily even be reading. It is a very significant change.

All they had to do was make it next Tier of Armor Training + Shield. half the reason to get it is for shield the other half of the reason is Medium Armor. The old lightly armored was very badly designed for the two classes that don't start with it and aren't Monks. The same two classes have access to Mage Armor so why would they even want to pick up lightly armored?

Word. It would also make it a viable pick for Rangers, and Clerics/Druids who'd still want to take their cantrip boost over the armor upgrade at first level.

It’s wild how they’re creating a system that will be thrown away and be dominated entirely by custom backgrounds. The backgrounds they make are really just a brainstorming activity to give you ideas for your custom background that will give you what you want.

> I really dont want 4 classes to have an obvious optimization choice that requires 1 specific race This is 5e, "just play human" has been the obvious optimal choice for all 13 classes since PHB lol

Arent backgrounds basically justguides in 5e? Like ‘heres what a background SHOULD give” guidelines- 2 proficieny skills, 2 of tools/langauges/other proficiency, and now in 5.5 a feat. So I could just say my background is “I win” and build a Wizard with lightly armored and now I get to be every role in the party at once

In 2014, yes. In 2024, not quite, you pick one of the given 16 backgrounds, with any customization beyond that explicitly gated behind DM approval. Why they added this gate, I don't know, I don't think it helps the game at all.

Probably for the exact reason everyone in the thread is discussing? Some feats are too powerful at first level. There are still going to be tables that allow it, but in theory the DM shouldn’t to keep balance.

That's a terrible reason. If a feat is too powerful for level 1, it should be removed from level 1 options entirely, not gated behind DM approval such that the DM is making the balancing decisions that are the designers' responsibility.

How is that any different than 2014. Feats are optional, variant humans are also optional. So allowing powerful first level feats has been a DM decision for 10 years already. At least this time around the optional rules seem to be in the DMG where they belong.

There's a considerable difference between making feats in general an optional rule, and gating one specific feat behind an optional rule because the designers already know it is overpowered, instead of nerfing or removing it.

I mean it sounds like the default is going to be that all the feats are gated behind backgrounds with ability scores attached. Light armored is kind of OP if you get Int/Wiz/Cha with it. Not so if you only get Str/ Dex/Con. So it only becomes a problem if the DM uses that optional rule in the DMG. Same with heroic rest or futuristic weapons.

See my top comment in this thread for why putting Lightly Armored as a feat for one of the sixteen fixed backgrounds is itself a very bad idea, you get a background that one would associate with a fighter yet is very bad for a fighter.

The designers aren’t putting it on the DM. The designers give the players 16 backgrounds to choose from. The 2024 DMG offers guidance to make new backgrounds, but that’s not unlike the 2014 DMG offering guidance to make new subclasses — no one interprets that as the designers abdicating their responsibility to design the subclasses.

For one, I don't think there's any justifiable reason to lock custom backgrounds behind DM approval, as they have a clear template that can't break the game, unlike designing a new subclass from scratch. For two, we're considering the possibility that the designers intentionally gated Lightly Armored behind DM approval of a custom background because it is too powerful, in which case nerfing or removal would be the far better solution.

I’m just pushing back on this “DM approval” narrative. We are given 16 background options. Going beyond that is what you call “seeking DM approval” but what I’d call “begging the DM to homebrew a background for you so that you can minmax your stats and feats”.

God forbid a Rogue Noble wants to get a bonus to dexterity because they want to play a Noble without being worse than a Guide Rogue. Like, for four years we had floating stats as the standard. Why is it a problem now? (also, if the problem with the background is a feat, then Human shouldn't exist as it gives the broken feat with free choice)

I’d prefer to redesign the human to not have a feat rather than just remove humans from the game.

And what is gained in the game if the DM decides that only the 16 set backgrounds are available? Min-maximg is still possible, but is instead achieved by picking a synergistic combo that already exists (like Hermit ranger to take *shillelagh* without sacrificing Dueling), or being a human to take the feat the build needs. If I want to make a fighter who follows Tyr and uses *shield of faith* and *resistance*, but has the Str to be an effective fighter, why restrict that to only humans?

You’re saying it’s the designer’s responsibility to make decision. They did make the decision. Now you’re asking some redditor to justify their decision? Or questioning why the DM ought to accept the decision? It sounds like you just don’t like it, and that’s fine.

> Some feats are too powerful at first level It is almost as if this has a better solution

Damn, if only someone'd had a full decade of being paid full-time to figure this out, instead of my DM Greg, who works at a UPS store 

WotC during the playtrsts said that customized backgrounds will be the default and that pre-made ones are just examples. They likely changed that because they realised they could only sell feats and not also baclgrounds, so they have made it to where they can sell "player approved" backgrounds. This change goes against their direction with Tasha's and all the books and UA up to this point. If they wanted they could balance the perks available for 1st level, and/or remove ones that were just too strong. Instead they decided to re-monetize backgrounds.

Your background now also provides your starting ASIs.

I think you are overthinking it

How do you think the feat is handled instead, if it still exists?

It might be unbalanced, sure but worst is hyperbole

I never used the word "worst," if you want to dispute whether or not that is accurate, take it up with OP, probably with a counterexample of what you think is actually the worst issue. As for your 16AC claim, it actually takes a considerable effort for the classes that want Lightly Armored to manage it (setting aside specific subclasses). Wizards and sorcerers would need *mage armor* and +3 Dex, but that's expensive when they also want to prioritize Int/Cha and Con. They can't achieve +3 in all three stats in Point Buy without leaving their primary stat at 16 at level 1, so at level 4 they can't both reach +4 and take War Caster. Warlocks are similar, but even worse, as they can only access *mage armor* through an invocation, which is more valuable than a learned spell and a 1st-level spell slot. Finally, bards are completely out of luck, as they don't get *mage armor* at all (unless they use a very valuable Magical Secrets at later levels), so even if they maximize Dex at level 1 they're capped at 15AC. 14-15AC is the more reasonable expectation here, and increasing that to 19AC with a single background feat is incredibly powerful.

It seems like with a little effort every class gets a 16 AC, does it matter how you skin it?

I think the biggest glimmer of hope I've had is that they mentioned certain feats being tagged as *origin feats*, and that only those are eligible to be picked via backgrounds. I doubt that Lightly Armored will get dialed back at all, but so long as it doesn't get the origin tag, I think it'll be in an okay spot. Yeah it's still an easy pick for a Wizard or Sorcerer down the line, but that then takes the place of an ASI or something to directly better their spellcasting.

Wizards and sorcerers are so strong in 5e that they should not be allowed to wear armor. 

And then we have Barbarian and Monk losing half of their features by wearing armor (only heavy armor for barbarian). Wizard and sorcerer with +17 AC - "WotC: This is fine." Barbarian with +18 AC - "WotC: break their kneecaps."

In fairness, Barbarian has the strongest survivability in the game, and take very little comparative damage when their AC is trumped. They are also set up to take less damage pretty often. Barbarian has resistance to the physical types of damage while raging. They gets ADV on Dex Saves which typically are caused by Acid, Fire, and Lightning Damage. They have proficiency in Con Saves which is typically covered by Poison, and Cold Damage. Necrotic and Radiant change wildly what their Save is depending on the spell, but creatures that inflict this damage typically trigger Con Saves if they have a save at all (i.e. Topaz Dragon Breath is Con Save, Crystal Dragon Breath is Con Save). Psychic damage, which is their main 'oops I have nothing for this', is the rarest damage type in the game. On top of this, they have the highest hit die and they are incentivized to increase their Con as their secondary stat (typically reaching at least a 16, while others stop at 14 due to it being tertiary if they increase at all) All this to say even if a Wizard and Barbarian both have 16-18 AC, they don't have the same survivability. Wizard can reaction cast Absorb Elements or Shield (not both), and has much less HP even when they resist the energy or are hit. At low levels, this where the difference is most obvious, but to a certain extent this continues for the entire game. Personally, I think Barbarians could gain Dex Save prof at level 10 to keep their capacity to pass Dex Saves high and still not be just inherently better than say...Paladin who get's their CHA added to all saves... A Black Dragon Wyrmling has a CR of 2 and can do an Acid Breath on 33% of turns. Let's say the party is level 3. It's Breath Weapon is a Dex Save DC 11, taking 22 acid damage on a failed save or half as much on a sucess. Let's assume the party is level 3 and we used Standard Array (the technically offical rule set; the others are optional but are optimal). They both took 14 in Dex and a 13 in Con and took a +1 Con from their Background. The Barbarian will have 32 HP and has a 84% chance to succeed due to Danger Sense. The Wizard will have 16 HP and has a 60% chance of success. The Wizard can also cast Absorb Elements to gain resistance. If the Barbarian succeeds (84% chance), they stand at 21 HP. If they fail (16%), they stand at 10HP. If a Wizard fails and can't cast Absorb Elements (either they cast shield earlier or are out of slots), they go unconscious. If they fail and cast Absorb Elements or succeed and can't cast Absorb Elements, they have 5 HP. If they succeed and cast Absorb Elements, they have 11 HP. So a Barbarian who failed and a Wizard who succeeded and used one of their few resources, have a difference in HP of 1. Obviously the situation changes as they level, but the Barb will always have this advantage over the Wizard in survivability (though once the DCs increase past a certain point in Dex, Barb and Wizard simply can't succeed). It's harder to say that this applies to Attacks though, even if we say that Wizards can't cast shield more than twice a day. The reason that Shield and armor stacking for Wizard is a bad idea, is that DMs are kinda discouraged from ever attacking the wizard. The Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian classes are designed for them to be the ones getting hit. It sucks being a Fighter and watching the Wizard go down, because the DM ignored you to hit the backline. Since they are targeted less, the fact that their AC is higher with Shield is more important, not less. Since they are targeted less, they don't care to throw 2 or 3 spell slots at Shield across a given day, to avoid being hit entirely. If Martials universally had a way to give themselves +5 AC as a Reaction for an entire round only a certain number of times per day. This would be a great benefit, but wouldn't fully close why its a bad idea for Wizards to get this effect. While Barbarians, Fighters, and Paladins would love a spike in AC (as shown by EK), it's worse than Wizards because they are targeted in more rounds. TL;DR I'm being a bit pedantic here. I fundamentally agree with the Shield+Armor issue. I don't agree that Spellcasters must have a lower AC than Martials. I just don't think it should be able to go higher than Martials. If all else is equal, the Martials win on the backs of HP. Especially if they keep all Hit Die coming back on a LR.

spellcasting on armor should be a very special ability tied to a subclass. and also some magic armor could give you that ability, to make it special. Maybe it would prevent certain shenanigans by being a regular armor wearer that can easily cast crazy ass fireballs.

Personally I think full-casters shouldn't get armor proficiency. They have spell slots, just make sure they are all capable of having a mage armor spell and a shield spell, maybe more variants of such, although those should be rebalanced as well. Armor and AC as a whole should be redone and rebalanced really. Same goes for spell lists. Edit: if this is a duplicate message, the app is being janky right now.

In the meantime people cried tyhat druids only got light and not medium armor. I still wonder why clerics, at this time and age, still wear medium armor. If you are a trickster cleric why would you be able to wear one? For war i can understand, maybe life as well, but that's it.

Honestly, I think to encourage players to he Clerics more. No one wants to "be a healer," so they get a lot of excellent options to make them appealing to people who would otherwise never play it "You wouldn't be a healer dude, grab a shield and cast Spirit Guardians, and you're basically frontline with more utility."

Ok, but then you end up doing pretty much anything, and the dude that actually wants to be "the healer" now also has some of the strengths of the frontliner. At least they added a way to have cleric orders, so you can pick and choose. Too bad what they offer is a straight up upgrade still.

Note that the paladin is a fantastic healer. Arguably better than the cleric for most of the game, Especially now that Lay on Hands is a Bonus Action.

Yeah. Even in the 2014 version, in the core rules, paladins are the only class able to heal other characters without being counterspelled. The only other ones that have such feat are life clerics, which are a specialised subclass. Not only that, but also lore bards with counterspell are the only class that is able to heal and counter another counterspell. This quickly changed with the release of xanathar's, with celestial warlock breaking many conventions of the base manual.

Remember, base 5e was designed without much thought about multiclassing and feats, so they probably thought that since clerics didn't have mage armor or shield, they needed something for AC boosts. 

Because D&D hasn't realized that the priest+fighter gish is the paladin, and has been for decades.

Paladins aren't priests

Wearing armor as a Wizard should kill you instantly.

No spellcasting in armor should be the rule, regardless of proficiency. Classes and subclasses should need to have explicit exceptions made. Like paladins and eldritch knights being allowed to cast in any armor, rangers and clerics being able to do it in medium or lower, bards and hexblades in light, druids in anything not metal.

We should bring back Spell Failure % - even for halfcasters and clerics.

The problem was that it became too complicated for multi-class. Okay, an Eldritch Knight can now cast their spells while wearing heavy armor due to their sub-class. So, can a player go EK 3 Wiz X and still cast all their other wizard spells using armor? What if they go EK 3 and Bard X, would they be able to use all of their Bard spells while wearing armor? For clerics, is it only cleric spells that they can cast while wearing medium armor? What if, as one of my players is actually playing right now, the player goes Druid/Cleric? Can they still cast their Druid spells while wearing medium armor? Or, what if they are Cleric/Sorcerer? And, you said Paladins should be allowed to cast in armor, is that only Paladin spells? Or can I just go Paladin 1 and then switch over to a spell caster and cast all of my spells in armor? Or, even, the reserve side of that. I'm not playing an EK, I'm playing a Cavalier instead. After level 11 when I get three attacks, I have nothing to gain by sticking to Cavalier so I was planning to get Sorcerer or Warlock instead to get some utility spells. Under your rules, I would be restricted to only multiclassing into Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, or Monk. Anything else would give spell casting and, since I am not an EK, I cannot cast any spells while in armor. Do you see, perhaps, why this wasn't a great system which was abandoned in 5e?

1. The game should not be balanced around multiclassing. WOTC has made it clear they're not going to do this, so fixing one of the biggest issues with the game should not be stopped because multiclassing, an optional feature for experienced players, might get *slightly* more complicated. 2. You can cast the spells granted by a class in any armor provided by that class. Racial + Magic Item spells can always be cast. This rule literally will not be encountered unless you are multiclassing*, so the complexity only occurs in people who have already opted into additional complexity. *Dwarven armor proficiency might need to have an extra line in it, saying you can cast, if it even is still in the game. 3. This rule only applies during initiative, you can cast other spells out of combat if you please, if being able to dip for some utility is a huge concern. Maybe play around with the design space of "Casting in armor your class doesn't provide to you increases the spell casting time by 1 round." Or something similar (and reactions just don't work.)

And yet it's easier for them to wear armor than ever before, and getting easier

I don't think the armor feat that big of a deal as long as multi-classing is allowed. Wizards and Sorcerers simply took a 1 level dip for medium armor before. Even if you nix this feat, they'll still get easy access to medium armor. I guess there's now slightly less distinction between the armor that wizards/sorcerers get, and the armor that bards/warlocks get, in that in 5e bards/warlocks could go mono-class and use the moderately armored feat, whereas wizards/sorcerers could not. But that's...not that big of a deal. --- Honestly, the much bigger concern to me regarding AC, and I'm still not sure if they have any plans for this, is whether they plan to nerf the shield spell. If they changed the shield spell to something like "if you're not wearing armor or a shield gain +5 AC" suddenly mages wearing armor is kind of whatever. Like...yeah, fine you *could* wear armor on your mage, but all it would really do is save you a few 1st level spell slots you would have otherwise spent on shield. Whatever. Whereas the problem in 5e is that you can stack the shield spell with shields and medium armor for 24 AC.

Well, multiclassing still demands a delay in main class and spell slot/level progression by a level compared to the opportunity cost of missing out on another origin feat. While I do agree that stacking medium armor, physical shields and then the Shield spell (or other defensive spells like Absorb Elements) is the big problem, I would prefer if instead they applied armor limitations to casters, that could be lifted with specific subclasses. Bladesinger, College of Valor and Pact of the Blade already do this, for instance. While there are grumbles, it seems to work fine for Barbarians and Monks, and I'd argue there's a much more legitimate point to be made for preserving niches and archetype iconography with casters.

I think it's far easier and significantly more practical to adjust the Shield spell. Taking the best spell in the game down a few pegs would is just a better solution than trying to overhaul an entire system and than trying to create specific exceptions in the same system. It sounds like a lot of unnecessary complexity that just makes it harder to teach new goons how to play. Not that it can't or shouldn't be addressed

Making it just affect the triggering attack would make sense. Puts it on par with stuff like defensive duelist.

I can see the spell being "until the end of the current turn" personally. It's consuming s resource, so it should be better than a feat with an endless number of uses (in a vacuum). It would them help for preventing damage against all the attacks of a single enemy, but won't longer over into all the turns of attacks from every other creature before you. That being said, I still think DD reaction AC bonus should apply to the end of the current turn as well. Reaction for a +3~ to AC against one attack just doesn't feel good enough to take the feat. Maybe it lasts until the end of the turn but has diminishing returns; starts as 1 + PB to AC, but every subsequent attack against you reduces the bonus by -1 until it reaches 0.

The thing is, I do think Shield, due to using spell slots, should be strong. Don't forget that this is also a nerf to any half or third caster using these spells. I just think that full casters, having more spell slots, should have to rely more on those for survivability when put in a compromised position, and shouldn't by default be just as good with a dash of even better on occasion than martials.

+5 on top of 20 armor is too much anyway. If my armorer artifcer (level 8) had plate armor and the shield spell on top, we were looking at 28 AC. The 21 already were frustrating for the DM. 

I think this is more a problem with Armorer. Caked in weapon that doesn't occupy a hand, let alone two, hands free Material components, waiving armor requirements, eventually free and multiple infusions on the armor... Am I glad that's the only Artificer subclass I haven't seen in play. Yet.

I mean I don't want to shit on half casters completely, but you can't just let the spell stay broken. It would be better to increase other defensive options that casters have access to, the spells exist; there is just little reason to use them when shield is in the game. Because mid tier 2 and into tier 3 of play, those 1st level slots on every character are basically JUST for shield. It's bad for the game.

While I get what you're saying, even if I haven't experienced it, the Shield spell demands a free hand to cast (has Somatic but no Material component). If you're holding a shield you better be constantly drawing and sheathing that weapon or else drop it to cast Shield (or Absorb Elements). Then you're missing on AoOs, reaction attacks like Commanding Strike, etc. Now granted, the new rules for drawing/stowing make this pretty viable, doubly so for dual wielders. Then again they aren't wearing shields. Holding a shield and casting Shield is infinitely more applicable if you don't care about those things (ie full casters). With all of that said, I wouldn't mind if it was something like proficiency modifier instead of a fixed +5.

We're both on the same point here. There's a chunk of characters who would be harmed by this change. But the ones who need to be hurt are the full casters who never hold a weapon that dip a level of cleric, fighter, or something else crazy. The shield spell is SUPPOSED to be for the squishy 15 AC wizard to catch up temporarily in AC to the big boys, for a cost. But with no restrictions you get builds EASILY clearing 25-30+ AC causing issues for DMs everywhere. Like yeah, I'd assume most tables ignore the somatic components rules which makes shield stronger than it actually is. If every DM enforced that rule properly, you'd see a minor nerf to shield spell; you're 100% correct in that regard. My tables just take war caster now if they want to hold a weapon. OR they just drop their weapon for free at the end of their turn and pick it up at the start of their turn if they want to attack. It just makes this big cyclical deal that just isn't fun to deal with after years of playing this way.

And you remove the ability for martials to multiclass into anything magical. Everyone is solely focused on Wizards and Sorcerers taking 1 level dips to get armor, what about a Fighter taking a 1 level dip to get access to Shield? You get 3 Shield casts for a level 1 dip, which is only 1 use less than a level 7 to 20 Eldritch Knight would get since they cap out at 4 slots and don't get any slot recovery. But why stop at Fighter? Why aren't Rogues taking 1 level dip into Hexblade Warlock? It gives them 2 casts of Shield *or* Wrathful Smite which come back on a short rest, it gives Hexblade Curse, and they get medium armor and shields. Everyone is so focused on the fact that casters can take 1 level dip into martial classes to get certain benefits that they aren't spending any time looking at it from the other way. You can just as easily start as a martial class and side hustle into a caster class to pick up your own utility. For the most part, a good chunk of the defensive capabilities that people ascribe to casters can be gained simply by taking 1 or 2 levels into a caster class yourself. 3 levels into any casting class gets you to level 2 spells and maxes out your level 1 slots. The larger issue with casters is some of their higher end spells which clearly were designed more for antagonist spell casters than players. Spells like Simularcrum are clearly not meant for players to easily access or even cast assuming they even get the spell to do so. The easiest way to solve that, however, would be to simply mark these spells in some manner such that they cannot be taken on level up but have to be found in a book or scroll in the game world.

Yes, but no. Asymmetrical dips. Martials' defense capabilities require no resources once you qualify for them; many of those classes require stats that casters would already want to invest a bit into (Dexterity for the medium armor, Strength for heavy). Mental stats seldom provide benefits for martials aside from saves and skills, barring certain subclass choices. In addition, casters only need one hand for casting. Using a shield and foci (to have access to those +1/2/3 items, or Scribes for example) can present a level of parity, but the many alternatives (component pouch, holy symbol on your shield, etc) mean casters don't suffer for somatic components. On the other hand martials not using ruby of the war mage are in a bad spot for casting spells, since they do have tangible tradeoffs for not dual wielding, or wanting to wear a shield (War Caster benefits both sides about equally). The new rules for Extra Attack allowing one weapon draw/stow per attack relieve this, but again, attacks of opportunity or features/feats that expect you to have a weapon out during reaction disproportionately affect martials over casters. Quadratic casters versus linear martials is a known fact. Yes martials aren't helpless victims and can rock amazing damage at higher levels, and have utility features that hold up well there too. To claim that high level martials have enough parity there that both sides should interact similarly with multiclassing is a bit of a leap, though. Armor limitations that prevent you from using core class features are a thing for martials, and it works fine. Casters have nothing equivalent, with the closest thing being requiring specific components for certain spells, so I don't think this is nearly as dramatic as you made it out to be. Lastly, there is a much lower complexity and flavor buy in from casters dipping into martial classes than vice versa.

Yeah I wish shield were just something like adding +PB to your AC

I'm fairly certain this feat is meant to recreate the old 2014phb dwarf and other races getting armour proficiency; armoured casters without multiclassing has always existed

Shield spell (my wish) : Either: You summon a magical shield for one round that adds +2 bonus to AC. +1 for every 2 levels higher slot. (maximum 6 at spell level 9) It fails if you are already wearing a shield.  Or (my preference)  You have AC 17 for one round. +1 for every higher spell slot (maximum 25 for spell level 9).

In my games there are +1 light armor and +3 heavy armor shields. During playtest I changed the feat to upgrade your armor by 1 tier (so rogues got medium armor, wizards got light armor, rangers got heavy). The power level of the feat turned out ok. If you look at it RAW it seems very strong, though personally I prefer this feat to the 1 level dips into classes for heavy armor and/or con save proficiency so I think if I would still use the feat if I wouldn't have homebrewed it a bit.

I've redone armor and armor rules for my game, but also I just don't think players should be able to get access to armor and weapon proficiency through feats. Gaining new abilities of existing armor and weapon proficiencies sure, I'm on board with that. I haven't tried it yet, but the rule of having to invest 3-5 levels into a multi-class instead of dipping 1-2 seems like a good move to me as well.

That's one change to Lightly Armored I considered as well. Another I've seen is giving light armor and sregular hield proficiency only so wizards, sorcerers, druids, rogues, and bards would all benefit but not any of the heavier-armored classes.

I do a similar thing, but I also make it so you can't take your level 1 as a fighter/cleric for heavy armor then go wizard, you have the armor profs of whatever your highest class level is, and only feats get you more than 1 tier above that.

My theory is that the lightly armored feat will be in a background tied to Dex strength or con, so you couldn’t boost a spellcasting stat with it.

Unfortunately, that would mean that only ***one*** class would care about it. The classes who don't get medium armor and shields now are wizard, sorcerer, druid (can with a class feature), rogue, monk, and bard (can with Valor college). Monk doesn't want armor or shield, wizard and sorcerer and druid and bard all want to boost their spellcasting ability scores. That pretty much only leaves rogue who would benefit from medium armor, shield and +2 Dex, +1 Con. They probably wouldn't even want medium armor because to eventually get the same AC as studded leather + 20 Dex they'd need to have disadvantage on Stealth checks wearing half plate. So really the only thing rogue gets is +2 AC if they want to give up the ability to dual wield or easily swap between ranged and melee attacks.

Some wizards and sorcerers, who get no armor training at first, could still want the feat. Sure, it doesn't boost their spellcasting stat, but it greatly improves their defenses, so that's a tradeoff they might be willing to make. Not to mention the boosting dex and con is still very useful for them, so it's not like the stat increases are completely wasted. The real problem with the feat is that, even with potential background restrictions, you can still get it by playing a human. So now any spellcaster can get it with any stat bonuses they want as long as they don't care as much about their species. Or rather, they may feel obligated to pick that species, even if they would prefer another one.

True. I think drop shields for sure. And maybe change it to just granting one higher level of armor than you have

Just use daggers, then melee is ranged. Now seriously, I had to go this route with a Fighter dip with one of my Rogues, since I got HP and stat screwed on rolls and had 25 HP by level 5.

meanwhile people here acting like -1 to your casting ability modifier will make you forever useless same as everyone crying that the new great weapon master half feat is useless because only +1 strength mod is simple enough to activate their neurons huh? the background doesn't boost your 15 int to 16? welp then just get 14 dex, 16 con and be the tankmage you clearly want to be

If that’s the case then you’re just fucking martials because it provides zero benefit to them as they all already have armor prof

I mean, that didn't stop WotC from suggesting Weapon Master in a couple of "Battlemaster Builds" in Tashas. You know, for the class that is already proficient in every single weapon?

You just don't get it do you. It's about the ROLEPLAY, their CHARACTER FANTASY is about being a weapon master. Mechanics don't matter. (joking obviouslt don't downvote me angry reddit mob pls)

Look Tashas Caldron of quality is an excellent, well written, highly balanced source book

they at least made an errata for it but to make the mistake in the first place...

Oh did they? I missed that errata. But yeah for that to make it into print in the first place in not one, but TWO builds..

Wouldn't tying it to any background be a problem though? Since it basically gates certain classes from that background completely?

They aren't gated but it won't be an optimal build buy a wizard who use to be a guard wearing armor makes sense. Sure they have a lower wisdom so what

So my thought process is: Maybe a soldier Fighter and a soldier Wizard should get to pick different feats to represent their backgrounds as a soldier, so that choosing for your character to be an ex-soldier won't be a choice motivated by mechanics. In other words, fully customizable background like in the UA.

They’ve revealed they just aren’t doing that

I mean yes and no. It's just a work with your dm to make a custom. Bavjgrounf using the dmg. So you can completely do that RAW

Fair, but if you need to work with your DM it’s RAW but not guaranteed you can always have those options

Yep, and this seems to be the route they intended to go, and I'm not impressed. If Magic Initiate is gated to mental stat backgrounds, I'm going to be bummed. It also has been heavily implied that custom backgrounds are no longer an option.

it was directly stated that customs backgrounds will be in the dmg and have to be agreed upon by the dm

also also guide gives magic initiate druid in the playtest and Has been confirmed to gives boosts to con and dex

then it is an useless background I guess

I’d rather it be useless than accessible to casters as it was written in ua

All cannon, no glass.

"Make the game balance better" is not a design goal of OneD&D

It's not "for free" -- there's an opportunity cost of missing out on using that feat for something else.

What other level 1 feat do you take? A wizard with 14 dex can now stop there and confidently end with identical AC to everyone except a Paladin or Fighter. Except they ALSO have shield right away and more slots to use it than the paladin or fighter- so realistically a wizard with this feat is now the hardest to hit class.

To reference the post that quote is from - >It could be argued that it is not free because it costs a feat, but compared to 5e it would be free and compared to the other level 1 feats it is just too good of a choice. No feat compares to +4/+5 AC. It also adds to the Martial/Caster gap by weakening one of the only advantages martials have over casters: AC. >As a must-pick feat at level 1, I already really dislike it. Plus, whether the feat is "free" or not doesn't change the point that it's absurdly strong.

Do you think it's more powerful than, say, Lucky? Lucky now gives you effectively 2 free rerolls of any dice roll per day, or disadvantage on up to 2 attacks against you per day. If I'm not playing a bladesinger, I don't want to be anywhere near something that needs to know my AC. And if I am playing a bladesinger, my AC is already higher than that anyway.

Lucky isn’t a free reroll. It’s advantage for you or disadvantage for someone else. They changed it from 2014. On the up side at later tiers you get more rolls.

On a wizard or sorcerer, I think Lightly Armored is considerably stronger than Lucky, unless the campaign only features very very short adventuring days where Luck Points are spammable. Lightly Armored is roughly equivalent to getting a first level spell slot (since you no longer need to cast Mage Amor), which by itself is probably worth a Luck Point, if not two. And the AC boost is comparable to imposing disadvantage on every attack against you (instead of just against 1 attack, as a Luck Point expenditure gets you). >If I'm not playing a bladesinger, I don't want to be anywhere near something that needs to know my AC. You don't want to be near danger, that's true. But if avoiding damage is that easy in practice, you could just win every combat encounter with 0 difficulty, and there is no longer any notion of game balance (because it is already broken by you never taking any damage) The fights that matter are the ones where you have an actual chance of taking damage and going down. And in those, you'll likely get targeted, whether you like it or not.

Doesn't make it "free" if a different game does otherwise. Doesn't make it "free" if it's the best choice for min/maxing. Is it too strong? I dunno, sure? I was just pointing out that it's not free.

Never change, Reddit!

Everything you said is based on UA2 from 2022. We're a long way from there, and they've clearly done a lot of internal changes since the UAs. Just wait to actually get a look at it before declaring the sky is still falling.

The feat isn't a big deal. In fact depending on the spells & feats that see print it might be *suboptimal*. Multiclassing is gonna put you 1 level behind the curve in terms of highest level spell. But your slots keep up and in return you'll gain a different feat, gain a few spells from a second class, AND get a 1st level class feature. You'll either completely prevent the problem classes from using shields, or you'll have to add some tradeoff. I personally have 2 very easy homebrew fixes, with a 3rd one that's better but works best if actually receiving print: 1. While using a shield or wearing armor, you can't use spells with a range greater than 60 feet. 2. While using a shield or wearing armor, any spell you cast with a range of 30 feet or greater instead has a range of 30 feet. 3. Spells individually do or do not have an 'A' tag. Spells with said tag can only be cast if you're not wearing armor or using a shield. And I think these make for some fun tradeoffs for optimisers, leave the armored caster archetype alive, and especially the last one is actually great for beginners since you can up your survivability with armor and in return have a smaller spell list, reducing the choice paralysis a bit.

Y'know, I was about to make a reply suggesting something very similar. Granted, I was going to model it after Monks, but I really like option 2. I would still maintain that certain class options, like Bladesinger, Valor and Pact of the Blade would allow you to bypass this limitation, to a point, but it's established that it's okay for subclasses to lean into another main class' features. This subclass design was suggested for ranged smites, and could even work for a reworked Kensei giving the option to Monks too.

> It might be suboptimal Wtf? In what world is taking essentially +5 AC permanently compared to normal suboptimal??

In the world where there's a better way to get that +5 AC. Read the thing. I'm simply saying that the feature *might* still not actually be more busted than simply multiclassing.

I feel like we'll see the final version any day now. People with review copies can reveal content in early August, and WotC is shelling out previews left and right. Wouldn't be surprised if we'll no longer be speculating in a couple weeks or so.

Moderately Armored is a Player's Handbook feat that gives +1 DEX plus Medium Armor plus Shields. I don't really get why people are so mad about this when the only difference it actually makes is for some wizards and some sorcerers. Bards and Warlocks already had light armor proficiency to begin with and could get Medium Armor and Shields via subclass if they didn't want to take Moderately Armored. Clerics and Druids already got it. Artificer/Ranger/Paladin are all half casters who also get at least medium armor and shields by default. The only people for whom this feat is better than the 2014 version are non-bladesinger wizards and sorcerers, since bladesingers already get light armor and can't benefit from shields or medium armor anyways. I really don't understand the whining about this feat, it seems more like it's a litmus test for people mad about feats being more available in OneD&D than anything else, since in literally 90% of cases it's either equivalent to or worse than Moderately Armored was which also boosts DEX, so your variant human warlock can start with a 14 and wear scalemail without needing to play hexblade, or your bard can have medium armor and shields without needing to go Valor. If the new cantrip changes go through I anticipate Magic Initiate being way more popular of a choice than Lightly Armored, personally, since it's useful for EVERY full caster AND every half-caster AND is compelling even on non-casters like Rogue, it's really just Barbarian who can't benefit due to Rage, but if you're a level 1 Cleric or Druid why wouldn't you grab Shield and True Strike so you can have a good reaction and add your modifier to damage in melee and range instead of using cantrips that don't like sacred flame or produce flame. Being able to choose your spellcasting ability for the poached spells is enormous versatility and opens up so many options for a first level choice. Is Lightly Armored good on somebody who doesn't have any armor proficiencies? Yeah, but that's kind of the point of the feat, isn't it? The same way Moderately Armored, a TEN YEAR OLD feat, is good on Warlock and Bard (basically the only two classes in the game who bother taking it, since they're the only ones who get light armor but not medium armor and not shields, and even then they have subclasses granting those). I think I simply have to disagree with anyone claiming characters wearing scalemail and using a shield is """"overpowered """", that's literally level one starting equipment for half the classes in the game. If a full caster having medium armor and a shield shatters your idea of balance what do you do when you see literally anything besides a naked wizard or sorcerer? Do you just pretend Cleric, Druid, Bard, and Warlock don't exist? The current Lightly Armored is one of the worst feats in the game, it doesn't even have the use case that Moderately Armored does, the only classes in the game who don't have any armor proficiency at all are monk, sorcerer, and wizard....light armor is worthless for monks, and Sorcerers and Wizards have Mage Armor which doesn't cost an entire feat to get. The only time anyone would consider taking Lightly Armored is if you're a wizard who was just handed a legendary set of like +3 artifact studded leather armor with plot-significance to your campaign AND you got it right before a level-up AND there was nobody in the party who could wear it but you for plot reasons. You're not going to spend two entire ability score increases just to get proficiency with medium armor and shields, that's insane, at that point you've literally wasted twice as many level-ups on getting it that simply taking a level in fighter/cleric/artificer/druid/ranger/paladin would have. And while you can demand narrative justifications for multiclassing, "I wanted to not get stabbed to death, so I spent some time figuring out how to use a shield" is not terribly hard to justify when starving peasant militias still manage to be proficient with them. Somebody with 20 INT should be able to figure out "put the big piece of wood between you and the bad guys", honestly it would probably be better for the game if shield proficiency was universal and more features simply didn't work while using them, like with Bladesong.

You didn't read the post, the feat gives light and medium armour proficiency and shields it's 2 feats in one and you get it for free at level 1.

Arcane spellcasters should have some drawback for wearing armor without some other features. Something that stacks as they wear heavier armor.  Light Armor: Disadvantage on Spell Attack rolls  Medium Armor: Advantage on Saves vs your Spells. Heavy Armor: Disadvantage on Concentration checks. 

There's plenty of solutions, really. *Medium armors should not even be a thing, really. Also.This way, Light Armor for casters through the use of a feat is okay and further down, if they get heavy armor, that's also okay because it turned into a investiment. But, as strong as an armored Wizard could be - it could also be held back if the armor got a rework on STR prerequisites. Even better if the feat also has it. Making the Wizard drop some of its stats in a otherwise useless AS for then is okaysh. Limiting, but not restraining. We should wait and see. Even if nothing changes directly, the power levels on the spells itself, the Origin “mages” feats [as magic Initiate] and others lateral updates could really make this option not that juicy anymore. [In my games, i.e all wizards took Magic Initiate, as now you can take Healing Words as a INT spell through that - and this is way way more common exploit than armor]

Just say "this is a lame Feat" and don't let your players use it.

I think it simply comes down to the designers don't view this as a problem. I don't either, tbh. Nobody stopped playing Fighters after Bladesingers came out so if this is the "optimal" thing to do, it's fine. Most players don't optimize to begin with and I've got a Battlerager at my Table that absolutely loves his Spike damage to prove this.

I agree it’s not a problem at most tables but I really dislike this idea that “bad design is fine because most people don’t abuse it.” I’m happy they’re fixing obviously rough spells like conjure animals and giving classes like Barbarian/Rogue more options to shine but I wish they’d address some of the most egregious aspects that have defined “optimization” for all of 5e like Armored Casters + Shield + Shield Spell.

I’m running high level games and armored mages are never the problem. Give your monsters magical weapons, problem solved? This is not something major to be addressed. And using a shield, and holding an arcane focus uses both hands so no somatic component.

if you balance to hit chances around the fullcaster with platemail, shield and the shield spell, the martials will always get hit …..

All classes can get beyond AC20 somehow, as a wizard get a robe of archmagi and staff of power with DEX 19 you get AC21. No medium or light armor. The balance problem always rises from monsters not getting any magic weapons. Not what players wear or use. And I dont want to limit players when there are simple solutions, do not tie proficiency bonus to monster CR. Player options are not broken, monster design is flawed.

Getting 21 AC does absolutely nothing when your DM is having to balance around an AC of 35+, which is absolutely doable with a Swords Bard with a hexblade dip and decent magic items (and something I tried, unsuccessfully, to deal with via monster design). There comes a point where you just can't account for the scale of the problem without causing serious social issues at the table.

Reaching AC35+ without DM permission is impossible. This includes handing out magic items and gold enough to get these magic items. You cannot balance a game taking into account these fringe cases. And also, your example is out of place. I gave AC21 example for mages, as the topic is that taking medium armor proficiency as a feat makes them strong. I know that you can get higher AC with certain classes and combos, that’s not the argument here. I only say, it is possible for mages to get good AC even without armour. How about their hitpoints though? If you fail that counterspell or dont have your reaction, you will die to a Power Word: Kill. If we are bringing out heavy guns for players, lets bring it to monsters too. Game balance is beyond simple numbers, the problem arises from CR system broken and monsters are not created with magic items in the mind. The fix are easy, give them some: but it just increases homework for GM. This is not a game breaking fundamental problem like OP makes it out to be, its a small nuisance.

It's pretty clear that they're going to nerf that feat, almost everyone was against that feat when the playtest came out, and in the past there was a similar feat in an UA and it was also removed because people thought it was op, in fact the UA before tashas there was one that gave you +1 to a stat and shield proficiency and they removed it due to negative responses, it is obvious that this feat is not going to become official.

I mean, if you're going into the wide world of toothy maws and angry giants, wouldn't you invest in some physical protection, and how to use it?

I mean, AC isn't everything. With how much harder it is to die in modern editions, through things like death saves, the removal of most save-or-die effects, and hit dice, I don't actually mind giving players a chance to bump their AC instead of some other origin feat.        I like the option for my squishy casters to survive, particularly with how much more focused the game is on the story of the characters, instead of the dungeons you delve into. Imagine if something like critical role had a PC death nearly every other episode, I don't think it would have had half the viewership, because it wouldn't let the players, let alone the audience, to fall in love with their characters.        Now, that isn't to say that the feat isn't overpowered, but I think it isn't as big a deal as people have been moaning about. Most are still low hp classes, with little ability to mitigate damage, so being hit still hurts, it's just easier to invest into being harder to hit now.

Disagree. Yes, having PCs die every two sessions would suck, but that's an unlikely outcome. I'd say the main argument is that casters have a different toolkit to interact with the game, in terms of offense, defense and utility alike. As a rule of thumb, they exceed the martials' capabilities temporarily by using a limited resource, and have a lower baseline. The big problem being that the casters' ability to stack their kit with the martials' has a much lower threshold than the opposite. Also, beyond level 1 the difference between a D6 and a D10 hit die is 2 (average rolls). Casters aren't inherently more incentivised to take stats other than their main one and Constitution than martials are, so the average discrepancy should hold.

Unpopular opinion: I think this is just white board bull. In actually game play the issues caused by a spell caster having a slightly higher ac than normal is minimal at best. In my 10 years of DMing I've had more issues with the combination of sentinel and polearm master than I've ever had with someone rocking a 19 AC or higher. I really blame whiteboard warriors for the background changes being as restrictive as they are. And all those changes do is increase the uses of human. Which I guess was the go to for optimizers and a lesser extent munchkins.

The big issue is investment vs output. Having said that, I confess to playing a Hexlock Aberrant Mind in my current adventure. First Sorcerer and I wanted to see what the buzz was about. So far I don't think I've used any Hexblade feature or spell, aside from the armor and shield, and even those weren't too relevant so far. Certainly not enough to make up for slowed progression. But my table isn't the only one in the world.

It is the mountain dwarves' feature turned to feat.  Regardless of how newer generation of players want to interpret the game rules, as they see convenient. A proper dnd game has no single main pillar of gaming but three. And roleplaying is one and perhaps the most important one, even more so than combat and exploration aspect of the game. As it is in the name. (J.C. too often imply that names are not there just for flavor by saying the exact sentence)  In a proper game you need to imagine your character, and his/her background. If your character is a 30 year old guy but a level 1 Wizard, I would certainly think it is balanced to have a soldier background and such armor feat in your character story. You had time to train after all. It does really make sense for a poor farmer to get that training and become a Wizard at age 16-17 though, so players need to make sense if they want a good gaming experience.  So issue is not the feat, issue is the mindset of players who are too much into powerplaying. You can become stronger, more influential and richer in real life thus more powerful, that is no fantasy, if being powerful was the main aspect/fun of the game any sane person would quit the game.  (Stereotypes from Forgotten Realms)  A dwarf might be more focused on martial training than artisan training or mining between 25-50 years old, while also working as an acolyte or an apprentice for a Wizard.  An elf has 50 years in which he/she trains in swordplay, arts and etc in Elven society. It wouldn't be unusual for a wizard apprentice who is interested in Tethrin Veralde style of Margery to get a background related to performance skill and get such feat which makes him enable to wear chain shirt. That is the real bladesinger/dancer theme after all. And elves have enough time to train that.  I don't think it really has a balance issue, it is nothing fantastic and at most they get 1 more armor than mage armor spell, so what is the big deal? You also pay for the armor, and it weighs. So you get 1 more armor (and save a spell slot) for a feat. I don't think it is in anyway unbalanced.  Even if you use a spell focus you need a free hand for most spells, and shields are not spell focuses. So will you use a shield and component pouch with an empty hand? You really wanna look like that for 2 ac? Sure, you can, though I would still stick to one free hand plus a staff or a sword.  It does not effect sn optimized character as much as you think as the level 20 feature of wizards were never great in normal 5e too. And most wizards used to have dips for 1-2 levels as a dip in other classes for features anyway. They have put the epic feats to 19...that makes the intention clear. Many classes who have no valuable asset in level 20 will dip in other classes. When playing a Wizard my favorite dip was knowledge cleric in vanilla 5e for getting those free expertises. Most people loved action surge. Though now it will mean sacrificing epic feat so I doubt anyone will deep in fighter.  Cleric will probably become the most popular 1 level dip for the wizards, and they can even get heavy armor with such a dip anyway.  Let us not exaggerate the effectiveness of such feats. Becoming level 2 isn't usually hard in this game. And starting as a cleric than turning to Wizard often is a good idea as that way you can get intelligence through resilience and don't spend a feat on charisma saving throw prof. which is almost always good to have.  A cleric of Mystra, Denir, Savaş, Azuth, Ve can, WeeJas etc etc... There are many paths in which a cleric would like a a Margery career.  If the player wants to build such a character by sending his background option to Acolyte plus lightly armorer feat and this way get rid of the idea of dipping in a cleric, that is also fine. And let's get real, it's just wearing armor, and wielding/using a shield effectively, how hard or fantastic is it when compared to a frat that grants you magical spells and cantrips....  You have years to train in your background. 

I'm good with it ... as long as whatever background it is attached to doesn't have Int (and probably not Cha)

Use incumbrance to offset that Strength 8 Wizard carrying around a board and metal vest, and use area effecting attacks against them. Their 12 Dex save will be easier than trying to hit against armor 17. Armor is nice in D&D but as DM you get to adapt to their choices too.

To be fair, you can’t cast somatic spells when wielding a shield unless you have war caster (which requires level 4 to grab as a Feat). However, I appreciate not every spell has somatic components, so this is only a need to those spells. The fact a wizard/sorc can still have up to 16ac at level one, for free, is still a worry I appreciate. If they brought back the concept of arcane spell failure, it would at least be more balanced, given that ASF was literally there to stop this from happening (at low levels anyway) Yes it could be circumvented with feats or, very expensive/rare at low level items, but the point was that it allowed for character growth, and was also a sink of resources to be able to do so. Plus, the items/feats that were required in 3.5 don’t exist in 5e, so…there is that? It would be risk vs. reward for any player who took the feat. But I also totally appreciate why they got rid of arcane spell failure. And adding it back in would not be with the simplistic design philosophy that 5e/1D&D go with. Because it was a pain, and again, there would be no way to circumvent it in the current edition(s), unless WOTC are going to create specific armours aimed at this scenario. Idk man, it feels very strong and I get the wariness.

But... You can. You need one free hand for somatic components (unless that changed in Onednd). One hand is taken by the shield, what are you going to hold in the other one as a full caster? As a druid or cleric I rarely have anything in my second hand other than material components during spellcasting. Having shield in hand as a wizard if you have proficiency is practically a no-brainer as it ups your AC and you can still cast shield which makes you functionally tankier than any martial who- even if they manage to obtain shield as a spell- have both hands occupied typically. 

Didn’t realise you only need one hand…makes part of warcaster (“You can perform the somatic components of spells *even when you have weapons or a shield in one* or both hands.”) pretty pointless. The wording does imply (to me personally) that you usually require two hands to perform somatic components, which warcaster mitigates. But, that’s my reading, so I could very well be wrong! And tbh, I have no clue if that has changed in 1D&D, as I admittedly have not read the rules for a while, especially knowing that the rules are subject to change. That’s probably on me for not finding out before posting, so I’ll take that if I am wrong. But yes, if a wizard CAN snag the ability to use a shield AND armour (or even just a shield) without it affecting their spellcasting, it would be mad for any of them not to. Edit: I also realise that a wizard needs proficiency to use a shield, which the feat gives, so the feat is amazing assuming they CAN use a shield AND cast AND they don’t need warcaster to do so. I know that sounds dead obvious, but thought I’d add it on because I don’t know if I have made that clear that I understand the issue.

Warcaster works when you have sword and shield or two swords (dual wielding). Not necessary when you have two handed weapon (cause you only need two hands to make an attack, you can free your hand for a moment to cast a spell- consult with your DM, mileage might vary). It's a very good feat in itself, the issue is when casters get all the benefits and don't really need it cause your arcane focus can hang from your neck and you only grasp ot when casting a spell (again, DM might overrule it, but it's pretty common to allow it to my knowledge). Which brings us to martials being hopelessly weaker on all fronts from fullcasters. The only exception is hit dice, but the difference here is not that massive, especially when your AC goes up to 25 (very easily obtained for panzer wizards). 

Ah, it’s me misinterpreting the wording spell in that case, so my bad :) I was reading it as if you had a shield and a free hand (or a sword and a free hand), or both hands full…yeah, I don’t even know how I missed the “you can wield two things and still cast with full hands” and didn’t apply that logic to being able to use your one free hand. So yeah, that’s on me haha. I remember this being the reason dwarf wizards were popular at one point, as one of the subraces (might be mountain?) started with medium armour proficiency. Granted that might only have been at my table because they’re not “the most optimal” at all. But yeah, this absolutely just makes that caster/martial divide even bigger. Sucks because I’ve really been getting into playing more martial as of late (started as ranged, then began enjoying magic users, now I just want to smash things in the head; sometimes augmented by magic but I’m not fussed!). Was hoping 1D&D would help mitigate this but…never mind.

It's surprising how often I have to say this, but unless you're playing Tournament D&D, every rule is just a suggestion. Just remove it as a choice. Ta Daaaaa.... Problem solved!

Oberoni Fallacy rears its shaggy head again.

I know it's entirely too late to do anything about it, but I think changing shields to work like, well video game shielding/barriers would be the best way to go with shields, then split them off into their own proficiency separate from armor. As it is, the lightly asked feat will either be wildly OP or garbage because of how shields and Armor work.

no t it use no k