D&D 5E UA Warforged AC

[Argyle King]

Recently, one of the players in the online group created a Warforged character, using the UA version of Warforged.

The rules appear straightforward, but I want to make sure I am understanding everything correctly (and type things out for a bit of a sanity check).

While in Heavy Plating Mode, AC is calculated as 16 + proficiency bonus. (which currently means 18, but higher as proficiency increases)
He can use a shield for +2
The entry says he "gains no benefit from wearing armor," so that seems to imply that Defensive Fighting style does not work.

So, UA Warforged
16 + Proficiency + 2 shield = AC 22 at level 9; eventually becoming AC 24 at level 17

For comparison, the old version of Warforged would look something like the following:
Plate Armor = AC 18
Shield = +2 (20)
Defensive Style = +1
Racial Bonus = +1
Total = 22 (at whatever point you can afford plate)

Is this correct?

Do you feel there is a significant difference in one version of the race over the other?

I have some initial opinions, but I have not seen how things play out at the table, so I would appreciate input.

 

[Jester David]

You are correct that Defensive Fighting Style wouldn't apply.

The UA warforged is strong. There's a reason they changed it for the final book. Adding proficiency is potent.

 

[Weiley31]

I make the argument that the UA Warforged is a special prototype version that must be unlocked first.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm a fairly open DM to a lot of content, but UA warforged is one thing I don't allow. Overly high ACs (especially when only on one character) make 5e combat awkward.

 

[jgsugden]

A high AC on only one PC is pretty easy to achieve in 5E. Plate + shield is 20. There are a variety of bonuses to AC possible with magic items, etc... I'm in a 5E game with a warforged fighter/cleric (current version) with plate, heavy weapon proficiency, a magic shield, and a cloak of protection. AC 25 - or 27 with shield of faith.

Don't worry about a high AC. Celebrate it. Make the player feel cool for having it. They put effort into making it a defining feature of their PC - reward that effort. They'll made into a horde of orcs and the orcs will wiff 19 times in 20 (or 399 times in 400 if they have a cloak of displacement). That is cool. That is fun for the player. Don't look at it as broken - look at it as iconic.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm aware that a high AC character is possible.

In the past, it has caused problems.This seems to highlight something which was already an issue previously.

I wouldn't say I'm bothered by it per se. Though, lately, I am questioning whether the way 5E approaches "bounded accuracy" actually works. Additionally, I am a little confused about what seems to be a disconnect between stated design goals of the game and newer options which seem to go against those goals.

(I've also been reading the thread about Magic Item prices, and it's weird that the assumption of the game is alleged to be not having those items, but so many creatures require having magic items to fight them.)

 

[Marandahir]

(I've also been reading the thread about Magic Item prices, and it's weird that the assumption of the game is alleged to be not having those items, but so many creatures require having magic items to fight them.)

Since when do we need magic items to fight anything? Class features and spells can cover a lot of ground when it comes to resistances, for example. If anything, the default assumption is that you have a well-balanced party, which can work around those issues (wizard or cleric casting a spell on the fighter's sword so that it can strike down the seemingly impenetrable demon). These are classic D&D and fantasy tropes, and they don't require you to have a +1 Sword or a Sunblade…

 

[Argyle King]

Since when do we need magic items to fight anything? Class features and spells can cover a lot of ground when it comes to resistances, for example. If anything, the default assumption is that you have a well-balanced party, which can work around those issues (wizard or cleric casting a spell on the fighter's sword so that it can strike down the seemingly impenetrable demon). These are classic D&D and fantasy tropes.

Since an enemy will have resistance to most of what the primary damage-dealing members of the party (i.e. fighter, barbarian, etc) are capable of doing. It's not impossible to win without the required items, but it appears the CR system somewhat assumes having them.

Looking at things as a whole and combining both issues, I imagine a combat in which the an enemy cannot hit the warforged, and the warforged character can sometimes hit for minimal damage. I imagine that's a rather boring encounter to play out at the table. Is that the intended design?

 

[Jester David]

Since an enemy will have resistance to most of what the primary damage-dealing members of the party (i.e. fighter, barbarian, etc) are capable of doing. It's not impossible to win without the required items, but it appears the CR system somewhat assumes having them.

Monsters with high resistances have a higher CR because of that. When you can bypass the resistances of some enemies they are far, far easier to defeat than their CR implies. Especially at low levels.

At high level the game assumes you either have magic, can make weapons magic via spells, or have other means of defeating the enemy even if you lack those resources. It allows for "creative solutions"

Looking at things as a whole and combining both issues, I imagine a combat in which the an enemy cannot hit the warforged, and the warforged character can sometimes hit for minimal damage. I imagine that's a rather boring encounter to play out at the table. Is that the intended design?

Keep in mind the warforged in UA was likely designed by Keith Baker for the DMsGuild Eberron book, and he's not a regular 5e designer. That content is not being designed by the creators of the edition, and thus doesn't reflect larger design goals.

Also, UA content is often designed poorly on purpose. They test the extremes to see how people react and better gauge where things should be in terms of power. If they aimed for "close enough" balance people might not react and they'd get poor feedback.

 

[Argyle King]

Monsters with high resistances have a higher CR because of that. When you can bypass the resistances of some enemies they are far, far easier to defeat than their CR implies. Especially at low levels.

At high level the game assumes you either have magic, can make weapons magic via spells, or have other means of defeating the enemy even if you lack those resources. It allows for "creative solutions"

A note before going further: My primary experience with 5E is as a player. It's by far the edition of D&D i've GMed the least.

I agree on the CR comment. It's often difficult for me to participate in discussions of 5E combat because (after a certain point) it somehow seems to simultaneously turn into being a cakewalk and being suicidal. While that's (arguably) exciting, I have found that it's tough for some of the newer players in the group to make decisions from an in-character (or even from an OOC) perspective because it's difficult to determine what makes sense given a situation.

I am a fan of "creative solutions." When GMing other games, there are times when I intentionally design an enemy (or encounter) to appear unbeatable, but with a flaw. I find that this gives the game variety rather than being an endless slew of combat, and I have also found that it helps to reward the player who likes to invest in skills, knowledge, and resources in other pillars of play.

Still, I've noticed that the expectations of groups with whom I've played seem to be different when sitting down for D&D (especially at Adventurer League events). That's neither good nor bad, but simply an anecdotal observation.

For my own games, I'm considering introducing "masterwork" weapons or something similar, with the idea that such a weapon counts as a magical weapon, but does not have a +1 or any other effect. I haven't quite figured out how that will work yet, so I don't want to derail the thread. (Similarly, there are some other changes I would like to make, such as trying the idea of giving more feat choices at various levels.)

Keep in mind the warforged in UA was likely designed by Keith Baker for the DMsGuild Eberron book, and he's not a regular 5e designer. That content is not being designed by the creators of the edition, and thus doesn't reflect larger design goals.

Also, UA content is often designed poorly on purpose. They test the extremes to see how people react and better gauge where things should be in terms of power. If they aimed for "close enough" balance people might not react and they'd get poor feedback.

I'll try to keep that in mind.

Though, what's the default assumption of the game? As said, I'm rather inexperienced at running the game. I would like to homebrew content, but I'm admittedly struggling to see what the baseline assumptions are intended to be.

To be fair, it's not difficult to achieve high AC without being a warforged. The way the race was presented in UA simply highlights the ability to achieve such a score.

In a game with "bounded accuracy" as a stated goal, I'm noticing a lot more +1 bonuses starting to creep back into the game.