D&D 5E Medium armor master: Too weak?

[Horwath]

I don't know what to think of this feat. It's just weak.

yeah, it maybe sounds great to wear half plate without stealth penalty, but at what cost.

So we will take a character with 16 dex. Optimal to take the feat.

If you take the feat you have AC of 18. 15 for half plate plus 3 from dex. That is +2 AC upgrade from most probably your previous setup with breastplate and effective +2 from dex.

Now, if you would take +2 dex rather than that feat you would still have 16 AC, but you could have it with mere studded leather.

So, we are comparing;

Feat; +2 AC,
+2 dex; +1 attack, +1 damage, +1 reflex, +stealth(main skill for the feat), +1 initiative, +1 to other skills and thief tools.

and you get to max dex 4 levels earlier so for those 4 levels you have only 1 AC less for all those bonuses.

So,
two solutions:

either raise the max dex for medium armor with this feat to +4 or,

treat it as "half-feat" and add option of +1 to str,dex or con.

Edit;
P.S. studded leather vs. half-plate;
1/17th cost and 1/3rd weight

 

[Prism]

I have an elven fighter with medium armour master. I would say its not the best feat however reasons I took it

We use the alternate rules for encumbrance and full plate is very heavy
Stealth is important in the campaign we are playing. Its a small group
He is the main fighter an AC is equally important. He has lowish Con for a fighter (as all true elves should)
Half plate is relatively cheap
He is primarily a strength based fighter and so further increases in Dex aren't as useful for general combat
Half plate looks cool

 

[Xeviat]

It's really only good for optimum Dex characters. A finesse or ranged warrior can make good use of it. It allows for AC 18 without a stealth penalty. Since it doesn't take heavy armor proficiency into account, I do agree that it should be more of a half feat. With a Dex of 20, it only adds +1 AC over Studded Leather, and +1 AC is half a feat.

 

[Ristamar]

...and +1 AC is half a feat.

By what standard?

 

[Horwath]

By what standard?

because +2 dex if full feat.

Also dual wielder.

And if learning fighting styles becomes a feat, they would be worth half a feat.

 

[Ristamar]

because +2 dex if full feat.

Also dual wielder.

And if learning fighting styles becomes a feat, they would be worth half a feat.

And +2 Dex is worth +1 AC (plus other benefits). The Medium Armor Master feat is worth +1 AC (plus other benefits). Granted, those other benefits depend on factors like the importance of stealth and your table's encumbrance rules.

It's not great, but it's situationally useful. The same could be said about plenty of other feats.

 

[Motorskills]

It provides two benefits, whether or not together they are of sufficient value is certainly debatable, but the OP does a poor job of differentiating the two.

Consider a Human Variant character with following characteristics:
wants Stealth
is proficient in Light and Medium Armour
is never going to justify getting to 18 DEX

Obviously it should always be measured against against another point of DEX (16 -> 18)


But it takes the character from a max of AC18 to AC20, and that's not to be sniffed at. Situational, to be sure, but like Prism and Ristamar indicate, there are scenarios where it is viable.

Plus it can be fun.
Here's my Halfling PC, pretending to be a warrior of some kind, rather than the Trickster Cleric he actually is.

 

[Saggo]

And +2 Dex is worth +1 AC (plus other benefits). The Medium Armor Master feat is worth +1 AC (plus other benefits). Granted, those other benefits depend on factors like the importance of stealth and your table's encumbrance rules.

It's not great, but it's situationally useful. The same could be said about plenty of other feats.

+1 to saving throw, initiative, multiple skills, and potentially AC, attack, and damage, vs +1 to AC and a minor boost to an optional encumbrance rule.

If it was the only way to break 17 AC (ignoring Shields) and still stealth without disadvantage it would be different, but there are multiple ways, so it's a complete wash as a benefit to stealth.

But feats are hardly balanced with each other.

 

[AtomicPope]

Is the feat too weak? Yes.

I had a character (my Valor Bard) who should have been perfect for that feat. We rolled stats so I had better distribution. I was a Human Variant that took Mobility to get in and out of Melee. With three 16's I was a sure thing for taking the feat but I didn't. Instead I took Warcaster. It was better to use a shield at all times and use spells like Heat Metal or Blindness as an Opportunity Attack. Taking Mobility was better for me since I was a Skald and wanted to be more of a Viking Raider. Using a shield is a better AC bonus than getting +1 from a high Dex. There were so many reasons I didn't take Medium Armor Master and I think the most important reason is the bonuses are so small they only benefit a VERY niche character. If you don't fit within that niche then it's no good for you. Other feats like Alertness are always good, especially at higher levels, or the weapon specific feats which are practically a must. Having Mobility was better since it allowed me to avoid attacks by simply not being there.

I have yet to make a character that would benefit from that feat, and I probably will never make such a character. When all of the other feats are better it means Medium Armor Master is just not good enough.

 

[mellored]

I don't think it's too weak, but rather too niche.
+2 AC or +1 and no disadvantage on stealth is fine.
But that only happens when you have exactly 16/17 dex. If you have 14, you don't get +to AC. If you have 18, you might as well take 20 dex.

So I would simply change it to a flat +1 AC and no disadvantage on stealth. It still would be rare for someone to take it, but not as bad.