D&D 5E Tweaking the fighter: bonus to AC when unarmoured or lightly armoured

[BookBarbarian]

I dislike proposed AC bonuses that scale with proficiency. I think that was a deliberate design point, in part to keep AC relatively static so that low CR monsters still have a chance to high high level PCs.

Light Armor fighters can get up to 17 AC without magic items, 18 with the Defense fighting style. Unarmored fighters could be a concept worth exploring.

If I want to encourage Fighter's to not wear heavy armor I think that can be done in other ways. My favorite was from the Scout fighter in the Kits of Old UA:

If you are hit by an attack while wearing light or
medium armor, you can expend one superiority
die as a reaction, adding the number rolled to
your AC. If the attack still hits, you take half
damage from it.

 

[77IM]

Which bit of

The bonus may be used instead of but not in addition to bonuses from statistics

did you miss?

I missed the part where the word "statistics" was defined to be synonymous with "ability scores."

...Because it's not. The two terms are very different in D&D 5th Edition. "Statistics" is very broad, leading to considerable ambiguity in this statement.



Since this bonus replaces your Dex modifier, I think it's actually very balanced and an interesting option for warriors who rely more on skill than high ability scores. I'm not sure I would use it in my games but it seems like a workable solution.

 

[jgsugden]

Way too much complexity being discussed here.

Question 1: What AC would a PC be able to generate using their normal features and resources?
Question 2: Would they have any significant limitations using that approach (reduced speed, penalties to stealth)?

If the answer to 2 is no, allow them to get the AC from 1 and don't worry about the official rules. If the answer to 2 is yes, figure out equivalent penalties or reasons to apply the penalties when there is no armor (or just decide the penalties are not significant enough to worry about) and get back to playing.

This type of reskinning tells a better story and hurts nothing. It is the reason why I allow the barbarian to decide that the greatsword attack that felled the Manticore was actually the barbarian dropping his sword and ripping the Manticore's Jaw off with his bare hands.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Using their experience.

Experience explains how they gained the ability to do what they're doing, but it doesn't explain what they're actually doing.

 

[Zardnaar]

I disagree. Monk's Unarmored Defense starts at 10 and it also uses Wisdom - a casting ability for a full caster.

Heck, Barbarian's uses CON -- helping both not get hit and having more HPs and better HD healing if you are hit is definitely multipliers.

With 8 + DEX + INT, you max out at 18 - the same as you can get with full plate but without NEARLY as large an investment and plate gives you 8+ levels sooner. That would be a nigh useless ability to trade away Heavy Armor Proficiency for.

My bad I got confused with spell DC which starts at 8.

 

[Quartz]

It wasn't as clear as you think it was.

I'd recommend giving the fighter an alternative AC calculation the way WotC did with the barbarian and monk:

"While you are not wearing any armor, your Armor Class equals 10 + your Fighter Defense Bonus. While wearing any light armor, your Armor Class equals the armor's AC value + your Fighter Defense Bonus. You can use a shield and still gain this benefit."

I do like this phrasing. It's much better than my own.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

How is this escalating the power level? An unarmoured or light-armoured Fighter typically has a worse AC than a Fighter wearing heavy armour.



That's a change too far. We expect Fighters to fight so penalties for doing just that are in the land of Not Fun.

For the first paragraph: The escalation I was referring to was adding more bonuses to the AC. I see this as a step, even a small one, towards the classic 3.x "1-Up'manship" that the classes, feats and spells. I'm one of those DM's that has found that saying "No, unless..." is FAR superior to "Yes, but..." as is touted so loudly by many.

Rather than "add stuff to balance/encourage" I would look towards trying to figure out WHY this would be needed. It is usually easier to fix/change the source. If the AC's of lightly armoured fighters isn't enough then maybe it's because critters have too many bonuses? Maybe lower monster To Hit bonuses in stead. Or, what I suggested...

The second paragraph: One man's "not fun" is another ones "more fun". To me and my group "fun" is in the playing, not in the mechanical bonuses, per se. Don't get me wrong, it's cool to have a Fighter that has +7 to hit and +5, it's just not an overriding factor to determine "fun". Likewise, if another warrior type in the group doesn't have such things it's not the end of the world...as long as it's not the same "concept" as the Fighter (e.g., "big strong 2-handed warrior" A and "big strong 2-handed barbarian" B; if A or B is much superior to the other, then things get a little less 'fun' for the lesser PC....at least until he/she finds a different 'niche' to be roleplayed in").

In the OP, I can see the changes working. They don't seem like they would REALLY mess things up immediately. But then again, the OP didn't mention if the DM was allowing Feats, Multiclassing and all manner of other OPTIONAL stuff from other published books. If any of those are 'in use', then I foresee tears and sorrow ultimately resulting in "Naaa...lets go back to the old way...". But I don't know the OP's Players; maybe it will be fine. Different groups are different

Bottom line: I've always found it better to err on the side of "No" or "give less" as a DM simply because its MUCH easier to open a new session with "Ok, everyone can now add an extra 1,000xp because last session showed my new method of XP calculation is a bit too low"...than it is to open with... "Ok, everyone subtract 1,000xp because last session showed my new method of XP calculation is a bit too generous". Same goes for giving money, magic items, and bonuses to classes/spells/abilities.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Greg K]

That doesn't really cope with the cinematic style. You see fighters don heavy armour when they need to, but fight well out of it. Think of Charlton Heston in El Cid.

My mistake. I didn't realize that you were looking for a fighter that could also wear heavy armor. I thought were looking for a fighter that wears only no or light armor (e.g., Banderas's Zorro). I would probably go with an option toward the end of the linked thread and by Blue in this thread and make a fighting style based upon 10+Dex Bonus+ Int mod

 

[Ancalagon]

I don't understand why simply not make a dex based fighter...

 

[5ekyu]

I don't understand why simply not make a dex based fighter...

No gwm pam dex based finesse options. This idea could allow those plus moderate stealth.