Yet another take on AC

[ExploderWizard]

Armor as DR works better in systems that don't have scaling HP the way D&D does. The abstraction of D&D means that your HP ARE your armor as levels go up.

AC in D&D represents more than just damage protection. Part of AC is armor, part is quickness, and part is just general defensive badassery at it's finest. All of these factors were considered when assigning an AC in older editions,at least for monsters.

For some reason though, adventurers had to rely on armor alone, along with DEX and magic. Why not let PCs get armor class adjustments for class like they do for hit rolls and hit points? Martially trained characters should be better at defending themselves in any armor or without it.

Lets give each class a base AC to represent training and let armor and DEX add to that.

Fighter AC 13
Cleric AC 12
Thief AC 11
Wizard AC 10

Armor can add 1-4 points based on type; light, medium, heavy, or very heavy. Shields can add another 1 or 2 for med/large.

Give strict penalties for thief abilities and spellcasting in heavy armor and let everyone wear what they want or can afford. The wizard in chain will still only have AC 12, and risk spell failure while the fighter in chain will have AC 15. The ACs would not scale with level so the flatter math would remain. It would also make lighter armored swashbuckling type fighters more viable without relying on magic items to accomplish it.

 

[Fifth Element]

Your correct in that armor doesn't help characters "dodge", but it does make characters harder to hit.

Thank you. This has to be one of the biggest misunderstandings if Armour Class since day one of the game. It ties in with the idea that all missed attack rolls must mean a "whiff." If your unarmoured AC is 10, but you're wearing armour that brings it to 14, and an attacker rolls a 13, that means the attacker landed a blow but the armour absorbed it. It's a "miss" in D&D terms, but not in a physical sense.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I made a hack for C&C once. It worked like this:

You defend by parrying attacks, dodging, and/or by soaking damage with armor.
Your AC is the sum of two of those terms. Not all three.

Röde Orm, fighter, has chain mail (+5), dexterity 14 (+2), BAB +6, and a heavy wooden shield (+2).

Armor: 5
Dodge: 2
Parry: 5 (half of BAB plus Shield)
AC:20 (10+Armor+Parry)

Röde Orm relies on parrying and blocking attacks with his axe and shield. Röde Orm does not dodge in combat.

In the rare event someone throws a net at Röde Orm he now has a neat stat for that too, Dodge: 12.

 

[Rune]

I made a hack for C&C once. It worked like this:

You defend by parrying attacks, dodging, and/or by soaking damage with armor.
Your AC is the sum of two of those terms. Not all three.

Röde Orm, fighter, has chain mail (+5), dexterity 14 (+2), BAB +6, and a heavy wooden shield (+2).

Armor: 5
Dodge: 2
Parry: 5 (half of BAB plus Shield)
AC:20 (10+Armor+Parry)

Röde Orm relies on parrying and blocking attacks with his axe and shield. Röde Orm does not dodge in combat.

In the rare event someone throws a net at Röde Orm he now has a neat stat for that too, Dodge: 12.

I don't know how the class progression works in C&C, but assuming that it follows along the regular d20 progression, this means that higher-level fighters will never want to dodge instead of parry, even with no shield, as long as they're wearing heavy armor.

Perhaps it is the intent to focus high-dex fighters into light armors, (and thus, choose to dodge and parry, instead of add in armor), but this means that no armor is always just as good for a high-dex fighter as any armor--even light!

I like the system in theory, but it seems to me that if one of the three components scales with level, the others need to, as well (and at potentially the same rate--though this could vary by class, of course).

 

[B.T.]

Please, God, no "armor as hit points" mechanics. Not in the core game, at least; save it for a module that no one will play because it is a horrible system. Things I don't want to do in D&D:

• Track two separate hit point pools.
• Repair my armor constantly.
• Drag around eight suits of platemail because adventuring causes them to break constantly.
• Have healing spells repair armor.
• Be invulnerable with the right set of armor.
• Have fights that turn into slapfights as characters nickel-and-dime each other to death.
• Have armor suck at high levels.

And these are all things that you're probably going to run into with an "armor as hitpoints" system.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I don't know how the class progression works in C&C, but assuming that it follows along the regular d20 progression, this means that higher-level fighters will never want to dodge instead of parry, even with no shield, as long as they're wearing heavy armor.

Perhaps it is the intent to focus high-dex fighters into light armors, (and thus, choose to dodge and parry, instead of add in armor), but this means that no armor is always just as good for a high-dex fighter as any armor--even light!

I like the system in theory, but it seems to me that if one of the three components scales with level, the others need to, as well (and at potentially the same rate--though this could vary by class, of course).

I'll leave such concerns to the developers to sort out.
Armor is upgraded as soon as a character can afford it. Parry becomes better with skill and better shields can be bought. Bracers of Defense add to parry too. Dodge is increased slowly as dex increases but also Rings and Cloaks of Protection add to dodge.

Please note that a certain attack can target armor directly (e. g. Str vs Armor) so even for a high-dex fighter some armor is better than no armor, in special cases. Compare Flat-footed.

The intent of ths rule is to see that all character concepts can gave a balanced and high AC in the end, even though the player makes choices geared towards a certain flavor.

 

[Stormonu]

Thank you. This has to be one of the biggest misunderstandings if Armour Class since day one of the game. It ties in with the idea that all missed attack rolls must mean a "whiff." If your unarmoured AC is 10, but you're wearing armour that brings it to 14, and an attacker rolls a 13, that means the attacker landed a blow but the armour absorbed it. It's a "miss" in D&D terms, but not in a physical sense.

Touch AC in 3E made it a real problem. The idea that you had made actual contact with your foe was reinforced by this and I think really fostered people associating contact with hitting someone's AC. I was glad to see a lot of those sort of attacks that required a touch were moved to attacks against Reflex, instead of AC.

I believe in 1E/2E "touch" was partially handled with Saves vs. Rod, Staff, Wand (ray attacks, if I remember right), though some "touch" attacks were against AC (such as Shocking Grasp).

 

[Fifth Element]

Touch AC in 3E made it a real problem. The idea that you had made actual contact with your foe was reinforced by this and I think really fostered people associating contact with hitting someone's AC. I was glad to see a lot of those sort of attacks that required a touch were moved to attacks against Reflex, instead of AC.

You would think that would actually help the understanding, since if an attack hit your Touch AC but not your regular AC, presumably contact was made but the armour stopped the harm.

I think the various defences in 4E make a good deal of sense, not sure if we'll see them in 5E or not.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You would think that would actually help the understanding, since if an attack hit your Touch AC but not your regular AC, presumably contact was made but the armour stopped the harm.

I think the various defences in 4E make a good deal of sense, not sure if we'll see them in 5E or not.

I agree, I would have expected 3E rules with touch armor and "regular" armor class clarify things. It could be a b*tch in actual play due to the complexity of what applies where, but it certainly made it clear that hitting + dealing damage is more than just touching an enemy at some point.

I know that we often used touch AC, AC without shield bonus and AC with shield bonus to describe misses - (missed entirely, blocked by shield). I believe there may even have been feats that played on these details.

I prefer 4E system due to its simplicity, though. Also, it ifxed one thing 3E lacked - it added something to counter attack bonuses from levelling (in 3E, there was only BAB, 4E did have a half level attack bonus that applied to both. If 4E would have had touch AC, it would have scaled better). D&D Next may find another way to address this issue by using its bounded accuracy principle.

 

[drothgery]

I prefer 4E system due to its simplicity, though. Also, it ifxed one thing 3E lacked - it added something to counter attack bonuses from levelling (in 3E, there was only BAB, 4E did have a half level attack bonus that applied to both. If 4E would have had touch AC, it would have scaled better).

For the most part, Reflex defense = touch AC in 4e.