It would notably devalue unarmored defense class features (Barbarian, Monk), assuming it doesn't stack. Alternatively, if it does stack, it makes those classes quite powerful when optimized to take advantage of both bonuses.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Why no Proficiency bonus to AC?
- Thread starter Xeviat
- Start date
It would notably devalue unarmored defense class features (Barbarian, Monk), assuming it doesn't stack. Alternatively, if it does stack, it makes those classes quite powerful when optimized to take advantage of both bonuses.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Interesting, but may need a little work.
I think it devalues Unarmored Defense of Monk & Barbarian, the Dragon Sorcerer's ability, and spells like Mage Armor and Barkskin. Also if you are unarmored proficiency + dex can add up to more than full plate at high levels, and can surpass medium and light armor at lower levels.
For all of that, I still like the concept. Not sure how to implement it except as a floor AC like Barkskin. "If you final AC is less than 10 + proficiency, use that instead."
It would probably be used as a replacement for those abilities, or be used in a setting without barbarians and monks. The thought was along the lines of a 5ed version of d20 modern. Some classes would have proficiency in dodging, so they could add their proficiency bonus to defense when they didn't have armor. (I also thought about the bonus only applying when in cover, or having some classes get the bonus only on when wielding particular weapons or in particular case. Like a sword fighter could add their proficiency bonus to AC when wielding a sword, or a sniper might add it when they are being attacked from far away.) It's just as easy to go with flat bonuses, but doing it with proficiency gives it a kind of simplicity.
Player AC is already balanced to make monsters have trouble hitting them. It get better as players gain levels already - first through being able to afford better armour or through stat bonuses, later through magic items and spells.
ChrisCarlson
First Post
This. HPs are the leveling scale-up defense of choice for 5e.
Not AC. That is bounded.
dave2008
Legend
I agree completely, higher HP is covering the dodge part of it. It is not like your adding more mass!
Salamandyr
Adventurer
You know, it might be fun to add it as an alternative AC calculation.
10+Prof. Bonus+Dex
A player can use that, or their unarmored defense power, or their armor, or whatever gives them the best AC. It might even make sense to limit it only to classes with full Martial weapon proficiency (they know how to guard themselves with their weapon).
It would make light armor pretty much superfluous, but you'd still have heavy armored knights running around, at least until very high levels. It would create a very theatric look where all the mooks wear armor but the heroes are swashbuckling around in their shirts and breeks. The best part is that it doesn't push AC outside of 5e norms.
10+Prof. Bonus+Dex
A player can use that, or their unarmored defense power, or their armor, or whatever gives them the best AC. It might even make sense to limit it only to classes with full Martial weapon proficiency (they know how to guard themselves with their weapon).
It would make light armor pretty much superfluous, but you'd still have heavy armored knights running around, at least until very high levels. It would create a very theatric look where all the mooks wear armor but the heroes are swashbuckling around in their shirts and breeks. The best part is that it doesn't push AC outside of 5e norms.
Horwath
Legend
I like the idea.
but I would put it at 8+dex mod+prof bonus. So 1st level would be 10+dex and 17th level would be 14+dex
so that even the light armor stays relevant and you dont trash monks, dragon sorcerers and barbarians armor right at 1st level.
Similar Threads
