D&D 5E Quick Question on AC and Proficiency bonus

[Bacon Bits]

This seems odd, you will hit and be hit more and more as you advance.

Yes, that's by design. Conceptually, you actually get better at attacking as you gain levels. Your character actually improves and gets better at fighting, and is better able to cause their opponents to tire out and stop being able to defend themselves. Similarly, since your hp improve, you're better able to fight other characters who themselves are better at fighting. You don't survive because you have high AC. You survive because you can hit them more consistently and you have the hp to endure their attacks.

The alternative model is "being stuck on a treadmill" where you start the game hitting 50% of the time at low level and end up hitting 50% of the time at high level and do marginally more damage even though hps are much higher. That was one of the complaints with 4e, whether you agree with it or not. This system does scale indefinitely, but it's a false progression because you never actually get any better at doing anything. You're just adding bigger numbers to have bigger numbers. It's also very difficult to make lower level opponents be threatening to high level opponents, regardless of their numbers.

Also seems odd that the goblins we first encountered had a higher AC than most of us adventurers (15).

That's kind of unusual. Any class that has heavy armor proficiency can begin the game with AC 18 easily (chain mail and shield), and any class that begins the game with medium armor can begin the game with AC 16 easily (scale mail and shield or +2 Dex). If you've all got AC below 15, you've got a very unbalanced party as far as equipment draw or your players are undervaluing Dex and shields.

AC is almost always a factor of your wealth, not your level. if you're a Fighter, once you get 1,500 gp and buy into full plate your AC is basically set for the whole game. You might find +1 armor or a +1 shield, but you don't have to. AC just gets less important as the game progresses; at high level, hp is where it's at. There are several monsters in the game with AC 17 and higher as early as CR 3. Animated Armor is CR 1 and AC 18.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The alternative model is "being stuck on a treadmill" where you start the game hitting 50% of the time at low level and end up hitting 50% of the time at high level and do marginally more damage even though hps are much higher. That was one of the complaints with 4e, whether you agree with it or not. This system does scale indefinitely, but it's a false progression because you never actually get any better at doing anything. You're just adding bigger numbers to have bigger numbers.

Your statement is simply not true. The progression is real, objective, and quantifiable. It only appears to be a false progression in the contrived scenario where you're required to fight enemies that are your same level.

The problem with 4E wasn't the scaling level bonus. It was the requirement that you only fight similar-level enemies.

 

[Charlaquin]

Your statement is simply not true. The progression is real, objective, and quantifiable. It only appears to be a false progression in the contrived scenario where you're required to fight enemies that are your same level.

The problem with 4E wasn't the scaling level bonus. It was the requirement that you only fight similar-level enemies.

Rather than the scenario where you are always facing level-appropriate challenges being “contrived,” I would argue that the system where you have to face level-inappropriate challenges for progression to be visible is fundamentally broken. ESPECIALLY when challenges below your level pose no threat and challenges above your level are unbeatable. At least under Bounded Accuracy enough goblins can still overwhelm a high level character, and enough low level characters can take down a dragon.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Rather than the scenario where you are always facing level-appropriate challenges being “contrived,” I would argue that the system where you have to face level-inappropriate challenges for progression to be visible is fundamentally broken.

As a mechanic, the scaling bonus is invisible in one scenario, while remaining powerful and elegant in every other scenario. It's significantly better than the patchwork of half-baked ideas that we're suffering under in 5E.

ESPECIALLY when challenges below your level pose no threat and challenges above your level are unbeatable. At least under Bounded Accuracy enough goblins can still overwhelm a high level character, and enough low level characters can take down a dragon.

Because it makes for a compelling narrative when the dragon-slaying heroes are defeated by goblins? Seriously, this is supposed to be a level-based game. Your level is supposed to actually mean something.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Rather than the scenario where you are always facing level-appropriate challenges being “contrived,” I would argue that the system where you have to face level-inappropriate challenges for progression to be visible is fundamentally broken.

It seems inevitable that, as you progress, there will be greater challenges that offer the same net difficulty as lesser ones did when you were less capable. The d20 makes that kinda inevitable, really. You might need a natural 13 at both 1st level and 20th, either because the DC has risen from 15 to 19 under 5e BA, or from 17 to 36 under 3e skill ranks.

Whether the system is tuned to the point that you can remotely predict how difficult a later challenge might be is another question, entirely of course. At 20th, an utterly optimized 5e character might miss that DC 19 on a really bad roll, while a completely un-optimized one might make it, on, well, a natural 19 (they're still just barely 'on the die' is what I mean); conversely their 3e equivalents might be looking at auto-success for the optimized character and utter impossibility for the un-optimized one.

ESPECIALLY when challenges below your level pose no threat and challenges above your level are unbeatable. At least under Bounded Accuracy enough goblins can still overwhelm a high level character, and enough low level characters can take down a dragon.

If there's real progression going on, there really /should/ be a level that a past threat becomes no threat at all. It shouldn't happen as fast as it did in 3.x & earlier, but it should happen, which I'm not sure it does under BA (it certainly could in some areas or circumstances - where the resolution is based on something more than just a lot of d20 checks).

 

[jasper]

And we did use the standard array. Well, I did. Also to test the system as it is.

Hi, I have been an AL (Adventure League } dm for 3 years now. As long as dm is not creating each encounter as deadly, standard array with no feats is fine. Standard Array with the group using feats is okay too. Some of the feats are a little broken but it not much of a problem.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Your statement is simply not true. The progression is real, objective, and quantifiable. It only appears to be a false progression in the contrived scenario where you're required to fight enemies that are your same level.

The problem with 4E wasn't the scaling level bonus. It was the requirement that you only fight similar-level enemies.

They're inherently linked problems, IMO. The math was so tight you can't separate them. They're made worse because the game kept palette swapping the same monsters over and over. You had the set of goblins that were in all 5-6 roles and CR 1-4, then the set of goblins in all 5-6 roles that were CR 6-9 with maybe 1 more ability, then the set of goblins CR 11-14 with maybe 1 more ability, and so on up to the set of goblins that were CR 26-29. The major difference is that the art for the enemies just grew spikier as they got higher in level. The game just scaled everything with you because nothing is built to do level 30 things at level 30. Everything is built to do level 1 things scaled up to level 30.

Because it makes for a compelling narrative when the dragon-slaying heroes are defeated by goblins?

Yes! The dragon in The Hobbit was killed in the middle of the story, and then they went and fought an army of goblins! It was the goblins that proved to be deadlier!

Bruce Lee in Fist of Fury defeats all the big bad martial artists, and gets killed in the end by massed gunfire. In 300, Leonidas dies to a hail of arrows, as does Nameless at the end of Hero. Think of the characters that die in Seven Samurai or The Magnificent Seven. None of them are cut down by a great enemy; they all die standing up against an army of bandits.

Even mighty Achilles, who slew Hector and countless others was laid low by a single arrow from a coward. The Greeks and their obsession with hubris and irony.

Think of Thulsa Doom. His power was the countless throngs who followed him, not the strength of his sword arm. He even taunts Conan with this fact before condemning him to the Tree of Woe.

Seriously, this is supposed to be a level-based game. Your level is supposed to actually mean something.

No, it's supposed to be a living fantasy world.

Goblins shouldn't stop being a threat because you're experienced. They just stop being a threat in small numbers. No amount of CR 1 Goblins are a threat to level 10 PCs in 4e, so the game just never sends them against you anymore. Instead the Goblins you meet are just magically always your peers.

 

[Leatherhead]

Because it makes for a compelling narrative when the dragon-slaying heroes are defeated by goblins?

Tucker's Kobolds is a fun story.

 

[jasper]

As a mechanic, the scaling bonus is invisible in one scenario, while remaining powerful and elegant in every other scenario. It's significantly better than the patchwork of half-baked ideas that we're suffering under in 5E.

Because it makes for a compelling narrative when the dragon-slaying heroes are defeated by goblins? Seriously, this is supposed to be a level-based game. Your level is supposed to actually mean something.

See Sir Saelorn, Mr. Smaug and us goblins had a pact. He doesn't eat us. And we gut you like a fish. Even if you just defeated Mr. Smaug you is low on hit points and spell slots. So put the loot down and call yourself an uber and go back to the shire.
I never got use to idea that just be you a HERO WHO SLAYS x, You couldn't be murdered by lowly bar staff.
Or you is playing a game. Some times you lose.

 

[Salthorae]

Quick and dirty summary. 5E has bounded accuracy so max AC is 30.

Err, I don't know about that "rule". It may take effort and a couple of resources to do it, but there are ways to get your AC significantly north of 30, 40 even.

check out Treant Monk's Eternal Cockroach build. Base AC of 29 (with magic items I know) and it can get as high as 43 in a given round

Whether or not this is a problem is entirely matter of perspective. Personally, I find it problematic that a couple of town guards with longbows are capable of dropping an adult dragon, and that a master of Arcana could possibly fail at a task which can be completed by a novice. I don't find it remotely problematic when a team of powerful heroes can beat up a bunch of goblins without getting hit.

Well, a couple dozen (or hundred) ordinary longbowmen.
That's really up to the DM, because he could simply rule that there's no uncertainty involved when the master undertakes the task and simply narrate success, but call for a check (or narrate failure) from the novice.

This.

I don't think a couple of town guards are in any way capable of what you suggest and the Master shouldn't even be rolling a check if its something a novice could easily do. That is on the DM to decide if a check is even needed and what the DC is, if a check is even required. Masters might have a DC 10 for a task that a Novice has it at DC 20.