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

[Charlaquin]

That's meaningless.

Once you compare DC and bonus, there's a natural roll that's success. It can end up being the same across a range of levels, whether you're scaling at 1/5, 1/2, of 1/1.

Ok, I see what you mean. Looking back, I think I misinterpreted your comment at first. Yes, naturally the number you need to roll on the die to achieve success on tasks of a given difficulty will change over time, such that the number you needed to roll to hit a goblin in leather armor and a shield at 1st level may be the same number you need to roll to hit a fire giant in plate at 9th level. But in a bounded accuracy system it’s not a treadmill because you might still be fighting goblins in leather with shields at 9th level, you’ll just be fighting more of them. And you will hit them more easily, so your growth is more visible.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, a reaction, anyway.

Since this thread started about AC it might be interesting to think about where BA has an impact relative to past editions. In the olden days through 3e, classes scaled different things differently. Fighters were a little better at fighting, and got a LOT better at very high level, in 3e that held for all sorts so skill specialties, due to cross-class skills, as well - in contrast spells got better with spell level, not even considering scaling, higher level spells just did more, more significant things.
5e, everything scales, if it scales at all, at the same much slower rate. There isn't much of a difference among characters when it comes to d20-resolved abilities.
But there are still 9 levels of spells.


It's a major benefit: it's possible to keep the whole party relevant in any set of skill-related tasks.
Even if it was an accident, they should take the win.

Its oft-cited as a great innovation of 5e.
But, then, it's also about the only innovation of 5e.

The treadmill effect isn't a problem, per se. It's just a possibility when you use a randomizer with a linear distribution, and have leveling.

It's an apt metaphor for consistent scaling in such an instance, though.

That's not a consequence of a "treadmill," simply of rapid scaling. 1e certainly didn't have a treadmill effect - scaling was too inconsistent - but inferior foes rapidly ceased to be actual threats.

You make good points here. I still maintain that accuracy treadmills are a problem, but I see where you’re coming from.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You make good points here. I still maintain that accuracy treadmills are a problem, but I see where you’re coming from.

At worst - and I concede it can be quite bad enough- it's an aesthetic problem. OTOH, consistent scaling has very real benefits when it comes designing challenges - and it's not for nothing that 5e deviates so little from the scaling of the proficiency bonus.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The issue is compounded because I am playing a hill dwarf rogue. My highest ability score is Wis at 16, the Con and Dex both at 14. We have a war domain cleric with an AC of 20, a greatweapon fighter presumably around 18, and a bard at 14 or so. So half the party has lower AC than the goblins.

I'm testing the system to see how mandatory it is to max out Dex as a rogue. I have a fallback plan where I'd instead e a mountain dwarf and use Strength to attack - despite being a rogue, I don't put a high priority on Stealth. That would give me even worse AC now for a better AC later, but I think I need a finesse weapon to sneak attack, so thats a problem.

I do have an amazing +7 Perception at 1st level.

About the treadmill effect, I see it as a definite problem and I am excited to see it gone - to what degree it is gone we'll see as we proceed.

As a side not, we're now trying 5E instead of moving to PF2. PF2 seems to have so many 4E and 5E-isms in it I decided to try the real thing first.

Your character world be better if they where a mountain dwarf, since they could wear a breastplate giving you AC 16. However, at level 4 your hill dwarf could pick up the "Moderately Armoured" feat, giving them proficiency in medium armour and shields. That would give them AC 18.

It's kinda just about possible to build a strength rogue in 5e, if you don't mind being slightly behind the curve in exchange for quirkiness. Check out Tortles.

 

[Salthorae]

Your character world be better if they where a mountain dwarf, since they could wear a breastplate giving you AC 16. However, at level 4 your mountain dwarf could pick up the "Moderately Armoured" feat, giving them proficiency in medium armour and shields. That would give them AC 18.

It's kinda just about possible to build a strength rogue in 5e, if you don't mind being slightly behind the curve in exchange for quirkiness. Check out Tortles.

Tortles are fun

If AC is a concern for your dwarf, I'd say you can still pick up Moderatly armored at 4th. I kind of feel like that feat would be mostly wasted by the Mountain Dwarf's racial proficiency with Medium armor, though outside fo multiclassing that would be the only two ways to pick up Medium armor, and the feat is the only way to pickup shields.

That said with Wis 16 & Dex 14, you can multiclass with all sorts of fun options: Cleric, Druid, Monk, Ranger. All of those except monk give you proficiency in Medium armor & shields, so depending on if you wanted to spend a feat an not have delayed rogue abilities or pick up a class feature set but delay rogue for a level you could do some of these

• Cleric/Druid get you some fun spellcasting, and there is lots of fun to be had with some of the domain abilties. I'd probably go Cleric because of the druid's metal restriction.
  • On top of the armor, you'd get 3 cantrips, one of which you'd get Guidance, and the ability to prepare 4x 1st level Cleric spells (like the ritual Detect magic, as well as maybe back up healing for your group with Healing Word or Cure wounds or both), plus whatever domain spells and ability
  • Forge would give you the Identify ritual as well as a smite spell for combat; also gives you heavy armor so you can really tank that Dex if you have enough Str, and you can give a suit of armor you possess +1
    • So not only would you get Medium armor and shields to get you up to AC 18, you could add +1 to it for AC 19
    • This is probably the most bang for your "mutliclass buck" in terms of the AC gains plus all else you'd get from the 1 level.
  • Knowledge would also give you identify as a domain spell and 2 Int skills at 2x proficiency
• Monk is an interesting option as it would give you an unarmored defense with both Wis & Dex, still just a 15 at your current stats, but sounds like it's better than what you have right now with light armor and DexMod +2
• Ranger is the second best "bang" for your buck in that it gives you medium armor, shields, all simple and all martial weapons, and also a skill proficiency, plus the lackluster 1st level ranger abilities. But hey you'd also learn a language?

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm trying out 5E, and it feels that for reasons of symetry, proficiency bonus should be added to Armor Class. I can't find a mention of this in the rules. How is it?

FWIW, we add a slight AC bonus as levels increase. IIRC it is +1 and 3rd, level, +2 at 9th, and +3 at 15th.

Personally, I prefer higher ACs to boosted HP. Either way, the net effect is the same.

I think BA went too far in restricting the differences between novice and master. A BA limit of 40 would have been better IMO since the "treadmill effect" was never an issue for me in any of the games I've played in. But as I understand it the issue really emerged in 3E and later (?) and most of my experience was in 1E/2E.

 

[katyrasi]

Yes, in general you will get hit more by monsters as you level up because the more difficult monster's to hit bonus will out scale your AC. There are typically ways to increase your AC a couple of times throughout a campaign such as by buying more expensive armour or by having a feature that adds a variable to your AC, but these are slower than the scaling of to hit bonuses.

As you level up you get HP every level. Mid to high level characters will have enough hp to withstand more attacks and thus be able to last much longer in combat than they were at lower levels.

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

 

[S'mon]

If your game has no magical item protections and you set base AC 2 lower, this ought to work ok.

Re bounded accuracy, GMing a lot at level 20-Epic recently & I find it works great. Capping target numbers at 30 (& bonus at +20) works really well though those are not explicit 5e rules AFAICT.

 

[S'mon]

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

Hope the GM noticed that AC 15 includes a shield, which they can't use with their bows - takes an action to don or doff shield.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

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

Goblins are actually scary at low levels! They have a good dexterity which means they'll typically have better AC than the casters of the party. I take it you didn't have many dedicated front line party members?

Also as mentioned above that if they're using their short bow they will not get the AC bonus of the shield lowering their AC to 13.