D&D General (2024) Is it just me or has Unarmored Defense become really common, now?

[Minigiant]

Why do you think Wizards is expanding this niche so widely?

Because it's an easy low power feature you can do over a dozen ways.

 

[sevenbastard]

bonus from Cha to AC is hard to justify by narrative, feels like a game design gimmick which is the kind of thing that makes D&D look dumb

I miss the days when charisma didn't impact your combat ability.

But D&D has always had gimmicks to balance the classes. An AD&D magic user can throw daggers effectivley, but cant shot a crossbow? Learning to shot a crossbow is a heck of a lot easier than knife throwing.

Still i think there is a disconnect between me as a player who wants some level of verisimilitude even if it penalizes me and players who just want the Rule of Cool to apply to everything.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It is impossible for any game to be able to accurately design rules to cover every single aspect one uses to avoid being hit with a weapon were one to engage in swordfighting. Your vision of the attacks, your physical agility to move out of the way, your moving speed, your wrist speed, your eye-to-hand speed and coordination, your ability to parry, your ability to block, the size and tensile strength of any padding or armor you are wearing, the number of layers of padding and armor you are wearing, the quality degradation of the armor you are wearing, the thickness of your skin, your intuitive knowledge of geometry and physics to accurately predict direction and speed of your opponent, the material quality and balance of the weapon you are holding, the weather and atmosphere you are fighting in, the level of energy and/or exhaustion you have over the course of the fight, etc. etc. etc.

No game that one can play at the table can take all of that into account. It's impossible. There are too many variables. Most things that would go into actually determining how one might be able to avoid a blow from an opponent's weapon have to just be handwaved. Ignored. Or bundled all together into a single statistic or two that can take those variables place to create a "game rule" you can work with. And those statistics and "game rules" will get assigned some cute narrative terminology or name to make us think that this particular statistic and "game rule" actually means something. Even though it actually doesn't. It's merely a number that gets added to another number to give us a third number that will get compared to another number, and if that second number is higher than the first number then another number will be created that will get subtracted from a different number. And the process will continue until that final number reached '0', at which time these numbers no longer necessarily matter and the "number game" stops.

The entire process is inherently silly when we are using all these numbers of try and symbolically represent an actual swordfight. The only reason we accept it and "suspend our disbelief" is if the words and terms we select and use to represent all of these number make enough narrative sense to us. That we can align our imaginations of what these terms are to the numbers we are rolling, adding, and subtracting to and from each other. If we can do that... then it's all good. We just have to be very careful on how we bundle all of these functions into their individual numbers and what words and turns of phrase we use to represent them... because as soon as we see a term that doesn't "make sense" in the "swordfight" we are imagining in front of us, we lose "verisimilitude" and our "suspension of disbelief". But like is the case within the entire game... every person has a different requirement for what terms and words work for them in creating their imaginary swordfight.

"Charisma" is a meaningless narrative term we throw on a number we have that we put meaning on. We give that number a definition of "Charisma"... that number now "represents" something-- whatever it is we are imagining this word 'Charisma' is meant to in the world inside our head. And we can use that number in countless different equations as we roll dice and "play the game"... so long as that definition does not run counter to our imaginary ideas of what it represents. And as soon as it does-- assigning that "Charisma" number to an imaginary situation for which the definition of "Charisma" we do not believe should apply... then our enjoyment of the exercise breaks. We stop "suspending our disbelief".

But the problem any one individual has is that just because they themselves cannot align that "Charisma" term to whatever imaginary swordfight situation they are using these numbers to represent... someone else might. For them, using the number that has been termed "Charisma" can be narratively acceptable. That number can get thrown into the equations used to represent the swordfight along with all the others... and no verisimilitude gets broken. That's just the extremely imprecise determinations we all have to accept or decline when trying to align a swordfight we are imagining in our heads to the numeric equations we are rolling dice and adding/subtracting numbers to. And sometimes we might just need to accept that imprecision as part and parcel for "playing the game".

There are already thousands upon thousands of things we are handwaving away when trying to create numbers that we assign descriptive terms to in order to create equations that align to this swordfight we have visualized in our heads... at some point handwaving one more thing just so that the "game" can be "balanced" for the "players" to increase their "fun" should just be done. That term might not "make sense" to you in the moment... but its number certainly helps with the equations we are creating and using to make that "game" more enjoyable.

 

[SkidAce]

- bonus from Cha to AC is hard to justify by narrative, feels like a game design gimmick which is the kind of thing that makes D&D look dumb

Agreed, its hard to justify. Not a fan.

Closest fit we ever got (and still a poor fit) was CHA/force of personality bends Fate. Just one of those fortunate souls.

Bard dancer seems performance based, which should be DEX, but CHA kinda fits there.

 

[Gladius Legis]

It's two whole classes (three if you count Druid's Wild Shape options) and one subclass each of four others. I don't think that qualifies it as "really common."

Regardless, I don't mind. The mechanical ceiling is still much higher for characters who wear armor, both for AC and for other potential benefits from magical armor.

 

[billd91]

I think it's a reaction to two different elements. Fantasy itself has shied away from armor, especially in the realms of television (where real looking armor is heavy, hot and expensive) and in video games/anime (where lightly armored or unarmored agile combatants are more cinematic). D&D armor class is built around the wearing the heaviest armor your class can use an trying to get a shield if possible, and that method doesn't always fit the theme or even appearance people have for their character. So increasingly D&D has opted to find hacks that let light or unarmored characters still have a serviceable AC without relying on magic items.

I agree that's where it's from - but it also highlights some very important difference with PCs who DO rely on armor, particularly the heavy ones. And a major one is fights that occur when the heavy armor wearer isn't wearing it - like during long rests. The heavily armored PCs are significantly hampered in those situations - but the unarmored defense ones aren't.
And if you do look at the impact of armor vs unarmored defense and the rise of Dexterity as a melee combat modifier, you see the game shifting away from certain kinds of trade-offs and consequences of choices. And I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing even if done in the service of boosting certain kinds of PC concepts.

 

[Gladius Legis]

the rise of Dexterity as a melee combat modifier

This is pretty massively overstated. Strength melee had the better feats in 5.0 and still does in 5.5. And STR melee is even better off vs. DEX melee in 5.5 due to having a much more flexible range of Weapon Mastery options. DEX melee is largely restricted to Vex and Nick.

 

[Stormonu]

It’s nice to get away from the prior editions reliance of armored tanks being the only viable build, but it’s gone too far the other way with single stat builds for everything. I’d like to keep Unarmored defense, but either tie it to PB or Dex alone.

 

[Remathilis]

This is pretty massively overstated. Strength melee had the better feats in 5.0 and still does in 5.5. And STR melee is even better off vs. DEX melee in 5.5 due to having a much more flexible range of Weapon Mastery options. DEX melee is largely restricted to Vex and Nick.

It's also worth noting that finesse builds were popular for spellcaster classes that had access to a decent finesse weapon and light armor as a backup (specifically, druids with scimitars and bards with rapiers) but 5.5 reduced them all to simple weapons/light armor and the only simple finesse weapon is dagger. If you get martial weapons, you often get medium armor with it. The only two exceptions are monk and rogue who are exactly who should be statting into Dex. But protector druids, valor bards, and even melee rangers are far better off in strength with a 14 dex tops.

 

[Remathilis]

- bonus from Cha to AC is hard to justify by narrative, feels like a game design gimmick which is the kind of thing that makes D&D look dumb

Seeing the types of classes that use charisma to AC, I think it's supposed to represent the combatants skill at feints, distractions, or moxy. Which is why dancers (agile and alluring) and swashbucklers (all derring do and panache) get it.

And dragon sorcerers because they are supernaturally hardened and the static AC wasn't didn't scale well. Two out of three aren't bad.