D&D 1E AD&D players and referees, what do you think of ascending AC?

[Willie the Duck]

Remember that when OD&D was originally published the lowest AC was 2. Magic armor and shields (the latter of which only functioned 1/3 of the time, and only if their bonus was greater than that of the armor) or a Ring of Protection subtracted from an opponent's to-hit rolls. Importing "class" for armor from Don't Give Up the Ship made some conceptual sense originally.

Importing armor "class" made sense when it was more of a nominal variable with a numeric representation and less of a real ordinal variable.

Honestly (and I guess I already said roughly this), the closer things got to a static X-vs-Y chart, the more sense it made and there's no real reason to pick one way over the other. The instant there starting being all sorts of +s and -s flying around and you had to remember which one goes where, the more a 'higher is better on both sides' formulation is easier to keep track of.

 

[teitan]

I prefer it. Why? It is a stronger bounded accuracy model than 5e. Each pip of the die is 5% and AC is capped on the low end at 10 and -10 as the best. Had 3.x or 5e simply gone with 10 being worst and 30 being the cap they would have retained that bounded accuracy and AC's wouldn't escalate like they have since 3.x was released. Even in 1e where 20 wasn't necessarily an automatic hit and bonuses were added to the die roll and penalties from the Armor Class, it struck a steady balance. 5e has a tighter bounded accuracy but it is also hampered by escalating hit points. So I support limiting hit points after level 10 to con bonus to speed up combat, which is a slog in 3.x-5e combats due to the meat bag approach.

 

[JEB]

Had 3.x or 5e simply gone with 10 being worst and 30 being the cap they would have retained that bounded accuracy and AC's wouldn't escalate like they have since 3.x was released.

Are there any official 5e monster stats that exceed 30? Got the impression that was a soft cap, if not an official one.

 

[Voadam]

Are there any official 5e monster stats that exceed 30? Got the impression that was a soft cap, if not an official one.

It looks like he's saying AC 10-30, not stats. I haven't kept up with high end 5e WotC stats but I do not remember seeing any 30+ ACs though in the ancient dragons or demon lords in the MM or Mordenkainen's.

 

[James Gasik]

It looks like he's saying AC 10-30, not stats. I haven't kept up with high end 5e WotC stats but I do not remember seeing any 30+ ACs though in the ancient dragons or demon lords in the MM or Mordenkainen's.

The Tarrasque has 25 and that's a CR 30. I suppose a spellcasting enemy might be able to juggle spells for high defense, but even Vecna only has a base AC of 18.

Now 3.5 yeah, AC's got out of control. A quick glance at my Book of Vile Darkness and right off the bat I see Demogorgon has a 47 (!) AC.

Which sounds ridiculous, but I can easily see a Fighter 20 with 28 Strength, Greater Weapon Focus, a +5 demon bane weapon, a +1 insight bonus to hit from an Ioun Stone and maybe a Recitation from their Cleric and having a +42/37/32/27 attack bonus. You can easily go beyond these numbers.

In 5e, I think the best attack bonus you can get is...PB +6, +3 weapon, Belt of Storm Giant Strength...+18? Add +1d4 for Bless, maybe Bardic Inspiration, and/or advantage? Something you're not likely to see ever, of course, but it does kind of put a ceiling on how high AC can be for enemies- not that enemies are really designed that way. The primary metric 5e designers use is relative incoming damage vs. hit points, not accuracy vs. AC.

 

[sgran]

Switching was easy

 

[Voadam]

Now 3.5 yeah, AC's got out of control. A quick glance at my Book of Vile Darkness and right off the bat I see Demogorgon has a 47 (!) AC.

Sure, 3.5 and 4e were not bound accuracy like 5e is. You don't even need to go to a demon lord sourcebook to get above a 30 AC, in the 3.5 MM balors have a 35 and pit fiends have a 40 AC. 4e even has a 1/2 level AC bonus going on.

 

[cbwjm]

The Tarrasque has 25 and that's a CR 30. I suppose a spellcasting enemy might be able to juggle spells for high defense, but even Vecna only has a base AC of 18.

Now 3.5 yeah, AC's got out of control. A quick glance at my Book of Vile Darkness and right off the bat I see Demogorgon has a 47 (!) AC.

Which sounds ridiculous, but I can easily see a Fighter 20 with 28 Strength, Greater Weapon Focus, a +5 demon bane weapon, a +1 insight bonus to hit from an Ioun Stone and maybe a Recitation from their Cleric and having a +42/37/32/27 attack bonus. You can easily go beyond these numbers.

In 5e, I think the best attack bonus you can get is...PB +6, +3 weapon, Belt of Storm Giant Strength...+18? Add +1d4 for Bless, maybe Bardic Inspiration, and/or advantage? Something you're not likely to see ever, of course, but it does kind of put a ceiling on how high AC can be for enemies- not that enemies are really designed that way. The primary metric 5e designers use is relative incoming damage vs. hit points, not accuracy vs. AC.

3e caused some things to stack for AC that previously didn't. A ring of protection in 2e didn't provide a bonus to AC if your armour was also magical (though I'd allow the magical bonus for armour to be replaced if the ring was better). In 3e, part of a lot of character's kit was a ring of protection which provided a deflection bonus to AC. That right there increased AC for players and NPCs by 1-5 points.

 

[Mannahnin]

3e caused some things to stack for AC that previously didn't. A ring of protection in 2e didn't provide a bonus to AC if your armour was also magical (though I'd allow the magical bonus for armour to be replaced if the ring was better). In 3e, part of a lot of character's kit was a ring of protection which provided a deflection bonus to AC. That right there increased AC for players and NPCs by 1-5 points.

Didn't Natural Armor bonus also stack with regular Armor bonus?

 

[Voadam]

In 3e natural armor stacked and was available in a common amulet of natural armor which went from +1 to +5 and soon became baked in as the optimal neck slot item. In AD&D it was just the barkskin spell and things like playing a non-core lizardman and it explicitly did not stack with normal armor.

From the 2e PH:

Barkskin
(Alteration)
Sphere: Protection, Plant
Range: Touch Components: V, S, M
Duration: 4 rds. + 1 rd./level Casting Time: 5
Area of Effect: 1 creature Saving Throw: None
When a priest casts the barkskin spell upon a creature, its skin becomes as tough as bark, increasing its base Armor Class to AC 6, plus 1 AC for every four levels of the priest: Armor Class 5 at 4th level, Armor Class 4 at 8th, and so on. This spell does not function in combination with normal armor or any magical protection. In addition, saving throw rolls vs. all attack forms except magic gain a +1 bonus. This spell can be placed on the caster or on any other creature he touches.
In addition to his holy symbol, the caster must have a handful of bark from an oak as the material component for the spell.