D&D 5E Proficiency Bonus to AC

[Giltonio_Santos]

Sorry, but differentiating chain mail from splint or plate is just funnier than your suggestion. I'll keep various armor types and leave proficiency bonus where they are now. Besides, I want to be able to pick a level 1 critter and give it an AC of 18 just by writing "plate armor" under "gear". How does your system does that?

Cheers!

 

[Ashkelon]

Sorry, but differentiating chain mail from splint or plate is just funnier than your suggestion. I'll keep various armor types and leave proficiency bonus where they are now. Besides, I want to be able to pick a level 1 critter and give it an AC of 18 just by writing "plate armor" under "gear". How does your system does that?

Cheers!

Are various armor types really needed at all? They seem like fluff more than anything else. It is exceedingly rare that players will use any armor other than the best they can afford. How many fighters use those lesser armors like banded or splint when they can instead use plate. Which PC uses regular leather when something like "dragon leather" armor is available. Those armor types usually become just wasted space in the book for any PC higher than level 3.

My suggestion allows for a lot more freedom. If you want your Druid to wear armor made from iron-wood tree leaves you can do that, just call it light armor. If you want your earth cleric to have eavt armor that is made from rocks held together with magic, just call it heavy armor.

If you really want to differentiate armors though, just say lesser versions have 1 less AC or give disadvantage to Dex checks. You could even give them different weights and costs.

As as for giving a level 1 creature 18 AC, why? Level 1 monsters have a +2 attack bonus only. Level 1 PCs have a +3 or +4 attack bonus. Fights where 70% of attacks miss just aren't fun. Having a level 1 PC with 15 AC is far more reasonable. It fits in better with the monster math in general for low level monsters.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Are various armor types really needed at all? They seem like fluff more than anything else. It is exceedingly rare that players will use any armor other than the best they can afford. How many fighters use those lesser armors like banded or splint when they can instead use plate. Which PC uses regular leather when something like "dragon leather" armor is available. Those armor types usually become just wasted space in the book for any PC higher than level 3.

You seem to be a bit out-of-touch with the way D&D is designed. What you refer to as "fluff" is actually the important part, and the game mechanics only exist to represent that objective reality. You don't say that you want AC 18 and then choose whether you want that to correspond to chain or plate; you choose to wear a specific type of armor because it gives better protection, or because it's lighter, or because it affords better mobility, or because it's cheaper. You can't just say you're wearing plate and then make up any old stats for it, because that would give an inconsistent model of what plate armor is within the game world.

Most fighters don't wear plate, because most fighters can't afford it. If you can afford plate, then you would be stupid to not do so, barring extenuating circumstances.

As as for giving a level 1 creature 18 AC, why? Level 1 monsters have a +2 attack bonus only. Level 1 PCs have a +3 or +4 attack bonus. Fights where 70% of attacks miss just aren't fun. Having a level 1 PC with 15 AC is far more reasonable. It fits in better with the monster math in general for low level monsters.

Your opinion of how often a PC should be hit is just an opinion, and one which I do not share. If I'm playing a fighter, then I'm not going to have any confidence in my armor if the enemy has an even chance of getting past it. Even a 30% chance of being hit is unacceptable to me. After all, these enemies are expected to lose the majority of their Hit Points over the course of this battle, and my Hit Points have to last me all day.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

IMHO it's OK as is -- fixed AC is needed to make bounded accuracy work.

You can have AC increase with level, but in that case HP need to stay fixed.

Bonuses and tradeoffs should vary between the levels and secondary benefits. There should be a reason to choose different armors depending on proficiencies. The math shouldn't be strictly equal.

 

[the Jester]

Will it? Right now a level 1 fighter in plate armor has an AC of 18. At level 20 the same fighter still has an AC of 18.

With my proposed numbers a level 1 fighter in plate armor (who also has Dex 12+) would have an AC of 15.

Yeah, I don't much care for that either.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I would never use your suggested AC system for D&D. I firmly believe that armor choice ought to count for something; that heavier armor ought to be able to provide a better overall AC than light armor + Dex + anything short of full focus devoting all your optional everything toward it.

That said, if it works for you, go for it, and enjoy!

...So at most the attack bonus for the high level monsters would need to be increased by only +2 to compensate. That is probably needed already anyway as high level monsters attack bonuses are lower than most PCs. This would put the attack bonus of high level monsters would go from +10 to +12.

I think monster math is one piece of the game that we have not seen a final version of, and it's likely to be pretty well revised by the time the game actually releases.

That's inconsequential to your point about the fragility of bounded accuracy, though. My response would be that, in a system of bounded accuracy, every +1 or -1 counts. After all, that's one of the points of bounded accuracy.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You can have AC increase with level, but in that case HP need to stay fixed.

The middle ground is to have both AC and HP increase with level, but at a reduced rate compared to if you scale only one of them.

 

[Wangalade]

I don't think it would be a good idea to have AC increase with level. remember AC stands for armor class. the AC is based primarily on the armor, not on the level of the character. granted there may be bonuses from dex or racial/class abilities, but they also correspond with the armor, hence the limit to the dex bonus.

Different armor types is not just fluff, in any game i have ever played in or run, the only way to get dragon leather or dragon scale is to kill a dragon, skin it, and find an armorer skilled enough to make a suit of armor from it. just paying the armorer usually costs more than most low level magic armors. besides that they have to find a dragon and kill it. and wearing dragon armor draws attention from dragons, who will kill you just because you are wearing the armor, and from people who ant the dragon armor. the same principle applies to anything made of mithril or other exotic materials, and any high quality armor like plate. plate, or even chain should not be available in every village, only in the big cities with skilled armorsmiths.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I prefer the idea of AC scaling with level, in principle. After all, it makes sense to me that characters get better at defending themselves, not just attacking. The problem is, characters in 5e can already get ridiculously high AC scores, well into the mid-high 20s, making them pretty much un-hittable even for most higher level monsters. If you let people add +6 more to that the game breaks in half.

 

[Ashkelon]

I prefer the idea of AC scaling with level, in principle. After all, it makes sense to me that characters get better at defending themselves, not just attacking. The problem is, characters in 5e can already get ridiculously high AC scores, well into the mid-high 20s, making them pretty much un-hittable even for most higher level monsters. If you let people add +6 more to that the game breaks in half.

I really think they need to do more to limit bonuses to AC.

Rings of protection should be usable as a reactionto gain advantage on a save or make an incoming attack suffer disadvantage instead of providing a flat AC boost. Barkskin should grant temp HP. Racial bonuses should be removed. Spells like haste and prayer should not grant bonus to AC. Even shields should not grant AC but be usable as a reaction to make incoming attacks suffer disadvantage for 1 turn.

But if you actually read my suggestion I am not for adding +6 proficiency bonus on top of the current ACs. I dramatically reduce the AC values granted by armor as well as reducing base AC to 8 instead of 10. This means your AC increases by 5 points over 20 levels instead of just 2, but the max AC is only brought up by 2 points.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I really think they need to do more to limit bonuses to AC.

Rings of protection should be usable as a reactionto gain advantage on a save or make an incoming attack suffer disadvantage instead of providing a flat AC boost. Barkskin should grant temp HP. Racial bonuses should be removed. Spells like haste and prayer should not grant bonus to AC. Even shields should not grant AC but be usable as a reaction to make incoming attacks suffer disadvantage for 1 turn.

I like those ideas.

But if you actually read my suggestion I am not for adding +6 proficiency bonus on top of the current ACs. I dramatically reduce the AC values granted by armor as well as reducing base AC to 8 instead of 10. This means your AC increases by 5 points over 20 levels instead of just 2, but the max AC is only brought up by 2 points.

I was just speaking in general terms, not responding to your ideas in particular.