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

This seems odd, you will hit and be hit more and more as you advance.
Something to take in consideration, and you'll see a billion posts here about it, is that being "hit" and losing "HP" doesn't actually mean taking a wound. HP are an abstract concept used for combat that is hard for many to wrap their heads around, because it wasn't ever meant to represent a creature's physical body. Mechanically it serves as the balance to the increase in the frequency of being hit, rather than AC, meaning that everyone hits more often (which is fun) and doesn't die as fast (which is also fun).

My suggestion is to look at HP as a character's stamina (or luck/skill/plot armor/whatever) to withstand some abuse that isn't necessary a direct wound (such as stress, glancing blows, armor taking the impact, etc.). Of course as a DM, I usually describe most enemies loss of HP as actual wounds, since after the combat no one will care about their physical condition, unlike the PCs.

Also seems odd that the goblins we first encountered had a higher AC than most of us adventurers (15).
First of all, remember the goblins would have 2 less AC if they're using their bows, since they can't use their shield, and that dropping/reading it takes an action. This means that ones that start as archers, but get trapped in melee will have less AC than those charging into the party.

Secondly... something might be wrong with your characters AC computation, because this seems odd. Unless you're using the array option with character starting packages, most characters will start with AC: 14-16, except for sorcerers, warlock, and wizard. The array lends itself to lower AC, since you will probably have only a +1 in Dex unless you're a bard, monk, rogue, or dex based fighter (such as an archer). The starting packages lower AC because the armor given isn't usually the optimal choice (barbarian gets none, for example).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This is basically a matter of sacred cows which have yet to be slaughtered.
They slaughtered it good and dead in 4E. Then they resurrected it in 5E. With the more limited attack bonuses in this edition, there was no need to complicate AC by incorporating proficiency. Hit point scaling is sufficient to represent a PC's improving defenses.
 

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.
 



I'm testing the system to see how mandatory it is to max out Dex as a rogue.
TBF, Dexterity has been the Thief's Prime Requisite since it was introduced in Greyhawk Supplement II, c1975. So you're fight'n 44 years of history, there.

If it makes you feel better, the first time I ran HotDQ, the party included a modest-DEX Dwarf Rogue, who 'died' early, and often. (You got brought back every session for free in those proto-AL days - still called "Encoutners" IIRC).

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.
Monster's ACs (unlike PCs, I the absence of magic items) and saves do creep up a bit as CR increases, but the point is you can fight monsters quite a bit above and below you in level. Plus, when it comes to save, if you can target a bad save, there's generally little improvement.

As a side not, we're now trying 5E instead of moving to PF2.
So you're going PF1 -> 5e?
 

This is not a sacred cow issue. This is a deliberate design issue. Although many times I thought getting rid of armor class and just use a defense score of 10+prof bonus +dex bonus and then using armor for damage reduction. But this caused too many problems with other systems.
 

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.
You can choose to add Str or Dex to attacks and damage with Finesse weapons, so that actually shouldn’t be a big problem, and in fact makes mountain dwarf the best race for doing a Str-based rogue, if you want to go that route. Alternatively, you could go variant human with moderately armored for your 1st level Feat. But otherwise, Dex is pretty crucial to rogues, as that Dex bonus to AC is pretty important.

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.
The amount to which PF2 resembles 5e has been extremely overblown, at least in my evaluation. There are definitely a lot of 4e ideas in it, but I think that’s to its credit. I think 5e did itself a great disservice by tossing out so many of the truly great innovations 4e made. 4e was a flawed game, but it did do a lot of great things that 5e turned away from, and I think it’s great that PF2 embraced them, while making the presentation of them more palatable to folks who didn’t care for 4e’s aesthetics.
 

This is not a sacred cow issue. This is a deliberate design issue. Although many times I thought getting rid of armor class and just use a defense score of 10+prof bonus +dex bonus and then using armor for damage reduction. But this caused too many problems with other systems.
Not 8 +prof +Dex like saves are?
 


Remove ads

Top