The term 'Armor Class' needs to go

[Reaper Steve]

My only real complaint about what I've seen for 4E so far* is that it seems they will keep the term 'Armor Class.' My sincere hope is that it follows SWSE and becomes 'Defense.'
Defense is based on so much more than Armor, so the term is misleading.The term 'Armor Class' is archaic and propagates a mindset that WotC has been trying to get away from.

I do think that 'Armor Class' as a term/concept may have a place in armor rules, but it should not be the term that gives the numerial sum of all of a defender's abilities to avoid being damaged. Defense should oppose Attack.

I feel better. I'm going to (much more eloquently) compile my argument and send WotC a real hardcopy snail mail letter about it. Here's hoping they follow the lead in SWSE and kill (really, just rename) this cow.





*Quibbles:I don't care for 'Warlord' as a base class name and I don't like the horns on the new Dragons' noses.

 

[Scribble]

I can agree, that defense makes much more rational sense then Armor Class (even in older editions.. it's always been a number... how is that a "class") but I'm not sure it "needs" to be changed...

 

[GreatLemur]

My only real complaint about what I've seen for 4E so far* is that it seems they will keep the term 'Armor Class.' My sincere hope is that it follows SWSE and becomes 'Defense.'
Defense is based on so much more than Armor, so the term is misleading.The term 'Armor Class' is archaic and propagates a mindset that WotC has been trying to get away from.

You're absolutely right. Although I wouldn't mind if "Armor Class" just became the new name for Damage Reduction. Your Defense helps you avoid blows, and your armor helps you survive what you fail to avoid. That'd work for me.

 

[mmadsen]

Although I wouldn't mind if "Armor Class" just became the new name for Damage Reduction.

Or your Damage Save bonus.

 

[Wik]

Enh. Never really bothered me. I suppose "Defense" would be more intuitive, but it's one of those facets of play my group never had any problems with.

 

[Artoomis]

You're absolutely right. Although I wouldn't mind if "Armor Class" just became the new name for Damage Reduction. Your Defense helps you avoid blows, and your armor helps you survive what you fail to avoid. That'd work for me.

Works for me, too. I think this can be done very well.

But I do like the term "Armor Class" - some things really need to be kept, if only for continuity and to please old farts like me who have been playing D&D since the beginning. It might end up meaning something a little different that in the past, but it has a certain familiarity about it.

 

[Fifth Element]

*Quibbles:I don't care for 'Warlord' as a base class name...

No reason to worry then, since there's no evidence yet that this will be the case.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Sorry, that sacred cow still has to moo...
Defense, damage reduction... not D&D
AC is one of the few things, along with HP, XP, six abilities, classes and levels that make D&D, D&D...once those start going, its another game system. It doesn't mean you can't change the way it works, but Armor Class has to stay.

 

[The Souljourner]

I wouldn't mind if "Armor Class" just became the new name for Damage Reduction. Your Defense helps you avoid blows, and your armor helps you survive what you fail to avoid.

No changing this into an armor-as-DR thread!

I say, keep armor class. You gain nothing by changing the name, and in keeping it, you keep one of the sacred cows of D&D. You should never kill a cow just because it's a cow.

-Nate

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The term "armor class" has escaped D&D and wandered into dozens (or perhaps even hundreds) of console games and CRPGs. At this point, it's a generic term well understood by most of the audience for D&D.

I don't disagree that it's a clunky term, but it's the accepted clunky term.