Thoughts on Proficiency and AC

[Tony Vargas]

Damage per attack doesn't climb quite as fast as hps in 5e, the idea is you'll attack more often and hit /even more often/, so a climbing AC would presumably leave weapon attacks and attack cantrips trailing.

You'd want to reduce the armor bonuses by more than 2, if you're basing it on proficiency in armor.

You might, instead, bring proficiency in for more active defense, like dodging, or a limited AC for attacks you're aware of...

If you don't mind the complexity of 3e-style multiple ACs, you could even go with something like:

Armor would be passive AC, it's always there for you.

Proficiency + whatever would be when you're actively defending yourself in whatever sense, and could be 8+prof+stat for say, parrying with a weapon. 10 + prof + stat for a shield. When you're say, engaged with a target you can see, you get to use your armor AC, or your proficiency AC, whichever is higher. At range your weapon proficiency (probably) doesn't help (a high level feature for arrow-cutting maybe?), but 10+prof+stat for a shield wouldn't be crazy. If you use your action for defense the enemy has to hit both (kinda like disadvantage).

Since your Armor should usually give you better AC than your prof in this hypothetical system, it could be later-game complexity that you add in if people start /asking/ "hey, why am I not getting better at avoiding being hit?"

Of course, the old standby "that's reflected in your hps" is always there, too.

 

[the Jester]

I'm against anything that makes 5e's math less flat.

 

[jmucchiello]

I'm only complaining about the inconsistency. I'm not suggesting torches and pitchforks as we storm WotC demanding a change. I'm just asking what happens if you make every die roll DC based on the One True Formula: 8 + Prof + Ability Bonus? Obviously a change to the system requires propagated changes to other parts of the system.

Oh, and my OP did forget to mention Monks and Barbs would be considered proficient in Unarmored Combat. Thanks to whomever asked about that.

 

[Riley37]

Alternate plan: without proficiency, shield provides +1 AC. (Even passively, a shield gets in the way of some attacks.) If you have proficiency with shields, then instead, shield provides (proficiency bonus) to AC, representing your trained ability to move the shield into the way of attacks.

Armor proficiency doesn't make much sense to me. Does anyone with SCA or similar experience think that moving effectively while wearing armor, requires three cumulative levels of training?

 

[jmucchiello]

Armor proficiency doesn't make much sense to me. Does anyone with SCA or similar experience think that moving effectively while wearing armor, requires three cumulative levels of training?

That's two different questions. Is there a difference between light, medium, and heavy armor versus can proficiency with armor help protect you from damage. Armor in D&D has always been handled "oddly" since one would assume armor reduces damage instead of preventing "hits". So my question is purely a game mechanics question. Not a simulation question.

 

[Krachek]

It will. be like 4ed.
You will need a 10 to hit a monster. At level 1, 5, 10 or 20.

 

[77IM]

I like the concept, but as others have pointed out, 5e's math isn't really built to accommodate it. Monsters' to-hit bonuses are already too low, and this would make them even whiffier.

 

[Tormyr]

My understanding is that AC is the one DC that does not scale because HP is instead scaling upward (and is offset by DPR scaling up). The PCs are not supposed to be hit less often just because they are increasing in level. Rather, they should be hit as often or more often because the +to hit bonus for the enemy increases by as much or more than the AC increases that the PCs pick up. The HP increases counterbalance this and do go up every level.

Part of the way bounded accuracy has been set up in 5e is that almost any creature can hit almost any other creature without requiring a critical hit. This allows large numbers of low-CR creatures to be used in high-level encounters because some of them are still able to hit.

Allowing the PCs to have super-high AC at high levels makes encounters significantly easier and eliminates low-CR creatures from high-level encounters. In essence, the PCs get a free +1 AC ring at level 5, +2 at level 9, +3 at level 13, and +4 at level 17. This combines with any magical items and armor the PC has. Around level 13, a point-buy monk with no magic items could potentially have an AC of 22; a similar barbarian could have an AC of 24 with a shield. At that point, many low-CR creatures are useless, and even adult dragons are missing roughly half the time.

Personally, I would not suggest altering AC just because the numbers are calculated differently. HP is the defensive number that scales with level so that a creature can be hit more often but survive it (and burn healing resources).

My 2cp.

 

[Tormyr]

I'm only complaining about the inconsistency. I'm not suggesting torches and pitchforks as we storm WotC demanding a change. I'm just asking what happens if you make every die roll DC based on the One True Formula: 8 + Prof + Ability Bonus? Obviously a change to the system requires propagated changes to other parts of the system.

Oh, and my OP did forget to mention Monks and Barbs would be considered proficient in Unarmored Combat. Thanks to whomever asked about that.

It is not really "The One True Formula" however. Saving Throw DCs are calculated that way. Attack Roll DCs are based on however AC is calculated for a creature. Ability Check DCs are calculated based on contested rolls, assumptions on real world difficulty, desired challenge, or any number of other reasons including the DM's mood. There are 3 different kinds of d20 rolls in D&D, and the DC for each of them is calculated differently.

 

[TheSword]

My biggest issue with this is that it waters down the effect of higher AC from armour at higher levels. I already see too many dex based characters and this would just compound that problem. Effectively you adding +1 to every characters AC every 4 levels.

Totally agree with [MENTION=6776887]Tormyr[/MENTION] that hp are a better representation of taking more damage.