Salamandyr
Adventurer
I like that; I admit, I lean a little more toward letting a fighter caught without armor be competitive in the AC department (while still preferring armor), so I like the 10+ part, but I think your argument is sound.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Why no Proficiency bonus to AC?
- Thread starter Xeviat
- Start date
I like that; I admit, I lean a little more toward letting a fighter caught without armor be competitive in the AC department (while still preferring armor), so I like the 10+ part, but I think your argument is sound.
Tony Vargas
Legend
It's something that's always nagged about most versions of D&D: you get much better at hitting, you don't get any better at parrying or dodging.
Monster attack bonus, damage, and (very approximate) damage throughput vs expected PC ACs, relative to balooning PC hps all goes into the CR guidelines to some degree, even if some of that isn't actually called out as such.
5e PCs do gain a lot of hps as they level relative to classic D&D or 4e (about on par with 3.x), because CON mods are higher than in classic, and apply at every single level, not just 1st or levels that have HD (all levels have HD, that is). That massive hp gain can be visualized as primarily avoiding damage - including parrying/dodging/etc in the context of weapon damage, that might instead have been modeled with scaling AC.
In part, perhaps. Hps (and damage) more than proficiency provide scaling and a sense of advancement as you level in 5e.
It's how things worked in the classic game. Attack bonus and hps scaled with level, AC scaled only with gear. 5e harkens back to the classic versions of the game as much as possible.
Last edited:
Remathilis
Legend
Ditto, except mine was a Masque of the Red Death-like 1890s horror setting.
8+Prof+Dex seems a good simulation of AC without relying on AC 12 trench coats
NotActuallyTim
First Post
What if...
When PCs leveled up, they also got fatter? The amount of fat on their bodies could represent the amount of HP they have, and grievous wounds could now be dismissed as 'It's nothing, it just hit your belly.'
I want to add a smiley to this, but I don't which one is appropriate.
Horwath
Legend
I dont think its a good idea, because...
I present you lvl20 barbarian;
but maybe it would be;
This was the case for Star Wars Saga edition. Your defense was the better of Dex+Armor or Dex+Level or something like that. It made armor better to use at lower levels, but as you gained experience eventually you'd want to wear plain cloths. There were exceptions to this rule, like armor which enhanced certain attributes, but for the most part not really the norm. Case in point, Han Solo was such a high level that his Level bonus was higher than any armor he could wear.
Xeviat
Dungeon Mistress, she/her
Heavy Armor would still exist as a way of getting AC without Dex.
And I get the not wanting a treadmil. But, at least when looking at the CR calculator table in the DMG, monster ACs continue to go up with levels. Without magic items, you're expecting about a 65% hit chance against an equal CR monster at most levels (the monster AC even goes up generally at the same levels that player stats and proficiencies go up).
So your ability to hit monsters doesn't change, without magic items; it even falls behind if you pick up feats instead of ability boosts. But the ability for monsters to hit you continues to grow, unless you use magic items to boost your AC.
Now, this might be because there are more ways to boost your AC than there are ways to boost your attack. It's still weird, and I'm not sure that I like it.
I do appreciate that HP means dodging, but since Dex also means dodging and Dex is tied to AC, it's kind of hard to overlook.
Thanks for everyone's input. Bounding AC makes sense, but player AC is more tightly bounded than any other part of the system; player attack scales, 2 or more of player saves scale, player HP scales (though this doesn't feel like much to me considering how much monster damage scales), player damage scales, player abilities scale ... Without magic items, AC caps out by level 8. It just seems odd.
In order to put in scaling player AC, though, we'd either need to base AC at 8 + modifiers, like save DCs, or we'd need to bring back weapon proficiency bonuses, which would seem odd in the system when they already have proficiency bonuses.
Adding in proficiency to AC would require a lot of changes. I roll with magic items, so I'm pretty sure it will be fine in my games. We're going to start a level 11 game soon, so I'll be able to see how high level fights truly feel.
And I get the not wanting a treadmil. But, at least when looking at the CR calculator table in the DMG, monster ACs continue to go up with levels. Without magic items, you're expecting about a 65% hit chance against an equal CR monster at most levels (the monster AC even goes up generally at the same levels that player stats and proficiencies go up).
So your ability to hit monsters doesn't change, without magic items; it even falls behind if you pick up feats instead of ability boosts. But the ability for monsters to hit you continues to grow, unless you use magic items to boost your AC.
Now, this might be because there are more ways to boost your AC than there are ways to boost your attack. It's still weird, and I'm not sure that I like it.
I do appreciate that HP means dodging, but since Dex also means dodging and Dex is tied to AC, it's kind of hard to overlook.
Thanks for everyone's input. Bounding AC makes sense, but player AC is more tightly bounded than any other part of the system; player attack scales, 2 or more of player saves scale, player HP scales (though this doesn't feel like much to me considering how much monster damage scales), player damage scales, player abilities scale ... Without magic items, AC caps out by level 8. It just seems odd.
In order to put in scaling player AC, though, we'd either need to base AC at 8 + modifiers, like save DCs, or we'd need to bring back weapon proficiency bonuses, which would seem odd in the system when they already have proficiency bonuses.
Adding in proficiency to AC would require a lot of changes. I roll with magic items, so I'm pretty sure it will be fine in my games. We're going to start a level 11 game soon, so I'll be able to see how high level fights truly feel.
Greenstone.Walker
Adventurer
You've already got a proficiency bonus to your defence - Hit Points.
A level 10 character can take more hits than a level 1. D&D models this by the level 10 character having more hit points than the level 1 character.
If you want to model this by the level 10 character having more AC than the level 1 then that's ok, but you should probably drop hit points.
The CR of a monster is not really "related" to its attack bonus; it is directly calculated from it. The CR of a monster is a measure of (1) how long it takes to be defeated and (2) how much damage it can do to the party in that time.
A level 10 character can take more hits than a level 1. D&D models this by the level 10 character having more hit points than the level 1 character.
If you want to model this by the level 10 character having more AC than the level 1 then that's ok, but you should probably drop hit points.
The CR of a monster is not really "related" to its attack bonus; it is directly calculated from it. The CR of a monster is a measure of (1) how long it takes to be defeated and (2) how much damage it can do to the party in that time.
Similar Threads
