Does it break anything to reduce AC's reliance on STR/DEX?

[Zaq]

I've noticed that you basically need to have either STR or DEX if you want your AC to matter at all. That's not to say that ONLY STR or DEX matter (Barbarians get CON involved, Monks get WIS involved, and I understand that Bladesinger Wizards can do something with INT, but I haven't actually read the book that Bladesingers are from, so I may be wrong about that), but it still seems like even in those cases, you still want to have DEX supporting your WIS or your CON. (A Monk with high WIS but low DEX is still going to have crappy AC, so even though they weren't solely reliant upon DEX, they still needed it.)

This wouldn't bother me so much if the game was freer about handing out stats, but if you're trying to pay attention to a stat other than STR or DEX (which basically means a casting stat), by the time you've addressed your primary stat, paid some token attention to CON, and plunked enough points into DEX or STR to make your AC not shameful, you basically can't do anything else, and even doing as much as I mentioned can be challenging. This means that it's hard to afford the stats to dip into certain classes, and it also means that you're basically completely screwed if you want to pay attention to two mental stats. (Why need two mental stats? Maybe you want your Knowledge Cleric to actually have high enough INT to succeed on a Knowledge check more than 50% of the time, or maybe you want your Enchanter Wizard to have enough CHA for nontrivial social skills, or whatever. Or you want to dip into another class. Or something. Such things happen.)

I mean, it would be one thing if STR served as a minor gate to armor by means of needing STR to dip into/out of classes that grant heavy armor and/or needing STR to buy the heavy armor feats, but you also have to have STR to actually wear the heavy armor, so you're still needing to pay attention to another stat if you want your AC to not suck, even if you're letting armor do the work for you.

Certain spells can mitigate the problem, but I find it unlikely that you'll have the slots and actions and concentration available to rely entirely on spells for AC on more characters than not.

I feel like this kind of unnecessarily limits some character concepts. Would it really break anything if we let, say, Bards treat INT as equivalent to DEX for the purposes of determining AC? Or we could go full 4e and say that INT = DEX for AC (you only get whichever one is higher, and you still have the caps put in place by armor, but use whichever one you like). We could even bring in some influence from Legend and let different classes have different "key defensive modifiers" that serve the purpose that DEX does now. Obviously we'd place a hard ban on using the same stat for offense and defense (so no using your primary casting stat and no using whatever stat you plan to make attacks with), but would it really break anything to allow a zealous Cleric's CHA to be what they use to shield themselves from attacks? (I do recognize that this gets weird with multiclass characters, but since this is homebrew/houseruling anyway, it's not hard to just put a GM veto clause in; as a throwaway example, that WIS/CHA Cleric could still use CHA for defense if they dipped a level or two of Warlock for a specific benefit, but they couldn't keep using CHA if they ended up being more Warlock than Cleric, with the GM keeping an eye on player intention and keeping everyone honest.) And of course, Rogues and other DEX-attacking classes can already use the same stat for AC and for offense, so even that isn't taboo in the preexisting rules.

Basically, how fragile is the game balance as it relates to everyone needing STR or DEX for AC? How bad would it really be to let characters justify using another stat? Would anything fall to pieces if the Bard who chooses to be knowledgeable has the same AC as the Bard who chooses to be acrobatic? Would the Monster Manual be trivialized by characters who get proficiency in heavy armor (paying the cost in levels and/or multiclassing stat requirements) but who don't have the requisite STR to wear it "properly"? Again, we'd put the same limits in place on whatever other stat you use, but would things just get horribly ruined if a character were permitted to have non-terrible AC without either STR or DEX?

[CantigThimble]

I would like to point out that you can still wear heavy armor fine with Str 8, the only thing you lose is 10 feet of movement.

[Magnetized]

The reliance on strength and dexterity for AC is actually very high. It's all about a trade-off of defensive and offensive power. Let's compare a wizard to a fighter. A wizard has a much higher damage potential than a fighter. Additionally, the wizard gets to do this damage from outside of melee range. Outside of going for an archery build, the fighter has to do their damage from melee range, where everything can hit him/her back.

Now, since wizards have a low AC, party balance is usually set up with a melee character with a high AC to "tank" encounters. If you gave a wizard a high AC without having any trade-off to get it, why would you need a tankier character in the party? The game is already skewed towards offense and casting. By giving easily obtained high AC to caster characters, you essentially take away a large reason for people to play a fighter/barbarian/melee in general.

TLDR version: Yes, it would break the game.

[Flashy]

A Knowledge Cleric with 10 dex still manages 17 AC with half plate and a shield, which is perfectly respectable for a rear rank Cleric. The Enchanter is limited less by armor stat requirements, and more by a total lack of armor proficiency. Vuman standard array wizard takes Moderately Armored to manage 16 int, 14 dex, and 14 cha with ease, then combines it with cheap armor (chain mail for the purposes of this argument) and a shield for 17 AC right out of the gate.

My point is that there are plenty of options for basically any character who wants respectable AC, and the game gates most AC levels by restricting armor proficiency by race and class. It has much less to do with strength/dex requirement and much more to do with armor proficiency.

[Zaq]

The reliance on strength and dexterity for AC is actually very high. It's all about a trade-off of defensive and offensive power. Let's compare a wizard to a fighter. A wizard has a much higher damage potential than a fighter. Additionally, the wizard gets to do this damage from outside of melee range. Outside of going for an archery build, the fighter has to do their damage from melee range, where everything can hit him/her back.

Now, since wizards have a low AC, party balance is usually set up with a melee character with a high AC to "tank" encounters. If you gave a wizard a high AC without having any trade-off to get it, why would you need a tankier character in the party? The game is already skewed towards offense and casting. By giving easily obtained high AC to caster characters, you essentially take away a large reason for people to play a fighter/barbarian/melee in general.

TLDR version: Yes, it would break the game.

But archery does exist. We can easily have a character using the same stat for offense and defense if they use DEX (Rogues do so automatically, Monks do so automatically, Fighters and Rangers can easily do so, and even Paladins can do it if they use finesse weapons). And a character who uses STR to attack and uses STR for heavy armor is using the same stat for offense and defense, so that doesn't hold up either.

A Wizard can choose to invest in DEX (and they'll still have lower AC than a Fighter), and I imagine many of them do; why should the Wizard who invests in CHA necessarily be less effective than the Wizard who invests in DEX? Why is the game improved by encouraging Wizards to be acrobatic over being strong-willed? A Lore Bard who prioritizes INT over STR or DEX is already choosing to be better at knowledge skills than at weapon attack rolls (presumably relying on magic for combat effectiveness); why punish them twice by making them have less AC?

[JNAProductions]

A Knowledge Cleric with 10 dex still manages 17 AC with half plate and a shield, which is perfectly respectable for a rear rank Cleric. The Enchanter is limited less by armor stat requirements, and more by a total lack of armor proficiency. Vuman standard array wizard takes Moderately Armored to manage 16 int, 14 dex, and 14 cha with ease, then combines it with cheap armor (chain mail for the purposes of this argument) and a shield for 17 AC right out of the gate.

My point is that there are plenty of options for basically any character who wants respectable AC, and the game gates most AC levels by restricting armor proficiency by race and class. It has much less to do with strength/dex requirement and much more to do with armor proficiency.

Can't take Moderately Armored at level 1, least not as a Wizard. Wizards aren't proficient in light armor.

[CantigThimble]

I think it does add something to the game for Str/Dex to be necessary for passive AC to some extent. Stats should mean something in their own right without just being totally interchangeable with one another. An ivory tower wizard with really high int and wis should be more vulnerable in a martial combat than a battlemage with honed reflexes. (Although the ivory tower wizard might have the advantage in a magical duel due to his willpower) This does limit character concepts somewhat as there are many people who are not suited to regular frontline combat, which adventurers need to be.

If you wanted to mitigate this you could homebrew some kind of cross between barkskin and mage armor that would allow wizards to have at least mediocre defense without being dextrous or multiclassing to fighter. I think another issue you might be having is the fact that int is a stat with very little mechanical benefit in 5e, which I think is another problem entirely.

[bid]

It's not that bad.
- Dex14 is enough for medium armor
- Con14 is on the strong side
- 16 for your caster stat
That leaves 12 10 8 for a variant human.

You can do better with the right race:
- Int16 with gnome leaves 12 10 10
- Cha16 with half-elf leaves 12 12 10
- Wis 16 leaves 13 10 8 with any Wis race

[Captbrannigan]

But archery does exist. We can easily have a character using the same stat for offense and defense if they use DEX (Rogues do so automatically, Monks do so automatically, Fighters and Rangers can easily do so, and even Paladins can do it if they use finesse weapons). And a character who uses STR to attack and uses STR for heavy armor is using the same stat for offense and defense, so that doesn't hold up either.

A Wizard can choose to invest in DEX (and they'll still have lower AC than a Fighter), and I imagine many of them do; why should the Wizard who invests in CHA necessarily be less effective than the Wizard who invests in DEX? Why is the game improved by encouraging Wizards to be acrobatic over being strong-willed? A Lore Bard who prioritizes INT over STR or DEX is already choosing to be better at knowledge skills than at weapon attack rolls (presumably relying on magic for combat effectiveness); why punish them twice by making them have less AC?

How exactly do you envision a low dex wizard? To me that sounds like a butterfingers or someone with an inner ear problem that throws off their balance when they try to move too fast. How do you imagine them using CHA to avoid damage? Does he/she just will their skin to be stronger than steel? How can they toughen up at just the right time and in the right places while they're tripping over their own feet?

Honestly though, even CON to AC is weird to me when CON already determines physical resilience in the form of HP. They should have just given Barbs temp hp that recharge on a short rest or something.

Anyways, it's not punishing them twice. It's giving them choices. If stats can freely apply to whatever you want, what's the point in having stats? Why not just give them 18s across the board?

[PeteNutButter]

But archery does exist. We can easily have a character using the same stat for offense and defense if they use DEX (Rogues do so automatically, Monks do so automatically, Fighters and Rangers can easily do so, and even Paladins can do it if they use finesse weapons). And a character who uses STR to attack and uses STR for heavy armor is using the same stat for offense and defense, so that doesn't hold up either.

A Wizard can choose to invest in DEX (and they'll still have lower AC than a Fighter), and I imagine many of them do; why should the Wizard who invests in CHA necessarily be less effective than the Wizard who invests in DEX? Why is the game improved by encouraging Wizards to be acrobatic over being strong-willed? A Lore Bard who prioritizes INT over STR or DEX is already choosing to be better at knowledge skills than at weapon attack rolls (presumably relying on magic for combat effectiveness); why punish them twice by making them have less AC?

As you pointed out bladesingers also use Int for armor and spells, and therefore use the same stat for offense and defense.

Wizards are not meant to have the same AC as a fighter. It's by design that wizards are glass cannons, as they can do the most offensively, especially at higher levels. As for choosing to put a high score in a stat just to boost a skill, well it's not really necessary. Expertise in a skill quickly dwarfs the +2 from your 14 in the corresponding stat. A 5th lvl lore bard can have a 10 int but expertise in knowledge and have +6 to the roll, which is very respectable. They gave the skill monkey classes expertise specifically to counter your very issue.

As a side note a wizard with a high wisdom isn't horrible. In some games wizards have such low AC that the boost to wisdom saves could be worth more. It's a not a perfectly balanced trade-off, but there is a benefit. If you drop your dex mod by 2 it only makes you 10% more likely to be hit. Dex is likely the overall best stat in 5e, but it doesn't gimp your character unless you fight archers every round. Just stay away from combat, misty step if you need to. The stats are not that stingy, if you want to be a versatile character you can a non-human with 5 stats that are 14s and one 11. The +1 (5%) difference of not starting with 16s really isn't huge.

[pwykersotz]

I would say that as long as you're exchanging stats and not adding them, you'll be fine.

That said, I would HIGHLY recommend playing the game as-is for a while to get a feel for it before making major modifications like that. There are some expectations the system has that aren't obvious until you play for a bit with the rules, and some of them are pretty great. One major downside to your proposed change is a spike in AC across the PC board, which causes easier challenges and boosts the leveling rate and throws off encounter balance a bit. If none of this bothers you, go for it!

[Sir cryosin]

Would you expect the schools valid victorian that spends all his time studying to put on the rotc cadet's rocksack and run 10 miles? I know that is hyper stereotyped but that's what we are talking about spell casters have plant of spells to keep them from trouble.

[pwykersotz]

Would you expect the schools valedictorian that spends all his time studying to put on the rotc cadet's rocksack and run 10 miles? I know that is hyper stereotyped but that's what we are talking about spell casters have plant of spells to keep them from trouble.

Fun fact, my high school's valedictorian was also the star of the track team. :smallwink:

[Sir cryosin]

Fun fact, my high school's valedictorian was also the star of the track team. :smallwink:

I did say it was a hyper stereotyped. My point is you cant be a master of all traits.

[Flashy]

Can't take Moderately Armored at level 1, least not as a Wizard. Wizards aren't proficient in light armor.

Oh shoot you're totally right. That was a totally stupid mistake on my part. Easier access to the feat might be a way to deal with this then.

[Magnetized]

Yes, archery does exist in the game. I'm in now way discounting it. However, a fighter who goes the archery route and gets to shoot 4 arrows a round still doesn't have as high a damage potential as a wizard. You should also consider that a fighter going archery or a rogue going that route don't usually have super high AC either though.

Studded leather at 12 AC plus a 5 AC from dex mod gets you 17. Is that higher than most wizards? Yes it is unless they burn a use of the shield spell while having mage armor up. However, it's still a good distance off from what a fighter in full plate and a shield will have. Remember, using heavy armor without the minimum strength score that you probably won't have if you push dex for archery means suffering a movement penalty if you aren't a dwarf. In order to do damage with the safety of being at range involves a trade off of a lowered AC.

In the end, it's got everything to do with game balance. You can always house rule something different if that works at your table, but just keep in mind that it [U]will[U] cause an inbalance.

[Gtdead]

The real limiting factor in making "interesting concepts" is the caster's dependancy to a specific mental stat. Why does a wizard want high intellect? Because he needs to memorize whole tomes of books. So a lower int wizard can't remember that many spells because he never bothered to learn memory tricks, he was abesnt minded or whatever. He may have high charisma though. Let him cast with charisma instead of int.

And then we have the bard that he can dumb intelligence, but he can be the most charming person in the room because he can do satire, he can recite and compose poetry, he can improvise on the spot. This requires a measure of intelligence, not charisma. How can he be so proficient in history when he has trouble reading and remembering?

Any arguement that ties a caster's potency to a certain mental stat is rationalization. It's a weak system. What's even the point of adding the mental stat modifier to ranged spell attack! Is being smarter or wiser making you better at hitting your target? You either have the hand to eye coordination to do it (dex) or you don't.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Nah, I think 5e's class balance is tight enough that you can make little changes like this without affecting anything. Given how heavily the system restricts PC power, you'd have to work pretty hard to damage things.

[Pex]

The real limiting factor in making "interesting concepts" is the caster's dependancy to a specific mental stat. Why does a wizard want high intellect? Because he needs to memorize whole tomes of books. So a lower int wizard can't remember that many spells because he never bothered to learn memory tricks, he was abesnt minded or whatever. He may have high charisma though. Let him cast with charisma instead of int.

And then we have the bard that he can dumb intelligence, but he can be the most charming person in the room because he can do satire, he can recite and compose poetry, he can improvise on the spot. This requires a measure of intelligence, not charisma. How can he be so proficient in history when he has trouble reading and remembering?

Any arguement that ties a caster's potency to a certain mental stat is rationalization. It's a weak system. What's even the point of adding the mental stat modifier to ranged spell attack! Is being smarter or wiser making you better at hitting your target? You either have the hand to eye coordination to do it (dex) or you don't.

It gets to the point where too much realism can ruin the game. That's what this is, a game. The game part of the game is the math behind it. Why not let spellcasters use Constitution for spellcasting? They're fueling the spells from their own self but gradually fatigue themselves via using up spell slots. When out of spell slots, they've exhausted their own bodyfuel and can't produce anything more. Their basic life force is all that's left, but it's enough for cantrips. Let the barbarians attack with Charisma. With a grunt enemies are laid waste before them. Witty sayings confound their opponents causing them to drop their guard for the opening needed to strike.

You can justify anything, and there is merit to that, but is it really important enough to rewrite the game system just to satisfy it? If you want to multiclass barbarian/wizard, great, come up with a character story, but that shouldn't mean you use Intelligence to attack with your greatsword or use Strength to determine your spellcasting.

[Giant2005]

I'd consider allowing alternate stats instead of Dex on a case by case basis.
A general rule could be abused and askew the balance somwhat if it is min-maxed, but I'd have no issue with something innocuous like a Fighter wanting to use Charisma to qualify for heavy armor (if he can find some way of justifying why that would work exactly).

[Gtdead]

My point is that classes are guidelines. If you want to make something "interesting" within reason (or at least within the reason that your dm will accept ^^), then just homebrew a variant of the class and you are set.

Mechanical attributes and roleplay don't work very well together. The best you can do is allow the player to do what he wants while still having to follow the general rules. If the mechanics of a class don't work that well for him, changing a few dependancies won't matter much in the long run.

[Zalabim]

The game is supposedly balanced around adventuring with three pillars of gameplay, combat, exploration, and social. Classes are not balanced within each pillar. Barbarians don't get as many tools to impact exploration as a Wizard.

You could change AC or attacks to be reliant on stats other than Str or Dex, and that would just improve the combat abilities of non-combat-focused characters, at the expense of the value of the combat-focused characters. It wouldn't break the game, just make fighters, barbarians, and the like less attractive. Maybe you could balance it out by using Constitution for esoteric Lore (long nights cramming), Dexterity for awareness (reacting faster), and the obvious uses of Strength in social persuasion (strongarming them).

[D.U.P.A.]

You can go Dwarf who can ignore the Str requirement of heavy armor. So you no longer need good Str/Dex, although you require heavy armor proficiency (ex. Cleric).

[Captbrannigan]

... the obvious uses of Strength in social persuasion (strongarming them).

You mean Intimidate, which already calls out using STR as an optional variant?



What's even the point of adding the mental stat modifier to ranged spell attack! Is being smarter or wiser making you better at hitting your target? You either have the hand to eye coordination to do it (dex) or you don't.

You don't actually "throw" a fireball. You conjure an explosion at the spot you choose.

Here's a real world analogy:
A handgun (bow) requires dexterity to aim. An artillery piece (fireball) is aimed by knowing how to operate a tool. Don't get nitpicky that you need knowledge of how a breach works or that adjusting levers takes dexterity, broadly speaking you manually aim a rifle and intelligently operate a tank.

Back to D&D, you don't "throw" a scorching ray. Your ranged spell attack represents how accurately you can target and shape magic using whichever stat your class casts with.


The rest of your post was garbage. If the Wizard is absent minded and can't remember his spells, why should his casting be based on CHA? His low INT limits the number and potency of his spells, which fits the RP concept of a wizard who fudges his way through. As for the bard, creating works of art =/= memorization. For simplicity, Performance doesn't distinguish between improvisation (CHA), recitation (INT), and instrumentation (DEX). On a case by case basis I could see an argument, but in general you need to overcome your stage fright first. History is also an INT skill, I don't see how the bard gets around that. Jack of all Trades makes her half proficient, but she isn't using her force of personality to recall Henry VIII's second wife's birth date.



To the OP, if you want freeform stats this isn't the game for you. Applying alternate stats to abilities/skills/etc are class features which are spread across a character's development, budgeted against other potential abilities, and balanced relative to other classes. Generally, when I hear someone trying to use a different stat for something it's because they don't understand what the stats already mean.

[Grod_The_Giant]

To the OP, if you want freeform stats this isn't the game for you.
As a somewhat unrelated note, has anyone else noticed a tendency for 5e proponents to argue both that "this is a rules-light game, the GM can change things however he wants to make things work" and "this minor change would totally mess up the delicate balance?" Because hanging out on these boards for a while, I've seen both pretty commonly.

Seriously, guys, you're not going to break 5e. Even the most maligned options (Beastmaster Ranger) look perfectly serviceable. GWF vs TWF is like 10 or 20 average damage different. Some classes can go nova, and there's still a strong element of casters>noncasters, at least when it comes to utility, but c'mon...

[Captbrannigan]

As a somewhat unrelated note, has anyone else noticed a tendency for 5e proponents to argue both that "this is a rules-light game, the GM can change things however he wants to make things work" and "this minor change would totally mess up the delicate balance?" Because hanging out on these boards for a while, I've seen both pretty commonly.

Seriously, guys, you're not going to break 5e.

Druid wildshape hp batteries beg to differ.

I freely admit that 5e is poorly designed and tries to prop up "theater of the mind" as a catch-all for when the rules fail. That doesn't mean the solution is to disregard what rules are decently designed.

[pwykersotz]

Druid wildshape hp batteries beg to differ.

I freely admit that 5e is poorly designed and tries to prop up "theater of the mind" as a catch-all for when the rules fail. That doesn't mean the solution is to disregard what rules are decently designed.

/facepalm

I reiterate, it won't break anything. It will change your experience with it, but that's all. The game already supports using different stats on different checks. This is just a small expansion of that concept.

[Captbrannigan]

/facepalm

I reiterate, it won't break anything. It will change your experience with it, but that's all. The game already supports using different stats on different checks. This is just a small expansion of that concept.

So a handful of feats, class abilities, and optional variant rules mean it's not upsetting to completely base a Wizard's hp, ac, to hit, spellcasting, skill use, and saves all on INT? /hyperbole

Changing AC to key off INT with no opportunity cost involved is unbalancing. If you want to make that a feat, or replace a class ability, that's different. Even using STR for Intimidate has an opportunity cost: describe to me how your big muscles make a strongly worded letter more convincing.


Here's another way of looking at it. Surely your Armor Class also requires INT to recognize tactics, WIS to perceive the attack trajectory, CHA to trust in your abilities to respond in time, CON to shrug off glancing blows, STR to block, and DEX to nimbly dodge. By degrees of magnitude what matters most is having the physical agility and muscle reflexes to dodge, hence the primary ability/key modifier/limiting factor is DEX.

If you can just apply your highest bonuses across the board, what's the point of having six different stats?

[pwykersotz]

So a handful of feats, class abilities, and optional variant rules mean it's not upsetting to completely base a Wizard's hp, ac, to hit, spellcasting, skill use, and saves all on INT? /hyperbole

Changing AC to key off INT with no opportunity cost involved is unbalancing. If you want to make that a feat, or replace a class ability, that's different. Even using STR for Intimidate has an opportunity cost: describe to me how your big muscles make a strongly worded letter more convincing.

The DM calls for such things when they apply. And you just described exactly why stat-swapping is minimally impacting. The game is built to handle it already. Yes, allowing players to key more abilities off of their main or secondary stat increases their power, but it's still well within bounds.

[EvilAnagram]

I have a wizard. His Dex is 14. Between Mage Armor, Shield, and Mirror Image, he rarely gets hit. I have taken two feats and have 20 Int.

What precisely is the problem?

[Captbrannigan]

I have a wizard. His Dex is 14. Between Mage Armor, Shield, and Mirror Image, he rarely gets hit. I have taken two feats and have 20 Int.

What precisely is the problem using DEX for AC?
FTFY.

You're spending resources (spell slots) to help your AC. Even if your DEX were 8, would that functionally change how often you're hit? With those spells running, probably not. Would increasing your modifier from +2 to +5 make a difference? Ya, now "rarely gets hit" is "only gets hit on a 20."

Keying AC off INT means you aren't spending any resources on it and your offense/utility/stacked defense just shot up dramatically. Give up one of those feats and we'll talk.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Oh no, your AC might be two points higher! The horror, the horror! Stat caps mean you'll still be in reasonable terrain.

[Captbrannigan]

Oh no, your AC might be two points higher! The horror, the horror! Stat caps mean you'll still be in reasonable terrain.No, bounded accuracy means small bonuses are exponentially more powerful.

Mage Armor: 13 AC
Mirror Image: 75% chance of causing a miss with three images, 65% for two, and 50% for a single image. Check is made on attack to change targets.
Shield : +5 AC, on reaction after hit determined.

Chance to be hit DEX Mod +2:

Att Mod % hit chance

Without Shield; 3 images, 2 images, 1 image, zero:
+0 = 7.5%, 10.5%, 15%, 30%
+2 = 10%, 14%, 20%, 40%
+5 = 13.75%, 19.25%, 27.5%, 55%
+10 = 20%, 28%, 40%, 80%
+15 = 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%

With Shield; 3, 2, 1, 0:
+0 = 1.25%, 1.75%, 2.5%, 5%
+2 = 3.75%, 5.25%, 7.5%, 15%
+5 = 7.5%, 10.5%, 15%, 30%
+10 = 13.75%, 19.25%, 27.5%, 55%
+15 = 20%, 28%, 40%, 80%



Chance to be hit INT Mod +5: (You could also skip casting Mage Armor and use the DEX calculations, saving resources)

Att Mod % hit chance

Without Shield; 3 images, 2 images, 1 image, zero:
+0 = 3.75%, 5.25%, 7.5%, 15%
+2 = 6.25%, 8.75%, 12.5%, 25%
+5 = 10%, 14%, 20%, 40%
+10 = 16.25%, 22.75%, 32.5%, 65%
+15 = 22.5%, 30%, 45%, 90%

With Shield; 3, 2, 1, 0:
+0 = 1.25%, 1.75%, 2.5%, 5% (Shield not cast, no effect)
+2 = 1.25%, 1.75%, 2.5%, 5% (Shield not cast, no effect)
+5 = 3.75%, 5.25%, 7.5%, 15%
+10 = 10%, 14%, 20%, 40%
+15 = 16.25%, 22.75%, 32.5%, 65%


Due to bounded accuracy, getting up to a +15 attack modifier takes a lot of effort. +6 proficiency, +5 stat, +4 magic. 17 class levels, at least two ASIs, and a "priceless" amount of magical wealth. This is assuming a player is attacking you, I don't care enough to go through the monster manual for average attack bonus by CR.

I know Bounded Accuracy doesn't change the %s themselves, but they do affect the likelihood of seeing a bonus that high. I don't see the difference in "more important" and "more powerful." Giving a player a free +3 bonus to AC MAKES A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE in chance to be hit and resource consumption. If you think that isn't important, then why not just give them more prepared spells in the first place?

[georgie_leech]

No, bounded accuracy means small bonuses are exponentially more powerful.

Math incoming...

More important, not more powerful.

Carry on with the rest, just know that the flattened math of 5e doesn't do anything to affect the relative value of a +1 compared to the range of a d20.

[Grod_The_Giant]

More important, not more powerful.

Carry on with the rest, just know that the flattened math of 5e doesn't do anything to affect the relative value of a +1 compared to the range of a d20.
This. Know what a +2 means? +10%. That's barely anything. The assumptions of bounded accuracy really don't work well with the large flat range of d20 RNG.

[georgie_leech]

This. Know what a +2 means? +10%. That's barely anything. The assumptions of bounded accuracy really don't work well with the large flat range of d20 RNG.

Actually, in the 5e incarnation the d20 range is rather important. The idea is to reflect the danger that large numbers of weaker troops can pose, in an attempt to justify why hordes of goblins or whatever are something to be concerned about if you're not a Commoner. Previous editions struggled with that, as it was reasonably straight forward to reach a point where you only had to worry about critical successes.

[N810]

Fun fact, my high school's valedictorian was also the star of the track team. :smallwink:

Obviously he rolled for his stats... :elan:

[Captbrannigan]

Actually, in the 5e incarnation the d20 range is rather important. The idea is to reflect the danger that large numbers of weaker troops can pose, in an attempt to justify why hordes of goblins or whatever are something to be concerned about if you're not a Commoner. Previous editions struggled with that, as it was reasonably straight forward to reach a point where you only had to worry about critical successes.

Which is why getting a +3 to AC by swapping a 14 DEX for a 20 INT is unbalancing, it pushes you into that "only worrying about natural 20s" range. At high levels, that happens sure. My point is that class levels and spell slots are resources that have to be collected/consumed vs the inherent affects of stats. Houseruling that AC is based on INT for everyone is also a very different scenario from letting players cherry pick what their stats do. If you think Wizards should get INT to AC, make it a class feature and try to figure out what to replace to compensate.


I think it's hilarious that I get accused of powergaming in most groups I play in, but I do that by learning the rules not inventing new ones.

[EvilAnagram]

FTFY.

That is not really a fix. Everyone in this thread is aware of the topic, so it doesn't really need restated, does it? Have you founded a whole new sect of pedantry in which people correct non-errors? Did the English language to you not seem cumbersome enough, prompting you to invent whole new rules which you have failed to show your audience? I must say, I'm very confused.


You're spending resources
So? Everyone spends resources on their AC, it's just that I don't need to spend gold on my armor. In fact, I frequently don't spend any resources on protecting myself save my movement. When necessary, I can spend resources protecting myself with ease, but they're minor resources I can replenish easily.


With those spells running, probably not. Would increasing your modifier from +2 to +5 make a difference? Ya, now "rarely gets hit" is "only gets hit on a 20."
So you're saying, if I'm reading this correctly, that a +/- 3 is both meaningless and of paramount importance?


Keying AC off INT means you aren't spending any resources on it and your offense/utility/stacked defense just shot up dramatically.
So you think that casters should be able to have godlike AC without spending any resources and without any opportunity cost, rather than the current, relatively balanced system? I disagree.


Give up one of those feats and we'll talk.

I will never give up Linguist. Nor Observant. Not ever.

[Zaq]

So forget Wizards using INT for a second, because apparently that would be the most powerful thing in the whole game or something. Wizards don't get INT to AC. Fine. No problem. Let's talk about the many other possibilities I discussed, like using Legend-style Key Defensive Modifiers (with a hard ban on your KDM being your primary attack stat or casting stat). Would that be a problem? If so, why? Remember, the proposed benefit is to allow characters to be able to care about multiple mental stats (and throw the required points in CON) without completely hosing their AC. We let a Lore Bard treat INT as DEX (allowing them to actually play up the "Bardic Knowledge" trope without destroying their AC). We let a Knowledge Cleric do the same thing, or we let a Trickery Cleric actually invest in CHA (to, you know, actually trick people). We let an Enchanter Wizard have high CHA to fit with the image of an enchanter, or we let a Diviner Wizard have enough WIS to be more perceptive than people who don't focus on divination magic, but we don't make them automatically be sitting ducks if an arrow comes their way. (I dunno about you, but I have zero problem with a character who spends their life studying magic that allows them to see/perceive/know things using WIS to anticipate a blow coming at their head and get out of the way in time.)

Again, it's not like there's no cost to this. A Trickery Cleric who focuses on CHA instead of STR or DEX is going to have to rely on magic instead of on weaponry to have any meaningful offense—certainly a playable character, but definitely different from a Trickery Cleric who's good with a rapier but who can't, y'know, actually trick people very well. Same with a Bard who wants to be brainy and knowledgeable—compared to a normal Bard who puts points in DEX for AC, they have lower initiative, they're worse at DEX saves, and they need to rely entirely on their magic instead of also being decent with a dagger. I really don't think that Bard is getting "something for nothing," and I don't think it's unreasonable for that character to be equally viable with a Lore Bard who feels the need to pump DEX to keep their AC relevant (but who can't be as good at knowing things). Our Diviner Wizard has higher Perception than a Wizard who uses DEX for AC, but they have lower initiative, and that's a big deal for a Wizard (who really wants to go first and control the battlefield before the enemies get to do whatever they want), no?

You'll notice I'm not even touching CON in all of this, because I don't want people to scream and cry about a class who theoretically used CON as a KDM having higher HP than other classes. I recognize that basically every character under the sun needs CON in some form, and in my discussions here I'm basically already assuming that CON is your tertiary if not your secondary (which is why we only have one stat to devote to AC after excluding our primary stat—the game doesn't give you enough points to keep four stats high).

So yeah. Forget about Wizards using INT for AC, because apparently that's just an abomination. Fine. Whatever. Would it really be so bad to allow other secondary stats to contribute to defense? (Let me repeat that: other secondary stats. Forget about using primary stats for defense.)

[BootStrapTommy]

If Dex wasn't linked to AC, what would the purpose of the stat be? And if Str didn't help you wear decent armor, who would ever make a Str build?

[EvilAnagram]

The thing is that dexterity is already useful for saves and initiative, so it does not hurt you to have to boost it for your ac. At the same time, having a designated defensive stat makes your choice of stats involve real decisions about what you wish to prioritize. Every example of other stats adding to your defense involves some sort of give-and-take.

You want carte blanche to pursue any stats you want without having to make any tough decisions. This is a fundamentally flawed and borderline munchkin approach to the game. That's why people don't like it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I like the idea of having a secondary score add to AC-- that's basically just shifting the secondary investment from Dex to something else, and promotes more interesting characters. I think a universal rule of "any mental score not currently being used as a spellcasting stat" should do the trick; weapon-users already have the option of getting their primary stat (Str or Dex) to AC, and that would also prevent dipping to pick up the AC bonus.

And let's not forget here, people: Dex is probably the best stat in the game. It has three skills (two of which are pretty universally useful), Initiative, ranged attacks, about half of all melee weapons and AC. The trade off of, say, Int to AC for a Bard is that he doesn't get all that. Plus, you know, a Wizard using Wis for AC means you don't get awkward situations where it's more effective to use a bow than it is to use magic.


If Dex wasn't linked to AC, what would the purpose of the stat be?
Ranged attacks, finesse attacks, initiative, stealth...


And if Str didn't help you wear decent armor, who would ever make a Str build?
Melee fighters who want to use weapons with a big damage die?


The thing is that dexterity is already useful for saves and initiative, so it does not hurt you to have to boost it for your ac. At the same time, having a designated defensive stat makes your choice of stats involve real decisions about what you wish to prioritize. Every example of other stats adding to your defense involves some sort of give-and-take.

You want carte blanche to pursue any stats you want without having to make any tough decisions. This is a fundamentally flawed and borderline munchkin approach to the game. That's why people don't like it.
Wait, did you just argue that "using a different stat is a give-and-take" and that it's a "munchkin approach to the game" because it "removes the need for tough decisions?"

[BootStrapTommy]

Ranged attacks, finesse attacks, initiative, stealth...

Melee fighters who want to use weapons with a big damage die?Explain to me how the idea of "finesse" weapons corresponds to any actual reality. And how exactly dexterity helps you draw a longbow better. The Str/Dex dichotomy is stupid to begin with. To use it for little more than separating weapon proficiencies makes the dichotomy almost pointless.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Explain to me how the idea of "finesse" weapons corresponds to any actual reality. And how exactly dexterity helps you draw a longbow better. The Str/Dex dichotomy is stupid to begin with. To use it for little more than separating weapon proficiencies makes the dichotomy almost pointless.
:smallconfused: Player's Handbook page 177. Or, you know, it's about finesse-- fighting with agility and precision, instead of brute strength. Aiming carefully, as opposed to just throwing an axe really hard.

[Theodoxus]

So much crunchy goodness to discuss! (dwarves wearing heavy armor with less than 13 Str is a net loss of 5', not 10', for instance)

But I primarily wanted to chime in that 5E has made AC and party balance less important than in previous editions. In most of the PF games I played/DM'd, we constantly encountered situations of one or two players with ACs in the upper 20's to the mid 30's, with the rest of the party somewhere between 15 and 25 - if they were lucky. This created issues where something with a massive attack bonus (built to hit the 'tank' with some frequency) would be guaranteed to hit anyone else. This made both the tank and the rest of the party sad - it created artificially inflated foes to negate the tank's primary purpose (avoiding getting hit) and make the rest of the party resentful of the tank because now there are foes that never miss them.

5E and BA have worked hard to mitigate this situation. Where the average AC of the party is 17 or 18, the highest is probably 21 (before possible magic items), that 4 point difference is miles different than the up to 20 point difference in PF. Things that can reliably hit the high AC tank, can only slightly more reliably hit the lower AC mage. Its such that as a DM, I'm happier when there is a smaller AC range - if everyone, from tank to glass cannon all have a 19 AC, I don't have to worry about folks complaining about being targeted because they're easier to hit.

I personally, don't think there's a problem with the ACs in the game, or how to derive the best you can - that wizard taking a level of Fighter for Con saves, heavy armor, shields and the defensive FS? Rock that 21 AC and be the buffer you want to be. Even if they have a weaker STR, 20' movement (or 25' as a dwarf) is less critical - they're aren't running up to melee something...

[georgie_leech]

:smallconfused: Player's Handbook page 177. Or, you know, it's about finesse-- fighting with agility and precision, instead of brute strength. Aiming carefully, as opposed to just throwing an axe really hard.

I think he might be referring to the idea that you don't generally just flail angrily with your weapon and skill affects someone's ability to use a weapon effectively in real life just as much as being able to swing it hard. Also that Longbows IRL had almost absurd draw weights that required a great deal of muscle to actually use.

[BootStrapTommy]

I think he might be referring to the idea that you don't generally just flail angrily with your weapon and skill affects someone's ability to use a weapon effectively in real life just as much as being able to swing it hard. Also that Longbows IRL had almost absurd draw weights that required a great deal of muscle to actually use. More or less, yes.


:smallconfused: Player's Handbook page 177. Or, you know, it's about finesse-- fighting with agility and precision, instead of brute strength. Aiming carefully, as opposed to just throwing an axe really hard.Throwing an axe really hard does not make it more accurate. Yet high Str some how makes it so. Fighting with "agility and precision" means nothing if you are doing little more than prodding or slapping your enemy. Sheer strength meanwhile means nothing if you can't swing a sword toward where you need to hit. A longbow does more damage if you have the strength to draw a heavier bow, not by how nimble your fingers are.

Dex and Str play a role in the effective use of almost any weapon. The Str/Dex dichotomy is not a reality, but a fabrication of Hollywood, convincing us that swordfights look like Inigo fighting Westley, as oppose the the reality of sweaty men skillfully beating each other with sharpened clubs.

So boiling the Str/Dex dichotomy down to little more than weapon proficiency boils that already questionable dichotomy down to the point that it becomes nearly meaningless.

[Captbrannigan]

I don't understand why you think you have to have a 20 in the stat that modifies your armor class. I don't understand why you don't just want a decent/high DEX for the initiative bonus as a Wizard.

Furthermore, Bounded Accuracy means you don't need a 14+ in every stat to be competitive. Proficiency plays as important of a role as ability mod, and prof is a function of class level so high level characters are better without low levels being completely useless.

[Grod_The_Giant]

More or less, yes.

Throwing an axe really hard does not make it more accurate. Yet high Str some how makes it so. Fighting with "agility and precision" means nothing if you are doing little more than prodding or slapping your enemy. Sheer strength meanwhile means nothing if you can't swing a sword toward where you need to hit. A longbow does more damage if you have the strength to draw a heavier bow, not by how nimble your fingers are.

Dex and Str play a role in the effective use of almost any weapon. The Str/Dex dichotomy is not a reality, but a fabrication of Hollywood, convincing us that swordfights look like Inigo fighting Westley, as oppose the the reality of sweaty men skillfully beating each other with sharpened clubs.

So boiling the Str/Dex dichotomy down to little more than weapon proficiency boils that already questionable dichotomy down to the point that it becomes nearly meaningless.
Okay, but 5e is Hollywood fiction. It doesn't even have a semblence of simulationism anymore, not really. And given that both abilities have secondary skill uses, and that this discussion in general has been very much mechanics based, I'm honestly not sure quite what your argument is.

[BootStrapTommy]

Okay, but 5e is Hollywood fiction. It doesn't even have a semblence of simulationism anymore, not really. And given that both abilities have secondary skill uses, and that this discussion in general has been very much mechanics based, I'm honestly not sure quite what your argument is.Not really sure how you missed it. As I stated before, removing the AC difference between Str and Dex (armor versus dodge) renders the Str/Dex dichotomy to little more to a redundant form of weapon proficiency.

The choice becomes "Str for Athletics and d10+ weapons" or "Dex for Stealth, Sleight of Hand, Acrobatics, d8+ range weapons, and increased initiative". Not only is that loopsided, it doesn't jive well with reality. Less so than the already existing nonsense.

[Gtdead]

This. Know what a +2 means? +10%. That's barely anything. The assumptions of bounded accuracy really don't work well with the large flat range of d20 RNG.

This is wrong. Defensive bonuses aren't linear. For example against an enemy that does an average of 100 dpr,

Going from 0% ac to 10% is like taking 90 dpr instead of 100. So that 2 ac increase is 10% increase in survivability.
Going from 80% to 90% is almost 50% increase in survavability. Instead of 20, you take 10 damage.
Going from 90% to 100 would completely break it if a natural 20 didn't work as it does, cause it's infinite survability, you never die.

The higher the survavibility, the better it stacks.

And here is where bounded accuracy comes into play. Since attack bonuses are generally small, every character has relatively high survivability.

[JoeJ]

This fix would be good if you think there's a problem with casters being too weak compared to non-casters.

[Talamare]

4e basically used every stat under the Sun as AC

If your class wasn't a heavy armor class, they would use an alternate method to get AC
Seekers used their STR to calculate AC (Light Armor + STR)
Wizard and Avengers used their INT
Druids used CON
Wardens used WIS

It was nice that basically everyone had good AC, it was a little difficult that Casters tended to have higher AC than Tanks...
but then again, in 5e the same thing tends to happen anyways...

and Tanking in 4e wasn't about AC, but HP & Healing Surges

[Talamare]

This is wrong. Defensive bonuses aren't linear. For example against an enemy that does an average of 100 dpr,

Going from 0% ac to 10% is like taking 90 dpr instead of 100. So that 2 ac increase is 10% increase in survivability.
Going from 80% to 90% is almost 50% increase in survavability. Instead of 20, you take 10 damage.
Going from 90% to 100 would completely break it if a natural 20 didn't work as it does, cause it's infinite survability, you never die.

The higher the survavibility, the better it stacks.

And here is where bounded accuracy comes into play. Since attack bonuses are generally small, every character has relatively high survivability.

I agree with you completely, but they made sure monsters grow well enough

A pit fiend, CR20, has +14 to hit. I think the highest AC with +3 Armor & Shield and Ring of Protection, Heavy Armor, Defense, and Magical +2 AC is only 30 AC

I think the highest possible AC is a Barbarian with +3 AC Bracers & Shield, Ring of Protection, and getting buffed with +2 AC is 33 AC

[UberMagus]

I agree with you completely, but they made sure monsters grow well enough

A pit fiend, CR20, has +14 to hit. I think the highest AC with +3 Armor & Shield and Ring of Protection, Heavy Armor, Defense, and Magical +2 AC is only 30 AC

I think the highest possible AC is a Barbarian with +3 AC Bracers & Shield, Ring of Protection, and getting buffed with +2 AC is 33 AC

Bladesinger 20 Dex 20 Int +Mage Armor +Shield(spell) = 28 AC with no magic items, so they might be able to go higher... (Don't know a lot about magic items in 5e, so maybe not)

[Talamare]

Bladesinger 20 Dex 20 Int +Mage Armor +Shield(spell) = 28 AC with no magic items, so they might be able to go higher... (Don't know a lot about magic items in 5e, so maybe not)

I'm saying passive, not temporary
If we are saying Temporary, Defensive Duelist can give you +6 AC, which is higher than the +5 from Shield Spell