Armor Class v. Spells in 5E

[thompur]

I'm starting in my first 5E campaign, and I get most of the rules to which I have access.(PHB)
The only thing I'm not clear on is how AC interacts with spells that require an attack roll. Is there such a thing as "touch AC" in 5E, or does one AC work against any attack?:smallconfused:

[Rysto]

There's just the one type of AC, and it works against all spell attacks and weapon attacks, be they ranged or melee.

[thompur]

There's just the one type of AC, and it works against all spell attacks and weapon attacks, be they ranged or melee.
Cool! Thanks Rysto!!

[EvanescentHero]

Do be wary of spells that require an attack roll as opposed to spells that require a save, because that sort of thing can definitely trip up new players.

[bid]

The only "touch AC" in 5e is shocking grasp which has advantage on attack against metal armor.

[thompur]

The only "touch AC" in 5e is shocking grasp which has advantage on attack against metal armor.

Good point, thanks.
I'll have to be sure to read the spells carefully. :smallbiggrin:

[Foxhound438]

anything that would be a "touch attack" in this edition is a dexterity save. As far as I can tell that's more or less to save players some math when determining their combat stats.

[EvanescentHero]

anything that would be a "touch attack" in this edition is a dexterity save. As far as I can tell that's more or less to save players some math when determining their combat stats.

There are plenty of spells with a range of touch that make an attack roll though.

[bid]

anything that would be a "touch attack" in this edition is a dexterity save. As far as I can tell that's more or less to save players some math when determining their combat stats.
Saves are 3 points harder to hit than attack rolls. Kinda the opposite of what touch attack is supposed to be.

[georgie_leech]

anything that would be a "touch attack" in this edition is a dexterity save. As far as I can tell that's more or less to save players some math when determining their combat stats.

It makes more sense anyway. Why there were two different stats to track for "not getting hit by X" is a mystery.

[Blue Lantern]

It makes more sense anyway. Why there were two different stats to track for "not getting hit by X" is a mystery.

Not much of a mystery to be honest, 3.5 was more simulationist in his approach, so they went with the idea that a hunk of metal or leather would offer no the protection against a magical attach that it would against another piece of metal, and that you had to dodge it (that way the DEX bonus was kept)

And trying to prevent futile discussion, I am not arguing that the approach, or the result was good, bad, correct or whatever, just trying to explain it.

[georgie_leech]

Not much of a mystery to be honest, 3.5 was more simulationist in his approach, so they went with the idea that a hunk of metal or leather would offer no the protection against a magical attach that it would against another piece of metal, and that you had to dodge it (that way the DEX bonus was kept)

And trying to prevent futile discussion, I am not arguing that the approach, or the result was good, bad, correct or whatever, just trying to explain it.

Yeah, my point though is that it created this weird disconnect where dodging some things used deflection bonuses and some didn't, for instance. In other words, what are they trying to simulate by having two separate dodge scores?

[Blue Lantern]

Yeah, my point though is that it created this weird disconnect where dodging some things used deflection bonuses and some didn't, for instance. In other words, what are they trying to simulate by having two separate dodge scores?

What they are trying to simulate is that the armor class is not entirely dodge, part of represents the enemy hit bouncing of your shield and armour without causing damage, which would work for a sword, less for a magic ray.
That said I agree with your conclusion that it is confusing, needlessly complicated and plainly badly executed, but from a simulationist point of view it does has a modicum of sense.

But maybe better drop off here, I derailed the thread enough.