How effective is AC as the game progresses?

[holywhippet]

I've started my first D&D next campaign and our DM has given up a mini-adventure to start off on. The first fight against 4 zombies went well, aside from one character casting sleep on themselves. The second battle was a bit harder with the DM getting quite a few hits in.

The third battle was really tough. Part of that was because we didn't fight smart at first. Part was because there was some rather hard enemies to be facing as level 1 characters. Another player is also a DM and according to him one enemy fighter was a CR 2, another was a CR 3 and there was also an enemy cleric. There was a fourth enemy as well who I assume was only CR 1.

The DMs dice were rolling pretty well and he took down my AC 16 paladin in the first round (I was only on 5 HP though). He also took down our barbarian (who only had 12 AC due to some odd character design choices).

We might have been TPK'd except our fighter, with AC 18, blocked the route to the rest of the party and kept taking the dodge action in order to avoid taking damage. Even then our fighter ended the fight on just 1 HP. The DM also started pulling his punches a bit.

It has been suggested that myself and the fighter should stay at the front line of battle and use dodge actions to avoid damage. I'd need to get a shield to make that tactic more effective. The thing is, I don't really want to be a literal meat shield. Is combat in D&D next normally like that or is it just this starting adventure that is the problem? I remember 4th edition was designed so that most attacks would connect. Is 5th edition the same?

[Knaight]

For a high defense character it's usually somewhere like 1/3 of attacks that will connect. Lower defense characters are closer to 1/2.

[ad_hoc]

Typically adventures at level 1 contain little to no combat at all and the characters progress to level 2 at the end of the session or half session. Level 2 also typically only lasts 1 session.

Levels 1-4 are the apprentice tier. The game doesn't really pick up until after level 5.

If you faced creatures of that CR the party should have been wiped out.

[Kadzar]

If you faced creatures of that CR the party should have been wiped out.To expand on this, for the third fight, not knowing the CR of the cleric, the total XP rating of the other 3 combined would be 1350 (CR1=200 + CR2=450 + CR3=700). The DMG rates that as a deadly encounter for a group of 4 3rd level characters (1200 XP) before you add in the multiplier for number of monsters involved, which would be x2, so effectively 1700 XP (and, no, you don't get the extra XP; this is just for calculating difficulty), which would be deadly for a group of 4 4th level characters.

So, yeah, this was quite a bit above what you're expected to handle.

[holywhippet]

According to our DM he got the basic adventure online somewhere and it was supposed to be designed for 4-6 level one characters. He fleshed out the plot a bit but kept the enemies as is.

One was a gnome with splint armor and a +2 dagger I believe. The DM mentioned he had an attack bonus of 6 and he was attacking twice per round.

Another was a half orc with no armor. He was making double attacks as well IIRC. I can't recall what he was wielding. I think he was some kind of barbarian type since he went berserk near the end.

The cleric (presumed) cast something like the blur spell at first then tried to use a rod to paralyze someone. We focused fire on him so I'm not sure what else he had to throw at us. It did seem like he was only using items.

The last enemy was a dwarf with a great axe. He was only making single attacks I think and his AC wasn't huge IIRC.

[Cespenar]

In my opinion, the DM either misread some of the module, or all of the module.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

I feel like an opponent in a module for 5th edition that's aimed at 1st level players would not have an enemy with a +2 dagger. Magic items only go to +3 in this edition. Something seems off here.

[mgshamster]

In my opinion, the DM either misread some of the module, or all of the module.

Either that, or the module was hilariously poorly written.

I just encountered that with an Adventurer's League module; DDAL 5-6 and it's linked module 5-7.

They're supposed to be for a group between 1-4 level, but a lot of the skill DCs were 20. It had rules that weren't part of 5th edition, no explanation for NPCs introduced (just a name and nothing else for your quest giver), and bad assumptions for what players would do. Despite it being an official WOTC published module, it was really bad.

As far as I can tell, they had a new writer (or a fan writer) write it and then it got poorly vetted by the team.

Likewise, there are plenty of very poorly written 3PP adventures for 5e - most especially when the edition first came out. I'm normally a huge fan of 3PP material, but a lot of the early stuff that came out had a lot of 3.X assumptions, which can make for a very bad 5e game.

[Cespenar]

Either that, or the module was hilariously poorly written.

I just encountered that with an Adventurer's League module; DDAL 5-6 and it's linked module 5-7.

They're supposed to be for a group between 1-4 level, but a lot of the skill DCs were 20. It had rules that weren't part of 5th edition, no explanation for NPCs introduced (just a name and nothing else for your quest giver), and bad assumptions for what players would do. Despite it being an official WOTC published module, it was really bad.

As far as I can tell, they had a new writer (or a fan writer) write it and then it got poorly vetted by the team.

Likewise, there are plenty of very poorly written 3PP adventures for 5e - most especially when the edition first came out. I'm normally a huge fan of 3PP material, but a lot of the early stuff that came out had a lot of 3.X assumptions, which can make for a very bad 5e game.

Could be too, yeah. I have absolutely no experience with AL modules.

[mgshamster]

Could be too, yeah. I have absolutely no experience with AL modules.

AL modules are usually pretty good. These two (designed to be a linked set) were the first poorly written modules I've seen in AL, and I own most of them.

Likewise, I have a bunch of third party adventures, and the ones written early on, either right before or right as 5e was released back in 2014, had the same problem.

The issue is someone writing a 5e adventure using 3.X assumptions. Makes for a bad game.

[CaptainSarathai]

To answer your question:
Bounded accuracy in 5e means that you're always going to take some hits. Lower ACs just take more hits.
More important than AC, in my opinion, is being able to impose Disadvantage, and being able to Resist or otherwise mitigate incoming damage. 'Heavy Armor Master's has a reduction of 3 for most physical damage, which is better than most people think, because many creatures have multiple attacks rather than a single big hit. So a creature might hit you 3 times, but each attack only does 6 damage. Increasing AC is good for avoiding the "1 big hit" types, but damage reduction will mitigate your average damage intake regardless of how many connect, and is more effective against those "Multi-shot" type foes.

[Alejandro]

To answer your question:
Bounded accuracy in 5e means that you're always going to take some hits. Lower ACs just take more hits.
More important than AC, in my opinion, is being able to impose Disadvantage, and being able to Resist or otherwise mitigate incoming damage. 'Heavy Armor Master's has a reduction of 3 for most physical damage, which is better than most people think, because many creatures have multiple attacks rather than a single big hit. So a creature might hit you 3 times, but each attack only does 6 damage. Increasing AC is good for avoiding the "1 big hit" types, but damage reduction will mitigate your average damage intake regardless of how many connect, and is more effective against those "Multi-shot" type foes.

To expand on the Captain's good points, also look for things that influence, replace, or deny rolls. I play a character that this all applies to; a heavily armored Cleric/Bard. My own high AC has saved my butt several times (Splint Mail and Shield, AC 19) but just as useful is my Cutting Words ability as a Lore Bard, I can potentially turn an enemy hit into a miss. Combos like this are great; the high AC saves you sometimes, and for the times when it does not, sometimes you can force a hit to become a miss. Wizard Diviners and PCs with the Lucky feat have ways to wreck the d20 as well.