HP vs. AC

[bloodgroove]

A few of us in my groups had a discussion about AC vs. HP. AC seems great at low levels but it seems at higher levels most of what you encounter is going to have really good pluses to their attack roles so high AC maybe moot. It seems in that case it would be better to be able to soak
up the damage and keep on ticking.

Opinions?

What would be the formula for a monster HP build?

I could also use a glossary of all the abbreviations that are being used.


thanks...

[Sigreid]

Really, HP and AC work together. HP helps you absorb the attacks and keeps going where AC helps extend those HP as much as possible. While it's true that as you level up, the big monsters get big to hit bonuses and powers that ignore the to hit roll all together a high AC reduces the threat from the minion monsters. And there should almost always be minion monsters.

And there's a big Reply to Thread button at the bottom of each page in the thread.

[napoleon_in_rag]

It's a problem with D&D in general. In the real world, armor doesn't make you harder to hit, it absorbs and disperses impact force. Gothic plate mail, for example would actually make you easier to hit. It's hard to dodge when you are wearing 100 lbs of steel. But it would take a hell of a hit to pierce the plate. Other systems deal with this better, where you have active defenses like dodge or parry that scale with experience while armor reduces the damage taken.

[bloodgroove]

For some reason I wasn't getting the 'reply to thread' button earlier even though I was logged in. It is showing up now...

[Sigreid]

It's a problem with D&D in general. In the real world, armor doesn't make you harder to hit, it absorbs and disperses impact force. Gothic plate mail, for example would actually make you easier to hit. It's hard to dodge when you are wearing 100 lbs of steel. But it would take a hell of a hit to pierce the plate. Other systems deal with this better, where you have active defenses like dodge or parry that scale with experience while armor reduces the damage taken.

Actually, many types of armor are designed with angles to deflect the force of the blow making it hard to land a solid one. They've also proven that someone who is accustomed to armor is not inhibited at all. They've had gymnasts do flips in full plate.

[Finger6842]

Dex and resistance is the combination that works best in my opinion. It's why Barbarians are so formidable despite the lack of armor. Bear Totem is great, add in magic resist feats and races to effectively double your hit dice then add the tough feat. Your party can help too, picking up spells for buffs, debuffs, and battlefield control.

[suplee215]

Really, HP and AC work together. HP helps you absorb the attacks and keeps going where AC helps extend those HP as much as possible. While it's true that as you level up, the big monsters get big to hit bonuses and powers that ignore the to hit roll all together a high AC reduces the threat from the minion monsters. And there should almost always be minion monsters.

And there's a big Reply to Thread button at the bottom of each page in the thread.

I think this can be fixed with simply thinking of it differently. Don't think of a miss against someone with plate armor as the arrow or blade missing the target. Think of the arrow breaking or the blade just bouncing off as plate armor is designed to do.

[Easy_Lee]

Trouble is that you add proficiency to attack rolls but not AC. WoTC succeeded in creating bounded accuracy, but didn't apply the principle to their other systems. We're left with a system where HP and proficient rolls become increasingly relevant and AC increasingly irrelevant.

Yes, AC is still useful against minions, if the minions make attack rolls instead of supplementing the boss monster some other way. But I don't think that refutes the point; it's just a workaround. The fact remains that a level 20 fighter fighting a CR 20 dragon may as well rush in naked for all the good his armor will do (unless he has magical armor that gives him resistance or something).

[sir_argo]

They've had gymnasts do flips in full plate.

Video, or it didn't happen :smallbiggrin:

[Temperjoke]

One thing to consider, your AC tends to plateau out, while your HP can continue to grow. So it's not surprising that at some point HP is better than AC. But at the same time, if you don't survive to that point, does it matter? If you don't have the AC to survive at low levels from weak mobs, then you won't face those bigger monsters. Generally speaking, the only class that really gets the HP without AC to survive would be barbarians, and even then they get Unarmored Defense to make up for a lack of armor.

[Lord Vukodlak]

One of the reasons for the low scale on AC is so that high level PC's can't kill a few hundred kobolds without ever feeling threatened. That you can be overwhelmed by superior numbers of weaker things something impossible in earlier editions. In 3rd edition if the party is fighting a storm giant as the boss his dozen ogre minions are nothing put a speed bump, in 5e those dozen ogres all together may be more threatening then the Storm Giant it self if they aren't handled quickly.

Furthermore AC was pretty useless against high level creatures in earlier editions too because attack bonuses scaled so high beyond armor. At edition was armor ever useful for avoiding hits from high CR dragons?

In 5e
An ancient black dragon(CR 21) has a +15 to hit. An armor class of 20 will remove one out of four of those hits(plate-mail+shield, not all that useless. I also don't think its unreasonable that a 20th level fighter is going to have magical gear boosting his AC a few points, +1 Armor, +1 Shield, Defensive style and the cleric ally casting shield of faith. You've got 25 AC quite useful the dragon will miss frequently, That fighter happens to be an war-caster eldritch knight with the shield spell? he'll miss a lot.
An ancient red dragon's attack is only two higher at +17, the Tarrasque is only +19.

Just because magical gear isn't as common or as powerful in 5e doesn't mean you can't reasonably expect to have some stuff as you go up in levels. And it doesn't take much gear or spells to start making a huge difference.

[agnos]

While AC becomes less relevant at high levels, it's not irrelevant. At high levels, you can easily have ~30 static AC (+2 plate, +3 shield, defense class feature, Staff of Power, etc) which will make most creatures have issues to hit you. On top of that you can add a number of other AC options (Cloak of Displacement, Ring/Cloak of Protection, Shield of Faith, Shield, etc.) to become basically unhitable. That said, it's also a matter of effectiveness. At level 1 it's easy to have 18 AC where most enemies have +4 or +5 to hit at most. But at level 10 where it's easy to have an AC of 23-25, but the low end of enemies attack bonus is +9 or +10. So your AC is effective vs "nooks" but poor against the BBEG who +14 minimum. So as you level, you're advantaged to safeguard by building more HP.

[Chugger]

Video, or it didn't happen :smallbiggrin:

Okay. let's fire up that crystal ball aka an Internet search and see.... The first guy flips in the air as he launches himself off his running horse, hits the ground, rolls and gets up. He does flip in the air. It's pretty dadgum amazing.

Then look at the second video, showing this guy moving pretty fast as he goes through a sword drill in what sure looks like full plate armor. Then just watch the third one - they do ladder climbing - and a roll - which is a lot like a flip - but the guy does an actual flip (rotation) in the air in the first one off the horse.

I'm actually glad you challenged him, because it was cool watching these.

http://www.benjaminrose.com/post/mobility-in-medieval-plate-armor/

[Chugger]

A few of us in my groups had a discussion about AC vs. HP. AC seems great at low levels but it seems at higher levels most of what you encounter is going to have really good pluses to their attack roles so high AC maybe moot. It seems in that case it would be better to be able to soak
up the damage and keep on ticking.

Opinions?

What would be the formula for a monster HP build?

I could also use a glossary of all the abbreviations that are being used.


thanks...

Look if you can stack your AC up, even if they have plus 10 to hit - get your AC from 18 to 22 and you'll be hit less often. At AC 18 you get hit on a roll of 8 or 13 times out of 20. At AC 22 you get hit on a 12 or 9 times out of 20. That's a reasonable dent in the monster's damage per round. On the short run, a DM with hot dice will hit you anyway - and with really cold dice will miss someone with AC 14. But over the long haul you get basic law-of-averages effect and higher AC really does = more survivability.

You want both - and there's nothing to stop you from pursuing both. Obvious more HP is really good, too, and will help you survive spell damage and dragon breath that armor might not counter. Temp HP from abilities and spells is very nice.

These discussion are worth having, because they can help us understand game mechanics - but at the end of the day - like I said - you can go for both. Also - don't rule out the other mitigators, like a Barb has not so high AC w/ his natural Barb armor - but - when raging in bear form is resistant to all damage (except psychic), which is kind of like a hp doubler feature. Go for both! And get resistance when practical and possible, too. Especially if you know you're going up against a fire breathing dragon, then make sure as must fire resistance is available.

(edit - I almost forgot stuff like mirror image - arcane trickster and EK can get - and that's another defensive mechanism that can really change an encounter - it doesn't always work - a big area attack will still hit you all (you and your images) - but more targeted attacks and melee will often fall for it (some monsters can see through it though)).

[SharkForce]

Trouble is that you add proficiency to attack rolls but not AC. WoTC succeeded in creating bounded accuracy, but didn't apply the principle to their other systems. We're left with a system where HP and proficient rolls become increasingly relevant and AC increasingly irrelevant.

Yes, AC is still useful against minions, if the minions make attack rolls instead of supplementing the boss monster some other way. But I don't think that refutes the point; it's just a workaround. The fact remains that a level 20 fighter fighting a CR 20 dragon may as well rush in naked for all the good his armor will do (unless he has magical armor that gives him resistance or something).

you don't seem to understand what bounded accuracy means.

the thing you're describing may be a problem for you, but bounded accuracy is precisely the reason AC cannot scale up higher. the whole point of bounded accuracy is that you should only in extremely rare cases need an extreme specialist to be able to have a chance to succeed; that a monster (or a PC) who doesn't invest heavily into something won't have as good of a chance as the monster (or PC) that did invest heavily, but in most cases does still have a chance. the whole point of bounded accuracy is that a +2 should never be a meaningless number that is no different from -5. bounded accuracy means you don't scale up DCs (which is basically what AC is) as you go up in levels you scale up other things; heroes don't get more resilient by being so hard to hit that they could just walk through a rain of arrows shot by regular soldiers and not get a scratch, they get more resilient by having more hit points. they don't become capable of defeating powerful monsters by finally being able to hit on something other than a 20, they become capable of defeating more powerful monsters because they deal more damage, and can survive long enough with their hit points to be able to deal their increased damage. so, as i said... AC not scaling up super high is specifically a requirement of bounded accuracy, not something that happens in spite of bounded accuracy.

now then, since that's out of the way...

AC works better the more you have of it, and functionally it acts like a multiplier on your hit points which therefore means it works better if you have more hit points as well.

if we were to ignore crits for a moment, let's consider 3 people who are going to boost their AC by 5 points; one who would normally get hit on a 6, one who would get hit on a 11, and one who would get hit on a 16 (all without the AC boost we're about to give them), we'll call them A, B, and C respectively.

A is normally getting hit 3/4 of the time, which means that "on average" A's hit points are multiplied by the inverse of that, so 4/3 is the effective hit point value (EHP for short) (and it is definitely important to remember that this is only on average, and someone out there is cursing their luck for getting critted 5 times in a row relatively recently probably :P ). if we boost A's AC by 5, A is now getting hit 1/2 the time, which boosts hit points by the inverse of 1/2, so double. we're looking at 200% EHP compared to 133% EHP, which is about a 50% increase (that is, it is about as effective as getting 50% more hit points)

looking at B, B is going from being hit 1/2 the time to being hit 1/4 of the time, or going from 200% to 400% EHP, an improvement of 100% (that is, it is as good as doubling your HP)

looking at C, C is going from being hit 1/4 of the time to being hit 1/20 of the time or going from 400% EHP to 2000% EHP, making it as valuable as quintupling hit points... much better value than A was getting from it. and you wanna hear something really crazy? if C had "only" gotten a +4, it would have only been 400% EHP to 1000% EHP... that's only as good as multiplying your hit points by 2.5, and means that the last point of AC was worth as much as the 4 before it. if C had a choice between +5 to AC or +4 to AC and 50% more HP, that little itty bitty +1 is better (at least, when facing attack rolls... C may regret that decisions should C be faced with disintegrate spam or something like that :P )

now, as i just hinted at... these numbers only hold completely true if you're somehow immune to crits, and the only source of HP damage is from attack rolls. but the main point i was aiming for was to show just how much of a difference extra AC makes at the very high end of the scale. the more you have, the better it gets. it's probably not that valuable to go from AC 16 to AC 17 in most cases, though it certainly does make a difference... but if you've somehow got your hands on adamantine full plate +3 and a shield +3, and you can haste yourself, and you have a friend who is willing to sustain another spell for +2 AC on you, and you can also cast shield fairly often, and you're wondering if +1 AC from fighting style is worth more to you than +2 damage with your longsword style... the answer is quite possibly an extremely emphatic yes. and if you then see a ring of protection +1 and you're not sure if it's better for you or the wizard with AC 15 who is always complaining about being hit, then understand, it's probably better for you (though that won't necessarily keep the wizard from complaining).

also, of note... AC doesn't only multiply your hit points. it also effectively multiplies hit points gained from healing, or temporary hit points, and so on.

[Unoriginal]

Gothic plate mail, for example would actually make you easier to hit. It's hard to dodge when you are wearing 100 lbs of steel.

Like others have said, plate armor is not actually going to make it hard to dodge. Medieval people weren't morons, they knew that making it harder for you to move in a combat situation was dumb.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "gothic plate mail".

The only kind of plate armor that could hinder dodging was the heavily specialized jousting armors, and those were made for sport, not actual battlefield.

[Citan]

Trouble is that you add proficiency to attack rolls but not AC. WoTC succeeded in creating bounded accuracy, but didn't apply the principle to their other systems. We're left with a system where HP and proficient rolls become increasingly relevant and AC increasingly irrelevant.

Yes, AC is still useful against minions, if the minions make attack rolls instead of supplementing the boss monster some other way. But I don't think that refutes the point; it's just a workaround. The fact remains that a level 20 fighter fighting a CR 20 dragon may as well rush in naked for all the good his armor will do (unless he has magical armor that gives him resistance or something).
You are sadly very wrong on both accounts.
1. Having capped AC is precisely a pillar of bounded accuracy. But it seems someone else already explained it much better than I could.

2. AC always stays relevant: the number of creatures which bonus to hit goes beyond +11 is extremely low. And those are on the far end of the CR scale, at which time you should have plenty spells and magical equipement to boost your defense one way or another.

[thereaper]

Like others have said, plate armor is not actually going to make it hard to dodge. Medieval people weren't morons, they knew that making it harder for you to move in a combat situation was dumb.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "gothic plate mail".

The only kind of plate armor that could hinder dodging was the heavily specialized jousting armors, and those were made for sport, not actual battlefield.

It's worth noting that while armour didn't significantly slow you down, it was very tiring, which was one of the reasons why it was eventually discarded (not the largest reason, mind you, but a contributing factor). But this is probably what proficiency is meant to represent: you're really, really used to it.

[Easy_Lee]

you don't seem to understand what bounded accuracy means.

the thing you're describing may be a problem for you, but bounded accuracy is precisely the reason AC cannot scale up higher. the whole point of bounded accuracy is that you should only in extremely rare cases need an extreme specialist to be able to have a chance to succeed; that a monster (or a PC) who doesn't invest heavily into something won't have as good of a chance as the monster (or PC) that did invest heavily, but in most cases does still have a chance. the whole point of bounded accuracy is that a +2 should never be a meaningless number that is no different from -5. bounded accuracy means you don't scale up DCs (which is basically what AC is) as you go up in levels you scale up other things; heroes don't get more resilient by being so hard to hit that they could just walk through a rain of arrows shot by regular soldiers and not get a scratch, they get more resilient by having more hit points. they don't become capable of defeating powerful monsters by finally being able to hit on something other than a 20, they become capable of defeating more powerful monsters because they deal more damage, and can survive long enough with their hit points to be able to deal their increased damage. so, as i said... AC not scaling up super high is specifically a requirement of bounded accuracy, not something that happens in spite of bounded accuracy.

now then, since that's out of the way...

AC works better the more you have of it, and functionally it acts like a multiplier on your hit points which therefore means it works better if you have more hit points as well.

if we were to ignore crits for a moment, let's consider 3 people who are going to boost their AC by 5 points; one who would normally get hit on a 6, one who would get hit on a 11, and one who would get hit on a 16 (all without the AC boost we're about to give them), we'll call them A, B, and C respectively.

A is normally getting hit 3/4 of the time, which means that "on average" A's hit points are multiplied by the inverse of that, so 4/3 is the effective hit point value (EHP for short) (and it is definitely important to remember that this is only on average, and someone out there is cursing their luck for getting critted 5 times in a row relatively recently probably :P ). if we boost A's AC by 5, A is now getting hit 1/2 the time, which boosts hit points by the inverse of 1/2, so double. we're looking at 200% EHP compared to 133% EHP, which is about a 50% increase (that is, it is about as effective as getting 50% more hit points)

looking at B, B is going from being hit 1/2 the time to being hit 1/4 of the time, or going from 200% to 400% EHP, an improvement of 100% (that is, it is as good as doubling your HP)

looking at C, C is going from being hit 1/4 of the time to being hit 1/20 of the time or going from 400% EHP to 2000% EHP, making it as valuable as quintupling hit points... much better value than A was getting from it. and you wanna hear something really crazy? if C had "only" gotten a +4, it would have only been 400% EHP to 1000% EHP... that's only as good as multiplying your hit points by 2.5, and means that the last point of AC was worth as much as the 4 before it. if C had a choice between +5 to AC or +4 to AC and 50% more HP, that little itty bitty +1 is better (at least, when facing attack rolls... C may regret that decisions should C be faced with disintegrate spam or something like that :P )

now, as i just hinted at... these numbers only hold completely true if you're somehow immune to crits, and the only source of HP damage is from attack rolls. but the main point i was aiming for was to show just how much of a difference extra AC makes at the very high end of the scale. the more you have, the better it gets. it's probably not that valuable to go from AC 16 to AC 17 in most cases, though it certainly does make a difference... but if you've somehow got your hands on adamantine full plate +3 and a shield +3, and you can haste yourself, and you have a friend who is willing to sustain another spell for +2 AC on you, and you can also cast shield fairly often, and you're wondering if +1 AC from fighting style is worth more to you than +2 damage with your longsword style... the answer is quite possibly an extremely emphatic yes. and if you then see a ring of protection +1 and you're not sure if it's better for you or the wizard with AC 15 who is always complaining about being hit, then understand, it's probably better for you (though that won't necessarily keep the wizard from complaining).

also, of note... AC doesn't only multiply your hit points. it also effectively multiplies hit points gained from healing, or temporary hit points, and so on.

I understand bounded accuracy perfectly well. On the contrary, I think you missed my point.

A player can hit their maximum AC by level 6, most of the time. Once you have 20-21 AC, it probably isn't going higher without magic or very special features. But attack bonuses keep going. Most creatures won't break 11, but plenty of high CR monsters do. Even worse, as CR increases, the likelihood that a monster will bypass AC entirely increases.

I'm going to bold this, to make absolutely sure that everyone reads this. My point was not that AC is useless. My point is that it becomes less useful as monster CR increases. 20 AC against a monster with +4 to hit means you're getting hit by 4 attacks out of 20, 20%. 20 AC against a monster with +8 to hit means you're getting hit by 8 attacks out of 20, 40%. To-hit goes up with level, while AC does not without special features.

Now, to tell you how you contradicted your own point, here are two quotes from your post:

"the whole point of bounded accuracy is that you should only in extremely rare cases need an extreme specialist to be able to have a chance to succeed"
"they don't become capable of defeating powerful monsters by finally being able to hit on something other than a 20, they become capable of defeating more powerful monsters because they deal more damage, and can survive long enough with their hit points to be able to deal their increased damage"

You don't need an extreme specialist to have a chance to succeed, except that you do because most people can't survive a single round with that powerful monster.

Also, there was an entire series of threads about a particular door with a DC too high for any player to hit. In that case, one had to have a Knock caster, a specialist if there ever was one. And that was in published AL material.

So like I said, WotC had a cool concept, but failed to apply it to all of their systems.

[Citan]

I understand bounded accuracy perfectly well. On the contrary, I think you missed my point.

A player can hit their maximum AC by level 6, most of the time. Once you have 20-21 AC, it probably isn't going higher without magic or very special features. But attack bonuses keep going. Most creatures won't break 11, but plenty of high CR monsters do. Even worse, as CR increases, the likelihood that a monster will bypass AC entirely increases.

I'm going to bold this, to make absolutely sure that everyone reads this. My point was not that AC is useless. My point is that it becomes less useful as monster CR increases. 20 AC against a monster with +4 to hit means you're getting hit by 4 attacks out of 20, 20%. 20 AC against a monster with +8 to hit means you're getting hit by 8 attacks out of 20, 40%. To-hit goes up with level, while AC does not without special features.

But that's exactly the point of bounded accuracy, and why you still fail to understand it.
If you had ways to increase your AC without limit, then you could find a way to make yourself impervious to any and every creature. Including swarms and high-hitting, high-CR ones.

To allow creatures to still get a decent chance to hit you, and be sure you are still feeling a great threat from the highest level creatures, it's logical to cap the level of AC that you can reach with mundane means to a "low" level (not thinking that 20 is actually low, but anyways).
You could argue that having the "critical hit on 20" would be enough as is to keep pressure on players. But that would hold true for swarms of very low level creatures (for which you can easily put yourself out of league with the right class and spells, or just uncommon magical armor).

Technically, there are still ways to "break" bounded accuracy, or rather, put yourself apart from any and every creature except a handful of the highest CR like Tarrasque: a proper choice of class, spell and equipment makes it fairly achievable to boast >25 AC, even more than 30.
And that is the goal of the bounded accuracy: requiring a significant investment to push yourself well beyond normal protection. Which is a very good thing imo.

Besides, there are only, like, two dozen creatures or so that break the +13 bonus to attack. And you usually won't encounter more than 2 of them at any one time, unless a very custom campaign. So it's really not a big deal, unless you play a solo character that reached level 18+ (congrats on being a lone wolf that long XD).

[bid]

You don't need an extreme specialist to have a chance to succeed, except that you do because most people can't survive a single round with that powerful monster.
Those 20 goblins know that, without bounded accuracy they'd be unable to hurt that powerful PC.

9 out of 10 goblins prefer 5e to 4e, the 10th had his brain addled by an arrow to the knee.

[Easy_Lee]

You guys are still missing my point. Let me spell it out in very simple words.

AC grows less useful with level. That's true whether you want it to be true or not. And it applies to AC, but not to other systems. Checks, attacks, and saves all scale with proficiency. AC doesn't. That's because they applied bounded accuracy only to AC, and not to their other systems.

I understand bounded accuracy perfectly. I also understand that it only applies to accuracy. And because it only applies to accuracy, and accuracy increases with level, while AC does not, that means AC grows proportionally less useful with level. This is simple math.

Resistance, on the other hand, is equally useful at all levels. That's why people like bear barbarians so much.

What 5e look like without bounded accuracy? Exactly the same, except that proficiency would apply to AC. That wouldn't mean much, other than that AC would stay just as useful at all levels.

What people actually like about bounded accuracy is the principle that orcs and goblins are still threatening at all levels, just in different numbers. But players at level 20 have close to 20x the hp as at level one, and usually have powerful AoE by then. So it's a moot point. Players still grow OP compared to goblins and orcs, just a little less so.

[Citan]

You guys are still missing my point. Let me spell it out in very simple words.

AC grows less useful with level. That's true whether you want it to be true or not. And it applies to AC, but not to other systems. Checks, attacks, and saves all scale with proficiency. AC doesn't. That's because they applied bounded accuracy only to AC, and not to their other systems.

I understand bounded accuracy perfectly. I also understand that it only applies to accuracy. And because it only applies to accuracy, and accuracy increases with level, while AC does not, that means AC grows proportionally less useful with level. This is simple math.

Resistance, on the other hand, is equally useful at all levels. That's why people like bear barbarians so much.

What 5e look like without bounded accuracy? Exactly the same, except that proficiency would apply to AC. That wouldn't mean much, other than that AC would stay just as useful at all levels.

What people actually like about bounded accuracy is the principle that orcs and goblins are still threatening at all levels, just in different numbers. But players at level 20 have close to 20x the hp as at level one, and usually have powerful AoE by then. So it's a moot point. Players still grow OP compared to goblins and orcs, just a little less so.
Ok. It's clearer indeed.
And yes you are right, AC brings lesser as you increase level. It's indeed factual.
What is not, and where you are wrong in the view of several people, myself included, is in the magnitude of that "efficiency loss": getting as high as 20-22 stat AC is still extremely valuable right up until the end of your career, because creatures that can really threaten it are very rare so the only true threat left is natural 20 (and even those can be avoided with some features or equipment). So even if a few creatures will still hit you hard, you still avoided that many other attacks.


Also disagree on the fact that it applies only on accuracy though. It also applies to saves, both yours and enemies's for better or worse. ;)

Hence, I don't understand why you seem to say it's a bad thing or rather, that AC becomes less important than HP? Because creatures also hit harder as you higher in CR.

You could argue that "HP is better because it's a common cushion for everything, saves and attacks alike", but the reverse could be argued as well: having strong points in defense allows you to better gather resources to anticipate and manage threats against your weak points.

Oh, by the way, you still miss the concept: even if you were to apply proficiency bonus to AC, you would still be into a bounded accuracy system: you'd just put the cap significantly higher, so effectively disabling a larger array of creatures. Nothing more. Oh, and, it would actually make the game much harder, because it would obviously also apply to creatures (since bonus proficiency is already added and accounted for in some of their saves, same as PC).

Breaking the bounded accuracy would require at the minimum defense effect stacking (whether from spell or class feature) and possibly effects from the same source stacking or "class level scaled" equipment... Then hope that the enemies you face are not as organized and optimized as your party (= lesser magical equipment, lesser spellcasting potential, no Paladins or the like). XD

[Easy_Lee]

Well, the concept of bounded accuracy, as stated, is that there is no assumption that numbers increase with level. I'm paraphrasing here, but that's the general idea.

The reason I call out AC is because past about level 8 or so, it doesn't increase. Other numbers do. And they don't increase at the same rate. Players hit harder at level 20, but not 20x harder. In most cases, not even 10x harder. Save effects stay approximately equal across levels, unless you're targeting a non proficient save in which case they improve significantly. Resistance is always equally useful.

As one levels, the game develops a hierarchy. Targeting weak saves is king. Having high HP and lots of resistances is fantastic. Dealing competitive damage is okay. AC, which used to be overpowered, is not too great anymore.

That's the part that bugs me. It's not that strategy changes with level, or that characters gain new abilities. Those things should happen. What bothers me is that mechanics grow more or less useful with level.

If wizards really wants to stick their money where their mouth is, a level 20 player should not have 20x as much HP next generation.

[Sigreid]

AC grows less useful with level. That's true whether you want it to be true or not. And it applies to AC, but not to other systems. Checks, attacks, and saves all scale with proficiency. AC doesn't. That's because they applied bounded accuracy only to AC, and not to their other systems.


This is extremely DM dependent. If you have a DM that still uses the lower CR creatures, but in greater quantities, as the game was designed to allow, then your AC never decreases in value. The level 20 fighter that runs naked into the orc army is in a lot more trouble than the level 20 fighter in full plate with a shield that runs into the orc army.

[Contrast]

If I could choose between doubling my AC or doubling my hit points, I'd choose to double my AC. But doubling my AC is a lot harder than doubling my hit points.

Barbarians get the best deal because they have more hit points and, while raging, usually their hit points count double (for 'free*'!).

The issue with AC is that it hits a cap relatively quickly (in that a mid level character will likely have a very similar AC to a high level character), while hit points continue to grow. This doesn't mean AC isn't better, its just generally harder in a purposefully bounded accuracy system to max it. Bladesingers are mostly balanced by the fact that they they only get a super high AC with a reasonable level investment in a class with a poor HP progression and don't synergise with barbarian.

*ignoring advantage to hit because...reasons?

[bid]

As one levels, the game develops a hierarchy. Targeting weak saves is king. Having high HP and lots of resistances is fantastic. Dealing competitive damage is okay. AC, which used to be overpowered, is not too great anymore.

That's the part that bugs me. It's not that strategy changes with level, or that characters gain new abilities. Those things should happen. What bothers me is that mechanics grow more or less useful with level.
So, as you find yourself fighting harder monsters, AC becomes a "weak save" only shored up by the amount of hp you have behind.

[Dudu]

Like many said, the fact that AC loses some relevance doesn't mean you should dump it. Not if you are melee attacker.

And... it's not hard to pump the AC. Not with the Shield spell, a lvl 1 arcane spell. And Defensive Style, which Fighters get as early as lvl 1. And Cloak of Protection, which is a uncommon item. Put the classic Plate plus Shield, to start with 20 AC.

You can pump the melee with Haste, which is usually a good idea. One of my favorite 5.0 chars was an "Arc Knight", 2 levels of fighter and 18 of Abjurer. He had 22 AC from adamantine plate plus shield, on top of Cloak of Protection and defensive style. BAM, Shield and he would reach 27 AC, and when he was hasted, 29 AC. The meanest dragons sport a +17 to hit, meaning this guy was dodging more than half of the strikes. And when he casted a spell, he could use the extra action from haste to dodge, making even the hardest hitting dragons miss most of the time.

So you tell me how much AC helps. The way I see it, HP is the baseline, is what you need. It's your lifebar in those arcade games. But an investment in AC sure make hard to deplete those HP.

Summing up what I want to say is: if you are a melee, never, ever neglet AC. Yes, even if you are a barbarian. Had a friend playing a barbarian with... 14 AC. Resistence didn't cut it, he would constantly fall. Unlike the Fighter, Two-Handed, but managed to have 19 AC, which isn't even that big, but allowed him to stay longer despite not having resistence.

[SharkForce]

Well, the concept of bounded accuracy, as stated, is that there is no assumption that numbers increase with level. I'm paraphrasing here, but that's the general idea.

The reason I call out AC is because past about level 8 or so, it doesn't increase. Other numbers do. And they don't increase at the same rate. Players hit harder at level 20, but not 20x harder. In most cases, not even 10x harder. Save effects stay approximately equal across levels, unless you're targeting a non proficient save in which case they improve significantly. Resistance is always equally useful.

As one levels, the game develops a hierarchy. Targeting weak saves is king. Having high HP and lots of resistances is fantastic. Dealing competitive damage is okay. AC, which used to be overpowered, is not too great anymore.

That's the part that bugs me. It's not that strategy changes with level, or that characters gain new abilities. Those things should happen. What bothers me is that mechanics grow more or less useful with level.

If wizards really wants to stick their money where their mouth is, a level 20 player should not have 20x as much HP next generation.

as noted, AC only becomes substantially less relevant if your DM fails to understand how encounter design is supposed to work.

it isn't "oh, you're level 20 now, you only ever face CR 20 challenges". it's "oh, you're level 20 now, from time to time you'll face CR 20 challenges but you might also face half a dozen unseen stalkers, or a tribe of hill giants, or an army of orcs, and your high AC is every bit as valuable there.

additionally, while it definitely does slow down, your ability to defend yourself can increase with levels (for example, AC 20 with greater invisibility is obviously stronger than AC 20 without it, and that's hardly the only way to give disadvantage to enemies), plus your HP most certainly increases (and since AC basically works as a multiplier, you are in fact getting more value out of your AC even if those higher CR monsters haver higher attack modifiers, because just as a level 20 character doesn't do 20 times the damage of a level 1 character, neither does a CR 20 creature do 20 times the damage of a CR 1 creature).

oh, and you don't need super-specialization to deal with many high CR creatures. a whole bunch of fairly average individuals is often perfectly adequate, unless the creature in question has immunity to normal weapons (well, even then it probably just forces the fairly average individuals to come in larger numbers as a result of relying on only dealing small amounts of damage... like using a torch to deal 1d2 points of fire damage instead of a spear for 1d6 or 1d8 plus strength... though depending on the nature of the large group of average people, even that might not be true, since some creatures can use cantrips and such, and in some places the average people might be able to get their hands on less average materials, like alchemist's fire or acid)

[Unoriginal]

oh, and you don't need super-specialization to deal with many high CR creatures. a whole bunch of fairly average individuals is often perfectly adequate, unless the creature in question has immunity to normal weapons (well, even then it probably just forces the fairly average individuals to come in larger numbers as a result of relying on only dealing small amounts of damage... like using a torch to deal 1d2 points of fire damage instead of a spear for 1d6 or 1d8 plus strength... though depending on the nature of the large group of average people, even that might not be true, since some creatures can use cantrips and such, and in some places the average people might be able to get their hands on less average materials, like alchemist's fire or acid)

https://1d4chan.org/images/2/2f/HectoPeasant2.jpg

[Easy_Lee]

as noted, AC only becomes substantially less relevant if your DM fails to understand how encounter design is supposed to work.

it isn't "oh, you're level 20 now, you only ever face CR 20 challenges". it's "oh, you're level 20 now, from time to time you'll face CR 20 challenges but you might also face half a dozen unseen stalkers, or a tribe of hill giants, or an army of orcs, and your high AC is every bit as valuable there.

additionally, while it definitely does slow down, your ability to defend yourself can increase with levels (for example, AC 20 with greater invisibility is obviously stronger than AC 20 without it, and that's hardly the only way to give disadvantage to enemies), plus your HP most certainly increases (and since AC basically works as a multiplier, you are in fact getting more value out of your AC even if those higher CR monsters haver higher attack modifiers, because just as a level 20 character doesn't do 20 times the damage of a level 1 character, neither does a CR 20 creature do 20 times the damage of a CR 1 creature).

Again, not the point I'm making. The point is that AC is less useful against monsters of your CR as you gain levels. This isn't rocket science. There's no complex idea here.

People keep saying, "oh, but what if you just have lots of low CR monsters?" Well, that isn't what I'm talking about, is it? No! I'm talking about monsters of CR = your level.

And now you're bringing up how players gain additional ways to defend themselves as they level? Yeah, so? That isn't AC. That's uncanny dodge, or the hunter ranger's level 15 ability, or a wizard learning a new defensive spell, or a fighter gaining another use of indomitable...actually, let's not talk about that. Point is, none of those things are specifically AC. And I'm talking specifically about AC specially against CR=level monsters.

[bid]

And I'm talking specifically about AC specially against CR=level monsters.
That's becoming excessively narrow. A hard 1v1 fight for a level 10 is CR5.

[SharkForce]

Again, not the point I'm making. The point is that AC is less useful against monsters of your CR as you gain levels. This isn't rocket science. There's no complex idea here.

People keep saying, "oh, but what if you just have lots of low CR monsters?" Well, that isn't what I'm talking about, is it? No! I'm talking about monsters of CR = your level.

And now you're bringing up how players gain additional ways to defend themselves as they level? Yeah, so? That isn't AC. That's uncanny dodge, or the hunter ranger's level 15 ability, or a wizard learning a new defensive spell, or a fighter gaining another use of indomitable...actually, let's not talk about that. Point is, none of those things are specifically AC. And I'm talking specifically about AC specially against CR=level monsters.

blah blah blah.

you continue to increase your benefit from AC. giving disadvantage to hit you? guess what. not as valuable if you're AC 10 as compared to AC 20. gained another 10 hit points when you leveled up? again, not as valuable if you're AC 10 as it would be if you're AC 20. you're still getting value out of your AC 20, and you're getting it as you level up, because your ability to leverage the AC you do have increase. you can scream all you want about how the number itself isn't changing, but it still remains that the benefit you derive from that number increases as you gain levels. it may "only" double your effective hit points against a monster that can hit you more often as compared to the way it would quintuple or more your effective hit points against a monster with low attack bonus, but it is still multiplying your hit points, and your higher hit points (and increased ability to do things like knock an enemy prone and keep them prone, or blind them, etc) is going to continue to improve.

you don't need AC itself to be a higher number if you're becoming better able to leverage the number that you have as a result of gaining levels.

you may as well complain that the die the fighter rolls for swinging a sword at level 20 is the same as the die at level 1, and ignore the fact that the level 20 fighter has 4 attacks per round, higher attributes, possibly more feats, and in all likelihood at least one archetype ability (be that expanded crit chance, superiority dice, access to buffing spells, or something else entirely) that will allow the level 20 fighter to do more damage. none of those things are the damage die the sword deals, but they can all increase the fighter's effectiveness with a sword, so while the complaint is technically true, practically speaking it's a poor argument based on flawed principles.

[Easy_Lee]

Really don't know why you guys continue arguing. My point is both simple and easy to understand, that AC grows less useful with level against monsters of your level. That there are ways around it, that AC is still useful, discussions of "effective HP", etc., these things do not invalidate my point.

As I've made my point repeatedly, and yet some people continue arguing, I can only conclude that those people aren't going to listen. So, I'm going to make like a rogue and bonus action out of here.

[suplee215]

Really don't know why you guys continue arguing. My point is both simple and easy to understand, that AC grows less useful with level against monsters of your level. That there are ways around it, that AC is still useful, discussions of "effective HP", etc., these things do not invalidate my point.

As I've made my point repeatedly, and yet some people continue arguing, I can only conclude that those people aren't going to listen. So, I'm going to make like a rogue and bonus action out of here.

Your points only works when you set arbitrary guidelines. In 5e, you do not fight only monsters equal to your CR. The game isn't designed that way.

[Malifice]

A few of us in my groups had a discussion about AC vs. HP. AC seems great at low levels but it seems at higher levels most of what you encounter is going to have really good pluses to their attack roles so high AC maybe moot. It seems in that case it would be better to be able to soak
up the damage and keep on ticking.

Opinions?

What would be the formula for a monster HP build?

I could also use a glossary of all the abbreviations that are being used.


thanks...

From a mechanical design perspective HP make the game much smoother - HP attrition is rather linear and easily predictable, whereas AC is a binary hit/miss calculation and is much more swingy and easy to abuse (ratcheting up your AC to unhittable levels, and/or monsters who are invalidated by ever increasing AC of PCs or who are unhittable by the PCs due to a high AC).

It allows for smoother maths, and a greater range of threats that can face the party, rather than simply invalidating certain monsters at certain cut off points. It makes the game much less swingy as well.

Remember one thing: HP are not meat. They represent your skill and experience fighting such as parrying and dodging (this is why Fighters get more, and also why they increase as you advance in XP), your luck and resolve and your will to live.

A blow that luckily glances off your armor? Lose 20 HP. The sword swing you parry with your quarterstaff that staggers you back a few feet and knocks the wind out of you? Lose 20 HP. When you zig instead of zag and the arrows pepper the ground near you? Lose 20 HP. Taking cover behind your shield to protect yourself from the force of a Fireball? Lose 20 HP.

And so forth.

Viewed that way, there shouldnt be any problems that simple narration cant solve. The benefits of the HP system (predictable and stable AC, but increasing damage and HP) outweigh its disadvantages.

[Sigreid]

Really don't know why you guys continue arguing. My point is both simple and easy to understand, that AC grows less useful with level against monsters of your level. That there are ways around it, that AC is still useful, discussions of "effective HP", etc., these things do not invalidate my point.

As I've made my point repeatedly, and yet some people continue arguing, I can only conclude that those people aren't going to listen. So, I'm going to make like a rogue and bonus action out of here.

We get your point, we just don't think it's particularly relevant to the way this version of D&D works. I for one, think the game is better for not making you invulnerable to orcs and kobolds by level 8.

[djreynolds]

1st off, what a great thread, I love these conversations.

2nd, it has been awhile since I have heard "hit points are not meat"..... its one of my favorite lines on this forum... but I said it at work and had to go see human resources

3rd, who knows what is more important.

In some conversations, the mood druids "unlimited HP" makes for a difficult kill and its AC is probably low

If look at an 18th level bladesinger with say around a 28 AC, spamming the shield spell.. the only thing touching them are critical hits... as 20's hit no matter what

Its this aspect right here that is important, no one's AC is unhittable as a critical hit is an automatic success...

Even with a cloak of displacement it is possible for someone to roll 2 20's or in a champion's case... 18s 19s also and its funny because these champions also have a regeneration ability.... that's weird.... anyhow... OOOOOHHH I hate and love the champion all at once

So we can see HP as a limited resource for most classes and AC is not unhittable.

I think AC becomes less important if you have a means of damage reduction. Here's an example.

I'm fighting my buddy Dave, a paladin/sorcerer who can post smite, I know he is smart and will hold off his smites only for critical hits.
He is battling me, a rogue with uncanny dodge and I understand that I actually need him to hit me so I can eat up his smites a few at a time.
Because what I don't want is Dave scoring 2critical hits in the same round and dropping as 2 4d8s, doubled.
And since Dave's smite are all post hit and critical hits are always hits, having something like defensive duelist/shield is useless because it will not stop those attacks and even dodging there is the statically likelihood(very low)that 2 crits will be rolled

So AC is important but not as much as damage mitigation/reduction or advantage/disadvantage.

I would say making it a point to find a cloak of displacement is better than magic armor

It just boils down to resource management, which the game is all about.

At higher levels, and I truly hate admitting it, a champion attacking with advantage is a scary foe if you cannot disable them with fear or something

[GlenSmash!]

It's true that AC is less valuable than HP at high levels. I think this is a feature and not a bug. It lets me challenge high level PCs with swarms of goblins, or orcs, for that Helm's Deep feel. It's no wonder that with 5e Cubicle 7 decided to adapt their LotR RPG to D&D. Without bounded accuracy it wouldn't work unless you're doing something like e6.

It also make playing a Barbarian superfun. I can start with an unarmored AC of 14-15, pick up half plate for 17 and I'm doing fine. Magic items can boost this tremendously, but all the while my pile of hitpoints is getting bigger and bigger every level, especially if I invest in constitution, or grab the Tough feat, and if that wasn't enough I get resistance to the most common types of damage if I rage. Even more types if I go bear totem.

If only I ever got the chance to play a high level barb.