High A.C enemies. Opinions on why DMs shouldntdo it

[Shuruke]

So , something that's come up in my posts alot for why I havent been enjoying barbarian, something that my girlfriend has mentioned to me about campaigns she's in that I'm not. And something that my players bring up to me about there other dms

So when I talk about high a.c enemies I am talking about any enemy that has a 40% or less chance to be hit

Examples
Level 1-3 party whom assuming they have 17's and 18's in primary stats
(When I DM I only about for 15-16's)

They'll have a +5 to +6

So an a.c of 17-19 a.c. for this tier.

Me as a player and DM dont find this fun or memorable. Especially since although advantage statistically greatly improved odds doesn't mean that in reality it does. And in my opinion nothing feels worse then attacking with advantage and getting a 17 to hit at level 3 and still missing.



Experiences I have had as a player in dofferent campaigns

Level 3 players against enemies in heavy armor and shields

Level 5 players against an enemy with either +2 plate or a +2 shield for 22 a.c.

Level 5 players against homebrew enemies with 20 a.c

3 different experiences from 2 different campaigns, both of which the DM wanted to run "challenging" encounters.


In my opinion a.c should only be increased to increase difficulty if the players have some way to interact with it.
Making an enemy drop concentration on shield of faith.

Destroy the cover the enemy is utilizing

Having them still hit but instead have the damage go on shield if they hit x a.c having the shield break at 3x level in damage

I want your opinions on this topic. Because as a dm and player increasing a.c to ridiculous measures for challenge just isn't fun for me.

Id rather have an interactive fight that has a skill challenge mixed in

Or throw in modified 4e minions (ie enemies with one hp but otherwise normal stats)

Hell even just something like having an object or enemy that is healing.


In my opinion players should always have between 45%-60% (9-12 on dice) chance to hit. Especially since increasing a.c only feels like a smack in face against Martials. Sure spells have attack rolls to , but I haven't seen a single caster only use attack roll spells.



Other ways you could fix this is if you want more challenge just slightly increase the damage of the enemies. Increasing a.c might buy you a few bland rounds of lots of missing or you could just increase the creatures damage by 10-15%
Two attacks of 1d8+3
Instead becomes three attacks of 1d6+3
Or two attacks of 1d10+3. Even just slightly increasing a monsters to hit could make it more challenging then simple increasing a.c

[MrStabby]

There are a few reasons why I throw them at a party, some of this changes by level though:

1) To slow down combat. It is very easy to field enough Nova Damage to significantly cut down return attacks. If the best form of control is damage, then your game is one dimensional and you have closed off meaningful options.

2) To allow characters to differentiate themselves. What does that +2 to hit from archery fighting style matter if hitting is never a problem?

3) To balance the game: is sharpshooter and great weapon mastery in play? It this meaning some PCs are being left behind and not having fun?

4) To encourage different strategies. Grappling or save spells. Encouraging diversity.

5) Telegraphing enemies are tough. Maybe diplomacy could be an option instead. Full plate and shield is easy to spot/describe.

[Unoriginal]

As far as I'm concerned, AC is not dependent on the PCs' levels. It's dependent on what makes sense for the being they're facing.

If the PCs decide to face a knight at level 1, I don't see why the knight shouldn't be wearing their plate armor.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Having a few high-AC enemies is useful, just like have some with high CON/WIS/DEX saves. It allows people whose primary attacks depend on something else to shine and forces people to not always hit their "big stick" button.

Now at the same time, DMs should use a healthy mix of low AC enemies, clumsy ones, easily held ones, etc. For exactly the same reasons, just in reverse.

Where the problems arise is when DMs try to tame the spiral of
1) one really hard, usually solo-mob fight per day
2) so everyone novas
3) so the DM makes the fight harder
4) so everyone novas harder, and those that can't are left behind
5) etc until frustration and/or TPK

by simply increasing the defenses of the monsters. Better ways:
1) include more, easier monsters. That alone makes a huge difference and makes nova tactics much less important.
2) have more fights in the adventuring day
3) accept that the party is going to win if pushed and challenge them in other ways. Make it more about how they win (and what the collateral damage is, and if the bad guys meet their objective in a way that isn't just killing the party.

[Man_Over_Game]

Higher AC makes it so that unoptimized or underleveled creatures can't easily participate against the creature. Low average AC is how DMs are able to swarm players with hordes of low CR creatures that still put up a fight. It doesn't matter what level you are, most creatures can hit you if your AC is going to cap at 22. On the flipside, though, 22 AC is nearly impossible to fight as a level 1, and a minor hurdle for a level 20.

Higher AC also makes things less consistent, which means that a player may not be participating. A Rogue, for example, gets one attack to deal 100% of all of their contribution in a fight, and missing that attack means they might be waiting an entire round to be relevant.

You might jack up AC in order to make an enemy feel nearly untouchable compared to the players' level. It invokes a sense of helplessness and fear that high HP does not. For high HP to have the same effect, the fight must take a long time, but a high AC can do that in just the first few rounds.

So it's best to have impossibly strong, dramatic bosses to have high AC, and use high HP for enemies that you actually expect your players to have an actual fight against.

AC also contributes towards a caster's ability to maintain Concentration, when HP doesn't, so it's probably best to have mages have high HP rather than high AC (as this makes their Concentration more rewarding to interact with).

Barbarians, in particular, happen to do well against high AC creatures, due to the fact that Reckless Attack lowers their chance of missing by about half. So when everyone is having a 20% chance of hitting the boss, the Barbarian has 36%, dealing almost double the damage per round due to their higher-than-average accuracy. It's rather interesting: A knight's weakness is a Raging Barbarian.

[Waazraath]

In general, I try to use alll different kinds of monsters: casters and noncasters, ranged and melee, single biggy, swarms and in between, high and low AC. This gives the different characters chance to shine, cause whatever there forte is. So I wouldn't exclude high AC enemies. The DM should pay attention though that combats don't take too long because of this.

[Demonslayer666]

DMs should do this, in moderation of course.

High AC monsters just make the casters burn more slots. After the first couple whiffs with high rolls, they pour on the automatic damage, or give the fighters advantage with the help action.

I really have not seen this as a problem.

[Phoenix042]

In my opinion a.c should only be increased to increase difficulty if the players have some way to interact with it.


This is on point.


My favorite way to use beyond-curve AC as a way to increase difficulty is by using AC as a way to signal to players that attacking a particular non essential target in a fight is inefficient.

For example, having my BBEG have a couple of minions that have ridiculous armor on. Maybe those minions can be evaded, ignored, or indirectly disabled, but damaging them with attacks is intentionally an inefficient use of actions.

Alternatively, I'll give someone an almost unbeatable Armor Class, but tie it into the encounter in an interactive way. Maybe you can disable the crystal to take down the bad guys buffs, or you can move to a new position to remove the bad guys cover bonus, etc.

My least favorite design elements in D&D 5th are the ones that automatically mitigate dynamic encounter design. For example the spell sniper and sharpshooter feats don't just make you better at ranged attacks; they remove cover from the DM's toolbox for encounter building. In one of my games, I've got a party with a mobile melee fighter, a spell-sniper warlock, and a sharpshooter assassin.

So difficult terrain and cover just aren't a thing in that game.

[stoutstien]

AC is only a small part of the puzzle. Any one from form of defense can be be bypassed.(AC, HP, Saves, Avoidance). Low AC/ high HP are fun but toss a few Quickling at the party and see if they figure out that a shatter can one shot them or they pretty much auto fail strength ST or checks.

[sophontteks]

You can grapple high AC enemies really easily. Just toss them into the pit :smallbiggrin:

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm born and raised 4e DM. High AC was one of the monster archetypes (soldier), and learning to implement it was a process. 90% of the time a "Brute" was both more engaging and created more suspense during a combat encounter. I ended up using high AC only as a challenge within an encounter.; It was a mechanic that could be removed via some trick. Like a puzzle from a video game, where you make the minatour charge the wall and then hit him while he's stunned.
The other 10% where just melee controllers. They were designed to basically mindlessly target one player and grapple him. This melee controller did no damage, but really put a wrench in my player's plan, due to the high reward for good mobility in that edition of the game.
Having random monsters with high AC without there being a certain payoff is just feelsbadman. Think about it this way. If you want an encounter to last 6 rounds, you can either double the health of your minion, or lower the hit chance of the players by half. Which do you think is more fun for the players? It doesn't change the challenge of the encounter, or it's duration, but not being able to contribute because you can't hit is a sucky feeling.

my 2 cents.

[Pex]

This is on point.


My favorite way to use beyond-curve AC as a way to increase difficulty is by using AC as a way to signal to players that attacking a particular non essential target in a fight is inefficient.

For example, having my BBEG have a couple of minions that have ridiculous armor on. Maybe those minions can be evaded, ignored, or indirectly disabled, but damaging them with attacks is intentionally an inefficient use of actions.

Alternatively, I'll give someone an almost unbeatable Armor Class, but tie it into the encounter in an interactive way. Maybe you can disable the crystal to take down the bad guys buffs, or you can move to a new position to remove the bad guys cover bonus, etc.

My least favorite design elements in D&D 5th are the ones that automatically mitigate dynamic encounter design. For example the spell sniper and sharpshooter feats don't just make you better at ranged attacks; they remove cover from the DM's toolbox for encounter building. In one of my games, I've got a party with a mobile melee fighter, a spell-sniper warlock, and a sharpshooter assassin.

So difficult terrain and cover just aren't a thing in that game.

The players spent the feat so they can feel awesome using it. Let them feel awesome. Have combat take place with cover and difficult terrain and let the players enjoy being able to ignore it. They'll know taking that feat mattered. A DM should not resent PCs overcome a particular challenge.

[Waterdeep Merch]

High AC's fine if you don't do it for every single enemy. They make roadblocks, where physically attacking them is the least effective tactic you've got. They work great when you're better off either circumventing them to get to the high-damage, low-AC targets they're protecting or hitting them with something that bypasses that amazing AC- don't give things both great AC and great saves/resistances/immunities.

In a typical orc fight, for example- give some front-liners shields and heavy armor, but lower their damage output accordingly. Have them protect some archers, a shaman, and play interference for some lightly-armored greataxe berserkers. If the players don't realize that attacking the obviously well-defended enemies instead of the ones that can quickly kill them is a waste of their time, they deserve what happens.

Or another- they face some kind of carapace'd creature with immaculate AC but describe it as lumbering and unintelligent. That's the spellcasters' cue- the party's melee warriors go on the defensive, holding it back until the sorcerer/warlock/wizard can hit those weak points. Obviously, this is an extremely awful encounter if your party doesn't have spellcasters. Plan according to the party that will have to fight it.

[stoutstien]

The players spent the feat so they can feel awesome using it. Let them feel awesome. Have combat take place with cover and difficult terrain and let the players enjoy being able to ignore it. They'll know taking that feat mattered. A DM should not resent PCs overcome a particular challenge.

I usually agree with this sentiment but SS and too a lesser extent spell sniper are badly implemented feats for a good idea. Removing cover doesn't make the player feel powerful the same way natural explorer doesn't make rangers feel powerful. It removes a good chunk of elements the DM could use to challenge the party other than more damage.
They could have just added a bonus to attack rolls vs targets using cover. Players love static bonuses to attack rolls

[Shuruke]

Higher AC makes it so that unoptimized or underleveled creatures can't easily participate against the creature. Low average AC is how DMs are able to swarm players with hordes of low CR creatures that still put up a fight. It doesn't matter what level you are, most creatures can hit you if your AC is going to cap at 22. On the flipside, though, 22 AC is nearly impossible to fight as a level 1, and a minor hurdle for a level 20.

Higher AC also makes things less consistent, which means that a player may not be participating. A Rogue, for example, gets one attack to deal 100% of all of their contribution in a fight, and missing that attack means they might be waiting an entire round to be relevant.

You might jack up AC in order to make an enemy feel nearly untouchable compared to the players' level. It invokes a sense of helplessness and fear that high HP does not. For high HP to have the same effect, the fight must take a long time, but a high AC can do that in just the first few rounds.

So it's best to have impossibly strong, dramatic bosses to have high AC, and use high HP for enemies that you actually expect your players to have an actual fight against.

AC also contributes towards a caster's ability to maintain Concentration, when HP doesn't, so it's probably best to have mages have high HP rather than high AC (as this makes their Concentration more rewarding to interact with).

Barbarians, in particular, happen to do well against high AC creatures, due to the fact that Reckless Attack lowers their chance of missing by about half. So when everyone is having a 20% chance of hitting the boss, the Barbarian has 36%, dealing almost double the damage per round due to their higher-than-average accuracy. It's rather interesting: A knight's weakness is a Raging Barbarian.

This is kind of my point though

Drastically increasing A.C can make members of party feel irrelevant

Even though the barbarian can easily gain advantage levels 2-4 are still really suceptoble to feeling useless against a high a.c enemy.
If an enemy has high a.c abd gets faerie fire on it by the druid. The barb already has advantage on his one attack whereas the monk and polearm master bladelock have advantage on 2-3 attacks

(Next part not toward you)

Yes I believe that there are ways where it can be done and be made fulfilling but in my opinion going to low on the % hit track just isnt fun or fearful. Its just frustrating

And for archery their would still be a reason to have it. And that would be having 55% chance to hit instead of 45%
Or having 75% chance to hit instead of 65%.



Abd its different if players knowingly walk into a fight agaijst someone with full plate compared to the fights constantly coming to them.

I'm sure there are great ways to do. It.

But missing more than 60% of time isn't fun. It doesnt make things feel scary it just makes the people rolling lucky feel great whule the player with advantage and low rolls just sits there.

[MaxWilson]

My least favorite design elements in D&D 5th are the ones that automatically mitigate dynamic encounter design. For example the spell sniper and sharpshooter feats don't just make you better at ranged attacks; they remove cover from the DM's toolbox for encounter building. In one of my games, I've got a party with a mobile melee fighter, a spell-sniper warlock, and a sharpshooter assassin.

So difficult terrain and cover just aren't a thing in that game.

I hope you mean "difficult terrain and cover are ubiquitous in that game and the PCs just laugh and ignore them" instead of "I go out of my way to make their feats useless."

Edit: another factor is that the Mobile guy is still affected by cover and the other guys are still hammered by difficult terrain, so including cover and difficult terrain encourages teamwork.

Also, Sharpshooters and Spell Snipers only get to bypass partial cover. They are still thwarted by the best kind of cover: total.

[Man_Over_Game]

I didn't disagree with you on that. I just mean to say that having high AC has its value (in big, scary, looming bosses) and it shouldn't really be used outside of that. It's a much better habit to jack up HP than it is to jack up AC.

On the Faerie Fire aspect, that still ends up saving you Advantage to strike you. It also cost the Druid a spell slot and Concentration to do that, which wouldn't be the best use of the spell in every scenario.

Similarly, a Monk using Stunning Strike does not mean that a Wizard with Power Word Stun is rendered useless.

But ignoring unlucky rolls, here's some math.

Say you and a Fighter have a 40% chance to hit a target. Pretty low, all things considered. You deal 12 damage per attack, and the Fighter deals 15.

However, you Reckless Attack. You jump from a 40% chance to hit to a 64%.

Your damage per round is now 12 x 64% = 7.7 DPR.
The Fighter is stuck at 15 x 40% = 6 DPR.

In order for the Fighter to keep up with you in damage, he'd need to deal about 19 damage per attack. He'd need to deal 50% more damage per attack to keep up with your accuracy. In fact, the Fighter would actually be more effective than you against swarms of low AC rather than high AC bosses.

I'm not sure what exactly happened over the last few sessions, but think he just got lucky, friend. Or maybe something's tilted in his favor (reading features wrong, too high bonuses, etc).

[Unoriginal]

A DM should not resent PCs overcome a particular challenge.

A thousand time this.

Overcoming challenges are what PCs are supposed to do. If they do it easily, then it's to be celebrated.


I didn't disagree with you on that. I just mean to say that having high AC has its value (in big, scary, looming bosses) and it shouldn't really be used outside of that.

So hobgoblin mooks shouldn't exist?

I see no reason for that.

NPCs will want to have an armor as high as they can manage, if they know they're likely to get into fights.



It's a much better habit to jack up HP than it is to jack up AC.

No, it's not. A damage sponge is a valid type of enemy, but it's not the only valid type.

[stoutstien]

A thousand time this.

Overcoming challenges are what PCs are supposed to do. If they do it easily, then it's to be celebrated.

a challenge that is overcame easily wasn't a challenge regardless on if it was intended to be one or not.

the problem with in reference the sharpshooter is it didn't overcome the challenge, it bypassed it. The challenge doesn't exist and cannot exist anymore. It reduces player agency.

[Unoriginal]

a challenge that is overcame easily wasn't a challenge regardless on if it was intended to be one or not.

Then it becomes a showcase of the PC's power level. Not an issue as long as it's not always the case.



the problem with in reference the sharpshooter is it didn't overcome the challenge, it bypassed it. The challenge doesn't exist and cannot exist anymore. It reduces player agency.

...no, it doesn't. Player agency is absolutely not affected by this.

You could argue it removes a tool from the DM's toolset, but that's not the same as player agency at all.

[Shuruke]

I didn't disagree with you on that. I just mean to say that having high AC has its value (in big, scary, looming bosses) and it shouldn't really be used outside of that. It's a much better habit to jack up HP than it is to jack up AC.

On the Faerie Fire aspect, that still ends up saving you Advantage to strike you. It also cost the Druid a spell slot and Concentration to do that, which wouldn't be the best use of the spell in every scenario.

Similarly, a Monk using Stunning Strike does not mean that a Wizard with Power Word Stun is rendered useless.

But ignoring unlucky rolls, here's some math.

Say you and a Fighter have a 40% chance to hit a target. Pretty low, all things considered. You deal 12 damage per attack, and the Fighter deals 15.

However, you Reckless Attack. You jump from a 40% chance to hit to a 64%.

Your damage per round is now 12 x 64% = 7.7 DPR.
The Fighter is stuck at 15 x 40% = 6 DPR.

In order for the Fighter to keep up with you in damage, he'd need to deal about 19 damage per attack. He'd need to deal 50% more damage per attack to keep up with your accuracy. In fact, the Fighter would actually be more effective than you against swarms of low AC rather than high AC bosses.

I'm not sure what exactly happened over the last few sessions, but think he just got lucky, friend. Or maybe something's tilted in his favor (reading features wrong, too high bonuses, etc).

I know u weren't disagreeing , that's why I said that's kinda my point, I wasn't clear but you stated my position very well

And yes I was more "accurate" then the fighter , but in this situation for it to be accurate to what I was experiencing the fighter would be getting 2 attacks instead of one. The first one at the DPR u stated for slightly more damage than me and the second at 7 damage a hit (2.8 not counting crit on that 40%)


The issue is the same issue with true strike in that sense.
Sure its cool to have 1 attack at advantage in t1 but when the fighter ,monk ,whoever has 2 attacks against a high a.c target it would be the same. Except the 2 attacks is better when eventually someone does something to cause advantage.


I understand how the math and statistics for dpr work and its not like I have my opinion just for the sake of not liking something. But statistically I don't feel like less than a 40% chance to hit.is ever fun atleast not for classes whpse primary thing is being the guy with the big stick

[Sigreid]

I see nothing wrong with using a variety of strengths and weaknesses, including high AC. I actually think most encounters should use a variety of strengths and weaknesses. That let's everyone flex their muscles and likely requires the party to properly assess the situation and adapt.

[Chronos]

One big issue is the caster-martial imbalance. Most martials are only able to target AC, or at best have a choice of targeting either AC or the better of Athletics/Acrobatics. But casters have a choice of targeting seven different defenses, and very, very few monsters are good at more than three of them. If a caster runs into something with a nigh-unbeatable Wis save, then they can switch to using spells with a Con save, which the monster probably won't be good at (or a Dex save, or Int, Str, or Cha, or maybe even AC). But if a martial runs into something with a nigh-unbeatable AC, all they can do is to try even harder to hit that nigh-unbeatable AC.

[MrStabby]

One big issue is the caster-martial imbalance. Most martials are only able to target AC, or at best have a choice of targeting either AC or the better of Athletics/Acrobatics. But casters have a choice of targeting seven different defenses, and very, very few monsters are good at more than three of them. If a caster runs into something with a nigh-unbeatable Wis save, then they can switch to using spells with a Con save, which the monster probably won't be good at (or a Dex save, or Int, Str, or Cha, or maybe even AC). But if a martial runs into something with a nigh-unbeatable AC, all they can do is to try even harder to hit that nigh-unbeatable AC.

This is why I do believe it depends on level. At low levels casters will not cover every save and multiple effects and their damage will generally not match martials. At high levels things are very different.

Even then, I think it is fine to have high AC - you can still usefully shove enemies prone or interact with the environment in other ways. Still I agree that there are gaps in the rules here and it would be good to have more different combat skill checks that could easily be performed. There are a few feats/races that give cantrips that can work, if it is something that is a real bother.

[Man_Over_Game]

I know u weren't disagreeing , that's why I said that's kinda my point, I wasn't clear but you stated my position very well

And yes I was more "accurate" then the fighter , but in this situation for it to be accurate to what I was experiencing the fighter would be getting 2 attacks instead of one. The first one at the DPR u stated for slightly more damage than me and the second at 7 damage a hit (2.8 not counting crit on that 40%)


The issue is the same issue with true strike in that sense.
Sure its cool to have 1 attack at advantage in t1 but when the fighter ,monk ,whoever has 2 attacks against a high a.c target it would be the same. Except the 2 attacks is better when eventually someone does something to cause advantage.


I understand how the math and statistics for dpr work and its not like I have my opinion just for the sake of not liking something. But statistically I don't feel like less than a 40% chance to hit.is ever fun atleast not for classes whpse primary thing is being the guy with the big stick

I actually forgot to include the second attack from the Fighter in that bit. Unfortunately, that does mean that, even with you having Advantage, the Fighter would outdamage you in most scenarios.

[Unoriginal]

Unfortunately, that does mean that, even with you having Advantage, the Fighter would outdamage you in most scenarios.

It kinda is the fighter's job.

[redwizard007]

Saltier than sea water around here today. AC is EASILY worked around. Deal with it.

I play a not-paladin in a sci-fi adaption of 5e. Usually, I nova like a boss using my grandblade and great weapon fighting w/ smite to boot. It's cool, but can be repetitive. Last fight I landed a single blow. One. Thankfully, through good positioning, I was able to grant our not-rogue and not-monk some combat modifiers by staying in melee. I also got to soak up a godless amount of damage which kept everyone else contributing. It wasn't what my PC was built for, but it worked. Probably one of my favorite combats so far in the campaign.

[Shuruke]

Saltier than sea water around here today. AC is EASILY worked around. Deal with it.

I play a not-paladin in a sci-fi adaption of 5e. Usually, I nova like a boss using my grandblade and great weapon fighting w/ smite to boot. It's cool, but can be repetitive. Last fight I landed a single blow. One. Thankfully, through good positioning, I was able to grant our not-rogue and not-monk some combat modifiers by staying in melee. I also got to soak up a godless amount of damage which kept everyone else contributing. It wasn't what my PC was built for, but it worked. Probably one of my favorite combats so far in the campaign.

It isn't really salt though XD

I was just stating my opinion on why I think it isn't fun to fight high a.c targets and why I think dm's shouldn't have high a.c just for "Challenge"

From the sound of your campaign (which I absolutely love the idea of reflavoring dnd for sci fi) is you landed one attack and probably smited.
And although u didn't land any others you still contributed through being hit, probably healing self or others, and granting bonuses for being in melee (probably variant flanking or homebrew)


To me unless the group was an absolute blast, or their was something else for me to enjoy other than my turn coming around and not feeling like I'm contributing (again not being salty)

Although I RP and have fun enjoying my character. Outside of combat I feel great, I contribute to the group by passing skill checks , having interactions between characters, and having a blast. But I personally find it hard to enjoy combat, whether its because roll20 dice hate me, feeling like I'm not accomplishing much other than being a damage soak, or dealing with comments from players for not taking X proficiency instead of Y or etc.

Maybe its because ive been playing with new groups , and in those new groups I'm also playing classes that are out of my comfort zone (mainly play rogue or sorcerer ) so when it comes down to how I feel on my barbarian or on my fighter it just doesn't feel as rewarding.

And outside of those feelings from me

I have players who have come to me as their DM who talk to me about other campaigns. Where they feel that way.
I'm not saying we are a majority. But in my experience high a.c isn't fun


I'm glad to see that you have had fun in that campaign, it sounds like a lot of fun it really does. Essentially saying high a.c is easy to get around and that people who don't enjoy high a.c just need to deal with it. I wouldnt mind your opinion if you at least gave ways for this easily ignore high a.c
From your story it sounds like outside of taking damage you didnt actively do anything

Sure u positioned to give benefits to allies but other than rogue sneak attack that isn't an actual bonus.

(I'm not trying to attack you or anything im just trying to get you to open up and give more of your opinion)

I dont want this thread to come across as whining I want it to be ways people share opinions so that I might be able to change my pov so that these new groups could be fun for me

[Shuruke]

This is why I do believe it depends on level. At low levels casters will not cover every save and multiple effects and their damage will generally not match martials. At high levels things are very different.

Even then, I think it is fine to have high AC - you can still usefully shove enemies prone or interact with the environment in other ways. Still I agree that there are gaps in the rules here and it would be good to have more different combat skill checks that could easily be performed. There are a few feats/races that give cantrips that can work, if it is something that is a real bother.

This is true casters wont have every save maybe one or two or one and an attack


And maybe its just the rule gap that makes the high a.c a bit rough, grappling doesnt feel very satisfying unless you put resources/ build toward being good at it and even then its the prone condition that mainly does the work.

I've always enjoyed the options a battle master has and truthfully if those were just a base the spell less classes got (not the extra damage but being able to goad/fear etc)

The issue with interacting with environment is its very situational and dm dependant.
That's why I think if dms are gonna have high a.c enemies they need to put something interactive in because in my experience people don't try getting creative with solutions because their isnt a basis for it.

[Shuruke]

It kinda is the fighter's job.

I guess so

Maybe I'd enjoy combat more if I split classes into groups like
Brawler, striker, etc. . and tried basing my actions off of my role rather than the theatrics I'd like from my character

[Sigreid]

I've actually seen the high AC be a challenge mostly for me. The rest of the group tends to go for single tough nut cracking characters while I tend to build characters that are suited to enabling them to do that. For example, in our most recent campaign We had a ranger/monk and arcane archer that had really high hit chances and excellent single target damage even without magic weapons. We had a life cleric with a high ac and a solid spell selection. And we had me, an evoker wizard whose name literally meant hold my beer (I tried to get someone else in the party to name their character something that translates into Watch This). Against high AC and/or high HP targets I wasn't particularly effective but the rest of the party knew they could count on me to make it so they only had to deal with the tougher targets. Did it bother me that I was largely ineffective against the tougher mobs? Nope. Just like it didn't bother them that I was wiping the floor with 10-30 lesser opponents while they were focused on the toughie.

I suppose I could have taken a lot of control spells that would have shut down at least some of the tougher mobs, but that wasn't my role in the group. They didn't need me to do that. But whether it was fireballing the town guard or building a force wall box around the monk and the toughie so the monk could "explain" our position to him everyone got to meaningfully participate in virtually every encounter/situation.

[Lord Vukodlak]

As far as I'm concerned, AC is not dependent on the PCs' levels. It's dependent on what makes sense for the being they're facing.

If the PCs decide to face a knight at level 1, I don't see why the knight shouldn't be wearing their plate armor.

Because you’ll be giving level one PCs full plate.

[Mork]

I as a DM try to keep AC in check, I prefer to increase HP or include more monsters to make up for it. It might take as long to finish of the monsters, but the PC's feel like they do more, and in the end, the goals is fun.

[Raxxius]

I as a DM try to keep AC in check, I prefer to increase HP or include more monsters to make up for it. It might take as long to finish of the monsters, but the PC's feel like they do more, and in the end, the goals is fun.

But AC is one part of a package that makes up an enemies difficulty.

The issue with high AC low hp is that they're glass tanks, they go down fast when they're hit which makes them irratic in combat compared to HP soaks, so I can see the appeal of that method but it also just reduces the game to a dice grind.

While a lot of options were removed from 5e (touch vs armour tanks, grapple to deny dex vs Dex tanks) there are still plenty of options in the players toolkit to deal with. High AC can become a puzzle boss of sorts.

Of course if the players just want to roll d20s and don't enjoy puzzles then ignore this suggestion

[Contrast]

This is kind of my point though

Drastically increasing A.C can make members of party feel irrelevant

Even though the barbarian can easily gain advantage levels 2-4 are still really suceptoble to feeling useless against a high a.c enemy.
If an enemy has high a.c abd gets faerie fire on it by the druid. The barb already has advantage on his one attack whereas the monk and polearm master bladelock have advantage on 2-3 attacks

Polearm master is a feat not a class feature. If you think its that good you're welcome to take it. And a monk is using smaller attack die and is substantially easier to kill than the barbarian.

Honestly if you think AC is this unbeatable you should try playing a PC with a high AC and you'll see just how beatable it really is.


But missing more than 60% of time isn't fun. It doesnt make things feel scary it just makes the people rolling lucky feel great whule the player with advantage and low rolls just sits there.

I mean...its a dice based game. If poor rolls ruin the game for you then 50% of your games are going to be ruined as 50% of the time you'll roll under average.


And in my opinion nothing feels worse then attacking with advantage and getting a 17 to hit at level 3 and still missing.

By your own math a PC should have +5 - a roll of 12 is hardly the stuff of legends.


Now if a DM is using high AC targets ALL the time then yes that is potentially a problem, in the same way that if a DM was using magic resistant enemies all the time or always using enemies resistant to non-magical damage without making magic weapons available is a problem.

I played in a game where we fought 2 animated armours at level 1 (18AC). As a team we grappled and shoved them prone and laid into them as we couldn't touch them otherwise and they were taking us apart. The encounter was much more memorable due to our initial inability to scratch the things than it would have been if the DM had just increased the HP and dropped the AC so we just stood there whaling on each other.

[Chronos]

Even at first level, a wizard can easily do Wis saves (Tasha's Hideous Laughter), Dex saves (Grease), and AC (Firebolt). And it doesn't take long to add Con saves (Stinking Cloud) and Int saves (Phantasmal Force), as well as new options for the ones they already have. By 7th level, a wizard can have spells that target all seven defenses.

[darknite]

High AC opponents are valid in that they make the party have to re-evaluate how they handle them. In Storm King's Thunder I was playing a fighter with GWM, which was fun but became an issue when fighting high AC Fire Giants. I had to switch up what that PC could do to assist the party and other members of the party had to adapt to what they could offer, too.

As the saying goes, if all you have is a hammer then every solution starts looking like a nail. Some opponents require you to change your approach.

[MrStabby]

I wonder if high AP PCs complain in a similar way when they face enemies that can force saves/skill checks?

I presume that there must be some out there.

Sometimes I guess things can be unfair, in my current campaign it would be really harsh for a bear totem barbarian due to the amount of psychic damage being thrown about. It would be harsh for someone with the mounted combatant feat as it is mostly indoors.




One thing to bear in mind is that reckless attack has, in absolute terms, the greatest effect when there is a 50% chance to miss (ignoring criticals, if you factor in criticals the lower the to hit chance, the better reckless attack is). As you get above 80% chance to hit or 80% chance to hit the ability to reckless attack adds fewer hits. If your to hit chance is about the 40% mark, your DM is actually making encounters such that one of your signature abilities is really powerful. Of course it is still possible to miss, but don't blame your DM for your rolling really badly.

[strangebloke]

High AC enemies lead to inconsistent player performance. Inconsistency, to a point, is highly desireable. If everyone hits on every attack, the game is incredibly boring and straightforward. Rolling dice should serve a purpose.

The problem is that at level one, things get ridiculously inconsistent, and at high levels there's way too much consistency.

For example:

A first level fighter with a greataxe against an AC 17 foe will have a 45% chance of hitting, and will deal somewhere between 4 and 16 damage. The variance on that damage output is totally random.

A 20th level fighter with a greataxe will roll ten times as many dice, but the resulting amount of damage in a single turn is probably going to vary by less than 20% depending on what he rolls.

So, yeah, I think the game is better if higher-CR monsters (where appropriate) have higher AC. There's no reason why an iron golem should only have 16 AC, given that its supposed to be faced only by relatively high level parties and its literally made out of metal.

[Unoriginal]

A typical goblin has 15 AC. Before lvl 4, that's 50% chances of hitting if you have your attack stat maxed out.

A typical hobgoblin has 18 AC. Before lvl 4, that's 35% chances of hitting if you have your attack stat maxed out.


And there's nothing wrong with that.

[Guy Lombard-O]

I also think that there's nothing wrong with some high AC opponents being a part of the DM's toolbox.

One of the reasons I think this is because there are ways for a party to overcome these challenges by working together.

For instance, Bards and Clerics have great tools for helping their martial companions to land those damaging hits on the high AC targets. Bless and bardic inspirations are designed to buff up the damage-dealers in the group do their things...and they do.

So by throwing some high AC baddies into the mix, the DM might well be simply trying to encourage some of the players to consider a more party-oriented, cooperative and support style of play.