Descriptive Armor Class

[Catullus64]

Thought I'd share a little something with the Playground that I've been using recently to aid in narrating combat. I find that as a DM, I have no problem describing hits, but often fail/forget to provide interesting descriptions when an enemy misses a PC. As an aid to this, to help remind me of the ways in which characters are actively defending themselves during combat, I made the following writeup for each of my PCs:

First, I calculate four values:

Value A: 10 + DEX modifier, regardless of whether that modifier applies to the actual AC.
Value B: The PC's AC if wearing only their armor (include Unarmored Defense, Mage Armor, etc here, and bonuses from magic armors).
Value C: The PC's AC with both armor and shield (include bonuses from magic shields here).
Value D: The target's actual AC, with miscellaneous bonuses (spells, cover, class features) included.

Then, I make a post-it note, stuck on the inside of my DM screen, with the following division:

1-9, Including all Natural 1s: The attacker fumbles or otherwise misses due to its own failures.
10 through (Value A-1): The target dodges, or parries if the attack is melee and the target is wielding a melee weapon.
Value A through (Value B-1): The target's armor deflects or absorbs the attack.
Value B through (Value C-1): The target's shield catches the attack.
Value C through (Value D-1): The attack misses due to other circumstantial factors.

So, for a Cleric with 14 DEX, Scale Mail, a Shield, and a Cloak of Protection, my post-it looks like this:

Character Name (Real AC 19)

Fumble: 1-9
Dodge: 10-11
Armor: 12-15
Shield: 16-17
Misc: 18+

So, whenever an enemy misses a PC with an attack, I need only glance at the note and compare the attack roll to know whether the attack missed due to luck, skill, armor, shield, or something else. Players like it because it really makes each point of AC feel meaningful and unique, and I like it because it makes descriptions easier. I also do this for important monsters and NPCs.

Try it out; it's a little effort in advance for significant rewards in play! (I've presented it in the way that seems most intuitive to me, do you think it could be presented better?)

[Darzil]

Nice idea. For Unarmoured Defence on Barbarian I'd add a "Shrugs off the attack" for a range equal to CON bonus!

I'd suggest 1 is Fumble, up to 9 is then "Opponent doesn't find an opening to attack".

[Clockup]

Seems needlessly complicated.

[Catullus64]

Seems needlessly complicated.

How so? Keep in mind I'm not calculating this with every single attack; I do this writeup once, and it takes less than half a second to look and see what caused the attack to miss. I don't even have to think about it in the moment. Since permanent changes to AC are rare, I seldom have to re-do it.

[Droppeddead]

Thought I'd share a little something with the Playground that I've been using recently to aid in narrating combat. I find that as a DM, I have no problem describing hits, but often fail/forget to provide interesting descriptions when an enemy misses a PC. As an aid to this, to help remind me of the ways in which characters are actively defending themselves during combat, I made the following writeup for each of my PCs:

First, I calculate four values:

Value A: 10 + DEX modifier, regardless of whether that modifier applies to the actual AC.
Value B: The PC's AC if wearing only their armor (include Unarmored Defense, Mage Armor, etc here, and bonuses from magic armors).
Value C: The PC's AC with both armor and shield (include bonuses from magic shields here).
Value D: The target's actual AC, with miscellaneous bonuses (spells, cover, class features) included.

Then, I make a post-it note, stuck on the inside of my DM screen, with the following division:

1-9, Including all Natural 1s: The attacker fumbles or otherwise misses due to its own failures.
10 through (Value A-1): The target dodges, or parries if the attack is melee and the target is wielding a melee weapon.
Value A through (Value B-1): The target's armor deflects or absorbs the attack.
Value B through (Value C-1): The target's shield catches the attack.
Value C through (Value D-1): The attack misses due to other circumstantial factors.

So, for a Cleric with 14 DEX, Scale Mail, a Shield, and a Cloak of Protection, my post-it looks like this:

Character Name (Real AC 19)

Fumble: 1-9
Dodge: 10-11
Armor: 12-15
Shield: 16-17
Misc: 18+

So, whenever an enemy misses a PC with an attack, I need only glance at the note and compare the attack roll to know whether the attack missed due to luck, skill, armor, shield, or something else. Players like it because it really makes each point of AC feel meaningful and unique, and I like it because it makes descriptions easier. I also do this for important monsters and NPCs.

Try it out; it's a little effort in advance for significant rewards in play! (I've presented it in the way that seems most intuitive to me, do you think it could be presented better?)

Sure, if this is something you think you need instead of just going with the narrative flow then it can probably be a useful tool. I really see no reason why you would need to lock certain dice rolls to certain results but if this fits your style, go for it.

Personally I tend to go with what fits the particular moment. A miss due to a '1' could just as easily be because you slip in a pool of blood as your enemy taunting you, causing you to mess up your attack, all according to what fits best for the situation. But to each their own.

[Cicciograna]

Personally I tend to go with what fits the particular moment. A miss due to a '1' could just as easily be because you slip in a pool of blood as your enemy taunting you, causing you to mess up your attack, all according to what fits best for the situation. But to each their own.

To be honest, that's what his system seems to envision: if someone misses due to a 1, then it's a "fumble", meaning that, as per description, "The attacker fumbles or otherwise misses due to its own failures".

My understanding is that this system gives meaning to the values of AC between a complete miss - as in the one engineered by the fact that, for whatever reason, the attack was inconsistent and inconsequential - and those for which the attack was neutralized by the active and passive defenses of the defender, be these their agility or their shield or their armor.

[Amechra]

I'm pretty sure you can drop those five ranges to four numbers without losing anything important.

Fumble AC: Let's go with 8.
Dodge AC: 10 + (capped) Dex. So a heavy armor user would have a 10 while a light armor user might have up to a 15.
Block AC: The character's permanent AC, without bonuses from shields or the Dual Wielder feat.
Parry AC: The character's full AC.

Just compare the attack roll to those four values, and the highest AC that they failed to hit tells you what kind of miss it was. Just turn cover into an attack roll penalty (and reflavor fumbles to "they hit the cover") and this should pretty much cover everything.

[Dienekes]

My one suggestion is the shield is really a first line of defensed before armor. Since the attacker needs to get around the shield (i.e. a more accurate attack) to reach the armor, it would make sense to me to switch Values B and C a bit. With B being 10 + Dex + shield and C being Armor + Dex + Shield.

Other than that, this seems like it would work very well for describing blows. Though I'll be honest I will probably still just narrate it as seems right. Usually only describing close misses with descriptions of scraping off armor or masterfully blocked with a shield as suits me.

[Mr Adventurer]

Yeah I do basically this except I just eyeball it rather than making a table of additions. I'll also use the environment, perhaps a long weapon gets caught in a narrow corridor or the attacker slips on unever footing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have a problem with this (two, really).

First (and more important): this presumes that every hit is an actual meat hit. Which has all sorts of pitfalls narratively (HP is not meat). You could have a mechanical!hit that was actually a parry. Or one that was actually a miss, but dodging the blow cost you something from the abstract resources pool known as HP. So mechanical hits (ATK >= AC) and narrative hits are not entirely the same, in either direction.

Second (a style problem, not a functional one): describing every attack slows everything to a crawl, at least in my opinion. Especially when people are making 3-5 attacks per turn. But that's my style

[Droppeddead]

To be honest, that's what his system seems to envision: if someone misses due to a 1, then it's a "fumble", meaning that, as per description, "The attacker fumbles or otherwise misses due to its own failures".

My understanding is that this system gives meaning to the values of AC between a complete miss - as in the one engineered by the fact that, for whatever reason, the attack was inconsistent and inconsequential - and those for which the attack was neutralized by the active and passive defenses of the defender, be these their agility or their shield or their armor.

Yeah, I completely understood would OP meant, thank you. I'm just pointing out the drawbacks of restricting your narrative storytelling to fixed numbers.

And no, you slipping on something is not the same as you being taunted by your enemy, even if the end result might be the same.

Cheers!

[Catullus64]

My one suggestion is the shield is really a first line of defensed before armor. Since the attacker needs to get around the shield (i.e. a more accurate attack) to reach the armor, it would make sense to me to switch Values B and C a bit. With B being 10 + Dex + shield and C being Armor + Dex + Shield.

Other than that, this seems like it would work very well for describing blows. Though I'll be honest I will probably still just narrate it as seems right. Usually only describing close misses with descriptions of scraping off armor or masterfully blocked with a shield as suits me.

The actual order in which the numbers are placed doesn't matter all that much when it comes to shields. You can do it that way as you prefer, but the average number of hits that get deflected by the shield won't change. Your problem is less with this system and more with the value of shields in 5e.

[Mr Adventurer]

Second (a style problem, not a functional one): describing every attack slows everything to a crawl, at least in my opinion. Especially when people are making 3-5 attacks per turn. But that's my style

I either do it as they're rolling the next one or describe the entire round of attacks as a single exchange.

Agree that hp aren't meat points, and I try to make that part of the description as well.

[Joe the Rat]

My on the fly approach (as much for against the enemies as the party)

Nat 1: Awkward Fumble
Below 10: easy dodge/parry (melee), outright miss (ranged)
10+DexMod: dodge/parry
Below Unarmored Defense AC: glancing hit/roll with strike/quick parry
Below Armored AC: armor deflects/absorbs/no significant damage, or shield parry (if applicable)
Over AC: Telling blow - even if you aren't bleeding, you definitely felt that one.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I either do it as they're rolling the next one or describe the entire round of attacks as a single exchange.

Agree that hp aren't meat points, and I try to make that part of the description as well.

I only describe
* enemy natural 1s (melee == awesome parry/block, ranged == complete miss)
* killing blows on significant creatures or the last monster of a fight.
* hits that don't do as much (or do more) due to resistance/vulnerability (these are a static "did not seem as effective as you'd thought" descriptions).

Occasionally I'll say that something was a "significant" hit (meaning it hit and hurt badly) or I'll call out when an attack triggers some effect.

Speed of resolution is paramount for me, mainly due to my own ADD. If I had to take 10+ seconds or (worse, have to look something up) for each and every attack...ugh. I hate table lookups in combat. HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE.

But that's my personal preference, not some global rule.

I did actually come up with the setting-related explanation for how HP could be meat, but it's still experimental and not actually implemented. In game I still treat it as not-meat.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I do the same thing, though I don't keep it formally written down. One note parry/dodge should extend a little further down. Untrained people with a below average Dex are still more capable of those than a mannequin.

[JackPhoenix]

Not all attacks are equal. If someone casts Shocking Grasp on you, your metal armor can't absorb the attack.... it's built-in in the spell's mechanic as advantage against anyone wearing metal armor. And if the Tarrasque takes a swing on you, you're not blocking that with shield without being crushed in the process anyway. Good luck dodging lightning or light based attacks or bullets. Etc, etc.

[JNAProductions]

Seems needlessly complicated.

If it had mechanical effects, I'd agree.

As a shorthand for how you want to fluff attacks? It seems pretty good to me. Especially since, if you goof up and describe the wrong type of attack... It doesn't matter to the mechanics.

[Tanarii]

What about the attack you turned aside with your sword or shield for 5hps worth of skill? What about the one that missed by a hairs breadth for 10 hps worth of luck? What about the one you caught on your bracer for 10 hit points? What about the one that's barely a scratch for 15 hps worth of dwarves barbarian high con toughness?

Okay, I guess that last one really is a "hit". But the point is, your list doesn't really mean much descriptively, because any of those things you have carefully categorized could be the reason hit points were lost but it wasn't a fatal blow, not only the reason hit points weren't lost. IMO might as well just wing it, it's faster and won't slow down the game like this will.